Assume the same conditions as of the famously quoted Braess’ paradox (you do know the sources of what you are claiming, don’t you?).
Consider then a subgraph consisting of three path-connected points A, B and C that is also a subtree of a larger more complicated graph representing the entire connected road network. Assume also for simplicity that the three points are equidistant and that A and C are connected through B only and that B is their only connection to the larger network.
Adding a road from A to C would now reduce congestion on the subtree, and cannot increase it on the larger graph due to the tree structure. The proof is left as an exercise to the reader, i.e. you.
Maybe, but now people will go “oh driving is easier so I’ll drive” and now there are more cars in the system, and thus more traffic. If you instead also make rail easy, some of them will go “oh I’ll just take the subway” and not drive.
Cars suck for many more reasons other than Braess’ paradox, even as it indeed adds to the sucking where applied. Being anti-car should be about more than just misrepresenting facts though, especially when science is in our favor.
We cannot argue that the car brains deny facts and then do the same in return. That undermines the whole argument.
Sure, you argued against the claim that roads can decrease congestion, the negation of which is the claim that it always increases congestion. Since I only need a single example to prove you wrong I can claim it to be irrelevant to the counter example provided.
Assume the same conditions as of the famously quoted Braess’ paradox (you do know the sources of what you are claiming, don’t you?).
Consider then a subgraph consisting of three path-connected points A, B and C that is also a subtree of a larger more complicated graph representing the entire connected road network. Assume also for simplicity that the three points are equidistant and that A and C are connected through B only and that B is their only connection to the larger network.
Adding a road from A to C would now reduce congestion on the subtree, and cannot increase it on the larger graph due to the tree structure. The proof is left as an exercise to the reader, i.e. you.
TL;DR Wasted my time replying to a sea lion.
Maybe, but now people will go “oh driving is easier so I’ll drive” and now there are more cars in the system, and thus more traffic. If you instead also make rail easy, some of them will go “oh I’ll just take the subway” and not drive.
Cars suck for many more reasons other than Braess’ paradox, even as it indeed adds to the sucking where applied. Being anti-car should be about more than just misrepresenting facts though, especially when science is in our favor.
We cannot argue that the car brains deny facts and then do the same in return. That undermines the whole argument.
Ever heard of induced demand?
Sure, you argued against the claim that roads can decrease congestion, the negation of which is the claim that it always increases congestion. Since I only need a single example to prove you wrong I can claim it to be irrelevant to the counter example provided.