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

231–240 of 302 posts

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

#231

Post by _ph_ »

hermitdev wrote: post #196
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…

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 ki…

For your arms going numb you should try a recumbent bike. They drastically reduce the stress on the upper body.

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

#232

Post by ndnxhs »

CalRobert wrote: post #228
ummonk wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 f…

Agreed. If you are driving in an area where there are bikes or pedestrians around you should slow to about 30km/h.

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

#233

Post by woah »

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.

What a sad perspective. How did anything ever get built in the first place?

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

#234

Post by CalRobert »

_ph_ wrote: post #231
hermitdev wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ki…

For your arms going numb you should try a recumbent bike. They drastically reduce the stress on the upper body.

This a thousand times over! Love my Bacchetta. Cuts through headwinds like butter too!

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

#235

Post by CalRobert »

justtopost wrote: post #223
CalRobert wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Over your own property, yes, Don't tell me I have to pay for your "free" (aka taxpayer subsidized) on-street parking. Or stop me from turning a lovely old 4 bedroom home in a nice neighbourhood in to two apartments because you want to live on a skidpad.

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

#236

Post by CalRobert »

justtopost wrote: post #224
Retric wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Demolish the parking.

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

#237

Post by CalRobert »

justtopost wrote: post #225
timerol wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So.. don't? Not sure what the problem is here.

Out of respect for property rights though, please don't make it illegal for your neighbour to do this to their home should they choose.

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

#238

Post by CalRobert »

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…

Whwn the vikings settled Dublin they set up some huts along the river.

Therefore the riverfront should be low density huts forever I guess.

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

#239

Post by metildaa »

User23 wrote: post #132
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?

I specified Southern California. If you’re unfamiliar with the dynamics of the region it makes sense that you think it’s outlandish.

The "dynamics" of SoCal are atrocious, you get the privelege of wasting your life away in traffic to do the simplest things.

Public transit is a bad joke too, the light rail in LA waits for cars to pass at intersections! I've never seen that in other metros, as rail always gets signal priority, but it is a great way to drive away riders...

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

#240

Post by yason »

waiseristy wrote: post #100
yason wrote: post #69

For any practical purposes road traffic can be considered a gaseous element that quickly fills as much space as is allocated for road space, with heavy emphasis on segments that lead to several destinations. Conversely, when roads are put on a diet and lanes are removed it generally turns out that the traffic does not pack into queues twices as long, as is often expected or feared, but generally disappears. To contro…

In that case then, we should rid ourselves of all roads and live in small self sufficient communes.

That's very true if the goal is to get rid of automotive congestion completely.

The practical solution is to find a trade-off where we allow enough congestion to allow the necessary and important things to move but not too much that allows convenience traffic that makes the city unwalkable and car-dependent.

Post reply on HN