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

How we can reduce traffic congestion

research.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 373 posts

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#171

Post by rob74 »

trymas wrote: post #156

How we can reduce traffic congestion? 1. Extensive support of public transport: metro, tram, dedicated bus routes (separate from car traffic), dedicated paths for bicycles. 2. ... maybe whatever is this ... UPDATE: here's a good graph - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport#/media/File:P... , i.e. car traffic is often congested because of inherent low passenger bandwith. If google wants to manage traffic as…

Yes - when I read "both navigation users and non-users share the advantages of decongesting targeted segments", I wondered how long these advantages would last. It's widely accepted that less congestion will encourage people to travel by car more, which will soon eat up the gains (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand#Definitions)

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#172

Post by trymas »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #161
trymas wrote: post #156

How we can reduce traffic congestion? 1. Extensive support of public transport: metro, tram, dedicated bus routes (separate from car traffic), dedicated paths for bicycles. 2. ... maybe whatever is this ... UPDATE: here's a good graph - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport#/media/File:P... , i.e. car traffic is often congested because of inherent low passenger bandwith. If google wants to manage traffic as…

We definitely need more metro, trams, bus routes, and bike paths. I especially want the latter because I bike to and from work every day. However, I have to wonder about the cost of these projects. In SF, we recently spent $346 million on the Van Ness Improvement Project, which added 2 miles of bus lanes. I just can't see how that's a good use of funds. If someone gave me $346 million and told me to improve society,…

One of the problems indeed.

Though IMHO it's just lack of political will.

Highways are built at (relative) ease, no matter the cost. Data centers are infamously now being built at society expense (electricity and water capacity), sometimes literally in peoples backyards.

At the moment I don't have the receipts, but from anecdotes - it's all just political will.

There's a highway extension? Some properties are taken by eminent domain, some other NIMBYs are told to just suck it up.

Data center? Forget about it - foundations are being laid this moment (sometimes no matter the law)!

High speed rail? We must listen to every NIMBY on the proposed path, hence it will take 200 years to listen to all complaints and align opinions of the people impacted. Millions speant on "research, enviornmental impact and public opinion" - project stalls and is closed after 5 years.

NB: I am not from USA, I think this pattern fits many (especially western) countries. Successful projects (I repeat myself) are always based on political will, when rule/law framework is designed to make such projects easier and much cheaper.

NB2: Also as with anything - when you start building you get experience and expertese - the more you build the cheaper it gets. A lot of places havent built new train/metro/tram line in decades - hence all expertese must be built from scratch (from policies, to government clerks knowing how to deal with such projects, to construction businesses who never built rail in 50 years, etc.).

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#173

Post by walthamstow »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #92
dghlsakjg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another random fact is that Norman Mailer coined ‘factoid’ to refer to a fabrication presented as fact, but now means the opposite (as in, a fact presented as a fact, not a fact presented as fabrication). So it’s now one of those words like ‘literally’ which can be its own antonym.

My pet peeve is people claiming "literally" is now being used to mean the opposite. It is never used that way. When people use "literally" in the weakened and figurative way, they are not using it to mean "figuratively". They are using it to mean "very much".

It is often used that way, at least in Britain, e.g. "I'm literally dying" to indicate something being very funny

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#174

Post by wodenokoto »

Isn't there a problem with rerouting that you push cars into community-roads that aren't supposed to be supporting commuting traffic?

Wasn't there some articles a few years ago about communities that filled wheelbarrows with phones connected to Waze and moved them slowly down the road, stop waze from routing cars through residential areas?

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#175

Post by gib444 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #80

Great, Google, you want to reduce traffic congestion? Give me the ability to say "Avoid left turns" in your Maps and Waze directions. Until you support a feature that simple and obvious, I don't have a lot of interest in your input on this subject.

Well, Waze is Google

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#176

Post by gsliepen »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #161
trymas wrote: post #156

How we can reduce traffic congestion? 1. Extensive support of public transport: metro, tram, dedicated bus routes (separate from car traffic), dedicated paths for bicycles. 2. ... maybe whatever is this ... UPDATE: here's a good graph - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport#/media/File:P... , i.e. car traffic is often congested because of inherent low passenger bandwith. If google wants to manage traffic as…

We definitely need more metro, trams, bus routes, and bike paths. I especially want the latter because I bike to and from work every day. However, I have to wonder about the cost of these projects. In SF, we recently spent $346 million on the Van Ness Improvement Project, which added 2 miles of bus lanes. I just can't see how that's a good use of funds. If someone gave me $346 million and told me to improve society,…

> However, I have to wonder about the cost of these projects.

A very good way to deal with this is to recognize that all infrastructure needs maintenance and periodic replacement. Once it is time to replace a road, that is when you change it to include bike paths, bus lanes and so on.

You need some foresight, planning, make new road designs part of law, and political will. Some countries have made this work very well.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#177

Post by rendaw »

_vertigo wrote: post #120
bravoetch wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the article and didn't see anywhere if they collaborated with city planners, or just ran this on their own. I get the techno-optimism of making traffic 'better' and also it may be concerning if trucks are being routed through neighborhoods where planners didn't build for it.

Do you think Google should get government sign-off on every change to its routing algorithm?

You're acting in bad faith attaching "every change" to what the parent said.

But this isn't that crazy? Most businesses require government approval for changes that have community effects... that's the entire point of government. Stuff like construction permits and regulation around structures, water usage, pollution, building architecture. Mining companies are required to assess environmental impacts. Companies making RF devices need to get confirmation on how the devices affect people and other devices.

And that's not even considering market share/monopoly status, which also regularly invites more scrutiny.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#178

Post by oblio »

xnx wrote: post #126
adrianN wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is little hope for that as long as driving is heavily subsidized.

How is driving subsidized?

By providing free or cheap parking for people that don't live there. Urban land is extremely expensive and parking generally doesn't cost what it should, other land uses would provide a lot more revenue. Parking in US cities is greatly over provisioned to make life easy for suburbanites, destroying urban fabric.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#180

Post by mcdeltat »

ctkhn wrote: post #52

Surely the top way to avoid traffic congestion would be communities where it's possible to live near where you work, shop, go out, etc. and not doing everything else exactly the same but taking a slightly different highway in your car

B-b-bb-b-bbb-but then how will I have my 3 storey house with a 100 acre backyard, 2 pools, and 14 cars??? Don't you know it's LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to live without these basics?? What are you, a communist or something??????
Post reply on HN