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? 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…
People are given an opportunity to do something and then they do it. If you don't put a price on it then people won't prioritise, and the demand becomes endless. And you can never have supply to meet an endless demand.
Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
101–110 of 302 posts
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you don’t have to purchase a hamburger to earn a living, but you probably have to travel.
You have to purchase food.
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a software engineer who shows up at 11, I can tell you that there is a significant current against us late starters. I agree with you that it would be good for us to move this way, but it is hard for all the early birds to swallow.
Ha. "Early bird" is somebody who arrives before 11?
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#104I'm visiting my hometown of Houston after now having lived in SF for just under 3 years, and my partner and mine most common debate thread as we sit in Houston traffic is - what did Houston do differently, to get these uniquely Houston traffic problems? Is it "Houston's" fault, or the fact that it has an extra 2 million people? Does it actually have 2 million more people, or did it just octopus across the entire regi…
On the questions of funding, in the US, interstates are federally funded while local roads are state/city-funded. That's why the interstate system has been so successful compared to highway systems that are more locally-funded, eg Canada.
This is not completely true. In some cases interstates are 80/20 federal/state funded, in others its 50/50. Not sure of any states where it is 100% federal funding of interstates.
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#105In 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…
road users are insulated from actual costs, since road costs are both subsidized and pass through an intermediary (government, taxes).
since it's costly, inefficient, and politically unpalatable to directly create an efficient marketplace for roads themselves (by building a bunch of competing ones), economists urge regulators to create a market for road use and price in maintenance costs and externalities (pollution, things that Isinlor mentions): tolling, congestion pricing, gas taxes, etc.
if we correctly price road use and there is still great demand, it means we should build more roads. instead, the perverse logic currently employed is that insatiable demand should be a reason not to build roads because (it seems like) we'd never meet that demand.
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#106I'm visiting my hometown of Houston after now having lived in SF for just under 3 years, and my partner and mine most common debate thread as we sit in Houston traffic is - what did Houston do differently, to get these uniquely Houston traffic problems? Is it "Houston's" fault, or the fact that it has an extra 2 million people? Does it actually have 2 million more people, or did it just octopus across the entire regi…
> Where's the money coming from? The federal highway program. Highways are heavily, heavily subsidized by state and federal dollars. That's why their true cost isn't born on drivers, and it's something that greatly exacerbates the problem of urban planning the U.S that leads to vast sprawl, urban decay, hell for walkers/bikers and environmental degredation. If all highways were toll roads, most would cease to exist a…
These aren't contradictory if you look where most of those state and federal dollars come from (i.e. fuel taxes, which is borne by the driver). Mass transit more fits the description of transportation subsidized by non-users.
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#107Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#108If you are sitting there thinking: "So what", I highly recommend you educate yourself on how building roads actually affects US infrastructure. 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! Recommended reading: - https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-…
I don't understand how is it possible that you can't maintain roads. Use car taxes to maintain roads. Increase them if necessary. Introduce paid roads where applicable. If taxes were too high, some people would prefer cheaper public transportation, so market will find a balance automatically.
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#109In 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…
If I could teleport around like that instantly, I'd be acting like that too. However, real-world transport has a real cost: time (in addition to money for fuel/maintenance/insurance/etc.). If teleporting was cheap but took 3 hours for every trip, I'm not going to be having any kind of lunch in Tokyo unless I'm living there. The weird thing is how much time Americans are willing to waste on a commute. So many of them…
What other options provide good public schools, homes that are pleasant to be inside, and a clean/safe/well-functioning environment?
I hate sprawl and fast-casual architecture as much as the next guy, but it is the only thing that can grow at scale under our economic and political reality. Alternatives only exist because they were created in a different era, under different constraints. Their supply is fixed and dwindling. So of course we are going to see a large and growing segment of the population in the only kind of housing it's both legal and profitable to build.
Also, by the way, the median driving commute is closer to 25 minutes. Commuting 1-2 hours each way is something transit riders do; for drivers it's very rare.
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#110In 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…
More people will die horrible deaths in their cars, more people will die walking and cycling, more people will die because their understandable fear of walking and cycling gives them a sedentary lifestyle, more people will die from cancer, lung disease, etc, more wildlife habitat will be destroyed, more sound and light pollution will destroy mental health and disturb wildlife, and the planet will boil a little bit sooner. But those are externalities and not borne by the person choosing to drive more.
But all of this is apparently just fine. Adults matter too of course, but it's striking that cars (drivers, really) are the thing that kills more kids than anything else, and yet people do. not. care. I'm astonished how much outrage there is over kids being killed by bullets but not those killed by cars. People in the US accept it as normal, though. When I pointed out I cared more about automotive violence than gun violence people would look at me like I had 3 heads. And then joke about running over cyclists.
On the bright side, it might encourage those who are able to emigrate somewhere nicer (Netherlands and the Nordics, basically), so I guess it's a gain to those countries.