This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Wait, no. That’s the opposite of the point I was making. I-35 through downtown Austin is 3 lanes each direction. It’s awful. That’s the same width as I-35 through rural areas between San Antonio and Waco.
You seem to have fallen for the “induced demand” meme. No, the demand is already there. People want to live in the suburbs and work downtown. If throughput were increased, more people would be able to do that. The welfare of the area would be increased. People wouldn’t have to pay massive rent for shitty apartments near their work. Not to mention the fact that I-35 is, you know, an Interstate. People hate driving through Austin. Other Texas cities with functional freeway systems are objectively easier to get around.
It's not a meme; it's basic economics which is also backed up by fairly overwhelming empirical evidence.
Given Austin's zoning map, a correct statement would be "Austinites are largely prohibited from living anywhere except a suburb or right in the middle of downtown." Also, people may "want"* to live in the suburbs and drive into downtown, but that's not possible. Doubling freeway capacity would not change that, because it is literally impossible to fit the whole population into cars. They simply take up too much space.
*I put "want" in scare quotes because rarely do such people want to pay all of the costs associated with doing so.
No, it would be a net decrease, because the cost of doing so would be very high, and those resources could be more efficiently used elsewhere. It would suck for anyone who currently lives in the area and has to deal with additional car traffic, construction, and possibly have their property sized to make room. It would separate downtown from East Austin even more, etc.
There's no reason to have the only interstate go straight through downtown. Lots of cities have interstates that go around the core. San Antonio has 410. Houston has 610 and I think others I don't recall the number of. DFW has 635, 20, and again I think others. Elsewhere, 95 goes totally around Boston, while 90 and 93 go into the city. Austin only has 45, which isn't an interstate and is a toll road, so all the trucks and other thru traffic go through the city even though it's slower.
No, it isn't. Here's a good video by an economist covering it.
I guess if the induced demand argument was rephrased to "in places that already see infrastructure being used, it is likely that people will, eventually, fill the new capacity once new capacity is built" it would be less objectionable. But then it doesn't mean that the solution is automatically "just don't build anything, ever". It may as very well just be to limit the flow of immigration to this area.
You can also make the more subtle argument that, in specific cases, the costs of widening a road are not worth the benefits compared with the alternatives, but I don't buy that as a fully-general argument for all roads everywhere.
I cannot find any information on EE's background; what is the basis for calling him an "economist"? The channel has spawned a number of threads on /r/badeconomics (e.g. https://old.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/mt3emq/economics_explained_thinks_theres_us/, https://old.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/jg5gpf/economics_explained_on_heres_why_supply_and/,
https://old.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/j8p85o/misleading_with_statistics_how_economics/) so I'm definitely not going to take that channel's word for anything. Speaking of BE, here is a thread which points out that ID is, in fact, just basic supply and demand analysis (and that it doesn't really need a separate name).
This video never addresses actual arguments for ID or the best evidence. In fact, it seems to agree that the elasticity of demand is basically 1, which is true. It A) makes a semantic argument about whether "induced" is a good term, and then B) misrepresents the empirical evidence. For example, following this video, you would think there's only been 1 or 2 studies of ID, one of which just looked at increases in road miles and driving over time, but this is not the case. No citations are provided, either, to check any of his following claims
Who is saying this?
That wouldn't stop the existing residents from using the infrastructure more. And would be a terrible solution for other reasons.
That "more subtle" argument is what I've been trying to convey in this thread--it's almost certainly net negative to double the width of I-35 through downtown Austin, but also for many other similar road projects. You also seem to be missing that a lot of people do expect congestion to be reduced.
Induced demand is often the justification for opposing road widening projects, or even supporting demolishing roads (a "road diet"). I'm not sure what else the conclusion would be, if you not only legitimately believed the version where roads always fill up immediately once you build them, but also that demand would just magically decrease if you took away roads.
I know that it's also used in the reverse direction to justify building buses, bike lanes, etc. Apparently for those modes, the demand that's been "induced" doesn't end up stressing the network to the point of congestion like it would for cars and roads (not sure why; maybe it's just because they're always fundamentally slower than driving?). Regardless, I still think it's justified to describe induced demand as an anti-YIMBY/pro-NIMBY/anti-building/pro-demolishing sentiment, as most of the time, it's invoked as an argument against car infrastructure. If I were making an argument for building bike infrastructure, I would rather argue that the demand is already there, just suppressed.
For what reason would existing residents start using the infrastructure more? Sure, you might see an increase from latent demand, but latent demand is the exact thing that's going to be suppressed when congestion is too high. If it was just latent demand, then the highway wouldn't end up being congested again. It would at worst only reach the point just before travel times significantly start slowing down.
I can think of a few reasons (and this was just me coming up with a third alternative), but let me put it this way: When you have a lot of people in an area, it ends up placing a huge demand on transportation infrastructure. For example, you can look at photo after photo of overcrowded train in Mumbai, India. Is the solution to build more trains? Well, where are you gonna put the trains and tracks? You'll end up having to demolish apartment blocks to do so, but that's introducing the same negative externalities of many road widening projects.
I know Quantumfreakonomics was proposing to double the width, but personally, I believe it would be more reasonable to only add 1 or 2 lanes instead (it looks like there's enough space for it on many parts of the freeway that are at grade with the surface).
In the first few years before population growth catches up, yes. Similar situation with the Katy freeway widening.
Induced demand is an argument against expansions because reducing congestion is a common argument in favor.
I'm not sure if you just haven't ever looked up the actual capacity of different methods or what, but a slower method being less congested doesn't make sense. Their made advantage is that they take up vastly less space per person, space being extremely valuable and limited in more populated areas. (Also, transit naturally lends itself to congestion pricing--if major roads had toll roads with congestion pricing, that would substantially reduce congestion!).
If you equate "building" with "car infrastructure" that's just your issue. You can build things other than highways.
It's not the same, because you can fit vastly more capacity into less space. Trains also often go underground, although I don't think most US cities need that.
What is the point of a 7 billion dollar, multi-year project that will be obsolete in less time than it took to complete?
So... ignoring externalities, it's okay to widen roads as long as it's for the right reason? (e.g. not to reduce congestion, but to be able to let more people go where they want to go)
And again, I see proposals all the time for demolishing roads, or road diets, based off of induced demand too. It's not just an argument against expansion, it's an argument in favor of de-expansion. (But of course they also bring up externalities to argue for de-expansion too, not just induced demand.)
Interesting infographic, but what's the actual usage of those modes? If you're going to make the argument that they take up less space per person, you need to take into account actual usage, and not just theoretical capacity. (And for a true apples-to-apples comparison, you also need to make sure you're comparing trips with origins and destinations in the same places.) For example, for buses, the space taken up often ends up being higher than cars if there's low ridership and the buses are bigger than necessary.
And - assuming they do take up less space per person - so what? They just don't get congested from magically induced demand if they take up less space? I still don't understand why demand doesn't just magically get induced to the point that the trains are overcrowded like they are in Mumbai. They may take up less space... but then doesn't that just mean more people will be crammed in? If a highway had only motorcycle traffic and was completely congested, then gets widened and the demand gets magically induced, wouldn't the highway be once again congested with motorcycle traffic, even though motorcycles take up less space than cars?
So you would be okay with widening roads if the roads were tolled with congestion pricing?
Sure, but the cost of bulldozing is likely still the same, depending on the way the buildings next to the tracks were built. (You can't just demolish only half a building.)
To build trains underground (such as a subway system), you would need to first knock down the buildings, then build the tunnels, then re-build the buildings. Which ends up being even worse than just knocking down the buildings and not re-building them, instead just building the new tracks on the surface.
A lot of the cost (including time) is from general cost disease, which sadly plagues American public transit too (e.g. Paris's transit budget is lower than NYC's but they get more stuff done). But again, it's only obsolete if you only care about reducing congestion and not about providing more people the ability to travel through the highway.
I think "it will actually accomplish the goal you claim to want to accomplish" is kind of a bare minimum. I don't know why this is suck a sticking point.
I'm sure there are cases where expanding a road is the right call; it just isn't common.
Ok, and? Yes, in or near a growing city, especially, you want more space available to housing, stores, offices, etc. 50 years ago Austin's population was a 1/4 million, now it's 1 million and still growing. Space has become more valuable and it's a lot more likely that transit makes economic sense (not that it actually takes a huge city to make transit viable).
Sure; actual usage depends on how the city is designed. If you build massive roads everywhere (even in the middle of downtown), force the buses to sit in traffic, have one tram line with a handful of stops, subsidize parking, require private entities to provide excessive parking, legally ban dense housing in most places, etc. then people will drive a lot. If you don't do that, then people will use other methods of transportation.
Similarly, if the roads are congested, actual capacity will also be much lower. 2,000 cars per hour per lane, or a bit less than 2 seconds between vehicles, is about the absolute maximum when traffic is free-flowing (and already isn't particularly safe
It is easy to increase capacity on transit, for example by adding more frequent train service. (Note that adding lanes to a highway makes it less pleasant for each user, since they have to move over more lanes, while adding trains makes it more pleasant for each train rider, since they have to wait less).
It's also easy to implement congestion pricing on transit, which many places already do. If you did this on the highways, you would see reduced traffic.
It's possible for transit to carry vastly more people (see capacity infographic above), which means the point where it becomes overcrowded is much later, and only achieved in a few places. Every city in the world has car traffic, because the threshold of how many cars you can put in a city is so small. Most cities are literally never going to be Mumbai.
That would be an improvement (still wouldn't solve the other issues)... but again, with congestion pricing, you wouldn't have so much congestion to begin with, that's the whole point!
You could replace some of the existing road. There's quite a lot of it near the highway, frontage roads are common in Texas. I-35 through most of Austin is 2-4 lanes of frontage road each side, plus 3-4 lanes of highway.
So this is the best way to have people get around? Sitting around in constant traffic, completely wasting thousands of hours of human life every single day, in every single city? But they can get places... eventually. Sounds completely dystopian.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Let's say we add the new lanes, and congestion stays the same, and travel times stay the same. Is this a failure?
Let's say you have a single supermarket in a town. It's too crowded, the lines are always long. A second supermarket opens in a town. There's enough demand that, now, both supermarkets are too crowded, and the lines are too long. Is this bad? No, it's strictly an improvement - more people are buying food now! And the supermarket makes more money!
The same is true of 'induced demand' - the goal of 'reduce congestion' wasn't accomplished, but a separate goal of 'more people getting to where they want to' was. The extra people who drive on the new highway are benefitting greatly from the change - they can now get to places they couldn't before!
That's ... not a net decrease. That's a 'suboptimal policy'. It's only a net decrease if those resources would be used more efficiently elsewhere absent the highway. Which, I think you would agree when looking at the rest of the city budget, they're not likely to be any time soon.
A net decrease would require comparing that 'dealing with additional traffic' to the new jobs or new activities the people the additional traffic brings, or the economic benefits from the businesses employing / serving the additional traffic. And ... I can't see how that comes out net negative. Having your property sized does suck, yeah, and I'm not sure how to factor that cost in - but that's basically a universal cost of development, so it doesn't obviously bring the total negative.
I think the induced demand idea comes from the observation that while travel times for things like trains are fairly stiff as utilization approaches capacity, roads tend to see a large increase in travel times when approaching capacity. I don't think it's aptly described by induced demand, but it is likely rather frustrating that an increase in capacity is just that, with no decrease in travel times. This is an especially bitter truth because the total throughput may be maximised at less than full capacity.
Yeah. If the only cost one pays to drive is in travel time, and more people want to use the road at 0 congestion than can, congestion will be the 'price' that rises until the market clears. And if the supply curve is X people can use the road at 0 congestion, but X * 1.05 people can use the road at high congestion ... if the demand curve is in the wrong place, everyone can end up with high congestion. But this isn't a "distributive effect" as it'd be if it was a toll price extracting surplus value, because nobody's "getting" the lost time to congestion, it's just burned.
I'm not entirely sure what a 'full capacity but not max throughput' road looks like? (genuine question as opposed to rhetorical)
I wouldn't be surprised if past a certain point congestion decreased capacity.
A traffic jam.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I missed some of these comments from before.
"Don't tax people as much" is pretty efficient. You can make any project at all seem good by comparing it to something even worse, but this isn't a high standard.
You're not counting any of the money spent as part of the net negative. If we could teleport roads in for free, then yeah, that be a different calculation. But the roads are free to drive on, which means they are being used above the level which is economically efficient, and building more lanes would just exacerbate the problem. This is what I mean by net negative: We're spending more and more money for what is, yes, a fairly marginal benefit. You know what would let a lot more people commute faster, with fewer externalities? A train.
Let me ask you this: Is there any domain where this argument doesn't apply? Should the government supply every good at 0 cost to the consumer? Because I'm pretty sure that communism doesn't work very well.
By this reasoning, any salaried employee is also being used above the level which is economically efficient, at least if the employer has a choice of what assignments to give the employee.
...what?
The roads are paid for. They are just not paid for on a per-mile basis; travelling more doesn't mean you pay more.
If paying for something, but not proportionately to its use, makes it be used above its economically efficient level, that argument also applies to other things paid for in such a fashion. Such as salaried employees.
(Actually, gas taxes pay for roads and they are proportional to miles driven, but ignore that for now.)
A salaried employee is, at least for now, an actual human, and thus capable of affecting how much work it actually does. But, this argument absolutely applies to other things. Education and health care are 2 notable examples--the consumer rarely pays anything close to the actual cost, which results in overconsumption and inefficiency (for some reason I feel like I would get way less pushback on The Motte if I made the same argument for these domains...).
Gas taxes only pay for a fraction of road costs and gas consumed is only roughly related to road cost imposed. It also has very little to do with any externalities, like noise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If your goal is to reduce congestion, which is typically a major stated goal of these projects, then yes, it's clearly a failure.
I don't think this statement means anything, but also there is no "market" here. The state government just wants to build more highway, regardless of costs or benefits.
I don't know why every time I end up in a discussion about roads on here, all of the car enthusiasts use the same analogy as if I don't understand that more people driving means that more people are going places. That's not the question. The question is how this particular use of space, money, and time compares to alternatives. It's like offering starving people 1,000-dollar truffle mushrooms as food, and then when someone points out that 98% of them are still starving because you could only afford to feed 2%, you pat yourself on the back because, well, you fed some people, right?
Plus, you can't just completely ignore everyone except for the group who benefits. What about the businesses and homes that would be subsumed by the wider freeway? Are they better off? What about people who live in East Austin and would like to be able to get into downtown without driving? What about people who can't or don't want to drive?
Okay, lets bring some numbers into it. I-35 through downtown has an average annual daily traffic count (AADT) of 150,000-200,000. The widest section of the Katy Freeway in Houston has an AADT of about 300,000. It seems plausible that if we doubled the width of I-35 we could get an AADT of 250,000-300,000 before experiencing the current level of congestion. That's 50,000 extra commuters (since AADT measures traffic both ways). To put that in perspective, 50,000 is 4% of the entire population of Travis County. Suppose an entire city block has to be demolished the whole length of the freeway through the county, does that directly impact 50,000 people? Do 4% of the county's citizens live or work directly adjacent to the East side of I-35? It's not like these people are thrown into the fires of Mordor either. The massively increased throughput will open up development opportunities further away from the city center, increasing the supply of housing and driving down rents.
Having your business seized is probably much worse than being able to live in a slightly further out area is good, and destroying the downtown makes it less valuable to everyone, including the new commuters, but as I tried to describe in my replies to curious, the main issue is cost. 7.5 billion is $140,000 per commuter. Another issue is just time--Austin's population increased by 200,000 between 2005 and 2015 (corresponding to each of those commuters supporting a family of 4, though in reality this is generous since families aren't that big any more). Are you going to build another 4 lanes every <10 years? Constant construction, until the whole of downtown is pavement?
The problem isn't being too far from the city, it's limitations on development. There's enormous amounts of underdeveloped land extremely close to downtown. Destroying an apartment building close to downtown so you can build more sprawling houses far away is a terrible way to reduce rents. Similarly, development opportunities far away are much less valuable. Like, this is just so backwards--let's destroy development downtown so we can build slightly more very far away? Should we just not have cities at all?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
By market I meant "the supermarket", not a market in the economy sense, sorry
Well, that's the main stated goal because 'people who do not shop or live or work here, but will after we do ' isn't a particularly valuable constituency for local politics, whereas 'people who live here and want driving to be easier is'. But ... imagine we expand the highways, but we track everyone who uses the highway & their frequency of use in the preceding months, and ban anyone from using the highway more frequently than they did in the past. This would ensure congestion is relieved. But seems dumb, precisely because 'existing people driving a bit faster' seems worse than 'more people using the highway'?
If all the transit-urbanism claims are true and that money should go into efficiently constructed subways instead, and if doing so would cause road use to be demanded so much less that current congestion dries up ... strong assumptions, but then yes, the current highway expansion would be pointless. But given that alternative isn't happening, and both lack of political will and existing dysfunction in construction in the US make it unlikely to happen soon. Whereas the highway expansion is happening. So outside of that, what better alternatives are there for that money, do you think?
It makes the question of 'should we stop handing out the truffle mushrooms'? And - if you're an individual who has that power, yes, you should simultaneously stop buying truffles and start buying rice. But given I don't have that power, I don't see how advocating against building the highway helps much - because if the highway stops, the existing (stronger) forces preventing better (i am assuming they are better for this discussion, haven't thought enough to be sure) forms of transit won't suddenly dissipate, we'll be arguably worse off, without expanded highways or better transit
Ok, the combined revenue (or profit) of the 2 markets is higher than of the single supermarket before. Yes, but this doesn't tell us anything. There is no corresponding value in the analogy, because the roads are free to use. There's also no way to know, in this case, what the correct number of roads actually is, because again there is no market (general definition).
A ban is dumb, but there should be congestion pricing. Keeping the highway uncongested is actually relatively valuable, because it increases throughput. But again, the real problem is that you will never build enough highways. It is impossible.
As the article I linked mentioned, the city recently passed a bond to fund more transit. But overall, I find this logic fairly circular, like when liberal groups use endless litigation to drive up the cost of the death penalty, and then try to have the death penalty banned because it's so expensive. Part of the reason transit is so expensive is because of people who want to build more roads instead. (For what it's worth, I don't think most US cities need a subway. Light rail is fine, and even in the US that compares pretty well in terms of cost per mile per passenger's worth of capacity).
The city is working on better transit, and either project will certainly take years, if not decades, to complete, and probably be subject to substantial opposition and delays. Overall it seems like your argument boils down to "building roads has more existing political support, so let's keep providing more political support to building more roads" which, again, seems circular.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The market in this case is utility enjoyed by people living where they prefer.
...what? I have no idea what you're trying to say. This is just a non sequitur.
People derive enjoyment from certain living arrangements? This seems pretty uncontroversial to me. Some people may like trees, some may like an upper floor on a tall building, some may like having a garage or a big back yard or a pool or a huge basement or space for their mother in law to live with them but in a physically different structure or any of a zillion other things.
The amount of enjoyment is measured by economists as utility. People might or might not trade something they really like like eating less pizza for something else they like like a skinny waist or giving up a short commute to get some housing feature they prefer. These trade decisions are just as much market decisions as trades purely done with currency they just involve trades of utility, too.
Just because no dollars are exchanged it's still a trade which means it's effectively a market, and the same tools we use to study currency based markets work to study utility markets, it's just harder to directly observe prices.
What trades are you talking about? What does any of this have to do with the subject at hand? I'm well aware of what utility is and the fact that people have preferences, but you haven't explained how any of it relates to roads.
People trade more time commuting for a home that has some feature they value with more utility than one that would have a shorter commute.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link