Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction? • Hacker News Board

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#41

Post by bobthepanda » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 12:52 AM UTC

woah wrote: post #35

woodruffw wrote: post #7

On top of roadkill itself, there's a reasonable (IMO) argument to be made that car-centric development is a big source of our looming water problems: the US has drained or redeveloped astounding amounts of natural swamp, marsh, and wetlands to make space for car-dependent living patterns. That means less water percolating into already over-stressed aquifers. It's a trite thing to say, but our grandchildren are going…

It's simply not possible for many families to live in the cramped environments of a city. How am I going to pick up 12 gallons of milk on my weekly grocery shopping trip without a pickup truck? That's about 125lb of milk. Not going to be able to get that onto a fixie in the city. How am I going to park the truck without a garage? The garage needs 3 spaces, one for the truck, one for the car, and one for my garage ref…

usually, when people are promoting alternatives to the car, these things need not be in exclusion to the car. In general, when a road is over a hundred feet wide, it is really not a big deal to provide an additional twelve feet for an ADA sidewalk, and maybe another twelve for a bike lane with more protection than a strip of fading paint.

the American car dependent lifestyle has mostly happened by making other lifestyles impossible. In other places you don't buy your milk for the whole week in one go, there are convenient supermarkets where you can walk in and out on your way to and from work on foot or public transport, so stopping in more frequently is a lot easier if you're not driving 15-20 minutes on arterial roads to the big box store. In most of America, it is illegal to open even slightly smaller grocery stores in areas outside big box arterial roads.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#42

Post by bobthepanda » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 12:55 AM UTC

defrost wrote: post #22

explaininjs wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where I own property You hit the nail on the head workout realizing it. The real problem is mass property ownership in remote areas. The huge uptick in car travelers and according roads are a result of that.

Yes | No. The classic "road trueism" is If you build them, they will fill . Four lane highways with occassional gridlock when expanded become six lane highways with occassional gridlock. The connection corollary that follows is roads | train lines built to connect A and B will often be followed by small townsites along the way and the spread of "off the grid" living at blocks T junctioning dirt road access from the n…

Also, the roads built are for the most part free, which certainly doesn't help regulate usage at all.

The moment you introduce tolls onto major roads, often they don't meet financial projections, have to be bailed out, etc.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#43

Post by woodruffw » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 12:55 AM UTC

belorn wrote: post #36

woodruffw wrote: post #7

On top of roadkill itself, there's a reasonable (IMO) argument to be made that car-centric development is a big source of our looming water problems: the US has drained or redeveloped astounding amounts of natural swamp, marsh, and wetlands to make space for car-dependent living patterns. That means less water percolating into already over-stressed aquifers. It's a trite thing to say, but our grandchildren are going…

How much of that swamp, marsh, and wetlands was drained in order to enable/improve farming and forestry? To me this has less to do with living patterns and more to do with commercial exploitation of land. I am unsure how much of a reduction in draining we would see if we remove cars and roads from the equation. Looking at Sweden, there was a major movement in the last century to drain wetlands in order to improve tim…

Much, much more. Industrial-scale agriculture is by far one of the most devastating things that humans do to the environment; my focus on roads wasn't meant to imply otherwise.

(The larger observation is that, while we use more land for agriculture than we need, there is at least a prima facie argument that industrial agriculture feeds our planet. Whereas a 6 lane highway through a drained wetland to a low-density suburb does very little for our planet.)

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#44

Post by scythe » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 12:56 AM UTC

belorn wrote: post #36

woodruffw wrote: post #7

On top of roadkill itself, there's a reasonable (IMO) argument to be made that car-centric development is a big source of our looming water problems: the US has drained or redeveloped astounding amounts of natural swamp, marsh, and wetlands to make space for car-dependent living patterns. That means less water percolating into already over-stressed aquifers. It's a trite thing to say, but our grandchildren are going…

How much of that swamp, marsh, and wetlands was drained in order to enable/improve farming and forestry? To me this has less to do with living patterns and more to do with commercial exploitation of land. I am unsure how much of a reduction in draining we would see if we remove cars and roads from the equation. Looking at Sweden, there was a major movement in the last century to drain wetlands in order to improve tim…

A lot of farming would not be viable without roads. It's something of a blind men and the elephant question. Roads weren't originally developed for cars; the US Constitution prescribed the authority to build roads for the postal service. Roads, especially paved roads, make it possible to send fresh produce to markets in cities hundreds of miles away, to collect grains at mills, and to distribute and maintain farm equipment.

In warm regions, wetlands were also drained to control malaria, particularly in Brazil and the American South.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#45

Post by woodruffw » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 12:58 AM UTC

woah wrote: post #35

woodruffw wrote: post #7

On top of roadkill itself, there's a reasonable (IMO) argument to be made that car-centric development is a big source of our looming water problems: the US has drained or redeveloped astounding amounts of natural swamp, marsh, and wetlands to make space for car-dependent living patterns. That means less water percolating into already over-stressed aquifers. It's a trite thing to say, but our grandchildren are going…

It's simply not possible for many families to live in the cramped environments of a city. How am I going to pick up 12 gallons of milk on my weekly grocery shopping trip without a pickup truck? That's about 125lb of milk. Not going to be able to get that onto a fixie in the city. How am I going to park the truck without a garage? The garage needs 3 spaces, one for the truck, one for the car, and one for my garage ref…

There's no shame in my statement.

The US isn't the only country in the world with big families; there's seemingly nothing exceptional about us (in that regard) that requires the pickup truck and 3-space garage where other countries get along fine. Part of the reason they get along fine is because they allow grocery stores to be built on residential corners, so that you buy 3 gallons of milk every other night on your way home rather than driving X miles to load up weekly.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#46

Post by BirdieNZ » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 12:59 AM UTC

woah wrote: post #35

woodruffw wrote: post #7

On top of roadkill itself, there's a reasonable (IMO) argument to be made that car-centric development is a big source of our looming water problems: the US has drained or redeveloped astounding amounts of natural swamp, marsh, and wetlands to make space for car-dependent living patterns. That means less water percolating into already over-stressed aquifers. It's a trite thing to say, but our grandchildren are going…

It's simply not possible for many families to live in the cramped environments of a city. How am I going to pick up 12 gallons of milk on my weekly grocery shopping trip without a pickup truck? That's about 125lb of milk. Not going to be able to get that onto a fixie in the city. How am I going to park the truck without a garage? The garage needs 3 spaces, one for the truck, one for the car, and one for my garage ref…

I'm not gonna argue with your choices in life, and I might make the same ones if I had a family that goes through 12 gallons of milk a week, but it's not impossible to pull that off with fewer cars and a smaller garage.

Scenario 1: dense urban living, somehow you can afford an apartment big enough for everyone. No car, just good transit (e.g. Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo). Grocery store is https://www.argos.co.uk/product/8653909?clickPR=plp:4:6 or bigger: https://www.kmart.co.nz/product/foldable-beach-trolley-42365...)

Scenario 2: big terraced/row/town-house (shared walls on two sides), has a 1-2 car garage. Suburban-ish living, car dependent, but definitely not rural or outskirts of a city. You own a van, which you'd need anyway if your family is big enough to need 12 gallons of milk a week, and then you have your big chest freezer in the garage and you go once a week to the grocery store and get 12 gallons of milk.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#47

Post by ants_everywhere » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 12:59 AM UTC

woah wrote: post #35

woodruffw wrote: post #7

On top of roadkill itself, there's a reasonable (IMO) argument to be made that car-centric development is a big source of our looming water problems: the US has drained or redeveloped astounding amounts of natural swamp, marsh, and wetlands to make space for car-dependent living patterns. That means less water percolating into already over-stressed aquifers. It's a trite thing to say, but our grandchildren are going…

It's simply not possible for many families to live in the cramped environments of a city. How am I going to pick up 12 gallons of milk on my weekly grocery shopping trip without a pickup truck? That's about 125lb of milk. Not going to be able to get that onto a fixie in the city. How am I going to park the truck without a garage? The garage needs 3 spaces, one for the truck, one for the car, and one for my garage ref…

I think this may be a joke? https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/12-gallons-milk-mem...

But anyway, we go through a lot of milk (significantly less than 12 gallons) and have it delivered. Same thing applies to anything large that I'd rather not rent a truck for.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#48

Post by engineer_22 » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 1:01 AM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #7

On top of roadkill itself, there's a reasonable (IMO) argument to be made that car-centric development is a big source of our looming water problems: the US has drained or redeveloped astounding amounts of natural swamp, marsh, and wetlands to make space for car-dependent living patterns. That means less water percolating into already over-stressed aquifers. It's a trite thing to say, but our grandchildren are going…

USA has plentiful water resources.

Engineering practices in new development and redevelopment have adapted to prioritize retention of stormwater. We have some of the finest and most sophisticated hydraulic engineering in the history of the world, be happy for what you've got.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#49

Post by anamax » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 1:01 AM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #24

tony_cannistra wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just not that compelled by that argument. If cars are at the center, then so are a hundred other things that are impacting biodiversity at least as much. I'm really not trying to be a car stan here, I don't really care about cars. But focusing on cars is kindof a dumb distraction, in my opinion.

It's not so much cars themselves as it is car-centric development that causes many problems. In the US at least, this is pretty clear: when you design new areas and cities around cars as the primary or even only way to get around, this hurts the environment a lot more than denser, multi-modal style of developments. It results in more total space needed per person, and it results in higher energy expenditures. If you…

> If you look at vehicle miles traveled per capita, the US is around 2x that of major Western European countries, and nearly 4x that of Japan:

You do know that the population density of the US is a fraction of that of the countries that you're comparing it to, right?

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#50

Post by anamax » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 1:03 AM UTC

defrost wrote: post #22

explaininjs wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where I own property You hit the nail on the head workout realizing it. The real problem is mass property ownership in remote areas. The huge uptick in car travelers and according roads are a result of that.

Yes | No. The classic "road trueism" is If you build them, they will fill . Four lane highways with occassional gridlock when expanded become six lane highways with occassional gridlock. The connection corollary that follows is roads | train lines built to connect A and B will often be followed by small townsites along the way and the spread of "off the grid" living at blocks T junctioning dirt road access from the n…

> The classic "road trueism" is If you build them, they will fill.

That's only when new roads satisfy pre-existing demand.

The fact that someone can't do something doesn't imply that they don't want to do it.