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

261–270 of 373 posts

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#261

Post by ErroneousBosh »

adrianN wrote: post #220
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Massive ongoing investment into roads Okay, let's stop spending money on roads then. How are you at riding your bike through mud? Pretty good? Got nice chunky tyres?

Road wear increases with the fourth power of axle weight iirc. Bike paths are orders of magnitude cheaper and need a lot less space.

> Road wear increases with the fourth power of axle weight iirc

That's not actually true, and the paper that describes the "fourth power" thing even says that right up front.

If you massively oversimplify the model so that you've got all vehicles fitted with infinitely hard bicycle tyres on a perfectly smooth surface, it kind of works out, but not quite.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#262

Post by nradov »

jimbob45 wrote: post #117
nradov wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The south SF Bay Area cities of Los Gatos and Monte Sereno have persistent problems with traffic gridlock during summer weekends and holidays due to navigation apps routing drivers off of southbound SR-17 and onto surface streets. It gets so bad that residents literally can't get out of their own driveways and emergency response vehicles can't move. There actually did used to be train service from San Jose to Santa C…

Do you not have shoulder lanes? I ask because I’ve lived places that don’t and I’ve always wondered if you just die if EMS doesn’t have a lane to get to you.

There are no shoulder lanes in residential and downtown areas.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#263

Post by pineapplepizza6 »

reenorap wrote: post #159

So basically sending some people on worse routes for the sake of the “greater good”? I long suspected they did this and is not what I want. I don’t want to be forced to a worse outcome for myself just for the sake of the “greater good”. Taken to its logical extreme, lots of evil had been propagated because of the “greater good”.

[dead]

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#264

Post by Cthulhu_ »

Ntrails wrote: post #225
gampleman wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if a very small tax for RTO (perhaps with exemptions for manual jobs) would do the trick? I think it would help with making companies handle that externality.

> I think it would help with making companies handle that externality. This is backwards, companies do not choose where employees live. Employees do. That they choose to live with long and unpleasant commutes (typically in exchange for more space, cheaper housing etc) is in general terms on them not the company. I'll allow that the rowback of wfh from a previously fully remote job is on the company - but certainly ou…

While true, there's (often, not always) an inverse correlation between location of work and cost of living. Few people can afford to live close to the office.

What would work (at least in my country, and in my head / from my armchair) is sattelite offices. I live in a neat suburb with an industrial estate with some office buildings, if my job opened a sattelite office there I would be much more inclined to go to the office.

But then, they would need to make sure that only people that live nearby go to that office. Given that a lot of teams are multidisciplinary, that would be difficult. Plus, the job would need to offer long-term stability, and only few jobs in software can promise stability for more than a year. If they want people to move close to work, it has to be both affordable and guaranteed stable for at least 5-10 years.

I looked into it once, there was an office for a software company across the street and I applied there. But the two offers they made were both lower than what I was earning at the time, to the point where I wouldn't be able to live there. And second, after the pandemic they closed the office and became a remote-first company.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#265

Post by chriswarbo »

xnx wrote: post #130
evandale wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Designing for public transit and cycling benefits far more people than designing exclusively for single passenger cars. Who do you think are on bikes and in buses?

> designing exclusively for single passenger cars What is design for single passenger cars? Most cars can fit 5 people and roads also carry buses, ambulances, and trucks that carry every single product* in the economy. * Probably with the exception of coal and some mining materials.

> Most cars can fit 5 people

So you agree that most cars are far larger and heavier than required? First search result for "average car occupancy"[1]:

> In 2022 the Average Number of Occupants Per Trip for Household Vehicles in the United States Was 1.5

This discrepancy is the reason for car pooling, ride-sharing, etc. (Note that Uber, Lyft, etc. are taxi services, not "ride sharing"; since the drivers themselves are not typically intending to travel the routes they drive)

> roads also carry buses

Yes, which is why cars should be removed from such roads, to avoid slowing down buses.

> ambulances

Emergency vehicles can drive in places where cars are forbidden (cycle paths, pedestrianised roads, etc.)

> trucks that carry every single product* in the economy.

Again, you're undermining your own argument: the subsidies given to private car infrastructure are so large, that freight companies exploiting that infrastructure can end up more cost-effective than those which use rail; despite rail being more efficient not only in terms of fuel, but also in terms of labour (since so many trucks would be required to do the job of a single freight train, and each of those trucks require a separate driver). Also note that heavier vehicles degrade the road infrastructure disproportionately; which is even more reason to reduce the number of trucks as far as possible.

[1] https://www.energy.gov/cmei/vehicles/articles/fotw-1333-marc...

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#266

Post by maxerickson »

rendaw wrote: post #177
_vertigo wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 maki…

Does the tempo matter?

Like compare changing live routing to publishing a paper map showing alternate routes.

In either case it seems to me that the vehicle operator should be most responsible for the impact of the route that they use.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#267

Post by Someone »

aqme28 wrote: post #248
Someone wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a safe bet that sndgndgndgndy isn’t referring to that metric, but to the (perceived) probability of getting shouted at, mugged, etc. That, I have been told, is definitely a problem in the USA. I think that’s because they’ve painted themselves into a car-centric corner that it is very hard to get out of.

Crime rates are actually lower on transit than in a car: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1077291X2... The perception of crime and danger is strangely very inverted

I did mention “perceived” and also included shouting in my list because of that, but I could have been clearer.

Also, the set of people who feel unsafe by just having somebody who’s noticeably poor in their proximity definitely is not empty.

Staying in your bubble is way easier if you avoid public transport and walking on the street as much as possible.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#268

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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,…

The challenge that "developed" countries / cities have is that there's already a lot of existing (and aging) infrastructure around.

Meanwhile in other countries they build new cities from scratch, including infrastructure based on current-day knowledge of how these things pan out long term.

I think the US has the space and funds to do so. If they were to build a new city from scratch for the next 250 years, what would it look like?

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#269

Post by chriswarbo »

This doesn't seem to account for Jevons paradox: if driving is made faster and more convenient, then more people will drive more; which can lead to an overall increase in CO2 emissions, collisions, etc.

I'd imagine there would be a lag between the initial efficiency increase, and the subsequent usage increase; since drivers (current and potential) would have to actually notice the change and adjust for it (consciously or otherwise).

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#270

Post by Tade0 »

gblargg wrote: post #210
ventana wrote: post #49

The same things keeps happening every time I find myself stuck in traffic on the interstate. Out of nowhere, a popup appears in Google Maps: a faster route is available! 4 minutes faster! Unless either the passenger or the driver are fast enough to hit "No thanks", the change auto-applies, and Google now wants me to exit the interstate at the nearest exit and drive some random road I had no idea about, to rejoin the…

Yes, I find it ironic that Google is recommending that people take varied routes, when it's their very app that often puts a bunch of people on an obscure, same route. Many times I've taken one of its shortcuts, only to see a bunch of cars in front of me and behind me taking the same shortcut, clearly not one people would normally take.

I've had this experience. 10 minutes in it hit me that we're all only here only because Google suggested so.

It was some kind of dirt road that almost never had this sort of traffic and you could see that from the faces of the locals, as we were passing them by at maybe twice walking speed.

Post reply on HN