|
|
| Nonprofit founded in 1988 |
|
|
New Roads = More Traffic, Studies Say by Jan Lundberg Whether in Europe or the States, the verdict is in: New roads donít help congestion, and, new lanes add congestion. Traffic increases thanks to the new, open capacity, as more cars get rolling and polluting. More and more of us ask, why extend the vulnerable infrastructure and cover up more arable land, when the economy marches toward collapse? The British government did a major study and concluded that new roads do not reduce traffic congestion long term. All of Britainís towns are required by law to reduce their own traffic. (Hello, U.S. government?!) Last year a report was issued by the Surface Transportation Policy Project, basing its findings on a Texas Transportation Institute study. One suburban newspaper in the San Francisco area carried the headline ìStudy: Adding highway lanes means adding congestionî. Quoted were critics with the paving interests who distorted the goals of paving moratorium advocates as demanding all transportation funding go to transit and bike paths. Actually, if we are successful in calling for prioritizing the repair of existing roads, thatís enough to monkey wrench more roadbuilding while saving enough funding for alternatives. The road interests offered a telling explanation for the worsening traffic found in most American sprawlvilles: ìpopulation growth and the robust economy.î Blame- shifting can illuminate. Road fighters are almost all against population growth and the disastrous
excess of the waste economy. Demographers and immigration-studies groups
have recently revealed the biggest growth factor in U.S. overpopulation, that of new Americansí arrivals and their higher birth rates. Congress
may never curb legal immigration as long as big corporations can demand
more low-cost workers and more consumers brought in to buy corporate products.
But we must still deal with current overpopulation, at least by stopping
one of its effects: sprawl. Recognition is also
The Sierra Club and other groups are on the anti-sprawl bandwagon. Some, such as the NRDC, support ìSmart Growthî which dances around a paving moratorium (see their Amicus Journal Winter 1999, my letter). It is no mere coincidence that mainstream environmental groups handle our ìradicalî transportation position the same way they treat U.S. population growthólike hot potatoes. - JCL |
|
|
|
