4 ms·

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

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.
    - kiba 2y ago
      Highway and car infrastructure are the most inefficient way to use land in urban environments. The higher density, the worse cars are. I can't really justify using cars except for interfacing with rural areas.

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.
  - kiba 2y ago
    Highway and car infrastructure are the most inefficient way to use land in urban environments. The higher density, the worse cars are. I can't really justify using cars except for interfacing with rural areas.