yeah, i've become more and more leery of the "induced demand" argument (whether it's true or not!) first, I just think it's far more persuasive to have a concrete vision/story of what _positive_ future I want, instead of some quantitative argument _against_ roadshttps://twitter.com/JakeAnbinder/status/1183833551449407488 …
Increased b/w allows more people to travel at a level of congestion they find tolerable. That's supposed to be bad? Maybe it's not worth the cost relative to other possible projects or maybe the externalities are bad. But that's not the argument I hear.
-
-
When I lived in a driving city, traffic didn't impact me since I had a job where I could work any hours I wanted, but for a normal person with a 9-5, increasing throughput at peak times (as they did in Austin by adding a lane to the highway) is a huge quality of life improvement.
-
I think this is easy to miss if you're very privileged or wealthy and can afford to have a lifestyle where this doesn't affect you (by living closer to work or having flexibility), which is literally everyone I've seen making the induced demand anti-road argument.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.