Nope! Expanded highways attract more car trips, which inevitably slows traffic down again. You can blame induced demand, a theory that economists (but not construction-loving state DOTs) have long accepted. bloomberg.com/news/features/…
Myth 2⃣: "94% of human crashes are caused by human error"
Nope! Blaming the driver alone lets others off the hook, including engineers who design dangerous roads, car companies building heavier & taller SUVs/trucks, and cities underinvesting in sidewalks.
Nope! Wealthier people drive much more than low-income people. If you want to help the latter, invest in transit and sidewalks (which is what New York City intends to do with its congestion pricing revenue). usa.streetsblog.org/2019/01/30/con…
Myth 4⃣: "Gas taxes pay for highways"
Nope! Gas taxes don’t raise nearly enough for all we spend on roadways, forcing Congress to draw billions of $$ from general revenues. That means all of us are paying for highways—even if we don’t drive on them. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
Myth 5⃣: "Americans love cars"
Nope! (or at least not necessarily) This myth comes from a Groucho Marx line in 1961. In reality, sprawl and shoddy transit give most Americans no alternative but to drive. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
For those in DC, this will be in the Outlook section of Sunday's print paper.
In @Slate, my take on the controversy around Dr. Missy Cummings’ appointment at @NHTSAgov — and what it means for the Biden admin's ability to address the recklessness of Tesla Autopilot and Full-Self Driving.
A Duke professor and human factors expert, Cummings is well qualified for the role, which requires working w/carmakers, tech co's, gov officials, and advocacy groups.
A backlash has come from the company whose pattern of disregarding safety gives it the most to lose: Tesla.
Cummings has been vocal about the dangers of Autopilot and Full-Self Driving (I interviewed her for this piece last December).
But that doesn't mean she's biased -- it makes her realistic and knowledgable, like Lina Khan criticizing Facebook. slate.com/technology/202…
Public officials could powerfully improve urban lives by emphasizing **access** (easily reachable destinations) instead of **speed** (fast roads + rail).
A 🧵 about this new-ish book (2019), which explains why -- and how.
Economist Anthony Downs gets credit for the idea of induced demand, but its roots go back *much* further than his 1962 article.
In 1927, engineer Arthur S. Tuttle warned that new urban roads “would be filled immediately by traffic which is now repressed because of congestion.”
In the 1920s and 1930s city officials worried about wooing suburbanites to shop and work, so they shrunk their sidewalks and ripped up public space to accommodate more cars.
Why worry about infotainment systems? They’re harmless and fun, right?
Well, not necessarily. A study by the AAA Foundation found that rerouting a destination can distract a driver for up to 40 seconds—enough time to cover half a mile at 50 mph. newsroom.aaa.com/2017/10/new-ve…
Even if a driver uses voice commands, systems often require looking at a car's touchscreen (and not the road) to verify accuracy. That’s inherently risky.
A provocative question in this book by @STS_News: Why doesn't the USA regulate car safety like emissions?
"How would automakers transform their products if we mandated that they reduce the number of automotive fatalities in new cars by, say, 40% within 10 years?"
A thread 🧵:
For a century, automobile safety has largely focused on 1) driver education and 2) voluntary agreements by automakers to build safer cars.
Both those approaches are flawed.
Here's future Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan critiquing safety education in 1959:
It "shifts public attention from factors like auto design, which we can reasonably hope to control, to factors such as the temperament and behavior of 80M drivers, who [will ignore] a bunch of slogans."