6 ms·

Poor analogy. More bandwidth does not occupy more physical space. Wider highways, very much so, to the point of producing an environment hostile to peaceful liv

Poor analogy. More bandwidth does not occupy more physical space. Wider highways, very much so, to the point of producing an environment hostile to peaceful living, more noise and pollution, barriers to walking and nature etc.

repsilat 4y ago
That's a different argument. The grandparent wasn't making a general case for the net benefit of added lanes, they were addressing the narrow argument of "induced demand" somehow proving that improvements are futile. And for that purpose the analogy was pretty good.
- throwaheyy 4y ago
  My point was that improvements ultimately are futile because there are practical limits on how wide you can make a highway.
listenallyall 4y ago
Highways are typically built away from residential communities. Not always, of course, but far more people live next to (or on) surface streets than freeways. People are going to drive to work. Attempts at carpooling have been utter failures. Wider highways means more capacity means more people will take them, which is actually better for noise and pollution and safety, than driving on surface streets. Idling waiting for a red light is far worse, emissions-wise, than 15-20 mph in a freeway "traffic jam". People don't expect to walk across a freeway, they do expect to be able to walk across the streets near their home, which becomes nearly impossible when traffic is so bad on the freeway that everybody starts taking the off-freeway "shortcut" or "bypass" that your kids ride their bike on.
- theGnuMe 4y ago
  >Highways are typically built away from residential communities. lol, what?
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    What do you believe is the percentage of homes closer to a freeway than to a surface street?
- kdmccormick 4y ago
  This may be true in rural areas or car-centric cities, but in the Northeast US and many other dense parts of the world, freeways butt up against or even plow right through neighborhoods, especially lower-income ones. Until the late 90s, an elevated freeway ran through the middle of Boston. It's bad for safety, bad for health, and bad for happiness. In those places, it makes more long-term sense to invest in transit and bike infrastructure instead of inducing more demand for urban freeway bandwidth.
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    Bicycle riders ride on surface streets. For safety reasons, they should be in favor of diverting the maximum number of vehicles, especially large trucks and commercial vehicles, towards freeways and away from surface streets. Widening highways facilitates that.
- spoonjim 4y ago
  LOL. In my town there are $2million homes whose front doors are <50 feet from a major highway.
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    With a massive wall in between, right? Are you claiming their driveway leads to the freeway? Or to a surface street?
    - spoonjim 4y ago
      The wall is not “massive,” probably slightly shorter than the house
  - GenerocUsername 4y ago
    Near a highway or near an entrance to that highway?
- iknowstuff 4y ago
  No, you are ignorant and came up with this nonsense on the spot instead of spending time getting educated on the topic. Read up or at least watch some strongtowns / Not Just Bikes / citybeautiful
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    Where do you think more t-bone accidents occur, on divided highways where everyone is driving the same direction, or surface streets with 4-way intersections and people regularly speeding through the first few seconds of a red light?
    - iknowstuff 4y ago
      You seem to be making an entirely different argument this time around? You’ll be happy to know traffic accidents and fatalities have been on a much steeper decline in the Netherlands than in the US, ever since in the 70s they implemented their transit&bike-first policies and started demolishing freeways. Also, ever hear of roundabouts? :)
- usefulcat 4y ago
  You seem to presuppose that people couldn't possibly get around in any way other than by driving, which is simply not true in general. Obviously most US cities are extremely car-centric today but that's hardly evidence that it necessarily must always be so. Having everyone use individual vehicles for all transportation needs is generally fine when cities are small but it scales very poorly. That's what we're witnessing here.
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    The discussion here is not widening highways vs building public transportation. It is widening highways vs not widening highways. Public transportation is a separate issue.
    - kdmccormick 4y ago
      In a dense urban center those two things are at odds. When you widen the highway, where are you getting that space from? Unless you're tunneling, you're taking it away from housing, businesses, railways, bike lines, sidewalks, or parks.
jcims 4y ago
My brother has spent the last 25 years adding bandwidth to the local metro area. It most certainly occupies more physical space, sometimes at tremendous expense.
- throwaheyy 4y ago
  Ok, maybe it involves stringing up a new cable, onto poles already carrying many cables. That’s not even close to being comparable to widening highways.

repsilat 4y ago

That's a different argument. The grandparent wasn't making a general case for the net benefit of added lanes, they were addressing the narrow argument of "induced demand" somehow proving that improvements are futile. And for that purpose the analogy was pretty good.

throwaheyy 4y ago
My point was that improvements ultimately are futile because there are practical limits on how wide you can make a highway.

listenallyall 4y ago

Highways are typically built away from residential communities. Not always, of course, but far more people live next to (or on) surface streets than freeways. People are going to drive to work. Attempts at carpooling have been utter failures. Wider highways means more capacity means more people will take them, which is actually better for noise and pollution and safety, than driving on surface streets. Idling waiting for a red light is far worse, emissions-wise, than 15-20 mph in a freeway "traffic jam". People don't expect to walk across a freeway, they do expect to be able to walk across the streets near their home, which becomes nearly impossible when traffic is so bad on the freeway that everybody starts taking the off-freeway "shortcut" or "bypass" that your kids ride their bike on.

theGnuMe 4y ago
>Highways are typically built away from residential communities. lol, what?
- listenallyall 4y ago
  What do you believe is the percentage of homes closer to a freeway than to a surface street?
kdmccormick 4y ago
This may be true in rural areas or car-centric cities, but in the Northeast US and many other dense parts of the world, freeways butt up against or even plow right through neighborhoods, especially lower-income ones. Until the late 90s, an elevated freeway ran through the middle of Boston. It's bad for safety, bad for health, and bad for happiness. In those places, it makes more long-term sense to invest in transit and bike infrastructure instead of inducing more demand for urban freeway bandwidth.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  Bicycle riders ride on surface streets. For safety reasons, they should be in favor of diverting the maximum number of vehicles, especially large trucks and commercial vehicles, towards freeways and away from surface streets. Widening highways facilitates that.
spoonjim 4y ago
LOL. In my town there are $2million homes whose front doors are <50 feet from a major highway.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  With a massive wall in between, right? Are you claiming their driveway leads to the freeway? Or to a surface street?
  - spoonjim 4y ago
    The wall is not “massive,” probably slightly shorter than the house
- GenerocUsername 4y ago
  Near a highway or near an entrance to that highway?
iknowstuff 4y ago
No, you are ignorant and came up with this nonsense on the spot instead of spending time getting educated on the topic. Read up or at least watch some strongtowns / Not Just Bikes / citybeautiful
- listenallyall 4y ago
  Where do you think more t-bone accidents occur, on divided highways where everyone is driving the same direction, or surface streets with 4-way intersections and people regularly speeding through the first few seconds of a red light?
  - iknowstuff 4y ago
    You seem to be making an entirely different argument this time around? You’ll be happy to know traffic accidents and fatalities have been on a much steeper decline in the Netherlands than in the US, ever since in the 70s they implemented their transit&bike-first policies and started demolishing freeways. Also, ever hear of roundabouts? :)
usefulcat 4y ago
You seem to presuppose that people couldn't possibly get around in any way other than by driving, which is simply not true in general. Obviously most US cities are extremely car-centric today but that's hardly evidence that it necessarily must always be so. Having everyone use individual vehicles for all transportation needs is generally fine when cities are small but it scales very poorly. That's what we're witnessing here.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  The discussion here is not widening highways vs building public transportation. It is widening highways vs not widening highways. Public transportation is a separate issue.
  - kdmccormick 4y ago
    In a dense urban center those two things are at odds. When you widen the highway, where are you getting that space from? Unless you're tunneling, you're taking it away from housing, businesses, railways, bike lines, sidewalks, or parks.

jcims 4y ago

My brother has spent the last 25 years adding bandwidth to the local metro area. It most certainly occupies more physical space, sometimes at tremendous expense.

throwaheyy 4y ago
Ok, maybe it involves stringing up a new cable, onto poles already carrying many cables. That’s not even close to being comparable to widening highways.