2 ms·
> Right, but this usually turns into the argument that we shouldn't add new capacity because then it would be used, and that's such a staggeringly stupid argume
by throw0101a 5y ago
> Right, but this usually turns into the argument that we shouldn't add new capacity because then it would be used, and that's such a staggeringly stupid argument that I cannot comprehend the confusion of ideas that would lead someone to embrace it.
The argument is "we should not add new road capacity to solve traffic problems because it will just create more traffic".
You're not solving anything by spending the money on road capacity. If you want to get rid of traffic you need to spend the money on alternatives that get people using roads less or more efficiently.
- nawitus 5y agoThe more you add road capacity, the less 'demand is induced', because there's limited amount of people. In other words, at some point the traffic problem is solved by adding more roads. It's another question if it makes sense to add that amount of road. It probably depends on the particular case.
- throw0101a 5y ago> The more you add road capacity, the less 'demand is induced', because there's limited amount of people. And how much money would it cost to build out enough road infrastructure to 'overwhelm all possible demand'? How much would it cost to move the same amount of people via some other form of transportation? The province of Ontario finds it cheaper to run an entire railway (GO Transit) compared to being able to build out enough highway infrastructure (and it's not like they've stop building that): * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxWjtpzCIfA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxWjtpzCIfA And that's just the road infrastructure: what about things like parking space at the destination(s) of where all these folks are going? How much area would have to be bulldozed for all of this?