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

311–320 of 373 posts

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#311

Post by Tade0 »

WarmWash wrote: post #292
Tade0 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of those things which would work beautifully if: -Everyone's creep speed was the same. -No one figured it would be more beneficial for them slip into that gap.

The whole idea is to let people slip in the gap. It's the very lack of gaps that causes the whole jam in the first place.

I think something was missed in translation here.

In my region of the world if someone creeps and leaves a wide gap between them and the next vehicle, eventually someone is bound to change lanes to occupy that space out of the perception that it somehow will help them get ahead in traffic.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#312

Post by mcbobgorge »

bluGill wrote: post #207
spacemanspiffii wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would add to the top of that list - reducing the distance people travel. Less kilometers would be very effective. Don't spend hours a day in your car. If people wouldn't be traveling so much, especially for work, this whole problem would disappear.

The whole point of a city is all the destinations you can teach. Less km means you can go less places. No density isn't an answer, because some destinations are not dense, and even if they are we can cram more places in.

Air travel is the best way to go long distances, but some small islands are not easily accessible by plane. For those places, we have ferries.

In a similar vein, most places in a city can be accessed via density + transit. But cars are great for those non-dense destinations you describe, like wilderness areas or farms or whatever else.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#313

Post by adrianN »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #261
adrianN wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interesting! Nevertheless I believe it is true that bike and pedestrian paths are much cheaper to construct and maintain than roads for cars and trucks.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#314

Post by psd1 »

quantumwannabe wrote: post #243
throw0101a wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is possible if you’re not picky about where you live, where you work, your career options, how crowded your local vicinity is, or how much you pay for your residence. Perhaps the problem is the lack of options for those people that want human-centric (versus car-centric) communities. Maybe if we let The Market™ decide, versus forcing low-density sprawl via zoning, more options would be available. Right now, if…

We already tried that experiment. The result was Houston.

I don't think we can learn much about pedestrianisation from Texas.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#315

Post by asdff »

inigyou wrote: post #256
asdff wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn’t a flat fee per se, if only because wealthier people are too prideful. Rich man buys a 100k mercedes. Poor man buys that mercedes 15 or 20 years later for 3k. It still does what it did when it cost 100k.

It's a 3k tax, the other 97k wasn't part of the tax. Used car prices are more like 10k now anyway. Used Mercedes, probably 40k.

I can tell you don’t check used car prices

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#316

Post by HNisCIS »

kaonwarb wrote: post #149
HNisCIS wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Medical/psychological experiments involving human subjects are mandated by federal law to run through a review board. Did that happen here? This isn't a medical experiment, but I don't think its nuts to feel like maybe there should have been some oversight.

I fear you may overestimate the median benefit of government oversight.

I fear you underestimate the malice of the average tech company

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#317

Post by HNisCIS »

WarmWash wrote: post #290
HNisCIS wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what the parent is talking about. You're using the strawman of what appears to be occupancy zoning or something similar to argue that a techno fascists should have free reign to manipulate the mass movements of people within a city for their own purposes.

Generally you need to be pretty competent to get to the level of where these Google maps guys are. To get to the competence level of a local traffic planner, you need to have stuck it out through a Civ E degree and maybe went through the motions at a firm for for 15 years before getting laid off and then wanting a "cruise control" job with the power you never would have achieved in private industry for the rest of yo…

Still a strawmam somehow?

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#318

Post by thomastjeffery »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #44
thomastjeffery wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A random factoid that will always stick in my brain is that the damage a vehicle does to a road is proportional to the weight on an axel...to the fourth power. I suspect rerouting semis to the roadway is by far the greatest factor.

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.

I second guessed my usage, but decided it was a good way to communicate my lack of experience and confidence in the specifics.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#319

Post by thomastjeffery »

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".

I'm actually a fan. It's an excellent exploration of sarcasm: what you literally say in a sarcastic tone might have a metaphorical meaning, or it might be a twice application of sarcasm that loops back to literal meaning, like in deadpan comedy.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#320

Post by throw0101a »

quantumwannabe wrote: post #243
throw0101a wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is possible if you’re not picky about where you live, where you work, your career options, how crowded your local vicinity is, or how much you pay for your residence. Perhaps the problem is the lack of options for those people that want human-centric (versus car-centric) communities. Maybe if we let The Market™ decide, versus forcing low-density sprawl via zoning, more options would be available. Right now, if…

We already tried that experiment. The result was Houston.

The City Beautiful channel goes over the restrictions that Houston has:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU1UH_3B5k

For example deed restrictions, where, when a sub-division is created, the use case of the lots can never be changed. See also "residential buffering ordinance", parking requirement ordinance, historic districts, etc.

Post reply on HN