Road design, transportation and walkability

[dtkvictim]

Great reply.  You don't like/agree with someone else's post so "there isn't much point talking".

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.