Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

ryanblakeley.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–117 of 117 posts

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#111

Post by bobthepanda »

schiffern wrote: post #13
tony_cannistra wrote: post #8

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.

At least recently there are a lot of projects in various places to essentially build long pipe tunnels to hold water for treatment in storms and not overwhelm treatment plants.

DC is building one, London is building one, Paris is building one to make the Seine swimmable for the Olympics, etc.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#112

Post by geraldwhen »

amarshall wrote: post #102
geraldwhen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apartments are horrible. If you get a crying baby neighbor, or a dog, or neighbors who blast music at 3am, there’s nothing you can do about it. Nothing. The police will not help you, as noise ordinance is not enforced. Your apartment manager won’t do anything because none of them do anything. Other fun apartment specific happenings: constant clouds of marijuana smoke, curry spice smell seeping through the walls and s…

Suburban homes suck. If you get a neighbor mowing their lawn, weed-whacking, leaf-blowing, ignoring their dog endlessly barking outside, or partying late on their patio, there’s nothing you can do about it. Nothing. The police will not help you, as noise ordinance either doesn’t exist or is not enforced. Your HOA, if you have one, won’t do anything because none of them do anything. (Yes, this is tongue-in-cheek, but…

Gas mowers are fast and run during the day. I couldn’t care less about daytime noise, because I sleep at night.

Animal control will eventually come for dogs left outside, but it takes some effort. The more property you own, the less this matters. And some HOAs DO enforce where apartments will not. HOAs aren’t in the business of making anyone happy, unlike apartments. They exist to do the opposite, in fact.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#113

Post by kjkjadksj »

woodruffw wrote: post #43
belorn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 su…

Not all agriculture even feeds the planet. E.g. cotton grown in the central valley of california makes its way to mexico to become budget metal spring mattresses. Does the world need more metal/wood/cotton boxes that end up on the side of the road at some point in their lifetime? State economic planners seem to think so at least.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#115

Post by engineer_22 »

woodruffw wrote: post #58
engineer_22 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All three of "we have plentiful water resources," "we have advanced ground- and storm-water management systems," and "we are disastrously compromising our water resources" can be simultaneously true. I'm exceedingly thankful for my high quality of life. I would like my grandchildren to share a similar quality of life.

Since you're a fellow New Yorker, I'm also puzzled how you conclude there is a water scarcity problem? My first reaction was that you might be living in a water-stressed area. I'm sorry if my first comment sounds trite, it wasn't my intention. (Maybe I have social media fatigue?)

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#116

Post by EnigmaFlare »

DoughnutHole wrote: post #75
EnigmaFlare wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a trade-off between preserving the environment and having human development. We already remember our grandparents for the contributions they made to human development. Our lives are vastly better now because of it. Future generations will also benefit from our contributions, including the things we did using roads. They might have less aquifer water or whatever, but that's not really essential. We can always…

I don’t think vast suburban single family home housing developments, big box store parking lots and Wendys drive thrus are the drivers of technological development you’re making them out to be. The overwhelming majority of environmental degradation is not being caused by cutting edge technological development. Wasteful and destructive development patterns are not what’s driving technological growth.

I'd say they're interconnected. Quality of life may help people be more productive or attract more productive people. Plenty of technology goes into consumer goods and services, and is sort of what the whole point of technological development is - making people's lives better. Also, the car industry was/is full of cutting edge technology and was enhanced by car-friendly housing and roads. It was a major factor in America industrializing in the first place.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#117

Post by bertil »

sandworm101 wrote: post #71
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…

Whether it is car, bus, train, Uber or hovercar, we will still need roads. Until personal jetpacks and flying school busses are a thing, the road issue is totally divorced from the type and environmental impact of vehicles driving upon the. Some form of road will be there regardless of the means, or even the amount of traffic, so long as a connection is needed.

I don’t think trains need as many roads as the other options in your list.
Post reply on HN