Report a Comment

You know, I hear this a lot, and I don't think people think it through very much:

" . . . the amount of pollution created by the crawling cars could be reduced with the spot improvements that allow the cars to travel at faster speeds."

In the short term, widening I-66 might increase speeds and allow those cars to move more freely, but it won't take long before more people drive on I-66 and we're back to the same level of congestion--with more cars, and hence more pollution. This is the pattern we've seen throughout the metro area, and yet people continue to argue that roads should be expanded as a way to magically reduce pollution?

You don't think that transit is sufficient to connect the far-out suburbs, and I agree with you there. Where I think you're wrong is that you think that people from those far-out suburbs can somehow be served by expanding the road network, which we've seen over and over again just isn't true. Even if it were free, it wouldn't solve the problem, but it's most definitely not free. So instead we either need to focus on other ways to move those people around, or they need to accept that they're going to be spending a lot of time in traffic--and stop asking for more roads paid for by others.

by Gray on Dec 10, 2011 6:15 pm • link • report