Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 302 posts

Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)

#51

Post by Johnny555 »

Even people that claim not to believe this believe it without admitting it.

I tried to explain the concept to an acquaintance who claimed it wasn't true - bigger roads just ease congestion so all we need to do is keep expanding roads until congestion stops.

Then, after a freeway expansion was completed, he moved 10 miles to the far side of the expansion to buy a bigger house. And now he complains about the traffic since his dream commute for the first couple years is now worse than ever.

Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)

#52

Post by mklingen »

paulsutter wrote: post #2

It'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

The Boring Company's "solution" is a [sad joke](https://slate.com/business/2018/12/elon-musks-los-angeles-tu...) that belies Musk's utter disconnect with reality. The fact that the man openly mocks public transportation while crying about LA traffic only makes the matter worse.

Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)

#53

Post by avar »

From the article:

> [...]perhaps you could create a system that also takes a person's income into account, which would let you make a progressive form of congestion pricing.

It's oddly inconsistent to hold that opinion about road use and not say real estate use.

Very few people are of the opinion that someone making minimum wage needs to be living in downtown Manhattan. Why shouldn't use of the scarce road resources of Manhattan be treated similarly when it comes to pricing?

Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)

#55

Post by hyperdo »

stefan_ wrote: post #35
netcan wrote: post #12

In practical terms, we can consume as much transport as we get. If it was cheap and fast I could have ramen lunch in Tokyo. Pick up the kids from crèche in Portugal on my way home to New Zealand. So, unless we get teleport watches... congestion is the "price," the thing that limits consumption. Economists would prefer the price to be price, being economists. One thing this article leaves out is what the value of all…

It's opportunity cost that kills it. Building more roads is a lousy investment for the money spent.

Source? Would be really curious to see how you measure roi on something like this

Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)

#56

Post by User23 »

Isinlor wrote: post #34
netcan wrote: post #12

In practical terms, we can consume as much transport as we get. If it was cheap and fast I could have ramen lunch in Tokyo. Pick up the kids from crèche in Portugal on my way home to New Zealand. So, unless we get teleport watches... congestion is the "price," the thing that limits consumption. Economists would prefer the price to be price, being economists. One thing this article leaves out is what the value of all…

There is also question of externalities. Building roads is not without hidden costs. Splitting communities in cities, making distances to travel longer because adding places for streets and parking places spreads infrastructure, air pollution killing people, lack of movement killing people, noise pollution, ugliness etc. I really like Dutch approach. Take away some space from cars in order to build biking infrastruct…

That works great in countries one can bike across in a day. It’s not really a solution for American commuters. People mainly choose long commutes for housing affordability. When workers can’t afford to live within biking distance of work, then it’s not a viable solution.

Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)

#57

Post by mklingen »

40acres wrote: post #36

Why are roads an elastic demand but it seems that other transportation methods, like light rail, aren't? I've seen cases of quite a few expensive lines and rail-stops that have lower than expected utilization, but it seems like new highway roads and lanes get immediate use. Is it down to the fact that there is simply more "freedom" with regards to roads over rail?

In areas where cities are dense enough for public transportaiton to make sense, adding a new line does indeed lead to induced demand. For cities that are spread out and unwalkable (read: almost all US cities), public transit isn't efficient enough to move enough people from point A to B, due to A and B being very far away -- never mind the fact that once you get to B, you can't even walk to many destinations due to the city being designed in such a sprawly, pedestrian hostile way.

For public transportation to work, we first need to make our cities denser. The best way of doing this is by outlawing use-based zoning and moving to form-based zoning. That means getting rid of the concept of a "single family zone" and a "commercial zone", etc. and just specifying stuff about the materials and shapes of buildings. It also means outlawing parking minimums. Many cities around the world (and even a few in the US, re: Philadelphia, NYC) have this kind of zoning which allows for much denser development.

Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)

#58

Post by caravaggi0 »

and building trains makes people ride trains. The fundamental rule is path of least resistance, literally and figuratively. It also matters who has the powerful interest.

Seen this? Taken for a Ride - The U.S. History of the Assault on Public Transport in the Last Century

https://youtu.be/p-I8GDklsN4

Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)

#59

Post by honkycat »

netcan wrote: post #12

In practical terms, we can consume as much transport as we get. If it was cheap and fast I could have ramen lunch in Tokyo. Pick up the kids from crèche in Portugal on my way home to New Zealand. So, unless we get teleport watches... congestion is the "price," the thing that limits consumption. Economists would prefer the price to be price, being economists. One thing this article leaves out is what the value of all…

Except for the fact that building more roads != more commerce. In fact, roads often DECIMATE the communities they are built through. Ask the rural United States how building a bunch of highways through their towns to the local Walmart has gone for them. Roads for cars are much less efficient for commerce than community oriented walkable streets.[0]

Also, maintaining roads is expensive. Once you build a new road it is politically unpopular to get rid of it. Who really benefits from the new road being built? The businesses that can afford to build a long the new highway and have a massive amount of parking around it. IE: Taco Bell, WalMart, etc. The people road construction businesses the government shovels money to. [1]

We have a CRUMBLING infrastructure in the US, and people are constantly complaining about potholes in major metropolitan areas. And the solution is build more roads? We cannot even maintain the ones we have!

[0] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/1/16/why-walkable-s... [1] https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme

Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)

#60

Post by hannasanarion »

40acres wrote: post #36

Why are roads an elastic demand but it seems that other transportation methods, like light rail, aren't? I've seen cases of quite a few expensive lines and rail-stops that have lower than expected utilization, but it seems like new highway roads and lanes get immediate use. Is it down to the fact that there is simply more "freedom" with regards to roads over rail?

Are you factoring in network effects?

I have lived in Phoenix and Tucson, where the light rail is a joke: they are so short and there's only one line, so you probably don't live close enough for them to be useful and they probably don't take you where you want to go. If there was more light rail, more people would use it, but since so few people use it, there is little incentive to grow the light rail.

Contrast Hudson County, NJ, which has a light rail system that's used heavily, the trains are often full during rush hour. You can use it to get pretty much everywhere (except Union City and uptown Jersey City, which both require a long trudge up the Palisades).

Post reply on HN