It is not a strong dislike, it is the truth and sometimes the truth hurts. You keep saying adding lanes to the 17-74-76-133, can you name one place where they have continuously increased a highway lanes and it improved traffic congestion? The answer is no. All this does is increase speed and put more traffic in one area. The answer lies in alternative routes.
As far as the Village Road issue, perhaps you should speak to Futch and ask him why he ignored both the Lawrence Group recommendations and the Transportation Planner’s advice that your tax payer money paid for. What is there now does not match what these plans called for and do you know why? Mostly because Futch wanted to prove he knew more. He could have worked with them or presented them with expert engineering advice but he chose not to. He decided. He even alienated his own Council Members on a lot of these issues. Maybe Futch should have focused more on Leland’s economy. If Leland had more to offer you wouldn’t need to go across the bridge so much. Perhaps everyone should remember that "No man is an island entire of itself”- meaning in its very simplest and most prosaic sense it means we all depend on one another and in a way all our actions affect others.
There is no shortage of hard data that increasing highways does not work. A recent University of California at Berkeley study covering thirty California counties between 1973 and 1990 found that, for every 10 percent increase in roadway capacity, traffic increased 9 percent within four years' time. For anecdotal evidence; one need only look at commuting patterns in those cities with expensive new highway systems. USA Today published the following report on Atlanta: "For years, Atlanta tried to ward off traffic problems by building more miles of highways per capita than any other urban area except Kansas City…As a result of the area's sprawl, Atlantans now drive an average of 35 miles a day, more than residents of any other city."• This phenomenon, which is now well known to those members of the transportation industry who wish to acknowledge it, has come to be called induced traffic.
The mechanism at work behind induced traffic is elegantly explained by an aphorism gaining popularity among traffic engineers: "Trying to cure traffic congestion by adding more capacity is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt." Increased traffic capacity makes longer commutes less burdensome, and as a result, people are willing to live farther and farther from their workplace. As increasing numbers of people make similar decisions, the long-distance commute grows as crowded as the inner city, commuters clamor for additional lanes, and the cycle repeats itself. This problem is compounded by the hierarchical organization of the new roadways, which concentrate through traffic on as few streets as possible.
If traffic is to be discussed responsibly, it must first be made clear that the level of traffic which drivers experience daily and which they bemoan so vehemently is only as high as they are willing to countenance. If it were not, they would adjust their behavior and move, carpool, take transit, or just stay at home, as some choose to do. How crowded a roadway is at any given moment represents a condition of equilibrium between people's desire to drive and their reluctance to fight traffic. Because people are willing to suffer inordinately in traffic before seeking alternatives--other than clamoring for more highways--the state of equilibrium of all busy roads is to have stop-and-go traffic. The question is not how many lanes must be built to ease congestion but how many lanes of congestion would you want? Do you favor four lanes of bumper-to-bumper traffic at rush hour, or sixteen?
New Lanes Are Not the Answer: Avoiding Traffic Congestion Through Transportation Choices and Sound Planning Is. It is time for the leaders in Leland to stop practicing politics and get down to the business of governing. That is the real answer!
More information about formatting options