Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#21

Post by flaque » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 5:05 AM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #17

This article provides weak arguments and no data to back up its claims. The reason "total gridlock" hasn't happened is as simple as the city, businesses, and individuals enacting different timings/routes/operations to avoid issues. Both people and businesses are taking on those pains with the knowledge that these inconveniences are temporary, and that they can return to their normal way of life in a few weeks. Just t…

> The reason "total gridlock" hasn't happened is as simple as the city, businesses, and individuals enacting different timings/routes/operations to avoid issues.

This is the claim of the article.

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#22

Post by grogenaut » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 5:08 AM UTC

If you look at the only expected traffic problem area, i5 at 90, it's much worse the gridlock is a black and deep red and stretches red a good 3/4 of a mile north and south in the right hand picture. The evening one looks horiffic knowing those maps well like I expect a major pile up to cause a map like that. I was out of town this week but looking at that chart I'm figuring out how I want to time shift Monday given how bad it looks.

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#23

Post by saosebastiao » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 5:09 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #10

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.

The real question is not about whether mobility is valuable or not, it is about how valuable it is. When it comes to infrastructure development, we throw tons of other people's money at the problem, but if drivers were paying their full costs via gas taxes and congestion charges, how much demand would there be? This article suggests that driving demand is a lot more elastic than we like to claim.

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#24

Post by closeparen » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 5:10 AM UTC

ip26 wrote: post #6

hellllllllooo wrote: post #4

> If Seattle can survive for a couple of weeks without a major chunk of its freeway system, that’s a powerful indication that more modest steps to alter road capacity don’t really mean the end of the world. It's a little bit of a stretch. The problems people are facing due to road closures are not measured by images of Google maps. Just because complete gridlock doesn't happen doesn't mean that people aren't having s…

The point of this article is that people say "complete gridlock will happen", and it doesn't. (Not even close)

The point of the article in its social context is that we don't really need so much transportation capacity, so it would be okay to remove permanently. This is a blog about urban planning, not construction logistics.

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#25

Post by grogenaut » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 5:13 AM UTC

ip26 wrote: post #6

hellllllllooo wrote: post #4

> If Seattle can survive for a couple of weeks without a major chunk of its freeway system, that’s a powerful indication that more modest steps to alter road capacity don’t really mean the end of the world. It's a little bit of a stretch. The problems people are facing due to road closures are not measured by images of Google maps. Just because complete gridlock doesn't happen doesn't mean that people aren't having s…

The point of this article is that people say "complete gridlock will happen", and it doesn't. (Not even close)

The only things I've seen that causes complete gridlock in Seattle were a freak snowstorm/ice at 3pm, a butane truck closing i5 and major arteries downtown and Obama. And Obama wasn't that bad most of the time. But those were literally no one can move anywhere nor can people reparj and stop. This is know and plannable.

Seattle has a remarkable amount of work hour flexibility in the short term. They closed 90 a few years back for a week, asked 50k to stay home and iirc got around 110k who did.

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#26

Post by closeparen » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 5:24 AM UTC

saosebastiao wrote: post #23

closeparen wrote: post #10

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.

The real question is not about whether mobility is valuable or not, it is about how valuable it is. When it comes to infrastructure development, we throw tons of other people's money at the problem, but if drivers were paying their full costs via gas taxes and congestion charges, how much demand would there be? This article suggests that driving demand is a lot more elastic than we like to claim.

Can't you make this argument against any public service?

We throw a bunch of other people's money at K12. I suspect most families would buy fewer years of schooling if they paid the true cost.

We throw a bunch of other people's money at the military. If people had to pay the true cost of America's autonomy, they'd suck it up and learn Russian.

The compelling cost argument, IMO, is that a subway system could offer more mobility at the same price point.

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#27

Post by devriesp » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 5:33 AM UTC

flaque wrote: post #21

throwawaysea wrote: post #17

This article provides weak arguments and no data to back up its claims. The reason "total gridlock" hasn't happened is as simple as the city, businesses, and individuals enacting different timings/routes/operations to avoid issues. Both people and businesses are taking on those pains with the knowledge that these inconveniences are temporary, and that they can return to their normal way of life in a few weeks. Just t…

> The reason "total gridlock" hasn't happened is as simple as the city, businesses, and individuals enacting different timings/routes/operations to avoid issues. This is the claim of the article.

Yes, but as OP mentions, the article totally discounts any negative affects to QOL.

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#28

Post by devriesp » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 5:40 AM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #13

Afforess wrote: post #9

Traffic is induced demand. Traffic is induced demand. Traffic is induced demand.

This whole notion of "induced demand" seems like a suspicious artificial label used to position roads as a negative. The reality is that roads provide something people want - the ability to get around quickly, on one's own terms, without dealing with waiting times or trip planning, and without some of the unsavory experiences that can sour public transit (e.g. https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robber…

Agreed, a lot of pieces that talk about "induced traffic" throw claims out like "look, we closed this road and ppl dealt with it... no problem, let's close more". Yes lets.. Reductio ad absurdum .. let's close 50% of the roads b/c apparently people will just "adapt" and we could save a ton of money :)

The reality is people get some marginal benefit from each extra trip the road system allows. People do tend to apparently undervalue their time though.. so there's some point where building more road capacity doesn't make real economic sense. But I don't think we are anywhere close to that point in Seattle...

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#29

Post by adrianN » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 5:48 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #26

saosebastiao wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real question is not about whether mobility is valuable or not, it is about how valuable it is. When it comes to infrastructure development, we throw tons of other people's money at the problem, but if drivers were paying their full costs via gas taxes and congestion charges, how much demand would there be? This article suggests that driving demand is a lot more elastic than we like to claim.

Can't you make this argument against any public service? We throw a bunch of other people's money at K12. I suspect most families would buy fewer years of schooling if they paid the true cost. We throw a bunch of other people's money at the military. If people had to pay the true cost of America's autonomy, they'd suck it up and learn Russian. The compelling cost argument, IMO, is that a subway system could offer mor…

Cars are also major contributors to climate change and air pollution in cities, unlike schools. More cars also lead to more sprawl which leads to higher demand for cars. It's a vicious circle.

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#30

Post by AmericanChopper » Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 5:49 AM UTC

saosebastiao wrote: post #23

closeparen wrote: post #10

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.

The real question is not about whether mobility is valuable or not, it is about how valuable it is. When it comes to infrastructure development, we throw tons of other people's money at the problem, but if drivers were paying their full costs via gas taxes and congestion charges, how much demand would there be? This article suggests that driving demand is a lot more elastic than we like to claim.

>if drivers were paying their full costs via gas taxes and congestion charges

The entire economy benefits from roads. You can’t reduce your dependence on roads for your own personal travel needs and then claim some sort of moral high ground.