4 ms·

That claim is frequently used on HN to justify anti-driving policies, but the economic cost/benefit inside and outside the affected area is never considered. I

That claim is frequently used on HN to justify anti-driving policies, but the economic cost/benefit inside and outside the affected area is never considered. If you only focus on one metric (traffic density), you miss the bigger picture.

sandworm101 10y ago
Note that those making such arguments rarely extend them to bike lanes. If cutting lanes really reduces unneeded trips, that principal should apply to all modes of transport. Closing a subway station would certainly reduce the foot traffic cluttering up nearby sidewalks. Those people will work from home instead.
- galdosdi 10y ago
  Your rhetorical question has an obvious answer, which I'll illustrate with evidence: I live in Manhattan, the USA's most crowded place in terms of bikes and pedestrians. Yet, we are not anywhere near capacity for bikes and pedestrians, anywhere, anytime. For cars, we are at/over capacity pretty much all the time during the day. Why is obvious -- cars are way bigger. Duh. Cars are just very space-ineffecient -- the space consumed by one car could service many times more transit riders, pedestrians, cyclists. Getting people to switch from car to anything else multiples manyfold the number of people we can service, which is a good thing. Getting people to switch from anything else, on the other hand, doesn't do much good. Even if we did reach sidewalk capacity somewhere, it would make sense to just convert one car lane into additional sidewalk, since a lane can fit at least 10x as many people if they're walking versus driving.
  - oftenwrong 10y ago
    Look at what Manhattan would need to become if every commuter drove a car in: https://mtayloranalysis.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/an-auto-oriented-manhattan/ https://mtayloranalysis.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/an-auto-ori...
    - galdosdi 10y ago
      Holy !@#$%! Yeah, exactly. Very nice visualization of how space-inefficient car transport is.
  - maxsilver 10y ago
    > I live in Manhattan, the USA's most crowded place in terms of bikes and pedestrians. Yet, we are not anywhere near capacity for bikes and pedestrians, anywhere, anytime. This is not true. From the NY Times -> "New York’s Sidewalks Are So Packed, Pedestrians Are Taking to the Streets" https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/nyregion/new-york-city-overcrowded-sidewalks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/nyregion/new-york-city-ov...
    - galdosdi 10y ago
      That's unfairly using a different standard of congestion for pedestrians as for motorists. The kind of congestion midtown manhattan experiences for pedestrians is comparable to stop-and-go-but-moving car traffic. A bit unpleasant but there is still capacity. There's wasted capacity in the streets right now so pedestrians will overflow there, yeah, but if there was a fence, we could still increase the pedestrian density a good bit before reaching capacity. In other words, it's more comparable to stop-and-go averaging 15mph car traffic - uncomfortable, but still plenty of capacity left. It's not comparable to what we actually observe in car traffic at rush hour often -- mostly stopped, barely inching occasionally, averaging well under 5mph. When an event like a protest happens, THEN you actually see what true full-to-capacity looks like, and you realize that the day-to-day, while crowded and uncomfortable, has a long way to go before getting to capacity. Outside of an event like a protest, I've NEVER been walking through midtown and felt unable to make any progress at all. Compare that to driving. Or to put it another way, even at the worst of pedestrian congestion, the pedestrian is still faster than the car, so there is obviously still room left to make it even slower.
awjr 10y ago
Well London removed two lanes of traffic and installed a 4m wide 20km protected cycle super highway. This has increased capacity of the road by 5-10%. It's reduced the motorised vehicle traffic flow, but overall has increased the number of people they are moving through the same space. If the only type of transport you support on a road is the car, then you are in a world of hurt. In the UK, the bigger picture is that abotu 70% of road journeys are under 8km. Given good safe cycle infrastructure and maybe an eBike, most people could switch out of cars.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  The average age in my city is over 60. "Most people" arent going to be rollerblading to the clinic for thier blood tests. Not everyone is a fit and healthy millenial, nor will taking away thier cars and busses make them so.
  - upofadown 10y ago
    Over 60 people tend to not mind if their drive takes a bit longer. Over 60 people who are too old to drive tend to take the bus.
    - scythe 10y ago
      You and I have met very different "over 60 people".
  - icebraining 10y ago
    This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Older people will absolutely use bikes if you have a good cycling culture and infrastructure. And the ones who can't will have fewer street lanes, but also much less traffic.
mrfusion 10y ago
I think it's one of the false lessons a generation learned from playing sim city. You always wanted to avoid roads in sim city.
HillaryBriss 10y ago
right. i agree. and the original post seems to make an unjustified leap at the end. after spending the entire article discussing how traffic congestion didn't increase, they say: ...its a strong sign that more modest changes to road systems really don’t have much impact on metropolitan prosperity. the amount of traffic congestion and the economic prosperity of the Atlanta region are not the same thing at all. where does the article support the notion that the economy was not hurt?

sandworm101 10y ago

Note that those making such arguments rarely extend them to bike lanes. If cutting lanes really reduces unneeded trips, that principal should apply to all modes of transport. Closing a subway station would certainly reduce the foot traffic cluttering up nearby sidewalks. Those people will work from home instead.

galdosdi 10y ago
Your rhetorical question has an obvious answer, which I'll illustrate with evidence: I live in Manhattan, the USA's most crowded place in terms of bikes and pedestrians. Yet, we are not anywhere near capacity for bikes and pedestrians, anywhere, anytime. For cars, we are at/over capacity pretty much all the time during the day. Why is obvious -- cars are way bigger. Duh. Cars are just very space-ineffecient -- the space consumed by one car could service many times more transit riders, pedestrians, cyclists. Getting people to switch from car to anything else multiples manyfold the number of people we can service, which is a good thing. Getting people to switch from anything else, on the other hand, doesn't do much good. Even if we did reach sidewalk capacity somewhere, it would make sense to just convert one car lane into additional sidewalk, since a lane can fit at least 10x as many people if they're walking versus driving.
- oftenwrong 10y ago
  Look at what Manhattan would need to become if every commuter drove a car in: https://mtayloranalysis.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/an-auto-oriented-manhattan/ https://mtayloranalysis.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/an-auto-ori...
  - galdosdi 10y ago
    Holy !@#$%! Yeah, exactly. Very nice visualization of how space-inefficient car transport is.
- maxsilver 10y ago
  > I live in Manhattan, the USA's most crowded place in terms of bikes and pedestrians. Yet, we are not anywhere near capacity for bikes and pedestrians, anywhere, anytime. This is not true. From the NY Times -> "New York’s Sidewalks Are So Packed, Pedestrians Are Taking to the Streets" https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/nyregion/new-york-city-overcrowded-sidewalks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/nyregion/new-york-city-ov...
  - galdosdi 10y ago
    That's unfairly using a different standard of congestion for pedestrians as for motorists. The kind of congestion midtown manhattan experiences for pedestrians is comparable to stop-and-go-but-moving car traffic. A bit unpleasant but there is still capacity. There's wasted capacity in the streets right now so pedestrians will overflow there, yeah, but if there was a fence, we could still increase the pedestrian density a good bit before reaching capacity. In other words, it's more comparable to stop-and-go averaging 15mph car traffic - uncomfortable, but still plenty of capacity left. It's not comparable to what we actually observe in car traffic at rush hour often -- mostly stopped, barely inching occasionally, averaging well under 5mph. When an event like a protest happens, THEN you actually see what true full-to-capacity looks like, and you realize that the day-to-day, while crowded and uncomfortable, has a long way to go before getting to capacity. Outside of an event like a protest, I've NEVER been walking through midtown and felt unable to make any progress at all. Compare that to driving. Or to put it another way, even at the worst of pedestrian congestion, the pedestrian is still faster than the car, so there is obviously still room left to make it even slower.

awjr 10y ago

Well London removed two lanes of traffic and installed a 4m wide 20km protected cycle super highway. This has increased capacity of the road by 5-10%. It's reduced the motorised vehicle traffic flow, but overall has increased the number of people they are moving through the same space. If the only type of transport you support on a road is the car, then you are in a world of hurt. In the UK, the bigger picture is that abotu 70% of road journeys are under 8km. Given good safe cycle infrastructure and maybe an eBike, most people could switch out of cars.

sandworm101 10y ago
The average age in my city is over 60. "Most people" arent going to be rollerblading to the clinic for thier blood tests. Not everyone is a fit and healthy millenial, nor will taking away thier cars and busses make them so.
- upofadown 10y ago
  Over 60 people tend to not mind if their drive takes a bit longer. Over 60 people who are too old to drive tend to take the bus.
  - scythe 10y ago
    You and I have met very different "over 60 people".
- icebraining 10y ago
  This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Older people will absolutely use bikes if you have a good cycling culture and infrastructure. And the ones who can't will have fewer street lanes, but also much less traffic.

mrfusion 10y ago

I think it's one of the false lessons a generation learned from playing sim city. You always wanted to avoid roads in sim city.

HillaryBriss 10y ago

right. i agree. and the original post seems to make an unjustified leap at the end. after spending the entire article discussing how traffic congestion didn't increase, they say: ...its a strong sign that more modest changes to road systems really don’t have much impact on metropolitan prosperity. the amount of traffic congestion and the economic prosperity of the Atlanta region are not the same thing at all. where does the article support the notion that the economy was not hurt?