Because the point of the comparison is to determine if the infrastructure investment was cost effective. What would traffic look like today if the money had instead been used to build public transport, bike lanes, and walkable streets? If the alternative investment had improved traffic even more, building the highway was the wrong thing to do.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In the case of the Big Dig, it did.

-- just look at those pictures someone linked, and they don’t actually do it justice. Before, you might have to cross under a six lane elevated highway with surface streets. Now getting from one part of the city to another is a literal walk in the park. Reconnecting parts of the city to be walkable was one of the main goals, and it achieved

-- part of the mitigation was required transit improvements. Of course, some of that was delayed by politics, but I believe it did happen.