Opinion Widening Highways Doesn’t Fix Traffic. So Why Do We Keep Doing It? - Import millions of people and don't build any new infrastructure. What could go wrong?

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

With billions of dollars available to improve transportation infrastructure, states have a chance to try new strategies for addressing congestion. But some habits are hard to break.​



The Katy Freeway at an intersection with the Sam Houston Tollway in Houston. The freeway, with 26 lanes, is one of the widest highways in the world.

By Eden Weingart Photographs and Video by Alyssa Schukar
Jan. 6, 2023Updated 12:38 p.m. ET

Interstate 710 in Los Angeles is, like the city itself, famous for its traffic. Freight trucks traveling between the city and the port of Long Beach, along with commuters, clog the highway. The trucks idle in the congestion, contributing to poor air quality in surrounding neighborhoods that are home to over one million people.

The proposed solution was the same one transportation officials across the country have used since the 1960s: Widen the highway. But while adding lanes can ease congestion initially, it can also encourage people to drive more. A few years after a highway is widened, research shows, traffic — and the greenhouse gas emissions that come along with it — often returns.

California’s Department of Transportation was, like many state transportation departments, established to build highways. Every year, states spend billions of dollars expanding highways while other solutions to congestion, like public transit and pedestrian projects, are usually handled by city transit authorities and receive less funding.

Over the next five years, states will receive $350 billion in federal dollars for highways through the infrastructure law enacted last year. While some have signaled a change in their approach to transportation spending — including following federal guidelines that encourage a “fix it first” approach before adding new highway miles — many still are pursuing multibillion dollar widening projects, including in Democratic-led states with ambitious climate goals.

1673148675147.png
Traffic on I-710 passing by the Thunderbird Villa Mobile Home Park in South Gate, Calif.

The Biden administration has suggested that states should be more thoughtful in their solutions to congestion. Sometimes widening is necessary, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said, but other options for addressing traffic, like fixing existing roads or providing transit options, should be considered. “Connecting people more efficiently and affordably to where they need to go,” he said, “is a lot more complicated than just always having more concrete and asphalt out there.”

Some communities and government officials are pushing back on widening plans. In Los Angeles, this opposition had an impact. After $60 million was spent on design and planning over two decades, the Route 710 expansion was canceled last May.

“We don’t see widening as a strategy for L.A.,” said James de la Loza, chief planning officer for Los Angeles County’s transportation agency.

It remains to be seen if the cancellation is the start of a trend or an outlier. Widening projects are still in the works for highways in Texas, Oregon and Maryland, to name a few. New York City is even considering re-widening the traffic-choked Brooklyn Queens Expressway.

1673148745939.png
Morning traffic passing through Compton on the I-710 in Los Angeles.

LOS ANGELES

A Change in Approach to Congestion​

The cancellation of the Route 710 expansion came after California learned the hard way about the principle of “induced demand.”

In 2015, a $1 billion project to widen a 10-mile stretch of Interstate 405 through Los Angeles was completed. For a period, “congestion was relieved,” said Tony Tavares, the director of Caltrans, California’s Department of Transportation.

But that relief did not last. Rush hour traffic soon rebounded, he said.

When a congested road is widened, travel times go down — at first. But then people change their behaviors. After hearing a highway is less busy, commuters might switch from transit to driving or change the route they take to work. Some may even choose to move farther away.

1673148796426.png
Traffic on I-710 in Long Beach, Calif., as Saturday morning soccer games were underway in Coolidge Park.
1673148816849.png
Isaac Morales, 18, used a sound barrier wall running along I-710 to practice soccer at Coolidge Park.

“It’s a pretty basic economic principle that if you reduce the price of a good then people will consume more of it,” Susan Handy, a professor of environmental science and policy at the University of California, Davis, said. “That’s essentially what we’re doing when we expand freeways.”

The concept of induced traffic has been around since the 1960s, but in a 2009 study, researchers confirmed what transportation experts had observed for years: In a metropolitan area, when road capacity increases by 1 percent, the number of cars on the road after a few years also increases by 1 percent.

For years, critics of the Route 710 plan had voiced concerns that the widened highway would lead to more greenhouse gas emissions and the bulldozing of the communities around it.

Los Angeles I-710 Corridor​

The 2018 proposal for this segment of Route 710 would have widened the roadway to four lanes in either direction, added two truck bypass lanes in either direction and widened the road shoulders.

1673148956197.png
Diagram shows a segment of I-710 between Willow Street and I-405. Width of lanes and shoulder areas are based on guidance from a Metro official. • Source: Metro, the transportation agency for Los Angeles County • The New York Times

In late 2020, the E.P.A. ruled that the widening plan violated the federal Clean Air Act, and officials paused the project. Then last spring, Caltrans canceled the project altogether. Mr. Tavares said it was “probably the most significant” cancellation in the agency’s history.

Caltrans is considering alternatives to address traffic on the Interstate, including moving freight to a rail line.

“Caltrans in the past was very focused on dealing with congestion primarily,” Mr. Tavares said. “We have since pivoted, completely done a 180.”

State transportation agencies said they have shifted their focus to providing people with options other than driving and were planning to divert money to projects that would benefit communities surrounding Route 710. Options include improving air filtration in schools, providing better access to green spaces and investing in a zero-emissions truck program.

Yet there are still plans to widen other highways in the state. “One size does not fit all for transportation, and California is definitely not one size,” Mr. Tavares said.

1673149019026.png
Morning rush hour on the New Jersey Turnpike in Jersey City.

JERSEY CITY, N.J.

Air Quality vs. the Economy​

On an unseasonably warm day last November, dozens of northern New Jersey residents gathered in the shadow of a highway overpass in Jersey City, just across the Hudson River from New York. In a densely populated state with expansive transit infrastructure, many in attendance wondered why officials were planning to widen the highway.

“If we want to be a leading state, look at what Colorado is doing in ending their highway expansions. Look at Los Angeles,” Jimmy Lee, president of Safe Streets JC, said.

New Jersey transportation officials plan to reconstruct and add up to four lanes to sections of the New Jersey Turnpike leading to the Holland Tunnel. In addition to carrying traffic into Manhattan, the turnpike is, like Route 710 in Los Angeles, an artery heavily trafficked by freight trucks carrying goods between ports and warehouses in the area.

The project, which will cost an estimated $10.7 billion, includes rebuilding elevated roadways and the bridge over Newark Bay on the 66-year-old highway.

1673149094982.png
Traffic on the New Jersey Turnpike by Enos Jones Park in Jersey City.
1673149125170.png
Alexandra Charles, 7, and her brother Jonathan, 5, played at Enos Jones Park alongside the turnpike.

Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti, commissioner of New Jersey’s transportation department, said the project was long overdue. A flurry of new residential buildings and commercial warehouses in the area has crowded the highway with more vehicles. The expansion is needed, she said, to make the highway safer and ensure the ports, critical pieces of New Jersey’s economy, remain viable.

“Congestion is not safe,” Ms. Gutierrez-Scaccetti said. “I don’t advocate widening roads just for the sake of widening.”

The project has the support of New Jersey’s governor, Philip D. Murphy, a Democrat who set ambitious climate goals for the state, and local labor leaders. Mark Longo, director of an organization representing heavy equipment operators, said the expansion is “the single most important road project for the economic future of New Jersey.”

New Jersey Turnpike Extension​

The proposed expansion would add two lanes in either direction on the bridge over Newark Bay, one lane in either direction on segments in Bayonne and Jersey City and widen the road shoulders. The last segment leading up to the Holland Tunnel would remain at two lanes in each direction but be widened to add shoulders.

1673149190441.png
Diagram shows a segment of the New Jersey Turnpike between exits 14A and 14C. Width of lanes and shoulder areas are based on guidance from a New Jersey Turnpike Authority official. • The New York Times

Critics of the plan say the congestion can be addressed in other ways, including investing in public transit. Officials in Hoboken and Jersey City, which surround the highway and have some of the worst air quality in the country, have denounced the plan.

“There are other types of mobility that people value instead of just cars,” Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop said.

1673149226223.png
The expansion of the Katy Freeway in Houston was initially hailed as a success. But within five years, peak hour travel times were longer than before the expansion. Alyssa Schukar for The New York Times

HOUSTON

A Commitment to Expansion​

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.

1673149268509.png
Cars on the I-45 in Houston passing the Historic Hollywood Cemetery.
1673149315794.png
Daleyza Almendarez, 3, and her father, Juan Serna, visited the grave of an uncle and aunt at the cemetery.

Officials from the Texas Department of Transportation said the Katy expansion provided the capacity needed to keep up with projected population growth in the Houston area.

“Expanding roads does not create more congestion,” transportation officials said in a statement. Rather, they said, it “helps to manage new travel demand.”

The Texas Constitution mandates that the majority of transportation funds go to improving the highway system. Over the next year, the state plans to spend about 86 percent of its budget on highway projects.

One of those is a $9 billion plan to reconstruct and widen a section of Interstate 45, which crosses paths with the Katy Freeway. Transportation officials said the project would improve safety, reduce congestion and address flooding along the roadway.

Houston I-45​

The project runs from suburban Greenspoint to downtown Houston. The proposed design for this segment would replace the H.O.V. lane with two managed lanes in each direction, add a lane to the frontage roads in each direction and widen the road shoulders.

1673149378071.png
Diagram shows a segment of I-45 from West Road to Aldine Bender Road. Width of lanes and shoulder areas are based on diagrams from the Houston Department of Transportation. • Source: Houston Department of Transportation • The New York Times

The plan for Route 45, Dr. Handy said, is another project being sold as congestion reduction. “But what’s especially troubling about that project is the destruction to the neighborhood that it will cause.”

The Texas transportation department estimates more than 1,000 people and 300 businesses in the surrounding neighborhoods, where most residents are Black and Hispanic, would be displaced by the expansion.

At the same time, officials at Houston’s public transportation agency are pulling together funding from bonds and federal grants for an additional way to address congestion and growth: 500 miles of improvements to public transit.

Additional production by Stephen Reiss.

Source (Archive)
 
Note that every picture of a Texan highway in the article has no congestion. You'd think the New York Times would try to find a photo of a congested highway in Texas if their thesis is that widening roads doesn't work?

1673149688334.png 1673149746884.png 1673149774408.png
 
Last edited:
> 26 lane highway

How do bug people justify that cities are better for the environment because the square feet per human are lower and one fire hydrant can service more people when you need to build 26 lane highways to support that way of life?

I can't even imagine 26 lanes and I'm looking right at the picture of it.
 
I had a tow truck driver drive me to a major metro a few hours from where I live. On the way there he told me that he had a government agent who worked in the traffic/road construction department tell him that there is no way their city (or the state) can keep up with the population growth. No matter how much you spend or how many roads you build in 15 years the city is going to be stop and go and major congestion 24/7. This is partially due to population growth and partially due to illegal immigration. We’re almost literally to the point of “fuck off, we’re full.” It’s anecdotal so take it for what it’s worth but I believe him.
 
We should encourage as many people as possible to live in bughives.
Then nuke them. Return to the population of the 18th century but with internet and better pizza toppings.
 
There's a vague generalisation my uncle taught me about the way Americans and Canadians view roads vs the way the rest of the world views roads.

North American roads are designed for vehicles with powerful, heavy engines and frames. Wide load, no matter if it's a sedan or a freight truck.
Roads in the rest of the world are primarily designed for smaller, faster vehicles with lighter engines and frames.

I'm not confident how that logic applies today, but I can't help but feel like America's crippling overreliance on inefficient highway systems eerily mirrors China's inefficient HSR system (which is a nearly 1 billion dollar tax burden on the mainland Chinese economy today).

Where China failed was prioritising HSR over plain rail, which would allow for excellent intermodal/freight rail service (of which, the USA has the best network in the world).
Due to the huge push for high-speed rail initiated by the CPC, this led to a "crowding out" effect where now, it's too expensive to build regular rail due to cumulative cost increases over time.

Where the USA failed in its implementation of the highway system was prioritising cars and trucks without allowing room for a transnational passenger rail system, akin to what China had before building HSR. Ironically, the best freight rail network in the world is absolutely abysmal for passenger travel. This ultimately had a knock-on effect where tons of old transit systems got knocked over for the decrepit, decaying asphalt we have today.

Oh Dwight, if only you had more foresight when designing the US highway system. A fantastic network of roads, but oh so very flawed with ramifications we're still experiencing decades later.
 
Just one more lane man. Give me just a few more million dollars, just one more lane man and that's it. Dude no for real just one more lane I promise last one.
 
> 26 lane highway

How do bug people justify that cities are better for the environment because the square feet per human are lower and one fire hydrant can service more people when you need to build 26 lane highways to support that way of life?

I can't even imagine 26 lanes and I'm looking right at the picture of it.
Because that's not a good city. In a good city, the highways are only used by buses and commercial vehicles (electric trucks) and everyone rides bicycles, light rail, or the subway.
 
There's a vague generalisation my uncle taught me about the way Americans and Canadians view roads vs the way the rest of the world views roads.

North American roads are designed for vehicles with powerful, heavy engines and frames. Wide load, no matter if it's a sedan or a freight truck.
Roads in the rest of the world are primarily designed for smaller, faster vehicles with lighter engines and frames.
I'm sure about the railway argument -certainly over long distances the US Has plenty of room for rail, and a decent network already, it just lacks the will to upgrade it - but you are right about the roads.

For whatever reason the US consists almost entirely of grid-square cities and freeways/Interstates. It's actually quite weird to anyone from somewhere else.

Yes, it you are out in the back of beyond there are little windy roads, but precious few of them in nominally populated areas. The California coast road is the only one I can think of that's used a lot.

I suspect it's down to everything being new (compared to the rest of the planet) but it's a bit jarring.

On the plus side I can grab Mrs Vesperus ('Murican) and bong down a country road in the UK at 70mph (in the dark) and watch the look on her face as she tries not scream. Good times.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure about the railway argument -certainly over long distances the US Has plenty of room for rail, and a decent network already, it just lacks the will to upgrade it - but you are right about the roads.

For whatever reason the US consists almost entirely of grid-square cities and freeways/Interstates. It's actually quite weird to anyone from somewhere else.

Yes, it you are out in the back of beyond there are little windy roads, but precious few of them in nominally populated areas. The California coast road is the only one I can think of that's used a lot.

I suspect it's down to everything being new (compared to the rest of the planet) but it's a bit jarring.

On the plus side I can grab Mrs Vesperus ('Murican) and bong down a country road in the UK at 70mph (in the dark) and watch the look on her face as she tries not scream. Good times.
US cities had the advantage (or disadvantage) of enough population to support large cities, and city planning being a thing. In most of the rest of the world, cities just kinda metastasised, growing over centuries into what they are know.
 
US cities had the advantage (or disadvantage) of enough population to support large cities, and city planning being a thing. In most of the rest of the world, cities just kinda metastasised, growing over centuries into what they are know.
I'd argue disadvantage, even though I can't quite explain why. London has an extraordinary network of over and underground railways even though it's at least 2000 years old and shit just kind of happened over those years.
The Elizabeth line only opened last year, so it's not even a "that was then" thing.
 
I'd argue disadvantage, even though I can't quite explain why. London has an extraordinary network of over and underground railways even though it's at least 2000 years old and shit just kind of happened over those years.
The Elizabeth line only opened last year, so it's not even a "that was then" thing.
London had the advantage of the government being more than willing to just dig up half of London for public works whenever the parliament decided to do something. When they built the London sewer system they just dug up neighbourhoods and shit. I wonder how much of it is to do with the fact that London is largely built upon older versions of London. Dunno about now, but the legacy of those projects gives impetus to projects that would otherwise be hard to get off the ground. Sort of sunk cost fallacy, but actually useful.
 
we keep doing it because these faggots who run our state and local governments never played city skylines
Agreed. We need autistic people who play city skylines to design the infrastructure, the niggas who play Crusader Kings to make foreign policy, and to put the school shooters in the military.
 
"If we just built cities right then we wouldn't have traffic" is the urbanoid infrastructure version of "oh that wasn't REAL socialism!"

we need more trains.
You realize train tracks take up space too, right?

Because that's not a good city. In a good city, the highways are only used by buses and commercial vehicles (electric trucks) and everyone rides bicycles, light rail, or the subway.
A truly dystopian nightmare world.
I pity the bugman who exists in such a bleak existence... (I take that back, I have no pity for bugmen)
 
In a world where people actually listened to traffic laws you would need no more than six lines per direction no matter how big the city is, but because people are fucking retarded we can't have nice things.
 
Caltrans is considering alternatives to address traffic on the Interstate, including moving freight to a rail line.
KF  FUCK CARS 36.png

Just looking at satellite photos, it appears the port area already has rail lines. Now let us remember a few years ago and how the West Coast ports had a vessel backlog. If a rail line would have solved something than the ports would not be having that problem. I suspect this is just the agency throwing up their hands and throwing out a suggestion to get the media to go away. I would venture that rail lines need locomotives, rail cars, people to work such equipment, places to load / unload, a lengths of track to allow for other trains to pass as such this is much more complicated than transferring freight to rail.

I had a tow truck driver drive me to a major metro a few hours from where I live. On the way there he told me that he had a government agent who worked in the traffic/road construction department tell him that there is no way their city (or the state) can keep up with the population growth. No matter how much you spend or how many roads you build in 15 years the city is going to be stop and go and major congestion 24/7. This is partially due to population growth and partially due to illegal immigration. We’re almost literally to the point of “fuck off, we’re full.” It’s anecdotal so take it for what it’s worth but I believe him.

I prefer "No Vacancies".

The issue presented in the article is that demand increased over a period of a few years. Based on my understanding, a few years usually means three to five years. During such a time more high density apartments are being constructed on smaller plots of land. These people need to go to work so many of them drive which adds to the cars on the road.

Because that's not a good city. In a good city, the highways are only used by buses and commercial vehicles (electric trucks) and everyone rides bicycles, light rail, or the subway.
Transit in much of the US is shit because of activists.


All the above issues were due to policies pushed by progressive activists in one way or another. If a personal car is an alternative to the roulette of shit on public transit , people will take their own cars.

I'd argue disadvantage, even though I can't quite explain why. London has an extraordinary network of over and underground railways even though it's at least 2000 years old and shit just kind of happened over those years.
The Elizabeth line only opened last year, so it's not even a "that was then" thing.
I propose that because London developed before the car and even for a decade or so after WWII car ownership was not something most people enjoyed. As such, the development and rebuilding centered on public transit vs. cars.
 
Last edited:
Clearly this person has never been stuck in a two lane deadlock. Yes, multiple lane highways do work, this is like saying more cores & threads in a CPU don't work. It's just obviously wrong.
I'm not confident how that logic applies today, but I can't help but feel like America's crippling overreliance on inefficient highway systems eerily mirrors China's inefficient HSR system (which is a nearly 1 billion dollar tax burden on the mainland Chinese economy today).
Sorry but no, the United States is such that it absolutely needs a massive highway system, it's a continental nation with coasts on both sides of its borders, you need roads that interconnect each and every state together or else there is no functionality.
 
Back
Top Bottom