Is Traffic Congestion Good for Dallas?

[Lakewooder]

http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2009/12/17/can-traffic-congestion-be-good-for-dallas/

[Random Traffic Guy]

This might be better down in roads and bridges although not as much exposure.

I note alot of the FB comments refer to induced demand and the quick congestion of any larger roadways. I wrote this bit on Cyburbia a while ago in reference to a similar discussion:
Promoting Congestion as a Policy Prescription (http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=38878). I ended the thread so my arguments must have been devastatingly effective :D

---------
I really must write an article on this some day. People say induced demand like it is a bad thing. This thread has some good talk on how congestion is not really a measure of anything.

Induced demand means people now have a better way to get where they need to go. How do we know it's better? They are switching to the new facility in place of how ever they used to go. If it wasn't better, they wouldn't use it.

Induced demand pushing a road right back to congestion isn't a problem except for weak-spined elected officials who can't tell complaining constituents to think about it. Yes it's congested, big deal. Instead of the 2 lanes providing 4000 vehicles the best way to get to their destination, the 3 lanes now provide 6000 vehicles the best way to get to their destination. Net win! If it wasn't the best way, they wouldn't be using it. And the effects trickle down so that the old best way for the 2000 vehicles who switched, now may become a new best way for some other driver. Etc etc etc. Even with continuous population growth like we have locally that may trigger what appears to be a static level of congestion in the network, the people moving in are obviously improving their situation.

Greens may whine about pollution in the new congestion, but that is just shifting some somewhere else, either other roads where it was hidden from notice (which by definition are not as attractive so usually longer in time or distance = more pollution), or from trips not taken which is a loss to quality of life.

[AeroD]

But RTG, as you well know, we all want more roads....we just do not want to pay for them or have Spanish Conquistadores build them.

[Spjz]

Traffic Guy, you give the herd way to much credit.

[mdg109]

I totally agree with that blog. Why widen highways if it's not going to fix the problem? Funds should be used elsewhere in order to create a better, greener, livable, more vibrant metropolitan region. These massive highways, while purposeful, have done so much damage as far as urban design is concerned. Why do people still insist on solutions from the past? We're currently faced with population growth, environmental issues and a desire (from both urban and suburbanites) for pedestrian-friendly town life. Why must we contend with these ever-widening highways that dice up our cities? I acknowledge all this has been said before. I'm just tired of the automobile designing our cities.

[tamtagon]

Why do people still insist on solutions from the past? ... I'm just tired of the automobile designing our cities.

People simply are not looking far enough into the past for a good solution. Increasing capacity is the only way to satisfy increasing demand, but bigger highways are not at all efficient nor are they cost effective. Peak commuting traffic must be accommodated by high density passenger rail service. However, the greater community (The Metroplex) must also couple passenger train service with initiatives to increase the density of existing employment destinations.