4 ms·

I think the parent comment was pretty clear in their argument - you have to build enough roads to get ahead of constrained consumption. If they built an extra

I think the parent comment was pretty clear in their argument - you have to build enough roads to get ahead of constrained consumption. If they built an extra lane on every road between me and the pizza shop, I'd go the pizza shop more. I dont' go to the pizza shop as often as I'd like because I hate traffic, if there were less traffic, I'd be better off. But I won't drive any more than I'd like to, I think we could build more roads and build that capaity for more people.

thebradbain 7y ago
A tangent: Or we could invest more in public mass transit, which is proven to get people around dense cities more efficiently — without all of the negative externalities wider roads bring (sprawl, mainly, which even an all electric-fleet won’t stop; and, as has actually been seen again again, congestion: in many cases a proper multi-modal street grid is actually more efficient and faster for everyone, including drivers, than a single-purpose channel accessible to only cars). There’s certainly a place for cars in city planning (lower density areas), but there’s also a point where planning focuses too much on cars to the detriment of everyone else.
- yellowapple 7y ago
  > which is proven to get people around dense cities more efficiently Only for specific definitions of "efficient". You get higher throughput, and with that higher latency. Not everyone needs a whole car, though. Motorcycles, for example, would be a more efficient use of roads, increasing throughput without sacrificing latency, and also decreasing the parking footprint necessary per capita (these are, in fact, the two primary reasons why I'm strongly considering getting an M-class endorsement and buying a motorcycle, or at the very least getting a motorized scooter that doesn't require said M-class endorsement; the tertiary reason of "motorcycles are fucking badass" certainly doesn't hurt the former option, either). Should be no surprise that in most dense cities you see outside the US, motorcycles and scooters compose a significant portion of road traffic.
- CuriouslyC 7y ago
  Mass transit is only a feasible option when the city has been designed around it or has evolved around it for a long time. Specifically, you need both high density commercial and residential spaces where you can place transit hubs, and those spaces need to be laid out so that routes between them are fairly direct. You also need transit vehicles to come at very regular intervals (no more than ~5 minutes, and preferably ~2 minutes). Ideally, you would also have a lot of low cost rental vehicles such as bikeshares or micro-cabs that could be used for the last mile to a destination commercial space. If you have to drive a car to a transit hub, wait 10-15 minutes for a vehicle, transfer multiple times (with wait times for each), then walk more than ~5 blocks to your final destination it becomes a shitshow. Los Angeles is a perfect example of this.
  - thebradbain 7y ago
    I actually live in LA, without a car. It’s perfectly feasible, and actually pretty convenient (and a lot of the times, yes, even faster than dealing with car traffic!), if you live in an area walking distance to a frequent transit stop (admittedly not everywhere, but definitely okay coverage, and it’s only expanding). LA being antithetical to transit is... really a stereotype. The entire city (and even much of the county) is built along the old streetcar lines and the red car network (the largest streetcar system in the world back in the 30s!), which existed until the 60s. It’s a city built for transit and a city where transit is being heavily invested in again — because only relying upon cars turned out to be a failed experiment. As a fun tidbit of things to come: By the 2028 Olympics, LA is hoping to have completed a metro line connecting the Valley to the Westside via the Sepulveda Pass within 12 minutes — a journey which takes the average driver during rush-hour 55-65 minutes to complete on an ever-expanding Highway. Once it’s finished, it’s projected to be the busiest single rail line in the US, surpassing any in New York City even.
    - CuriouslyC 7y ago
      I also lived in LA for quite a while about 10 years ago, and for certain routes (like venice/sm -> downtown) it wasn't that bad. Unfortunately if I wanted to get anywhere outside the major hotspots, that involved the aforementioned walk half mile to bus stop/10-15 minute wait/take bus in traffic/get off and walk several blocks to next stop/wait 10-15 minutes/take bus in traffic/walk to destination loop. I highly suggest getting a motorcycle - I was able to cut some trips that took almost 2 hours down to about 30 minutes and parking was always easy because you can park end in between cars.
dillonmckay 7y ago
more roads != less traffic.
- bluGill 7y ago
  right, but it means the existing traffic can potentially spread out more so you don't see each other.
  - dillonmckay 7y ago
    You will see the new traffic that previously would not have been on the road, b/c there wasn’t enough road for them to consider driving at that moment.

thebradbain 7y ago

A tangent: Or we could invest more in public mass transit, which is proven to get people around dense cities more efficiently — without all of the negative externalities wider roads bring (sprawl, mainly, which even an all electric-fleet won’t stop; and, as has actually been seen again again, congestion: in many cases a proper multi-modal street grid is actually more efficient and faster for everyone, including drivers, than a single-purpose channel accessible to only cars). There’s certainly a place for cars in city planning (lower density areas), but there’s also a point where planning focuses too much on cars to the detriment of everyone else.

yellowapple 7y ago
> which is proven to get people around dense cities more efficiently Only for specific definitions of "efficient". You get higher throughput, and with that higher latency. Not everyone needs a whole car, though. Motorcycles, for example, would be a more efficient use of roads, increasing throughput without sacrificing latency, and also decreasing the parking footprint necessary per capita (these are, in fact, the two primary reasons why I'm strongly considering getting an M-class endorsement and buying a motorcycle, or at the very least getting a motorized scooter that doesn't require said M-class endorsement; the tertiary reason of "motorcycles are fucking badass" certainly doesn't hurt the former option, either). Should be no surprise that in most dense cities you see outside the US, motorcycles and scooters compose a significant portion of road traffic.
CuriouslyC 7y ago
Mass transit is only a feasible option when the city has been designed around it or has evolved around it for a long time. Specifically, you need both high density commercial and residential spaces where you can place transit hubs, and those spaces need to be laid out so that routes between them are fairly direct. You also need transit vehicles to come at very regular intervals (no more than ~5 minutes, and preferably ~2 minutes). Ideally, you would also have a lot of low cost rental vehicles such as bikeshares or micro-cabs that could be used for the last mile to a destination commercial space. If you have to drive a car to a transit hub, wait 10-15 minutes for a vehicle, transfer multiple times (with wait times for each), then walk more than ~5 blocks to your final destination it becomes a shitshow. Los Angeles is a perfect example of this.
- thebradbain 7y ago
  I actually live in LA, without a car. It’s perfectly feasible, and actually pretty convenient (and a lot of the times, yes, even faster than dealing with car traffic!), if you live in an area walking distance to a frequent transit stop (admittedly not everywhere, but definitely okay coverage, and it’s only expanding). LA being antithetical to transit is... really a stereotype. The entire city (and even much of the county) is built along the old streetcar lines and the red car network (the largest streetcar system in the world back in the 30s!), which existed until the 60s. It’s a city built for transit and a city where transit is being heavily invested in again — because only relying upon cars turned out to be a failed experiment. As a fun tidbit of things to come: By the 2028 Olympics, LA is hoping to have completed a metro line connecting the Valley to the Westside via the Sepulveda Pass within 12 minutes — a journey which takes the average driver during rush-hour 55-65 minutes to complete on an ever-expanding Highway. Once it’s finished, it’s projected to be the busiest single rail line in the US, surpassing any in New York City even.
  - CuriouslyC 7y ago
    I also lived in LA for quite a while about 10 years ago, and for certain routes (like venice/sm -> downtown) it wasn't that bad. Unfortunately if I wanted to get anywhere outside the major hotspots, that involved the aforementioned walk half mile to bus stop/10-15 minute wait/take bus in traffic/get off and walk several blocks to next stop/wait 10-15 minutes/take bus in traffic/walk to destination loop. I highly suggest getting a motorcycle - I was able to cut some trips that took almost 2 hours down to about 30 minutes and parking was always easy because you can park end in between cars.

dillonmckay 7y ago

more roads != less traffic.

bluGill 7y ago
right, but it means the existing traffic can potentially spread out more so you don't see each other.
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  You will see the new traffic that previously would not have been on the road, b/c there wasn’t enough road for them to consider driving at that moment.