Single correct option
The passage below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best captures its essence.
Urban planners have long assumed that adding lanes to congested highways reduces traffic. Decades of data suggest the opposite: new lane capacity is quickly absorbed by drivers who previously avoided the route, a phenomenon economists call induced demand. Within a few years, congestion typically returns to its earlier level, but at a higher total volume of vehicle traffic. Cities that instead invested in public transit, bike infrastructure or congestion pricing have seen more durable reductions in traffic, even though these interventions are frequently more politically unpopular in the short term than simply building another lane.
Urban planners have long assumed that adding lanes to congested highways reduces traffic. Decades of data suggest the opposite: new lane capacity is quickly absorbed by drivers who previously avoided the route, a phenomenon economists call induced demand. Within a few years, congestion typically returns to its earlier level, but at a higher total volume of vehicle traffic. Cities that instead invested in public transit, bike infrastructure or congestion pricing have seen more durable reductions in traffic, even though these interventions are frequently more politically unpopular in the short term than simply building another lane.
- A. Building new highway lanes is the most cost-effective way to reduce urban traffic congestion in the long run.
- B. Expanding highway capacity tends to attract new traffic that erodes the intended congestion relief, whereas transit, cycling infrastructure and congestion pricing produce more lasting reductions despite facing greater political resistance.
- C. Public transit is always cheaper to build than new highway lanes, which is why cities should prefer it.
- D. Congestion pricing is illegal in most cities, which is why highway expansion remains the default policy choice.
Show answer and solution
Answer: (B) Expanding highway capacity tends to attract new traffic that erodes the intended congestion relief, whereas transit, cycling infrastructure and congestion pricing produce more lasting reductions despite facing greater political resistance.
The passage's core claim is that highway expansion induces new demand and fails to durably reduce congestion, while alternative interventions work better despite political unpopularity. Option B is the only one that captures both the induced-demand mechanism and the contrast with more effective (if unpopular) alternatives; the others introduce claims (cost, legality) the passage never makes.
Saved on this device. Sign in or create a free account to keep it on every device.