Consider that the theory states that traffic is unchanged because people will be incentivized to drive more because of less traffic. This is self contradictory - there can't be both less traffic and the same traffic.
Much of the point of public planning is that in practice that definition of need isn't one that really creates fantastic outcomes.
Cite this, I dare you.
edit: the part I'm not buying is the combination of "terrible" and "personal"
It matters little whether you're sitting on your but for 45min in a car or on a bus, you're still not getting exercise. That's not really "terrible" as it's something that can easily be counteracted unlike (for example) working in a loud environment for 45min twice per day without hearing protection.
The "terrible" stuff (accidents) isn't really personal because it only comes into play on a statistical level (seeing as most people will never be seriously injured in a vehicle accident)
Sorry people, you're living in a bubble. The vast, vast, VAST majority of people don't hate cars like the HN collective does.
People generally don't hate their own culture. But it's obvious from a european perspective that the US has an unhealthy obsession about cars. Not that we hate cars, but we don't worship them either.
And I don't think HN hates cars. All I've seen is people pointing out real issues. Maybe some exaggeration here and there, but everyone is guilty of that.
From my own personal experience(real life, not on-line), techies are by FAR more pro-car, and dismissive off traditional urbanism. Real Engineers outside software even more so. I think it is because suburban homes have a lot of space for all the crap tinkerers collect. Hobbies in this crowd tend to skew to things with stuff; drones, cars, ... A more introverted disposition may drive engineers to the quiet and seclusion of the suburbs too. Plus, engineers like to optimize things. Keep the process intact, but strive for less travel time, less fuel consumption, less pollution, less casualties. Hence electrical cars. Hence self-driving cars. But always "cars".
Not necessarily related to what you were saying, but I'll sneak it in anyway:
Traffic is not a technological challenge, it is a human one, with all the messiness that entails. An anthropologist can just as well study traffic (and propose solutions) as a traffic engineer. The big mistake in the US was to hand over the governance and implementation of our urban environment to technocrats. The planning profession has long since come around, precisely because often they were educated in sociology departments (Oh, the affront an engineer must feel when he has to justify building codes to this numbnut planner who probably only passed intro to stats by schmoozing with the TA!). Anyway, eventually the bureaucrats, legislators, and building professionals will come around too. But it requires for a lot of people to reject what they have - literally - bought into. The suburbs are NOT doomed though, there's a lot of good about it. But they are expensive. So the suburbs at all cost are most definitely coming at an end. Municipalities are strained financially, precisely because the financial obligations of maintaining car sprawl are high. On an individual level, the suburbs just cost a lot too. Everybody needs a car, maintenance & utilities costs of the home are born by just a single household, etc... The suburbs are massive social engineering, a federal project to promote home ownership and promote financial independence. Plus, a sprawling city would be more resilient should a nuclear war breakout, that paranoia was also something in the 50s. The home ownership part has succeeded, but the financial independence part has been a total failure.
In the USA the car is the solution to every city building problem. This is the problem as I see it.
Background Public health must continually respond to new threats reflecting wider societal changes. Ecological public health recognizes the links between human health and global sustainability. We argue that these links are typified by the harms caused by dependence on private cars.
Right there off the bat tells us that they have a political ideology that they're trying to justify with their "study".
(a note: you'd have a point if you're pointing out that "terrible" is exaggerated, but that would silly since it's obvious, so I'm assuming you think that there's no health benefit)
Obviously people use roads until the equilibrium of pain is met (like any economic decision). But, there is a point where you can supply so much capacity that there won't be traffic. It's a lie to say that no amount of capacity can overwhelm all forms of demand.
The only real question is how much road would it take to fully satisfy demand and what would that cost vs the alternatives. (Ignoring pollution issues)
The only reason there is induced demand is that the infrastructure is too small to support the way our cities and metro areas have evolved. Maybe the way they have evolved is a product of the Eisenhower Interstate highway system, but we're already invested in that infrastructure. It would take an inordinate amount of money, resources, and effort to relocate and redesign our cities than to just build the correct size (and number) of highways to support the population.
In addition - one thing that it seems highway planners rarely plan correctly for is growth. The population of the Washington DC metro area has grown from about 3 million in 1980 to over 6 million currently. Many of the highways are nearly the same size over that span.
What they failed to account for, however, is the growth of exburbs like Ashburn VA and other places even further out like Frederick MD.
These remote places are built by developers who literally put ZERO thought into infrastructure and what will happen to traffic and many other things when thousands of well-paid people move into their McMansions in the middle of nowhere.
They just buy up farmland from farmers who want to retire, sell a fake dream of idyllic rural living, plop down a bunch of cookie-cutter houses, then take the money and do all over again somewhere else. People have been finally getting wise to this anti-pattern (it was known in Maryland since the 90's) and the citylab article is an example.
While I too find some scorn for the McMansion culture, it is not really a local developers job or role to plan for medium to long distance infrastructure. I don't think it would even be legally possible for a private entity to take on a highway project that crossed multiple counties and/or states without a massive amount of support from local and state governments.
Also, I wouldn't call suburban and rural development an anti-pattern. Unless you want the cities to be double the density they already are, some people are going to have to live in the suburbs and rural parts of the country.
As far as # of daily metro rides. My point is that if the metro were shutdown, the highways in and around DC would be a nightmare and people would not enjoy travelling in or through it. Getting around in DC, without the metro, would BE INTRACTABLE.
As for developers, while it is not "their job" to plan for infrastructure, it is very disturbing that they can simply buy land for cheap, put down and sell thousands of homes and walk away while forcing the nearby cities to deal with the mess they made. In response, many localities are now pushing "smart growth", we simply can't allow developers to make short-term selfish choices and pass the long-term costs onto everyone else.
The biggest problem with these fees is that they are "local". Bedroom communities use these fees for local infrastructure, whereas a portion should be paid towards metro infrastructure.
Daily... so one commuter to work and back home counts as two? So the road enables 100,000 commuters, or somewhat less than that, if we subtract people who drive through during other times than commute hours.