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

Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

cityobservatory.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#51

Post by TeMPOraL »

closeparen wrote: post #26
saosebastiao wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real question is not about whether mobility is valuable or not, it is about how valuable it is. When it comes to infrastructure development, we throw tons of other people's money at the problem, but if drivers were paying their full costs via gas taxes and congestion charges, how much demand would there be? This article suggests that driving demand is a lot more elastic than we like to claim.

Can't you make this argument against any public service? We throw a bunch of other people's money at K12. I suspect most families would buy fewer years of schooling if they paid the true cost. We throw a bunch of other people's money at the military. If people had to pay the true cost of America's autonomy, they'd suck it up and learn Russian. The compelling cost argument, IMO, is that a subway system could offer mor…

You can. But roads (the public service) are a separate concern from people moving around (private decisions).

I want the roads to be built ahead of and shaping demand. But I also want emission costs to be fully internalized be the drivers. I expect this would cut down demand for excess commuting quite sharply.

I don't mind people traveling in general, as long as we can sustainably afford it. Right now, we can't sustainably afford current levels of fossil-fueled transport.

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#52

Post by TeMPOraL »

oasisbob wrote: post #39
throwawaysea wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole notion of "induced demand" seems like a suspicious artificial label used to position roads as a negative. The reality is that roads provide something people want - the ability to get around quickly, on one's own terms, without dealing with waiting times or trip planning, and without some of the unsavory experiences that can sour public transit (e.g. https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robber…

It sounds like you're caught up on the terminology, do you disagree with the underlying concept? https://www.ibtta.org/sites/default/files/Generated%20Traffi... Coming from a chemistry background, the idea of traffic and travel choices being an equilibrium process is a very natural and easy concept to grok.

Equilibrium is traffic jams. What we want is for roads to be underutilized, because 100% utilization is a synonym for gridlock. A saturated solution, in chemical terms.

I like the term "latent demand" more, because "induced" sounds like demand was suddenly created, whereas "latent" implies it's already there, but can't be fulfilled just yet. A saturated solution with more soluble material waiting at the bottom of the flask. If you add a drop of solvent, a little bit of material from the bottom will dissolve - just like if you add another road, you'd only eat into the latent demand.

But the fix to this problem isn't "don't build new roads because induced demand". It's "build even more roads", up until you eat up all that demand, in the same way you could add more and more solvent until you dissolve all the remaining material, and then some more, to keep the solution unsaturated.

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#53

Post by romwell »

closeparen wrote: post #26
saosebastiao wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real question is not about whether mobility is valuable or not, it is about how valuable it is. When it comes to infrastructure development, we throw tons of other people's money at the problem, but if drivers were paying their full costs via gas taxes and congestion charges, how much demand would there be? This article suggests that driving demand is a lot more elastic than we like to claim.

Can't you make this argument against any public service? We throw a bunch of other people's money at K12. I suspect most families would buy fewer years of schooling if they paid the true cost. We throw a bunch of other people's money at the military. If people had to pay the true cost of America's autonomy, they'd suck it up and learn Russian. The compelling cost argument, IMO, is that a subway system could offer mor…

>Can't you make this argument against any public service?

>The compelling cost argument, IMO, is that a subway system could offer more mobility at the same price point.

So, yes and yes?

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#54

Post by nanis »

saosebastiao wrote: post #36
closeparen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you make this argument against any public service? We throw a bunch of other people's money at K12. I suspect most families would buy fewer years of schooling if they paid the true cost. We throw a bunch of other people's money at the military. If people had to pay the true cost of America's autonomy, they'd suck it up and learn Russian. The compelling cost argument, IMO, is that a subway system could offer mor…

Yes, you can make that argument against any public service. And it is worth discussing for any public service. All public services have benefits, and all of them are capable of being overprovisioned. In the context of schools, literally everybody benefits from population wide literacy and education. The benefits are diffuse enough that it is worth subsidizing...although we're probably hitting diminishing returns on t…

> In the context of schools, literally everybody benefits from population wide literacy and education.

Education is more of a private good than you seem to realize. It is definitely excludable and in traditional settings it is quickly becomes rival past small groups of similarly motivated people.

Self learning is not rival, i.e. my learning of something does not prevent you from being able to learn it, but then that cannot be used to justify government provision of education.

Once one learns something, it becomes part of one's human capital and one cannot be separated from it. Hence the difference between loans for college versus mortgages.

Now, in this case, people are finding out that roads are not very public goods either (even though government entities have take over provision). First, roads are excludable. Second, they tend to also be very rival when they are most needed. The reduction in capacity highlighted their nature of quickly becoming rival.

Finally, if it people actually benefited from all the time-shifting, taking ferries instead of driving, leaving home at 5 am and sleeping in the parking lot waiting for the office to open, they all had that option before the construction began. Ergo, people are made worse off by the change no matter how they are adapting.

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#55

Post by wbl »

nanis wrote: post #54
saosebastiao wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you can make that argument against any public service. And it is worth discussing for any public service. All public services have benefits, and all of them are capable of being overprovisioned. In the context of schools, literally everybody benefits from population wide literacy and education. The benefits are diffuse enough that it is worth subsidizing...although we're probably hitting diminishing returns on t…

> In the context of schools, literally everybody benefits from population wide literacy and education. Education is more of a private good than you seem to realize. It is definitely excludable and in traditional settings it is quickly becomes rival past small groups of similarly motivated people. Self learning is not rival, i.e. my learning of something does not prevent you from being able to learn it, but then that…

And the pedestrians and cyclists who dont have to fight drivers downtown, the children not getting asthma all benefit. Do people visit car dominated spaces by choice?

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#56

Post by thomasz »

nanis wrote: post #54
saosebastiao wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you can make that argument against any public service. And it is worth discussing for any public service. All public services have benefits, and all of them are capable of being overprovisioned. In the context of schools, literally everybody benefits from population wide literacy and education. The benefits are diffuse enough that it is worth subsidizing...although we're probably hitting diminishing returns on t…

> In the context of schools, literally everybody benefits from population wide literacy and education. Education is more of a private good than you seem to realize. It is definitely excludable and in traditional settings it is quickly becomes rival past small groups of similarly motivated people. Self learning is not rival, i.e. my learning of something does not prevent you from being able to learn it, but then that…

In a society where most of the people are barely able to read, an advanced degree isn't worth that much compared to a highly industrialized society.

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#57

Post by isostatic »

baybal2 wrote: post #40

Well, make people live not too far from their workplaces, schools, shopping, and recreational facilities. That's this stupid simple. I'd guess 80% of American gridlock is due to that not being done.

Great. I work at point A, wife works at point B. Who gives up their job?

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#58

Post by seanmcdirmid »

so33 wrote: post #41

City Observatory is a publication that lobbies for urbanism. So you have to take that into context when considering their argument. Their argument is not that removing roads doesn't reduce quality of life – their argument is that cities _adapt_ and that tearing away infrastructure for cars in favor of housing and "human-scale" neighborhoods won't necessarily result in doom and gloom. Of course removing a highway will…

Having lived American and carless in both a European and Asian city, it really is a trade off.

Public transportation is a nice to have, especially getting to the airport. Inner city transport is still a PITA, I prefered biking (Lausanne) or taxis (Beijing) to maintain my quality of life. “If I had to” it would work for sure, but it will still mean giving something up vs personal transportation.

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#59

Post by seanmcdirmid »

ken wrote: post #18

Possibly, but I don't believe that the 99 closure is a good test of this. - We know it's only temporary, and we knew about it ahead of time. It can be easy to put off many types of errands, or work from home (lots of tech workers here), for a little while. That doesn't mean it's sustainable. - They've upped the water taxi routes for the closure (but not buses, AFAICT?), and they're taking hundreds more passengers per…

Running more buses when 99 is closed is probably not a good idea since...they all have to go local with the cars and it will look like a Seahawks game getting out continuously. Going with water taxis is a good idea.

Re: Why Carmaggedon never comes – Seattle edition

#60

Post by perfunctory »

I am honestly puzzled by all the comments about reduced quality of life. It sounds completely alien to me, as if I live on a different planet. I literally don't understand what you guys are talking about. The place where I live everything - shops, kid's school, entertainment and recreation - is less than 10min cycling away. Work commute is less than 1hour by train in a comfortable seat with wi-fi or a book. I do own a car but I don't depend on it for my QOL.
Post reply on HN