>>1921798>Who said this?president of the korean transport institute Dr. Kee Yeon Hwang
"But the model was the easy part. Getting public and political buy-in was going to be harder — not to mention that people kept telling him this was “suicide” as a transportation planner and that if the project were built it would create “gridlock!” and “traffic chaos!” "
>Where is the proof of this?if they didn't drive less the traffic would be displaced to adjacent streets? but it wasn't
>Where is the proof of this?how do you mean, the proof of trips not being neccessary? the fact that most people are only transporting themselves instead of goods, which is more efficiently done with public transit.
>In the real world, highways tend to absorb traffic ("induced demand") proof? that is not what induced demand means, highways increase traffic, they don't "absorb" it. as stated earlier, the amount of traffic is never static, it fluctuates based on supply and demand.
>but that also takes stress off of smaller roads.proof? it does the exact opposite, building a highway increases the supply, inducing demand, and people invariably take more trips, leading to more stress on smaller roads connected to the highway.
>The "Avoid Crossing Street during rush hour" signage in California suggests that roads never designed to take on large amounts of cars are taking on traffic because of a refusal to take any workable approach to highway traffic.again, you're operating from the retarded assumption that there is an unchangeable amount of traffic which can only be lessened by building more katy freeways. this is not how it works. if california had solid alternatives to driving there would be less traffic. "Avoid Crossing Street during rush hour" signs are an indication that unlike in civilized countries, the local infrastructure is prioritised for throughput of cars instead of safety, likely pedestrians need to cross stroads more that 2 lanes at a time without any refuge islands in between.
