this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
978 points (98.0% liked)

Today I Learned

17311 readers
971 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

For critics of widening projects, the prime example of induced demand is the Katy Freeway in Houston, one of the widest highways in the world with 26 lanes.

Immediately after Katy’s last expansion, in 2008, the project was hailed as a success. But within five years, peak hour travel times on the freeway were longer than before the expansion.

Matt Turner, an economics professor at Brown University and co-author of the 2009 study on congestion, said adding lanes is a fine solution if the goal is to get more cars on the road. But most highway expansion projects, including those in progress in Texas, cite reducing traffic as a primary goal.

“If you keep adding lanes because you want to reduce traffic congestion, you have to be really determined not to learn from history,” Dr. Turner said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] maniajack@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah I mean you're kind of just re-framing point. Yes the mega highway has the ability to move more cars, but still the end result after 5 years is it's actually taking longer to move cars than before (at peak travel time). So what if it's due to induced demand, we just want to solve the problem of getting people from point A to B, and adding more lanes is a very inefficient transportation method. It's a massive waste of resources when moving around in a car is so costly compared to public transit.

[–] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Which is why you do both. There's lots of reasons people sometimes don't use public transit. Refusing to modernize highway infrastructure will kill local industry and punish people whose commutes are inevitably not adequately covered by public transit because they fall outside the planning of the planners.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I see better where we disagree now.

I would contend that allowing sprawl to get bad enough that you can even contemplate 26 lanes is the real "refusing to modernize".

[–] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would contend that while promoting densification is wise, allowing people to live where they want us also wise.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As long as we're talking about allowing and not "privileging". When we allow auto industry political interests to sway spending, that's what usually happens. Moving away from that and toward density is usually fairer than it feels (as equality often does feel unfair to the privileged).

We have a lot to untangle politically and economically. A lot of infrastructure is too utilized for direct profit rather than societal good. Some US states even have privatized DMVs.

[–] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I totally agree, and we should be spending on public transit. But going to people and telling them that it is going to be a matter of public policy that they shouldn't be driving?

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Should we instead run society based on "but what will the reactionaries think?"

[–] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So now people who don't want to ride a bus are "reactionaries?"

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would it kill you to say something that isn't just deeply annoying?

[–] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know, I know, it's annoying to think in complexities

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They said, instead of admitting they're an asshole.

[–] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

🤣 you called me aggressive because I didn't blindly agree with you

[–] notacat@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s not what they’re saying. No one’s going to stop you from living in a suburb 50 miles from your job. But the argument is that maybe a city should stop encouraging people to do so by investing their limited resources in mass transit and denser housing, thus giving some people the option of NOT having to live 50 miles away.

[–] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

And if road infrastructure is neglected, then anything larger than a person can't easily move in or out of the city. So, you need to invest in both. Buses, freeways, and in a very urban area, rail.

[–] maniajack@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

What does modernizing highway infrastructure even mean? I don't think you could call adding more lanes "modernizing" if you're being serious. That's been the blind answer for years but adding more lanes does not solve congestion/demand/whatever you want to call it. It's not an efficient way to solve the transportation problem. You spend a ton of resources (punishing people bulldozing neighborhoods or with noise pollution, destroying nature, etc) and you still have the same ultimate problem you did before you started, people traveling slowly in a pollution emitting vehicle. So doing both is not even the point when one side of the equation (adding lanes) is a very poor solution. Focus on better solutions like public transportation reaching more people.