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)

#221

Post by chadcmulligan » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 6:47 AM UTC

lazyjones wrote: post #179

fabioborellini wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Old World we have public mass transit. One vehicle can transport a thousand commuters, and it does not need to be stored in the most desired area of the city for the duration of a working day. Sometimes it looks like the Silicon Valley is trying to solve transit problems either against the laws of physics and economics or, alternatively, ignoring solutions that were there already in the 1800s.

> Sometimes it looks like the Silicon Valley is trying to solve transit problems either against the laws of physics and economics or, alternatively, ignoring solutions that were there already in the 1800s. That, or the Old World is simply stuck with cities where no more roads can be built without tearing down many inhabited buildings, so people are forced to use smelly, uncomfortable public transport. I'd appreciate…

> I'd appreciate more honesty and less ideology in such debates

and yet

> forced to use smelly, uncomfortable public transport

There is no need to public transport to be smelly and uncomfortable if enough money is spent on maintenance.

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

#222

Post by fzeroracer » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 7:13 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.

I have spent years exclusively riding public transit and very rarely have I encountered an issue where another person became a nuisance. I would rather take public transit than drive any day of the week, both for safety reasons and because I can do other things while on the ride.

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

#223

Post by justtopost » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 7:13 AM UTC

CalRobert wrote: post #146

User23 wrote: post #126

Earlier 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.

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 atte…

Its almost as if buying and responsibly maintaining your property gave you privlidges.

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

#224

Post by justtopost » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 7:16 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #197

kbenson wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

As efficient as it may be, demolishing homes is about as bad an image as you could project. Few with political ambition would touch it with a pole.

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

#225

Post by justtopost » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 7:17 AM UTC

timerol wrote: post #195

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…

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...

As a homeowner, I bought my home so I would not have to live in a goddamn apartment. Its going to be a very tough sell to have me rent to strangers, even with the equity boost. I value my space, therefore real estate is expensive.

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

#226

Post by ip26 » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 7:33 AM UTC

throw0u1t wrote: post #164

ip26 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The weird thing is how much time Americans are willing to waste on a commute. Some studies have basically found that people chronically overvalue how happy a nice house will make them, and undervalue how unhappy a long commute will make them. I don't know if Americans are uniquely guilty of this, but humans are prone to lots of little errors like this.

I spent the last year living 30 minutes walk from work in Central London. Neither the 4 mile walk through congested, diesel-fumed London or the small, expensive flat with single glazed windows did make me happier. I now live 30 miles outside London and take a 30 minute train to work. It is much cheaper, much more pleasant (I stand on the train most of the time) and I get to hear the birds and smell the fresh air when…

It sounds like your commute duration didn't change.

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

#227

Post by sbov » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 7:39 AM UTC

iso1337 wrote: post #215

sbov wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, once you are used to that kind of space, it’s hard to go back. Hedonistic treadmill and all (or some kind of treadmill). People in the 60s had larger families with smaller houses. However, to fulfill our expectations of progress, House sizes in America keep growing decade after decade. I’m fully guilty of this myself too. But like all things it cannot keep growing indefinitely. http://www.aei.org/publication/new…

Your link's lowest datapoint has the average/median square feet per person at 500/550 square feet, back around 1973. I'm at 392 square feet per person. I'm not sure I'm on a hedonistic treadmill, but if it is I'm in a time warp.

Beyond that, the stats in that article are just plain bad because it ignores the fact that not everyone lives in a new house, but it still compares the average household size to ONLY new homes built in that year.

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

#228

Post by CalRobert » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 8:00 AM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #219

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…

>4) You could cycle the long distances needed on the road, but the US has made it legal to kill people with your car so long as you're sober, so this is dangerous. No, the US accepts that traffic accidents happen, and absent irresponsible behavior like drunk driving, drivers should not be held responsible for accidents. When these accidents involve collisions between cars, they're usually simple fender-benders. When…

I think operating your car in a way that kills a cyclist, where there could be cyclists (anywhere not the freeway) should be criminal negligence, not an "accident". Presumed liability laws exist in places that are nice to cycle so drivers know they could face real legal consequences.

I can't go accidentally shooting people on the street and expect just a fine.

Generally people who kill others with their car get off fine, so long as they're sober. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-t...

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

#229

Post by iso1337 » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 8:00 AM UTC

sbov wrote: post #227

iso1337 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, once you are used to that kind of space, it’s hard to go back. Hedonistic treadmill and all (or some kind of treadmill). People in the 60s had larger families with smaller houses. However, to fulfill our expectations of progress, House sizes in America keep growing decade after decade. I’m fully guilty of this myself too. But like all things it cannot keep growing indefinitely. http://www.aei.org/publication/new…

Your link's lowest datapoint has the average/median square feet per person at 500/550 square feet, back around 1973. I'm at 392 square feet per person. I'm not sure I'm on a hedonistic treadmill, but if it is I'm in a time warp. Beyond that, the stats in that article are just plain bad because it ignores the fact that not everyone lives in a new house, but it still compares the average household size to ONLY new home…

Sorry, I was on mobile and found the first link. But I think the stats aren't as bad as you think. For any given year, you will have some inventory disappear completely. There is also new inventory being built. So, the average house size of all houses is also increasing. Not as much as the average new house size, but definitely increasing. Most people don't live in old houses from the 60s.

I would actually ignore the average household size. We already know that that that decreasing over time.

Note that I didn't intend my comment to be a personal attack on you. I'm merely trying to point out this trend. Apologies if I came off that way. But your case also highlights another fact that was rare back in the day -- using your house as an office is increasingly becoming viable or necessary for those doing remote work.

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

#230

Post by sbov » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 8:31 AM UTC

iso1337 wrote: post #229

sbov wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your link's lowest datapoint has the average/median square feet per person at 500/550 square feet, back around 1973. I'm at 392 square feet per person. I'm not sure I'm on a hedonistic treadmill, but if it is I'm in a time warp. Beyond that, the stats in that article are just plain bad because it ignores the fact that not everyone lives in a new house, but it still compares the average household size to ONLY new home…

Sorry, I was on mobile and found the first link. But I think the stats aren't as bad as you think. For any given year, you will have some inventory disappear completely. There is also new inventory being built. So, the average house size of all houses is also increasing. Not as much as the average new house size, but definitely increasing. Most people don't live in old houses from the 60s. I would actually ignore the…

Yeah, between smaller households and new houses being built being on average larger, the trend certainly is that we are getting more square feet for less people. I just think the article does a lot of things with the numbers that are questionable.

I didn't take it personally, but I also didn't quite know the best way to respond either. I probably didn't do the best job at it.