Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes people drive more (2015) • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by baddox » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 2:59 AM UTC

lazyjones wrote: post #177

Kalium wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? It's a problem insofar as building more roads is often sold as a way to resolve traffic problems. When traffic expands to fill all available roads, this solution is an expensive way to not fix anything. There are probably more useful options, and faster ways to waste…

> When traffic expands to fill all available roads, this solution is an expensive way to not fix anything. It always surprises me to see people actually believe this utter illogical nonsense. There's a finite amount of people and cars, so new roads satisfy existing demands but do not magically increase traffic until everybody drives 24/7 and beyond. There are plenty of roads with very little traffic. Hasn't anyone of…

Of course it’s true that people and cars are finite, but that doesn’t mean that new roads are satisfying existing demands. In fact, the term in economics is “induced demand.” Building more roads around a city often won’t decrease traffic in the city, it will just make more people commute to the city from further away.

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

#192

Post by baddox » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 3:00 AM UTC

erik_seaberg wrote: post #33

msbarnett wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this even a problem? It’s a problem if your assumption was that demand was closer to fixed and building more roads would “spread drivers out”, reducing congestion. This was for decades, and still to some extent is, a very wide-spread assumption in local politics, leading to incredibly questionable urban planning decisions.

If we paved every square inch, traffic wouldn't go to infinity. It's pretty rare to go driving for no reason. Country roads don't have rush hour. It seems reasonable to assume that latent demand per capita is fixed, but at a level too high for a city to accommodate without destroying its density advantages.

Traffic can’t go to infinity, it can only go to 100%, and yes, if you paved every square inch, then traffic would go to 100% in areas where lots of people want to be, like people driving into urban centers for work.

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

#193

Post by baddox » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 3:02 AM UTC

scythe wrote: post #116

Johnny555 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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've never sat in stop-and-go traffic, looked around and thought "Gee, this is great utilization of this road!" Oddly, I have looked around a crowded standing-room-only train and thought "Gee, these load factors must be good for farebox recovery"

Personally I’d rather be in traffic. I’ll grant trains are way better for the atmosphere and take up less space, but people are noisy and smelly.

That’s not an uncommon view, I’m sure, but I suspect if the externalities of driving an automobile with a single person in it were internalized, so each driver paid the full cost of driving, you and a lot of people would change your minds and instead invest in some (comparably vastly cheaper) noise-canceling headphones for the train/bus.

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

#194

Post by kbenson » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 3:10 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #182

kbenson wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Given the 500 square miles of Los Angeles and the 4 million people population, that's about a 60' by 60' plot of land per person. Given that doesn't include roads, highways, industrial or commercial zoning, and that people will group in housing (families), I think that's fairly dense for the type of housing which is currently in place, which is homes homes with yards.

It's not dense relative to other types of metro areas, but I think it's probably fairly dense for single level housing in an industrialized nation.

My point wasn't to imply that Southern California was very densely housed, but that there may not be a huge amount of unutilized land left to build high density housing one, at least not enough to really change the dynamics. And once the conversation shifts from just what to build and where to also who to displace to build it, it's an much harder conversation.

I could be entirely wrong, I don't live in LA, but my impression every time I visit is that there's not a lot of unused land, even if the land that is used isn't used efficiently (population density wise). If that's true, it's not just a NIMBY situation (even if it might have traditionally been one), as it's also a "don't displace historical group X that's been living in this area for decades" situation (whether entirely accurate or not).

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

#195

Post by timerol » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 3:12 AM UTC

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…

The assumption that increasing development leads to displacement is misplaced. Homeowners could turn a single family home into a triplex, adding two new units without displacing anyone. There are also always people trying to sell and move in any housing market. Building new housing leads to less displacement: http://cityobservatory.org/if-you-want-less-displacement-bui...

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

#196

Post by hermitdev » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 3:19 AM UTC

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…

I commute 25 miles on-way around Chicago. I used to be an avid cyclist and would have loved to bike to work. I don't for a variety of reasons. My current job doesnt have any shower facilities, so I cannot clean up after the ride in. I also have arthritis in my neck & back that makes my head & arms go numb after less than 5 minutes of riding. I would move closer, but that puta me prohibitively far away from my step kids.

The size of the country is relevant; not everything is as dense as LA, NYC, SFC. Chicago being the 3rd largest metro area is also probably one of the least dense. I cannot reasonnnably bike from my home into the Loop. Between shit roads, bad neighborhoods and generally not wanting to die. Not to mention, it is infeasible at least 3 months of the year.

Also, your argument 4 is just wrong and FUD. It is no where legal to just hit a cyclist and kill them. Probably the slightest you will get is negligent vehicular manslaughter, if you are found to be at fault with no other extenuating circumstances. If you are not at fault, you might likely not face charges.

Obviously not dead, but I was the victim where a car ran a stop sign and T-boned while I was on a bike. The driver, who did stop and offer assistance, was ticketed (I think failure to yield right of way, failure to yield to avoid an accident), faced court, around $500 in fines and had to pay my medical costs (about $20k) amd to replace my bike (about $3500). His insurance took most of the brunt, but I was fully compensated for my losses.

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

#197

Post by Retric » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 3:22 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #194

Retric wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Given the 500 square miles of Los Angeles and the 4 million people population, that's about a 60' by 60' plot of land per person. Given that doesn't include roads, highways, industrial or commercial zoning, and that people will group in housing (families), I think that's fairly dense for the type of housing which is currently in place , which is homes homes with yards. It's not dense relative to other types of metro…

We have not been limited to single story buildings for thousands of years. Saying this is the kind of housing currently in place really is irrelevant, because that argument would apply to farming communities etc. Instead High density means something and nowhere in California applies which is why housing is expensive.

PS: It’s a question of underutilization, where it would be economically profitable to take each of these buildings down and replace them with more useful structures.

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

#198

Post by Johnny555 » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 3:33 AM UTC

lazyjones wrote: post #178

scythe wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I’d rather be in traffic. I’ll grant trains are way better for the atmosphere and take up less space, but people are noisy and smelly.

> people are noisy and smelly. Indeed. And trains usually don't go from people's homes to their destination, so they typically cause traffic of some sort around train stations.

Ideally, people live near transit (not so common in this country, but Transit Oriented Development near transit stations is becoming more popular), so they don't necessarily need to drive to the station.

But even when they do, it's easier to handle traffic spread among dozens of stations spread out over 100 miles of track than to have all of those commuters drive to the city center.

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

#199

Post by sct202 » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 3:44 AM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #7

I'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…

Houston and Dallas have pretty extensive toll highways, so a lot of the funding comes from there on top of all the normal taxes.

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

#200

Post by closeparen » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 3:47 AM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #154

closeparen wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Plus, you can’t just go into an area with infrastructure capable of supporting 10k people and Just Add Housing™. What about the electric grid? Water and sewer? Schools, parking, trash pickup, etc. You have to have a plan to update all of these. The simple solution of just building urban apartment blocks everywhere won’t work.

We’ve built cities before, we can do it again. Infrastructure is cheaper with economies of scale than in sprawl. Remember, the people you don’t house still exist and live somewhere.