5 ms·

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. Pe

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.

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.