I think one of the best arguments against “the notion traffic always expands to fully fill the capacity of the road network” is to notice the distinct lack of traffic congestion in rural areas.
If roads create traffic congestion, one would expect to find traffic congestion to be evenly distributed wherever you find roads. So rural areas with roads should have roughly the same levels of traffic congestion as central cities. This is obviously not true.
>>>It is axiomatic among urbanist activists and modern planners that cars are bad and that the central goal of urban planning should be to reduce car usage. Seldom do they subject this belief to critical scrutiny and see what a poor basis for policy it is.<<<
I subscribed for this quote alone. Very interesting article, thank you for sharing. I wish more economists writing about urban planning would address this.
>>>Because driving is now less expensive, consumers may prefer larger or more powerful cars, which are less fuel efficient. They may choose to drive more.<<<
Just wanted to add-- you missed a great example with the proliferation of BEV trucks. The new GMC Hummer battery electric truck has a curb weight of ~9,000lb. A standard Ford F-150 internal combustion engine truck has a curb weight of ~4000lb. Moving all that extra mass is energy intensive, and I think it is a great example of the rebound effect you describe in which the realized efficiency benefits are less than we originally expected.
This is a good piece on the issue. And research shows that for the narrow problem of congestion, neither road widening nor public transit resolve the issue. Congestion pricing, which you mention, is so far the only solution to the problem. It also nternalizes the externalites - pollution, congestion, noise etc. Lastly, it also speeds up the traffic that generates most economic value - commercial trucks and buses.
Great article.
I think one of the best arguments against “the notion traffic always expands to fully fill the capacity of the road network” is to notice the distinct lack of traffic congestion in rural areas.
If roads create traffic congestion, one would expect to find traffic congestion to be evenly distributed wherever you find roads. So rural areas with roads should have roughly the same levels of traffic congestion as central cities. This is obviously not true.
>>>It is axiomatic among urbanist activists and modern planners that cars are bad and that the central goal of urban planning should be to reduce car usage. Seldom do they subject this belief to critical scrutiny and see what a poor basis for policy it is.<<<
I subscribed for this quote alone. Very interesting article, thank you for sharing. I wish more economists writing about urban planning would address this.
>>>Because driving is now less expensive, consumers may prefer larger or more powerful cars, which are less fuel efficient. They may choose to drive more.<<<
Just wanted to add-- you missed a great example with the proliferation of BEV trucks. The new GMC Hummer battery electric truck has a curb weight of ~9,000lb. A standard Ford F-150 internal combustion engine truck has a curb weight of ~4000lb. Moving all that extra mass is energy intensive, and I think it is a great example of the rebound effect you describe in which the realized efficiency benefits are less than we originally expected.
This is a good piece on the issue. And research shows that for the narrow problem of congestion, neither road widening nor public transit resolve the issue. Congestion pricing, which you mention, is so far the only solution to the problem. It also nternalizes the externalites - pollution, congestion, noise etc. Lastly, it also speeds up the traffic that generates most economic value - commercial trucks and buses.
The problem with the cars/buss picture is that it assumes all those people want to go to the exact same place at the exact same time.