View Single Post
Old Posted Aug 10, 2017, 3:13 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
Yeah i think the whole concept of induced demand confuses people more than it illuminates.

The way I always thought about is that there is X demand for trips, and expanding highways increases the capacity so more trips can be taken.

The reason to oppose highway expansion isn't induced demand, its that highways take up valuable urban space to move a relatively little amount of people. 1 lane of freeway can move about 2,000/hour vs 1 ROW of heavy raill which can move about 40,000/hr.
Even if more trips are taken, that's a good thing. More growth, more money spent, more taxes generated. I still don't buy that, however. Anecdotally, I have never taken more trips or know anyone who has as result of an expanded freeway. I've driven it just to see the freeway like I will once the I-5 projects are completed, but not widening the freeway and spending money on a new form of transit when our existing infrastructure is not responsible.

Car trips are the primary form of transportation and neglecting that going on some wild goose chase because we have transit advocates that want to be like Europe an area that was built well before the automobile is not good government. Expanding all freeways in Southern California and building new ones to alleviate the horrid traffic that exist is.

Transit will NOT solve this issue. That lie needs to be stopped right now. I love the rail system LA is building and use it daily. I commute redline and bike everywhere around LA. But the traffic problem is only going to get worse.

The only way to truly solve that without widening is to tear down parking infrastructure, tear down freeways, narrow roads, charge fees to enter the city centre, and I'm against everyone of those things because you are basically telling people how to live. Don't bring up well building freeways and supporting cars tells me how to live because LA is building tons of new bike and transit infrastructure. No reason they can't do the same with freeways.

Practically, I'm not going to argue with your point that is more efficient to move people via mass transit over freeways because that'd be silly. Of course that is the case. But some people(the majority really) want large yards, more square footage for their buck, and don't want to live in a concrete jungle. I myself have moved out of DTLA and am going to move further into the suburbs because I find it more relaxing there. There is also the fact some people would rather have the comfort of their own car rather than being packed like sardines and having to walk or get transportation sometimes to only have to switch modes(walk to bus to rail etc.)and then have to wait for it to arrive. You get in your car, it's there, ready to stop anywhere you want(not confined to predetermined stops or tracks), 24 hour access, customization, etc.

The benefits already outweigh the negatives of transit for most people. Cleaner technology and autonomous cars will even further lure people away from transit. Ride sharing already has and tons of transportation agencies have seen drops in ridership while driving is hitting record numbers. Even European countries are investing in some pretty impressive freeway projects. But again, I don't see the point of comparing Europe to the U.S. Completely different cultures and ideologies.

If transit is built and people naturally shift to that which results in traffic counts that warrant lane reductions or even total removals/downgrades of freeways than I'll gladly support that.
Reply With Quote