If by traffic, you mean the flow of traffic will increase, then yea, of course because if you remove obsticles and increase capacity, then more cars can use it instead of travelling through small villages and clogging up their roads.
If you mean building more capacity and removing junctions in the middle of nowhere where there is a bottleneck of traffic because of poor road layouts and a world heritage site will cause more traffic jams, I’d love to see that study. That’s pretty a niche study, and I’d imagine the people protesting this tunnel would appreciate seeing it.
Carbrain /kar 'bren/ [1] is a neighbourhood in Cumbernauld, North Lanarkshire in Scotland. It gets a brief mention on William Roy’s eighteenth century map of the Scottish Lowlands.[2] In the nineteenth century it was no more than a farm steading.[3] An early map shows just a few buildings existed in 1864.[4] By the start of the First World War it had not grown significantly, although there was a school near the railway station.[5] It was sometimes spelled Carbrane.[6] Even in 1956 Carbrain was mostly farmland[7] with a small burn flowing through it.[8] The map seems to show this flowing possibly down the Gully[9] and eventually feeding the Red Burn in the Vault Glen. This burn isn’t named so can’t be identified with the Horseward Burn from historic maps.[10]
I was just mocking that fact that you would rather insult someone and try to act superior than actually back your argument up with any kind of facts.
I never said that building more roads doesn’t lead to more traffic in all scenarios as there are plenty of scenarios where this is true. I provided plenty of reasons to convey why this is not relevant in this scenario. Rather than counter my argument with any relevant fact, you reverted to a smug insult presuming that I don’t use public transport and that you are superior for using it.
Traffic is caused by cars. Any affordance made for more cars will only and always make more traffic.
If by traffic, you mean the flow of traffic will increase, then yea, of course because if you remove obsticles and increase capacity, then more cars can use it instead of travelling through small villages and clogging up their roads.
If you mean building more capacity and removing junctions in the middle of nowhere where there is a bottleneck of traffic because of poor road layouts and a world heritage site will cause more traffic jams, I’d love to see that study. That’s pretty a niche study, and I’d imagine the people protesting this tunnel would appreciate seeing it.
carbrain
Carbrain /kar 'bren/ [1] is a neighbourhood in Cumbernauld, North Lanarkshire in Scotland. It gets a brief mention on William Roy’s eighteenth century map of the Scottish Lowlands.[2] In the nineteenth century it was no more than a farm steading.[3] An early map shows just a few buildings existed in 1864.[4] By the start of the First World War it had not grown significantly, although there was a school near the railway station.[5] It was sometimes spelled Carbrane.[6] Even in 1956 Carbrain was mostly farmland[7] with a small burn flowing through it.[8] The map seems to show this flowing possibly down the Gully[9] and eventually feeding the Red Burn in the Vault Glen. This burn isn’t named so can’t be identified with the Horseward Burn from historic maps.[10]
Carbrain is the condition of having your brain so rotted by driving that all you can think of is cars and how to cater to them
I was just mocking that fact that you would rather insult someone and try to act superior than actually back your argument up with any kind of facts.
I never said that building more roads doesn’t lead to more traffic in all scenarios as there are plenty of scenarios where this is true. I provided plenty of reasons to convey why this is not relevant in this scenario. Rather than counter my argument with any relevant fact, you reverted to a smug insult presuming that I don’t use public transport and that you are superior for using it.
Have a nice evening.