4 ms·

This article has it backwards. Long, straight, wide roads are great for speeding cars but terrible for humans. It's the different between walkable places like a

This article has it backwards. Long, straight, wide roads are great for speeding cars but terrible for humans. It's the different between walkable places like and suburban American car sewers. But confidently wrong is completely on brand for this magazine, so thumbs up for them.

kartickv 8y ago
Pedestrians will also have a shorter walk if roads are straight, won't they? And, unlike cars, which can easily drive a kilometer or two further with no strain, pedestrians and cyclists are sensitive to this.
- viburnum 8y ago
  You have to walk a lot farther when the roads are bigger. All that road space has a cost. Straight roads make people drive faster, which makes not driving worse for everyone else.
- jaggederest 8y ago
  In the limit, you build roads too small for cars, like in the old walled medieval cities in europe. They are in general great places to walk and terrible places to drive. In the other limit, you build like e.g. Detroit suburbs, where it's essentially impossible to do anything on foot, ever. If you have to choose which one to be more like, curvy narrow roads are the way to go if you care about pedestrians. Add to this the fact that, if you provide space for cars, they will take it up: adding lanes / width / parking increases car usage to a greater extent than the space added, such that you end up drawing more congestion to the area than before it was improved.
  - kartickv 8y ago
    We can control polluting vehicles by imposing a pollution charge, or even banning them from some roads. Or by limiting them to only one lane. I was trying to think in an idealistic or "from first principles" way as opposed to the practical / realistic approach you took. From that point of view, I'd want all roads to be straight lines to minimise travel distance.
sho 8y ago
> But confidently wrong is completely on brand for this magazine, so thumbs up for them I don't think that's fair. Yes, I disagree with this particular article, but The Economist makes more effort than most to offer non-partisan, fact-based and insightful analysis. And yes, they have a particular worldview, which they wear on their sleeve. In general I don't have many bad, and have a lot of good, things to say about them. If you have a better recommendation to fill their niche I'd be interested to hear it.
- nimish 8y ago
  > The Economist makes more effort than most to offer non-partisan, fact-based and insightful analysis The Economist is basically the Gell-Mann effect in written form. They are also definitely partisan when it suits them (they were formed to argue against the Corn Laws!)
  - remarkEon 8y ago
    For the uninitiated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect The Economist is basically that happens when you stick your finger in the air and want to write down what the "consensus" opinion is. It's neither insightful, nor surprising. In a way, it is the most boring magazine there is.
    - FiveSquared 8y ago
      And news is supposed to be boring, if boring is true (which is most cases).
    - nindalf 8y ago
      Wow, what sort of person dismisses an opinion just for being the “consensus” and appreciates an opinion for being “surprising” rather than correct.
      - remarkEon 8y ago
        What sort of person assumes the “consensus” opinion is correct?
scarejunba 8y ago
Evidence I have contradicts your assertions. Pleasant roads in the Netherlands can be 70 ft wide. The ones described here are under 35 ft. I would speculate that you are forming your conclusions based on American notions of "wide". Indian suburban regions frequently are as dense as American urban areas, which may throw off your intuitions a bit if you're unfamiliar.

kartickv 8y ago

Pedestrians will also have a shorter walk if roads are straight, won't they? And, unlike cars, which can easily drive a kilometer or two further with no strain, pedestrians and cyclists are sensitive to this.

viburnum 8y ago
You have to walk a lot farther when the roads are bigger. All that road space has a cost. Straight roads make people drive faster, which makes not driving worse for everyone else.
jaggederest 8y ago
In the limit, you build roads too small for cars, like in the old walled medieval cities in europe. They are in general great places to walk and terrible places to drive. In the other limit, you build like e.g. Detroit suburbs, where it's essentially impossible to do anything on foot, ever. If you have to choose which one to be more like, curvy narrow roads are the way to go if you care about pedestrians. Add to this the fact that, if you provide space for cars, they will take it up: adding lanes / width / parking increases car usage to a greater extent than the space added, such that you end up drawing more congestion to the area than before it was improved.
- kartickv 8y ago
  We can control polluting vehicles by imposing a pollution charge, or even banning them from some roads. Or by limiting them to only one lane. I was trying to think in an idealistic or "from first principles" way as opposed to the practical / realistic approach you took. From that point of view, I'd want all roads to be straight lines to minimise travel distance.

sho 8y ago

> But confidently wrong is completely on brand for this magazine, so thumbs up for them I don't think that's fair. Yes, I disagree with this particular article, but The Economist makes more effort than most to offer non-partisan, fact-based and insightful analysis. And yes, they have a particular worldview, which they wear on their sleeve. In general I don't have many bad, and have a lot of good, things to say about them. If you have a better recommendation to fill their niche I'd be interested to hear it.

nimish 8y ago
> The Economist makes more effort than most to offer non-partisan, fact-based and insightful analysis The Economist is basically the Gell-Mann effect in written form. They are also definitely partisan when it suits them (they were formed to argue against the Corn Laws!)
- remarkEon 8y ago
  For the uninitiated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect The Economist is basically that happens when you stick your finger in the air and want to write down what the "consensus" opinion is. It's neither insightful, nor surprising. In a way, it is the most boring magazine there is.
  - FiveSquared 8y ago
    And news is supposed to be boring, if boring is true (which is most cases).
  - nindalf 8y ago
    Wow, what sort of person dismisses an opinion just for being the “consensus” and appreciates an opinion for being “surprising” rather than correct.
    - remarkEon 8y ago
      What sort of person assumes the “consensus” opinion is correct?

scarejunba 8y ago

Evidence I have contradicts your assertions. Pleasant roads in the Netherlands can be 70 ft wide. The ones described here are under 35 ft. I would speculate that you are forming your conclusions based on American notions of "wide". Indian suburban regions frequently are as dense as American urban areas, which may throw off your intuitions a bit if you're unfamiliar.