The dilemma of traffic congestion

Writing is similar to conversation. When a conversation begins in an agreeable tone, it’s friendly and more cohesive. To begin an article as offensive: conjures ire. It creates an immediate reaction of resentment and an unwillingness to hear anything being said.

In a conversation about transportation, everyone who drives a car agrees that freeway traffic is designed for a faster pace than a congested downtown street. What happens when freeway traffic is stopped? Something is wrong.

Is it possible to begin a nice conversation about clogged traffic? That raises a very valid question: who is responsible for road planning? The ones who originate the plans and draw urban designs; they’re the ones who create traffic congestion. Like any other conversation: how likely is it to assume these planners would welcome these words being said, since they’re the culprits practicing faulty consequences from their designs. Like any normal human, their reaction would blame others, become aggressively hostile and psychologically combative. How can anyone tell the government they are incorrect? So it is here: this is the condition of transportation and urban growth in Western Society. What approach can be attempted to benefit the public with solutions? The government planners created a disaster, they have proved themselves untrustworthy and incapable of cohesive planning or transportation solutions. 

In the previous article a general question was asked: who will point out to government planners and legislators, that their direction of unsustainable cretinous deeds from so-called “guardians” of the environment, reek exponential levels of disasters: environmentally, economically, and socially? When can common sense play a part in urban growth and transportation? 

The terrible status-quo of unsustainable urban growth needs to be re-stated. The preceding article pointed out that the worse application of a decimated status-quo in transportation is urban growth. Since all urban growth is built upon its primary source of transportation, it’s imperative to advance transportation and acquire a basic understanding of land-use design.  

The article states: CATTCC’s recommendations for sustainable urban growth are building sustainable transit technology systems to reach sustainable urban growth. Efficient and lower costs of new technology transit systems can provide higher density urban growth along existing transportation corridors, relieving environmental stress from population increase and disappearing agriculture land-use, preserving nature’s land-use, as well as allowing the automobile centric land-use design to function.

The current trend of building large high density apartment complexes, conflicts with the automobile centric land-use design. This is destructive and dysfunctional land-use due to the over-usance of building in a limited space. With its roads and parking, the automobile centric land-use design requires 70% of land for the automobile. Transit oriented land-use design is conducive to high-density vertical land-use, automobile centric land-use is not.

Planning for urban growth is land consumption. The basic principle of land-use is extremely simple, there are only four types of land-use: nature, agriculture, transit oriented, and automobile centric land-use design. ALL urban growth is based upon its primary source of transportation.

This article is written by an informed transportation and urban growth expert about realistic transportation solutions. The words are extremely important: vital. Every aspect of transportation effects urban growth. Traffic congestion effects public health with stress, it’s more than the irritation of a pebble in your shoe.

Government culture throughout the world has become more dictatorial than enabling self-guided citizenry independence. Since all urban growth is based on its primary source of transportation, urban growth design must comply to its land-use design. The massive dysfunction of clogged traffic is absolutely to be laid into the lap of legislators and planners who carelessly abused the natural patterns of automobile centric land-use growth. There is no side stepping the automobile’s necessity to consume 70% of land-use. It is a factor incapable of being ignored. Any government official who makes the invalid claim that “it doesn’t matter” is a prevaricator or inexcusably ignorant and ill-equipped to be at such a position; making vital regulations that devastate the lives and the economy of that area. 

Additionally, there is currently a trend in government policies; pushing to restrict mobilization of automobiles; mandating bicycles and walking: in automobile centric land-use areas. This type of injudicious legislative action reflects a cretinous and dangerous mindset. It intentionally ignores that automobiles require 70% of its land-use design for parking and mobility. Any other percentage factor is a dysfunction to the transportation intent of automobile centric land-use design. The push for walking and bicycle use as a method of transportation is a function of the transit-oriented land-use design, where service roads can accommodate horse drawn wagons, walking, bicycles and emergency vehicles.

For society



Technological advances in modern society have created two choices for its transportation: automobiles or fixed-rail-type transit. Transit-oriented land-use requires a fixed-rail transit mechanism, its fixed-rail transit system accommodates high density real estate development. By utilizing the automobile centric land-use design for high density urban growth, government urban growth planning; with its regulatory zoning permitting, are directly responsible for the consequences of land-use dysfunction. This has caused a myriad of detrimental impacts.

Is it incompetence or intentional malfeasance? Can the government planners be held accountable for the devastation their planning debacle has created? The answer is extremely unfortunate for the public. Their so-called solution for causing large scale land-use dysfunction and obliterating transportation functionality is, for most metropolises; to intensify land-use disasters by increasing stress to transportation dysfunction. This irresponsible maleficence is either selective ignorance, stupidity, or belligerent and deliberate contempt to escalate incompetence. To any argument which does not place the direct responsibility of horrid traffic congestion in the lap of the government, is a fabrication.

Writing to acknowledge and identify the cause of such a large-scale disaster, is alarming, however, publicly announcing such a catastrophe is also acknowledging the possibility of inviting unwanted retribution from governmental officials. The only desire in this article is for immediate and legitimate common-sense transportation and urban growth solutions.

It isn’t just bad planning, it’s a disaster, a dereliction of job duty, ignorant maleficence, and totally irresponsible to the public. Some argue that the only way to reduce traffic load is for 20 or 50 lane freeways. YES, exactly. Stop the automobile centric growth dysfunction; or build transit systems that accommodate high density land-use.

In the conversation of subsidizing public or private transportation, a serious question arises. Regarding the rational that supports public new technology transit systems, why does the government use tax money to build new streets to increase the traffic loads and support the products of automobile manufacturers, oil companies, and high-density tract house and large apartment developers? 

Traffic related stress is a real and serious human health issue. How long will the government ignore these problems it creates? Their “solutions” are intensifying the problems. Someone has to point out the solution to the problem. The identification of this transportation and urban growth issue is a beginning point.

Conclusion

This short summation is intended to begin a serious conversation.