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)
 
Why the fuck don't they just add more sidewalks or paths or some shit so people can walk along highways instead of making it impossible to walk anywhere, that shit's always baffled me ever since I was a kid. I remember a few years ago back in either 2015 or 2016 when I was trying to walk down to a store that was only a few stores down from another one due to there being a sidewalk, I fucking couldn't and had to walk on the highway to reach it because the sidewalk randomly fucking cut off. You had to fucking walk uncomfortably close to the fucking cars to get to the other sidewalk a few ways away from it. I wasn't going to fucking risk it initially but eventually I ended up deciding to go through with it and realized later like 5 other people that day did the exact same thing. I've seen so many roads that HAD sidewalks get the sidewalks fucking removed so they could add 2 or 3 lanes to a highway within these last 5 or 6 years and i can confirm it does fucking nothing to stop traffic. If anything, it makes shit worse usually because it takes more lanes to get to the exit if it's a one lane exit.
 
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.
That’s just incorrect. The US is covered in roads, even cities have back roads.

And the only places that get significant road congestion are major highways in the largest cities, and then usually only at peak hours. Suburbs tend to be fine, as are smaller cities (500k or less).

And only a foreigner could possibly think the US is “almost entirely” grid cities. Quit watching tv shows set in NYC.
 
One of the single biggest things any municipality can do to reduce congestion is start ticketing people who drive slow in the center or left lane. This solution is politically unpopular, because old people, retards, and women feel they have a God-given right to drive 5 mph under the speed limit in the left lane and cause traffic jams.
 
Traffic in Austin is fucking terrible. The state wants to widen the road. Meaning put new lanes in the middle since widening the road is pretty much impossible with out major businesses et. al moving out.

Some retards want to replace the interstate with streets, new businesses, and "cheap housing". https://rethink35.com/the-rethink35-plan
 
Traffic in Austin is fucking terrible. The state wants to widen the road. Meaning put new lanes in the middle since widening the road is pretty much impossible with out major businesses et. al moving out.

Some retards want to replace the interstate with streets, new businesses, and "cheap housing". https://rethink35.com/the-rethink35-plan
Tell my they are bugmen without telling me they are bugmen.

One just needs to go to the Google maps of Austin along I-35 and search:
Logistics Warehouse
Logistics Center
Distribution Warehouse
Grocery Distribution

Doing so will pull up about two dozen business that serve the needs to the shops, restaurants, and people of Austin. It's almost as if they believe stuff just magically arrives at the store or is dropped off by Amazon.

A complex supply chain involved in even the most basic items?

Nope.
 
Some retards want to replace the interstate with streets, new businesses, and "cheap housing". https://rethink35.com/the-rethink35-plan
Tell my they are bugmen without telling me they are bugmen.

One just needs to go to the Google maps of Austin along I-35 and search:
Logistics Warehouse
Logistics Center
Distribution Warehouse
Grocery Distribution

Doing so will pull up about two dozen business that serve the needs to the shops, restaurants, and people of Austin. It's almost as if they believe stuff just magically arrives at the store or is dropped off by Amazon.

A complex supply chain involved in even the most basic items?

Nope.
The people behind "Rethink I-35" make up complete bullshit lies about the city to try to sell people on their asinine plan.
 
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.
Reminds me of the issue with budget air travel in the US versus Europe. Like in Europe you could get a ticket from one country to another for less than $50. Apparently there's not really any privately owned airports versus in Europe they have hundreds. It's thanks to the US government wanting to regulate things so hard that we have more expensive air travel.

Passenger rail itself doesn't seem like it should be such an impossible task in the US, but you keep getting all these delays and fuckups as politicians argue over every little detail of any such plans and how to regulate the mess. Ultimately they're not treating it as a potential business, but as something to score political points with, which seems like a deeper problem with getting passenger rail going than some of the physical constraints. Because really if it's cheap enough, then there'd be plenty of people that'd take the train from Dallas to Chicago seeing as there are still people that'll travel by bus.
 
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.
Hey retard, widening one road is not about reducing congestion on only that road. This induced demand that makes you think it's all pointless is a practical reality of an always growing leviathan reliant on positive carry. The network finds places to increase capacity or the growth stops or even reverses. There's not a major metro in any state of the union that isn't locked in to this strategy. The roads get wider, things get denser, and the inner city gets shittier. Unless you're fabulously wealthy the answer is to leave the shitty place. It's not really great, frankly I think it's more bad than good. That said, literally any other alternative sucks even harder in comparison.

Of course the only reason I even care a little bit that the bugpeople "get it" is that they will infest places like my home if cities collapse without also liquidating their population.
 
Reminds me of the issue with budget air travel in the US versus Europe. Like in Europe you could get a ticket from one country to another for less than $50. Apparently there's not really any privately owned airports versus in Europe they have hundreds. It's thanks to the US government wanting to regulate things so hard that we have more expensive air travel.
I mean, they aren't privately-owned exactly, but about 70% (14,000) of airports in the US are classed as private-only. About 5,000 are public access airports, including all the big hubs the commercial companies use. Everyone from rich celebs to crop duster pilots use private airports all the time.

At my local airport you can hop on a plane to another state for about $100 if the flight is under an hour or certain distance. Pricing depends on time of year and current demand, of course. I've got a cousin in Las Vegas who takes flights to Los Angeles when she's an extra for a show and even that's only about $150 a ticket. It's cheaper than renting a car and faster than driving, so she usually goes with the cheap flight option.

Overall, there's probably less demand for private transnational flights in the US than in Europe, since most people only travel occasionally and go to major cities or fly outside the US for vacations. Granted, there's a lot of inter-state flights that cost $1000 or more, but it seems like the main reason for the cost is private plane companies catering to wealthier clientele, and less due to regulations. But if you don't mind not having first class service in a private jet, you can get a short flight for a pretty low price.
 
I mean, they aren't privately-owned exactly, but about 70% (14,000) of airports in the US are classed as private-only. About 5,000 are public access airports, including all the big hubs the commercial companies use. Everyone from rich celebs to crop duster pilots use private airports all the time.
I meant like airports that'd have commercial airlines running out of them. Some little airport for private planes isn't going to affect the average air traveler the way a regular commercial airport would.

2023-01-09 (5).png

Privatization for airports has apparently helped get massively more airports up and running in Europe, which means you can have more competition there which helps drive down costs for regular plane tickets. It's part of why budget airlines have typically been able to do better in Europe than in the US, since a budget airline could choose to focus its business on crappier airports that may be further away from cities or whatever.

Olivier Jankovec, Director General ACI EUROPE commented “In just 6 years, private investors have gotten involved in an additional circa 100 airports in Europe. This means that the number of European airports with private shareholders has more than doubled – and that 3 in 4 passengers are now travelling through an airport with private shareholders. Meanwhile, almost all fully publicly-owned airports are now corporatized and managed on a purely commercial basis. These are not anecdotal changes to our industry – they are truly transformative changes. They underline the fact that airports are now run as businesses focused on air connectivity development, operational efficiency, service quality, revenue diversification and sustainable investments.

At my local airport you can hop on a plane to another state for about $100 if the flight is under an hour or certain distance. Pricing depends on time of year and current demand, of course. I've got a cousin in Las Vegas who takes flights to Los Angeles when she's an extra for a show and even that's only about $150 a ticket. It's cheaper than renting a car and faster than driving, so she usually goes with the cheap flight option.
Considering the distance from Vegas to LA versus UK to Poland, I'm tempted to say that Europe's a lot more reasonable. I can find some flights for just $10.
2023-01-09 (6).png
 
The "reee induced demand" article that everyone cites is misquoting an original (flawed) study, and roads capacity increased with population growth. If widening roads worked like all these articles said they were it would create instant economic growth.

Funny Austin gets brought up because the newer and re-done highways have bike lanes and/or wide sidewalks. Not that it helps because once you actually get into the main city area it's hoboville central. (Presence of homeless and panhandlers is conveniently ignored by "walkable city" advocates).
 
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.
Yeah, all of the good rail lines in the USA barring a few in the northeast are almost exclusively for freight.

Even then, non HSR in the USA is mostly a non starter because a 75-100mph train is still taking hours upon hours to get anywhere. Oh and if the train does t deliver you to a city center/convenient location you're getting a cab or driving the rest of the way....
 
The "reee induced demand" article that everyone cites is misquoting an original (flawed) study, and roads capacity increased with population growth. If widening roads worked like all these articles said they were it would create instant economic growth.

Funny Austin gets brought up because the newer and re-done highways have bike lanes and/or wide sidewalks. Not that it helps because once you actually get into the main city area it's hoboville central. (Presence of homeless and panhandlers is conveniently ignored by "walkable city" advocates).
That's because they want to force you to interact with the hobos.
 
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.
I can sense the author of this piece recoiling horror while writing that.

The other option, of course, is not allowing people to leave their homes. Reinstate serfdom. There was an A&N thread recently about some British city that has proposed not allowing you to drive from one part of town to another without going through a bunch of convoluted nonsense.
 
Back
Top Bottom