In the latest round of environmental review versus the world (or do it my way legislation), the boxers are the almighty climate combatants versus those who request a road expansion. I should qualify. When I say ‘request,’ I mean demonstrated demand through usage. If the roadways are full, then it’s safe to say that the participants find travel along that freeway by car best suits their needs. Once vehicles come to a standstill on a commute, they are polluting an extra amount by idling. Managing the road system to facilitate flow keeps emissions lower.
A new law passed last year requires an environmental review before authorizing a roadway enlargement. Calculating a social cost at the time of the transaction, like a road installation, is an interesting thing to do. It should be done in conjunction with calculating of all the other benefits prompt and efficient transporation offers, such as getting the elderly to their doctors’ appointments or kids to their extra-circular activities, as well as getting commuters to their jobs.
Residents are dong that all the time. Cars cost money to own and maintain. Consumers will use them when they are their best option. Denying a population access to a road enlargement pushes them to substitute less desireable options. These are less attractive not because of their love affairs with the car, but most probably because they eat into their time and ability to achieve their other daily tasks.
If the goal is to reduce trip miles, then study populations who achieve success at all their goals while using the fewest miles. How is their matrix of choices allowing this to happen? What are their priorities and how did they achieve them. I can promiss one answer. It isn’t because a bureaucrat squeezed their road improvement project.
Home Economics 