Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (150708)	8/30/2002 4:47:17 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1585756

Tim, on the surface it might look that way but in reality, new roads, specifically freeways, begat more traffic. On the surface and all the way down to the core. Sure in one simplistic sense more roads cause more traffic, if there where no roads no one would be driving (except a few off roaders), but having more roads decreases the traffic density it doesn't increase it. You get less cars waiting in traffic jams dumping out tons of pollution. Tim, on the contrary, the new roads attract more cars and density increases quickly on them. Initially, surface streets benefit as cars leave them for the freeways. However, as the freeways get to over capacity, the overflow moves back down to the surface streets. This is true even for cities that are not growing quickly like Kansas or St. Louis....and for cities experiencing serious growth, traffic is becoming a nightmare. Our love affair with the car is like an out of control cancer. Building more roads does not solve the problem......it makes it worse. I am not sure what will get people out of their cars. We need to put a heavy tax on it like in Europe but up til now, our politicians haven't had the cajones to do it. Consequently, in many American cities, traffic is approaching gridlock. ted