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

181–190 of 302 posts

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

#181

Post by Retric »

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…

In many areas like DC, poor streets are a few blocks from rich areas. Land is plentiful, and density is cheap. It’s only artificial constraints that cause high housing costs.

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

#182

Post by Retric »

kbenson wrote: post #160
trophycase wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Southern California is dense and sprawling. Not very vertically dense, mind you, but I'm not sure there's a lot of existing room for new development without displacing people, and I'm also not sure any new development would lower housing costs enough to support the workforce in question. It would take a massive amount of high-density housing to get costs low in certain areas, and low-cost housing doesn't exactly draw…

Name one place on Southern California that breaks 25,000 people per square km. It’s all low density.

Manila by comparison is 71,263/km2 in it’s core. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila

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

#183

Post by checker »

vbezhenar wrote: post #90
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-…

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.

A surprising amount of people (at least to me) think driving on any road and parking at the destination for free is their inherent right and such people will naturally boycott and lobby against any attempt to charge for routes or parking.

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

#184

Post by A2017U1 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #136
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…

> 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. 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 che…

At 1g constant acceleration/decceleration you could make it to the Moon (380,000 km) in 3 hours.

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

#185

Post by 0x445442 »

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…

Meh... I don't think there would be too many NIMBY complaints in Fresno or Visailia if Facebook and Google decided to put offices over there.

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

#186

Post by selimthegrim »

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…

I moved from Portland to New Orleans. Unlike most other things about NOLA, there’s no allegedly in a statement about its roads.

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

#187

Post by razorunreal »

leetcrew wrote: post #162
mklingen wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When workers can’t afford to live within biking distance of work, then it’s not a viable solution. This is a catch 22 because the way our cities are designed in America makes them unaffordable. American zoning in most cities prohibits the kind of dense mixed use development that makes low cost housing near work possible. We need to reform the zoning code in most cities and improve bike safety, walkability and publi…

I can easily see that it would improve my quality of life a lot if there were a bunch of customer-facing businesses interspersed with housing in a dense city block. I would love to be able to take a quick five minute walk to grab that random tool I need or that last ingredient I need for a recipe; my life could be so much more spontaneous! I have more trouble seeing where the 500 seat office for a global enterprise s…

Look at big cities around the world and you'll find buildings with retail at the bottom and office space further up. I don't think it would be an issue, unless you stroll around the sky at night.

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

#188

Post by k_sh »

Chloro wrote: post #150

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.

If roads were 20x wider, 68% of LA County would be streets.

Sure, turning two-thirds of a city into roads will cut down on traffic - but within realistic restraints on road construction, induced demand is real.

(There are 140mi^2 of roads now[0], and 4,058mi^2 of land mass[1].)

[0]: https://la.curbed.com/2015/11/30/9895842/how-much-parking-lo... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County,_California

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

#189

Post by thaumasiotes »

max76 wrote: post #171
thaumasiotes wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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 che…

Piling on the nitpicking. Portugal isn't 'on the way' to New Zealand from Tokyo regardless of speed or timelines.

It is "on the way" if that's what your schedule shows. If you need to leave work, pick up the kids, and arrive at home in that order, then you'll pick up the kids on your way home regardless of spatial arrangements.

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

#190

Post by marcosdumay »

CalRobert wrote: post #143
marcosdumay wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Rationing transport does not solve that problem. It does nothing at all to solve it, just makes it worse.
Post reply on HN