11–20 of 78 posts
Yes, people can adapt to having less mobility. That doesn’t mean mobility is useless or that removing it is without harm. People deciding to stay home because getting around is too much hassle isn’t a victory condition.
Yes, people can adapt to having less mobility. That doesn’t mean mobility is useless or that removing it is without harm. People deciding to stay home because getting around is too much hassle isn’t a victory condition.
Moving about from place to place is not inherently valuable.
Traffic is induced demand. Traffic is induced demand. Traffic is induced demand.
Building roads doesn't "induce" demand. Rather, it _fulfills_ demand. There is a limit to that demand - it's not like supplying infinitely more of something would infinitely scale the associated behavior. There are only so many humans and only so many trips they are willing to make in a day. And an area that is 100% roads obviously would not have any destinations worth traveling to (leaving aside edge cases like race tracks).
That leaves out the fact that this is a three-week window that people know is temporary and have time to plan for.
After the new year everyone goes to the gym and eats better. But nobody would think of saying "if this continues until February, that's a powerful indication that obesity will soon come to an end."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moving about from place to place is not inherently valuable.
It clearly has value to the people who do it when they have the chance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It clearly has value to the people who do it when they have the chance.
That doesn't mean the value of that travel is high. In fact it means the opposite: if the travel was so valuable, people would still do it when it's more difficult.
Just to provide one example, the Port of Seattle is opening freight activity at 5am instead of the usual 7am (https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/tunnel-effect/how-t...). Some terminals are opening 3 hours early (https://mynorthwest.com/1231341/port-of-seattle-viaduct-clos...).
Other things are in place temporarily as well - for example ferries that don't service commuter routes are temporarily operating as water taxis. There are extra temporary park and ride lots set up in some locations. And on a personal level, I have time-shifted and even cancelled some of my activities and trips to minimize the time I spend in otherwise worse traffic.
There is a cost to adapting to these circumstances - reduced quality of life, increased inconveniences, etc. Just because it is hard to measure doesn't mean it isn't happening. Frankly, assuming otherwise and boldly making claims that roads are unnecessary seems incompetent or purposefully biased.
- We know it's only temporary, and we knew about it ahead of time. It can be easy to put off many types of errands, or work from home (lots of tech workers here), for a little while. That doesn't mean it's sustainable.
- They've upped the water taxi routes for the closure (but not buses, AFAICT?), and they're taking hundreds more passengers per day. That's not going to last. Adding more public transit options permanently would be fantastic, but apparently that's not a sustainable option, either.
- A lot of commutes are being time-shifted. The rule of thumb I've been hearing is "Double your normal transportation time". That's a significant cost. I know of people leaving home early, and then sitting in the parking lot because their workplace isn't even open yet. There's a huge number of person-hours being wasted just to deal with this added constraint.
- I seem to recall hearing that the vehicle accident rate was up this week. Based on the wrecks I've seen and the sirens I've heard (I'm hearing some right now), I believe it.
- The Google traffic map only shows speeds down to "Slow" ("stop and go", claims this article), but that still covers a wide spectrum. There's 3-block section near me that Google says is orange-to-red on a typical weekday at 4-6pm, but I avoid it entirely because it literally takes 45 minutes to drive down those 3 blocks. (Personally, I'd call that "gridlock".) Google Traffic is probably designed to tell you what regions to avoid as a driver, not as a statistical analysis of traffic volume.
What other real-world costs are not visible on a simple color-coded traffic map?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It clearly has value to the people who do it when they have the chance.
That doesn't mean the value of that travel is high. In fact it means the opposite: if the travel was so valuable, people would still do it when it's more difficult.
Imagine the price of groceries rises to 100% of your wages, so you stop running the furnace. "If being warm were so valuable, you would still do it even when it means skipping a few meals."
Welfare is still harmed by austerity and boosted by growth.
A better line of argument, IMO: a denser environment would offer more value for less travel. Or, driving to a faraway discount store is only profitable because you pay 100% for manufactured goods and X < 100% for highway mileage.
Yes, people can adapt to having less mobility. That doesn’t mean mobility is useless or that removing it is without harm. People deciding to stay home because getting around is too much hassle isn’t a victory condition.
Moving about from place to place is not inherently valuable.