So basically, there should be no 3-lane roads anywhere in a region of 21 million people? Because if you’re against 3 lanes here, then I can’t see how you would possibly justify 3 lanes in any roadway in the region (or country/world for that matter).
No one is arguing against the amount of existing (and growing) travel demand in this region.
However, adding a 3rd general travel lane onto this stretch of road is something that’s ultimately going to do nothing to relieve congestion, encourage modal shift, improve air quality, reduce traffic collisions etc. (all things that transit improves)
Speaking of transit, you’re right that PATH and light rail don’t currently serve enough destinations to realistically replace enough car trips. But THAT’S one of the points we’re trying to make.
We’re saying that this project is a prime example of WHY transit sucks in this country. Because for the past century, 99 times out of 100, we build or widen roads to improve circulation instead of improving other modes of transit. Which is a short sighted and ineffective solution that, compounded over decades, has left us with a transportation system completely reliant on cars.
If we wanted to change this project in a way that might reduce congestion, why not add protected bus lanes?
It’s also worth noting that induced demand happens because people aren’t water molecules traveling through a pipe. They make decisions about how, when, and where they travel based on preference.
I say that because the opposite of induced demand (Reduced Demand) is a real thing too. Essentially, if you do a road diet and reduce throughput, less people will travel on that road rather than the road becoming more congested. You can look up San Francisco’s Embarcadero and NYC’s west side highway as examples of this. Essentially, they just reduced lanes and made the streets more people focused and they became safer roads with more people-centric options like bike lanes, wide sidewalks and better bus service.
Point is, we’re arguing about the systemic long-term problem that continues to get ignored in favor of these short-sighted widening schemes. If they add a 3rd lane here, which it looks like they will, we’ll be right back here in 10 years with someone saying, “But there’s demand for a 4th lane! Why not just build one more?”
4 Likes
You’re right about this, which is the point we’ve all made. This is why service expansions are needed. PATH has been continuously running its service into the ground with less frequent trains, and NJ Transit keeps hiking fares to try and run the bare minimum of service due to a continual lack of investment. These agencies could have the potential to displace even more car trips if they were allowed to expand service and given the appropriate funding to do so. The money saved by only replacing the bridge and not widening it, acquiring property to facilitate the scheme and other unnecessary extras could be given to the transit agencies to upgrade their vehicles and make service more reliable.
Good example of preference: Induced demand is not an immediate effect but it is something that is inevitable with any road expansion - people will see that the new widened road has “less” congestion and now it will encourage more driving trips that otherwise would have been avoided since there is now an illusion that the road has less traffic. All these people who heard about the “less congestion” will bring the congestion back, and we return to square one.
You’re seeing the fact that NJ is aware of induced demand. We are all aware of continual population growth, but we should not be incentivising more people to drive when other options should be expanded instead. That “growth” in drivers is also due to more drivers being incentivised to use this road due to the false illusion of 'reduced congestion, ’ which is how induced demand often works.
2 Likes