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.

  • Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

            • notacat@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                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.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      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.