3 ms·

Nobody is saying that. The problem with induced demand for roads is induced demand for personal cars. Transport is a zero-sum game, someone who takes the person

Nobody is saying that. The problem with induced demand for roads is induced demand for personal cars. Transport is a zero-sum game, someone who takes the personal car to work is someone not taking the train. As countless studies attest, this is not of economic (or personal) benefit. It locks people into a life-long dependency on cars with the terrible health outcomes for them personally and the humongous cost of human life in traffic deaths every year.

dsfyu404ed 11y ago
"the terrible health outcomes for them personally" Cite this, I dare you. edit: the part I'm not buying is the combination of "terrible" and "personal" It matters little whether you're sitting on your but for 45min in a car or on a bus, you're still not getting exercise. That's not really "terrible" as it's something that can easily be counteracted unlike (for example) working in a loud environment for 45min twice per day without hearing protection. The "terrible" stuff (accidents) isn't really personal because it only comes into play on a statistical level (seeing as most people will never be seriously injured in a vehicle accident)
- andys627 11y ago
  http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/2/160.full http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/2/160.full this cites about 50 more that could be listed
- mikerichards 11y ago
  It's funny how people will make things up to satisfy the HN anti-car hive mind. Sorry people, you're living in a bubble. The vast, vast, VAST majority of people don't hate cars like the HN collective does.
  - distances 11y ago
    Many countries in Europe have a clear generational change ongoing: young people are much less likely to get a car or a driver's license. I would expect HN just to reflect this general trend.
  - audunw 11y ago
    *The vast, vast, VAST majority of people _in the US_ don't hate cars People generally don't hate their own culture. But it's obvious from a european perspective that the US has an unhealthy obsession about cars. Not that we hate cars, but we don't worship them either. And I don't think HN hates cars. All I've seen is people pointing out real issues. Maybe some exaggeration here and there, but everyone is guilty of that.
  - ant6n 11y ago
    Actually many people on HN live in the pro-car-obsession bubble. Which seems strange for a group of people that is collectively educated, aware of issues, good at analysis of problems, and generally dreams of a better future.
  - trgn 11y ago
    There is no hive-mind about this issue on HN. About half the comments here are from people who dispute the article. From my own personal experience(real life, not on-line), techies are by FAR more pro-car, and dismissive off traditional urbanism. Real Engineers outside software even more so. I think it is because suburban homes have a lot of space for all the crap tinkerers collect. Hobbies in this crowd tend to skew to things with stuff; drones, cars, ... A more introverted disposition may drive engineers to the quiet and seclusion of the suburbs too. Plus, engineers like to optimize things. Keep the process intact, but strive for less travel time, less fuel consumption, less pollution, less casualties. Hence electrical cars. Hence self-driving cars. But always "cars". Not necessarily related to what you were saying, but I'll sneak it in anyway: Traffic is not a technological challenge, it is a human one, with all the messiness that entails. An anthropologist can just as well study traffic (and propose solutions) as a traffic engineer. The big mistake in the US was to hand over the governance and implementation of our urban environment to technocrats. The planning profession has long since come around, precisely because often they were educated in sociology departments (Oh, the affront an engineer must feel when he has to justify building codes to this numbnut planner who probably only passed intro to stats by schmoozing with the TA!). Anyway, eventually the bureaucrats, legislators, and building professionals will come around too. But it requires for a lot of people to reject what they have - literally - bought into. The suburbs are NOT doomed though, there's a lot of good about it. But they are expensive. So the suburbs at all cost are most definitely coming at an end. Municipalities are strained financially, precisely because the financial obligations of maintaining car sprawl are high. On an individual level, the suburbs just cost a lot too. Everybody needs a car, maintenance & utilities costs of the home are born by just a single household, etc... The suburbs are massive social engineering, a federal project to promote home ownership and promote financial independence. Plus, a sprawling city would be more resilient should a nuclear war breakout, that paranoia was also something in the 50s. The home ownership part has succeeded, but the financial independence part has been a total failure.
  - andys627 11y ago
    I don't hate cars. I want people to understand how much we subsidize them. I want to bust the myth that they are the only way in the US and I want that to lead to subsidizing alternatives. In the USA the car is the solution to every city building problem. This is the problem as I see it.
- mikerichards 11y ago
  I can't reply to Andys627 directly, so from his citation Background Public health must continually respond to new threats reflecting wider societal changes. Ecological public health recognizes the links between human health and global sustainability. We argue that these links are typified by the harms caused by dependence on private cars. Right there off the bat tells us that they have a political ideology that they're trying to justify with their "study".
- revelation 11y ago
  What's to cite? Sitting in your car is not physical activity, no physical activity is strongly associated with any number of bad health outcomes (cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes 2). All of the alternatives provide lots (cycling) to moderate (walking) physical activity.
- audunw 11y ago
  What about actually spending 10 seconds to Google it yourself, rather than implying that there couldn't be such a study? (a note: you'd have a point if you're pointing out that "terrible" is exaggerated, but that would silly since it's obvious, so I'm assuming you think that there's no health benefit)
mikeash 11y ago
Transport is not a zero-sum game. People optionally telecommute. People work odd hours (or don't work at all) and take optional trips at peak times. People move closer to or farther away from the places they routinely go (e.g. work).

dsfyu404ed 11y ago

"the terrible health outcomes for them personally" Cite this, I dare you. edit: the part I'm not buying is the combination of "terrible" and "personal" It matters little whether you're sitting on your but for 45min in a car or on a bus, you're still not getting exercise. That's not really "terrible" as it's something that can easily be counteracted unlike (for example) working in a loud environment for 45min twice per day without hearing protection. The "terrible" stuff (accidents) isn't really personal because it only comes into play on a statistical level (seeing as most people will never be seriously injured in a vehicle accident)

andys627 11y ago
http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/2/160.full http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/2/160.full this cites about 50 more that could be listed
mikerichards 11y ago
It's funny how people will make things up to satisfy the HN anti-car hive mind. Sorry people, you're living in a bubble. The vast, vast, VAST majority of people don't hate cars like the HN collective does.
- distances 11y ago
  Many countries in Europe have a clear generational change ongoing: young people are much less likely to get a car or a driver's license. I would expect HN just to reflect this general trend.
- audunw 11y ago
  *The vast, vast, VAST majority of people _in the US_ don't hate cars People generally don't hate their own culture. But it's obvious from a european perspective that the US has an unhealthy obsession about cars. Not that we hate cars, but we don't worship them either. And I don't think HN hates cars. All I've seen is people pointing out real issues. Maybe some exaggeration here and there, but everyone is guilty of that.
- ant6n 11y ago
  Actually many people on HN live in the pro-car-obsession bubble. Which seems strange for a group of people that is collectively educated, aware of issues, good at analysis of problems, and generally dreams of a better future.
- trgn 11y ago
  There is no hive-mind about this issue on HN. About half the comments here are from people who dispute the article. From my own personal experience(real life, not on-line), techies are by FAR more pro-car, and dismissive off traditional urbanism. Real Engineers outside software even more so. I think it is because suburban homes have a lot of space for all the crap tinkerers collect. Hobbies in this crowd tend to skew to things with stuff; drones, cars, ... A more introverted disposition may drive engineers to the quiet and seclusion of the suburbs too. Plus, engineers like to optimize things. Keep the process intact, but strive for less travel time, less fuel consumption, less pollution, less casualties. Hence electrical cars. Hence self-driving cars. But always "cars". Not necessarily related to what you were saying, but I'll sneak it in anyway: Traffic is not a technological challenge, it is a human one, with all the messiness that entails. An anthropologist can just as well study traffic (and propose solutions) as a traffic engineer. The big mistake in the US was to hand over the governance and implementation of our urban environment to technocrats. The planning profession has long since come around, precisely because often they were educated in sociology departments (Oh, the affront an engineer must feel when he has to justify building codes to this numbnut planner who probably only passed intro to stats by schmoozing with the TA!). Anyway, eventually the bureaucrats, legislators, and building professionals will come around too. But it requires for a lot of people to reject what they have - literally - bought into. The suburbs are NOT doomed though, there's a lot of good about it. But they are expensive. So the suburbs at all cost are most definitely coming at an end. Municipalities are strained financially, precisely because the financial obligations of maintaining car sprawl are high. On an individual level, the suburbs just cost a lot too. Everybody needs a car, maintenance & utilities costs of the home are born by just a single household, etc... The suburbs are massive social engineering, a federal project to promote home ownership and promote financial independence. Plus, a sprawling city would be more resilient should a nuclear war breakout, that paranoia was also something in the 50s. The home ownership part has succeeded, but the financial independence part has been a total failure.
- andys627 11y ago
  I don't hate cars. I want people to understand how much we subsidize them. I want to bust the myth that they are the only way in the US and I want that to lead to subsidizing alternatives. In the USA the car is the solution to every city building problem. This is the problem as I see it.
mikerichards 11y ago
I can't reply to Andys627 directly, so from his citation Background Public health must continually respond to new threats reflecting wider societal changes. Ecological public health recognizes the links between human health and global sustainability. We argue that these links are typified by the harms caused by dependence on private cars. Right there off the bat tells us that they have a political ideology that they're trying to justify with their "study".
revelation 11y ago
What's to cite? Sitting in your car is not physical activity, no physical activity is strongly associated with any number of bad health outcomes (cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes 2). All of the alternatives provide lots (cycling) to moderate (walking) physical activity.
audunw 11y ago
What about actually spending 10 seconds to Google it yourself, rather than implying that there couldn't be such a study? (a note: you'd have a point if you're pointing out that "terrible" is exaggerated, but that would silly since it's obvious, so I'm assuming you think that there's no health benefit)

mikeash 11y ago

Transport is not a zero-sum game. People optionally telecommute. People work odd hours (or don't work at all) and take optional trips at peak times. People move closer to or farther away from the places they routinely go (e.g. work).