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)

#251

Post by chadcmulligan » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 11:31 AM UTC

lazyjones wrote: post #249

chadcmulligan wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in Australia and the public transport is clean here. No food is allowed, and its enforced. There is the occasional smelly person, particularly in summer, unavoidable. In general though it works well.

I'd like to see some pictures of the inside of a subway train in the center of Melbourne on 6am on a Saturday... ;-) It's a mentality issue - Singapore and Japan are also famous for clean public transport, but in most countries it's simply not possible.

I'm not in Melbourne so can't say, who knows what they get up to down there but whenever I've been there I've had no complaints. The fact that Singapore and Japan can do it, means its possible though if there's a political will.

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

#252

Post by kortilla » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 11:35 AM UTC

honkycat wrote: post #59

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…

Except for the fact that building more roads != more commerce. In fact, roads often DECIMATE the communities they are built through. Ask the rural United States how building a bunch of highways through their towns to the local Walmart has gone for them. Roads for cars are much less efficient for commerce than community oriented walkable streets.[0] Also, maintaining roads is expensive. Once you build a new road it is…

>Ask the rural United States how building a bunch of highways through their towns to the local Walmart has gone for them.

Might be hard to get an answer given that most places didn’t build highways to Walmarts.

Either way, consumers tend to shop at their local Walmart regardless of the road to it. Consumers seem to consistently pick Walmart over overpriced local businesses nearly everywhere except for wealthy, dense cities where people can afford to avoid the unpleasantness of shopping the giant things with lower class people.

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

#253

Post by lovemenot » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 11:38 AM UTC

kypro wrote: post #157

sokoloff wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Cambridge about a mile walk from Harvard Square, so fairly close to a decent sized city area, yet we almost never go there. Real estate in the Harvard Square area is so expensive and there are so many tourists that almost all the establishments there are priced out of reasonability for regular/daily patronage. We take out of town guests there and that's about it. I don't see city center commerce and leisure…

Government incentives probably won't change the life-styles of people such as yourself who can afford to live near the city core. The problem is for those of us who can't afford to do so, but need to work in the city centre (like most people these days do) our options are basically buy a car and waste hours in traffic everyday, or rent an "apartment" - although these days that tends to mean a small bedroom - in the c…

>> Who the hell is going to raise a kid on £35,000 in 10m x 10m one-bed "flat" in a city like London?

Not sure whether you made a mistake in conversion, but 100 sqm is actually a fairly decent living space here in a city like London (Tokyo).

My 90-odd sqm house has been plenty large enough to raise a family. Small garden, no driveway. But who needs car ownersip when there's three well-connected rail lines within a 7-minute walk?

Density need not be the problem you imagine.

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

#254

Post by pavelrub » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 11:48 AM UTC

CalRobert wrote: post #110

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…

"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…

Spending less on housing has tremendous value for the people who benefit from it, including the ability to pay for better medical treatment, and lead an overall happier life. It's unclear what evidence you have that the net effect would be an increase in the overall number of deaths, or - more importantly - human suffering.

Other than that I do not really understand your "astonishment": you've artificially constructed a personal axiom that has never applied to human society - namely that people should care equally about every casualty, regardless of circumstances or causes, or the impact of those causes on society as a whole - and are then surprised that others don't follow this model.

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

#255

Post by lazyjones » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 11:56 AM UTC

zone411 wrote: post #95

It is actually possible for an additional road to increase the travel time for each driver, without any new cars added, and with everybody acting rationally! Braess's paradox ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox ). It has been observed in practice.

That's a whole can of bogus science you opened there. The Wikipedia example is particularly funny, since it looks at a case where a new road is suddenly added and all drivers currently on the road switch to it momentarily because at one single moment in time it looks beneficial (but isn't). In reality, people don't change their routes based on new roads added during their trips and even if they did, they'd quickly learn a new overall more efficient route instead of what this bogus example suggests.

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

#256

Post by ubercow13 » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 12:20 PM UTC

bb88 wrote: post #214

realityczeque wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your windshield perspective is showing. The reason people in cars don't notice bike traffic is because a bike is small and unobtrusive and silent. Fifty cars in the same place is an epic disaster but fifty bikes in the same place is not a problem. Take for example this data in London, which was produced in response to a question from a member of the public having essentially the same bias as your statement "nobody us…

> In London some bike lanes have slightly increased travel times by car but cycling has increased more than 50%. 50% of anything near zero is still darn close to zero. But at the same token, a 5 minute increase for 1000 people is a loss of 5000 minutes. > The reason people in cars don't notice bike traffic is because a bike is small and unobtrusive and silent. False. A single bike sticks out like a sore thumb in traf…

Have you considered using the bike lane yourself?

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

#257

Post by CalRobert » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 1:01 PM UTC

pavelrub wrote: post #254

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…

Spending less on housing has tremendous value for the people who benefit from it, including the ability to pay for better medical treatment, and lead an overall happier life. It's unclear what evidence you have that the net effect would be an increase in the overall number of deaths, or - more importantly - human suffering. Other than that I do not really understand your "astonishment": you've artificially constructe…

We both want affordable housing. I just want it to be legal to build it closer to jobs.

Driving is dangerous, as are its byproducts. More driving kills more people.

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

#258

Post by CalRobert » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 1:10 PM UTC

pavelrub wrote: post #254

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…

Spending less on housing has tremendous value for the people who benefit from it, including the ability to pay for better medical treatment, and lead an overall happier life. It's unclear what evidence you have that the net effect would be an increase in the overall number of deaths, or - more importantly - human suffering. Other than that I do not really understand your "astonishment": you've artificially constructe…

" namely that people should care equally about every casualty, regardless of circumstances or causes, "

Where did I do that?

A thought experiment - how does your reaction to "cyclist on sidewalk kills child on bike" compare to "driver in street kills child on bike" ? I suggest they should be the same.

I understand we may simply have utterly and drastically different worldviews and priorities. This sort of thing is part of why I moved away from a profoundly hostile city.

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

#259

Post by tinus_hn » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 1:22 PM UTC

bb88 wrote: post #214

realityczeque wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your windshield perspective is showing. The reason people in cars don't notice bike traffic is because a bike is small and unobtrusive and silent. Fifty cars in the same place is an epic disaster but fifty bikes in the same place is not a problem. Take for example this data in London, which was produced in response to a question from a member of the public having essentially the same bias as your statement "nobody us…

> In London some bike lanes have slightly increased travel times by car but cycling has increased more than 50%. 50% of anything near zero is still darn close to zero. But at the same token, a 5 minute increase for 1000 people is a loss of 5000 minutes. > The reason people in cars don't notice bike traffic is because a bike is small and unobtrusive and silent. False. A single bike sticks out like a sore thumb in traf…

The paper has the number of bikers. But I’m sure your statistically representative research of ‘watching for bikers while driving once’ is much more worthwhile.

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

#260

Post by alistairSH » Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 3:14 PM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #208

realityczeque wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your windshield perspective is showing. The reason people in cars don't notice bike traffic is because a bike is small and unobtrusive and silent. Fifty cars in the same place is an epic disaster but fifty bikes in the same place is not a problem. Take for example this data in London, which was produced in response to a question from a member of the public having essentially the same bias as your statement "nobody us…

There are plenty of places in US that are exactly as OP has described. This is not because bike lanes aren't inefficient per se, but because they're often built in the wrong places, or lack other infrastructure.

Lack of related infrastructure is a real problem.

Bike lanes built one at a time, and not connected. So, if you happen to live and work along a single bike lane, great. If not, you're back in the car.

Lack of bicycle facilities at destinations. My office has a tiny, poorly constructed rack outdoors. I wouldn't trust it to hold my bicycle, even with a good lock. Much of the USA is warm or hot in summer, so anything more than a few miles on the bike results in lots of sweating, so showers at offices would be helpful.

In places where bicycle infrastructure is provided, it is well used. The first Reston Metro stop (Weihle Station) has a large, locked bike room with nice racks and a small workbench area. The station is located right off one of the regions main multi-use paths. That bike room is heavily utilized.

Sadly, the second Reston Metro station, Reston Town Center, doesn't provide any infrastructure at all. No bike storage, no parking, nothing. Not sure what the heck the county was thinking when planning this station.