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)
 
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.
you've been watching that gay youtube channel, haven't you?
this fucking one: https://www.youtube.com/@NotJustBikes
come on, you can admit it
we're all kiwisisters here

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.
finally, someone starts talking some sense around here
 
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.
At the time of construction of America's highways, the US already possessed a fantastic passenger rail service. It wasn't deprioritized by anyone except the people who used it. The American public was the one who killed or limited the passenger rail service which up to that point, had been the main mode of mass transportation anywhere in the US. The people decide if they had to suffer public transportation, they would use air planes. Otherwise they preferred the privacy and the independence of their own private cars.
 
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.

I'm not denying the need for a transnational road network; I commend Dwight D. Eisenhower for getting the ball rolling with the US highway system.
What I take issue with is how the 19th century oversaw the advent of transcontinental rail lines, yet the USA never once nationalised the entire network.
From the 19th century to the present day, the entire USA freight rail lines are still squarely owned and operated by private companies.

Furthermore, the US highway network was built without regard for which regions of the country needed it the most (at least to my knowledge in the state I live in).
East coast states have had robust, interconnected road networks for decades, if not centuries, before the 1950s. Let's not forget all the river networks like the Ohio River, the St Lawrence River, and so on that helped earlier peoples develop settlements that would later evolve into major towns and cities.

The Midwest, in a vacuum, is really tough to get into on foot. I will give you that. With that said, all the canal projects that connected the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean have turned the tables completely. Those canal projects were formative to the way states like Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois (even parts of Western New York) developed through the decades. Similarly, the Mississippi River was a vital cornerstone of American livelihood from Mesoamerican times to the advent of Manifest Destiny.

By the time trains were invented, the idea of Manifest Destiny was more or less complete with the USA having pieced together a gigantic, transcontinental rail network shortly thereafter. So why then, did Teddy Roosevelt not nationalise the goddamn freight rails so that we could have passenger trains hauling people to Cali-For-Nye-Ay?

I dunno man, maybe I'm blowing smoke out my ass but it seems like America really dropped the ball on that one.
 
At the time of construction of America's highways, the US already possessed a fantastic passenger rail service. It wasn't deprioritized by anyone except the people who used it. The American public was the one who killed or limited the passenger rail service which up to that point, had been the main mode of mass transportation anywhere in the US. The people decide if they had to suffer public transportation, they would use air planes. Otherwise they preferred the privacy and the independence of their own private cars.

Interesting to hear. Freight rail, to my knowledge, gets more priority due to

a) Ownership of the line, so 10 mile long container trains get first dibs even if a significantly shorter Amtrak train could go first without any delay whatsoever
b) Self-fulfilling prophecy of low ridership, low engagement, and hyperfocus on cars induced by the above

I think the idea of public transit getting de-prioritised depends more on the context of the municipality you live in.

NYC has a robust public transit system, and the greater NY metro region is thoroughly interconnected via public and private bus/train/plane service.
The downside is that NY (at a municipal and state level) is fundamentally too corrupt to ever consistently fund public transit unless it's gotten to a point where bureaucrats at all levels simply cannot pretend it doesn't exist anymore.

Boston, on the other hand, has similar problems that NYC does (insofar as corruption and funding are concerned) but the MBTA is a far more reliable service provider than the MTA can ever hope to achieve.
 
I'd rather take the road money and put towards sending people back to their home country.
 
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.
And what the government could do is encourage the growth of Mid and Low tier cities (in the mid west their used to be tons of them). Instead they encourage people to go to cities where resources are capped out
 
And what the government could do is encourage the growth of Mid and Low tier cities (in the mid west their used to be tons of them). Instead they encourage people to go to cities where resources are capped out
I think there is a silent push to consolidate people further and further because it benefits big government. I know, I know, it's a bit schizo-y...
 
I think there is a silent push to consolidate people further and further because it benefits big government. I know, I know, it's a bit schizo-y...
And if we go full Schitzoposting we have New York Bankers running up the prices on real estate everwhere else to bankrupt the poor people who tried to escape their shithole

Interesting to hear. Freight rail, to my knowledge, gets more priority due to

a) Ownership of the line, so 10 mile long container trains get first dibs even if a significantly shorter Amtrak train could go first without any delay whatsoever
b) Self-fulfilling prophecy of low ridership, low engagement, and hyperfocus on cars induced by the above

I think the idea of public transit getting de-prioritised depends more on the context of the municipality you live in.

NYC has a robust public transit system, and the greater NY metro region is thoroughly interconnected via public and private bus/train/plane service.
The downside is that NY (at a municipal and state level) is fundamentally too corrupt to ever consistently fund public transit unless it's gotten to a point where bureaucrats at all levels simply cannot pretend it doesn't exist anymore.

Boston, on the other hand, has similar problems that NYC does (insofar as corruption and funding are concerned) but the MBTA is a far more reliable service provider than the MTA can ever hope to achieve.
To upgrade the public Rail lines you would have to either

A) Buy the freight rail lines (win for the rail companies)
or
B) Buy the old rail right of ways (win for the rail companies)

Oh and the rail companies fund a lot of the lobbying and "Academic Research" that tries to sell people on trains
 
I'm not denying the need for a transnational road network; I commend Dwight D. Eisenhower for getting the ball rolling with the US highway system.
What I take issue with is how the 19th century oversaw the advent of transcontinental rail lines, yet the USA never once nationalised the entire network.
From the 19th century to the present day, the entire USA freight rail lines are still squarely owned and operated by private companies.
KF  FUCK CARS 34.jpg
Senator McCarthy would like to have a word with you.
The US didn't nationalize the transcontinental railroad because the we never really started viewing ourselves as a national entity until after the Civil War which coincides with the completion of said railroad. When it was built it was built by private industry. Even during the 1900-1930's the railroad was owned by the barons of industry and that level of regulation was not popular. During WWII. Roosevelt was already stretching his powers and was prevented further encroachment by SCOTUS and eventually his own party. After WWII, nationalizing the railroad would get you a nice meeting with Senator McCarthy. Regardless, the US is not Europe and much of its geographical distance is not set up for passenger rail service.
 
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.
Exactly. The amount of congestion caused by people not allowing traffic to merge, using excess lanes as fast lanes and driving right up the ass of the person in front of them has got to be astronomical.
 
And what the government could do is encourage the growth of Mid and Low tier cities (in the mid west their used to be tons of them). Instead they encourage people to go to cities where resources are capped out
People want to spread out? Then let them spread out.
Some call it "sprawl," I call it "breathing room."
Yeah, there's probably a "lebensraum" joke here somewhere, but that's too easy.
 
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.

Passenger rail service in Canada and the US will never be economical outside of some areas (Bos-Wash corridor, for example) where large cities are located relatively close to one another. The moment passenger air travel became feasible, it would be the dominant transportation method for long distance travel.

To use an example. If you built a high speed rail line from, say, Dallas to Chicago (about 800 miles) as a direct, straight line, ignoring any geographical or infrastructure concerns, with no stops in cities or towns in between the two cities, using the fastest HSR train in use (the L0 series in Japan that topped out at 375 mph), the trip would take as long as a direct flight. The further away you go, the more plane travel will win.

And, of course, realistically, a HSR line between Dallas and Chicago would also stop in other cities, like Memphis, St. Louis, and others, making a realistically HSR line take longer than direct flights.

Using rail lines for freight is far more efficient in larger countries like Canada and the US.
 
People want to spread out? Then let them spread out.
Some call it "sprawl," I call it "breathing room."
Yeah, there's probably a "lebensraum" joke here somewhere, but that's too easy.
well this is basically how it's worked as long as people have been able to buy cars

and what the planning bugmen are about to run right into is the fact that Americans are not gonna give them up.

it does not matter how inconvenient and expensive the .gov tries to make driving. you cannot put americans in highrises. you cannot turn american downtowns into european city centers.

Americans will actually choose to be less fat, they will literally buy less food, so that they can have a house with a yard. They will commute 4 hours/day. They will do whatever they have to do to put the gas in the car so that they can have their own castle.

This is where the populist revolt is really going to get going, people are realizing they're being socially engineered into a way of life that they hate and reject with every fiber of their being.
 
Passenger rail service in Canada and the US will never be economical outside of some areas (Bos-Wash corridor, for example) where large cities are located relatively close to one another. The moment passenger air travel became feasible, it would be the dominant transportation method for long distance travel.

To use an example. If you built a high speed rail line from, say, Dallas to Chicago (about 800 miles) as a direct, straight line, ignoring any geographical or infrastructure concerns, with no stops in cities or towns in between the two cities, using the fastest HSR train in use (the L0 series in Japan that topped out at 375 mph), the trip would take as long as a direct flight. The further away you go, the more plane travel will win.

And, of course, realistically, a HSR line between Dallas and Chicago would also stop in other cities, like Memphis, St. Louis, and others, making a realistically HSR line take longer than direct flights.

Using rail lines for freight is far more efficient in larger countries like Canada and the US.

I'm more of an advocate of regular passenger rail service over HSR due to China proving that HSR is too energy intensive with an electric grid comprised of an overwhelming majority by fossil fuels. Regular commuter rail has the benefit of still being able to facilitate the transport of cargo over rail. That's a huge pitfall that HSR cannot accommodate due to the physics and engineering constraints.

In my ideal (read: autistic) world, all the cities in every state across the continental USA would be easily accessible via commuter rail (example: I, as a man living in Utica who has never heard of the phrase Steamed Hams, can now take a commuter train to visit Albany), with passenger trains having priority over freight trains. Interstate rail travel could always be facilitated via adjacent states/connections/things of that nature.

To me, the problem is less logistical and more administrative at this time.
But to that effect, I would also like to point out that maybe I'm also being naive/obtuse.
 
Reminder that the study all these hobbyist urbanists cite about how adding lanes doesn't reduce congestion is based in LA, and found that it's equally likely the LA transit network is so underbuilt that traffic immediately redlined after adding lanes to it. Demand was so high they'd have to add an additional 5-6 lanes to actually reduce congestion.
 
I live in an European city and rarely drive now...not because I don't want to, but because the public transport is clean, faster, and cheaper than driving when I want to get around the city. But this is a small city that was designed to be compact, not a US sprawl, and any benefits to pub trans vanish when leaving said city. But still, fuck the 'cycle to work in the snow, cars are evvvvvil' cunts. There's some autist on youtube called Adam Something who sperges like he was raped by a car at some point...
 
Back
Top Bottom