3 ms·

> would be solved if we worked closer to where we live. You're really not wrong, but also, it is a real heck of a problem to rein in. Allow me to digress for

by xp84 3y ago

> would be solved if we worked closer to where we live. You're really not wrong, but also, it is a real heck of a problem to rein in. Allow me to digress for a moment and then I'll tie it back: I arrived at the induced demand conclusion, after thinking it was mumbo jumbo for a while, when I realized that human tolerance for misery is the constant value. Humans, in the aggregate, clearly have a tolerance for misery which exceeds that of driving for hours in L.A. traffic. Enough of them individually tolerate it in fact, to keep those traffic arteries clogged for probably up to 5 hours a day on a good day. Build a new lane or route, wait a little while, the traffic scales to keep the commute times roughly the same, because if they got any better, a couple more people would eventually decide it's worth it to go for that great career opportunity that puts them in a car 3 hours a day, or, people who were driving 3 hours a day before but found it trending to 2 would think "I could get that big new-construction house 3 towns further out and my commute would only be back to what it was before the new lanes were added. Cool!" Anyway, since the equilibrium misery level (which we can't change without mind control) isn't already enough incentive to spur them to come up with a less distant work/home separation, I'm not sure how much success any initiative to 'get people' to work closer to home would have unless it was imposed by a totalitarian state (perhaps as powerful as the Communist Party of China? Though I'm not making any specific comparisons to actual CPC actions because I don't know China well enough). People already want to, all things being equal, but they also will really want the higher-paying job -- or the many-bedroom house for their growing family -- even if it is "too far." Also, side note: suburban office buildings today are one of the most distressed real estate assets, so it seems that the idea of just providing places for work closer to suburban residential is already not finding enough buy-in from the business owners who would create these jobs.

bluGill 3y ago
That misery level is generally considered to be about half an hour each way. You can see this back to hunter gathers moving the camp when the herds (or ripe plants) were more than half an hour from their camp; peasant farmers keeping the village within that distance of the fields. Some people do commute much longer, but there is a clear wall around the half hour mark. The things people do when there is more opportunity are good things. That larger house is (to them) a good thing. that job was not better despite more pay because they would have to move - uprooting their family (and spouses job) to take it. This are things your city should strive to enable people to do.

by xp84 3y ago

bluGill 3y ago

That misery level is generally considered to be about half an hour each way. You can see this back to hunter gathers moving the camp when the herds (or ripe plants) were more than half an hour from their camp; peasant farmers keeping the village within that distance of the fields. Some people do commute much longer, but there is a clear wall around the half hour mark. The things people do when there is more opportunity are good things. That larger house is (to them) a good thing. that job was not better despite more pay because they would have to move - uprooting their family (and spouses job) to take it. This are things your city should strive to enable people to do.