Or we can keep throwing money at a problem that will never, ever truly go away:
The Beltway is just one roadway among the tens of thousands at the end of a long life span. Now, 210 million U.S. drivers, and the commerce on which they rely, ride aging roadways. Maryland and Virginia just passed tax increases to address transportation needs, high among them deteriorating roads such as the Beltway. But it will take time more than money to tackle the Beltway’s worst sections, because simply closing several lanes for months would have nightmarish consequences.
No. It. Wouldn't.
Yes, it seems counterintuitive, but there's fairly sound research out there that strongly suggests that building more roads increases traffic congestion, and conversely, that building fewer roads reduces it. We saw this dynamic play out here in Los Angeles during our recent "Carmageddon" highway closures, when we were told that disaster loomed!---and then it didn't happen. What did happen was that people drove less---which, besides alleviating congestion, also reduced smog. Win-win!
The long stretches of rural Interstate that connect commercial centers are vital to freight traffic---it's the reason the Interstate system was built in the first place---so they need to to be kept in good condition; and if I ran the show, that's where most of our federal highway dollars would be going, not to keep patching up urban Interstates that act as magnets for congestion, increase pollution, and turn huge swathes of potentially valuable real estate into municipal storage lots and homeless squatters' camps. Besides, making it harder to drive in urban cores might persuade people who work there to lobby their political leaders for more diverse transit options than what's available to them now. It's certainly worth considering.
---Baron V
Comments