6 ms·

I don't see how increasing traffic jams is ever a viable long term solution. Why not consider things like pedestrian overpasses for large 4 lane streets. I gues

by dre85 11y ago

I don't see how increasing traffic jams is ever a viable long term solution. Why not consider things like pedestrian overpasses for large 4 lane streets. I guess in north America there's no point of even mentioning the possibility of having a reasonable public transportation system...

userbinator 11y ago
Or underpasses, as are common in other countries.
maxsilver 11y ago
> I guess in north America there's no point of even mentioning the possibility of having a reasonable public transportation system... This is the main problem. If there was fast/rapid public transit available (read: not just crappy bus lines), much of the car traffic would be reduced, and you could safely remove traffic lanes and slow traffic down without increasing congestion or trip times. But that would involve spending money on a public service. Which is an impossibility in the US. So instead, we get "urbanists" rushing to eliminate traffic capacity because that has no cost. But in truth, all these "road diets" actually do is increase congestion, increase drive time, and displace (not eliminate) the traffic accidents the author is concerned about.
- skybrian 11y ago
  You're assuming zero sum rather than supply and demand. When supply is decreased, fewer car trips happen in the first place because some marginal trips are combined or cancelled. This less likely to happen for commuting but can easily happen for shopping and entertainment where there are lots of choices.
  - Silhouette 11y ago
    This is a point that seems to be overlooked surprisingly often in transport debates: people generally travel for a reason. There are as many reasons to run a safe, efficient transport infrastructure as there are reasons for people to make a journey. Every time we make a change to the infrastructure that deters someone from making a journey, there is almost certainly a consequential loss to someone's business and/or someone's quality of life. We could obviously make the roads much safer and more environmentally friendly overnight by just banning all motor traffic, but the effects on our society wouldn't be pretty.
    - jschwartzi 11y ago
      It's selfish to ask us to overlook the needs of the people who make their homes in a place for the benefit of some few who choose to pass through. People adapt. If a person decides that a trip is too expensive, they will find another trip that meets their needs. If a business loses some customers from outside it's neighborhood, then perhaps there will be an offset from within.
      - Silhouette 11y ago
        It's selfish to ask us to overlook the needs of the people who make their homes in a place for the benefit of some few who choose to pass through. That may be true, but it's also selfish for people who inevitably travel themselves as part of their own lives to expect everyone else to behave differently. The degree of NIMBY thinking in the setting of public travel policy is one of the biggest problems we have with making progress. I saw some interesting but all too predictable research not long ago. It was about people who campaign for heavy restrictions on driving in their own (often expensive, desirable, close to local amenities) area, such as lower speed limits, traffic calming measures, extra crossings, or even closing roads to motor traffic entirely. A remarkably high proportion of those same people, when covertly observed, drove their own (often expensive, powerful, inefficient, dangerous) vehicles in exactly the kinds of ways they cite as objectionable in their own back yard, as little as a half-mile down the road going through someone else's residential area, or past someone else's kid's school, or on the way to some other local shopping centre. So, there is certainly a lot we can and should do to improve road safety, but like administering first aid, it should be based on evidence and real need, not who is crying the loudest or making the most emotional appeal for help. Unfortunately a lot of the time these kinds of travel infrastructure decisions are made at a very local level, in response to very local pressure from relatively small numbers of very vocal campaigners. Local politicians with the authority to make the decisions are, in practice, more accountable to a few hundred people living within a mile of their home than they are to national governments and their evidence-based policy frameworks and even well-funded research organisations. Consequently, the number of people effectively influencing policy on their own doorstep may be far less than the number of people actually using that travel infrastructure every day, but the latter don't get a vote and so the systemic bias frequently results in effects akin to a tragedy of the commons. Maybe it's different where you are, but in the UK this happens very often and very obviously, and it's a real problem. People adapt. If a person decides that a trip is too expensive, they will find another trip that meets their needs. Or they'll stay at home and let their kids watch TV and play on their Xbox. If a business loses some customers from outside it's neighborhood, then perhaps there will be an offset from within. If this really happened very much then it wouldn't be local businesses who are usually the first and most vocal critics of travel-hostile changes in local policy.
  - ebiester 11y ago
    So, basically, we reduce the revenue for the businesses around there, and decrease the enjoyment of an area. Wonderful! Or, we could support proper densities so that real public transit makes sense. #buildup
    - skybrian 11y ago
      I wasn't saying that reducing our ability to travel is actually better. I'm saying the cost is less than it might appear. People who have to plan their shopping trips a bit more will still buy almost as much stuff. Or they might go to a local store in walking distance (increasing demand for very local businesses), or they'll order online. Similarly, adding a new lane to a highway doesn't help traffic as much as you'd think, because it generates more trips that were probably fairly marginal compared to alternatives (since they didn't happen before).
- Steltek 11y ago
  Not really. In US cities with good rapid transit lines, you still have plenty of congestion. If road capacity opens, there will be a transit rider who views the drive time as acceptable and will just convert back to driving. Conversely, if you remove traffic capacity, some drivers will convert back to rapid transit or time shift their commute. Basically, road capacity is a free market and people are paying with their time, more than their money. For the people that absolutely must be somewhere at a specific time, they are forced to pay a higher cost in time to accomplish that. For others with more flexibility, they may not view the time cost as acceptable and will choose another option.
sandworm101 11y ago
Pedestrian overpasses are going away. A mall near my house just removed one built back in the 60s, replacing it with a new street-level intersection. That was the cheaper option than making the overpass wheelchair safe. We also have a huge number of older people who will always opt for level crossings, what real estate people here now call "all one-level living".

by dre85 11y ago

userbinator 11y ago

Or underpasses, as are common in other countries.

maxsilver 11y ago

> I guess in north America there's no point of even mentioning the possibility of having a reasonable public transportation system... This is the main problem. If there was fast/rapid public transit available (read: not just crappy bus lines), much of the car traffic would be reduced, and you could safely remove traffic lanes and slow traffic down without increasing congestion or trip times. But that would involve spending money on a public service. Which is an impossibility in the US. So instead, we get "urbanists" rushing to eliminate traffic capacity because that has no cost. But in truth, all these "road diets" actually do is increase congestion, increase drive time, and displace (not eliminate) the traffic accidents the author is concerned about.

skybrian 11y ago
You're assuming zero sum rather than supply and demand. When supply is decreased, fewer car trips happen in the first place because some marginal trips are combined or cancelled. This less likely to happen for commuting but can easily happen for shopping and entertainment where there are lots of choices.
- Silhouette 11y ago
  This is a point that seems to be overlooked surprisingly often in transport debates: people generally travel for a reason. There are as many reasons to run a safe, efficient transport infrastructure as there are reasons for people to make a journey. Every time we make a change to the infrastructure that deters someone from making a journey, there is almost certainly a consequential loss to someone's business and/or someone's quality of life. We could obviously make the roads much safer and more environmentally friendly overnight by just banning all motor traffic, but the effects on our society wouldn't be pretty.
  - jschwartzi 11y ago
    It's selfish to ask us to overlook the needs of the people who make their homes in a place for the benefit of some few who choose to pass through. People adapt. If a person decides that a trip is too expensive, they will find another trip that meets their needs. If a business loses some customers from outside it's neighborhood, then perhaps there will be an offset from within.
    - Silhouette 11y ago
      It's selfish to ask us to overlook the needs of the people who make their homes in a place for the benefit of some few who choose to pass through. That may be true, but it's also selfish for people who inevitably travel themselves as part of their own lives to expect everyone else to behave differently. The degree of NIMBY thinking in the setting of public travel policy is one of the biggest problems we have with making progress. I saw some interesting but all too predictable research not long ago. It was about people who campaign for heavy restrictions on driving in their own (often expensive, desirable, close to local amenities) area, such as lower speed limits, traffic calming measures, extra crossings, or even closing roads to motor traffic entirely. A remarkably high proportion of those same people, when covertly observed, drove their own (often expensive, powerful, inefficient, dangerous) vehicles in exactly the kinds of ways they cite as objectionable in their own back yard, as little as a half-mile down the road going through someone else's residential area, or past someone else's kid's school, or on the way to some other local shopping centre. So, there is certainly a lot we can and should do to improve road safety, but like administering first aid, it should be based on evidence and real need, not who is crying the loudest or making the most emotional appeal for help. Unfortunately a lot of the time these kinds of travel infrastructure decisions are made at a very local level, in response to very local pressure from relatively small numbers of very vocal campaigners. Local politicians with the authority to make the decisions are, in practice, more accountable to a few hundred people living within a mile of their home than they are to national governments and their evidence-based policy frameworks and even well-funded research organisations. Consequently, the number of people effectively influencing policy on their own doorstep may be far less than the number of people actually using that travel infrastructure every day, but the latter don't get a vote and so the systemic bias frequently results in effects akin to a tragedy of the commons. Maybe it's different where you are, but in the UK this happens very often and very obviously, and it's a real problem. People adapt. If a person decides that a trip is too expensive, they will find another trip that meets their needs. Or they'll stay at home and let their kids watch TV and play on their Xbox. If a business loses some customers from outside it's neighborhood, then perhaps there will be an offset from within. If this really happened very much then it wouldn't be local businesses who are usually the first and most vocal critics of travel-hostile changes in local policy.
- ebiester 11y ago
  So, basically, we reduce the revenue for the businesses around there, and decrease the enjoyment of an area. Wonderful! Or, we could support proper densities so that real public transit makes sense. #buildup
  - skybrian 11y ago
    I wasn't saying that reducing our ability to travel is actually better. I'm saying the cost is less than it might appear. People who have to plan their shopping trips a bit more will still buy almost as much stuff. Or they might go to a local store in walking distance (increasing demand for very local businesses), or they'll order online. Similarly, adding a new lane to a highway doesn't help traffic as much as you'd think, because it generates more trips that were probably fairly marginal compared to alternatives (since they didn't happen before).
Steltek 11y ago
Not really. In US cities with good rapid transit lines, you still have plenty of congestion. If road capacity opens, there will be a transit rider who views the drive time as acceptable and will just convert back to driving. Conversely, if you remove traffic capacity, some drivers will convert back to rapid transit or time shift their commute. Basically, road capacity is a free market and people are paying with their time, more than their money. For the people that absolutely must be somewhere at a specific time, they are forced to pay a higher cost in time to accomplish that. For others with more flexibility, they may not view the time cost as acceptable and will choose another option.

sandworm101 11y ago

Pedestrian overpasses are going away. A mall near my house just removed one built back in the 60s, replacing it with a new street-level intersection. That was the cheaper option than making the overpass wheelchair safe. We also have a huge number of older people who will always opt for level crossings, what real estate people here now call "all one-level living".