4 ms·

At 100, ‘Mr. Freeway’ looks back at his concrete creations

23 points by Oatseller 11y ago

revelation 11y ago
We built these freeways, and they’re not generating less trips, they’re generating more The guy already knew back then what people still won't believe today. And we're still building roads.
- 6d0debc071 11y ago
  The full quote has a slightly different tone though: "We built these freeways, and they’re not generating less trips, they’re generating more. More freedom. People want to live out away from the city and drive in to work, or they want to live in one part [of the metropolis] and work in another, or go shopping or so forth. They don’t want to live all in one place like they do in New York."
  - revelation 11y ago
    How so? It doesn't change the basic equation. Building roads is building incentives for car dependency, and building them to have "less traffic" is missing the point dramatically.
    - detaro 11y ago
      Who is building more roads to have less car traffic overall?
      - ant6n 11y ago
        Most roads are built to accommodate existing traffic that can't be handled by existing roads.
        detaro 11y ago
        Of course, but no-one says that this results in fewer cars moving about. It only removes pressure locally.
        msandford 11y ago
        The better the roads get, the further out people live. I call this the law of constant misery. People will move out of the city as far as a ~45 minute commute will allow them. This is a very common theme all across the world and time. It's quite literally the tragedy of the commons, nobody has any direct incentive not to move further out or drive all the way across town or whatever and we all suffer in traffic for it.
        nitrogen 11y ago
        Maybe it's rising housing costs forcing them out instead?
        msandford 11y ago
        I doubt it because it tracks the building of the roads very neatly, and second, if you own the house then there isn't a rising housing cost. I live in a post-car city where most of the city has been developed after cars existed and as a result it's mostly suburbs which tend to be owned rather than rented.
        ant6n 11y ago
        But they do claim it will improve traffic. But in reality the induced traffic will offset the improvements due to the extra road space. Given all the negative externalities of extra driving today, building more roads seems less than helpful.
    - Shog9 11y ago
      The bit you overlooked was Freedom. Freedom to live and work in one small area, or to do otherwise. Freedom to go where you want, when you want. Is there a cost to that? Hell yeah. But for an awful lot of people, it's worth it. Too many time to count, I've met someone whose car was their only significant possession, the only thing of any real value they owned outright. They'd lost or sold everything else, but the car they wouldn't part with - it wasn't just transportation, but their home, and for a few dollars in gas it was heat and a lifeline to those who could help in an emergency. I guess in NYC, they'd have been sleeping on the subway somewhere... But instead, they had freedom.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  This was known when the metro NYC parkways and the triborough bridge were built in the 1930s. More transportation capacity leads to more utilization. Given the choice, few people choose to live in an overcrowded city. There's an inherent judgement here that cars are a net negative thing. IMO, that's a real 2d perspective.
pcunite 11y ago
I have tremendous respect for the elderly. My dad use to take me to visit my great-granddad when I was 12. He was about 94. This was sometime in the late '80s. We would mow his yard for him. I have his gold pocket watch that was made in 1908. He would take us for a ride in his big '70s car. When crossing a street, he would look both ways, then punch the peddle, maybe because he thought it was safer to get across as quickly as possible. One day they took away his driving privileges. It will be nice, I think, when we do have autonomous vehicles - for people like him. My dad told me one day, "If I knew I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself." Point taken. Put down the twinkie; go for a run and wear sunblock.
- darklajid 11y ago
  > When crossing a street, he would look both ways, then punch the peddle, maybe because he thought it was safer to get across as quickly as possible. Not sure what the point was here, to be honest: That's what I was taught about 20 years ago when I got my license and I still believe that 'crossing as fast as possible' or put differently 'leaving a crossing instantly' is a good idea.

23 points by Oatseller 11y ago

We built these freeways, and they’re not generating less trips, they’re generating more The guy already knew back then what people still won't believe today. And we're still building roads.

6d0debc071 11y ago
The full quote has a slightly different tone though: "We built these freeways, and they’re not generating less trips, they’re generating more. More freedom. People want to live out away from the city and drive in to work, or they want to live in one part [of the metropolis] and work in another, or go shopping or so forth. They don’t want to live all in one place like they do in New York."
- revelation 11y ago
  How so? It doesn't change the basic equation. Building roads is building incentives for car dependency, and building them to have "less traffic" is missing the point dramatically.
  - detaro 11y ago
    Who is building more roads to have less car traffic overall?
    - ant6n 11y ago
      Most roads are built to accommodate existing traffic that can't be handled by existing roads.
      - detaro 11y ago
        Of course, but no-one says that this results in fewer cars moving about. It only removes pressure locally.
        msandford 11y ago
        The better the roads get, the further out people live. I call this the law of constant misery. People will move out of the city as far as a ~45 minute commute will allow them. This is a very common theme all across the world and time. It's quite literally the tragedy of the commons, nobody has any direct incentive not to move further out or drive all the way across town or whatever and we all suffer in traffic for it.
        nitrogen 11y ago
        Maybe it's rising housing costs forcing them out instead?
        msandford 11y ago
        I doubt it because it tracks the building of the roads very neatly, and second, if you own the house then there isn't a rising housing cost. I live in a post-car city where most of the city has been developed after cars existed and as a result it's mostly suburbs which tend to be owned rather than rented.
        ant6n 11y ago
        But they do claim it will improve traffic. But in reality the induced traffic will offset the improvements due to the extra road space. Given all the negative externalities of extra driving today, building more roads seems less than helpful.
  - Shog9 11y ago
    The bit you overlooked was Freedom. Freedom to live and work in one small area, or to do otherwise. Freedom to go where you want, when you want. Is there a cost to that? Hell yeah. But for an awful lot of people, it's worth it. Too many time to count, I've met someone whose car was their only significant possession, the only thing of any real value they owned outright. They'd lost or sold everything else, but the car they wouldn't part with - it wasn't just transportation, but their home, and for a few dollars in gas it was heat and a lifeline to those who could help in an emergency. I guess in NYC, they'd have been sleeping on the subway somewhere... But instead, they had freedom.
Spooky23 11y ago
This was known when the metro NYC parkways and the triborough bridge were built in the 1930s. More transportation capacity leads to more utilization. Given the choice, few people choose to live in an overcrowded city. There's an inherent judgement here that cars are a net negative thing. IMO, that's a real 2d perspective.

pcunite 11y ago

I have tremendous respect for the elderly. My dad use to take me to visit my great-granddad when I was 12. He was about 94. This was sometime in the late '80s. We would mow his yard for him. I have his gold pocket watch that was made in 1908. He would take us for a ride in his big '70s car. When crossing a street, he would look both ways, then punch the peddle, maybe because he thought it was safer to get across as quickly as possible. One day they took away his driving privileges. It will be nice, I think, when we do have autonomous vehicles - for people like him. My dad told me one day, "If I knew I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself." Point taken. Put down the twinkie; go for a run and wear sunblock.

darklajid 11y ago
> When crossing a street, he would look both ways, then punch the peddle, maybe because he thought it was safer to get across as quickly as possible. Not sure what the point was here, to be honest: That's what I was taught about 20 years ago when I got my license and I still believe that 'crossing as fast as possible' or put differently 'leaving a crossing instantly' is a good idea.