A prominent traffic engineer concluded that trying to solve congestion by widening roads is like trying to...?

Question

cure obesity by loosening your belt...

Think about it for a minute and tell me if you agree or disagree. I tend to agree, due to the concept of latent, or induced demand.

Related to this is my belief that adding capacity to existing lanes is pointless, and that the real solution is to increase system connectivity. Give people more routes to choose from, not fewer, wider routes. I respectfully disagree with the public transportation argument. Unless we rein in sprawl, we can't achieve the population densities or the shorter trip lengths necessary to make transit a viable alternative.

Answer 1

Yes, I agree. I think urban traffic tends to expand to just short of unbearably dense. If you build more lanes, more people will drive them. If you don't, people find alternatives to the rush hour commute. Public transit may work well for the people who use it, but does nothing for the drivers stuck in traffic.

If you provide alternative routes you can avoid incidents of total gridlock, but you won't reduce the crowding. Unfortunately, many people seem to believe against all evidence that one more highway project will bring forth a commuter utopia.

What is more effective is creating traffic control systems to reduce the formation of bottlenecks in the traffic flow.

Answer 2

I disagree. By adding lanes, obviously more cars can pass through. It is a problem though, if there are bottlenecks where the number of lanes are reduced. In LA, this can cause multi-mile parking lots. I would say a better analogy would be that it is like trying to drain a lake by digging a deeper wider ditch.

Answer 3

Agree, more lanes do not solve the problem. More public transportation will..... After you get past three lanes one way, it just confuses people more. Besides, people do not obey traffic rules to begin with (i.e. faster cars to the left). Once you get to a certain saturation point you will have total gridlock (like L.A. does) and its time to have the freeways that you pay for (like L.A. does)
to go fast. (again either that a great public transportation system to absorb all of the additional people too!)

Answer 4

I think the analogy is valid, but the respective situations are very different. Obesity is generally considered to be undesireable. It has no positive aspects, unless there's an approaching famine. On the other hand, what does increased traffic signify? Among other things, more commerce and greater prosperity.

Answer 5

I disagree, it is more like buying larger clothes for a growing child.

I agree that building wider roads encourages more cars to use them, but on the other side, constanct congestion discourages road use.