Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might also be worth starting to let go of the notion that you need 2000+ sq ft and a 1/4 acre yard as a minimum. Roads are effectively a subsidy to that life style (everyone shouldn't be forced to pay for the life style of a few).
I don’t think advocating lower standards of living is good persuasion. Also, roads are observably popular, because people desire to both go places and to have things delivered.
Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
131–140 of 302 posts
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
People in Southern California routinely commute 50 miles. Expecting your groundskeeper to ride a century on top of his actual job is sick and cruel.
It says a lot more about your worldview than the original poster's that you jump to assuming a 50 mile bike, rather than the simpler notion that people live close to where they work. Is it really so shocking to live that close to a gardener? What is outlandish about that?
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think advocating lower standards of living is good persuasion. Also, roads are observably popular, because people desire to both go places and to have things delivered.
Spending an hour in traffic each day is not exactly my idea of a high standard of living.
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe more roads don't solve congestion but they do produce more "goods," more Kms travelled. Presumably this has value. It does, which is one reason why (in the United States, anyway), highways are paid for by the governments — to spur commerce. In contrast, railroads (at least in the United States) still mostly have to pay for their infrastructure, which is one reason why passenger rail is in the shape it's in.
It kind of does. But only to a certain point; in some cases you're just shuffling growth around the region rather than stimulating new regional growth. A lot of road capacity is needed, but a lot of it is also purely wasteful and entirely caused by social choice. E.g., the parking lot for the store needs to hold the Black Friday parking demand -> the store is now too far from the street to walk home with bags -> ever…
It reads like that county is a complete shit show and not necessarily indicative of the sustainability of low density.
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nassau county isn’t a city, so the state pays almost all of its major road costs on its behalf.
They cover some of it, but in FY2019 $24.9M of County Debt will be issued for $44.5M of capital expenditure on roads: https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/DocumentCenter/View/23320#pag... This is actually part of the problem of the American model; larger entities are always willing to foot the bill, so why bother assessing the economic feasibility of a project?
I agree with your second point, especially as the feds only fund capital costs and state and local has to do maintenance, which they are awful at. The smart strategy is to fund minimum viable operations costs, let stuff crumble and get more capital $ to rebuild!
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#136In 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…
Nitpicking this from a physical perspective, consuming this amount of travel fundamentally requires you to experience a certain amount of acceleration. I'm pretty sure that the itinerary you describe here would kill you, regardless of how cheap it was.
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It might also be worth starting to let go of the notion that you need 2000+ sq ft and a 1/4 acre yard as a minimum. Roads are effectively a subsidy to that life style (everyone shouldn't be forced to pay for the life style of a few).
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterpoint: I grew up in an area which allegedly has some of the worst roads in the country. They're fine . Sure they're not silky-smooth surfaces ready for MotoGP but contemporary mass-market vehicles have no problem traversing them. At worst you're going to feel uncomfortable for half a second. Really bad construction might slow you down 10-20 minutes. Meanwhile America's best, most expensive, most politically su…
My lived experience is that public transit is great. I take BART 5 days a week and have a 15 minute late experience once every few months. This to me is something like the “I can’t live in a city because I can’t afford a 2000 square foot detached unit” issue. You just need to modify your expectations. I’m far happier and less stressed not driving every day - but yes, it’s noisy and I have to stand and sometimes somet…
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don't know a single American commuter who thinks nothing of spending 1-2 hours in traffic each way. Every commuter I know balks at a single way commute of more than 30 minutes. Any commuter I know that has ever spent more than 1 hour in traffic each way moved within a couple years to be closer. You're assigning beliefs to Americans that, in my experience, they don't have in any significant numbers.
And at that time, I knew people who commuted down to the Pentagon from Baltimore, so spending 2-3 hours on their commute, one-way.
When I lived in Brussels, Belgium from 1999 to 2006 and worked for a Dutch consulting company, there was a period of time where my commute was 1.5-2.0 hours one-way to go up to the company offices in Veldhoven, or to a customer site at Eindhoven.
Living here in Austin since 2006, during rush hour, any commute involving any of the major infrastructure (360, MoPac, I-35, etc...) is likely to take at least 30 minutes, if not an hour or more. When there isn't any traffic, that same commute might take just fifteen minutes.
When my brother-in-law lived and worked in the LA area many years ago, until he made a point of moving to an apartment that was ridiculously close to the office, he was frequently spending two or more hours on the road, one-way. And that's when traffic was reasonably good and there weren't major jams that turned into eighteen-plus hours on the road, one-way.
Just because you don't have a given type or amount of experience, doesn't mean that your experience is universal in this regard.
I certainly realize that my experience is not universal, but I do have multiple instances in my life where I saw those kinds of numbers on a regular basis. And I knew plenty of people at the time who had similar experiences to mine.
Re: Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015)
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
People in Southern California routinely commute 50 miles. Expecting your groundskeeper to ride a century on top of his actual job is sick and cruel.
It says a lot more about your worldview than the original poster's that you jump to assuming a 50 mile bike, rather than the simpler notion that people live close to where they work. Is it really so shocking to live that close to a gardener? What is outlandish about that?
I think it's not that people refuse to live next to a gardener, it's that the job of gardener does not allow for an income that someone could afford to live close by given the housing market. It might not be 50 miles, but there are areas of affluence where it would take awhile for a low-income person to reach. There are also areas of affluence right next to considerably run-down (but famous) areas, such as Hollywood. Then again, I'm not sure how much housing there is in the run-down portions.