14 ms·

Because the metric people care about is traffic on the roads, not how many motorists are able to use the road in a given day. The Big Dig by this metric was a r

Because the metric people care about is traffic on the roads, not how many motorists are able to use the road in a given day. The Big Dig by this metric was a resounding success in Boston, able to dramatically scale up the amount of commuters in and out of the city, but driving still absolutely sucks because of traffic. To the person on the road, the Big Dig solved nothing. Parent comment is saying the only way to scale with higher demand of transportation in a way that feels like an actual improvement to people is public transit, because public transit scales so much better with higher numbers of people commuting.

whatshisface 5y ago
If the metric was really traffic, then that could easily be solved on any road by only allowing even-numbered license numbers to drive on even-numbered days, and vice-versa. If that's an absurd solution, then traffic severity is not the only metric.
- kaesar14 5y ago
  I mean, I don't see how that's really a fair response to saying what people care about is traffic. Yeah, ability to use the road, sure. I don't think people want a new highway to be built and then told they can't use it because they don't have a new car or something. I as a motorist could not give less of a shit if I'm stuck in traffic for 3 hours a day but the road is able to move hundreds of thousands of cars a day. I'd prefer a road that could only move 20 people a day with 0 traffic. It's the only thing I care about.
  - bagacrap 5y ago
    why would you count that as a win? you almost certainly wouldn't be one of those 20 people allowed on the road
    - kaesar14 5y ago
      The example was clearly intended to include the motorist in question, being allowed to be on the road. As long as the motorist got to use the road, it wouldn't matter to said motorist how large the capacity of the road was, if they weren't able to clear through it quickly without traffic. It wouldn't matter if the road in question was servicing large amounts of people, it's only visible impact to the motorists time on the road that matters.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  > If the metric was really traffic, then that could easily be solved on any road by only allowing even-numbered license numbers to drive on even-numbered days, and vice-versa. They tried this in Beijing. People would just buy second cars so they could drive on both days. Eventually they had to restrict new license plates as well.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  I don't think anyone is claiming that is literally the only metric, because if it were, you could also just ban driving completely, or kill a bunch of people, etc.
sokoloff 5y ago
Having lived through it all and seeing the outcome, the Big Dig was a pain while it was happening, but a smashing success now that it’s done. A later removal of some of the toll booths in favor of automated tolling has made the road network even more effective. Is there still some traffic? Yes. Is it better than it was 30 years ago, even as the roads handle way more traffic? Absolutely.
- kaesar14 5y ago
  I'd rather the T be functional and get me to where I need to be, and a better commuter rail system, then having to drive to and fro on Storrow at rush hour. There's no amount of bridges or expansions to the roads that would make it better short of leveling the city to build a giant highway, which I'm sure some percentage of Massachusetts drivers would be in favor of.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    You prefer the T or commuter rail. That's fine and improving those modes of transit seems a fine goal as well. That preference/goal doesn't support an argument that the Big Dig solved nothing for those who choose to drive.
    - kaesar14 5y ago
      The only goal is to get in and out of Boston in a reasonable amount of time. I wasn't around for pre Big Dig Boston but it's still dangerous and time-consuming driving to get out of Boston by car. The Big Dig might've made it _less_ dangerous and time-consuming, but the point is the solution barely scales since the total number of people driving just increased instead. If they spent those 20 years and billions of dollars on burying and expanding the T lines, and improving the commuter rail offerings, I wager we'd have achieved a lot more towards the aforementioned goal of getting in and out of Boston quickly.

whatshisface 5y ago

If the metric was really traffic, then that could easily be solved on any road by only allowing even-numbered license numbers to drive on even-numbered days, and vice-versa. If that's an absurd solution, then traffic severity is not the only metric.

kaesar14 5y ago
I mean, I don't see how that's really a fair response to saying what people care about is traffic. Yeah, ability to use the road, sure. I don't think people want a new highway to be built and then told they can't use it because they don't have a new car or something. I as a motorist could not give less of a shit if I'm stuck in traffic for 3 hours a day but the road is able to move hundreds of thousands of cars a day. I'd prefer a road that could only move 20 people a day with 0 traffic. It's the only thing I care about.
- bagacrap 5y ago
  why would you count that as a win? you almost certainly wouldn't be one of those 20 people allowed on the road
  - kaesar14 5y ago
    The example was clearly intended to include the motorist in question, being allowed to be on the road. As long as the motorist got to use the road, it wouldn't matter to said motorist how large the capacity of the road was, if they weren't able to clear through it quickly without traffic. It wouldn't matter if the road in question was servicing large amounts of people, it's only visible impact to the motorists time on the road that matters.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
> If the metric was really traffic, then that could easily be solved on any road by only allowing even-numbered license numbers to drive on even-numbered days, and vice-versa. They tried this in Beijing. People would just buy second cars so they could drive on both days. Eventually they had to restrict new license plates as well.
tshaddox 5y ago
I don't think anyone is claiming that is literally the only metric, because if it were, you could also just ban driving completely, or kill a bunch of people, etc.

sokoloff 5y ago

Having lived through it all and seeing the outcome, the Big Dig was a pain while it was happening, but a smashing success now that it’s done. A later removal of some of the toll booths in favor of automated tolling has made the road network even more effective. Is there still some traffic? Yes. Is it better than it was 30 years ago, even as the roads handle way more traffic? Absolutely.

kaesar14 5y ago
I'd rather the T be functional and get me to where I need to be, and a better commuter rail system, then having to drive to and fro on Storrow at rush hour. There's no amount of bridges or expansions to the roads that would make it better short of leveling the city to build a giant highway, which I'm sure some percentage of Massachusetts drivers would be in favor of.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  You prefer the T or commuter rail. That's fine and improving those modes of transit seems a fine goal as well. That preference/goal doesn't support an argument that the Big Dig solved nothing for those who choose to drive.
  - kaesar14 5y ago
    The only goal is to get in and out of Boston in a reasonable amount of time. I wasn't around for pre Big Dig Boston but it's still dangerous and time-consuming driving to get out of Boston by car. The Big Dig might've made it _less_ dangerous and time-consuming, but the point is the solution barely scales since the total number of people driving just increased instead. If they spent those 20 years and billions of dollars on burying and expanding the T lines, and improving the commuter rail offerings, I wager we'd have achieved a lot more towards the aforementioned goal of getting in and out of Boston quickly.