I am glad to hear that "complete the streets" is starting to gain momentum. But one paragraph sounds fishy to me:
> A recent study by the Texas Transportation Institute found that providing > more travel options, including public transportation, bicycling and > walking facilities, is an important element in reducing traffic > congestion. The study reported that congestion was responsible for an > annual $78.2 billion loss in fuel during traffic jams in 2005, > an increase from $57.6 billion in 2000. The funny thing about this "wasted fuel" is that suburbanites are going to arrange their lifestyle to arrive at a 20-25 minute commute, be it through congestion or wide open roads. So long as they are spending that 20-25 minutes burning fuel, the only difference is the additional fuel used starting and stopping in congestion, not the driving time. Similar arguments could be made about "wasted time" in congestion. In the end, congestion may actually act to curb sprawl by reducing the amount of distance suburbanites can cover in that 20-25 minutes. However I am sure that to the "I am entitled to wide open roads 24/7" crowd, this message is appealing - however misleading - since wide open roads never stay that way for long due to induced demand. _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
