If people are being diverted from side streets to the highway because the highway is now wider, then that means side streets are cleared up. Not to mention the people who were taking side streets can now enjoy a quicker commute on the highway
In: Engineering
I think the major thing missing from the argument is population growth. If 10,000 new homes are built in the suburbs that will result in many new trips. If you don’t build more lanes people who weren’t using it before will now be using it. Also for things like commuting to work people will go there even if the roads are congested. One of the main highways near me got widened about 25 years ago from 2 to 4 lanes each way and it is still better even though there have been lots of new homes built at the edges of the suburbs. Ideally there would be other options like mass transit but if there isn’t people will drive if they have to.
The infrastructure currently being built directs future growth.
If a highway is built then factories and big box stores build as close to it as possible. Then houses get built outside of town that require longer drives. Ending up with a line with housing development on the outside, then mixed factories/large shopping centers, then the old city center. The parts of town not near the highway become less desirable and begin to decay.
If a grid of mixed smaller residential and commercial roads are built then a town ends up with a more distributed commercial district with factories and big box stores moving to the edge of town. This spreads the traffic load out among many smaller streets.
Ultimately using highways to reduce commuting time fails as it concentrates the traffic, creates dangerous bottlenecks at exits and pulls the population further away from their destinations creating more driving.
Truck drivers will still clog up the left lanes. The highway could be 20 lanes and they will still ride side by side at or under the speed limit for miles at a time.
Latest Answers