TIL The Katy Freeway in Houston, TX was expanded in 2008 to 26 lanes (one of the widest in the world) and 5 years later had longer peak travel times than before the expansion

https://lemmy.world/post/3807538

TIL The Katy Freeway in Houston, TX was expanded in 2008 to 26 lanes (one of the widest in the world) and 5 years later had longer peak travel times than before the expansion - Lemmy.world

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.

The highway has greater capacity, and that’s a good thing. The congestion would be far worse if it hasn’t been widened, and the increased capacity helps the local economy.

Driving is the most expensive and dangerous way to get around, ironically championed by the party of “fiscal responsibility”.

Train tracks would have been cheaper to build (and maintain), take up far less space and be far better for the local economy. Hell, just investing the money on buses would have been far more efficient.

Not everyone can take public transit.

So they can use the thinner roads, which will be way less crowded when everyone else that can is using public transportation.

Did you really think this was a coherent response? It’s not like all roads are being removed.

That just leads to incredibly long commutes for the working class as they are forced to struggle through progressively worse traffic on neglected, overstrained highways. You need to invest in both mass transit and general transportation infrastructure.

Not sure how you came up with this fantasy tbh.

Do you think the working class isn’t going to use public transportation and will all drive? Do you think investing in public transportation means purposefully letting roads degrade? Neither assumption is based on anything I’ve said or in reality in general.

What do you even think my argument is?

The point is that diverting resources to public transportation will reduce traffic by providing an efficient alternative. Then you don’t have to expand roads to accommodate drivers because the bulk of commuters only really need good public transportation to get around.

All? No. Public transit is very useful. But there’s a lot of people who can’t afford rent in the city and must live outside the reach of a good public transit network. Or who keep working hours which don’t allow them to use the network. Or who needs to travel between two locations which would be an extreme journey for public transit.

That’s why you do both. Because not all people are going to be served well by any one solution.

Again, how did you read everything I’ve written and act like the conversation is about one or the other? Did you even read what I wrote?

Not to mention you very clearly don’t understand how public transportation works based on where you think it goes between.

Alright, you’ve been a jackass from comment one, and I’m ending this. GFY and have a nice day.

You finally responded to something I actually said! Congrats on clutching your pearls instead of admitting you were misrepresenting what I was saying.

Also funny that I’ve never engaged in as hominem but I’ve offended you so much that I’m a “jackass” and should “go fuck [myself]”.

Self awareness really isn’t your strong suit.