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

141–150 of 302 posts

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

#141

Post by sbov »

ed312 wrote: post #67
User23 wrote: post #56

Earlier 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).

I could do without the yard, but I couldn't imagine having much less than what we have now (1962 sq feet). 3 kids (1 a surprise - yay twins for the second pregnancy) plus a home office because I work from home.

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

#142

Post by ThrustVectoring »

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…

>Economists would prefer the price to be price, being economists.

I mean, of course. If you pay for something with money, then someone else gets the money. If you pay for something with time, then that time is just gone.

>One thing this article leaves out is what the value of all this transport is. Maybe more roads don't solve congestion but they do produce more "goods," more Kms travelled. Presumably this has value.

A lot of the "value" winds up in making far-flung homes part of the housing market for people working at centers of employment. Suburbanization, basically.

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

#143

Post by CalRobert »

marcosdumay wrote: post #118
CalRobert wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"more Kms travelled. " might have some value if it means a trip that wasn't taken before is taken now. It has _negative_ value, massively so, if it means people who used to have 10km commutes all move farther out and have 20km commutes instead but cheaper housing. This seems to be what happens. More people will die horrible deaths in their cars, more people will die walking and cycling, more people will die because t…

> It has _negative_ value, massively so, if it means people who used to have 10km commutes all move farther out and have 20km commutes instead but cheaper housing. Is that because affordable houses are worthless? So, instead of solving the housing crisis, city planners do nothing on the matter, but go and ration transportation too, so people... well, gain nothing because they will be the same time in traffic.

Of course not - affordable homes are great. Building more homes near the places people need to be will help make them more affordable. But nobody ever got votes by campaigning to reduce home prices. Perhaps because you have to live in a place to vote for those governing said place.

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

#144

Post by honkycat »

mundo wrote: post #117
closeparen wrote: post #89

Earlier 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…

I don't know which transit system you think is our best and most expensive, but the one where I live (Portland, OR) is great. In 20 years it's failed me twice: once a bus broke down in a snowstorm, and once a train was blocked by protesters. That's it. The other ~10,000 trips were pretty uneventful. My biggest gripe is that the arrival time api is sometimes 1-2 minutes off.

Fellow PDX resident here!

Literally moved to this city due to the walkability and quality of public transit.

I. LOVE. IT. HERE.

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

#145

Post by dingaling »

CalRobert wrote: post #94
User23 wrote: post #56

Earlier 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.

And why, exactly, can't they afford to live within biking distance from work? Because 1) You're not allowed to build mixed-use areas thanks to NIMBYs 2) You're not allowed to build high or mid-density areas thanks to NIMBYs 3) You're not allowed to build real bike routes (the kind you'd let your 8 year old cycle to school alone on) because of NIMBYs 4) You could cycle the long distances needed on the road, but the US…

It's easy to blame NIMBYism but unless those proposals are actually being brought to planning sessions then it's not really true.

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

#146

Post by CalRobert »

User23 wrote: post #126
CalRobert wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why, exactly, can't they afford to live within biking distance from work? Because 1) You're not allowed to build mixed-use areas thanks to NIMBYs 2) You're not allowed to build high or mid-density areas thanks to NIMBYs 3) You're not allowed to build real bike routes (the kind you'd let your 8 year old cycle to school alone on) because of NIMBYs 4) You could cycle the long distances needed on the road, but the US…

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.

1) That's an absurd straw man.

2) Expecting your groundskeeper to drive a century on top of his (or her) actual job is pretty sick and cruel too

3) I'm pleased you mention Southern California as it's a useful case study of how to turn a pleasant area in to a dystopian hellscape. I've lived in Westwood (near UCLA), Santa Monica, and most recently San Diego (South Park - a fairly upscale neighborhood).

I routinely attended meetings of the planning group for South Park, where the attendees, all of whom were homeowners aside from me (and elderly), opposed ANY new housing of ANY sort ANYWHERE. They were blunt about their reasoning - it might hurt their home values. Of course, keeping homes expensive is a great way to ensure your groundskeeper can't live near work.

They also hated bike lanes, because they thought it would affect parking. It's rather sickening they cared more about places for cars to sleep than for people to sleep.

https://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/greater... if you care to go yourself. The area's taxpayers will even give you free parking welfare.

Thankfully I escaped SoCal (and the US), but not everyone (including, perhaps, your gardener) is able to do that.

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

#147

Post by trophycase »

kbenson wrote: post #140
epistasis wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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 a…

Well of course not. That's exactly why the person you are responding to talked about zoning. Without NIMBYs, you could upzone and solve most housing cost issues.

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

#148

Post by closeparen »

dingaling wrote: post #145
CalRobert wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why, exactly, can't they afford to live within biking distance from work? Because 1) You're not allowed to build mixed-use areas thanks to NIMBYs 2) You're not allowed to build high or mid-density areas thanks to NIMBYs 3) You're not allowed to build real bike routes (the kind you'd let your 8 year old cycle to school alone on) because of NIMBYs 4) You could cycle the long distances needed on the road, but the US…

It's easy to blame NIMBYism but unless those proposals are actually being brought to planning sessions then it's not really true.

You only bring a proposal to a planning session if it's close enough to existing zoning that the variance might be considered reasonable.

Dramatic upzoning is only brought to the table when the NIMBYs are seen as weak enough that it might stand a chance.

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

#149

Post by honkycat »

closeparen wrote: post #89
honkycat wrote: post #71

If 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-…

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…

Roads are bad for more reasons than maintenance though. People don't like to live near them. They are an UNPLEASANT part of the journey, not a destination. That means whoever gets stuck with the road going through their community sees their local businesses suffer and their housing prices drop.

Saying "We need roads because public transit does not work" is just false. There are MANY examples of cities where they all get around just fine without having to slather down some more pavement. I was very impressed by the Park and Ride system in Strasbourg, France and Amsterdam, Netherlands. Or hey, my current home Portland, Oregon! Or my previous home Chicago, Illinois also has excellent public transit! ( Though Chicago has been going through a rough patch lately due to bad zoning laws around the Blue Line EL stops )

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

#150

Post by Chloro »

If roads were 20x wider I guarantee traffic would be reduced or damn near eliminated. They just want an excuse to charge people and/or enable the rich to get special transport privileges. Also where do they get off claiming these people are getting this for free? They bought it with their taxes, so to double charge them and exclude the poor is pretty messed up.
Post reply on HN