A recent study of 100 US cities found that — between 1993 to 2017 — billions were spent to expand highway capacities by 42% but, instead of reducing congestion, traffic delays actual went up 144%!
In the 1950's the Hollywood Freeway was widened and the highway engineers bragged that it would provide enough capacity for the next 10 years. A year later the freeway was at 100% capacity. People changed their routes or took trips on the freeway that they would not have done before. Sixty years later this is still the case. But it is wrong to think of freeways as efficient ways to move people around but instead as profit making opportunities for construction companies and real estate developers and auto and truck companies, and the insurance industry. The composition of the California transportation advisory board shows who benefits from building new freeway capacity.
General Motors, Firestone Tire, and Standard Oil conspired to destroy public transportation in the country's cities after WW II and they were aided by President Eisenhower who had admired the autobahns built in Germany by Hitler's people without realizing that 98% of the war material and people movement was done by the country's railroads. Workers are now forced to buy and maintain automobiles to be able to get to work, to shop, to school, or a public park. More than 50% of the area of American cities is devoted to automobiles and this is 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.
We are 70 years behind Europe where one can safely bicycle through the cities or get on a train and travel in comfort at 200 mph from Paris to Venice. We are 20 years behind China which has also funded high speed trail lines and bicycle and pedestrian paths in their major cities. But the American way is far more profitable for the vulture capitalists that run our governments at the local, state, and federal levels.
I fear that these initiatives that work in more cooperative societies will not work here. Case in point: guns. And for Americans their cars are as cherished as their firearms. Nice thought though. In a better world, in a better time . . .
A question or two here, Thom: Given that we are already transitioning to electric-powered vehicles (with zero emissions)...and given that our population is still growing....is the argument that pollution and "stay away from our cities" a legitimate argument against widening highways?
Or do we need to consider more "Park & Ride" sites near cities where people can park their vehicles and take mass transit into the cities? (Like San Francisco has been doing for decades
due to the lack of physical space within the city?) Also, is the location of jobs a factor here? Can they be more widely dispersed? What does the future of "cities" really look like for an even larger population?
Ya, what Bruce and Daphne said! I also want to say that more pavement means more heat from the dark surfaces. I'm sure that will be part of what the protesters bring to light.
This all tracks with what we must do concerning the climate crisis in order to have any kind of a future. I read two articles today that proclaimed breakthroughs in amazing materials. We really have to stop building the same infrastructure with the same materials. Let's not fail future generations, because we simply fail to imagine.
Correction Tom, 30% of U.S. greenhouse gases does not come from vehicles, unless you are including boats, trains, and airplanes as vehicles. While vehicles are the najor source of transportation greenhouse gasses, it considerably less tan 30%
In the 1950's the Hollywood Freeway was widened and the highway engineers bragged that it would provide enough capacity for the next 10 years. A year later the freeway was at 100% capacity. People changed their routes or took trips on the freeway that they would not have done before. Sixty years later this is still the case. But it is wrong to think of freeways as efficient ways to move people around but instead as profit making opportunities for construction companies and real estate developers and auto and truck companies, and the insurance industry. The composition of the California transportation advisory board shows who benefits from building new freeway capacity.
General Motors, Firestone Tire, and Standard Oil conspired to destroy public transportation in the country's cities after WW II and they were aided by President Eisenhower who had admired the autobahns built in Germany by Hitler's people without realizing that 98% of the war material and people movement was done by the country's railroads. Workers are now forced to buy and maintain automobiles to be able to get to work, to shop, to school, or a public park. More than 50% of the area of American cities is devoted to automobiles and this is 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.
We are 70 years behind Europe where one can safely bicycle through the cities or get on a train and travel in comfort at 200 mph from Paris to Venice. We are 20 years behind China which has also funded high speed trail lines and bicycle and pedestrian paths in their major cities. But the American way is far more profitable for the vulture capitalists that run our governments at the local, state, and federal levels.
I fear that these initiatives that work in more cooperative societies will not work here. Case in point: guns. And for Americans their cars are as cherished as their firearms. Nice thought though. In a better world, in a better time . . .
A question or two here, Thom: Given that we are already transitioning to electric-powered vehicles (with zero emissions)...and given that our population is still growing....is the argument that pollution and "stay away from our cities" a legitimate argument against widening highways?
Or do we need to consider more "Park & Ride" sites near cities where people can park their vehicles and take mass transit into the cities? (Like San Francisco has been doing for decades
due to the lack of physical space within the city?) Also, is the location of jobs a factor here? Can they be more widely dispersed? What does the future of "cities" really look like for an even larger population?
Ya, what Bruce and Daphne said! I also want to say that more pavement means more heat from the dark surfaces. I'm sure that will be part of what the protesters bring to light.
This all tracks with what we must do concerning the climate crisis in order to have any kind of a future. I read two articles today that proclaimed breakthroughs in amazing materials. We really have to stop building the same infrastructure with the same materials. Let's not fail future generations, because we simply fail to imagine.
Correction Tom, 30% of U.S. greenhouse gases does not come from vehicles, unless you are including boats, trains, and airplanes as vehicles. While vehicles are the najor source of transportation greenhouse gasses, it considerably less tan 30%