Local Nobody Writes About Road Congestion; Good Points Ensue

>From Tucson's Arizona Daily Star:

"My opinion George F. Will: Highway congestion begs new solutions"
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/transportation/172839

Its a moderately interesting article, but I absolutely fell in love
with this argument and will use it liberally in futu

"The usual scolds - environmentalists, urban "planners," enthusiasts
for public transit (less than 5 percent of the work force uses it) -
argue that more highways encourage more driving ("induced demand") and
hence are self-defeating. [...] Furthermore, when new schools are
built because old ones have become congested, and then the new ones
fill up with children from families attracted by new schools, who
argues that building the new ones was a mistake?"

Beautiful.

"Jason Pawloski" > wrote in
oups.com:

>>From Tucson's Arizona Daily Star:
>
> "My opinion George F. Will: Highway congestion begs new solutions"
> http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/transportation/172839
>
> Its a moderately interesting article, but I absolutely fell in love
> with this argument and will use it liberally in futu
>
> "The usual scolds - environmentalists, urban "planners," enthusiasts
> for public transit (less than 5 percent of the work force uses it) -
> argue that more highways encourage more driving ("induced demand") and
> hence are self-defeating. [...] Furthermore, when new schools are
> built because old ones have become congested, and then the new ones
> fill up with children from families attracted by new schools, who
> argues that building the new ones was a mistake?"
>
> Beautiful.
>
>

I solved the highway congestion problem years ago. Permanently suspend the
DL of DUIs and if they're caught driving, send them to prison. Speeders and
red light runners should also lose their license though not necessarily for
ever. Get these killers off the road and traffic will lighten up and also
be safer.

On Mar 12, 10:33 pm, "Jason Pawloski" > wrote:
> >From Tucson's Arizona Daily Star:
>
> "My opinion George F. Will: Highway congestion begs new solutions"http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/transportation/172839
>
> Its a moderately interesting article, but I absolutely fell in love
> with this argument and will use it liberally in futu
>
> "The usual scolds - environmentalists, urban "planners," enthusiasts
> for public transit (less than 5 percent of the work force uses it) -
> argue that more highways encourage more driving ("induced demand") and
> hence are self-defeating. [...] Furthermore, when new schools are
> built because old ones have become congested, and then the new ones
> fill up with children from families attracted by new schools, who
> argues that building the new ones was a mistake?"
>
> Beautiful.

"When taxpayers pay the gas tax, they do not know what they are buying
- except "bridges to nowhere" and other pork. When drivers pay a toll,
they know exactly what they are getting - life's most precious, scarce
thing, time."

BTW - the analogy WRT schools is more akin to saying that if we buit a
whole bunch of cemetaries and the price of burial plots went to $50
that everyone would buy two or three.

It boils down to whether people would have 3, 4 or 5 kids just to take
advantage of a free public education. This, most sane folks will not
do because there are a whole lot of other costs and obligations that
they have to assume besides just a free edcucation.

And this exactly, is the beauty of the logic expressed in the above
excerpt - "when drivers pay a toll - they know EXCACTLY what they are
getting".

"Jason Pawloski" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >From Tucson's Arizona Daily Star:
>
> "My opinion George F. Will: Highway congestion begs new solutions"
> http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/transportation/172839
>
> Its a moderately interesting article, but I absolutely fell in love
> with this argument and will use it liberally in futu
>
> "The usual scolds - environmentalists, urban "planners," enthusiasts
> for public transit (less than 5 percent of the work force uses it) -
> argue that more highways encourage more driving ("induced demand") and
> hence are self-defeating. [...] Furthermore, when new schools are
> built because old ones have become congested, and then the new ones
> fill up with children from families attracted by new schools, who
> argues that building the new ones was a mistake?"
>
> Beautiful.
>

The argument from the "induced demand" crowd would explain the ever-present
traffic congestion in north-central Nebraska.

On Mar 13, 8:06 am, "Kevin Stark"
> wrote:

> The argument from the "induced demand" crowd would explain the ever-present
> traffic congestion in north-central Nebraska

Or the dramatic traffic increase that happened when I-70 was expanded
from 2 to 4 lanes in eastern Utah.
RP

On Mar 13, 1:58 pm, "Rick Powell" > wrote:
> On Mar 13, 8:06 am, "Kevin Stark"
>
> > wrote:
> > The argument from the "induced demand" crowd would explain the ever-present
> > traffic congestion in north-central Nebraska
>
> Or the dramatic traffic increase that happened when I-70 was expanded
> from 2 to 4 lanes in eastern Utah.
> RP

I'm pretty sure they added more pull-offs/rest areas on I-70 as well
to address that gargantuan tidal wave of traffic.

"Jason Pawloski" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >From Tucson's Arizona Daily Star:
>
> "My opinion George F. Will: Highway congestion begs new solutions"
> http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/transportation/172839
>
> Its a moderately interesting article, but I absolutely fell in love
> with this argument and will use it liberally in futu
>
> "The usual scolds - environmentalists, urban "planners," enthusiasts
> for public transit (less than 5 percent of the work force uses it) -
> argue that more highways encourage more driving ("induced demand") and
> hence are self-defeating. [...] Furthermore, when new schools are
> built because old ones have become congested, and then the new ones
> fill up with children from families attracted by new schools, who
> argues that building the new ones was a mistake?"
>
> Beautiful.
> T

The environmental movement wants you to believe the people have children
when they see schools. But no native-born group in the USA reproduces
itself now. Mostly we are importing our children, like we do our TVs.

On Mar 12, 10:33 pm, "Jason Pawloski" > wrote:
> Furthermore, when new schools are
> built because old ones have become congested, and then the new ones
> fill up with children from families attracted by new schools, who
> argues that building the new ones was a mistake?"

That's the most brazen stupid apples vs. figleaves I've ever heard.

For all the examples of empty highways, there are countless more of
new highways jammed up the day they open.

In a separate discussion about crossings in the NYC Metro area, it was
agreed that crossings are needed but there was no effective way to get
the land. The powerful landowners would be able to block eminent
domain.

This condition exists, oddly enough, in congested developed areas. I
don't think it's a problem in Nebraska.

Of course, you could bulldoze all the houses, stores, and industries
in your way, but then without them you wouldn't need road improvements
in the first place. Sort of like destroying the village in order to
save it.


So where will you get the land necessary for highway improvements?

On Mar 12, 9:33 pm, "Jason Pawloski" > wrote:
> >From Tucson's Arizona Daily Star:
>
> "My opinion George F. Will: Highway congestion begs new solutions"http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/transportation/172839
>
> Its a moderately interesting article, but I absolutely fell in love
> with this argument and will use it liberally in futu
>
> "The usual scolds - environmentalists, urban "planners," enthusiasts
> for public transit (less than 5 percent of the work force uses it) -
> argue that more highways encourage more driving ("induced demand") and
> hence are self-defeating. [...] Furthermore, when new schools are
> built because old ones have become congested, and then the new ones
> fill up with children from families attracted by new schools, who
> argues that building the new ones was a mistake?"
>
> Beautiful.

No, it is not beautiful, Jason. If that reasoning was so great, why
didn't Tucson allow I-210? In a lot of cases the citizenry does not
want any more freeway construction, any more takings by eminent
domain, any more of the problems road building causes.

George Will makes some fundamental mistakes. To wit:
It is 2007, not 1957, gas is $2.30 or so a gallon. not 40c, cars are
$15,000 +, not $1500, houses are
$200,000+, people are commuting 50-100+ miles a day, primarily
because of those housing costs.

Road building costs, urban and suburban freeways cost a lot more the
$1-2 million a mile.

I will let you in on a little secret. Writers like George Will are in
the service of powerful interests, amongst others, the ATA, the huge
roadbuilding contractors, and the Repubs.

Those interests, like Conkie, are scared to death that people will
challenge the assumptions those organizations have been operating
under for the last 50 years. Their free ride and having everything
thier own way is coming to an end. Witness the election last Nov.

Take care, Randy in Houston, TX

wrote:

>On Mar 12, 10:33 pm, "Jason Pawloski" > wrote:
>> Furthermore, when new schools are
>> built because old ones have become congested, and then the new ones
>> fill up with children from families attracted by new schools, who
>> argues that building the new ones was a mistake?"
>
>That's the most brazen stupid apples vs. figleaves I've ever heard.
>
>For all the examples of empty highways, there are countless more of
>new highways jammed up the day they open.

All that means is, due to budgeting decisions, design constraints,
delays in getting permits/approvals, etc, the road does not properly
provide the needed capacity.

>In a separate discussion about crossings in the NYC Metro area, it was
>agreed that crossings are needed but there was no effective way to get
>the land. The powerful landowners would be able to block eminent
>domain.
>
>This condition exists, oddly enough, in congested developed areas. I
>don't think it's a problem in Nebraska.

Which of course is not an induced demand problem, but an issue on
acquiring the needed space to build the required roads.

>Of course, you could bulldoze all the houses, stores, and industries
>in your way, but then without them you wouldn't need road improvements
>in the first place. Sort of like destroying the village in order to
>save it.
>
Strawman alert. Even the widest road in this nation does not impact a
city's ability to support its residents, even if it was routed along a
brand new alignment.

>So where will you get the land necessary for highway improvements?

Over or under what's already there if the need is great enough.
Through it if necessary as well.

John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/