6 ms·

Fatigue, boredom, and monotony are a factor, too. I watched an episode of Modern Marvels on the History Channel [0] which gave interesting details about the hig

Fatigue, boredom, and monotony are a factor, too. I watched an episode of Modern Marvels on the History Channel [0] which gave interesting details about the highway system. They mentioned something they called "highway hypnosis" [1], a trance-like state which they wanted to avoid. There's been some discussion of whether this phenomenon is to blame for the train derailment in New York about a month ago [2]. Most of the curves we experience on highways are apparently the result of somebody, or a block of people, simply not wanting to give up their land. Nor should they have to, if they don't want to (or disagree on the price). ---------------------------------------- [0] http://www.history.com/shows/modern-marvels/episodes/season-3 http://www.history.com/shows/modern-marvels/episodes/season-... ... see "Paving America" for the episode [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_hypnosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_hypnosis [2] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/deadly-new-york-train-derailment-could-be-case-highway-hypnosis/ http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/deadly-new-york-train-d...

dalore 13y ago
You should try the Desert Bus game.
- jpatokal 13y ago
  Context: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/07/the-worst-video-game-ever-created.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/07/the-w...
oleganza 13y ago
If you can make a 1000 km straight road somewhere in Nevada, it'll be cheaper and more efficient to do exactly that. Neither drivers nor investors would like increased travel time and costs because of the fatigue and boredom. The real improvement would be to make wider lanes and allow driving 200 mph. Or even better, put a high-speed train or a hyperloop.
- Groxx 13y ago
  They do like decreased death due to fatigue and boredom, though. Highway hypnosis is nasty and dangerous.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    That's why I'd rather take a plane or a train than driving myself across the infinitely boring desert.
  - Dewie 13y ago
    A perfectly straight road is probably great if you want highway hypnosis.
- Tossrock 13y ago
  Only six-figure supercars can do 200+ miles per hour, and doing so can empty the gas tank in 15 minutes or less.
  - Joeri 13y ago
    That sounds like a can't do attitude ;)
- streetnigga 13y ago
  The real improvement is less horrific deaths of entire families in fiery twisted metallic doom. But yea vroom vroom 200mph, etc.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    60 mph is not safe on narrow streets of Paris either. Does it mean 60 mph should not be allowed where it's safe? If you have wider lanes, more lanes, better tarmac and smooth road with safety lanes, people can drive 150 mph without a problem. Like in Germany, for instance. If the road is not safe for 150 mph, then you should drive slower.
    - 13y ago
chinpokomon 13y ago
I thought that was for the tunnel they were boring? I suppose it is true for overland routes as well, but I always thought the bigger obstacle for highways has been land rights.
ivanca 13y ago
>Nor should they have to, if they don't want to (or disagree on the price). This is a real issue in many places now; when building a transportation system the government should be able to pay you whatever the house is valued and give you no saying on that, why? because the mobility of millions is more important than your emotional attachment to the house.
- quesera 13y ago
  Americans take private property pretty seriously. Govt can seize property by invoking eminent domain, but it is supposed to be an extraordinary measure. Ultimately, govt owns all land, and we pay taxes for our use of whatever we have title to. But the comforting delusion of ownership is universally defended.
- Silhouette 13y ago
  why? because the mobility of millions is more important than your emotional attachment to the house. Even if you accept that principle -- and while it's not unreasonable, I can also see reasonable arguments against it -- where does this policy end? Let's get an idea of scale here. The entire UK national rail network currently supports approximately 1.5 billion passenger journeys per year. If we make some plausible assumptions about regular commuters, then probably 5-10 million individuals benefit from travelling on the rail network's approximately 10,000 miles of track more than occasionally. In other words, when you're talking about the mobility of millions, you're not really talking about building a small part of transport infrastructure that affects the property of a few unfortunate people, you're talking about building the kind of infrastructure that supports a population of 60+ million and gets built over many decades. Let's also consider the likely alternatives. Major projects like new rail don't just affect a few square metres of someone's land when they pass through. Again picking on the UK, just because we have lots of conveniently available data about the new HS2 proposal, the government is now safeguarding an area 60m either side of the proposed route (for the first stage) so strongly that you basically can't do anything in that zone in terms of planning permissions. Obviously in terms of noise and potential disruption to local infrastructure and local travel arrangements, the effects of a major high speed rail link go far more than 60m from the track. So this isn't the kind of project where a single person with a 3-bedroom house is going to be throwing the spanner in the works. It's the kind of thing where an entire rural community is probably under pressure, or within cities with dense accommodation, potentially hundreds of residents in a single building, multiplied out by several buildings. The alternatives that avoid these problems don't just put a slight kink in the proposed route, they probably adjust the route over several miles to go around the entire area, or they relocate the routes and stations within the city so the new path isn't so disruptive, and maybe adjust the local transport infrastructure around stations to support this. So, your idea of the mobility of millions vs a bit of emotional attachment to a house is not really what we're likely to be talking about for any single infrastructure project. What about some numbers on a more realistic scale? Does the convenience of 10,000s of people having a station a little closer to their office in the centre of the city so they can save two minutes of walking to work every day outweigh the inconvenience to 100s or 1,000s of people whose homes must be destroyed to make way or whose communities are split down the middle by the new route? Does saving a minute or two on a cross-country journey lasting hours outweigh destroying an entire community whose rural settlement is in the way? These are the kinds of argument that compulsory purchase/eminent domain really tends to raise, and they aren't nearly as one-sided as your comment about the mobility of millions might suggest.

dalore 13y ago

You should try the Desert Bus game.

jpatokal 13y ago
Context: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/07/the-worst-video-game-ever-created.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/07/the-w...

oleganza 13y ago

If you can make a 1000 km straight road somewhere in Nevada, it'll be cheaper and more efficient to do exactly that. Neither drivers nor investors would like increased travel time and costs because of the fatigue and boredom. The real improvement would be to make wider lanes and allow driving 200 mph. Or even better, put a high-speed train or a hyperloop.

Groxx 13y ago
They do like decreased death due to fatigue and boredom, though. Highway hypnosis is nasty and dangerous.
- oleganza 13y ago
  That's why I'd rather take a plane or a train than driving myself across the infinitely boring desert.
- Dewie 13y ago
  A perfectly straight road is probably great if you want highway hypnosis.
Tossrock 13y ago
Only six-figure supercars can do 200+ miles per hour, and doing so can empty the gas tank in 15 minutes or less.
- Joeri 13y ago
  That sounds like a can't do attitude ;)
streetnigga 13y ago
The real improvement is less horrific deaths of entire families in fiery twisted metallic doom. But yea vroom vroom 200mph, etc.
- oleganza 13y ago
  60 mph is not safe on narrow streets of Paris either. Does it mean 60 mph should not be allowed where it's safe? If you have wider lanes, more lanes, better tarmac and smooth road with safety lanes, people can drive 150 mph without a problem. Like in Germany, for instance. If the road is not safe for 150 mph, then you should drive slower.
  - 13y ago

chinpokomon 13y ago

I thought that was for the tunnel they were boring? I suppose it is true for overland routes as well, but I always thought the bigger obstacle for highways has been land rights.

ivanca 13y ago

>Nor should they have to, if they don't want to (or disagree on the price). This is a real issue in many places now; when building a transportation system the government should be able to pay you whatever the house is valued and give you no saying on that, why? because the mobility of millions is more important than your emotional attachment to the house.

quesera 13y ago
Americans take private property pretty seriously. Govt can seize property by invoking eminent domain, but it is supposed to be an extraordinary measure. Ultimately, govt owns all land, and we pay taxes for our use of whatever we have title to. But the comforting delusion of ownership is universally defended.
Silhouette 13y ago
why? because the mobility of millions is more important than your emotional attachment to the house. Even if you accept that principle -- and while it's not unreasonable, I can also see reasonable arguments against it -- where does this policy end? Let's get an idea of scale here. The entire UK national rail network currently supports approximately 1.5 billion passenger journeys per year. If we make some plausible assumptions about regular commuters, then probably 5-10 million individuals benefit from travelling on the rail network's approximately 10,000 miles of track more than occasionally. In other words, when you're talking about the mobility of millions, you're not really talking about building a small part of transport infrastructure that affects the property of a few unfortunate people, you're talking about building the kind of infrastructure that supports a population of 60+ million and gets built over many decades. Let's also consider the likely alternatives. Major projects like new rail don't just affect a few square metres of someone's land when they pass through. Again picking on the UK, just because we have lots of conveniently available data about the new HS2 proposal, the government is now safeguarding an area 60m either side of the proposed route (for the first stage) so strongly that you basically can't do anything in that zone in terms of planning permissions. Obviously in terms of noise and potential disruption to local infrastructure and local travel arrangements, the effects of a major high speed rail link go far more than 60m from the track. So this isn't the kind of project where a single person with a 3-bedroom house is going to be throwing the spanner in the works. It's the kind of thing where an entire rural community is probably under pressure, or within cities with dense accommodation, potentially hundreds of residents in a single building, multiplied out by several buildings. The alternatives that avoid these problems don't just put a slight kink in the proposed route, they probably adjust the route over several miles to go around the entire area, or they relocate the routes and stations within the city so the new path isn't so disruptive, and maybe adjust the local transport infrastructure around stations to support this. So, your idea of the mobility of millions vs a bit of emotional attachment to a house is not really what we're likely to be talking about for any single infrastructure project. What about some numbers on a more realistic scale? Does the convenience of 10,000s of people having a station a little closer to their office in the centre of the city so they can save two minutes of walking to work every day outweigh the inconvenience to 100s or 1,000s of people whose homes must be destroyed to make way or whose communities are split down the middle by the new route? Does saving a minute or two on a cross-country journey lasting hours outweigh destroying an entire community whose rural settlement is in the way? These are the kinds of argument that compulsory purchase/eminent domain really tends to raise, and they aren't nearly as one-sided as your comment about the mobility of millions might suggest.