4 ms·

This is quoted a lot but misunderstood. The conclusion people seem to draw from this is that widening the highway didn't help. This is wrong. 4 lanes of bad t

This is quoted a lot but misunderstood. The conclusion people seem to draw from this is that widening the highway didn't help. This is wrong. 4 lanes of bad traffic travelling at 30mph is still creating twice the value of 2 lanes of bad traffic travelling at 30mph. With the 2-lane highway you were just forcing half the people to divert to other roads or to give up on their plans entirely. With 4 lanes you're serving twice the people. But if the highway is still full it implies that there is still demand for more travel. By refusing to widen the highway further you are still forcing some number of people into a worse outcome where they aren't able to exercise the travel that they wanted. I'm all for public transit alternatives (I personally love taking trains when I can), but the goal should be to make the public transit better, not to make the highways worse.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Nobody complains about induced demand when a hospital can operates on twice as many patients at a time.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- light_hue_1 2y ago
  That's because adding hospital capacity doesn't create more sick people. Unless your hospital goes around breaking people's kneecaps to make money. Adding highways creates more traffic by telling developers to put housing in the newly accessible land.
  - mcmoor 2y ago
    People around me go less to the doctor/hospital for "small" things, mostly because of perception of how long and expensive one session can be. Sometimes it makes them neglect preventative things. More hospital would induce this demand and make people consult doctor more often.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I agree, but I think we draw different conclusions. I like both having housing and being treated when I am sick. The point of building and expanding highways isn't to reduce traffic, but enable more people to go places. Zero Highways would mean Zero traffic. a $1000 toll would mean zero traffic.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Oh, and look, we've got all this demand for housing that isn't being addressed at the moment. Maybe what you're describing is a positive outcome? You can't be "we can't build roads because it will cause houses to be built" and "it's a crisis that nobody can afford a house" at the same time.
    - light_hue_1 2y ago
      The demand for housing has nothing to do with highways. Highways proscribe a particular way in which to build housing. Low density sprawl. Which results in horrible commutes people hate. We don't need that. We need high density transit. Which results in high quality of life. The reason housing isn't built is because cities abuse zoning laws. It's time for states to take back zoning regulations.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        To each their own. Most Americans hate high density. I'd rather drive 2 hours than live high density.
        kentonv 2y ago
        High density is awesome right up until you have kids and then it's awful. I think a lot of young people who don't have kids have trouble understanding this. If I had no kids I'd love to live in a downtown high rise apartment. Really wish I had done so when I was younger. Among a lot of things I wish I could go tell my younger self to do...
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Yeah, it seems like a huge personality disconnect and critical lack of comprehension that other people simply dont like what they do. Ive spent a lot of time in excellent dense European cities and it still doesnt appeal to me. I dont like going out to bars, crowds, or general city life. I like privacy, having a workshop, chickens, fruit trees, and a garden. I like having a huge kitchen, a pantry, a meat smoker, and hosting dinner parties. I like having room for an off-road vehicle and camping gear. It is hard to keep my eyes from rolling out of my head when someone tells me how much better dense urban living is. I have never met anyone IRL that would happily trade their suburban home for urban life.
light_hue_1 2y ago
If you ask people: would you vote for bonds for a highway expansion that will not make your commute better, but will add a lot more cars to the road, they will overwhelmingly say no. There is only one reason why the public agrees to highway construction: the idea that their commute will get better. But it won't after a few years. The highway will always be full! That's induced demand. If you have a highway to a desirable destination people will build out along it until it's full. You can expand that highway as much as you want, it will always be full after a few years. This isn't a solution. It's just a way to design horrible cities that punish drivers with stressful, unproductive, and long commutes. You cannot win by adding highways. You can only win by not playing that game.
- kentonv 2y ago
  How about you ask people: Would you vote for bonds for a highway expansion that will not really make your commute better but will provide more accessible housing, bringing down housing prices, and thus allow you to have a bigger, nicer home for less money? (Even if you don't actually use the particular highway!) If people are filling up the new lanes it's because they are getting value out of it. It's making people's lives better, even if the traffic doesn't go faster (though in many cases, it does).
  - light_hue_1 2y ago
    But that's not at all what happens. Housing cost does not go down with highway construction. No. It's making people's lives worse. They could have better lives with transit.
    - kentonv 2y ago
      You're saying that highway construction encourages building of new housing, enough to use up all the new highway capacity, but that this doesn't bring down housing costs. This is quite an extraordinary claim that goes against basic economics. I don't believe it. I think you and others have convinced yourselves that this is true because you like the conclusion: that we should stop building highways. But it's a tortured argument that doesn't make basic economic sense. > They could have better lives with transit. Then build the transit! I am all for building better public transit! I am all for dense urban development, downtown residential highrises, mixed-use walkable neighborhoods, etc. We can do all of these things -- and also expand highways. With all the options available, people will choose what's actually best for them. If you're right, then people will stop using the highway and it won't be congested anymore. Win win! I really do not believe in refusing to give people what they want because we think they'd be better off with something else that we're also not building.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Nobody complains about induced demand when a hospital can operates on twice as many patients at a time.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
light_hue_1 2y ago
That's because adding hospital capacity doesn't create more sick people. Unless your hospital goes around breaking people's kneecaps to make money. Adding highways creates more traffic by telling developers to put housing in the newly accessible land.
- mcmoor 2y ago
  People around me go less to the doctor/hospital for "small" things, mostly because of perception of how long and expensive one session can be. Sometimes it makes them neglect preventative things. More hospital would induce this demand and make people consult doctor more often.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I agree, but I think we draw different conclusions. I like both having housing and being treated when I am sick. The point of building and expanding highways isn't to reduce traffic, but enable more people to go places. Zero Highways would mean Zero traffic. a $1000 toll would mean zero traffic.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Oh, and look, we've got all this demand for housing that isn't being addressed at the moment. Maybe what you're describing is a positive outcome? You can't be "we can't build roads because it will cause houses to be built" and "it's a crisis that nobody can afford a house" at the same time.
  - light_hue_1 2y ago
    The demand for housing has nothing to do with highways. Highways proscribe a particular way in which to build housing. Low density sprawl. Which results in horrible commutes people hate. We don't need that. We need high density transit. Which results in high quality of life. The reason housing isn't built is because cities abuse zoning laws. It's time for states to take back zoning regulations.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      To each their own. Most Americans hate high density. I'd rather drive 2 hours than live high density.
      - kentonv 2y ago
        High density is awesome right up until you have kids and then it's awful. I think a lot of young people who don't have kids have trouble understanding this. If I had no kids I'd love to live in a downtown high rise apartment. Really wish I had done so when I was younger. Among a lot of things I wish I could go tell my younger self to do...
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Yeah, it seems like a huge personality disconnect and critical lack of comprehension that other people simply dont like what they do. Ive spent a lot of time in excellent dense European cities and it still doesnt appeal to me. I dont like going out to bars, crowds, or general city life. I like privacy, having a workshop, chickens, fruit trees, and a garden. I like having a huge kitchen, a pantry, a meat smoker, and hosting dinner parties. I like having room for an off-road vehicle and camping gear. It is hard to keep my eyes from rolling out of my head when someone tells me how much better dense urban living is. I have never met anyone IRL that would happily trade their suburban home for urban life.

light_hue_1 2y ago

If you ask people: would you vote for bonds for a highway expansion that will not make your commute better, but will add a lot more cars to the road, they will overwhelmingly say no. There is only one reason why the public agrees to highway construction: the idea that their commute will get better. But it won't after a few years. The highway will always be full! That's induced demand. If you have a highway to a desirable destination people will build out along it until it's full. You can expand that highway as much as you want, it will always be full after a few years. This isn't a solution. It's just a way to design horrible cities that punish drivers with stressful, unproductive, and long commutes. You cannot win by adding highways. You can only win by not playing that game.

kentonv 2y ago
How about you ask people: Would you vote for bonds for a highway expansion that will not really make your commute better but will provide more accessible housing, bringing down housing prices, and thus allow you to have a bigger, nicer home for less money? (Even if you don't actually use the particular highway!) If people are filling up the new lanes it's because they are getting value out of it. It's making people's lives better, even if the traffic doesn't go faster (though in many cases, it does).
- light_hue_1 2y ago
  But that's not at all what happens. Housing cost does not go down with highway construction. No. It's making people's lives worse. They could have better lives with transit.
  - kentonv 2y ago
    You're saying that highway construction encourages building of new housing, enough to use up all the new highway capacity, but that this doesn't bring down housing costs. This is quite an extraordinary claim that goes against basic economics. I don't believe it. I think you and others have convinced yourselves that this is true because you like the conclusion: that we should stop building highways. But it's a tortured argument that doesn't make basic economic sense. > They could have better lives with transit. Then build the transit! I am all for building better public transit! I am all for dense urban development, downtown residential highrises, mixed-use walkable neighborhoods, etc. We can do all of these things -- and also expand highways. With all the options available, people will choose what's actually best for them. If you're right, then people will stop using the highway and it won't be congested anymore. Win win! I really do not believe in refusing to give people what they want because we think they'd be better off with something else that we're also not building.