John David Galt wrote:


This sort of red neck car driver attitude does not get you anywhere.
First of all, population is shrinking, not growing in most western
societies, only the number of cars is growing.

Not true in "most western societies", just backward old Europe.

If you look at the statistics published by the UN, population is
shrinking in most western societies. The US are in so far an exception
as the decline in birth rate is slightly overcompensated by immigration.

If one looks at recent developments one could argue that it is the US
that are backward, but that is OT.


I laugh as the EU tries to federalize more and more functions in a
pathetic attempt to imitate the economic success of the USA, when it
can never work as long as the residents of Europe insist on clinging
to its two biggest trade impediments: its high degree of socialism
and its multiple languages. But I digress.

Very few countries in Europe are socialist any more, this economic
theory has been discredited 10-15 years ago. Maybe some US citizens,
with their well documented interest in international affairs, have
failed to notice.


Second, experience shows that building new roads does not solve the
problem of congestion, because as soon as a new road opens, it gets
clogged by additional traffic.

This only shows that the roads built were too few and too late. You
need to build enough to catch up with all the pent-up demand. So do
we, lately; the Greens are starting to ruin the US as they have
already ruined Europe.

If that were the correct explanation, shutting down roads should
increase traffic problems. Experience however shows that it improves the
situation (for examle London).


Thirdly, appart from financial considerations there are other limits on
road building. Pollution levels and land use for roads can not be
increased indefinetly, in particular in the densely populated areas of
Europe.

Road space can be increased indefinitely without expanding land use
simply by stacking them up several levels high, as in Chicago's Loop
district.

At considerable expense. Goverments should spend their money on more
useful things than megalomanic traffic projects, which only increase the
problems (see above).


Or all of your obsolete, pre-automotive cities can start
making room for needed roads by taking a good dose of wrecking-ball
therapy .

This would be an act of barbaric vandalism. You should actually travel
to some of those cities with medeval core, and see the character and
living quality they have, especially those were motorised traffic has
been reduced. Then you can come back here.


As for pollution, the bureaucrats who plan land use should figure out
that causing congestion by not building enough roads only worsens
pollution. If I can drive straight to my destination and park, I
pollute a lot less than if I have to sit in traffic with my engine
idling for an extra hour.

As we have demonstrated above, building more roads does not reduce
congestion, instead you get more cars ideling around, hence more
pollution.

It simply isn't reasonable to insist that people walk or bike. It's
needless work, and anyone with a brain will move, or break the law,
rather than comply.

This may be true for a small minority of brain-amputated red necks, but
the vast majority of people will enjoy the environment thus created. My
suggestion would be that you spend a week or two in one of those cities
that have limited car traffic and encouraged cicling and public
transport (Muenster/Germany comes to mind), and see for yourself.