I'm so tired of pretentious people claiming to be "civil engineers" pontificating to me on the internet about how local governments should sit on their ass because demand elasticity is binary. This kind of shit is why I hate the online press.
Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
21–30 of 302 posts
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#22It's called "elastic demand" and it just means that roads are useful. The Boring Company has a twofold solution (a) charge for usage, and (b) build to 30 levels or more to meet demand
This appears to be a classic case of a visible problem where the effects of the solution are not visible immediately. Building wider roads is a success if they move more people compared to a more narrow road. It doesn't matter if they stay congested even as you widen them. The goal of a wider road isn't to reduce congestion the goal is to move more people. This same type of reasoning is used against constructing more…
>The goal of more housing isn't to reduce rent prices //
A goal of house building is certainly to provide affordable housing. Unfortunately that goal isn't shared by the people with the money/land whose goal is usually just "make as much profit as possible". Those already profiting from rent are usually strictly opposed to the goal of affordable housing too.
But that doesn't mean that a substantial portion of society doesn't support it; the power to achieve it just doesn't lie with them.
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#23It's called "elastic demand" and it just means that roads are useful. The Boring Company has a twofold solution (a) charge for usage, and (b) build to 30 levels or more to meet demand
In the Old World we have public mass transit. One vehicle can transport a thousand commuters, and it does not need to be stored in the most desired area of the city for the duration of a working day. Sometimes it looks like the Silicon Valley is trying to solve transit problems either against the laws of physics and economics or, alternatively, ignoring solutions that were there already in the 1800s.
Musk is trying to solve the transit problem of people making over 200k a year- Maintain the standard of absolute luxury and privacy provided by the car, while reducing the concentration required to drive and the time it takes to be stuck in traffic.
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#24It's called "elastic demand" and it just means that roads are useful. The Boring Company has a twofold solution (a) charge for usage, and (b) build to 30 levels or more to meet demand
In the Old World we have public mass transit. One vehicle can transport a thousand commuters, and it does not need to be stored in the most desired area of the city for the duration of a working day. Sometimes it looks like the Silicon Valley is trying to solve transit problems either against the laws of physics and economics or, alternatively, ignoring solutions that were there already in the 1800s.
> Sometimes it looks like the Silicon Valley is trying to solve transit problems either against the laws of physics and economics or, alternatively, ignoring solutions that were there already in the 1800s.
The problem is that many American cities, including those in Silicon Valley, would need to be torn down and rebuilt for European- or Japanese-style transit to make sense. Everything is very spread out. Most people in London or Paris or Tokyo live within a short walking distance of a train station. In cities like LA, many people could walk over a mile from their house and only see other houses.
Because everything is so spread out, we would require many stations in suburban residential neighborhoods or nobody would have a station within walking distance of their home. However, those stations would only be useful to the small number of people who live in those neighborhoods because nobody else would have a reason to go there. It's hard to imagine those stations would get enough ridership to make economic sense.
So we are stuck with transit restricted to downtown areas, and if you want to go downtown or leave downtown you need a car. The Boring Company is attempting to recognize that reality and solve the "last mile problem" by turning cars themselves into public transit. It will be pretty cool if it works.
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#25The more intelligent approach to building roads is one i've seen in Washington DC. While the metro system isnt perfect, they allocated a portion of the highway to rail (middle track between both directions on the highway.) This way, the community expanded outwards via longer and longer highways and there was an obvious way to eventually simultaneously also expand the metro system outwards. They did this with the Oran…
This was the plan in Houston, too — allocate the center median for future rail. But later politicians and voters decided that it was faster and cheaper to just pave over the planned railroad rights-of-way.
When HOV lanes were first built in Houston, they were designed to eventually be converted to light rail. I bet it never happens.
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#26Is this even a problem? People are given an opportunity to do something and then they do it. That's way better than new roads going unused, isn't it? I like congestion charging alright, which the article advocates at the very end, but it has a habit of being regressive - it's easy for me, as a software engineer, to show up at work at 11AM, but that might not be the case for those who can less afford to pay those char…
> Is this even a problem? People are given an opportunity to do something and then they do it. That's way better than new roads going unused, isn't it?
It's a problem insofar as building more roads is often sold as a way to resolve traffic problems. When traffic expands to fill all available roads, this solution is an expensive way to not fix anything.
There are probably more useful options, and faster ways to waste money, available to polities.
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#27Is this even a problem? People are given an opportunity to do something and then they do it. That's way better than new roads going unused, isn't it? I like congestion charging alright, which the article advocates at the very end, but it has a habit of being regressive - it's easy for me, as a software engineer, to show up at work at 11AM, but that might not be the case for those who can less afford to pay those char…
> it's easy for me, as a software engineer, to show up at work at 11AM That's the point -- we should incentivize people who can time shift to do so thereby alleviating traffic for those who can't.
yes but that’s also what makes it regressive
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#28Is this even a problem? People are given an opportunity to do something and then they do it. That's way better than new roads going unused, isn't it? I like congestion charging alright, which the article advocates at the very end, but it has a habit of being regressive - it's easy for me, as a software engineer, to show up at work at 11AM, but that might not be the case for those who can less afford to pay those char…
> it's easy for me, as a software engineer, to show up at work at 11AM That's the point -- we should incentivize people who can time shift to do so thereby alleviating traffic for those who can't.
People feel that incentive very differently. If the 101 is a $5 toll road during rush hour it barely changes my habits. In fact, it might actually encourage me to go in earlier because I expect traffic to be better. The cost of time spent in traffic already outweighs any congestion charge - for me.
There are, however, a lot of people for whom that $50 more in weekly commute costs, would be financially deadly and almost unavoidable.
It's easy for me to advocate for congestion charges; they clearly benefit me. Those who make a lot less than I do might feel very differently.
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the “old world” cities like London, Paris, Berlin and others are facing the eact same problems, with or without those overcrowded, overpriced buses you mentioned.
I live in London. Many people don't own cars. Many who moved here with a car give up their cars. Working public transport systems leave everyone better off.
Public transport in London is incredibly good, I'm always amazed. But then it's NOT run by 5 competing companies that couldn't care less about linked up journeys.
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#30It's called "elastic demand" and it just means that roads are useful. The Boring Company has a twofold solution (a) charge for usage, and (b) build to 30 levels or more to meet demand
In the Old World we have public mass transit. One vehicle can transport a thousand commuters, and it does not need to be stored in the most desired area of the city for the duration of a working day. Sometimes it looks like the Silicon Valley is trying to solve transit problems either against the laws of physics and economics or, alternatively, ignoring solutions that were there already in the 1800s.
In the Old World we have public mass transit. One vehicle can transport a thousand commuters, and it does not need to be stored in the most desired area of the city for the duration of a working day.
If you include London in "the Old World," it has the same horrible freeway congestion problems every other city does. Being European doesn't change the laws of physics.