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

331–340 of 373 posts

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#331

Post by AnthonyMouse »

inigyou wrote: post #328
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't seem like a paradox at all. If you have more convenient public transit then more people use it. If more people use it then there is less traffic. This is also why things like bus lanes are ridiculous. The theory is supposed to be that making the bus faster than cars will get more people to use it. But if that actually created a benefit that exceeds its cost, i.e. got more people to take the bus than the…

It's a paradox because making car traffic faster doesn't make car traffic faster, but making metro trains faster makes car traffic faster.

Except that they both make car traffic faster, with the result that cities with slower trains on average have more car traffic.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#332

Post by bluGill »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #214
bluGill wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not use the money to make bus service better? There is no city that can't effectively use many more buses. Bus riders all put service as their biggest problem over the cost.

Improving service is much better, but the relative scales here are crazy. She options are "completely eliminate cost" or "slightly improve service in one two-mile stretch". Granted, 10 million trips a year go through that two-mile stretch that was improved, but that's just a small fraction of all bus trips in SF.

It is more than that, but even still we should as that would help the people who ride their routes. In almost all cases this would bring in more riders who find the new service good enough that they can stop driving.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#333

Post by ErroneousBosh »

adrianN wrote: post #313
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Probably.

How do you plan on getting food?

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#334

Post by SilverElfin »

halostatue wrote: post #283
SilverElfin wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. Cars are high utility and should remain on roads. They increase quality of life by giving you a fast way to get to exactly where you want on your own schedule. And designing for cars IS designing for people, obviously. Who do you think is inside cars?

My quality of life is increased by having more bike lanes so that I can get around _faster_ and _healthier_ than having to use my car. I'm also able to get where I want and need to be on my own schedule by car, bike, public transit, and walking — which mode matters based on the needs of the destination. I shop at Costco by bike most of the time. Once every couple of months there's enough that needs to be bought that…

[dead]

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#335

Post by nicbou »

simondotau wrote: post #212
simondotau wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will generally choose whichever mode of transport is most convenient and cost-effective, based on how they rationally (or irrationally) weigh various factors. If every road were free of traffic, every destination had unlimited parking at the door, everyone already owned a car, and driving carried no direct or indirect costs, almost everyone would drive everywhere. The only way to shift people onto public trans…

After writing that post, I started drafting an edit to acknowledge that clever marketing is another way to encourage greater use of public transport. In my mind I imagined a campaign highlighting the time people get back not having to drive through heavy traffic. The advertisement could say, "Give yourself more time to do the things you love," accompanied by a wholesome image of a smiling person reading a book on the…

That's the reason I prefer public transit. I normally bike everywhere, because I get to exercise, see the scenery and yell at people, but sometimes I like to just sit down and read a book.

Another benefit is being able to have a drink or go to multiple locations without worrying about bringing the car back somehow.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#336

Post by nicbou »

philipallstar wrote: post #277
zarzavat wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If every road were free of traffic, every destination had unlimited parking at the door, everyone already owned a car, and driving carried no direct or indirect costs, almost everyone would drive everywhere. What kind of nonsense is this? People take public transport it's better than driving. You don't need to expend mental cycles focusing on the road, you can do something else while you're on the go: chat to frien…

> People take public transport it's better than driving Public transport is also much more expensive, particularly when you have more than one person in the vehicle, even with loads of tax added to car fuel, doesn't depart from your house or arrive at your destination, and means you can't take much stuff with you.

I pay €63 per month for unlimited train rides across Germany. My car insurance used to cost more than that. Keeping my old Kangoo running cost me about €150 per month before fuel.

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#338

Post by queenkjuul »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #279
inigyou wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> station within 5 minutes walk either end, trains every 5 minutes Describes large parts of London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, etc

Sure. Also Shanghai. But that isn't an ideal scenario for public transit regardless of whether somebody tries to describe it that way. Very frequent stops ("station within 5 minutes walk") mean that your journey through the subway system will take a very, very long time. Driving can easily cut that time in half.

Conversely, traffic is so bad at peak hours that taking the train is faster than driving when it comes to getting home from downtown here in Chicago, even with frequent stops (and my line stops more often than most). Biking is basically always faster than driving+parking here unless you have reserved private parking on both ends or are going clear across town (8+ miles)

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#339

Post by queenkjuul »

simondotau wrote: post #212
simondotau wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will generally choose whichever mode of transport is most convenient and cost-effective, based on how they rationally (or irrationally) weigh various factors. If every road were free of traffic, every destination had unlimited parking at the door, everyone already owned a car, and driving carried no direct or indirect costs, almost everyone would drive everywhere. The only way to shift people onto public trans…

After writing that post, I started drafting an edit to acknowledge that clever marketing is another way to encourage greater use of public transport. In my mind I imagined a campaign highlighting the time people get back not having to drive through heavy traffic. The advertisement could say, "Give yourself more time to do the things you love," accompanied by a wholesome image of a smiling person reading a book on the…

I may be doomscrolling on the train but i see plenty of other people read books

Re: How we can reduce traffic congestion

#340

Post by queenkjuul »

ryandrake wrote: post #321
alistairSH wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, it's not so much "make driving worse" (ie actively make roads worse, etc). Instead, it's actively make transit better be reallocating road funds... Add buses or light rail or dedicated/separated bike lanes instead of brainlessly adding traffic lanes. Every bike added to that bike lane is one less car (very roughly). Additionally, tax car infrastructure appropriately. Free road-side parking is not an entitlement.…

You said it's not to make driving worse, but then listed multiple examples of making driving worse: - reallocating road funds (away from driving and toward busses/rail/bikes) - tax car infrastructure appropriately, presumably higher - reduce parking minimums Not that I'm against these, but they will surely make driving worse.

They keep driving how it is, and make other things better relatively. Reducing parking minimums doesn't remove existing parking, it prevents building more. Building bike lanes doesn't usually mean reducing car capacity. Adding more lanes to already huge highways doesn't actually improve driving, so redirecting that money to rail does not make driving worse, in fact it stands to make it better by getting more people off the road
Post reply on HN