Ever since I took formal logic, I’ve been fascinated by the way in which logically irrelevant changes in phrasing totally alter the understood meaning of a phrase. Cato’s Chris Edwards, for example, writes:
Many highways are congested, but at least on the East Coast where I travel, states seem to be continually adding capacity.
I learned in QR-22 that “A but B” is logically equivalent to “A and B” and also that it’s transitive to “A and B” is the same as “B and A.” In terms of Edwards’ observation, someone familiar with induced demand would say something like:
East Coast states have been adding highway capacity, but the roads are more congested than ever.
Edwards’ formulation emphasized the (mistaken) idea that continuing to add capacity will alleviate the problem, whereas my formulation is designed to highlight the fact that the problem has consistently worsened despite past capacity additions. The difference being, of course, that I’m right and Edwards is wrong. Space on East Coast highways is a precious commodity and pricing it at $0.00 at peak-demand time guarantees congestion. Additional capacity will ameliorate the problem only very temporarily as the newly uncrowded highways will encourage people to drive longer distances (re-equalizing the amount of time they’re willing to drive) and spur additional development until things get locked up again. The way to alleviate congestion in crowded areas is through congestion pricing — putting a price on access to the roads at peak times.
Previous in TP Yglesias
By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the ThinkProgress Privacy Policy and agree to the ThinkProgress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policies as applicable, which can be found here.