Road design, transportation and walkability

[danbrotherston]

Incorrect, if Dan is anything like me.

There are many people with whom I disagree that are very much worth talking to. Sometimes I learn things; sometimes they learn things; sometimes both. Even if we still disagree, we have an increased understanding after the discussion.

But if somebody comes along denying basic facts and refuses to look at the evidence, then an enlightening conversation is unlikely. We see this in just about every scientific field, where there is usually vigorous debate among scientists about just about every topic. Then some flat-Earther, creationist, or homeopath (to name just a few) comes along and spews out their contribution. Not welcome, and not helpful.

To get back to the first I wrote about — “incorrect” — I don’t use it just whenever I disagree with someone. It is reserved for when somebody has said something that is objectively, factually, wrong as far as I can tell.

If somebody thinks many more highways should be built, then I disagree, but I wouldn’t call them “incorrect”. If they think that building highways is cheap compared to other ways of moving people, however, then they are factually incorrect and I won’t hesitate to say so.

Just to start with, I happen to agree with both Dan and you on the topic of induced demand. If either of you think that the majority of the general population have heard of induced demand, or intuitively believe it to be correct, I think you are misinformed. If this is WLUs first time hearing of induced demand then I think you should be happy with his approach of attempting to understand "both sides" and trying to create an informed opinion. If the facts are truly, obviously, and undeniably on "our side", then you shouldn't have much problem convincing him of that. The self-righteous "the facts are obvious, stop being an idiot" approach isn't going to convince anyone.

Dan, if you truly don't have the energy to debate to topic, but have the energy to insult someone trying to understand it, then I think it would be more convincing to not post at all.

I don't mean to insult anyone with this post, but the reason the government continues build infrastructure in a way that you feel is wrong is because the general population doesn't agree with you. You have to convince them otherwise.

I absolutely have the energy and time to try to explain it to someone who is trying to understand it. It was very clear from their comment where they call "That whole "induce more traffic"" quote "nonsense", and then spend a whole paragraph explaining why they believe it is "nonsense", that they are not interested in trying to understand it, and it certainly didn't sound like it was their first time hearing about it. They already have a belief about it, and aren't about to let that be challenged.  Sometimes I'll take the time to pick apart someone's bad beliefs for the benefit of others, but in this forum, I already know most others understand the phenomenon so there is no value in doing that either, but I don't believe challenging someone's beliefs is effective, and it isn't learning.

Further, I don't really believe that calling someone out on their anti-science views is "insulting".

And believing in induced demand has nothing to do with what infra is built, that's a choice, and opinion, that we can discuss, but the fact that building more and bigger roads creates more usage of those roads isn't an opinion or a position, it's just a measurable empirical fact. There are people who will pick and choose their facts in order to support their beliefs, those people, also not worth discussing.

I don't deny the fact that cars have, in our history, been a component of opening up enormous economic potential for people, even though it would be easier to support my positions if that wasn't true, but it's a simple fact, that I cannot deny.  Instead, I must account for this in my beliefs, my beliefs bend to reality, I don't try not to bend reality to my beliefs.