Live data from Hacker News

Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

ryanblakeley.net

91–100 of 117 posts

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#91

I have a couple of stories 1. Last Easter my wife and I were travelling across the country. We drive reasonably slow, mostly about 100km/h. I guess it was a special time of the year because we must've killed at least several thousand insects in the first two hours alone. It was non stop. One car out of thousands on the road. Made us feel pretty bad. 2. Second story is about four years old. Travelling on a brand new h…

For an awful observation on 1.: you might not have to worry about that soon. There's a common observation world wide that this phenomenon is declining, due to the horrific decline in insect populations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windshield_phenomenon

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#92

I wonder if an AI revolution can allow us to move most of our commuting and logistics needs underground thanks to labour cost reductions...

You AI bots sure love to talk about AI revolutions (o)_(o)

What made you think I'm a bot?

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#93
post #61
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of rural roads and highways that disprove your point. We fill roads in cities because the population wants/needs to travel. If we would instead build trains those would fill instead. Trains are a lot more cost effective in cities, but no city (not even transit cities like Paris) builds enough of them to make trains a better alternative than cars. Note that by the time anyone realizes roads are full a…

It's not my point, it's a long standing observed principal of urban planning referred to as induced demand or induced traffic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ My point was that road access introduced through previously road vehicle inaccessable regions often (not always) leads to more human activity and dwelling in the vicinity of that road. It's…

But nobody builds a road to nowhere. You only build a road when there is demand, often from property owners, to be able to reach a place more easily. Thus I repeat the issue is not the roads, they are merely a consequence of the property ownership increasing travel to a remote area.

Consider: would a road nobody traveled on be any issue for the tortoises? Clearly not.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#94

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.

What came first - the chicken or the egg? Government roads effectively subsidies access to land.

The parcels in question (near JTNP) are almost entirely empty BLM land that was bought up in masse by housing developers, developed, then cut up and sold to individuals. BLM wasn’t going around building gross grids into their parcels in hope to drive the value up for homeowners.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#95
post #28

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.

> 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. JTNP draws massive numbers of tourists. Plus the main road through my neck of the Mojave (62 and Amboy Rd.) is a popular alternate route linking LA and Las Vegas. You wouldn't believe how much traffic blasts through on weekends and…

“We aren’t the problem, it’s the out of towners that are the issue!”

Wouldn’t we all like to believe so much.

But in reality the roads taking folks all over JT and to/from Vegas cut the land into ~6 massive lattice cells. Those roads have basically 0 impact on turtle populations because their linear nature makes them effectively insignificant at the scale of the desert. On the other hand, the land ownership grid gives rise to a space-filling-curve of road that dominates the affected landscape and an effectively infinite number of microscopic lattice cells that are too small to support any population, and thus force the animals to migrate over roads constantly.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#96
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not my point, it's a long standing observed principal of urban planning referred to as induced demand or induced traffic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ My point was that road access introduced through previously road vehicle inaccessable regions often (not always) leads to more human activity and dwelling in the vicinity of that road. It's…

But nobody builds a road to nowhere. You only build a road when there is demand, often from property owners, to be able to reach a place more easily. Thus I repeat the issue is not the roads, they are merely a consequence of the property ownership increasing travel to a remote area. Consider: would a road nobody traveled on be any issue for the tortoises? Clearly not.

Roads are built through "nowhere" all the time .. to join one city to another several thousand miles away with no other "civilisation" between.

To join a port to an inland mine site.

Once you have a road where once there was no road and no easy access to the land within then people can follow.

> But nobody builds a road to nowhere.

See: Gunbarrel Highway - a road system from a launch point out into "nowhere" in order to retrieve test missiles.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#97
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But nobody builds a road to nowhere. You only build a road when there is demand, often from property owners, to be able to reach a place more easily. Thus I repeat the issue is not the roads, they are merely a consequence of the property ownership increasing travel to a remote area. Consider: would a road nobody traveled on be any issue for the tortoises? Clearly not.

Roads are built through "nowhere" all the time .. to join one city to another several thousand miles away with no other "civilisation" between. To join a port to an inland mine site. Once you have a road where once there was no road and no easy access to the land within then people can follow. > But nobody builds a road to nowhere. See: Gunbarrel Highway - a road system from a launch point out into "nowhere" in order…

Connecting two occupied points is the exact opposite of building a road to nowhere.

And see my point here about “linear” roads (connecting point to point) vs space-filling ones (providing access to an entire grid of houses). In short, an animal can exist very easily in the proximity of a single highway, but existing surrounded by development is a much harder task.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38877692

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#99
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roads are built through "nowhere" all the time .. to join one city to another several thousand miles away with no other "civilisation" between. To join a port to an inland mine site. Once you have a road where once there was no road and no easy access to the land within then people can follow. > But nobody builds a road to nowhere. See: Gunbarrel Highway - a road system from a launch point out into "nowhere" in order…

Connecting two occupied points is the exact opposite of building a road to nowhere. And see my point here about “linear” roads (connecting point to point) vs space-filling ones (providing access to an entire grid of houses). In short, an animal can exist very easily in the proximity of a single highway, but existing surrounded by development is a much harder task. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38877692

> Connecting two occupied points is the exact opposite of building a road to nowhere.

I'm at a loss as to why you even bought it up. My intial comment here:

     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 new A  B route.
was about development following roads that connect places and that development expanding outwards into what was once "nowhere".

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is most definitely the case. It has also caused enormous problems for places where flooding was already a threat, by removing the natural buffering capabilities that places like wetlands have. In fact, a whole field (stormwater engineering) exists to mitigate this.

> In fact, a whole field (stormwater engineering) exists to mitigate this. I haven't checked in lately. How are they doing getting over the age-old "Drain! Drain! Drain!! Faster! Faster! Faster!" mantra? This ethic of course only contributes to the problems of flash flooding, lack of buffer, lack of aquifer recharge, and (ultimately) alternating drought/flood cycles.

This drain, drain, faster faster is a question I've been keen to get to the bottom off as I live in an area covered by upcoming River Thames Scheme to help prevent flooding. As I'm doing a rewilding course I wanted to find out how much natural flood management techniques they were using as nature's solution is to generally hold water as long as possible in the landscape to slow down peak flow, as peak flow is generally what causes the worst flooding events. This also has knock on benefits helping mitigate pollution and soil erosion etc. I've been to two consultations and am still none the wiser, though I've another consultation to go to.

Whether this is tree/vegetation cover or beavers (despite being in the middle of surburban sprawl, Ealing have secured funding for beavers as a potentially cheaper solution than hard infrastructure for flood mitigation and a significant amount of the beaver costs were the fencing to keep them in despite England having some wild beavers).

Similarly I've seen the Pennine Way in the South Pennines turn into a fast flowing stream during one period of wet weather due to the inability of the land to hold all the water and houses there get flooded as well.

Obviously the clash here is between the human and natural ways of doing things, building static houses on floodplains doesn't fit with more chaotic natural solutions in a dynamicly changing landscape with increasingly erratic weather patterns...

Post reply on HN