Motorists have been stranded on a major interstate in Virginia since last night(lite.cnn.com)
lite.cnn.com
Motorists have been stranded on a major interstate in Virginia since last night
https://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_fd19e94f8e88a1547eae044dae16dd28
761 comments
I lived in the DC area for 20 years (1999-2019) and commuted daily on the Metro for many of those years. The things you say are true, but they were also true 15-20 years ago when the Metro was leaps and bounds better than it is today. They were true in the 1970s when the Metro was first built. So it can't be the whole story. There's much more to it. It's not just that the Metro is bad, it's that it keeps getting worse and worse.
There's decades of deferred maintenance. This is probably due to funding problems because of what you're talking about, but the Metro is in a hole that it might not be able to dig itself out of unless someone takes it seriously and commits a lot of money and effort.
The WMATA is incompetent. I don't know how else to put it. Like, why are you even running 6-car trains at all during rush hour? The system is treated like a jobs program to give make-work jobs for people who would otherwise be unemployed. I'm sure some of the workers are dedicated and care, but many don't seem to. Try asking a station attendant to use the bathroom that's supposed to be publicly available and watch the annoyance that you have dared to inconvenience them.
The collision in 2009 caused them to switch to manual braking and they just...never switched back. Whatever problem there was with the automatic braking system, they decided to just give up on it instead of fixing it. It's minor, but it slows things down.
It's not like public transit in DC is impossible. It used to work, if not perfectly, much much better than it does today.
DC needs to be a state. It's unconscionable that it isn't and the rights of 680,000+ US citizens are ignored because it isn't politically expedient to give them the representation they're due. That would help a lot. DC could control its own budget and negotiate on equal footing with MD and VA.
There's decades of deferred maintenance. This is probably due to funding problems because of what you're talking about, but the Metro is in a hole that it might not be able to dig itself out of unless someone takes it seriously and commits a lot of money and effort.
The WMATA is incompetent. I don't know how else to put it. Like, why are you even running 6-car trains at all during rush hour? The system is treated like a jobs program to give make-work jobs for people who would otherwise be unemployed. I'm sure some of the workers are dedicated and care, but many don't seem to. Try asking a station attendant to use the bathroom that's supposed to be publicly available and watch the annoyance that you have dared to inconvenience them.
The collision in 2009 caused them to switch to manual braking and they just...never switched back. Whatever problem there was with the automatic braking system, they decided to just give up on it instead of fixing it. It's minor, but it slows things down.
It's not like public transit in DC is impossible. It used to work, if not perfectly, much much better than it does today.
DC needs to be a state. It's unconscionable that it isn't and the rights of 680,000+ US citizens are ignored because it isn't politically expedient to give them the representation they're due. That would help a lot. DC could control its own budget and negotiate on equal footing with MD and VA.
> Whatever problem there was with the automatic braking system, they decided to just give up on it instead of fixing it. It's minor, but it slows things down.
This is just not true. Partial control was restored years ago [0], and my understanding is they still want this capability on other lines. But WMATA has probably been busy addressing numerous other NTSB complaints that impact the ability to provide basic service (see the 7000 series recall), so smooth braking just isn’t that important.
0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/com...
This is just not true. Partial control was restored years ago [0], and my understanding is they still want this capability on other lines. But WMATA has probably been busy addressing numerous other NTSB complaints that impact the ability to provide basic service (see the 7000 series recall), so smooth braking just isn’t that important.
0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/com...
One of my friends in DC was just complaining the other day about how the conductor wasn't able to manually stop the train properly and caused a delay (that led to a missed connection).
Clearly it's still not back 100%, even 12 years later. I mean, if they cared about fixing it, they'd fix it by now. Any halfway competent system should be able to figure out something like that after more than a decade.
Clearly it's still not back 100%, even 12 years later. I mean, if they cared about fixing it, they'd fix it by now. Any halfway competent system should be able to figure out something like that after more than a decade.
Follow the (lack of) money.
> DC needs to be a state.
Alternatively, give back all of the residential parts back to Maryland (like Arlington was given back to VA). For a long time this wasn't politically feasible because DC was rough and MD would not have wanted it, but by now the tax base has to be high enough for it to be a net positive for MD. Of course, the democrats will lose 3 "safe" electoral votes but you could amend the constitution to give them over to Maryland and then take the extra three away over the course of 30 years, or something.
Alternatively, give back all of the residential parts back to Maryland (like Arlington was given back to VA). For a long time this wasn't politically feasible because DC was rough and MD would not have wanted it, but by now the tax base has to be high enough for it to be a net positive for MD. Of course, the democrats will lose 3 "safe" electoral votes but you could amend the constitution to give them over to Maryland and then take the extra three away over the course of 30 years, or something.
MD doesn't want that and neither does DC. DC is not Maryland. It's its own place with its own identity.
I hear this all the time from clueless rich DC residents who get wrapped up in all sorts of granfalloons. You don't think "Arlington" is its own place with its own identity separate from the rest of Virgina? Moreover, anacostia residents probably have more in common with residents of pg county than residents of palisades, who have more in common with bethesda residents than anacostia residents.
Maybe you want to ask the Anacostia residents how they feel about that. It's not like their ancestors all moved there of their own volition.
Well considering I volunteered on the border of anacostia and pg county, I think most of them don't really give a shit, eastern ave is just another street in the neighborhood.
And yeah, is bet they would bear more resentment towards someone who lives in the Palisades than someone on the other side of eastern avenue.
Moreover, last I checked 10 years ago a good chunk of anacostia is transitioning into middle-income/federal employee Hispanic neighborhood and that process is bleeding over into pg county, because the boundaries don't really matter all that much.
Edit: southern Ave, not eastern ave; it's been a long time.
And yeah, is bet they would bear more resentment towards someone who lives in the Palisades than someone on the other side of eastern avenue.
Moreover, last I checked 10 years ago a good chunk of anacostia is transitioning into middle-income/federal employee Hispanic neighborhood and that process is bleeding over into pg county, because the boundaries don't really matter all that much.
Edit: southern Ave, not eastern ave; it's been a long time.
If the residents of Arlington want to form their own state and secede from Virginia, I'll support them. As it stands, they already have representation in Congress.
> Moreover, anacostia residents probably have more in common with residents of pg county than residents of palisades, who have more in common with bethesda residents than anacostia residents.
Sure, and residents of Manhattan probably have more in common with people in northern New Jersey than they do with people in Buffalo, but New York still gets to be a state. So what?
> Moreover, anacostia residents probably have more in common with residents of pg county than residents of palisades, who have more in common with bethesda residents than anacostia residents.
Sure, and residents of Manhattan probably have more in common with people in northern New Jersey than they do with people in Buffalo, but New York still gets to be a state. So what?
My point is: There's no shared identity among DC residents, the most of whom don't even really live there all that long, due to political cycles/fluid flight to the suburbs of MD and VA. Your statement is pure nonsense.
The most sensible solution is to give DC back to Maryland (which is where it came from) and thereby give the residents representation, which is your end goal. If you want some other end goal, it has to be weighed against the other absurdities of making DC a state.
The most sensible solution is to give DC back to Maryland (which is where it came from) and thereby give the residents representation, which is your end goal. If you want some other end goal, it has to be weighed against the other absurdities of making DC a state.
> There's no shared identity among DC residents
Uhh, yeah there is, if you move beyond happy hour with the other transplants whose dads got them internships in their representative's office and talk to people who actually grew up there.
And who cares how long people live there? If I move to VA for 2 years I still get to vote for a representative if there's an election while I'm there. Why should we have a void area in the country where like "ah ah aha, gotcha! you stepped in the your-vote-doesn't-count zone, so your vote doesn't count! Too bad!" This is the government that impacts our lives not some children's board game.
Uhh, yeah there is, if you move beyond happy hour with the other transplants whose dads got them internships in their representative's office and talk to people who actually grew up there.
And who cares how long people live there? If I move to VA for 2 years I still get to vote for a representative if there's an election while I'm there. Why should we have a void area in the country where like "ah ah aha, gotcha! you stepped in the your-vote-doesn't-count zone, so your vote doesn't count! Too bad!" This is the government that impacts our lives not some children's board game.
I have friends from DC who do feel strong connection to it. It might be the way people think of NYC — i.e. from a city/metropolis rather than a state.
But they damn sure don’t think they’re from Maryland.
But they damn sure don’t think they’re from Maryland.
The ghost of Petey Greene begs to differ.
> If the residents of Arlington want to form their own state and secede from Virginia, I'll support them.
This idea doesn't get enough application. NYC should be its own state. LA should be its own state. Most big cities should be their own states. They are not similar to the area around them.
This idea doesn't get enough application. NYC should be its own state. LA should be its own state. Most big cities should be their own states. They are not similar to the area around them.
> This idea doesn't get enough application.
It gets far too much application. We literally put down a rebellion and rewrote the Constitution over this. It didn't work before and it won't work now.
It gets far too much application. We literally put down a rebellion and rewrote the Constitution over this. It didn't work before and it won't work now.
On the contrary, it's worked well in the past and it's also working right now. What's the problem supposed to be?
There has never been a time in all of human history where cities cordoned themselves off politically from the rural areas they rely on that did not end in rebellion, bloodshed, and/or collapse.
If you want rural America to rise up in rebellion again, I mean, I guess go for it. But there's a specific reason the vast majority of state capitals are in comparatively rural areas: to prevent exactly the kind of division you're advocating for. This was a hard-won lesson in the aftermath of Shay's Rebellion.
If you want rural America to rise up in rebellion again, I mean, I guess go for it. But there's a specific reason the vast majority of state capitals are in comparatively rural areas: to prevent exactly the kind of division you're advocating for. This was a hard-won lesson in the aftermath of Shay's Rebellion.
> There has never been a time in all of human history where cities cordoned themselves off politically from the rural areas they rely on that did not end in rebellion, bloodshed, and/or collapse.
I guess you could call this true, but only in the sense that there has never been any system of any kind that didn't end in rebellion, bloodshed, and/or collapse.
The normal pattern historically is that the city's hinterlands are subject to the city's rule. You never see the hinterlands ruling the city.
I guess you could call this true, but only in the sense that there has never been any system of any kind that didn't end in rebellion, bloodshed, and/or collapse.
The normal pattern historically is that the city's hinterlands are subject to the city's rule. You never see the hinterlands ruling the city.
> There has never been a time in all of human history where cities cordoned themselves off politically from the rural areas they rely on that did not end in rebellion, bloodshed, and/or collapse.
Totally incorrect. Berlin and Hamburg are states right now.
Totally incorrect. Berlin and Hamburg are states right now.
According to the Wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion ), Shays' Rebellion was prompted by taxes being set at a level well beyond farmers' ability to pay. This is an incredibly common motive for revolt.
But it escapes me how torstenvl thinks it's related to cities constituting their own governmental units.
But it escapes me how torstenvl thinks it's related to cities constituting their own governmental units.
The only people who say this are Democrats who want another (presumably) safe democratic state in DC. My city doesn’t share the same “identity” as the city next to me, but nobody’s clamoring to break up the state.
Your city's votes get counted during election years. DC is one of the poster children for taxation without representation.
That’s why they should consider annexation by Maryland.
I hadn't heard the annexation argument before, I suppose the fairest way would be to have an election in DC and people would vote on whether they wanted to be an independent state or part of Maryland, and whichever was chosen would be the way to go.
I personally would expect they would want to be their own state, but who knows? If on the other hand people feel the choose their own state is very likely and Maryland unlikely it would probably save money to just go with become their own state.
I personally would expect they would want to be their own state, but who knows? If on the other hand people feel the choose their own state is very likely and Maryland unlikely it would probably save money to just go with become their own state.
[deleted]
They’ve had this vote several times. The people of DC overwhelmingly vote to be a state.
so then I guess that should shut down the Maryland suggestion. No idea why it would be brought up as a possible solution for democratic representation when it goes against the wishes of the people seeking representation.
No, the people don't get to vote on which solution gives them representation. Because if you could just "vote to be a state" why does that stop at DC? Why not the three houses next to mine and me vote to be a state? Congress has to approve it because becoming a state incurs an externality on the other states - dilution of voting power.
To give your idea credence, though: probably it would be fair to let arbitrary groups of people vote for statehood without congressional approval if, hypothetically, there were a flat user fee to be a state, say, $50 billion/yr. Can't pay it? Sorry you get demoted to territory, your senators are booted, and your representatives become delegates, unless you merge with another state.
To give your idea credence, though: probably it would be fair to let arbitrary groups of people vote for statehood without congressional approval if, hypothetically, there were a flat user fee to be a state, say, $50 billion/yr. Can't pay it? Sorry you get demoted to territory, your senators are booted, and your representatives become delegates, unless you merge with another state.
[deleted]
You could probably say <LARGEST_CITY> is not <STATE_NAME> for all 50 states without finding much disagreement.
The difference is that in 1990, the system was still in kind of new shape.
Generally speaking, the lifecycle for a transit system's components look like 40-50 years. That puts the expiry date of the first DC Metro lines at 2016 and beyond, which roughly lines up with when things started falling apart.
Basically, the entire system has always run on fumes. That only recently stopped cutting it.
Generally speaking, the lifecycle for a transit system's components look like 40-50 years. That puts the expiry date of the first DC Metro lines at 2016 and beyond, which roughly lines up with when things started falling apart.
Basically, the entire system has always run on fumes. That only recently stopped cutting it.
> The things you say are true, but they were also true 15-20 years ago when the Metro was leaps and bounds better than it is today. They were true in the 1970s when the Metro was first built. So it can't be the whole story. There's much more to it. It's not just that the Metro is bad, it's that it keeps getting worse and worse.
> It's not like public transit in DC is impossible. It used to work, if not perfectly, much much better than it does today.
> DC needs to be a state. It's unconscionable that it isn't and the rights of 680,000+ US citizens are ignored because it isn't politically expedient to give them the representation they're due. That would help a lot.
Wasn't DC also not a state for the last 20 years, and in the 70s?
> It's not like public transit in DC is impossible. It used to work, if not perfectly, much much better than it does today.
> DC needs to be a state. It's unconscionable that it isn't and the rights of 680,000+ US citizens are ignored because it isn't politically expedient to give them the representation they're due. That would help a lot.
Wasn't DC also not a state for the last 20 years, and in the 70s?
So ... do any of you follow politics? One of the two major parties has given up on governing the country, and has not done so for ten years. This 'grand' old party seems to be toying with the idea of giving up on Democracy next. And we are confused as to why the DC Metro system cannot be fixed??
Here's a tip: Fix that party, and you will find that suddenly the DC Metro has money to fix the automatic braking system.
> DC needs to be a state. It's unconscionable that it isn't and the rights of 680,000+ US citizens are ignored because it isn't politically expedient to give them the representation they're due.
I hope this doesn't sound like a lecture, but whenever a question about fundamental rights emerges, it's often useful to turn to the Constitution and Federalist Papers to understand the rationale and intent behind the system that was created. While it's certainly possible to disagree and change things over time, there's usually a valid historical reasoning behind why things were made the way they were that is lost.
As far as I understand the history (I'm open to fact-checking as I'm not a historian and never lived in DC) Washington D.C. was intentionally never supposed to be a state so that no single state would have extra power and influence over the operation of the central government. This makes a lot of sense when you think of this in terms of bureaucracy and power creep that the Founders were trying to avoid. If Washington D.C. was a state from the beginning, its interests and issues would inevitably begin to take precedence over those of other states because the Capitol would be on land it controlled. The Capitol was intended to be completely neutral ground when it came to favoring any state over any other.
Now you might ask, were the people of that area supposed to have no representation at all? Not exactly. As far as I understand the intent, Washington D.C. was actually never supposed to have a large permanent residential population. DC was intended for whatever government buildings that needed to exist and that's basically it. I'm not 100% sure how that changed and what historical factors led to DC growing into a larger city, but that seems to be a key mistake.
The question now becomes what do you do with these people to ensure that they're represented? I think most people are on the same page here with wanting all Americans represented, but is making them a state the right solution? I'd argue no and I'd like to give a slightly different reason why.
A lot of the commenters here are thinking in terms of balance when it comes down to Black/White or Democratic/Republican when it comes to adding states, but I'd argue that the key division in the nation that needs to be balanced is Urban/Rural. A lot of the ways that people in this country think differently come down to whether they're more Urban or Rural-minded. How people think about self-responsibility and living with neighbors comes down to this divide: you can easily see this viewpoint encapsulated when it comes to gun rights and education and how the Urban/Rural divide works there. One big issue with DC that I see (as far as I understand the area) is that it's so small that there's no substantial rural influence possible. Even the bluest of blue states that are dominated by urban politics like New York have some kind of rural areas and constituencies that they have to pay attention to and who hold some influence and mindshare in a state legislature. As far as I understand the area, Washington D.C. can never have any kind of rural influence just due to the density and size. I think adding a state without even a theoretical influence of one factor possible is very questionable and likely going to be incredibly divisive.
I hope this doesn't sound like a lecture, but whenever a question about fundamental rights emerges, it's often useful to turn to the Constitution and Federalist Papers to understand the rationale and intent behind the system that was created. While it's certainly possible to disagree and change things over time, there's usually a valid historical reasoning behind why things were made the way they were that is lost.
As far as I understand the history (I'm open to fact-checking as I'm not a historian and never lived in DC) Washington D.C. was intentionally never supposed to be a state so that no single state would have extra power and influence over the operation of the central government. This makes a lot of sense when you think of this in terms of bureaucracy and power creep that the Founders were trying to avoid. If Washington D.C. was a state from the beginning, its interests and issues would inevitably begin to take precedence over those of other states because the Capitol would be on land it controlled. The Capitol was intended to be completely neutral ground when it came to favoring any state over any other.
Now you might ask, were the people of that area supposed to have no representation at all? Not exactly. As far as I understand the intent, Washington D.C. was actually never supposed to have a large permanent residential population. DC was intended for whatever government buildings that needed to exist and that's basically it. I'm not 100% sure how that changed and what historical factors led to DC growing into a larger city, but that seems to be a key mistake.
The question now becomes what do you do with these people to ensure that they're represented? I think most people are on the same page here with wanting all Americans represented, but is making them a state the right solution? I'd argue no and I'd like to give a slightly different reason why.
A lot of the commenters here are thinking in terms of balance when it comes down to Black/White or Democratic/Republican when it comes to adding states, but I'd argue that the key division in the nation that needs to be balanced is Urban/Rural. A lot of the ways that people in this country think differently come down to whether they're more Urban or Rural-minded. How people think about self-responsibility and living with neighbors comes down to this divide: you can easily see this viewpoint encapsulated when it comes to gun rights and education and how the Urban/Rural divide works there. One big issue with DC that I see (as far as I understand the area) is that it's so small that there's no substantial rural influence possible. Even the bluest of blue states that are dominated by urban politics like New York have some kind of rural areas and constituencies that they have to pay attention to and who hold some influence and mindshare in a state legislature. As far as I understand the area, Washington D.C. can never have any kind of rural influence just due to the density and size. I think adding a state without even a theoretical influence of one factor possible is very questionable and likely going to be incredibly divisive.
DC shouldn't be a state, it would give that "state" too much power and also make politicians there outsized politically powerful and we have enough of that already with states like rhode island, wyoming, and the dakotas
That's not how this works. We create a government and decide what rights citizens have. We did that, wrote a whole constitution about it. Then we make sure every citizen has those rights.
If there are imbalances in the design of the government, that's a separate problem that we fix on its own. Depriving some subset of citizens of their rights is not the answer.
If there are imbalances in the design of the government, that's a separate problem that we fix on its own. Depriving some subset of citizens of their rights is not the answer.
DC residents should get one-person-one-vote, like most things. We should get rid of 1700s planter superuser backdoors like the disproportional Senate and electoral college.
Then we should rebrand away from the slaver-drafted constitution to the Free States of America, a fourth founding after the original, post-Civil War and Civil Rights Movement. That would match what we actually have, a multiethnic democracy welcoming global talent.
Giving residents of Wyoming 70× the Senate voting power of any Californian is a joke.
Giving residents of Wyoming 70× the Senate voting power of any Californian is a joke.
Not a joke. It was the intent that populous states should not be able to steamroll less populous states in the Senate.
It was a deal sweetener. The federation flourished, renegotiate the terrible deal. States are artificial units. One person, one vote.
The intent of a bunch of folks who kept people chained up in barns is irrelevant, the intent of the 1700s circumstances is irrelevant. We're heading to 30% of Americans controlling 68% of Senate in '40, minority rule by rural white folks. This veneration of the parchment as a religious text is just an excuse to not use our brains to solve present-day problems.
The intent of a bunch of folks who kept people chained up in barns is irrelevant, the intent of the 1700s circumstances is irrelevant. We're heading to 30% of Americans controlling 68% of Senate in '40, minority rule by rural white folks. This veneration of the parchment as a religious text is just an excuse to not use our brains to solve present-day problems.
In other words, rigging the Senate towards people in empty states.
(Land ownership shouldn't matter in a democratic republic, people should.)
(Land ownership shouldn't matter in a democratic republic, people should.)
There’s this whole other part of Congress called the House of Representatives that is proportional to population.
Land ownership has nothing to do with anything. Everyone gets to vote for their Senators (except people in DC). We did away with the requirement to own land a long time ago.
Land ownership has nothing to do with anything. Everyone gets to vote for their Senators (except people in DC). We did away with the requirement to own land a long time ago.
It is important to define the term "steamroll."
If California broke up into 200 states, would they need 2 Senators each to protect themselves from being steamrolled? If so, then why don't Californians already need 200 Senators?
If California broke up into 200 states, would they need 2 Senators each to protect themselves from being steamrolled? If so, then why don't Californians already need 200 Senators?
Bud(2)
Arlington VA is a county, not a city, and has the land area and tax base of a county. Indeed Arlington is perhaps the most successful build out of mass transit in a community in the United States in the last 30 years.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/08/arlingt...
Also the DC metro system is in fact organized across state lines and receives generous federal subsidies....DC Metro spends $4.7 billion a year. There's also interstate light rail from MD and VA to DC that's billions more. There are probably few cities in the world that have public transport more heavily subsidized than DC.
Commuter income tax reciprocity in DC metro is no different than most other regions.
The primary issue this week is that this section of Virginia rarely sees snowstorms of this magnitude and further most DC residents have no idea how to drive in it (or know when to stay home).
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/08/arlingt...
Also the DC metro system is in fact organized across state lines and receives generous federal subsidies....DC Metro spends $4.7 billion a year. There's also interstate light rail from MD and VA to DC that's billions more. There are probably few cities in the world that have public transport more heavily subsidized than DC.
Commuter income tax reciprocity in DC metro is no different than most other regions.
The primary issue this week is that this section of Virginia rarely sees snowstorms of this magnitude and further most DC residents have no idea how to drive in it (or know when to stay home).
> The primary issue this week is that this section of Virginia rarely sees snowstorms of this magnitude and further most DC residents have no idea how to drive in it (or know when to stay home).
That's not really it. We get snowstorms of this size once every 2 or 3 years, sometimes more. The problem is that somehow they didn't keep up with plowing and salting on that stretch of I-95, and that led to back-ups, and once that happened, there was no way to prevent ice from forming on the road. An exacerbating factor was that it was raining before the snow event, so they weren't able to pre-salt/brine the roads.
Notice that the major traffic jam was on I-95 South outside of the beltway, it wasn't on the outer loop, inside DC, or in Maryland even though the storm blanketed the area.
That's not really it. We get snowstorms of this size once every 2 or 3 years, sometimes more. The problem is that somehow they didn't keep up with plowing and salting on that stretch of I-95, and that led to back-ups, and once that happened, there was no way to prevent ice from forming on the road. An exacerbating factor was that it was raining before the snow event, so they weren't able to pre-salt/brine the roads.
Notice that the major traffic jam was on I-95 South outside of the beltway, it wasn't on the outer loop, inside DC, or in Maryland even though the storm blanketed the area.
This is being pitched like it's a DC issue, but any one who lives in the area can tell you that the stretch of road they're talking about - Fredericksburg to Aquia, from what I can tell - is god awful, has been god awful, and from what I can see will continue to be God awful for the foreseeable future.
As for the plowing and salting - in general it's pretty bad, and this year has been no exception. Fairfax County was, as of the day before this storm, putting up flyers in 24 hour laundromats and outside of grocery stores looking for anyone who had a license to drive a plow truck. The problem is that, while we get hit with bad snow once every 2-3 years, that's not often enough for the local governments to need to do something about it. They don't want to spend the money, only to not need it until the next big storm, which might not come until someone else is in office.
As for the plowing and salting - in general it's pretty bad, and this year has been no exception. Fairfax County was, as of the day before this storm, putting up flyers in 24 hour laundromats and outside of grocery stores looking for anyone who had a license to drive a plow truck. The problem is that, while we get hit with bad snow once every 2-3 years, that's not often enough for the local governments to need to do something about it. They don't want to spend the money, only to not need it until the next big storm, which might not come until someone else is in office.
> Notice that the major traffic jam was on I-95 South outside of the beltway, it wasn't on the outer loop, inside DC, or in Maryland even though the storm blanketed the area.
This is a good point and I think people are concluding too much from a single stretch of highway. Generally the chaos is more widespread, like in the original Carmageddon [0] and all if its sequels where I'd drive past abandoned cars the next day wherever I went.
It just seems like VDOT or whoever's contracted to take care of 95 screwed up. There's sand on the roads nearby me, and it rained before snowing here, too. Maybe it being 60 degrees the day before didn't help.
[0] https://wtop.com/weather-news/2015/01/history-disastrous-sno...
This is a good point and I think people are concluding too much from a single stretch of highway. Generally the chaos is more widespread, like in the original Carmageddon [0] and all if its sequels where I'd drive past abandoned cars the next day wherever I went.
It just seems like VDOT or whoever's contracted to take care of 95 screwed up. There's sand on the roads nearby me, and it rained before snowing here, too. Maybe it being 60 degrees the day before didn't help.
[0] https://wtop.com/weather-news/2015/01/history-disastrous-sno...
They don’t get snow often enough that is makes sense to have robust snow removal. Even when it does snow it is rare that it doesn’t all melt within 24 hours of the storm passing. This is different than in the northern states where snow removal is a priority and it can snow weekly all winter and the snow sticks around until spring unless it is cleared.
“ Commuter income tax reciprocity in DC metro is no different than most other regions.”
I hesitate to publish studies from think tanks with explicit political leanings on HN, but Brookings has the most cogent summary I can find of why this is incorrect.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/chapter...
I hesitate to publish studies from think tanks with explicit political leanings on HN, but Brookings has the most cogent summary I can find of why this is incorrect.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/chapter...
This may be an explanation for why the metro isn't better in DC, but not the source of the area's problems. Outside the city, most of the area is set up below the intensity of viable urban fabric and is entirely focused on cars. In that system, transit is just an attempt to set up satellite traffic jams where people then spend extra time commuting afterward.
You can't have successful transit while favoring cars. And if people cant get around at both the origin and destination of the trip without a car, then it's a system designed for cars.
You can't have successful transit while favoring cars. And if people cant get around at both the origin and destination of the trip without a car, then it's a system designed for cars.
That's because in order for public transit to work it has to cover the place the people work. Which is mostly in DC. Virginia isn't going to pay for public transit in DC. Maryland isn't going to pay for public transit in DC. Whereas what they will absolutely do is pay for roads in their own states.
And DC can’t pay for public transit in DC because it’s tax base isn’t big enough.
It isn't so much “favoring cars” as it is favoring tax money staying local, which is defined very oddly in the DC area.
It's sort of miraculous that the DC Metro exists at all, tbh.
And DC can’t pay for public transit in DC because it’s tax base isn’t big enough.
It isn't so much “favoring cars” as it is favoring tax money staying local, which is defined very oddly in the DC area.
It's sort of miraculous that the DC Metro exists at all, tbh.
> Virginia isn't going to pay for public transit in DC. Maryland isn't going to pay for public transit in DC.
Virginia and Maryland both pay significant funds to subsidize the DC metro system, as does the federal government.
Incompetence at WMATA fritters away the money.
Moreover, metro has little to do with this road disaster anyway as Metro isn’t going to run between DC and Richmond. Amtrak does that and it’s already subsidized by Virginia and the Feds.
Virginia and Maryland both pay significant funds to subsidize the DC metro system, as does the federal government.
Incompetence at WMATA fritters away the money.
Moreover, metro has little to do with this road disaster anyway as Metro isn’t going to run between DC and Richmond. Amtrak does that and it’s already subsidized by Virginia and the Feds.
The kind of money for public transit that would alleviate congestion on I95 (the proximate cause of yesterdays nightmare) has never ever been on the table. It would never get through Richmond or Annapolis.
> Incompetence at WMATA fritters away the money.
There is incompetence everywhere. Why is it any worse at WMATA than Maryland State Highway Administration or literally anywhere else?
There is incompetence everywhere. Why is it any worse at WMATA than Maryland State Highway Administration or literally anywhere else?
Bad administration, maybe you could blame the fact that metro is funded by 4 jurisdictions (DC, Feds, MD, VA) who all sit on the metro board and have done a terrible job of getting costs under control and maintaining quality over the last two decades.
DC Metro exists because ~70% of the capital costs were borne by the rest of the US, most of said citizens never saw, or will never see, any direct benefit. It was an easy sell to the Feds as individual people who directly and personally benefited in hedonistic ways and who, unsurprisingly, secured funding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metro#History
But the Metro also was politically inevitable, given the position of DC as the political center of the very powerful 20th Century USA. It was a semiotic embarrassment not to have a prestigious functioning subway system in DC in the late 20th Century. Urban Europeans would stick their tongues out and make fun of the DC residents, and the Feds fixed that with the Metro. (Note that DC types still have a lingering inferiority complex with other European cities. The rest of the US, excepting maybe NYC and Boston, couldn’t have cared less.)
But the Metro does makes it easier to see the sights if/when the rest of the US visits DC as tourists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metro#History
But the Metro also was politically inevitable, given the position of DC as the political center of the very powerful 20th Century USA. It was a semiotic embarrassment not to have a prestigious functioning subway system in DC in the late 20th Century. Urban Europeans would stick their tongues out and make fun of the DC residents, and the Feds fixed that with the Metro. (Note that DC types still have a lingering inferiority complex with other European cities. The rest of the US, excepting maybe NYC and Boston, couldn’t have cared less.)
But the Metro does makes it easier to see the sights if/when the rest of the US visits DC as tourists.
This is a perfect synopsis of why public transit in DC is so hard. Thanks for making my point.
DC, again, doesn't have the tax base one would otherwise expect, for reasons outside its control. The people who control the money that would otherwise be paid to DC do not represent DC. They represent Virginia and Maryland, and also New York and California and Alaska. New York and California and Alaska voters don't particularly want the money to go to DC. They don't see DC as an actual city where real people live, they see it only as the resented center of a distant federal government, only populated by politicians and jackets.
The fact that over a million "regular" people live in DC never enters the equation.
Meanwhile there's nobody in a position of authority representing DC. So those "real people" DC residents don't get a say.
DC, again, doesn't have the tax base one would otherwise expect, for reasons outside its control. The people who control the money that would otherwise be paid to DC do not represent DC. They represent Virginia and Maryland, and also New York and California and Alaska. New York and California and Alaska voters don't particularly want the money to go to DC. They don't see DC as an actual city where real people live, they see it only as the resented center of a distant federal government, only populated by politicians and jackets.
The fact that over a million "regular" people live in DC never enters the equation.
Meanwhile there's nobody in a position of authority representing DC. So those "real people" DC residents don't get a say.
> And DC can’t pay for public transit in DC because it’s tax base isn’t big enough.
How does DC pay for roads?
How does DC pay for roads?
Congress allocates funds for roads and other infrastructure in DC.
Note, also, that DC roads are in terrible shape. The Beltway survives because none of it is actually in DC.
> And if people cant get around at both the origin and destination
This was my big hope about the scooters when they first showed up in LA, but it didn't really pan out, for a spectrum of reasons. For a minute there it was nice, and I definitely used the LA Metro much more.
This was my big hope about the scooters when they first showed up in LA, but it didn't really pan out, for a spectrum of reasons. For a minute there it was nice, and I definitely used the LA Metro much more.
Japan, often considered to have some of the best public transportation in the world, privatized their "public" transportation in the 1970s. They seem to have setup the incentives so for the most part it works.
Train companies own land/real-estate around each station. They open grocery stores, shopping centers, office buildings, hotels at many of their own stations. This seems to lead to a virtuous cycle. It's in their best interest to get people to use their trains.
Further, there's at least some competition as there are often 2-4 paths to get from one place to another. For example, you can go from Shibuya to Yokohama either by JR East or by Tokyu (different companies). You can go from Tokyo to Yokohama either via JR East or by Keikyu (again, different companies). You can go from Osaka to Kyoto either by JR West or by Hankyu. You can get from Ogikubo to Shinjuku either by Eiden or JR East. You can get to Haneda airport by Tokyo Monorail, or Keikyu. You can get to Narita by JR or by Keisei and for both of those there's a regular, and an express.
I'm sure it's not perfect but it's arguably better than many public transportation systems where the politicians underfund things and have hardly any incentive to make each station as useful and nice as possible.
The point is, there are other solutions than DC area has to have government run the transportation and all the problems come with that, at least in the USA.
Of course you have to get the incentives right. Get them wrong and it will probably be just as bad.
Train companies own land/real-estate around each station. They open grocery stores, shopping centers, office buildings, hotels at many of their own stations. This seems to lead to a virtuous cycle. It's in their best interest to get people to use their trains.
Further, there's at least some competition as there are often 2-4 paths to get from one place to another. For example, you can go from Shibuya to Yokohama either by JR East or by Tokyu (different companies). You can go from Tokyo to Yokohama either via JR East or by Keikyu (again, different companies). You can go from Osaka to Kyoto either by JR West or by Hankyu. You can get from Ogikubo to Shinjuku either by Eiden or JR East. You can get to Haneda airport by Tokyo Monorail, or Keikyu. You can get to Narita by JR or by Keisei and for both of those there's a regular, and an express.
I'm sure it's not perfect but it's arguably better than many public transportation systems where the politicians underfund things and have hardly any incentive to make each station as useful and nice as possible.
The point is, there are other solutions than DC area has to have government run the transportation and all the problems come with that, at least in the USA.
Of course you have to get the incentives right. Get them wrong and it will probably be just as bad.
Tokyo Metro is the second largest system in Tokyo by passenger count, and it's jointly owned by the national government and the Tokyo government. Toei is the 4th largest in Tokyo, and it's fully owned by the Tokyo government, and there are others outside of Tokyo that are also publicly owned. So I'd say that while private train companies has partially worked, they certainly haven't been able to rely on private companies completely.
You can frame this many ways.
#1 it's second, not first.
#2 there are at least 10 different train/subway companies in Tokyo so it's 1 of 10 (JR, Eiden, Toei, Tokyu, Keisei, Keikyu, Keio, Odakyu, Tobu, Seibu)
#3 the government gets to pick the best spots via eminent domain
#4 lots of conflict of interest when government, via #3, decides who gets what
#5 It's not just Tokyo. Other big Japanese cities also have multiple train companies. Kyoto has at least 4 (JR West, Hankyu, Keihan, Keifuku), I'm sure Osaka has several too (haven't spent as much time there so not as familar)
#6 The fact that the gov trains exist does not in any way suggest that they couldn't rely on private companies completely, especially given the 9 other companies doing just fine
#1 it's second, not first.
#2 there are at least 10 different train/subway companies in Tokyo so it's 1 of 10 (JR, Eiden, Toei, Tokyu, Keisei, Keikyu, Keio, Odakyu, Tobu, Seibu)
#3 the government gets to pick the best spots via eminent domain
#4 lots of conflict of interest when government, via #3, decides who gets what
#5 It's not just Tokyo. Other big Japanese cities also have multiple train companies. Kyoto has at least 4 (JR West, Hankyu, Keihan, Keifuku), I'm sure Osaka has several too (haven't spent as much time there so not as familar)
#6 The fact that the gov trains exist does not in any way suggest that they couldn't rely on private companies completely, especially given the 9 other companies doing just fine
I'm fascinated by this! How come the UK got this wrong? I don't live there but watch alot of british TV and it always comes up
Geneva is a special case of cross-border agreements in Europe.
The Swiss public transport (TPG) bus service made a bilateral agreement with the French authorities to set up a cross-border bus. A tram service is being built too, next to CERN. It can be done.
Possibly as a result of that, the bus ticket machines now accept Euros and Swiss Francs, even on the Swiss side. Quite how this works financially is remarkable to me.
Is diplomacy difficult? Of course! Does it take time? Yes! And were there many compromises? Absolutely. But even the little bit that did get finished is very heavily used, and has brought great economic, social, and environmental improvements to the Pays de Gex.
So take heart, it can be done.
The Swiss public transport (TPG) bus service made a bilateral agreement with the French authorities to set up a cross-border bus. A tram service is being built too, next to CERN. It can be done.
Possibly as a result of that, the bus ticket machines now accept Euros and Swiss Francs, even on the Swiss side. Quite how this works financially is remarkable to me.
Is diplomacy difficult? Of course! Does it take time? Yes! And were there many compromises? Absolutely. But even the little bit that did get finished is very heavily used, and has brought great economic, social, and environmental improvements to the Pays de Gex.
So take heart, it can be done.
> Possibly as a result of that, the bus ticket machines now accept Euros and Swiss Francs, even on the Swiss side. Quite how this works financially is remarkable to me.
Legal tender is a currency that has to be accepted (and returns given in) by all merchants in a jurisdictional area. There is no law that prevents merchants from accepting payment in other currencies, which was why the good old Deutsche Mark was widespread in former Yugoslavia and the US Dollar is accepted in a lot of countries without a stable currency or somewhat sane politics, or even outdated currencies - the Deutsche Mark is still convertible at the German Federal Bank, and retailers have been known to run "pay with D-Mark" offerings for ages.
If you were referring on the financial workings of the bus line itself, that one is considered a non-issue in Europe - we are a densely packed continent and there are lots of cross-border transportation networks. Usually, operators count how many people use which segments of a line and divide operating expenses, profit/loss and public subsidies by the actual share of passenger-kilometers.
Legal tender is a currency that has to be accepted (and returns given in) by all merchants in a jurisdictional area. There is no law that prevents merchants from accepting payment in other currencies, which was why the good old Deutsche Mark was widespread in former Yugoslavia and the US Dollar is accepted in a lot of countries without a stable currency or somewhat sane politics, or even outdated currencies - the Deutsche Mark is still convertible at the German Federal Bank, and retailers have been known to run "pay with D-Mark" offerings for ages.
If you were referring on the financial workings of the bus line itself, that one is considered a non-issue in Europe - we are a densely packed continent and there are lots of cross-border transportation networks. Usually, operators count how many people use which segments of a line and divide operating expenses, profit/loss and public subsidies by the actual share of passenger-kilometers.
Legal tender is currency that must be accepted as payment for debt, although sometimes you can give up that right contractually. It looks like the situation in the EU is a bit nuanced, but in the US, merchants are perfectly free to refuse to take cash.
>Legal tender is a currency that has to be accepted (and returns given in) by all merchants in a jurisdictional area.
Perhaps digitally? I see a lot of businesses that no longer accept cash in physical locations.
Perhaps digitally? I see a lot of businesses that no longer accept cash in physical locations.
The Verkehrsverbund Berlin-Brandenburg spans two states in a federal country. It is managed by the two states, counties and cities. You have common tarificiation, so you can switch easily between different modes and counties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkehrsverbund_Berlin-Branden...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkehrsverbund_Berlin-Branden...
In the UK they solved this for the north of England by making an organisation to cover the area and deal with all stakeholders.
The current Johnson govt didn't like this so decided not to continue with it.
The current Johnson govt didn't like this so decided not to continue with it.
[deleted]
I am starting to wonder if administrative boundaries should be drawn to match transport catchments instead of historical artifacts.
The question people need to ask are that the government spends the entire net worth of Apple x3 a year. Where does it go? The US rebuilt Iraq, rebuilt Afghanistan, etc. it’s corruption.
That said, the issue in this case isn’t any of that. It’s that we didn’t have enough snow plows in those areas for what ever reason.
I’ve taken the dc metro. It’s easy to do, works great. Don’t really get the complaints. Sure it could be expanded. But this was a highway. Issue here is lack of proper planning. By the drivers and the state.
That said, the issue in this case isn’t any of that. It’s that we didn’t have enough snow plows in those areas for what ever reason.
I’ve taken the dc metro. It’s easy to do, works great. Don’t really get the complaints. Sure it could be expanded. But this was a highway. Issue here is lack of proper planning. By the drivers and the state.
> I’ve taken the dc metro. It’s easy to do, works great. Don’t really get the complaints.
The metro is great for tourists. If you're relying on it to get to work every day it's a different story.
The metro is great for tourists. If you're relying on it to get to work every day it's a different story.
Sounds like DC needs to be made a state.
The whole point of DC was that it won't be in any state. That was the sole reasoning for creating those 100 square miles. Maryland could take back it's half like Virginia did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocess... , but creating a state out of a piece of land specifically designated as non-state doesn't make sense.
That’s not a reasonable argument for any position. Just because few hundred years ago something was designed differently isn’t a reason not to change it.
Well the parent proposed something perfectly reasonable: retrocession back into Maryland. This would wholly resolve their lack of Congressional representation and Maryland would gain a House seat, or maybe two if they were already on the threshold for another.
DC can’t force MD to take them back, and neither can the federal govt. And MD doesn’t want them. Reasonable or not, it’s a no-go.
DC also can’t force us or the other States to accept it in as a State. So, who blinks first? From where I sit, retrocession is already a massive compromise where Maryland gets its land back, 1 to 2 House seats and a bigger tax base; and the residents of DC get the right to vote for not just Congressional representation but also for a State government.
It's absolutely a no-go. The constitution says that the seat of the US government will not be a US state to prevent favoritism for said state. There are some pitches for greatly reducing "Washington DC" down to the smallest possible constitutionally allowed area, but I don't see that happening. Republicans will not allow another Democratic state into the union anytime soon.
my argument was not that it was done 200 years ago, hence it should stay. My argument was the initial reasoning was to have a neutral ground, which is as valid today as it was 200 years ago.
As a counter-example, the European Parliament is being moved EVERY MONTH between Bruxelles and Strassbourg, because France wanted to have the capitol on their ground at least partially. A neutral city built from scratch at the border would have made more sense in the 1990s just like 200 years ago.
As a counter-example, the European Parliament is being moved EVERY MONTH between Bruxelles and Strassbourg, because France wanted to have the capitol on their ground at least partially. A neutral city built from scratch at the border would have made more sense in the 1990s just like 200 years ago.
does the establishment of washington dc as an unrepresented area make sense today in 2022? it has over 700,000 residents and its own school system… since its inception it has struggled time and time again due to its awkward status… the people living there want it overwhelmingly!
> does the establishment of washington dc as an unrepresented area make sense today in 2022?
Many things in the US political system don't make sense in 2022, especially from an European point of view - mining and water rights, inequality of rural and urban votes because of unproportional representation in the Senate, Presidential votes in "stronghold" states being effectively wasted thanks to the Electoral College, the effective two-party system caused by the effects of FPTP, the fact that the US votes on Tuesday because of farmers going to church on Sunday in Ye Olde Days, the entire gun rights complex (it was reasonable and made sense back in Ye Olde Days that everyone could own a handgun and a hunting rifle, it was not anticipated that civilians would be able to own weapons of war), the fact that "gerrymandering" is not only a thing but actively and maliciously used, the general lack of federal protections for voters, that "union busting" is legal, the weirdness that is how DC and the US Territories are set up... the list is endless, that's just what came up in my mind in five minutes.
The problem is, the US and the UK are the only geopolitically relevant (sorry, Australia and Canada) countries in the Western sphere that haven't had a revolution and/or WW1/2 in the last century to re-set and modernize their constitution, power balance and judicial precedence - and that lack is really, really showing. It's no coincidence that the US and the UK are the Western countries hit the hardest by the rise of populist demagogues.
Many things in the US political system don't make sense in 2022, especially from an European point of view - mining and water rights, inequality of rural and urban votes because of unproportional representation in the Senate, Presidential votes in "stronghold" states being effectively wasted thanks to the Electoral College, the effective two-party system caused by the effects of FPTP, the fact that the US votes on Tuesday because of farmers going to church on Sunday in Ye Olde Days, the entire gun rights complex (it was reasonable and made sense back in Ye Olde Days that everyone could own a handgun and a hunting rifle, it was not anticipated that civilians would be able to own weapons of war), the fact that "gerrymandering" is not only a thing but actively and maliciously used, the general lack of federal protections for voters, that "union busting" is legal, the weirdness that is how DC and the US Territories are set up... the list is endless, that's just what came up in my mind in five minutes.
The problem is, the US and the UK are the only geopolitically relevant (sorry, Australia and Canada) countries in the Western sphere that haven't had a revolution and/or WW1/2 in the last century to re-set and modernize their constitution, power balance and judicial precedence - and that lack is really, really showing. It's no coincidence that the US and the UK are the Western countries hit the hardest by the rise of populist demagogues.
> it was not anticipated that civilians would be able to own weapons of war)
That was in fact the entire point (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246).
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> The problem is, the US and the UK are the only countries in the Western sphere that haven't had a revolution and/or WW1/2 in the last century to re-set and modernize their constitution, power balance and judicial precedence - and that lack is really, really showing. It's no coincidence that the US and the UK are the Western countries hit the hardest by the rise of populist demagogues.
Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, and likely a few others I'm forgetting all seem to be doing fine.
That was in fact the entire point (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246).
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> The problem is, the US and the UK are the only countries in the Western sphere that haven't had a revolution and/or WW1/2 in the last century to re-set and modernize their constitution, power balance and judicial precedence - and that lack is really, really showing. It's no coincidence that the US and the UK are the Western countries hit the hardest by the rise of populist demagogues.
Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, and likely a few others I'm forgetting all seem to be doing fine.
Australia is definitely NOT doing fine; our populist demagogues have us by the balls possibly even more so than the US. Ours just make slightly less noise about it.
New Zealand is not doing fine. Populism has fucked over a generation, and the chickens have started coming home to roost.
Isn't Arden's government considered fairly neoliberal? Her and Trudeau are the two that seem to be most frequently praised in legacy media for winning reelection despite the recent surge in populism.
[deleted]
> Switzerland, Sweden, and likely a few others I'm forgetting all seem to be doing fine.
They are distinctly not. Switzerland has a massive problem with the right-wing populist SVP, they are slowly breaking apart from the EU [1] as a result of their specific brand of obstructionism involving the direct-democracy voting mechanism, and in Sweden the right-wing populist SD (which stands for Sweden Democrats, not Social Democrats) has been growing and growing, to a point the established parties are seriously considering cooperating with them [2].
As for Australia, NZ and Canada, there have been enough other replies in this thread.
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57251681
[2]: https://taz.de/Mitte-Rechts-Buendnis-in-Schweden/!5765511/
They are distinctly not. Switzerland has a massive problem with the right-wing populist SVP, they are slowly breaking apart from the EU [1] as a result of their specific brand of obstructionism involving the direct-democracy voting mechanism, and in Sweden the right-wing populist SD (which stands for Sweden Democrats, not Social Democrats) has been growing and growing, to a point the established parties are seriously considering cooperating with them [2].
As for Australia, NZ and Canada, there have been enough other replies in this thread.
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57251681
[2]: https://taz.de/Mitte-Rechts-Buendnis-in-Schweden/!5765511/
Back when the Constitution was written there were private citizens who owned weapons of war. Specifically they owned large artillery pieces that were used both on land and on sailing vessels.
The lack of a recent revolution in the US is a feature, not a bug. Our Constitution isn't perfect, but it can be amended and has been many times.
The lack of a recent revolution in the US is a feature, not a bug. Our Constitution isn't perfect, but it can be amended and has been many times.
The Senate is entirely vestigial and needs to be dissolved or other wise made to be proportional to population, if we are going to keep an upper house at all.
The House needs to be rid of single member districts, ideally, and move to a multimember party system. Barring that, first-past-the-post should be completely replaced as a voting mechanism.
The Supreme Court should be reformed with term limits of some kind, and/or have a second tier of justices which are appointed unanimously by the politically appointed justices.
The Electoral College needs to be removed entirely, the President should be elected by the people directly. The method of voting should be mandated NOT to be first-past-the-post.
In other words, our national government is fundamentally broken in its representation of the people of this country, and broken in how its members are chosen. At this point, we need a bit of a revolution, though the less blood the better.
The House needs to be rid of single member districts, ideally, and move to a multimember party system. Barring that, first-past-the-post should be completely replaced as a voting mechanism.
The Supreme Court should be reformed with term limits of some kind, and/or have a second tier of justices which are appointed unanimously by the politically appointed justices.
The Electoral College needs to be removed entirely, the President should be elected by the people directly. The method of voting should be mandated NOT to be first-past-the-post.
In other words, our national government is fundamentally broken in its representation of the people of this country, and broken in how its members are chosen. At this point, we need a bit of a revolution, though the less blood the better.
EU was founded quite recently. It too has mechanisms to avoid concentrating all the power in the hands of the big ones: Germany and France.
E.g. for the European Parliament, each country has a different level of representation (MPs per capita). Germany has the least representation and Malta has the highest. This way smaller countries also have a voice.
There are other mechanisms as well(agencies HQs, comisioners etc.), but in the end Germany and France still have a lot of weighg in all the major decisions. If it wasn't for at least the current provisions it would have been even worse and probably the EU would have dissolved by now.
US has a similar system of propping up smaller states: for senate and president elections. I don't see this anachronistic at all, the more I learn about it the more impressed I am with the wisdom of the american forefathers. E.g. The Senate does not represent the people, they represent the states. This is very similar to how EU "council of ministers" has one from each state, regardless how large that state is.
E.g. for the European Parliament, each country has a different level of representation (MPs per capita). Germany has the least representation and Malta has the highest. This way smaller countries also have a voice.
There are other mechanisms as well(agencies HQs, comisioners etc.), but in the end Germany and France still have a lot of weighg in all the major decisions. If it wasn't for at least the current provisions it would have been even worse and probably the EU would have dissolved by now.
US has a similar system of propping up smaller states: for senate and president elections. I don't see this anachronistic at all, the more I learn about it the more impressed I am with the wisdom of the american forefathers. E.g. The Senate does not represent the people, they represent the states. This is very similar to how EU "council of ministers" has one from each state, regardless how large that state is.
The EU and the US are at different levels of integration, though the EU does have free trade and travel.
I should read the details on the implementation of the EU parliament, but I wonder if this "minority voice" equivalent in the EU is able to block essentially any progress or legislation.
I also wonder why the states in the US should have nearly as much say as they have in 2021. We aren't a small band of ragtag cultures stretched across have the universe as we were in 1789.
I should read the details on the implementation of the EU parliament, but I wonder if this "minority voice" equivalent in the EU is able to block essentially any progress or legislation.
I also wonder why the states in the US should have nearly as much say as they have in 2021. We aren't a small band of ragtag cultures stretched across have the universe as we were in 1789.
> block essentially any progress or legislation
A lot of legislation is blocked in the EU, yes. The modus operandi of the EU is to compromise until every state is satisfied.
And the US is far from being blocked out of any progress. The gay rights is more advanced than in Europe, infrastructure bills are passing with bipartisan support, COVID relief bills are passing with flying colors and with a much more consistent amount than in Europe. EU struggled to get 700 billions out after a year and a half! And it's still not distributed.
I would say the US now is more diverse than in the 1700s. More diverse states, more diverse ethnicity (80% were white people in 1776, mostly English) and a HUGE population compared to 3 million back then.
A lot of legislation is blocked in the EU, yes. The modus operandi of the EU is to compromise until every state is satisfied.
And the US is far from being blocked out of any progress. The gay rights is more advanced than in Europe, infrastructure bills are passing with bipartisan support, COVID relief bills are passing with flying colors and with a much more consistent amount than in Europe. EU struggled to get 700 billions out after a year and a half! And it's still not distributed.
I would say the US now is more diverse than in the 1700s. More diverse states, more diverse ethnicity (80% were white people in 1776, mostly English) and a HUGE population compared to 3 million back then.
And yet we are more interconnected than ever before. Even the most impoverished can travel across the country in 3 days by car or bus. As diverse as our personal cultures are, our administration of state and infrastructure, our economy, is as interwoven as ever. I argue that there are many things which could have been handled by the states in 1800 that cannot now, or otherwise were not issues or responsibilities of the state at all in 1800.
I just gave you examples of EU inner workings. They are also incredibly interconnected, almost as much as the US. Still, they have institutions to give some power to the smaller entities/states. The US institutions are not made the way they are because "people could not travel far enough in a day", they are made as such to provide checks and balances. As an European living in the US, I feel like you have more stable mechanisms that work better than even the modern EU.
The point of the Senate and Electoral College is that states are supposed to have quite a bit of sovereignty, and so more populous states shouldn't be able to run roughshod over less populous ones. Your suggestions completely miss that point.
No, I didn't miss the point. I disagree with it entirely. The EC and the Senate function nothing like they were designed in the 18th century when the goal you mention seemed to matter. The filibuster and the 17th amendment and two centuries of societal advancement have something to say about the "state sovereignty" argument for the Senate.
The fact that the Electoral college allowed the previous President to take office is is an example of its failings from its supposed original intention, as is the fact that most citizens of any party or educational background expect that the President should be democratically elected.
The fact that the Electoral college allowed the previous President to take office is is an example of its failings from its supposed original intention, as is the fact that most citizens of any party or educational background expect that the President should be democratically elected.
This debate is pretty academic though. Article V is clear that the composition (or existence) of the Senate can't be changed even by amendment without the unanimous consent of the states. Arguably, even a new constitution couldn't (legally) do it.
Of all the things we might possibly ever do to improve the function of government, that alone is not one.
Of all the things we might possibly ever do to improve the function of government, that alone is not one.
Assuming we wanted to get rid of the Senate but could not do it technically, we could strip it of all meaningful power and responsibility. We could make it an advisory panel for appointments, and an approval committee for war and intelligence operations, and nothing else in terms of legislation.
But yes, there are other things in my incomplete list which need addressed as well - I think the one most critical thing I would do above all others is switch every Single-Member District election from first-past-the-post to ranked choice voting or approval voting.
But yes, there are other things in my incomplete list which need addressed as well - I think the one most critical thing I would do above all others is switch every Single-Member District election from first-past-the-post to ranked choice voting or approval voting.
Everyone knows the reason for the system. There are 50 states now. Hard to form a coalition of states which will be able to run roughshod over other states, but what we do have is a very unfair system where a minority of the country can block the will of the majority.
What is being blocked? States are still sovereign and can largely run their own affairs. If MA wants to, let's say, give people free public healthcare then TX can't do anything to block it. From a legislative standpoint there are only a few areas that are totally under federal control.
There is a compelling argument that with the state of remote work, familial mobility and whatnot, it is not feasible for the states to tackle certain issues without unconstitutionally blocking non-state residents from using those services.
> The lack of a recent revolution in the US is a feature, not a bug. Our Constitution isn't perfect, but it can be amended and has been many times.
The existence of amendments requires bi-partisan cooperation - something that is completely unfeasible for the near future, with Republicans running unprecedented, pure obstructionism going so far as Mitch McConnell filibustering his own fucking bill - and that was in 2012, when the Republicans had moderate people in their ranks. Now, ten years later, half the Republican voter base and more than enough representatives or candidates openly rally behind QAnon.
I can't see a reasonable way for the US to get out of that mess, as all measures that would help bring politics back to reasonable standards (particularly tackling the PAC/Super PAC problem, voter suppression and reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine) would require Congressional majorities.
The existence of amendments requires bi-partisan cooperation - something that is completely unfeasible for the near future, with Republicans running unprecedented, pure obstructionism going so far as Mitch McConnell filibustering his own fucking bill - and that was in 2012, when the Republicans had moderate people in their ranks. Now, ten years later, half the Republican voter base and more than enough representatives or candidates openly rally behind QAnon.
I can't see a reasonable way for the US to get out of that mess, as all measures that would help bring politics back to reasonable standards (particularly tackling the PAC/Super PAC problem, voter suppression and reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine) would require Congressional majorities.
good bills will pass, look at the recently passed infrastructure bill. Also the Covid relief bills all passed. I think it more or less works as intended, with major bill having to provide something for everyone, like in the infrastructure bill.
As an American I find it absolutely hilarious that you went off half cocked listing a bunch of issues that are of second and third rate importance to most Americans.
Most Americans want the feds to make minor policy tweaks that will make their lives better, more healthcare, federally, minor financial tweaks, fund some things a little more, fund others a little less, minor procedural tweaks on certain government things.
Most Americans want the feds to make minor policy tweaks that will make their lives better, more healthcare, federally, minor financial tweaks, fund some things a little more, fund others a little less, minor procedural tweaks on certain government things.
The average American won't get any of the policy tweaks you mention without fixing the most glaring issues of my list since almost everything federal requires at least a full congressional majority.
Reagan and Bush Sr. had none of eight / four years, Clinton two of eight years, Bush Jr. four of eight, Obama two of eight, Trump two of four and Biden at least two of four. And even when the respective Presidents had a majority in Congress, they would usually require not just ordinary majority but filibuster-proof majority in the Senate - and the last president to enjoy that one was Jimmy Carter in 1977-1979.
Every Western country except the US and UK has a system in place that the leader of the government usually has the majority to pass laws in parliament, at least a budget law, without depending on the opposition - we do have some countries that love their minority governments, but even they manage to do just fine. Something like "government shutdowns" resulting out of the legislative chambers being unwilling to do their most basic job of ensuring the government is actually funded is completely unheard of here - and you Americans have had ten of these since 1980 that resulted in furloughs and eight more that did not [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_...
Reagan and Bush Sr. had none of eight / four years, Clinton two of eight years, Bush Jr. four of eight, Obama two of eight, Trump two of four and Biden at least two of four. And even when the respective Presidents had a majority in Congress, they would usually require not just ordinary majority but filibuster-proof majority in the Senate - and the last president to enjoy that one was Jimmy Carter in 1977-1979.
Every Western country except the US and UK has a system in place that the leader of the government usually has the majority to pass laws in parliament, at least a budget law, without depending on the opposition - we do have some countries that love their minority governments, but even they manage to do just fine. Something like "government shutdowns" resulting out of the legislative chambers being unwilling to do their most basic job of ensuring the government is actually funded is completely unheard of here - and you Americans have had ten of these since 1980 that resulted in furloughs and eight more that did not [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_...
The UK does in fact have such a system (unlike the US). We use first-past-the-post voting, like the US, but our Prime Minister is selected by the majority in Parliament (rather than directly). Consequently, we don't have 'cohabitation', where the PM and Parliament are of different parties (which can happen in France and other Presidential systems), and it's quite rare to have minority government, where the PM relies on the support of other parties to govern.
Having said that, our system is like the US in that our parties are strictly oppositional and have no real history of collaboration. So when there is a 'hung parliament' with no majority (like in the run up to 1979, and during the second May administration from 2017-2019) then you tend to get a disintegrating administration rather than the kind of stable coalitions that are the norm in other European countries.
Having said that, our system is like the US in that our parties are strictly oppositional and have no real history of collaboration. So when there is a 'hung parliament' with no majority (like in the run up to 1979, and during the second May administration from 2017-2019) then you tend to get a disintegrating administration rather than the kind of stable coalitions that are the norm in other European countries.
MMP elections, or STV with multi-member districts, result in a broader diversity of parties being elected -- not just two opposing parties.
This allows coalitions to form around shared interests, and results in 1) politics being more representative of what voters want, 2) more moderate politics avoiding wild policy swings, and 3) politics being more constructive.
It really gives a huge quality improvement of politics moving from a binary to a plural system.
This allows coalitions to form around shared interests, and results in 1) politics being more representative of what voters want, 2) more moderate politics avoiding wild policy swings, and 3) politics being more constructive.
It really gives a huge quality improvement of politics moving from a binary to a plural system.
As a European, we could have used a neutral zone like the Americans...rather than having the parliament move every week between Bruxelles and Strassbourg because France could not conceive not being the home of the EU capitol. Which one is more absurd? How would it sound if the US congress would move every week between Boston and Philadelphia?
Don't forget little old Australia
[deleted]
> creating a state out of a piece of land specifically designated as non-state doesn't make sense
I mean, neither does creating a large metropolitan area with no representation after just winning a war over not having representation. Here we are, though.
I mean, neither does creating a large metropolitan area with no representation after just winning a war over not having representation. Here we are, though.
Better: retroceded back into Maryland.
A better option would be to cede most of the residential and commercial areas of DC to surrounding states. Just keep a few blocks containing the key federal government buildings, parks, monuments, and museums.
That's not a better option. VA and MD don't want that. The people in DC don't want that. The people in DC want to be a state. That's what matters.
We're far removed from it historically, but this country was created by groups of people coming together to decide they want to form a state and then joining up with other states. It's literally right there in the name: United States. It's kind of, like, our whole deal as a country.
We're far removed from it historically, but this country was created by groups of people coming together to decide they want to form a state and then joining up with other states. It's literally right there in the name: United States. It's kind of, like, our whole deal as a country.
Have the people considered moving?
They already live in the US. They shouldn't have to move anywhere to exercise their rights as US citizens.
They're already able to exercise their rights. As they don't live in a state they don't get to vote in state elections.
The land was set aside for federal use, living in it and then complaining you don't live in a state seems insane.
The land was set aside for federal use, living in it and then complaining you don't live in a state seems insane.
> The land was set aside for federal use, living in it and then complaining you don't live in a state seems insane.
Kind of like complaining about not getting a vote on taxes imposed on you when you choose to live in North American colonies rather than Britain proper. Whiners.
Also note that US citizens who live overseas can vote in state elections for federal office under federal law (and in most states can also do so for local/state offices under state law.) Inside the US but not within the boundaries of a state is the only place US citizens are systematically disenfranchised by geography.
Kind of like complaining about not getting a vote on taxes imposed on you when you choose to live in North American colonies rather than Britain proper. Whiners.
Also note that US citizens who live overseas can vote in state elections for federal office under federal law (and in most states can also do so for local/state offices under state law.) Inside the US but not within the boundaries of a state is the only place US citizens are systematically disenfranchised by geography.
> The land was set aside for federal use, living in it and then complaining you don't live in a state seems insane.
People have been living in it since the beginning. The land that they live on is not owned by the Federal government. It's owned by the people who live there (or their landlords). They paid for it. They pay property taxes on it. If the Federal government wants them to move, the government can pay them whatever amount is necessary to entice them to move. Otherwise, they deserve the same right to a voice in Congress that every other US citizen has.
People have been living in it since the beginning. The land that they live on is not owned by the Federal government. It's owned by the people who live there (or their landlords). They paid for it. They pay property taxes on it. If the Federal government wants them to move, the government can pay them whatever amount is necessary to entice them to move. Otherwise, they deserve the same right to a voice in Congress that every other US citizen has.
An odd precedent. So if any undesirable area wants to be a State (imagine the additional Fed-related gov’t jobs!) and if the surrounding/bordering State(s) don’t want the undesirable area’s continuing burden, then the undesirable area should be able to establish a new State, getting another two Senators in the process? Like setting up a second firm, dumping all your bad loans/assets onto the New State/Feds, and voilà, all the remaining desirable area’s/original firm’s stat look great.
Sounds like a non-starter for the rest of the States who implicitly take on the burden of the undesirable area through direct support via the Federal, rather than the original State(s) system.
In the case of DC, also sounds like a blatant political ploy by the Democratic Party. We also remember Marion Berry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry
Now, if DC wants to become a US Territory, that might get more traction. Also a chance to prove it is worthy of Statehood, like most of the other Western States had to.
Sounds like a non-starter for the rest of the States who implicitly take on the burden of the undesirable area through direct support via the Federal, rather than the original State(s) system.
In the case of DC, also sounds like a blatant political ploy by the Democratic Party. We also remember Marion Berry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry
Now, if DC wants to become a US Territory, that might get more traction. Also a chance to prove it is worthy of Statehood, like most of the other Western States had to.
Ah Marion Berry. The only corrupt politician in the history of America. No state politician ever did anything wrong. Yes, of course. If "never had a corrupt public official" is your bar for statehood, we'll have to dissolve the union.
Yeah, it does benefit the Democrats. I'm not particularly happy about that. But maybe the Republican party could try supporting policies that appeal to people who live in DC? When you have prominent Republicans declare that they want to cause a recession in DC it's not hard to figure out why people there don't support them.
The rest is, I guess a slippery slope argument? There's no other "undesirable" areas in the country that aren't already a part of a state. Some hypothetical state shell-game that you imagined is not a valid reason to continue depriving hundreds of thousands of US citizens of their rights.
Yeah, it does benefit the Democrats. I'm not particularly happy about that. But maybe the Republican party could try supporting policies that appeal to people who live in DC? When you have prominent Republicans declare that they want to cause a recession in DC it's not hard to figure out why people there don't support them.
The rest is, I guess a slippery slope argument? There's no other "undesirable" areas in the country that aren't already a part of a state. Some hypothetical state shell-game that you imagined is not a valid reason to continue depriving hundreds of thousands of US citizens of their rights.
another option might be to move out all the federal offices etc that have been centralized in DC and share it across all states?
DC would have the absolutely essential Federal jobs
Today, with secure communications, we should be able to achieve it?
DC would have the absolutely essential Federal jobs
Today, with secure communications, we should be able to achieve it?
> And because unlike everywhere else in the US DC workers who live in Virginia or Maryland don't pay DC taxes
I don't think that's the case. In my experience as a remote worker you always pay where you live, not where you work.
I don't think that's the case. In my experience as a remote worker you always pay where you live, not where you work.
There are a patchwork of state laws (reciprocity agreements, the "convenience rule", etc) and other caveats that don't make this universally true, but generally you pay taxes to (1) the state you you work in and (2) the state you live in. Note that #1 means the location where the work is being performed--not where the employer is located.
So if you commute interstate for your job, you'll sometimes find yourself filing income tax forms for multiple states.
So if you commute interstate for your job, you'll sometimes find yourself filing income tax forms for multiple states.
[deleted]
Your experience may betray you _because_ you work remotely. The state you live in is the state you work in, because you work from home.
If you work and live in two states, they will both do their best to get a cut of your paycheck.
If you work and live in two states, they will both do their best to get a cut of your paycheck.
> you always pay where you live, not where you work.
There are exceptions to that rule of thumb. E.g., NY taxes workers who live out of state.
There are exceptions to that rule of thumb. E.g., NY taxes workers who live out of state.
My dad lived in New Jersey and worked in New York City. He paid New Jersey income tax, New York State income tax, and New York City income taxes.
[deleted]
Oregon requires commuting workers who live across the Columbia River in Washington to pay income tax.
[deleted]
this article has little to do with public transport or DC
A good reminder to keep some warm blankets/coats/gloves/hats in your trunk, along with some non-perishable snacks and a first-aid kit & flashlight.
Water is harder to store in the winter since it will freeze and burst containers if full, but snow can be melted given a container to put it in.
Also a good to refuel often. I try treat 1/2 a tank as empty and stop accordingly. On longer trips it lines up well with bathroom breaks.
Water is harder to store in the winter since it will freeze and burst containers if full, but snow can be melted given a container to put it in.
Also a good to refuel often. I try treat 1/2 a tank as empty and stop accordingly. On longer trips it lines up well with bathroom breaks.
+1. My father drilled this into our heads. He's been known to exaggerate, but always told us a story of when he worked for the Highway Dept, below zero weather, and his truck broke down in the middle of nowhere. Claims he would have died if a cop hadn't just happened along at the right time.
True or not, when I lived in the midwest, I -always- kept a huge blanket in my vehicle.
True or not, when I lived in the midwest, I -always- kept a huge blanket in my vehicle.
>Also a good to refuel often. I try treat 1/2 a tank as empty and stop accordingly. On longer trips it lines up well with bathroom breaks.
This also helps limit the amount of water that can condense on the walls of the gas tank and wind up freezing in the pump or fuel line.
It’s possible modern cars have some countermeasures for this because it has been years since I’ve seen it happen, but an additional (potential) benefit.
This also helps limit the amount of water that can condense on the walls of the gas tank and wind up freezing in the pump or fuel line.
It’s possible modern cars have some countermeasures for this because it has been years since I’ve seen it happen, but an additional (potential) benefit.
A little extra reason to refuel your car sooner rather than later is that the fuel pump will be stressed more as the tank approaches empty.
Where is the additional stress from? Lack of weight from fuel above to push it through the fuel lines?
If a tank is relatively empty, it's possible for air to be sucked into the fuel pump, at which point it could air lock or cause cavitation damage. This is in addition to there being less fuel in the lines which require it to run at a higher rpm to feed the engine. The higher speeds and uneven flow will lead to higher bearing loads on the pump shaft.
Another commenter already pointed out the heat issue since the fluid acts as coolant.
Another commenter already pointed out the heat issue since the fluid acts as coolant.
Adding on to eyegor's response, in some instances, a thin layer of sediment can build up in a gas tank as well. This is normally not an immediate concern in and of itself but letting your fuel pump run too close to empty can start drawing in that sediment which can eventually clog the pump. It's worth noting this is more common in vehicles that tend to sit for a longer periods of time, like lawn mowers, motorcycles, and grandma's beige-on-beige 2008 Camry.
An in-tank pump is typically cooled by being immersed in the liquid gasoline. When the gas level drops too low the pump gets less cooling.
So you've knocked a couple operating hours off the life of something that tens of thousands of operating hours? Big deal. It'll be fine unless you run it dry for a long period but you won't be doing that because cars don't run the pump when the engine isn't running.
I have replaced fuel pumps. This involves a lot of work and often a specialty wrench. You will usually need to drop the fuel tank, which requires at a minimum raising the vehicle over 18" into air. The standard 14" jack/stands solution most motorists own is insufficient. They need to be replaced mostly because their integrated fuel filter gets clogged by the sediment accumulated at bottom of the tank, which causes the motor to fail. When the tank has plenty of fuel, the gunk at the bottom of the tank is less likely to be ingested by the system.
For my car, the pump assembly is $900. And then there's the labor charge to put it on a lift, drain out whatever fuel is in there (saving it for later), dropping the tank, and then to remove/replace the bad pump. I would guess an easy 3 hours labor.
With the average used car on US roads now over 12 years old, having the pump go bad could mechanically total some vehicles (the repair cost would exceed the vehicle's worth), so you're going to want to prolong it's life however you can.
With the average used car on US roads now over 12 years old, having the pump go bad could mechanically total some vehicles (the repair cost would exceed the vehicle's worth), so you're going to want to prolong it's life however you can.
This is in the same territory as the advice I see sometimes to make sure you don't turn the steering wheel while the car is stationary ("dry steering") because "it will put stress on steering components and shorten their life, and it will damage the tyres".
These pieces of advice are technically correct but catering for edge cases that won't affect 99% of drivers/vehicle owners. Modern cars are designed for the way people use them; people run their tanks to empty all the time.
These pieces of advice are technically correct but catering for edge cases that won't affect 99% of drivers/vehicle owners. Modern cars are designed for the way people use them; people run their tanks to empty all the time.
I mean, I get your point, but I need to refill my car at some point and there are plenty of gas stations - so why not fill it up early to take care of it?
Regardless of how well prepared you are to comfortably hunker down in your vehicle, unless you're truly in no mans land without any reachable alternatives for shelter, it's best to lock up the vehicle with a note on the dash and make your way to a shelter out of harms way. Preferably by way of a route that is not along the road, even if it's more difficult.
It's never safe to be arbitrarily stopped on a road, even if you're on the shoulder. Even if you're under the impression no other vehicles will be going fast enough to not see your vehicle or cause an energetic crash. The last thing you want is to be sleeping in your stuck vehicle when a jack-knifed semi takes the roof off.
Unless I know I'm going to be in extremely isolated/rural areas, I prefer to be equipped for a hiking excursion more than a prolonged unplanned car-camping scenario. A stuck car on a thoroughfare is a very unsafe place to be, especially in slippery/poor-vis. conditions.
It's never safe to be arbitrarily stopped on a road, even if you're on the shoulder. Even if you're under the impression no other vehicles will be going fast enough to not see your vehicle or cause an energetic crash. The last thing you want is to be sleeping in your stuck vehicle when a jack-knifed semi takes the roof off.
Unless I know I'm going to be in extremely isolated/rural areas, I prefer to be equipped for a hiking excursion more than a prolonged unplanned car-camping scenario. A stuck car on a thoroughfare is a very unsafe place to be, especially in slippery/poor-vis. conditions.
> it's best to lock up the vehicle with a note on the dash and make your way to a shelter out of harms way
Just a note for varying geographical locations: If you do this in Australia, you will most likely die from exposure.
Just a note for varying geographical locations: If you do this in Australia, you will most likely die from exposure.
Just a note for locations actually not varying that much and this is generally terrible advice: people die of exposure doing this in the US and everyone ever asked from search and rescue will tell you to stay in your car unless it is actively going underwater or falling off a cliff.
It's qualified with unless you're genuinely isolated and there's no reasonably accessible shelter away from traffic.
i.e. If you're stuck on the shoulder of a snowy/icy highway and there's a walking distance Motel 6 visible, go straight to the hotel and make your phone calls there. A road is a terrible place to camp, your occupancy has zero influence on the probability of the vehicle getting hit, though it may feel like the right/responsible thing to do - to not abandon your vehicle, it's rarely the safe choice when the stop was unplanned.
i.e. If you're stuck on the shoulder of a snowy/icy highway and there's a walking distance Motel 6 visible, go straight to the hotel and make your phone calls there. A road is a terrible place to camp, your occupancy has zero influence on the probability of the vehicle getting hit, though it may feel like the right/responsible thing to do - to not abandon your vehicle, it's rarely the safe choice when the stop was unplanned.
This is still really bad advice. There was a recent instance not a year ago where folks were stuck with 3 feet of snow at night on an interstate interchange. Yes there was a hotel not a mile from where they were but getting out of your car to cross the interstate in 3 feet of snow is a great way to get hit or get lost in the blizzard and get some good hypothermia. Compare this to staying in their car where they were picked up by highway patrol in a snow cat a few hours later and taken to a shelter. And its not some stroke of luck either, highway patrol knows to go look for people in their cars with the snow cat and do it nearly every year. They do not know to look for you in a drift of snow over the side of the highway.
For every anecdote you can provide of someone being careless on foot I can find multiple instances of a stopped vehicle being smashed into on a highway.
Now we even have the pleasure of anticipating Tesla Autopilot to plow into us while stopped on the shoulder, apparently made even more likely if there's an emergency vehicle present.
Now we even have the pleasure of anticipating Tesla Autopilot to plow into us while stopped on the shoulder, apparently made even more likely if there's an emergency vehicle present.
I didn't disagree that sometimes it makes sense to get out of your vehicle if the road is all iced up and one is worried about a trucker crushing into you due to fog. Rather I'm more refuting the following statement:
> unless you're truly in no mans land without any reachable alternatives for shelter, it's best to lock up the vehicle with a note on the dash and make your way to a shelter out of harms way
The presence of anecdotes that conflict each other is evidence that it is hard to make blanket statements like the above although I would still argue that the default should be stay in or near your vehicle during winter weather related emergencies. Also any anecdotes about AI related disasters are off topic ;)
> unless you're truly in no mans land without any reachable alternatives for shelter, it's best to lock up the vehicle with a note on the dash and make your way to a shelter out of harms way
The presence of anecdotes that conflict each other is evidence that it is hard to make blanket statements like the above although I would still argue that the default should be stay in or near your vehicle during winter weather related emergencies. Also any anecdotes about AI related disasters are off topic ;)
If there is this much confusion in a online community like this about what to do in such situations, either
a more thorough study needs to be done by the Feds or
a better job communicating what definitive study results recommend, with easy rules of thumb like “if you can see the lights of a shelter on the road from your vehicle and you haven’t seen a vehicle on the road in the last hour, then walk to the shelter’.
a more thorough study needs to be done by the Feds or
a better job communicating what definitive study results recommend, with easy rules of thumb like “if you can see the lights of a shelter on the road from your vehicle and you haven’t seen a vehicle on the road in the last hour, then walk to the shelter’.
Where I'm at in the Midwest, that light could be miles away. It's really not possible to make a one-size-fits-all recommendation.
For what it's worth, every time I've seen first responders talk about adverse weather conditions, they say to stay with the vehicle if possible. Obviously if you're on the interstate outside of Los Angeles, you probably want to get the heck off the roadway no matter what. But if you're lost or trapped, a vehicle is much easier to spot than a pedestrian. If you're lucky enough that there's helicopters looking for you, being near the vehicle is going to drastically reduce the time it takes to find you.
For what it's worth, every time I've seen first responders talk about adverse weather conditions, they say to stay with the vehicle if possible. Obviously if you're on the interstate outside of Los Angeles, you probably want to get the heck off the roadway no matter what. But if you're lost or trapped, a vehicle is much easier to spot than a pedestrian. If you're lucky enough that there's helicopters looking for you, being near the vehicle is going to drastically reduce the time it takes to find you.
It's not confusion. One person is determinedly wrong. There is an easy rule of thumb: stay in your car.
You've drifted off topic, and started giving advice about "vehicle broken down on active highway" which isn't the scenario being discussed.
Yes, getting off the highway makes sense if you are in a disabled vehicle on an active highway, assuming there is something solid to shield you from the vehicles/debris that goes flying when your car is hit.
No, getting out of your car in a winter storm when all traffic is halted due to the conditions does not make sense at all.
Yes, getting off the highway makes sense if you are in a disabled vehicle on an active highway, assuming there is something solid to shield you from the vehicles/debris that goes flying when your car is hit.
No, getting out of your car in a winter storm when all traffic is halted due to the conditions does not make sense at all.
Getting out of your car on an active highway is actually much more likely to kill you than staying in it - you instantly go from a big, strong noticeable metal cage (hopefully with flashing lights on) to a small, soft, very fragile person. People who don't see a car on the shoulder also don't see a person walking.
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/stopped-vehicle-crashes-res...
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/stopped-vehicle-crashes-res...
This advice may be unique to the United States.
UK: It’s usually safest to get out of your car (using the doors facing away from passing traffic) and wait behind a barrier. https://www.theaa.com/breakdown-cover/advice/what-to-do-moto...
France: Any passengers should get out of the car on the side away from traffic and take shelter behind safety rails at the side of the road, if there are any. https://www.thelocal.fr/20210820/breakdowns-crashes-and-poli...
I'm interested in this part from your link:
>However, more than half the deaths and almost 1 in 5 serious injuries occur when a vehicle strikes a pedestrian who is leaving, working on, or returning to a stopped vehicle.
Is a breakdown of the different groups available?
• Leaving
• Working on
• Returning to
I agree that groups 2 and 3 are to be strongly encouraged against.
Group 1, choosing to leave your vehicle and stand off the road, behind solid infrastructure, is actively reducing their risk, albeit at the tradeoff of being briefly exposed to traffic.
I wouldn't recommend anyone exit a vehicle into fast moving traffic. For my comment above, I condsidered adding "if a suitable break in the traffic appears", but I decided it was overly wordy and to some extent self-evident.
UK: It’s usually safest to get out of your car (using the doors facing away from passing traffic) and wait behind a barrier. https://www.theaa.com/breakdown-cover/advice/what-to-do-moto...
France: Any passengers should get out of the car on the side away from traffic and take shelter behind safety rails at the side of the road, if there are any. https://www.thelocal.fr/20210820/breakdowns-crashes-and-poli...
I'm interested in this part from your link:
>However, more than half the deaths and almost 1 in 5 serious injuries occur when a vehicle strikes a pedestrian who is leaving, working on, or returning to a stopped vehicle.
Is a breakdown of the different groups available?
• Leaving
• Working on
• Returning to
I agree that groups 2 and 3 are to be strongly encouraged against.
Group 1, choosing to leave your vehicle and stand off the road, behind solid infrastructure, is actively reducing their risk, albeit at the tradeoff of being briefly exposed to traffic.
I wouldn't recommend anyone exit a vehicle into fast moving traffic. For my comment above, I condsidered adding "if a suitable break in the traffic appears", but I decided it was overly wordy and to some extent self-evident.
> They found that 95 percent of these inconspicuous-vehicle crashes occur when a vehicle traveling down the roadway collides with a stationary one. However, more than half the deaths and almost 1 in 5 serious injuries occur when a vehicle strikes a pedestrian who is leaving, working on, or returning to a stopped vehicle. On average, this type of crash kills 300 pedestrians a year, a number that has risen by more than a quarter since 2014.
You are much safer sitting in a car on the highway shoulder than getting out of your car to walk to safety. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/stopped-vehicle-crashes-res...
You are much safer sitting in a car on the highway shoulder than getting out of your car to walk to safety. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/stopped-vehicle-crashes-res...
> The last thing you want is to be sleeping in your stuck vehicle when a jack-knifed semi takes the roof off.
That’s relevant to a car breaking down, but not so much in the middle of a long line of stuck traffic. The cars behind you are going to prevent anything from hitting your car at high speeds. Meanwhile getting out early can be quite dangerous.
That’s relevant to a car breaking down, but not so much in the middle of a long line of stuck traffic. The cars behind you are going to prevent anything from hitting your car at high speeds. Meanwhile getting out early can be quite dangerous.
> Regardless of how well prepared you are to comfortably hunker down in your vehicle, unless you're truly in no mans land without any reachable alternatives for shelter, it's best to lock up the vehicle with a note on the dash and make your way to a shelter out of harms way.
Nah, cars have climate control and can generate DC power for electronics for many hours at idle. Best to stay in the vehicle.
Nah, cars have climate control and can generate DC power for electronics for many hours at idle. Best to stay in the vehicle.
In 1972 when I was about 7 and my younger brother was 6, we were driving to NYC with my parents and got clobbered by a blizzard in Marathon, NY. So many scenes were etched into my mind - including stopping at a gas station where the attendant told us where to go to find shelter. We walked into a gymnasium where there were hundreds of other stranded folk.
But to you point, from that day on, my father kept an emergency kit in the trunk. Food, water, cash, space blankets, sweaters, etc.
I should do that too.
But to you point, from that day on, my father kept an emergency kit in the trunk. Food, water, cash, space blankets, sweaters, etc.
I should do that too.
Yes. We had a family incident a number of years back. Stuck on a mountain pass in the cold for the better part of a day. We've also seen a breakdown in the desert, and that one was a couple days.
We always refuel before entering a risky part of travel. Never count on getting there. Make sure. And in a scenario like this that refuel could provide a days worth of heat, depending. No matter what, it's a lot more heat than driving at reduced capacity would have yielded.
Rough metric is you get 1 hour of engine idle per gallon. Some cars do better than that. And you can pulse it, warm vehicle up, make sure everything gets charged, fluids able to flow, etc... and then shut down for 1/2 hour or so in order to stretch the resource.
We carry:
-2 gallons of water
-Car road trouble kit, flairs, compressor, various tools, tape, things...
-First Aid
-Some food
And this is usually our road munchies, pet food, etc...
-Weather related stuff
We always refuel before entering a risky part of travel. Never count on getting there. Make sure. And in a scenario like this that refuel could provide a days worth of heat, depending. No matter what, it's a lot more heat than driving at reduced capacity would have yielded.
Rough metric is you get 1 hour of engine idle per gallon. Some cars do better than that. And you can pulse it, warm vehicle up, make sure everything gets charged, fluids able to flow, etc... and then shut down for 1/2 hour or so in order to stretch the resource.
We carry:
-2 gallons of water
-Car road trouble kit, flairs, compressor, various tools, tape, things...
-First Aid
-Some food
And this is usually our road munchies, pet food, etc...
-Weather related stuff
> Rough metric is you get 1 hour of engine idle per gallon.
From personal experience that seems extremely conservative, although that may be the point. According to [1], a semi truck or city bus use a little less than a gallon per hour idling.
[1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-861-february-23-20...
From personal experience that seems extremely conservative, although that may be the point. According to [1], a semi truck or city bus use a little less than a gallon per hour idling.
[1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-861-february-23-20...
It's totally the point. For a more precise data, I know my Ford Expedition and Chev Suburban both use about 1/2 gallon per hour, and my Honda is about 1/3.
But, when planning like this it pays to be ultra conservative. Shit happens.
But, when planning like this it pays to be ultra conservative. Shit happens.
Diesels use less fuel when idling.
How much? I have almost no experience with them.
A ton less.
Basically it has to do with a diesel throttling the fuel and never having any restriction on the air vs a gas engine throttling the air.
Basically it has to do with a diesel throttling the fuel and never having any restriction on the air vs a gas engine throttling the air.
Thanks. Interesting. I understand why people get those little diesel heaters, generators.
>Rough metric is you get 1 hour of engine idle per gallon. Some cars do better than that.
I have a non-plug in hybrid, that gets almost 50 mpg consistently; I've got to experiment and extrapolate to see if it's much better. I would like to believe so.
I recently learned of the existence of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_heater
and wonder how efficient they are.
These seem to be mostly outdated, but I guess that they are particularly useful with air cooled engines, where a conventional heating system doesn't have coolant to work with.
I have a non-plug in hybrid, that gets almost 50 mpg consistently; I've got to experiment and extrapolate to see if it's much better. I would like to believe so.
I recently learned of the existence of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_heater
and wonder how efficient they are.
These seem to be mostly outdated, but I guess that they are particularly useful with air cooled engines, where a conventional heating system doesn't have coolant to work with.
You can buy diesel heaters for caravans, they seem to use about 0.6-0.7 litres/hour (eg. this sort of thing: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07K1JJ92S/ ).
Can you even idle all hybrids? Doesn't the engine shutoff when stopped? Maybe it will turn on if the coolant temperature drops?
That's the point.
Mine does shut off, if the vehicle isn't moving and the interior temperature matches the climate control setting.
So I would think/hope it could use a fraction of the fuel by running intermittently.
Mine does shut off, if the vehicle isn't moving and the interior temperature matches the climate control setting.
So I would think/hope it could use a fraction of the fuel by running intermittently.
It's gonna be. My normal non / hybrid Honda uses about 1/3 gallon per hour.
A Honda Civic with a D17A1 engine, at idle, with all accessories off, at 700-720RPM, reports 0.6-0.7L/h, or 0.17-0.19 Gal/h over OBD-II. Vent Fan to Full and Mixer to Hot without A/C reports 0.9-1.0L/h, or 0.24-0.26 Gal/h.
I know this is gross to talk about, but I'd also add "incontinence blankets" to this list. Specifically for being locked in traffic for this long. There are reusable incontinence blankets you can get. This way you have something designed to catch waste if you misfire.
I have these bags made for urine or vomit with a gel in it that will congealed the contents. I was stranded on a closed highway and had to pee so bad. Never again.
Why didn't you just take a pee by the side of the road?
Believe it or not, in some parts of the USA that can get you labeled a sex offender for life.
Realistically nobody is gonna give a crap unless you manage to be super distasteful about it.
Or you are disfavored for other reasons, such as race.
Tell it to the judge, creep.
Wow, didn't know that! In the UK and most of Europe it's standard practice.
It's also relatively standard practice in the US. Of course it's illegal "by the books" just like in France and some parts of the UK. At worst you'd probably get a fine if you get caught in a densely populated urban environment without a good reason.
It's incredibly misleading to say that peeing on the side of the road in an emergency could put you on the sex offenders' registry.
I'd be interested in an example of someone getting on the registry for public peeing without egregious extenuating circumstances (repeated offence next to a daycare, or something)
It's incredibly misleading to say that peeing on the side of the road in an emergency could put you on the sex offenders' registry.
I'd be interested in an example of someone getting on the registry for public peeing without egregious extenuating circumstances (repeated offence next to a daycare, or something)
Not exactly an "example" but apparently 13 states have laws on the books specifically requiring registration if you are caught urinating in public. Some stipulate "repeat offenses", some stipulate "in view of a child" (The Horror!!), but most do neither [1].
1. https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/09/11/no-easy-answers/sex-of...
1. https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/09/11/no-easy-answers/sex-of...
The same applies in the UK, but like the US you’re unlikely to get arrested unless you’re doing something more than peeing behind a bush.
There doesn't appear to be any general law specifically restricting public urination in the UK.
There are local bylaws.
And there are more serious laws for sexual behaviour etc.
There are local bylaws.
And there are more serious laws for sexual behaviour etc.
This is a myth
As ridiculous as it is, this is not a myth; It varies by state whether it's required.
> At least 13 states require registration for public urination; of those, two limit registration to those who committed the act in view of a minor;
https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/09/11/no-easy-answers/sex-of...
Now, it's probably unlikely (considering a normal person is also not generally trying to be purposely seen), but not out of the realm of possibility.
> At least 13 states require registration for public urination; of those, two limit registration to those who committed the act in view of a minor;
https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/09/11/no-easy-answers/sex-of...
Now, it's probably unlikely (considering a normal person is also not generally trying to be purposely seen), but not out of the realm of possibility.
In the foot notes it lists CA as one of these 13 states. But in CA "the law requires the prosecution be able to prove you willingly exposed yourself in public with the intent to bring attention to your genitals for the sexual motivation of yourself or another person. In other words, unless you were actively trying to get someone to look at your genitals while you relieved yourself in order to arouse yourself or someone else, you are not guilty of this offense."
https://vistacriminallaw.com/public-urination-laws-and-sex-o...
https://vistacriminallaw.com/public-urination-laws-and-sex-o...
I was considering it (very lucky the traffic cleared), but it was a major highway at midnight that was closed due to flooding ahead, and emergency vehicles were speeding down the shoulder fairly frequently. I didn’t consider it safe for me to leave the vehicle.
In my experience, men will piss anywhere/on anything/in front of anybody. Women not so much.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Btw. I replaced some years ago the blanket with a sleeping bag (warmer + can be folded/compressed better therefore needs less space when stored/hidden in the trunk), and the normal flashlight with another one which is magnetic on one side (for example so that it won't move while mount snow chains).
A sleeping bag that is stored compressed loses it's insulation properties: https://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/how-to-store-a-sleep...
I keep a Harbor Freight moving blanket in my trunk. It's thick for insulation, and also cheap in case you need to protect your seats after a muddy activity. I also wouldn't feel torn up about laying it down on ice if I need some traction.
I keep a Harbor Freight moving blanket in my trunk. It's thick for insulation, and also cheap in case you need to protect your seats after a muddy activity. I also wouldn't feel torn up about laying it down on ice if I need some traction.
And if you ever need a new one, it’s like $2
My suggestion for the flashlight is to get one that works as a headlamp. The modern LED versions are quite good, going from incredibly bright all the way down to dim but usable for days.
Magnetic flashlight is nice. If you don't have one I also suggest a headlamp.
https://www.rei.com/c/headlamps
https://www.rei.com/c/headlamps
If you get one of those vacuum pack bags you can store a blanket or sleeping bag in very little space.
I keep a few moving blankets in my trunk. Good for protecting my car/items in trips to the store, cheap enough I don't care if they're ruined, and they'll also come in handy if something like this scenario ever happens to me.
> Water is harder to store in the winter since it will freeze and burst containers if full, but snow can be melted given a container to put it in.
Emergency drinking water that comes in foil pouches seems to survive freezing; I’m not sure if it’s a requirement of the ISO standard they have to conform to for use on survival craft (I don’t want to pay $250 for the ISO standard just to find out).
I keep an emergency supply of these in my car through Colorado winter and summer, without any issues:
https://www.datrex.com/product/datrex-emergency-water-ration...
Emergency drinking water that comes in foil pouches seems to survive freezing; I’m not sure if it’s a requirement of the ISO standard they have to conform to for use on survival craft (I don’t want to pay $250 for the ISO standard just to find out).
I keep an emergency supply of these in my car through Colorado winter and summer, without any issues:
https://www.datrex.com/product/datrex-emergency-water-ration...
Plastic water bottles won't burst when frozen. You can get a case of water bottles for under $10.
Some will burst or leak, and they leach an unpleasant plastic taste into the water — especially in hot weather.
I change them out at the end of each year and use them to water plants. I'm very sure I'll not mind the plastic taste in an emergency situation :)
The datrex drinking water is rated for 5 years, and it tastes the same — like distilled water — 1 or 5 years in. It's nice to actually be want to drink it in a non-emergency situation if you just need some water.
Dunno why is this downvoted -- put an emergency plastic water bottle in your car during summer season and let me know if you would be able to drink the resulting mush, even in an emergency.
Greetings from Wisconsin. We have one car that we use for trips, the other is just used locally. But even for just going somewhere in town, we have a rule: Make sure you're prepared to walk a mile if necessary.
Knowing where the nearest Kwik Trip can be a life-saving necessity, if you have to walk from a dead car. Planning winter trips on high-travelled roads (avoid backroads not only because they may not be plowed, but there may be nobody along if you have trouble).
Indeed, as a cyclist, I love the paved county roads that are still in tolerable condition but with virtually zero traffic. But that's certainly not a benefit if you get stuck somewhere out there. Also, the actual location of roads can become uncertain in poor visibility or if the snow is drifting.
Emergency (foil) blanket saved my life one night when I was freezing. I carry one more often than not now. Minor space/weight penalty to avoid hypothermia.
Camelbak 3L comes with me on all road trips but I’m considering a permanent water tank in my car.
Camelbak 3L comes with me on all road trips but I’m considering a permanent water tank in my car.
How do foil blankets work actually? Doesn’t metal foil transmit heat very well which would make them a bad blanket to trap heat?
It's actually mylar that they're made of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BoPET
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BoPET
I spent a night in the woods with a Mylar foil blanket. It blocks wind and reflects the heat back to you. When it came loose I would immediately wake up cold and reposition the blanket. The thermal effect was instant on and off.
I believe besides acting as a wind barrier, the foil reflects heat internally. They would not be effective in direct contact with skin and another surface.
>Water is harder to store in the winter since it will freeze and burst containers if full
Very true. I live in a hot climate and often freeze water bottles to take with me in the summer. A full sealed bottle, even a solid one like a Nalgene, will easily break when frozen. But I've found that leaving 10-15% of space empty and cracking the top ever so slightly prevents any sort of breaks.
Leaving the bottle cracked open might not work so well for car storage though, unless it's secured upright.
Very true. I live in a hot climate and often freeze water bottles to take with me in the summer. A full sealed bottle, even a solid one like a Nalgene, will easily break when frozen. But I've found that leaving 10-15% of space empty and cracking the top ever so slightly prevents any sort of breaks.
Leaving the bottle cracked open might not work so well for car storage though, unless it's secured upright.
Fill the bottle 75% and crush the plastic bottle a bit before fully sealing it.
Three more things:
1. Go check the pressure in your spare this week. You’ll thank me later.
2. Put a fire extinguisher in your car.
3. Get some road flares. They’re cheap and keep for a long time. They make you vastly more visible than someone holding up a phone light towards oncoming traffic.
1. Go check the pressure in your spare this week. You’ll thank me later.
2. Put a fire extinguisher in your car.
3. Get some road flares. They’re cheap and keep for a long time. They make you vastly more visible than someone holding up a phone light towards oncoming traffic.
No one kitts their car out like this in DC bc this amt of snow is basically unheard of...?
The DC area gets a "good" snow storm (≥6") about every 2 or 3 years. Typical behavior is to get a snow day the day of the storm and often the day after as well. Anyone trying to go anywhere during the storm is likely to have a rough time--the local streets won't see anything like a plow come through for a good long while, so it's not really sane to attempt to go anywhere. Even for smaller storms, only 1-2" total, shutting down completely for the day is pretty typical.
It's not so much unheard of in DC, more that we don't get enough snow to warrant heavier investment in snow removal - easier to shut down for a day or two. Anybody who sees snow in the forecast and gets on I-95 or any other major highway in the area is insane.
This site lists most major winter weather events in the DC region over the past decades... https://www.weather.gov/lwx/winter_DC-Winters
This site lists most major winter weather events in the DC region over the past decades... https://www.weather.gov/lwx/winter_DC-Winters
I haven't spent much time in/around DC in the scheme of things, but I would guesstimate from my experience there is some snow once or twice a year, and when it happens, everything shuts down. Businesses and government take a snow day just like the schools, as opposed to further north where a storm has to be extreme for that to happen.
That also was my experience in Richmond, VA, somewhat further south.
That also was my experience in Richmond, VA, somewhat further south.
we have a new climate
Right, we've never had snow and cold in Virginia before.
One storm is not a trend.
I'm almost willing to bet that storms will get progressively worse in the next few years.
I think we all are willing to bet on your side.
People will kitt out their cars after this, but having lived in PA, NY and DC I can firmly say that in PA and NY I owned a brush, had water in the car and the like.In DC I legit brushed it off with my gloves.
6" was enough to just not go to work.
People will kitt out their cars after this, but having lived in PA, NY and DC I can firmly say that in PA and NY I owned a brush, had water in the car and the like.In DC I legit brushed it off with my gloves.
6" was enough to just not go to work.
Interesting. The West Coast got a TON of snow in the last couple of weeks and this did not happen. The point is, over-confident and under-prepared humans are not a proxy for the evils of climate change. Let's not get too carried away. Climate change is new and it's real. Human stupidity? Much more established and reliable.
If I really kept kitted out for an incident like this I use up all my grocery room or most of the back seats. I was in my last car, but because I usually didn't take passengers.
If you optimize for space it's not too bad. Even a thin blanket of the right material is a huge improvement over nothing. That and nest things inside of each other where possible and/or use vacuum seal bags. I've typically been able to jam everything in the least convenient corner of the trunk.
How does this logic work with electric cars; just cut the range in half?
Electric cars are apparently much better in these situations than gas-powered cars, because you can keep the heat on for hours and hours without using up much charge (or creating any CO). Don't personally know if that's true but it's what I've read.
It won't use that much charge compared to just driving around - we use so much power moving a multi-ton vehicle at highway speeds it's insane.
If you are lucky enough to have a vehicle that has a heat pump and not just a resistive heater and you use it just enough to stave off the cold, you are probably going to be in a very good shape. If you happen to have a vehicle with seat warmers, even better - heating oneself is better than heating the cabin air. ICE also have those, but you'll have to be sure to run the alternator from time to time, generally EVs will figure out when to charge the 12v system from the traction battery.
Will an EV like that outlast an ICE car? Based on the figures I'm seeing from a brief search(around 30 hours with a full tank of fuel), I think it's likely, on average. But there are too many variables.
You are completely right about the CO emissions. Can leave the heater running without worrying about poisoning.
If you are lucky enough to have a vehicle that has a heat pump and not just a resistive heater and you use it just enough to stave off the cold, you are probably going to be in a very good shape. If you happen to have a vehicle with seat warmers, even better - heating oneself is better than heating the cabin air. ICE also have those, but you'll have to be sure to run the alternator from time to time, generally EVs will figure out when to charge the 12v system from the traction battery.
Will an EV like that outlast an ICE car? Based on the figures I'm seeing from a brief search(around 30 hours with a full tank of fuel), I think it's likely, on average. But there are too many variables.
You are completely right about the CO emissions. Can leave the heater running without worrying about poisoning.
Depends on how the heat is produced and how comfortable you want to make it, but in round numbers I would expect heating the car in a snowstorm to eat up about half the battery capacity every 24 hours. I still keep emergency blankets and I would run the heater as little as possible.
I am getting very much the opposite impression from various recent newsarticles in Sweden, where EVs are common and traffic jams due to snow, accidents etc. are commonplace as well.
Google translated a recent P4 article:
The snow weather over southern and western Sweden has had a major impact on traffic and people have been sitting in traffic jams for several hours*, reports P4 Gothenburg.
A major problem has also been electric cars abandoned on the E6 by their drivers. The battery runs out when there is so much heat in the car.
- We will be able to salvage(tow) a lot of electric cars that were on the E6 during the night, says the Swedish Transport Administration's road traffic manager Mikael Salo and believes that this is one of the shortcomings with the new cars.
Google translated a recent P4 article:
The snow weather over southern and western Sweden has had a major impact on traffic and people have been sitting in traffic jams for several hours*, reports P4 Gothenburg.
A major problem has also been electric cars abandoned on the E6 by their drivers. The battery runs out when there is so much heat in the car.
- We will be able to salvage(tow) a lot of electric cars that were on the E6 during the night, says the Swedish Transport Administration's road traffic manager Mikael Salo and believes that this is one of the shortcomings with the new cars.
[deleted]
Good advice. I also keep a "Portable Car Jump Starter" in the trunk. These days they are basically big batteries (mine is ~3100mAh at 12V apparently) and they come with USB plugs and a built-in flashlight... Handy if you need to recharge your phone in a pinch.
I hope you're off by an order of magnitude on that current rating, or it might not deliver the goods when you need it...
He didn’t give a current rating. “mAh” measures energy storage, and 3100mAh is enough to jump a car a couple times.
Jumping a car doesn’t take a lot of energy. But it does take a lot of power (and therefore current). Small Li-ion car jumpers can be surprisingly capable.
Jumping a car doesn’t take a lot of energy. But it does take a lot of power (and therefore current). Small Li-ion car jumpers can be surprisingly capable.
I jumped a stranger’s car with my 66.6 Wh battery the other day. DC output 12V/10A. Peak current 2000A. Battery is still ¾+ full. Haven’t tried charging a phone from it though.
I have actually used this thing several times to jump a car. It works great.
Those are great to have. I will say that 3100mAh is pretty low and wouldn't even fully charge most smartphones. 20kmAh batteries can be purchased for less than $100, and 10k-15k mAh for less than $50.
A good idea to have just in case. :)
A good idea to have just in case. :)
Someone already mentioned this but I want to clarify that mAh alone is not a full measure of capacity.
OP mentioned his mAh rating in 12 V but you’re comparing it to Ah ratings in 5 V. OP’s battery should be able to charge a full smartphone fine.
Also, most of those 10-20k battery packs won’t be able to jump start your car because they have greater capacity but cannot provide power quickly. There are high capacity battery packs that do jump start but they’re over $100 from the last time I looked.
OP mentioned his mAh rating in 12 V but you’re comparing it to Ah ratings in 5 V. OP’s battery should be able to charge a full smartphone fine.
Also, most of those 10-20k battery packs won’t be able to jump start your car because they have greater capacity but cannot provide power quickly. There are high capacity battery packs that do jump start but they’re over $100 from the last time I looked.
I purchased a 20,000mAh “jump pack” for $120CAD two years ago to use with my boat. I’ve jump started it with no problems, and this was a Mercruiser 350. I’ve also boosted a car and a truck in -25C weather. They work great, are super portable and only weigh 2-3lbs.
Caveat - unlike a standard battery booster pack (lead acid), lithium battery does not take kindly to freezing temps, so it is useless to keep it in the car over winter. I wouldn’t expect to be able to start anything in the middle of winter up here unless it was kept indoors at room temp.
Caveat - unlike a standard battery booster pack (lead acid), lithium battery does not take kindly to freezing temps, so it is useless to keep it in the car over winter. I wouldn’t expect to be able to start anything in the middle of winter up here unless it was kept indoors at room temp.
Spoiler, it works.
I use a lithium booster battery pack for an old car I use, and have used the battery pack to jump-start my car multiple times on a freezing-cold day (sub 10f) while trying to locate a store with a new car-battery in stock.
I use a lithium booster battery pack for an old car I use, and have used the battery pack to jump-start my car multiple times on a freezing-cold day (sub 10f) while trying to locate a store with a new car-battery in stock.
Amp-hour ratings only should be adjusted for voltage if a DC-DC converter is used. If the jump starter uses a cheaper linear regulator, the amp-hour ratings remain the same. (The excess energy is discarded as heat.)
I had a cheap one 5 years ago that was able to jump start a car. The instructions said to leave it connected to the battery for 30 seconds before trying to start it, so I guess it's more a portable battery charger than a jump starter. For sure if you disconnected the 12V battery and only connected this it would not work.
Since you are probably not talking about kilometeramperehours, might want to fix the unit to just Ah.
Battery packs are usually marketed with their capacity in milliamp-hours. I thought the 15-20k mAh made it pretty clear that we were taking about a 15000-20000 mAh battery pack.
They are, but SI prefixes are always combined, not used together. 15k mAh is just wrong. The correct way to write it is 15Ah.
I believe the k in “15k” is a suffix and thus not beholden to the rules of SI prefixes. In this case it is used as shorthand for “thousand”, and this usage is prevalent even in countries where SI units are not commonly used.
Insisting on changing 15k mAh to 15 Ah is the same as insisting on changing 15000 mAh to 15 Ah - which seems to be a matter of personal preference more than anything.
Insisting on changing 15k mAh to 15 Ah is the same as insisting on changing 15000 mAh to 15 Ah - which seems to be a matter of personal preference more than anything.
Mind you that's 3100mAh at 12V. That's roughly 7400mAh at 5V (USB voltage).
That is assuming a DC-DC converter. 3100 mAh is 3100 mAh regardless of voltage if the charging functionality uses a cheaper/simpler linear regulator.
Indeed! That's a good point. If it uses a linear regulator, I guess the thing would produce quite a bit of heat when drawing power from the USB ports - the extra energy would just be converted into heat.
Is possible battery damage or malfunction due to the heat in a car a concern?
> Water is harder to store in the winter since it will freeze and burst containers if full
In my experience, filling a PET bottle to the brim with tap water and freezing it is fine. The bottle won’t burst, but, I guess, be stretched a bit. Some water will be forced out when you open it, but that’s all.
I use this on hot summer days. Freeze water overnight, take it with you, and you’ll still have cool water in the afternoon.
Warning: I haven’t tried this in outside temperatures. Those can get a lot lower than you garden variety freezer unit inside a fridge.
In my experience, filling a PET bottle to the brim with tap water and freezing it is fine. The bottle won’t burst, but, I guess, be stretched a bit. Some water will be forced out when you open it, but that’s all.
I use this on hot summer days. Freeze water overnight, take it with you, and you’ll still have cool water in the afternoon.
Warning: I haven’t tried this in outside temperatures. Those can get a lot lower than you garden variety freezer unit inside a fridge.
Keeping some matches handy and lighting a tea candle in the car is surprisingly enough to keep you warm overnight, too.
Also: flashlight and a tarp.
Specific recs:
Sleeping bag: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Coleman-0-F-Rectangular-Sleeping-...
Warm gloves: https://www.amazon.com/1927KW-L-1-Premium-pigskin-polyester-...
Warm hat: https://www.amazon.com/Minus33-Merino-Wool-Ridge-Beanie/dp/B...
Headlamp: https://www.amazon.com/Vont-Flashlight-Batteries-Headlight-H...
Sleeping bag: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Coleman-0-F-Rectangular-Sleeping-...
Warm gloves: https://www.amazon.com/1927KW-L-1-Premium-pigskin-polyester-...
Warm hat: https://www.amazon.com/Minus33-Merino-Wool-Ridge-Beanie/dp/B...
Headlamp: https://www.amazon.com/Vont-Flashlight-Batteries-Headlight-H...
I'm not surprised. I've taken this road before during the 2017 Eclipse. Its a path that connects major parts of the country together, but there are no alternative roads to take if this one road closes.
Other locations have "Backup" highways to lighten the load or otherwise take up the slack if the main road closes. Not so here.
I've been told that Virginia once had plans to build additional highways / alternative roads in cases of these emergencies, where the main road gets closed off for some reason. To do this, Virginia was planning to sell some coast-space to oil rigs and fund the new infrastructure.
Alas: the Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010 killed that funding plan, and with it, the plans for new highways.
-----------
Instead, the state of Virginia focused on building additional lanes to the already existing highways. Which... doesn't help in these times of emergency, and still doesn't help in terms of day-to-day traffic either (most day-to-day traffic is bottlenecked at the offramps, where highways turn into traffic-light controlled, slower local roads).
You need additional highways (aka: additional offramps) to truly scale day-to-day traffic. And you also need "backup highways" to handle emergency situations, such as a jack-knifed semi-truck blocking all lanes due to some snow-accident.
Other locations have "Backup" highways to lighten the load or otherwise take up the slack if the main road closes. Not so here.
I've been told that Virginia once had plans to build additional highways / alternative roads in cases of these emergencies, where the main road gets closed off for some reason. To do this, Virginia was planning to sell some coast-space to oil rigs and fund the new infrastructure.
Alas: the Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010 killed that funding plan, and with it, the plans for new highways.
-----------
Instead, the state of Virginia focused on building additional lanes to the already existing highways. Which... doesn't help in these times of emergency, and still doesn't help in terms of day-to-day traffic either (most day-to-day traffic is bottlenecked at the offramps, where highways turn into traffic-light controlled, slower local roads).
You need additional highways (aka: additional offramps) to truly scale day-to-day traffic. And you also need "backup highways" to handle emergency situations, such as a jack-knifed semi-truck blocking all lanes due to some snow-accident.
No comments on emergency situations, but wanted to call out one thing:
> You need additional highways (aka: additional offramps) to truly scale day-to-day traffic
Additional highways are at-best a stop-gap for day-to-day traffic, never a solution, due to induced demand [1]. You really need large-scale investments in public transportation for this.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand#Effect_in_trans...
> You need additional highways (aka: additional offramps) to truly scale day-to-day traffic
Additional highways are at-best a stop-gap for day-to-day traffic, never a solution, due to induced demand [1]. You really need large-scale investments in public transportation for this.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand#Effect_in_trans...
I've never understood how inducing demand doesn't count as success. That means people want to use the road, doesn't it? It's almost like saying that releasing new software doesn't do anything to help users, because it increases the demand for software by the virtue of its own utility more than it reduces the demand for software by keeping people busy.
There was an article[1] posted here a while back which changed my perspective on this issue.
Indeed, there's nothing wrong with induced demand on its own. In any other market, more demand induced by lower costs (whether those costs be monetary or in the form of commute times) would almost certainly be a good thing. The only reason it's a potential issue for roads is that road use is an externality.
Building and maintaining efficient roadways comes at a significant cost, but our current system of road construction funded primarily by income taxes means road users don't pay that cost in a manner proportional to their use of those roads. Road construction is "free" from their perspective, so there's no incentive to use alternative means of transportation even if those alternatives would be superior overall once road construction and maintenance costs were factored in.
Because of this it's hard to be sure whether the demand induced by increased supply of roadways is worth the cost in any particular instance. It could be a worthwhile increase in utility, or it could just be a waste of money.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28320834
Indeed, there's nothing wrong with induced demand on its own. In any other market, more demand induced by lower costs (whether those costs be monetary or in the form of commute times) would almost certainly be a good thing. The only reason it's a potential issue for roads is that road use is an externality.
Building and maintaining efficient roadways comes at a significant cost, but our current system of road construction funded primarily by income taxes means road users don't pay that cost in a manner proportional to their use of those roads. Road construction is "free" from their perspective, so there's no incentive to use alternative means of transportation even if those alternatives would be superior overall once road construction and maintenance costs were factored in.
Because of this it's hard to be sure whether the demand induced by increased supply of roadways is worth the cost in any particular instance. It could be a worthwhile increase in utility, or it could just be a waste of money.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28320834
The canonical economist solution to this is to introduce road tolls. Make drivers pay at point of use to fund the road.
We already have this in the form of gas taxes. However, increasing them is politically untenable.
Gas taxes are becoming less of this, though, partially because cars have become more fuel efficient, partially because some cars don't even use gas, and partially because the gas tax has not been raised since 1993 and so has not covered full road spending for a long time.
The most "fair" way to do it would be to charge according to road wear and tear, which would look something like axle load ^2 * miles driven, but this would be hard to implement and also widely unpopular with huge swathes of the population (truck driver is the most common profession in many states)
The most "fair" way to do it would be to charge according to road wear and tear, which would look something like axle load ^2 * miles driven, but this would be hard to implement and also widely unpopular with huge swathes of the population (truck driver is the most common profession in many states)
An important distinction between specific tolls per road and a general gas tax
is that a gas tax funds all roads, not the specific one you're driving on. A toll on a particular road is an informative signal to the market of which particular stretch of road you want to drive on, in theory allowing more "efficient" allocation of roads.
> Indeed, there's nothing wrong with induced demand on its own. In any other market, more demand induced by lower costs (whether those costs be monetary or in the form of commute times) would almost certainly be a good thing.
The "purpose" of expanding lanes and building alterntae highways is to improve efficiency. For people living in a given area, reduce their time spent commuting. There is large economic cost to having large portions of your population spent 10+ of their waking time commuting to and from work each weekday.
The problem with induced demand is that yes you increase capacity and more people then move clogging up the roads until a similar equilibrum is reached as before. A much better option is both expanding the number of people that can commute by living further out, and reducing the per individual commute time by mass transit. That's the true goal.
The "purpose" of expanding lanes and building alterntae highways is to improve efficiency. For people living in a given area, reduce their time spent commuting. There is large economic cost to having large portions of your population spent 10+ of their waking time commuting to and from work each weekday.
The problem with induced demand is that yes you increase capacity and more people then move clogging up the roads until a similar equilibrum is reached as before. A much better option is both expanding the number of people that can commute by living further out, and reducing the per individual commute time by mass transit. That's the true goal.
> The problem with induced demand is that yes you increase capacity and more people then move clogging up the roads until a similar equilibrum is reached as before.
That's still an improvement over the previous status quo. Commute times are not the only, or even necessarily the most important factor in a transportation system. Your new equilibrium transports a larger number of people than the previous equilibrium. In isolation, that's purely a good thing.
In a world where road users paid for those improvements directly in proportion to their use of the road we could just keep expanding capacity indefinitely until either all the latent demand were met, or until rising construction costs drove demand down to a level where the roads were no longer congested. Since roads are funded by income taxes though, a crucial half of that feedback loop is missing. We can't just keep expanding because there's nothing to stop road users from demanding more and more capacity even after adding that capacity becomes cost-prohibitive.
That's still an improvement over the previous status quo. Commute times are not the only, or even necessarily the most important factor in a transportation system. Your new equilibrium transports a larger number of people than the previous equilibrium. In isolation, that's purely a good thing.
In a world where road users paid for those improvements directly in proportion to their use of the road we could just keep expanding capacity indefinitely until either all the latent demand were met, or until rising construction costs drove demand down to a level where the roads were no longer congested. Since roads are funded by income taxes though, a crucial half of that feedback loop is missing. We can't just keep expanding because there's nothing to stop road users from demanding more and more capacity even after adding that capacity becomes cost-prohibitive.
Yes, but that's conveniently ignoring all of the negative externalities produced by it.
So adding roads gets half the benefits (as it doesn't gain any efficiency benefits), and comes with a ton of externalities when compared to mass transit.
So adding roads gets half the benefits (as it doesn't gain any efficiency benefits), and comes with a ton of externalities when compared to mass transit.
What externalities, other than the one I already explained?
Only one I can think of is pollution, but that's not even caused by roads, it's caused by burning gasoline.
Only one I can think of is pollution, but that's not even caused by roads, it's caused by burning gasoline.
Or by reducing/rescheduling travel demand by work-from-home, flexible hour hours, and/or devolution of Fed agency HQs to less crowded/costly US regions where their responsibilities better match the activities/needs. Say, moving Fisheries to where they fish, Bureau of Mines to where they mine, DoE to where either energy production or demand is greatest, etc. and keep a skeleton crew of critical Fed functions like White House, Congress, Supreme Court and the Pentagon in The DC area. Perhaps a movable feast with Agencies moving every 25 years to get a fuller outside-the-Beltway American perspective. Like, say, using IT to make that happen…
There is a large human cost to having large portions of your population commuting too much, also. I always think it's weird that we tend to justify policy only in terms of its economic (or health) impacts when it is something that people just want for their quality of life.
Yeah, they're shifting the goal posts.
Here in city (Seattle) most people drive because transit tends to be spotty and slow for most people.
So, what's the solution? Make driving worse of course. Speedbumps everywhere. Change 4-lane roads to 2-lanes. Remove parking. Lower speed limits to absurd levels. Make through streets dead ends.
Transit still mostly sucks, but now driving sucks too. Success!
I love transit and want more of it, but the transit folks realized it's hard to compete with driving, so they've just given up entirely on making transit great. It's easier to ruin driving.
Here in city (Seattle) most people drive because transit tends to be spotty and slow for most people.
So, what's the solution? Make driving worse of course. Speedbumps everywhere. Change 4-lane roads to 2-lanes. Remove parking. Lower speed limits to absurd levels. Make through streets dead ends.
Transit still mostly sucks, but now driving sucks too. Success!
I love transit and want more of it, but the transit folks realized it's hard to compete with driving, so they've just given up entirely on making transit great. It's easier to ruin driving.
This is a really good point, but I also want to bring up a (small) counterargument:
I live in Denver, CO. Cars basically make it impossible to walk around most of the city, even in the more residential areas. Walking is an essential part of the public transit/non-car transportation experience because essentially everyone has to walk a few blocks from a bus stop, train station, bike rack, etc. to complete their trip on both ends. If walking those few blocks is unpleasant, unsafe, or impossible, people will (reasonably) prefer cars.
Unfortunately, car and pedestrian traffic are at odds in most cities. Situations that seem better for cars (turning lanes, right-on-red, faster speed limits, street parking) often make life hell for pedestrians who try to cross the road. Or make life very, very noisy for pedestrians who need to walk or live or work near those roads.
I agree wholeheartedly that we can't just make driving suck to encourage more people to walk or take public transit. But there are aspects of driving that need to be sacrificed to make public transit better. A great example: changing 4-lane roads to 2-lane roads -- if you can introduce a bike lane, bus lane, or both, those methods of transportation become significantly faster, safer, and better. Biking is basically a non-starter without lanes; busses can be so slow as to be not worth using when they get stuck in normal traffic. The same argument applies to parking removal -- instead of using an entire effective lane of traffic for parked cars, we can dedicate it to bikes or buses.
Lowering the speed limit reduces noise at street level, makes streets safer to cross for pedestrians, and allows bikes to peacefully coexist with cars in an environment where you don't need to go that fast anyway.
It would be interesting to hear what holds you back from using buses, walking, or bikes instead of your car to get around town. In Denver, the main issues I encounter are:
- bike theft
- literal crazy people shouting at me on buses/trains
- drivers who park/stop in crosswalks, or try to kill me on my bicycle
- the bus network is extremely slow to get around town
I think there's a fair argument that we should focus on solving these problems first, before we degrade car traffic. Bike theft is a really bike one in Seattle, too, iirc, and a huge blocker for folks trying to switch away from cars. But eventually you need to degrade car traffic to make public transit as good as it can be.
I live in Denver, CO. Cars basically make it impossible to walk around most of the city, even in the more residential areas. Walking is an essential part of the public transit/non-car transportation experience because essentially everyone has to walk a few blocks from a bus stop, train station, bike rack, etc. to complete their trip on both ends. If walking those few blocks is unpleasant, unsafe, or impossible, people will (reasonably) prefer cars.
Unfortunately, car and pedestrian traffic are at odds in most cities. Situations that seem better for cars (turning lanes, right-on-red, faster speed limits, street parking) often make life hell for pedestrians who try to cross the road. Or make life very, very noisy for pedestrians who need to walk or live or work near those roads.
I agree wholeheartedly that we can't just make driving suck to encourage more people to walk or take public transit. But there are aspects of driving that need to be sacrificed to make public transit better. A great example: changing 4-lane roads to 2-lane roads -- if you can introduce a bike lane, bus lane, or both, those methods of transportation become significantly faster, safer, and better. Biking is basically a non-starter without lanes; busses can be so slow as to be not worth using when they get stuck in normal traffic. The same argument applies to parking removal -- instead of using an entire effective lane of traffic for parked cars, we can dedicate it to bikes or buses.
Lowering the speed limit reduces noise at street level, makes streets safer to cross for pedestrians, and allows bikes to peacefully coexist with cars in an environment where you don't need to go that fast anyway.
It would be interesting to hear what holds you back from using buses, walking, or bikes instead of your car to get around town. In Denver, the main issues I encounter are:
- bike theft
- literal crazy people shouting at me on buses/trains
- drivers who park/stop in crosswalks, or try to kill me on my bicycle
- the bus network is extremely slow to get around town
I think there's a fair argument that we should focus on solving these problems first, before we degrade car traffic. Bike theft is a really bike one in Seattle, too, iirc, and a huge blocker for folks trying to switch away from cars. But eventually you need to degrade car traffic to make public transit as good as it can be.
I live just south of Superior outside of Denver. I lived in DC area for 10 years. For 6 of those years, I commuted on the bus to metro to work.
The DC metro deteriorated markedly, and has continued to. A lot of it is a combination of bad initial designs (lack of surplus tunnel capacity to ease maintenance) along with the aggressive, powerful, and corrupt WMATA employees union. (I was on a project to analyze WMATA's staffing issues, and within the first hour, my team identified that there was a huge incentive to understaff the maintenance/technician teams to allow existing employees to collect massive amounts of overtime. Many would simply hide and sleep during the time they claimed to be "working". Hiring more mechanics/techs was foot-dragged, because it reduced the overtime pay for the existing workers who would interview them.). 2 mechanics working normal hours cost the same as 1 mechanic pulling tons of overtime, but the gap in productivity is huge. The WMATA union doesn't care. The rudeness of the staff is pretty legendary amongst locals as well.
Anyway, all of that is a long winded and detailed way of saying that WMATA gradually became a significantly less reliable means of transportation. My brother was on a car that got stuck in a tunnel that started filling with smoke. He stopped riding. And the buses need the metro to be running well. Without that, the buses become far less reliable. It's a shit show. And it's deteriorated markedly since I last lived there.
The DC metro deteriorated markedly, and has continued to. A lot of it is a combination of bad initial designs (lack of surplus tunnel capacity to ease maintenance) along with the aggressive, powerful, and corrupt WMATA employees union. (I was on a project to analyze WMATA's staffing issues, and within the first hour, my team identified that there was a huge incentive to understaff the maintenance/technician teams to allow existing employees to collect massive amounts of overtime. Many would simply hide and sleep during the time they claimed to be "working". Hiring more mechanics/techs was foot-dragged, because it reduced the overtime pay for the existing workers who would interview them.). 2 mechanics working normal hours cost the same as 1 mechanic pulling tons of overtime, but the gap in productivity is huge. The WMATA union doesn't care. The rudeness of the staff is pretty legendary amongst locals as well.
Anyway, all of that is a long winded and detailed way of saying that WMATA gradually became a significantly less reliable means of transportation. My brother was on a car that got stuck in a tunnel that started filling with smoke. He stopped riding. And the buses need the metro to be running well. Without that, the buses become far less reliable. It's a shit show. And it's deteriorated markedly since I last lived there.
Hope you're OK after the Marshall Fire -- "just south of Superior" sounds like a very, very good choice compared to "in Superior" these days.
Do you use public transit in the Denver area at all? I find myself biking to most places because the public transit routes don't really get me where I want to go, but a lot of folks I know in the area used to use the buses and light rail in the before times. Seems like it had a pretty good rep before covid.
Do you use public transit in the Denver area at all? I find myself biking to most places because the public transit routes don't really get me where I want to go, but a lot of folks I know in the area used to use the buses and light rail in the before times. Seems like it had a pretty good rep before covid.
Yep, it was spooky. Between my house and the fire was nothing but an open expanse of tall grass prairie and route 128. Had a clear view of the fires, especially at night. We were under pre-evac orders in case the wind shifted. I had a few former colleagues who lost homes. I'm grateful that the loss of life was as low as it was.
Regarding public transit in Denver, I avoid it like the plague. If I'm by myself, I'm a lot more tolerant of it. But I can't take my kids to public places in downtown Denver anymore, including the transit. When my daughter was 4, I had her on my shoulders on Mother's Day while we walked the 16th Street Mall. As we approached the Capitol, a violent altercation occurred within 30 feet of between two chronic drug addicts. One of them had a hiking pole, and he started beating and stabbing the other one. My daughter was terrified. That's just one incident, there are far more like it.
It blows my mind how the current crop of homeless (unhoused, or whatever moronically Orweillian term has been created to signal pious, virtuous sensitivity to ingroup members) activists have pushed the utterly failed policies of San Francisco in other cities. They result is what you and I are complaining about: public spaces that are decidedly unwelcoming and unsafe to children, elderly, and women. The policies seem to do nothing but funnel money to the non-profits that employ the nutbag activists. They certainly don't accomplish anything else. It's the equivalent of the neighborhood cat lady who puts bowls of food out for strays claiming she's a wildlife rehabilitation specialist.
Regarding public transit in Denver, I avoid it like the plague. If I'm by myself, I'm a lot more tolerant of it. But I can't take my kids to public places in downtown Denver anymore, including the transit. When my daughter was 4, I had her on my shoulders on Mother's Day while we walked the 16th Street Mall. As we approached the Capitol, a violent altercation occurred within 30 feet of between two chronic drug addicts. One of them had a hiking pole, and he started beating and stabbing the other one. My daughter was terrified. That's just one incident, there are far more like it.
It blows my mind how the current crop of homeless (unhoused, or whatever moronically Orweillian term has been created to signal pious, virtuous sensitivity to ingroup members) activists have pushed the utterly failed policies of San Francisco in other cities. They result is what you and I are complaining about: public spaces that are decidedly unwelcoming and unsafe to children, elderly, and women. The policies seem to do nothing but funnel money to the non-profits that employ the nutbag activists. They certainly don't accomplish anything else. It's the equivalent of the neighborhood cat lady who puts bowls of food out for strays claiming she's a wildlife rehabilitation specialist.
Speed limits are far less important than the psychological design of the road - any given section will communicate what hazards are more or less likely, and drivers are very responsive to these cues.
As a concrete example, I grew up near Seattle and regularly drove on East Lake Sammamish Parkway. This road was built and designed to efficiently carry traffic between Redmond and Issaquah at a speed of 45 miles per hour. It has smooth gentle curves, good sightlines, few driveways and intersections, etc. Sometime in the 90s or 00s people built a ton of really expensive lakefront houses between the parkway and the lake, and the new homeowners got the city to lower the speed limit to 35 (presumably to make it easier to get onto the road)
People generally drive 45 on it anyways. It is a road that practically screams "45 mph is safe" at you, and 35 feels downright glacial. If you lowered the limit to 25 people would probably still regularly do 40 on it - you need some kind of traffic calming as park of a major overhaul of the road to get speeds that are safe for pedestrians there. (And even if you could do this, most households in Sammamish travel to or through either Redmond or Issaquah anyhow, so they need some thoroughfare to do so - at best you're overloading and overstressing the other roads in the network)
As a concrete example, I grew up near Seattle and regularly drove on East Lake Sammamish Parkway. This road was built and designed to efficiently carry traffic between Redmond and Issaquah at a speed of 45 miles per hour. It has smooth gentle curves, good sightlines, few driveways and intersections, etc. Sometime in the 90s or 00s people built a ton of really expensive lakefront houses between the parkway and the lake, and the new homeowners got the city to lower the speed limit to 35 (presumably to make it easier to get onto the road)
People generally drive 45 on it anyways. It is a road that practically screams "45 mph is safe" at you, and 35 feels downright glacial. If you lowered the limit to 25 people would probably still regularly do 40 on it - you need some kind of traffic calming as park of a major overhaul of the road to get speeds that are safe for pedestrians there. (And even if you could do this, most households in Sammamish travel to or through either Redmond or Issaquah anyhow, so they need some thoroughfare to do so - at best you're overloading and overstressing the other roads in the network)
Oh, totally agreed. Denver commits this sin all over the place, too. Honestly, the only place in the US that doesn't commit this is Boston and some parts of New England... because the roads were designed for horses at 10mph max and pedestrians.
> Here in city (Seattle) most people drive because transit tends to be spotty and slow for most people...So, what's the solution? Make driving worse of course. Speedbumps everywhere. Change 4-lane roads to 2-lanes. Remove parking. Lower speed limits to absurd levels. Make through streets dead ends.
This is obviously not the solution that anyone is proposing. You're arguing in bad faith against a strawman. The solution to bad public transit is to make public transit better.
This is obviously not the solution that anyone is proposing. You're arguing in bad faith against a strawman. The solution to bad public transit is to make public transit better.
You mentioned that induced demand is bad; someone pointed out that induced demand is not bad, but actually evidence of increased efficiency; someone else elaborated that the contrapositive is equally insane- if induced demand through efficiency is bad, then reduced demand through inefficiency is good- along with an example of the implementation of what you are asserting noone is proposing.
Caution against the short-sighted pursuit of easily-quantifiable goals at the expense of actual value is not 'arguing in bad faith'.
Caution against the short-sighted pursuit of easily-quantifiable goals at the expense of actual value is not 'arguing in bad faith'.
How is he arguing against a strawman? He's saying that's exactly what they actually did in his city.
> Here in city (Seattle) most people drive because transit tends to be spotty and slow for most people...So, what's the solution? Make driving worse of course. Speedbumps everywhere...Transit still mostly sucks, but now driving sucks too...the transit folks realized it's hard to compete with driving, so they've just given up entirely on making transit great. It's easier to ruin driving.
The claim was that they put up speed bumps (and other measures) _with the intent of_ making driving worse to encourage public transit. That's obviously false. Speed bumps get put up to discourage unsafe driving.
If, when forced to drive safely, people would rather take public transit, that's kind of scary, but also a good thing I guess to get unsafe drivers off the road? However, that's not what the claim was (and in reality is unlikely to be true, though I have no data to back that up).
The claim was that they put up speed bumps (and other measures) _with the intent of_ making driving worse to encourage public transit. That's obviously false. Speed bumps get put up to discourage unsafe driving.
If, when forced to drive safely, people would rather take public transit, that's kind of scary, but also a good thing I guess to get unsafe drivers off the road? However, that's not what the claim was (and in reality is unlikely to be true, though I have no data to back that up).
Not precisely to discourage unsafe driving. Simply to slow vehicles for any one of several reasons, safety often being an important one. Traffic calming has other benefits, such as more livable residential neighborhoods, and less congested residential side streets, especially during rush hours.
That does have the result of increasing trip times by cars, and thus motivating use of public transit.
Guessing intent is a fool’s game, and can’t really be true or false per se. It does antagonize automobile drivers and, from their valid but particular perspective, makes their life worse in (what would seem to them) a gratuitous fashion. Americans don’t like arbitrary and capricious as a whole.
That does have the result of increasing trip times by cars, and thus motivating use of public transit.
Guessing intent is a fool’s game, and can’t really be true or false per se. It does antagonize automobile drivers and, from their valid but particular perspective, makes their life worse in (what would seem to them) a gratuitous fashion. Americans don’t like arbitrary and capricious as a whole.
Go to /r/urbanplanning and you will find this creed of road dieting written in stone tablets by a thundering voice
> I love transit and want more of it, but the transit folks realized it's hard to compete with driving, so they've just given up entirely on making transit great. It's easier to ruin driving.
It's way more like the driving folks have absolutely ruined transit in almost every single city in the country.
It's way more like the driving folks have absolutely ruined transit in almost every single city in the country.
You can't make transit great if cars are also great, because the two are mutually exclusive.
For cars to be good you need lots of space for parking lots and highways. Otherwise, the car is getting you nowhere fast, and there won't be anywhere to park it when you get there. But that also means those parking lots and highways need space. In all but the densest urban metros, that space is two-dimensional, which means all that car infrastructure is spreading out all the buildings.
Transit needs the exact opposite to happen: buildings need to be close-together so that a single line can aggregate more demand, and riders have to walk less when they arrive at their destinations. This is actually how pretty much all cities used to be built, because cars didn't exist yet, so you had to give that space to pedestrian infrastructure. Not coincidentally, those are also the cities with the best transit, and the absolute worst to drive in. You can't have both cars and people sharing the same space.
For cars to be good you need lots of space for parking lots and highways. Otherwise, the car is getting you nowhere fast, and there won't be anywhere to park it when you get there. But that also means those parking lots and highways need space. In all but the densest urban metros, that space is two-dimensional, which means all that car infrastructure is spreading out all the buildings.
Transit needs the exact opposite to happen: buildings need to be close-together so that a single line can aggregate more demand, and riders have to walk less when they arrive at their destinations. This is actually how pretty much all cities used to be built, because cars didn't exist yet, so you had to give that space to pedestrian infrastructure. Not coincidentally, those are also the cities with the best transit, and the absolute worst to drive in. You can't have both cars and people sharing the same space.
> You can't make transit great if cars are also great, because the two are mutually exclusive.
I disagree. Regardless of your preferred mode of transit, look at the hours just before and after peak. Roads flow smoothly. Trains run at tight intervals and aren't too crowded. It's great for everyone.
Peak demand time will always be a clusterfuck but with enough infrastructure (ignoring petty ideological bickering about which mode should have what market share) we can probably have a system that's pretty damn decent the other 22hr of the day.
I disagree. Regardless of your preferred mode of transit, look at the hours just before and after peak. Roads flow smoothly. Trains run at tight intervals and aren't too crowded. It's great for everyone.
Peak demand time will always be a clusterfuck but with enough infrastructure (ignoring petty ideological bickering about which mode should have what market share) we can probably have a system that's pretty damn decent the other 22hr of the day.
You realize speed bumps are not there to 'ruin driving'--they are mechanical means to stop drivers from speeding as signs are useless and as soon as people are past the cops they speed again.
Let's say they're put there even though they ruin driving for regular people, because they will also stop the few speeders. I don't really speed, but I take a speed bump as a sign someone in the neighborhood is hostile to drivers.
I lived in this neighborhood, on a dead-end street. They grew a new subdivision, and put the street through. Now we had people blowing through our neighborhood at non-neighborhood-driving speeds, trying to race between major roads faster than the major roads would take them.
We petitioned to put speed bumps in. Yes, we were hostile to the way at least some people were driving. But also note that we, the people who asked for the bumps, also drove there every day. We weren't hostile to drivers as a class. We were hostile to people trying to drive excessive speeds on suburban side streets.
We petitioned to put speed bumps in. Yes, we were hostile to the way at least some people were driving. But also note that we, the people who asked for the bumps, also drove there every day. We weren't hostile to drivers as a class. We were hostile to people trying to drive excessive speeds on suburban side streets.
[deleted]
Almost nobody would disagree that making both transit and driving awful is not a good solution.
The real solution is to make transit at least as good as driving (measured roughly by time to get from A-B). Not easy to do in some cities - Seattle has some unique geography to work around. But for someplace like Houston or Dallas? Making transit work shouldn't be that hard (other than the cost to build it out and getting people to agree it can work).
The real solution is to make transit at least as good as driving (measured roughly by time to get from A-B). Not easy to do in some cities - Seattle has some unique geography to work around. But for someplace like Houston or Dallas? Making transit work shouldn't be that hard (other than the cost to build it out and getting people to agree it can work).
> I love transit and want more of it, but the transit folks realized it's hard to compete with driving, so they've just given up entirely on making transit great. It's easier to ruin driving.
Seattle just opened light rail from Northgate to the U-District to Downtown this year. We will also have light rail from Downtown Seattle to Bellevue opening next year, and light rail to Redmond the year after that.
And the opening of light rail from Downtown to Capitol Hill to Husky Stadium a few years ago drove some pretty big changes in transit in Seattle.
Seattle just opened light rail from Northgate to the U-District to Downtown this year. We will also have light rail from Downtown Seattle to Bellevue opening next year, and light rail to Redmond the year after that.
And the opening of light rail from Downtown to Capitol Hill to Husky Stadium a few years ago drove some pretty big changes in transit in Seattle.
> I love transit and want more of it, but the transit folks realized it's hard to compete with driving, so they've just given up entirely on making transit great. It's easier to ruin driving.
Wow. You just crystalized exactly what I felt was wrong with the argument that induced demand is bad. Thanks.
Wow. You just crystalized exactly what I felt was wrong with the argument that induced demand is bad. Thanks.
It's an entirely bad faith and shallow argument. You should probably reconsider what you're thinking is.
The goal of transit first infrastructure is to make the majority of trips unnecessary. You shouldn't be required to own a car to participate in American society.
This means we need to rezone our residential sprawl to allow for more frequent, smaller grocery stores. We need to increase the amount of mixed zoning, increase density, decrease the insane quantity of land dedicated solely to the movement and storage of privately owned heavy machinery (automobiles) and focus on easily accessible areas of bike & bus friendly infrastructure.
The Netherlands was fully capable of transitioning from a nation of car dependent choked cities to a bike first micromobility haven in 30 years. The only thing stopping the USA from doing the same is the enormous government subsidies paid to car owners to keep the roads paved.
If the federal government stopped taking 90% of the cost of every road in the US and you had to pay gas tax to support it all do you think you'd still be driving? Do you think you'd support billion dollar bridge extensions and lane additions when it means gas is an extra $5/gallon?
The goal of transit first infrastructure is to make the majority of trips unnecessary. You shouldn't be required to own a car to participate in American society.
This means we need to rezone our residential sprawl to allow for more frequent, smaller grocery stores. We need to increase the amount of mixed zoning, increase density, decrease the insane quantity of land dedicated solely to the movement and storage of privately owned heavy machinery (automobiles) and focus on easily accessible areas of bike & bus friendly infrastructure.
The Netherlands was fully capable of transitioning from a nation of car dependent choked cities to a bike first micromobility haven in 30 years. The only thing stopping the USA from doing the same is the enormous government subsidies paid to car owners to keep the roads paved.
If the federal government stopped taking 90% of the cost of every road in the US and you had to pay gas tax to support it all do you think you'd still be driving? Do you think you'd support billion dollar bridge extensions and lane additions when it means gas is an extra $5/gallon?
If the federal government stopped taking 90% of the cost of every road in the US and you had to pay gas tax to support it all do you think you'd still be driving? Do you think you'd support billion dollar bridge extensions and lane additions when it means gas is an extra $5/gallon?
The Federal Highway Trust Fund was fully funded by the gas tax and other user fees until 2008, all while a significant percentage of revenue was allocated not to roads but to mass transit. Congress has topped it up with general revenue since, but the gas tax hike required to eliminate that need would be measured in cents, not dollars.
The Federal Highway Trust Fund was fully funded by the gas tax and other user fees until 2008, all while a significant percentage of revenue was allocated not to roads but to mass transit. Congress has topped it up with general revenue since, but the gas tax hike required to eliminate that need would be measured in cents, not dollars.
> The Netherlands was fully capable of transitioning from a nation of car dependent choked cities to a bike first micromobility haven in 30 years. The only thing stopping the USA from doing the same is the enormous government subsidies paid to car owners to keep the roads paved.
The Netherlands is smaller than New Jersey and has twice its population - its one of the most densely populated countries. Comparing it to the 3rd largest country on earth is risible.
The Netherlands is smaller than New Jersey and has twice its population - its one of the most densely populated countries. Comparing it to the 3rd largest country on earth is risible.
The Netherlands cities are significantly smaller than American cities in terms of population.
NYC doesn't even have good bike infrastructure.
Every major city in America could transition to bike infrastructure and the quality of life would improve across the US. We don't have to cross the great plains on a bike: We're talking micromobility here. Who cares if they're smaller? We have enormous cities choked to death with cars.
Death to cars: cars bring death. Cities are for humans, not cars.
NYC doesn't even have good bike infrastructure.
Every major city in America could transition to bike infrastructure and the quality of life would improve across the US. We don't have to cross the great plains on a bike: We're talking micromobility here. Who cares if they're smaller? We have enormous cities choked to death with cars.
Death to cars: cars bring death. Cities are for humans, not cars.
> Here in city (Seattle) most people drive because transit tends to be spotty and slow for most people.
I don't drive and I live in Ballard. Driving has always sucked in Seattle since I can remember from the late 1970s. My dad, who lived in Seattle after coming back from Vietnam said the same thing.
I don't drive and I live in Ballard. Driving has always sucked in Seattle since I can remember from the late 1970s. My dad, who lived in Seattle after coming back from Vietnam said the same thing.
Transit still mostly sucks, but now driving sucks too.
And now bicycling and walking suck just a little less. That is a success.
And now bicycling and walking suck just a little less. That is a success.
I've always hated driving around Seattle, but a few years ago I was bumming around for a few days in my Miata and it was a whole different experience. Having a tiny car that can go anywhere and park anywhere is awesome.
The speeds were not reduced because the transit needed to put more people in.
The speeds were reduced because people keep dying when getting hit by speeding cars. And this problem has gotten worse with Americans shifting to SUVs and crossovers that hit humans higher up and toss them under the wheels.
The speeds were reduced because people keep dying when getting hit by speeding cars. And this problem has gotten worse with Americans shifting to SUVs and crossovers that hit humans higher up and toss them under the wheels.
The less you invest in public transportation, the more people will drive. The more people that drive, the slower traffic gets. If you just widen the road, all you do is increase the amount of cars that drive. If people can't get to where they are going via public transportation, then they are going to drive instead, increasing congestion. Would recommend watching this video on it:
https://youtu.be/RQY6WGOoYis
https://youtu.be/RQY6WGOoYis
I think generally what you said is true, but there are other factors. Right now we're in the middle of a pandemic. I'm very thankful I don't have to rely on public transportation.
Yes, if you increase the amount of road and more cars get people to where they are going, the result is increased economic activity. The result also is increased well-being because more people are getting to places where they wish to go - destinations that are improving their lives. This is a success.
You actually see the opposite. Close nit places with more foot traffic and better public transport see higher economic activity and financial resilience. Places with long roads between where people live and where they shop/work/eat _drastically_ harms financial productivity due to higher infrastructure costs. Chuck Mahron makes this point in his TEDx talk. The infrastructure _maintenance_ costs of sprawl dramatically outweighs what a city makes in revenue from taxes they receive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPbfdcvv0to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPbfdcvv0to
Road usage isn’t necessarily success. For a political region, economic activity is usually considered a success.
If by building a larger road through your city, you induce people to live outside of your city instead of in it, then you’ve added costs while reducing your economic activity, while creating more total wasted hours in traffic in the process.
Are the trade offs worth it? Sometimes! But induced traffic demand is not by itself a success criteria for regions: it’s only a success if it means more people are able to work and have higher productivity in a region, as opposed to just spreading out the existing workers and reducing their productivity through increased commute times.
If by building a larger road through your city, you induce people to live outside of your city instead of in it, then you’ve added costs while reducing your economic activity, while creating more total wasted hours in traffic in the process.
Are the trade offs worth it? Sometimes! But induced traffic demand is not by itself a success criteria for regions: it’s only a success if it means more people are able to work and have higher productivity in a region, as opposed to just spreading out the existing workers and reducing their productivity through increased commute times.
I’m not sure that tracks: If a new road allows me to build a home where I would not have built a home before, that’s economic activity enabled by the new road.
But it's activity somewhere other than where part of the road was built.
Take DC and NoVA, typical large suburb next to a large city. If DC wants to increase economic activity, does it want to invest in a new bridge that allows more people to live in NoVA (where most of their retail/commercial activity will occur)? Or, would DC be better off spending that money on redeveloping run-down neighborhoods and adding some light rail (or other transit improvements)?
Take DC and NoVA, typical large suburb next to a large city. If DC wants to increase economic activity, does it want to invest in a new bridge that allows more people to live in NoVA (where most of their retail/commercial activity will occur)? Or, would DC be better off spending that money on redeveloping run-down neighborhoods and adding some light rail (or other transit improvements)?
Doesn't DC have a height limit on buildings? Seems like eliminating that would be a way for the city to increase economic activity without spending any money
Yes, that’s a fairly unique rule. IIRC to protect the aesthetics of the downtown monument/lawn zone (which includes the WH and Capitol). Arlington across the river has all the tall office buildings.
But I have no idea how much DC “needs” the vertical space for development. It isn’t nearly as dense as NYC - plenty of infill (re)development to be done, I would guess.
But I have no idea how much DC “needs” the vertical space for development. It isn’t nearly as dense as NYC - plenty of infill (re)development to be done, I would guess.
The workers have spread out because they prefer spread-out housing. They prefer larger homes on larger lots. Roads allow people to live where they wish in the housing they want. People are willing to accept longer commutes so they have the housing they want. This is a success.
[deleted]
Expanding highways is sold as "making traffic better", or "scaling to day-to-day traffic" as the grandparent poster put it.
However, what expanding highways actually accomplishes is incentivizing people to move out of the city because they can have a commute which is longer in miles but shorter in minutes. That lasts until enough people move to the suburb that the commute is now longer in miles AND equal time or longer in minutes. You haven't made traffic any better, you've just made sprawl worse and you've increased the vehicle miles traveled to accomplish the same result of getting people where they want to be.
The message of the New Urbanists is that we should make our cities more livable and build/allow more housing units within the cities so that more people can live where their commutes are short (in terms of miles) and the increase in density will make providing transit more cost-effective.
However, what expanding highways actually accomplishes is incentivizing people to move out of the city because they can have a commute which is longer in miles but shorter in minutes. That lasts until enough people move to the suburb that the commute is now longer in miles AND equal time or longer in minutes. You haven't made traffic any better, you've just made sprawl worse and you've increased the vehicle miles traveled to accomplish the same result of getting people where they want to be.
The message of the New Urbanists is that we should make our cities more livable and build/allow more housing units within the cities so that more people can live where their commutes are short (in terms of miles) and the increase in density will make providing transit more cost-effective.
If the point of adding lanes is to reduce delays, and induced demand prevents that, you have failed in the task.
The point of roads, from the city's perspective, is to support additional transportation, which causes growth of the city.
More transportation means more trade, more services, and better life for all who live near the roads. It might be in the form of easier-to-get deliveries (Amazon goods), or new jobs that have popped up close by, or new housing developments (aka: homes that previously weren't possible due to the time of transportation, but are now possible thanks to sped up transportation times).
-----
It turns out that "individualism" is a crappy reason to do anything. The individual argument must be made because we live in a democracy, and its impossible to get the people to agree to something unless you sell them a story regarding individualism.
More transportation means more trade, more services, and better life for all who live near the roads. It might be in the form of easier-to-get deliveries (Amazon goods), or new jobs that have popped up close by, or new housing developments (aka: homes that previously weren't possible due to the time of transportation, but are now possible thanks to sped up transportation times).
-----
It turns out that "individualism" is a crappy reason to do anything. The individual argument must be made because we live in a democracy, and its impossible to get the people to agree to something unless you sell them a story regarding individualism.
You are moving the goalpost.
The purpose of adding lanes was to REDUCE DELAYS. Not support additional transportation. Your entire post hinges on an incorrect premise
The purpose of adding lanes was to REDUCE DELAYS. Not support additional transportation. Your entire post hinges on an incorrect premise
It's not correct that cities look at road throughput with no concern for how long that travel takes. The success criteria that city planners use always includes travel times which are impacted substantially by traffic congestion.
That means you didn't add enough lanes. You need to get ahead of induced demand, otherwise you city isn't meeting the needs of the people who live there. If you don't want to have many places you can reach in a reasonable amount of time can you can move to a rural area. The point of cities is to give people options to reach lots of places quickly. Get busying being a good city.
Note, it can be better to add transit other than lanes of road. Even though I said add lanes, adding lanes is but one possible solution. Good transit may well be better. Figure out how to make your city serve the people who want to get around.
Note, it can be better to add transit other than lanes of road. Even though I said add lanes, adding lanes is but one possible solution. Good transit may well be better. Figure out how to make your city serve the people who want to get around.
> You need to get ahead of induced demand, otherwise you city isn't meeting the needs of the people who live there.
Well, there's an annoying edge case that must be considered as well. In some cases, "induced demand" is "stealing demand from somewhere else".
Lets say you have Town Foo and Town Bar. If you build a highway to Foo, all the additional traffic might be "stealing" traffic from Town Bar and benefiting Town Foo. Especially if people emigrate out of Town Bar for closer housing to Town Foo, you didn't really improve the lives of anyone. You just caused everyone to migrate over.
---------
Ideally, you want to build highways / roads / transportation in ways that benefits people, and causes the least inconvenience to other towns.
Well, there's an annoying edge case that must be considered as well. In some cases, "induced demand" is "stealing demand from somewhere else".
Lets say you have Town Foo and Town Bar. If you build a highway to Foo, all the additional traffic might be "stealing" traffic from Town Bar and benefiting Town Foo. Especially if people emigrate out of Town Bar for closer housing to Town Foo, you didn't really improve the lives of anyone. You just caused everyone to migrate over.
---------
Ideally, you want to build highways / roads / transportation in ways that benefits people, and causes the least inconvenience to other towns.
Only if town bar isn't a place people want to be. I call it a good thing is bad towns die.
Well sadly, roads have a bad habit of being confined by physical time and space and cannot just be arbitrarily widened.
You can go up and down though.
Again, I'm not making a value judgement here. Transit is a valid option that could be better
Again, I'm not making a value judgement here. Transit is a valid option that could be better
Up is expensive and rather unpleasant for those walking nearby on the surface. Down is even more expensive.
Don't forget that no matter how many lanes you add to a highway heading into a city, eventually that highway ends up... in the city. Too many cars in a city makes for a loud and dangerous-to-navigate environment for those who live there.
Don't forget that no matter how many lanes you add to a highway heading into a city, eventually that highway ends up... in the city. Too many cars in a city makes for a loud and dangerous-to-navigate environment for those who live there.
The point of adding lanes is not to improve commutes. It's to improve thoroughput. If you add more lanes, and traffic moves at the exact same speed as it did before, guess what that's a win. Your throughput is now higher, more vehicles are moving per hour, and that ultimately means fewer trucks clogging up the port across town (or across the country).
If induced demand is going to negate the improvements from adding capacity, then why not just reduce capacity to one lane? Or less?
The point of adding lanes is to increase throughput.
If driving demand can be induced by massively subsidizing it with billions as is currently done, so can other forms of transportation.
The problem is that demand has other consequences.
I drive 2-3 times a year from NY to South Carolina or Florida for years, always timing crossing through DC around 5AM. Traffic 15-20 years ago coming into DC extended down to Potomac Mills. When I passed though in 2019 it extended almost 60 miles, well past Fredericksburg!
More demand drives more sprawl that drives more demand for roads. Eventually metastasizes into a nightmare like LA or Long Island!
I drive 2-3 times a year from NY to South Carolina or Florida for years, always timing crossing through DC around 5AM. Traffic 15-20 years ago coming into DC extended down to Potomac Mills. When I passed though in 2019 it extended almost 60 miles, well past Fredericksburg!
More demand drives more sprawl that drives more demand for roads. Eventually metastasizes into a nightmare like LA or Long Island!
Part of the reason there is unusually high traffic in that location is the confluence of two things: one is that local traffic doesn’t have a great alternative to 95 over the Rappahannock river (the local Rt. 17/1 interchange is famously awful) so you take 95, and the other is that there is a large amount of truck traffic between Rt. 17 and 95. Basically over the span of the Stafford/F’burg area 95 sees an additional ~30k cars/day. There are road improvements in progress but they are too little, too late.
It depends what your success criteria is. It's true, you've successfully increased the throughput of the transit network, but you haven't done anything to improve transit times - you just have more people stuck in traffic now. There are other ways you could have spent that same amount of money (public transit) that both increase the throughput of the network _and_ improve transit times.
But those extra people are choosing to be there so there must be some benefit.
They're choosing to be there now, precisely like they were choosing to not be there before you changed the roads. Other people are also choosing to not be there, and instead choosing to live in the woods in northern Canada. I'm not sure how this mode of argument is really demonstrating anything. It seems like you just considering literally any state of affairs other than active physical coercion to be a good state of affairs.
> But those extra people are choosing to be there so there must be some benefit.
As long as your roads are saturated, they have less throughput, not more. It is kind of like a clog in your toilet: more things are there in your pipes, but not much is getting through.
As long as your roads are saturated, they have less throughput, not more. It is kind of like a clog in your toilet: more things are there in your pipes, but not much is getting through.
A clogged toilet isn't flowing. More like dumping a 5-gal bucket into a sink . The drain is running at full capacity but any one drop may take a long time to actually clear the sink. The 5-gal bucket is peak demand. Total time to sink clear is how long rush "hour" lasts.
Fluid analogies are crappy because fluids flow more when you add pressure and traffic doesn't.
Fluid analogies are crappy because fluids flow more when you add pressure and traffic doesn't.
> because fluids flow more when you add pressure and traffic doesn't.
Well, traffic can flow when pressure is added, just not in a way that is very safe.
Well, traffic can flow when pressure is added, just not in a way that is very safe.
If your city sewer is clogged, so you widen it, then more people install toilets in their houses and bring the sewer back to capacity, I think that's still a win.
[deleted]
Not if you build enough roads. This argument just does not hold up. There was less time wasted stuck in traffic in the past. Go with tunnels underground so as not the create the large problems with having surface roads. If your idea theory is right, why don't we just stop maintaining all roads, shut them down, and save a lot of money, if new roads are useless.
In some cases it might be theoretically possible to just outspend the problem. But in most cases the roads have to be going somewhere, and you don't have significant control over where and how big that somewhere is (i.e. you can't easily move a whole urban center, or slice it into chunks and move all the chunks apart from each other a little to fit more roads). If all the roads are ending at the same place, making wider and longer roads to that place will (often) just induce more people to drive to that place from further away.
The reason "just shutting down all roads" doesn't make sense is that it doesn't solve the actual problem, which is that people want to both work in places with good jobs (traditionally often dense urban centers) while living in cheaper places that are far away and not spend significant chunks of their lives stuck in traffic. Shutting down all the roads only "solves" the traffic problem in a deliberately ridiculous sense (same as "just kill all humans").
The reason "just shutting down all roads" doesn't make sense is that it doesn't solve the actual problem, which is that people want to both work in places with good jobs (traditionally often dense urban centers) while living in cheaper places that are far away and not spend significant chunks of their lives stuck in traffic. Shutting down all the roads only "solves" the traffic problem in a deliberately ridiculous sense (same as "just kill all humans").
Shutting down or tolling chokepoints lowers the opportunity cost of alternatives.
I work for a big central business district employer. You can pay $150-250 a month to park or $75/week to take a motor coach bus from your suburban town. Those numbers drive behavior, and make for a better solution as folks who need flexibility can pay for it.
I work for a big central business district employer. You can pay $150-250 a month to park or $75/week to take a motor coach bus from your suburban town. Those numbers drive behavior, and make for a better solution as folks who need flexibility can pay for it.
Fascinating that this has generated so many answers, from so many different perspectives.
Induced demand is a terrible name for the real issue here. Perhaps the "one more lane fallacy" would be better. The "one more lane fallacy" is not universal, it only applies in cities and other densely populated areas.
Imagine you are sitting in a suburban traffic jam, getting slowly more and more annoyed. It's easy to imagine adding marginally more road capacity would put an end to traffic jam. That thought is the 'one more lane fallacy'. That, admittedly attractive, idea is wrong because adding more capacity leaves the traffic jam exactly the same, with more lanes and more cars in them - because of induced demand.
The kicker is that in a densely populated area, there is often no realistic prospect of adding enough road capacity to end traffic jams, simply because of there is not enough space. I suspect that in most cases, road building achieves political support through the expectation of ending traffic jams. Nearly always, this expectation will not be met. This is the essence of the induced demand problem - it is not as obvious as is sometimes made out.
So, even if you are die hard driver, if you want to reduce traffic jams, you should advocate for other people to use transport methods that are more space efficient than driving. Of course, you might want to live in an area dominated by constantly congested roads, in which case, induced demand isn't a problem.
Induced demand is a terrible name for the real issue here. Perhaps the "one more lane fallacy" would be better. The "one more lane fallacy" is not universal, it only applies in cities and other densely populated areas.
Imagine you are sitting in a suburban traffic jam, getting slowly more and more annoyed. It's easy to imagine adding marginally more road capacity would put an end to traffic jam. That thought is the 'one more lane fallacy'. That, admittedly attractive, idea is wrong because adding more capacity leaves the traffic jam exactly the same, with more lanes and more cars in them - because of induced demand.
The kicker is that in a densely populated area, there is often no realistic prospect of adding enough road capacity to end traffic jams, simply because of there is not enough space. I suspect that in most cases, road building achieves political support through the expectation of ending traffic jams. Nearly always, this expectation will not be met. This is the essence of the induced demand problem - it is not as obvious as is sometimes made out.
So, even if you are die hard driver, if you want to reduce traffic jams, you should advocate for other people to use transport methods that are more space efficient than driving. Of course, you might want to live in an area dominated by constantly congested roads, in which case, induced demand isn't a problem.
So why bother build any roads larger than one lane?
You need some road capacity for ambulances and Deliveroo.
Just to be clear (I lived in DC/northern Virginia for 10 years, and witnessed induced demand over and over), if the goal of widening a highway is to ease traffic congestion, induced demand quickly makes this a failed strategy. In northern Virginia, every project to widen 66 or 95 has always been sold to taxpayers as a move to ease congestion. But the result of that is temporary. As soon as the congestion is eased, cheapish land opens up for new development and more affordable housing. People flock to these new developments, and the cycle repeats.
It does result in growth for an area, but quality of life stagnates. The traffic in northern Virginia/DC/Maryland is at a point where it noticeably affects the mood of a bulk of the people who live there. Spending 90 minutes each way day after day after day fucks people's heads up.
It does result in growth for an area, but quality of life stagnates. The traffic in northern Virginia/DC/Maryland is at a point where it noticeably affects the mood of a bulk of the people who live there. Spending 90 minutes each way day after day after day fucks people's heads up.
90 minute commutes not only fuck with people's heads, it also creates Stockholm syndrome where people start talking about how cars are freedom. This isn't directly caused by the commutes. It's more that car-dependent suburbs also can't support transit infrastructure, so not having a car at all is still worse than 90 minutes of lost time.
Taking a trip is a cost, not a benefit. It's evidence that the cost of the trip is considered worth taking and that there's some advantage being gained, but more trips in and of itself is a terrible metric.
In some sense I understand what you're saying, but that mode of argument has limitations. Like, you certainly wouldn't say "I don't understand how increasing medical costs doesn't count as success, that means people want to spend their money on medical care, doesn't it?"
If you doubled the number of hospital beds, doctors, nurses, diagnostic equipment, labs … and demand was high enough to keep prices constant, you’ve doubled healthcare access at a rate patients were already willing to pay.
“Induced demand” in every other industry is described as “latent demand”.
“Induced demand” in every other industry is described as “latent demand”.
Induced demand actually does happen in American healthcare: spending goes up with healthcare availability, but health outcomes do not improve past a fairly low level of usage. This is a waste, not productive economic activity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8057171/
The situation with roads is not that different: building more road capacity incentivizes sprawl, leaving the entire network more congested than it was when you started.
Roads just don't scale. The daily commute is like a distributed shuffle: time to complete the shuffle scales superlinearly, probably quadratically given the limited topologies possible with roads. It's not like you can build a hypercube road network.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8057171/
The situation with roads is not that different: building more road capacity incentivizes sprawl, leaving the entire network more congested than it was when you started.
Roads just don't scale. The daily commute is like a distributed shuffle: time to complete the shuffle scales superlinearly, probably quadratically given the limited topologies possible with roads. It's not like you can build a hypercube road network.
No one is against increasing access to healthcare. But I deliberately chose the example of healthcare costs to be analogous with people experiencing traffic congestion.
Right, and I’m suggesting they are, in fact, quite analogous in this context. If there’s latent, unsatisfied demand for healthcare, and you increase the supply, you shouldn’t be surprised or disappointed if the new supply is consumed. More people are getting the healthcare they wanted!
Yes, but people aren’t complaining that more people drove the route. They’re complaining that congestion was not reduced. And congestion is bad.
Same congestion, more demand being satisfied seems like a win to me—and to the marginal drivers, who decided to start driving when they weren’t before, or the new capacity would not have become congested.
This is such an oddball perspective: EDGE, 3G, LTE mobile networks all became increasingly congested as demand rose to meet supply. But nobody thought building out 5G was therefore pointless.
This is such an oddball perspective: EDGE, 3G, LTE mobile networks all became increasingly congested as demand rose to meet supply. But nobody thought building out 5G was therefore pointless.
> I've never understood how inducing demand doesn't count as success.
That depends on what you see as the goal. If the goal is reducing congestion, then induced demand means that particular goal is harder to achieve. If the goal is to get more people driving then induced demand is a clear success.
That depends on what you see as the goal. If the goal is reducing congestion, then induced demand means that particular goal is harder to achieve. If the goal is to get more people driving then induced demand is a clear success.
Why in the world would "get more people driving" be a measure of success? For industries that directly benefit from that, sure, but I can't imagine how that could be a societal goal.
Transportation is directly related to how much your local cities are doing.
When you order goods from Amazon, that gets delivered to you. It might be a road, sea, rail, or plane, but its transportation. The more of packages ordered / delivered, the more things are happening in the city.
The more jobs being created, the more people will need to transport to-and-from work. The more homes built, the more transportation is needed. Etc. etc.
Its a crude measurement with flaws, but generally speaking, the more transportation that's happening, the bigger and better the city is functioning. People wouldn't travel unless they needed to (travel always sucks: traffic accidents, getting stuck, dealing with others on planes/trains/busses, etc. etc.). But we deal with it because without transit, we couldn't do our daily business.
Be it a meeting for work, going to school, delivering goods or other such need.
-------
Mass transit options, like Rail, get more things done with far less money. But there's a latency issue: rail can be slower for the individual... but its cheaper and more-bandwidth for the city.
This conflicts with individual options like roads: it costs a gross amount of money for an individual to buy a car / use it on the highways (plus the cost of highways themselves: rubber tires wear out faster than steel wheels on trains. Asphalt roads need replacing more often than steel rail lines. Gasoline costs much more than the electricity used to move a train). But the individual latency is such an advantage, that the individual will typically prefer car travel.
When you order goods from Amazon, that gets delivered to you. It might be a road, sea, rail, or plane, but its transportation. The more of packages ordered / delivered, the more things are happening in the city.
The more jobs being created, the more people will need to transport to-and-from work. The more homes built, the more transportation is needed. Etc. etc.
Its a crude measurement with flaws, but generally speaking, the more transportation that's happening, the bigger and better the city is functioning. People wouldn't travel unless they needed to (travel always sucks: traffic accidents, getting stuck, dealing with others on planes/trains/busses, etc. etc.). But we deal with it because without transit, we couldn't do our daily business.
Be it a meeting for work, going to school, delivering goods or other such need.
-------
Mass transit options, like Rail, get more things done with far less money. But there's a latency issue: rail can be slower for the individual... but its cheaper and more-bandwidth for the city.
This conflicts with individual options like roads: it costs a gross amount of money for an individual to buy a car / use it on the highways (plus the cost of highways themselves: rubber tires wear out faster than steel wheels on trains. Asphalt roads need replacing more often than steel rail lines. Gasoline costs much more than the electricity used to move a train). But the individual latency is such an advantage, that the individual will typically prefer car travel.
Yes, but if you reduced the average amount of time stuck in traffic while the total number and distance of trips remained the same, you certainly wouldn't say that your local city is doing worse. Moreover, if you replaced some car trips with other ways of transporting the same person or freight, that certainly isn't a loss for your local city simply because the number of people driving decreased.
Cars don't have an individual latency advantage. If you want to travel somewhere during rush hour, you still have an hour of latency, even if the trip would ordinarily be 15 minutes.
What they do have an advantage on is not having to synchronize with a schedule. If you need to travel 15 minutes by light rail, but the train only comes around once an hour, then missing the train adds an hour to your trip. It doesn't matter if the train never breaks down and has separated right-of-way - running on time is useless if you're not.
The way you work around that is by running more trains so that they can come more frequently. My rule of thumb is that if a transit line has a frequency of 15 minutes or less, I don't need to worry about the schedule because the time spent waiting for the train or bus is less than the time of the overall trip.
However, this is expensive; it only makes economic sense if you actually have that many riders that need to travel along that line. In other words, demand needs to be aggregated. The problem is that cars work the opposite way: they exist specifically to segregate demand. This occurs both directly and indirectly. The direct effect is the ability to immediately depart, which I already mentioned; but the indirect effect is the result of all the infrastructure that cars need in order to work at all. Things like wide highways and parking lots spread out where people need to go and make it far more dangerous to walk from a train or bus stop to your final destination.
In other words, cars cheat - they don't make your commute better, they make anyone who does not own a car have a worse one.
What they do have an advantage on is not having to synchronize with a schedule. If you need to travel 15 minutes by light rail, but the train only comes around once an hour, then missing the train adds an hour to your trip. It doesn't matter if the train never breaks down and has separated right-of-way - running on time is useless if you're not.
The way you work around that is by running more trains so that they can come more frequently. My rule of thumb is that if a transit line has a frequency of 15 minutes or less, I don't need to worry about the schedule because the time spent waiting for the train or bus is less than the time of the overall trip.
However, this is expensive; it only makes economic sense if you actually have that many riders that need to travel along that line. In other words, demand needs to be aggregated. The problem is that cars work the opposite way: they exist specifically to segregate demand. This occurs both directly and indirectly. The direct effect is the ability to immediately depart, which I already mentioned; but the indirect effect is the result of all the infrastructure that cars need in order to work at all. Things like wide highways and parking lots spread out where people need to go and make it far more dangerous to walk from a train or bus stop to your final destination.
In other words, cars cheat - they don't make your commute better, they make anyone who does not own a car have a worse one.
Freeways also carry significant trucking traffic. Like iPhones and food? Increasing throughput makes these things cheaper to deliver into your home from where they are produced.
[deleted]
But more people wouldn’t drive if there wasn’t a benefit to it. So you’re benefiting more people.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
why would you count that as a win? you almost certainly wouldn't be one of those 20 people allowed on the road
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.
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.
Is there still some traffic? Yes. Is it better than it was 30 years ago, even as the roads handle way more traffic? Absolutely.
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.
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.
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.
The goal of building new roads is to decrease congestion and reduce travel times.
If you build a new road and it gets just as congested and it takes just as long to travel from A to B, then what did you accomplish?
The number of people who want to use a road is not the metric we're trying to optimize here. If we wanted to do that we should build as few roads as possible. Then there would be tons and tons of people who want to use each road. Hooray! Success!
If you build a new road and it gets just as congested and it takes just as long to travel from A to B, then what did you accomplish?
The number of people who want to use a road is not the metric we're trying to optimize here. If we wanted to do that we should build as few roads as possible. Then there would be tons and tons of people who want to use each road. Hooray! Success!
> I've never understood how inducing demand doesn't count as success.
More lanes generally improves throughput. However, more lanes often increases latency.
City planners may prefer this, but individuals may not.
More lanes generally improves throughput. However, more lanes often increases latency.
City planners may prefer this, but individuals may not.
It is. If you work for an oil company. Or love pollution. Or hate the planet. Getting more people driving is awesome!!
You’re spot on. Plus the argument doesn’t hold water since there are a finite number of potential drivers.
"Induced demand" doesn't just mean increasing the number of drivers, it means increasing the number of miles driven.
In a metro area housing prices are generally correlated with how many minutes it takes to get to a city center. If you add highway capacity then people will choose to move further out to the suburbs. (Though that is great for property values, especially around the periphery of the commuting range.)
In a metro area housing prices are generally correlated with how many minutes it takes to get to a city center. If you add highway capacity then people will choose to move further out to the suburbs. (Though that is great for property values, especially around the periphery of the commuting range.)
I grew up in Northern VA. Public transit here is a solution looking for a problem. The job centers and commercial are too spread out for public transit to make any sense. Most of the population and jobs in the DC metro area aren’t in DC but spread around in Tysons, Loudoun, Reston, Arlington, Bethesda, etc. The state spent billions building the Silver line out to Tysons, Reston, and Loudoun, and ridership was disappointing even before COVID. (And it’s approximately zero now.) In a traditional hub-and-spoke city like Chicago, heavy rail can bring tons of commuters down to where the jobs are in the core. But when the jobs are spread out all over the spokes, that model breaks down. It’s impossible to take Metro to Reston from most of the surrounding residential areas (all the ones except the narrow slice on the Silver line itself). And it’s a huge pain in the ass to do the spoke-hub-spoke commute and take Metro from a different suburb to Reston. And for married couples, it’s a real roll of the dice whether both your jobs will be easily accessible via Metro.
Rail transit is an anachronism, best suited for the 1950s when life involved a woman staying home with the kids while dad took the train into the city for work. I did that for a year before my wife started her job and it was lovely (took Metro North down from Westchester to Manhattan every day). But in a modern family with two jobs in two locations, plus kids with daycare and school and after school activities, it’s not scalable.
My wife and I are “city people.” We really tried to scale the transit lifestyle. We lived in downtown Baltimore for two years and took Amtrak to work each day. We lived in downtown DC and took Metro. We’ve commutes in the Silver line, Orange line, Blue line, MARC, etc. And every year the service got worse, and every time we had another kid the equation got harder to balance. Eventually we threw in the towel, moved to a red county, and bought an SUV that gets 13 mpg. And we’ve never looked back.
You want to know what the future of America looks like? Go to the Dallas suburbs. That’s where all the immigrants with kids are, and where the next generation of Americans are being raised. It’s a glorious place. And it doesn’t involve public transit.
Rail transit is an anachronism, best suited for the 1950s when life involved a woman staying home with the kids while dad took the train into the city for work. I did that for a year before my wife started her job and it was lovely (took Metro North down from Westchester to Manhattan every day). But in a modern family with two jobs in two locations, plus kids with daycare and school and after school activities, it’s not scalable.
My wife and I are “city people.” We really tried to scale the transit lifestyle. We lived in downtown Baltimore for two years and took Amtrak to work each day. We lived in downtown DC and took Metro. We’ve commutes in the Silver line, Orange line, Blue line, MARC, etc. And every year the service got worse, and every time we had another kid the equation got harder to balance. Eventually we threw in the towel, moved to a red county, and bought an SUV that gets 13 mpg. And we’ve never looked back.
You want to know what the future of America looks like? Go to the Dallas suburbs. That’s where all the immigrants with kids are, and where the next generation of Americans are being raised. It’s a glorious place. And it doesn’t involve public transit.
> But when the jobs are spread out all over the spokes, that model breaks down.
So don't spread the jobs out all over the spokes? Is some urban planning really hard to do here?
> Rail transit is an anachronism, best suited for the 1950s when life involved a woman staying home with the kids while dad took the train into the city for work.
That isn't true at all in much of the world. Rail transit still works in many non-dysfunctional countries.
So don't spread the jobs out all over the spokes? Is some urban planning really hard to do here?
> Rail transit is an anachronism, best suited for the 1950s when life involved a woman staying home with the kids while dad took the train into the city for work.
That isn't true at all in much of the world. Rail transit still works in many non-dysfunctional countries.
Yes, it's hard to literally relocate hundreds of thousands of jobs according to some urban planners dreams. We aren't talking about intra city planning, but about state wide job markets. I guess Canada is dysfunctional too because there is absolutely no way to get rail service working beyond the big cities. Maybe it has something to do with north America not being Europe so trying to just force a European model here is a pure pipe dream.
Again, not talking about public transit in cities (which is amazing and should be scaled up) but about intercity/state/province transport. The distances, and spread are just not comparable to almost anywhere else in the world and you can't just magically make everyone move.
Again, not talking about public transit in cities (which is amazing and should be scaled up) but about intercity/state/province transport. The distances, and spread are just not comparable to almost anywhere else in the world and you can't just magically make everyone move.
The context of this thread is about Virginia which is part of the I-95 corridor, the most densely populated area in the country, with a population density comparable to many Western European countries[1].
This is like the one region of the country you actually could scale up intercity/state transport, and it sucks so bad that Amtrak is terrible.
1: https://tetcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2040_Vis....
This is like the one region of the country you actually could scale up intercity/state transport, and it sucks so bad that Amtrak is terrible.
1: https://tetcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2040_Vis....
I guess it could be, but the point of the GP was that the jobs and the population were spread out widely even if the population density is similar. Now I could be wrong, but from what I know from the half of my family living in France, transit in Paris for example is mostly pouring into the city where the jobs are. In this case, everything is spread out, so the density itself does not really matter. The problem is the spread.
Even here in montreal, while the metro is pretty good and we are currently building a pretty nice light rail system you still can't really depend on the rail system if your job isn't in montreal itself. The whole transit system is based on feeding the big city, not move people in between smaller cities. (Also, It's a bit tiring then to hear about just how dysfunctional the US is and how good they have it everywhere else when it's just not true. The American self loathing just get repetitive honestly)
I think public transit is amazing for city transit but does not scale very well when there's something else than the usual suburb->city->suburb pattern of movement. You can't really interconnect every single medium-small ish city at a north American scale
Even here in montreal, while the metro is pretty good and we are currently building a pretty nice light rail system you still can't really depend on the rail system if your job isn't in montreal itself. The whole transit system is based on feeding the big city, not move people in between smaller cities. (Also, It's a bit tiring then to hear about just how dysfunctional the US is and how good they have it everywhere else when it's just not true. The American self loathing just get repetitive honestly)
I think public transit is amazing for city transit but does not scale very well when there's something else than the usual suburb->city->suburb pattern of movement. You can't really interconnect every single medium-small ish city at a north American scale
> Again, not talking about public transit in cities (which is amazing and should be scaled up) but about intercity/state/province transport. The distances, and spread are just not comparable to almost anywhere else in the world and you can't just magically make everyone move.
This problem has been solved for awhile now, at least since the 1960s when the first intra-city/province shinkansen came online. Just because some other countries suck as badly as the USA at it doesn't mean it is an unsolved problem.
This problem has been solved for awhile now, at least since the 1960s when the first intra-city/province shinkansen came online. Just because some other countries suck as badly as the USA at it doesn't mean it is an unsolved problem.
There's just absolutely no way to compare the shinkansen to what would be required in the DC/VA area. Yes the US should connect its big cities with high speed rail but that would still not do anything for small intercity transit for everyone else
This is just rehashing pop-urban planning buzzwords. Like I'm not sure where the trend of just handwaving every problem as easily solvable by "rail! Shinkansen! City public transit even out of cities!" came from but it particularly does not make sense in this situation considering the commenter you replied to specified he talked about spread out, smaller cities with frequent stops. Which is the opposite of what the shinkansen is for.
This is just rehashing pop-urban planning buzzwords. Like I'm not sure where the trend of just handwaving every problem as easily solvable by "rail! Shinkansen! City public transit even out of cities!" came from but it particularly does not make sense in this situation considering the commenter you replied to specified he talked about spread out, smaller cities with frequent stops. Which is the opposite of what the shinkansen is for.
> Yes the US should connect its big cities with high speed rail but that would still not do anything for small intercity transit for everyone else
Have you ever tried taking these lines before? They have high speed rail between big cities, and tons and tons of small branch/feeder routes out to small towns with the most frequent stops ever imaginable. Getting from huge Tokyo to small Gifu actually works.
It did take some planning however. The USA's model of just "build that office complex wherever you want!" wouldn't work.
Have you ever tried taking these lines before? They have high speed rail between big cities, and tons and tons of small branch/feeder routes out to small towns with the most frequent stops ever imaginable. Getting from huge Tokyo to small Gifu actually works.
It did take some planning however. The USA's model of just "build that office complex wherever you want!" wouldn't work.
>The USA's model of just "build that office complex wherever you want!" wouldn't work.
Which is exactly my point! That's already the current situation on the ground in the USA. So yes, it wouldn't work there. Unless you'd literally move around millions of jobs, offices etc which is absolutely not feasible. Trying to build public transit around that structure just to fit an idealized vision of somewhere else is weird. Japan built the system that fit their needs and their situation and the USA should do the same.
Which is exactly my point! That's already the current situation on the ground in the USA. So yes, it wouldn't work there. Unless you'd literally move around millions of jobs, offices etc which is absolutely not feasible. Trying to build public transit around that structure just to fit an idealized vision of somewhere else is weird. Japan built the system that fit their needs and their situation and the USA should do the same.
My first comment mentioned urban planning. I that involves more than just planning the transit, you have to plan the work places and residential places as well. The USA is too enamored with personal and corporate liberty to let the government plan anything that would actually be effective beyond “let’s just build freeways everywhere and expect everyone to drive.”
You don't get to "plan" the work places and residential places. They are what they are. Your transit plan needs to serve the commercial and residential areas that already exist, not a hypothetical ideal. It isn't easy in Ireland, Germany, or Spain to reorganize an entire metro area by fiat, either.
It might not be easy but big swaths of US cities did exactly this in living memory. Many of them as active parts of building the highway system.
> So don't spread the jobs out all over the spokes? Is some urban planning really hard to do here?
“Just completely restructure every single place 80% of the population in one of the country’s largest metro areas lives and works in.”
Yes, there is an argument that Reston, Vienna, etc., shouldn’t exist in their present form (or anything close to it). But that ship sailed long ago.
Efforts to gloss over that reality end badly. The Silver Line and all the adjacent development are monstrosities. Stations are huge concrete edifices in the middle of freeways that are nerve wracking to navigate with a squirrelly three year old. Billions were spent making places that are nice for just a handful of people who can afford $4,000/month for a two bedroom near the McLean Metro so they can take the Silver Line to their job at Google in Reston.
> That isn't true at all in much of the world. Rail transit still works in many non-dysfunctional countries.
Those countries are dysfunctional. Birth rates in these transit-oriented metro areas are well below replacement, meaning that their form of civilization is literally sustainable.
“Just completely restructure every single place 80% of the population in one of the country’s largest metro areas lives and works in.”
Yes, there is an argument that Reston, Vienna, etc., shouldn’t exist in their present form (or anything close to it). But that ship sailed long ago.
Efforts to gloss over that reality end badly. The Silver Line and all the adjacent development are monstrosities. Stations are huge concrete edifices in the middle of freeways that are nerve wracking to navigate with a squirrelly three year old. Billions were spent making places that are nice for just a handful of people who can afford $4,000/month for a two bedroom near the McLean Metro so they can take the Silver Line to their job at Google in Reston.
> That isn't true at all in much of the world. Rail transit still works in many non-dysfunctional countries.
Those countries are dysfunctional. Birth rates in these transit-oriented metro areas are well below replacement, meaning that their form of civilization is literally sustainable.
>So don't spread the jobs out all over the spokes? Is some urban planning really hard to do here?
Yes, impossible actually to prevent this from happening. Corporations always want a good deal for office space, so they will literally shop around different cities looking at who will give them the biggest tax advantages and the most developable land. City councilmembers literally make careers out of wooing corporations into building suburban office parks, and why wouldn't they? They just injected a thousand white collar workers who will be paying taxes into their school district and another 5 thousand workers who will be driving in every morning and spending money on local sales tax when they get starbucks from the drive through. It's a race to the bottom as long as local governments have local control over their planning processes, and it would probably still continue if planning were done regionally or nationally since it is very easy to bribe American politicians.
Yes, impossible actually to prevent this from happening. Corporations always want a good deal for office space, so they will literally shop around different cities looking at who will give them the biggest tax advantages and the most developable land. City councilmembers literally make careers out of wooing corporations into building suburban office parks, and why wouldn't they? They just injected a thousand white collar workers who will be paying taxes into their school district and another 5 thousand workers who will be driving in every morning and spending money on local sales tax when they get starbucks from the drive through. It's a race to the bottom as long as local governments have local control over their planning processes, and it would probably still continue if planning were done regionally or nationally since it is very easy to bribe American politicians.
kaesar14(6)
> Rail transit still works in many non-dysfunctional countries.
Define "works". Sure it can move millions of people each day, but those people live miserable lives most of the time. Have you lived in a city where commuting one hour each way by train is considered "very good" ? And some of the worse are around 1.30-1.45 hours each way, each day? Even if for a while the train is fine, if the city is growing it will become unbearably crowded, smelly, hot and just a nightmare to deal with when you're tired and want to get home at 6 PM.
Define "works". Sure it can move millions of people each day, but those people live miserable lives most of the time. Have you lived in a city where commuting one hour each way by train is considered "very good" ? And some of the worse are around 1.30-1.45 hours each way, each day? Even if for a while the train is fine, if the city is growing it will become unbearably crowded, smelly, hot and just a nightmare to deal with when you're tired and want to get home at 6 PM.
Yes, our life in Franconia (northern Bavaria) is nothing but suffering, in our townhouse with a yard that’s a 600m walk from a subway station and a suburban rail station, either of which gets me to downtown Nuremberg in 20 minutes, because that place is a hellhole, and to the miserable corporate 35-hour-a-week job (the fault of IG Metall) that pays for said townhouse in 40 minutes. I especially resent the fact that I can go out for that swill they call beer in Bavaria with my colleagues after work in that dump called downtown Nuremberg without worrying how I’ll get home.
A truly regrettable existence that no human should have to endure. We mourn the lack of a reason to own a second car. My husband’s bike ride to work is an even worse torture.
A truly regrettable existence that no human should have to endure. We mourn the lack of a reason to own a second car. My husband’s bike ride to work is an even worse torture.
I was talking about cities (e.g. London) where commuting by train+buses takes 1-2 hours each way. Not sure why you thought I was talking about medium sized cities where you can drive anywhere in 20 minutes. Washington DC is just massive, the metro area is immense both area and population wise, public transport wouldn't do much there.
To be fair, I have no idea how my cousin managed to afford a house in Wendelstein, they all seemed pretty expensive for being a drive away from the subway as opposed to a walk.
Caltrain in the SF Bay peninsula is basically that and people do cope with it and manage to lead happy, fulfilling lives.
works - verb. Moves millions of people efficiently and without the pollution or danger of driving an expensive, private vehicle.
>And every year the service got worse,
Because every year we refuse to fund public transport at an appropriate level to prevent it from getting worse let alone improving.
If your idea of public transport is confined to only what the US has to offer currently, then you have already stopped having a conversation in good faith and instead are being myopic in the realm of solutions.
Because every year we refuse to fund public transport at an appropriate level to prevent it from getting worse let alone improving.
If your idea of public transport is confined to only what the US has to offer currently, then you have already stopped having a conversation in good faith and instead are being myopic in the realm of solutions.
I also grew up in Northern VA. Biggest issue there is how hard it is to build public transit. The silver-line was such a clusterfuck largely because of fights over who should pay[1], how much it should cost and how to balance construction-induced disruption and costs with long-term TCO.
If we could build rail miles as cheaply and quickly as Western Europe, everyone in Fairfax Co could commute via rail except perhaps those work west of there.
1: Fairfax county is rather centrally planned compared to everywhere else in the US I've lived since then, but the DC Metro is funded by MD, VA, DC, and the federal government. The difficulty of building infrastructure seems to scale super-linearly with the number of people paying for the infrastructure...
If we could build rail miles as cheaply and quickly as Western Europe, everyone in Fairfax Co could commute via rail except perhaps those work west of there.
1: Fairfax county is rather centrally planned compared to everywhere else in the US I've lived since then, but the DC Metro is funded by MD, VA, DC, and the federal government. The difficulty of building infrastructure seems to scale super-linearly with the number of people paying for the infrastructure...
> If we could build rail miles as cheaply and quickly as Western Europe, everyone in Fairfax Co could commute via rail except perhaps those work west of there.
I agree. But we can’t. It’s a cluster fuck even when it’s just one state. Maryland spent $7 billion building the Purple line, which is what Western European countries spent for similar amounts of fully automated underground heavy rail.
At some point we have to treat our infrastructure costs as realities to be planned around rather than solvable problems. This is a keen insight Lee Kuan Yew had in building Singapore. He admired many aspects of Anglo culture, but realized that not all of them would work in an Asian country: https://web.colby.edu/eas150/files/2017/11/Zakaria_LeeKuanYe.... America is a decentralized, low cohesion society built around having plenty of space for a bunch of different groups to leave each other alone. America is continually replenished by the people who are antisocial enough to leave their kin and homelands to start new lives thousands of miles away.[1] We aren’t Germans or Swedes or Japanese and shouldn’t beat our selves up trying to be them. Our future is electric cars and freeways, not trains.
[1] Asians are the biggest immigrant group in the US, but when polled, under 10% of people in Asia said they would immigrate to another country if they had the chance. Guess what kind of people end up making the journey?
I agree. But we can’t. It’s a cluster fuck even when it’s just one state. Maryland spent $7 billion building the Purple line, which is what Western European countries spent for similar amounts of fully automated underground heavy rail.
At some point we have to treat our infrastructure costs as realities to be planned around rather than solvable problems. This is a keen insight Lee Kuan Yew had in building Singapore. He admired many aspects of Anglo culture, but realized that not all of them would work in an Asian country: https://web.colby.edu/eas150/files/2017/11/Zakaria_LeeKuanYe.... America is a decentralized, low cohesion society built around having plenty of space for a bunch of different groups to leave each other alone. America is continually replenished by the people who are antisocial enough to leave their kin and homelands to start new lives thousands of miles away.[1] We aren’t Germans or Swedes or Japanese and shouldn’t beat our selves up trying to be them. Our future is electric cars and freeways, not trains.
[1] Asians are the biggest immigrant group in the US, but when polled, under 10% of people in Asia said they would immigrate to another country if they had the chance. Guess what kind of people end up making the journey?
> At some point we have to treat our infrastructure costs as realities to be planned around rather than solvable problems.
I think this is the main point of disagreement in this thread; if we have to spend $500M/mile for light rail in the US, it's fairly obvious that rail is not an option. If there is a large learning-factor for building rail that would bring costs down significantly with more miles built, then rail is certainly an option for the northeast US.
I think this is the main point of disagreement in this thread; if we have to spend $500M/mile for light rail in the US, it's fairly obvious that rail is not an option. If there is a large learning-factor for building rail that would bring costs down significantly with more miles built, then rail is certainly an option for the northeast US.
Yes—I think it’s a difference between people who accept that light rail costs us $500 million/mile and subways cost us $5 billion/mile and those who don’t. Also, those who think we can run reliable, efficient public transit even with good funding, and those who accept that we can’t.
I used to be a rail fan. Then I rode Amtrak to work for a couple of years. I saw the DC Metro, which is well funded, so badly maintained that automated train control, a core feature when the system was built 1970s, had to be turned off. (That was a decade ago and there is no sign of it ever being reenabled.) I came to the conclusion that Americans running transit projects like the Europeans or Japanese is just wishful thinking. A camel cannot be a bird no matter how much it wants.
I used to be a rail fan. Then I rode Amtrak to work for a couple of years. I saw the DC Metro, which is well funded, so badly maintained that automated train control, a core feature when the system was built 1970s, had to be turned off. (That was a decade ago and there is no sign of it ever being reenabled.) I came to the conclusion that Americans running transit projects like the Europeans or Japanese is just wishful thinking. A camel cannot be a bird no matter how much it wants.
>and those who accept that we can’t.
So prove it with more than your ridiculous anecdotes and metaphors. You do a lot of claiming and literally no sourcing. Try again, this time with data.
So prove it with more than your ridiculous anecdotes and metaphors. You do a lot of claiming and literally no sourcing. Try again, this time with data.
It doesn't exactly help that tall office buildings are not allowed in DC. It's hard to have a "hub" when it's illegal to build a hub.
>You want to know what the future of America looks like? Go to the Dallas suburbs.
Can I point out the irony that you're posting this in a thread about a natural disaster exacerbated by suburban development patterns, and your example of Dallas suffered a similar disaster less than a year ago, made worse by the thermal inefficiency of the same development patterns? Is that the future we should want?
>You want to know what the future of America looks like? Go to the Dallas suburbs.
Can I point out the irony that you're posting this in a thread about a natural disaster exacerbated by suburban development patterns, and your example of Dallas suffered a similar disaster less than a year ago, made worse by the thermal inefficiency of the same development patterns? Is that the future we should want?
Also, Dallas is the anti-thesis of good urban design. The I-35 corridor in the area and the surrounding metroplex is a damn nightmare, and only getting worse.
If you design your space for cars as the mode of getting to places, you get exactly that… but it really doesn’t have to be like this. It is possible to plan cities in a way that public transit works. Obviously it won’t if you need to jump into a car to buy bread for breakfast, because otherwise you won’t be back for dinner.
I say this as a member of a two car family who routinely ferries children to places and hates every minute of it that could be spent paying attention to something other than the road.
I say this as a member of a two car family who routinely ferries children to places and hates every minute of it that could be spent paying attention to something other than the road.
Right on.
I lived literally next to Dulles International Airport - ~8 miles. Yet, to get to Dulles (or Reston/Herndon) by Public transit, would've taken me 2 hours perhaps, or more.
I lived literally next to Dulles International Airport - ~8 miles. Yet, to get to Dulles (or Reston/Herndon) by Public transit, would've taken me 2 hours perhaps, or more.
Ha! I live in Reston and mapped out some options on Goole Maps...
Home to IAD by car: 5 miles, 9 minutes
Home to IAD by transit: 40+ minutes across 2 bus lines
Home to IAD by foot: 10.9 miles, 3+ hours
Home to WAS by car: 24 miles, 29 minutes
Home to WAS by transit: 90+ minutes across 1 bus line, 2 Metro lines, and a few walking segments to link them.
It's sad that walking to the airport is twice as far than driving. It's also sad that I can drive to a airport further away than I can access my closest airport by transit.
Home to IAD by car: 5 miles, 9 minutes
Home to IAD by transit: 40+ minutes across 2 bus lines
Home to IAD by foot: 10.9 miles, 3+ hours
Home to WAS by car: 24 miles, 29 minutes
Home to WAS by transit: 90+ minutes across 1 bus line, 2 Metro lines, and a few walking segments to link them.
It's sad that walking to the airport is twice as far than driving. It's also sad that I can drive to a airport further away than I can access my closest airport by transit.
You forgot to include time to park.
Fair enough, I always take a cab/Uber to IAD, as that cost is far less than the price of parking. And living so close to IAD, I try to fly out of it whenever possible (all work travel, 80% of pleasure travel).
Parking at IAD is a cinch.
8 miles in 2 hours? That's a brisk walk!
Except (unless they've built new paths since I last checked) you can't realistically walk to the airport either. The only non-limited-access highway entrance is on the north side of the airport, so unless GP lives in Ashburn, you'll have to walk around the airport first (and if you're east, that means finding a decent crossing for Route 28...). Then you have such pedestrian friendly places as this[1].
1: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9768706,-77.4451826,3a,75y,2...
1: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9768706,-77.4451826,3a,75y,2...
My reply was a comment on the average rate of travel, not a suggestion to walk to the airport.
I have considered cycling to the airport in my area before, and basically run into the same issue you raise.
I have considered cycling to the airport in my area before, and basically run into the same issue you raise.
The future is Dallas suburbs? Let’s just call a quits now and save America the trouble
Seriously, suburbia is hell
[deleted]
This arrangement is the result of one of the biggest social engineering projects in human history. In order to make this happen the federal government had to massively subsidize loans for single-family homes, build enormous interstate highways (that always seem to be adding a lane), and make alternative living arrangements illegal via zoning.
I read your comments downthread, which I think are pretty insightful; it may be the case that the ship has sailed and we're not going back (and it may even be the case that there's something in our national DNA that prevents us from competently building and operating transit). But it should at least be acknowledged that the status quo isn't the result of personal choice or revealed preference; it was quite literally a big-government social engineering project.
I read your comments downthread, which I think are pretty insightful; it may be the case that the ship has sailed and we're not going back (and it may even be the case that there's something in our national DNA that prevents us from competently building and operating transit). But it should at least be acknowledged that the status quo isn't the result of personal choice or revealed preference; it was quite literally a big-government social engineering project.
I just want to say that the comments about public transport in DC are spot on. It's incredibly hard to design a system that can actually get people where they need to be because A) people are so spread out, B) everyone is going to different places, C) there is minimal incentive to make public transit better because costs completely outweigh potential ridership.
It's sad, but without a car in the DC area, your options are very minimal and you pretty much have to live in the city.
I lived in the DC area for nearly 30 years and moved out right as Covid hit, and have tried to use public transit at various points in my adult life. Unless you live super close to a metro stop and/or need to go to a metro stop the system will barely work for you, and even then you'll be hamstrung with where you can go and how long it will take you to get there.
It's sad, but without a car in the DC area, your options are very minimal and you pretty much have to live in the city.
I lived in the DC area for nearly 30 years and moved out right as Covid hit, and have tried to use public transit at various points in my adult life. Unless you live super close to a metro stop and/or need to go to a metro stop the system will barely work for you, and even then you'll be hamstrung with where you can go and how long it will take you to get there.
Use public transit to incentivize development.
>You want to know what the future of America looks like? Go to the Dallas suburbs. That’s where all the immigrants with kids are, and where the next generation of Americans are being raised. It’s a glorious place. And it doesn’t involve public transit.
Dallas should probably get some better research universities if this is going to be a thing.
Dallas should probably get some better research universities if this is going to be a thing.
Correct, The Downs-Thomson paradox [1] is a known issue in urban planning stating basically unless you improve public transportation car congestion will continue to get worse.
> the equilibrium speed of car traffic on a road network is determined by the average door-to-door speed of equivalent journeys taken by public transport.
NotJustBikes has a good introduction to it [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs%E2%80%93Thomson_paradox
[2] https://youtu.be/RQY6WGOoYis
> the equilibrium speed of car traffic on a road network is determined by the average door-to-door speed of equivalent journeys taken by public transport.
NotJustBikes has a good introduction to it [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs%E2%80%93Thomson_paradox
[2] https://youtu.be/RQY6WGOoYis
There is no economical way for public transportation to cover the kind of transit patterns serviced by highways. If I had to take buses from Bozeman, MT to Boise, ID, any plausible bus network would take 5x as long to get me from A to B.
Making everyone ride busses and bicycles in a country with the geography of America is a fantasy, even if you buy the premise that this is otherwise desirable.
I don't even buy the premise, because things that are valuable to me include:
1. Expediency
2. Comfort
3. Not being subject to timetables decided by other people
4. Not having to deal with homeless or crazy people while transiting
5. Sanitation. Public transit and pandemic mitigation measures are mutually incompatible
While driving, I only have to deal with one network topology (the road system) instead of two (the bus network on top of the road network), leading to vastly shorter travel times in practice. My vehicles are customized to my comfort. I don't have to get permission or wait on someone else to use them. I don't have to share them with anyone. I can keep them as clean as I please.
Making everyone ride busses and bicycles in a country with the geography of America is a fantasy, even if you buy the premise that this is otherwise desirable.
I don't even buy the premise, because things that are valuable to me include:
1. Expediency
2. Comfort
3. Not being subject to timetables decided by other people
4. Not having to deal with homeless or crazy people while transiting
5. Sanitation. Public transit and pandemic mitigation measures are mutually incompatible
While driving, I only have to deal with one network topology (the road system) instead of two (the bus network on top of the road network), leading to vastly shorter travel times in practice. My vehicles are customized to my comfort. I don't have to get permission or wait on someone else to use them. I don't have to share them with anyone. I can keep them as clean as I please.
I don't understand why public transit doesn't have exactly the same induced demand problem as highways. If there's enough people to fill up new highways, they'll also fill up the public transit... Unless the plan is to make public transit miserable enough that only outside with no better options will use it, in which case it seems like it's all going according to plan already.
Increasing public transit capacity does induce demand. In areas with excellent public transit people choose to live further away from work, take more discretionary trips by transit, etc. (That's one reason I would be wary of making transit free as some politicians have proposed.)
One reason many people are more concerned about inducing driving demand is that private vehicle travel generally emits more carbon, uses more valuable land (e.g. parking, highways), and results in more fatalities per person per mile than comparable forms of transportation.
Another problem with inducing driving demand is the degree to which those costs are subsidized by taxpayers (roads, highways), other shoppers (required/subsidized parking), or left as externalities (carbon, noise). Tolls, gas taxes, per-mile fees, and parking fees would have to be quite a bit higher in most places to cover those costs.
One reason many people are more concerned about inducing driving demand is that private vehicle travel generally emits more carbon, uses more valuable land (e.g. parking, highways), and results in more fatalities per person per mile than comparable forms of transportation.
Another problem with inducing driving demand is the degree to which those costs are subsidized by taxpayers (roads, highways), other shoppers (required/subsidized parking), or left as externalities (carbon, noise). Tolls, gas taxes, per-mile fees, and parking fees would have to be quite a bit higher in most places to cover those costs.
The way that public transit scales to meet higher demand is different than roads. Whereas roads require more lanes, public transit such as trains can scale by either adding more train cars to existing trains or adding more frequent service. More frequent service, in addition to improving throughput, also helps everyone else using the system by making it more convenient. And, if it "induces" people to move from roads to trains, that also reduces congestion on the roads. So induced demand for rail lines is a good thing.
If induced demand is high enough even that, too, may not be enough - but then building a new rail line is at least no harder than adding a new highway lane (in most cases), and can support substantially more throughput with equal or lower travel times.
If induced demand is high enough even that, too, may not be enough - but then building a new rail line is at least no harder than adding a new highway lane (in most cases), and can support substantially more throughput with equal or lower travel times.
Before COVID, BART in the Bay Area was completely full during peak hours. You had to wait for multiple trains to finally pack into the car. That, or take the train the opposite direction for a few stops from downtown and then get back on in the other direction. They are starting to remove more and more seats to pack in more people, but eventually if use keeps increasing you will have to build a new subway and who knows how much that will cost or how long it will take. It is probably not really possible right now. See the failure of California's bullet train.
Yup, this is a big reason why I said "in most cases" and not "in all cases". When your trains have to go underground and underwater and your highways go over roads and over bridges, that dramatically changes the numbers. Of course, none of those are a requirement of rail systems - just how the BART is built. There are plenty of trains that go over roads (e.g. the L in Chicago) or over bridges over water.
By the way, even BART could increase throughput today without adding more lines. Not all trains are 10-car trains, because they don't have enough cars in the fleet. Adding more cars to their trains is a significantly cheaper prospect than adding a new lane to the Bay Bridge (which was also basically fully maxed out on throughput during peak traffic times, pre-COVID). And BART carries substantially more people across the Bay than the Bay Bridge does.
So, certainly the BART needs more capacity, both now and in the future - but so do the highways.
By the way, even BART could increase throughput today without adding more lines. Not all trains are 10-car trains, because they don't have enough cars in the fleet. Adding more cars to their trains is a significantly cheaper prospect than adding a new lane to the Bay Bridge (which was also basically fully maxed out on throughput during peak traffic times, pre-COVID). And BART carries substantially more people across the Bay than the Bay Bridge does.
So, certainly the BART needs more capacity, both now and in the future - but so do the highways.
Bay Bridge 260K ppl/day + San Mateo Bridge 93K ppl/day is within spitting distance of BART (411K ppl). If there was another whole bridge across the bay (well, maybe two or three) it would alleviate the Bay Bridge and the traffic around it.
Building an entirely new bridge isn't going to be cheaper than adding more cars to BART. Even assuming it was (which it wasn't), it's not going to help as much as you think it is. Not sure if you've ever commuted on the San Mateo bridge, but it's basically fully backed up from the exits onto 101, because 101 is also grid-locked. So in addition to building an entirely new bridge (which, again, more expensive than adding more cars to BART), you also need to add more lanes to 101.
I live right by the 92/101 interchange. Adding a Southern Crossing would change the dynamics in ways that you probably wouldn't have to add anything to 101, it would just distribute the traffic that's on 101 into better locations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Crossing_(California). For example, for the set of people who are using 92W to get to SF, the southern crossing would move them north and alleviate traffic around san Mateo.
Note that I didn't make my point to say that we should build another bridge, just the pedantic detail that BART traffic isn't that much larger than Bay Bridge + San Mateo Bridge, which is a more apt comparison. I think actually you'd want to add in the Golden Gate Bridge, another 110K. So basically, there are more people commuting into SF driving over bridges than taking BART in.
Note that I didn't make my point to say that we should build another bridge, just the pedantic detail that BART traffic isn't that much larger than Bay Bridge + San Mateo Bridge, which is a more apt comparison. I think actually you'd want to add in the Golden Gate Bridge, another 110K. So basically, there are more people commuting into SF driving over bridges than taking BART in.
Increasing service is very difficult to do. For example, before the pandemic I would take the red line in LA which would be packed to the brim by the time it rolled into downtown LA, not enough room to even turn around while standing. During my commuting I would do a lot of reading about transit and about the redline in particular.
To increase the capacity of the red line would take a lot of work that would not be cheap. For instance, the length of the trains could be increased, but to do that you have to construct new stations, since the train is already the length of the entire platform, at least the ones used for rush hour. LA has actually lengthened platforms that are on the surface before to accomodate longer light rail trains, but underground this is so much more difficult.
You could lower headways from the 10 minutes they are currently at, but this becomes a physics problem fast. One issue is a lack of turnback stations at the ends of the line so the train has to come to a stop then 'reverse' at the end. Another issue is a subway with a train works like a pneumatic tube, there is a volume of air moving that needs sufficient ventilation, which is why you see these big ventilation grates on sidewalks where subways run below, and to run more frequent trains would require significant upgrades to the ventilation systems along the entire line.
To increase the capacity of the red line would take a lot of work that would not be cheap. For instance, the length of the trains could be increased, but to do that you have to construct new stations, since the train is already the length of the entire platform, at least the ones used for rush hour. LA has actually lengthened platforms that are on the surface before to accomodate longer light rail trains, but underground this is so much more difficult.
You could lower headways from the 10 minutes they are currently at, but this becomes a physics problem fast. One issue is a lack of turnback stations at the ends of the line so the train has to come to a stop then 'reverse' at the end. Another issue is a subway with a train works like a pneumatic tube, there is a volume of air moving that needs sufficient ventilation, which is why you see these big ventilation grates on sidewalks where subways run below, and to run more frequent trains would require significant upgrades to the ventilation systems along the entire line.
That may be the case for LA, I'm not familiar enough with their situation to speak to it, but it isn't the case generally. There are lots of rail lines in the US and globally that have not come anywhere close to maxing track capacity. One such example is BART in SF, which could just add more cars to existing trains and see 60% increase in capacity [1]. The tracks and stations support trains up to 10 cars long, but very few are actually that long enough because they don't have enough cars in the fleet.
[1] https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/cars/faq
[1] https://www.bart.gov/about/projects/cars/faq
This is a case of under-investment and poor design. The London Underground, for example, the oldest underground railway in the world, manages 2-3 minute headways (29 trains per hour) on many central lines, both sub-surface and deep level.
Of course, you need to invest in the infrastructure to make it work, but it's very possible.
A quick Google suggests that in Tokyo they even hit 50 trains per hour, so one every 1m20s, which is insanely impressive.
Of course, you need to invest in the infrastructure to make it work, but it's very possible.
A quick Google suggests that in Tokyo they even hit 50 trains per hour, so one every 1m20s, which is insanely impressive.
I don't buy the lower travel time thing, not unless your trains or whatever are running every five minutes. In practice public transit has always at least doubled my travel time. Waiting at stops (a) introduces substantial latency that (b) is unpredictable, forcing me to pad my travel times further. I mainly use it to avoid parking at the destination.
Mostly DC metro rail and a bit of LA buses, FWIW.
Mostly DC metro rail and a bit of LA buses, FWIW.
DC and LA are both infamous for having bad public transit systems, so don't base all your decisions on your experience there. Within the USA, Chicago is really good - taking the L is way faster than cars because you get to skip road traffic and the trains come very frequently. I've heard mixed things about NYC (some very positive, some very negative, likely depending on where you're traveling from/to), but have no experience there myself. Outside of the USA, there are lots of countries with fantastic train systems (e.g. Hong Kong) that are way better than driving.
Besides NYC that's been my experience as well -- US cities are designed for driving as the primary transportation method. Even mass transit in the US is often pitched as something to make life easier for drivers by lowering traffic.
Lots of places talk about the importance of walkability and mass transit but if you actually look at most transportation budgets the vast majority goes to automobile infrastructure. Even what passes for "pedestrian infrastructure" in many places is there for the benefit of drivers[1]. I mean, it makes sense because everyone in the US drives everywhere, but it's a chicken-and-egg problem.
[1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/1/29/pedestrian-inf...
Lots of places talk about the importance of walkability and mass transit but if you actually look at most transportation budgets the vast majority goes to automobile infrastructure. Even what passes for "pedestrian infrastructure" in many places is there for the benefit of drivers[1]. I mean, it makes sense because everyone in the US drives everywhere, but it's a chicken-and-egg problem.
[1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/1/29/pedestrian-inf...
I think that technically the same problem exists with public transit. It's just that the constant factor people-moving density difference of multiple orders of magnitude gives you a lot of headroom.
Of course, there are also other potential advantages of public transit unrelated to induced demand, like pollution, safety, cost, impact on the design of living spaces, etc.
Of course, there are also other potential advantages of public transit unrelated to induced demand, like pollution, safety, cost, impact on the design of living spaces, etc.
Improving public transport absolutely does induce demand and that’s part of the point of making it better. In particular because it’s much more space efficient it also reduces congestion as people switch to it. Same thing with improving cycling facilities.
It’s just inducing demand on an already overused system like private cars doesn’t fix the system being overused unless you can get beyond the desired capacity.
It’s just inducing demand on an already overused system like private cars doesn’t fix the system being overused unless you can get beyond the desired capacity.
Most people prefer individual transport systems for many good reasons. "Induced demand" is just more people using new roads because they get to do what they need/want to do. If we build enough roads (maybe using tunnels underground, a la The Boring Company) for everyone to go where they want, when they want, with up to 40 tons of cargo with them, there won't be any traffic congestion. This happened when the interstates were first built in the US and we could have that again if we decided to build thousands of miles of new tunnels. That would be a true national infrastructure project that would make everyone's lives much better. Sitting in traffic is a scourge on humanity. These tunnels could also have buses and groups of buses (trains?) in them for people who would rather travel with strangers, following a schedule set by someone else, and not carrying many objects with them. Could constructing this system also be called large-scale investment in public transportation then we could get everyone on board? Win-win solutions in society are still possible I hope.
individual transport vs shared is a matter of compromise. Human drivers only go fast (when there is no congestion the autobahn with no speed limit doesn't in practice move any faster than US freeways for the majority of users of each). Trains today have the ability to go faster than human drivers. Trains carry far more people than cars. Thus replacing most trips with train trips would be faster and cheaper for most people.
Note that I said most trips there. If you don't have a system useful enough that most people use it most of the time then people still need cars to get around and that changes the calculation. it can be very hard to get there.
Note that I said most trips there. If you don't have a system useful enough that most people use it most of the time then people still need cars to get around and that changes the calculation. it can be very hard to get there.
> Additional highways are at-best a stop-gap for day-to-day traffic, never a solution, due to induced demand
This continues to be wrong every time someone brings it up.
If you have insufficient road capacity, you have congestion, and congestion suppresses demand. If you increase capacity, some of the congestion goes away, and then some of the demand comes back.
What this looks like is that you currently have enough cars to require three lanes but have two lanes, so you build a third lane. The reduction in congestion causes you to have enough cars to require four lanes, leading to the fool's conclusion that adding enough lanes is impossible. But that's not it. It's that you needed four from the beginning to handle the amount of traffic that occurs there in the absence of congestion, but you only had three, or two.
Sometimes building a four (or five or six) lane highway isn't the best solution. Sometimes it's better to build more housing near the jobs so people have shorter commutes, or build mass transit etc.
Sometimes you just need a wider road. Pretending that's never the case is preposterous. If that was true then why do we keep multi-lane highways open instead of closing all but one of the lanes? Wouldn't that improve traffic, under this theory?
This continues to be wrong every time someone brings it up.
If you have insufficient road capacity, you have congestion, and congestion suppresses demand. If you increase capacity, some of the congestion goes away, and then some of the demand comes back.
What this looks like is that you currently have enough cars to require three lanes but have two lanes, so you build a third lane. The reduction in congestion causes you to have enough cars to require four lanes, leading to the fool's conclusion that adding enough lanes is impossible. But that's not it. It's that you needed four from the beginning to handle the amount of traffic that occurs there in the absence of congestion, but you only had three, or two.
Sometimes building a four (or five or six) lane highway isn't the best solution. Sometimes it's better to build more housing near the jobs so people have shorter commutes, or build mass transit etc.
Sometimes you just need a wider road. Pretending that's never the case is preposterous. If that was true then why do we keep multi-lane highways open instead of closing all but one of the lanes? Wouldn't that improve traffic, under this theory?
> Sometimes you just need a wider road. Pretending that's never the case is preposterous. If that was true then why do we keep multi-lane highways open instead of closing all but one of the lanes? Wouldn't that improve traffic, under this theory?
You're setting up this strawman where the argument is "improve roads" vs. "do nothing". That's obviously not the case. The argument is "improve roads" vs. "improve public transit". Demonstrably, improving roads is worse than improving public transit. You refer to this as a "fool's conclusion" yet this has been a well-known fact in the field for almost a century. The wikipedia article I linked has some good information on this if you'd like to learn more.
You're setting up this strawman where the argument is "improve roads" vs. "do nothing". That's obviously not the case. The argument is "improve roads" vs. "improve public transit". Demonstrably, improving roads is worse than improving public transit. You refer to this as a "fool's conclusion" yet this has been a well-known fact in the field for almost a century. The wikipedia article I linked has some good information on this if you'd like to learn more.
> Your setting up this strawman where the argument is "improve roads" vs. "do nothing".
Your claim is this:
> Additional highways are at-best a stop-gap for day-to-day traffic, never a solution, due to induced demand
That claim is false and is not a straw man because you actually claim it.
Improving mass transit might work as an alternate solution, sometimes, in specific contexts.
That doesn't prove that adding more lanes wouldn't also work, and it's also not universally true.
A large fraction of the traffic on I-95 is trucks. How many semi truck drivers and their loads can you fit on a public bus?
Many highways are congested at a specific choke point. You could make a completely free thousand mile an hour bullet train to transport people from one side of the choke point to the other and solve nothing because people would get to the other side without a car and be unable to get the last ten miles to their destination. But once you get past the choke point, the traffic diverges in every direction and there is no longer enough density to justify a mass transit route.
Sometimes you just need a wider road.
Your claim is this:
> Additional highways are at-best a stop-gap for day-to-day traffic, never a solution, due to induced demand
That claim is false and is not a straw man because you actually claim it.
Improving mass transit might work as an alternate solution, sometimes, in specific contexts.
That doesn't prove that adding more lanes wouldn't also work, and it's also not universally true.
A large fraction of the traffic on I-95 is trucks. How many semi truck drivers and their loads can you fit on a public bus?
Many highways are congested at a specific choke point. You could make a completely free thousand mile an hour bullet train to transport people from one side of the choke point to the other and solve nothing because people would get to the other side without a car and be unable to get the last ten miles to their destination. But once you get past the choke point, the traffic diverges in every direction and there is no longer enough density to justify a mass transit route.
Sometimes you just need a wider road.
Maybe try quoting the entirety of what I said?
> Additional highways are at-best a stop-gap for day-to-day traffic, never a solution, due to induced demand [1]. You really need large-scale investments in public transportation for this.
Clearly "improve roads" vs. "improve public transit"...
> How many semi truck drivers and their loads can you fit on a public bus?
You're again arguing against something no one ever said. No one suggested that we should just remove all semi-trucks and replace them with buses. Again, we're discussing where to allocate incremental improvements to existing systems. No one is suggesting doing nothing or, worse, shutting down existing systems.
Using your specific example of semi-trucks, moving more traffic (such as daily commute) to rail lines or buses can actually help semi-trucks as well, by freeing up road capacity for things that actually need it. And additionally, freight trains already make up a fairly large percentage of our freight network (~30%) so rail is actually a great alternative to semi-trucks in many cases.
> Additional highways are at-best a stop-gap for day-to-day traffic, never a solution, due to induced demand [1]. You really need large-scale investments in public transportation for this.
Clearly "improve roads" vs. "improve public transit"...
> How many semi truck drivers and their loads can you fit on a public bus?
You're again arguing against something no one ever said. No one suggested that we should just remove all semi-trucks and replace them with buses. Again, we're discussing where to allocate incremental improvements to existing systems. No one is suggesting doing nothing or, worse, shutting down existing systems.
Using your specific example of semi-trucks, moving more traffic (such as daily commute) to rail lines or buses can actually help semi-trucks as well, by freeing up road capacity for things that actually need it. And additionally, freight trains already make up a fairly large percentage of our freight network (~30%) so rail is actually a great alternative to semi-trucks in many cases.
> Clearly "improve roads" vs. "improve public transit"...
You: Cars are never a solution because they can't go faster than 15 MPH. You really need horses for this.
Me: Cars can go faster than 15 MPH in many cases. Horses can't be used to transport industrial boilers and such.
You: Clearly you missed the part about the horses.
> No one suggested that we should just remove all semi-trucks and replace them with buses.
You have a two lane road that needs to be a four lane road to handle the amount of traffic it would have without congestion.
If more than half of the traffic that would occur without congestion is trucks, you physically cannot relieve the congestion with mass transit, because relieving the congestion would require removing more than 100% of the non-truck traffic.
> Moving more traffic to rail lines or buses can actually help semi-trucks as well, by freeing up road capacity for things that actually need it.
This the other stupidity with induced demand. It's not induced, it's suppressed by congestion, which means that any alternative means of relieving the congestion will also restore the demand.
Suppose you actually built mass transit and removed the equivalent of one lane worth of traffic from the road. Now you still need to add the other lane because the reduction in traffic congestion restored demand for the road and offset what was removed by the improved mass transit.
You: Cars are never a solution because they can't go faster than 15 MPH. You really need horses for this.
Me: Cars can go faster than 15 MPH in many cases. Horses can't be used to transport industrial boilers and such.
You: Clearly you missed the part about the horses.
> No one suggested that we should just remove all semi-trucks and replace them with buses.
You have a two lane road that needs to be a four lane road to handle the amount of traffic it would have without congestion.
If more than half of the traffic that would occur without congestion is trucks, you physically cannot relieve the congestion with mass transit, because relieving the congestion would require removing more than 100% of the non-truck traffic.
> Moving more traffic to rail lines or buses can actually help semi-trucks as well, by freeing up road capacity for things that actually need it.
This the other stupidity with induced demand. It's not induced, it's suppressed by congestion, which means that any alternative means of relieving the congestion will also restore the demand.
Suppose you actually built mass transit and removed the equivalent of one lane worth of traffic from the road. Now you still need to add the other lane because the reduction in traffic congestion restored demand for the road and offset what was removed by the improved mass transit.
Just to be clear, the "induced demand" that concerns me is not the latent demand of a few deferred trips being taken in the days/weeks/months/year after the road is widened, it's the long-term generated demand of people choosing to move further into the suburbs because they can commute more miles in the same number of minutes. The cumulative result is that property values on the periphery of the commuting zone increase and within a decade or so the highway traffic exceeds the optimal capacity again.
Some regions have concluded that adding a lane per decade is sustainable and already have highways more than a dozen lanes wide. I'm curious to see where the upper bound is.
(Personally I think dynamic pricing to maintain optimal highway capacity is a more sustainable approach.)
Some regions have concluded that adding a lane per decade is sustainable and already have highways more than a dozen lanes wide. I'm curious to see where the upper bound is.
(Personally I think dynamic pricing to maintain optimal highway capacity is a more sustainable approach.)
> Just to be clear, the "induced demand" that concerns me is not the latent demand of a few deferred trips being taken in the days/weeks/months/year after the road is widened, it's the long-term generated demand of people choosing to move further into the suburbs because they can commute more miles in the same number of minutes. The cumulative result is that property values on the periphery of the commuting zone increase and within a decade or so the highway traffic exceeds the optimal capacity again.
Property values increasing there actually offsets the problem by making it less desirable to live there.
The real trouble is that people build more houses there. But the reason people build more houses there, and suffer a 30 minute commute (which more congestion might have turned into a 60 minute commute), is that they can't afford to live in the place with a 15 minute commute. Typically because zoning prohibits building more housing there.
Now let's see what our choices are here.
We can do nothing at all. Well, now people are screwed. They still need somewhere to live, the place that now has a 60 minute commute is the only place housing can be built, so the housing still gets built there, but now the commute is longer. That's just horrible and helps no one.
Second, we could widen the road and that's it. The new housing still gets built in the suburbs but at least now people waste less time in their cars.
Third, we could loosen the zoning so higher density housing can be built closer to the city, but not widen the road. This is pretty good, because now the people who live in the new housing get the 15 minute commute. But the people who already live in the suburbs are still stuck with the 60 minute commute.
Fourth, we could loosen the zoning and widen the road. Then new housing gets built in the city instead of the suburbs, because people prefer a 15 minute commute to a 30 minute commute, but the people who already live in the suburbs still get a 30 minute commute instead of a 60 minute commute because of the wider road. And it stays that way because the new housing is getting built in the city instead of the suburbs. This is pretty obviously the one that we want.
Property values increasing there actually offsets the problem by making it less desirable to live there.
The real trouble is that people build more houses there. But the reason people build more houses there, and suffer a 30 minute commute (which more congestion might have turned into a 60 minute commute), is that they can't afford to live in the place with a 15 minute commute. Typically because zoning prohibits building more housing there.
Now let's see what our choices are here.
We can do nothing at all. Well, now people are screwed. They still need somewhere to live, the place that now has a 60 minute commute is the only place housing can be built, so the housing still gets built there, but now the commute is longer. That's just horrible and helps no one.
Second, we could widen the road and that's it. The new housing still gets built in the suburbs but at least now people waste less time in their cars.
Third, we could loosen the zoning so higher density housing can be built closer to the city, but not widen the road. This is pretty good, because now the people who live in the new housing get the 15 minute commute. But the people who already live in the suburbs are still stuck with the 60 minute commute.
Fourth, we could loosen the zoning and widen the road. Then new housing gets built in the city instead of the suburbs, because people prefer a 15 minute commute to a 30 minute commute, but the people who already live in the suburbs still get a 30 minute commute instead of a 60 minute commute because of the wider road. And it stays that way because the new housing is getting built in the city instead of the suburbs. This is pretty obviously the one that we want.
> but the people who already live in the suburbs still get a 30 minute commute instead of a 60 minute commute because of the wider road
That is true for several years after the highway widening. Which is good for politicians who operate one election cycle at a time.
But the population doesn't just sit back and enjoy shorter commutes after a highway widening project. The towns that used to be two hours outside the city are now only an hour drive away and commuters looking for a deal start to move there. The towns that used to be an hour away are now only a half-hour drive to the city and are now hotter as well. Some of that is due to a game of musical chairs in which people expand out of the city to the suburbs, some of that is new residents choosing to live further out than they would have if they arrived before the highway widening. All of this increases the number of vehicle miles traveled. Eventually (over the span of decades) this results in a new equilibrium in which the highway is nearly as congested as it was before the widening and everyone is once again living at about the time-limit of how far they are willing to commute.
It's not all bad of course because the new highway helps grow the metro area and it increases property values, especially in the suburbs that were on the periphery of the commuting zones. But to permanently eliminate congestion you'd either have to keep widening the road every decade or two to handle the growth (Houston, Dallas), allow the congestion itself to act as a natural limit (NJ), or institute tolls/congestion pricing (Singapore, London).
That is true for several years after the highway widening. Which is good for politicians who operate one election cycle at a time.
But the population doesn't just sit back and enjoy shorter commutes after a highway widening project. The towns that used to be two hours outside the city are now only an hour drive away and commuters looking for a deal start to move there. The towns that used to be an hour away are now only a half-hour drive to the city and are now hotter as well. Some of that is due to a game of musical chairs in which people expand out of the city to the suburbs, some of that is new residents choosing to live further out than they would have if they arrived before the highway widening. All of this increases the number of vehicle miles traveled. Eventually (over the span of decades) this results in a new equilibrium in which the highway is nearly as congested as it was before the widening and everyone is once again living at about the time-limit of how far they are willing to commute.
It's not all bad of course because the new highway helps grow the metro area and it increases property values, especially in the suburbs that were on the periphery of the commuting zones. But to permanently eliminate congestion you'd either have to keep widening the road every decade or two to handle the growth (Houston, Dallas), allow the congestion itself to act as a natural limit (NJ), or institute tolls/congestion pricing (Singapore, London).
> But the population doesn't just sit back and enjoy shorter commutes after a highway widening project.
Notice that this is true of anything that relieves the highway congestion in any way whatsoever. As soon as the road is clear, no matter why, the commute is shorter and it becomes more attractive to live further away in distance.
> Eventually (over the span of decades) this results in a new equilibrium in which the highway is nearly as congested as it was before the widening and everyone is once again living at about the time-limit of how far they are willing to commute.
The way out of this is to make some alternative to increasing sprawl more attractive than increasing sprawl. Relaxing zoning rules to allow higher density is an obvious one, because people would rather have a 15 minute commute than a 30 minute commute, so they'll prefer to build housing where it's a 15 minute commute unless that's prohibited by law. When it is, they have to build further away and you get more sprawl.
But also notice that you're assuming population growth.
If the population was stable, and you built a road which is sufficient now, it'll probably stay sufficient as long as the population remains stable, because who is building enough new housing to move the needle on traffic in a city that isn't growing?
If the city's population is growing, continued population growth will require you to expand highways and such over time in proportion to the population. What else would you expect? The only alternative is intentional scarcity.
Notice that this is true of anything that relieves the highway congestion in any way whatsoever. As soon as the road is clear, no matter why, the commute is shorter and it becomes more attractive to live further away in distance.
> Eventually (over the span of decades) this results in a new equilibrium in which the highway is nearly as congested as it was before the widening and everyone is once again living at about the time-limit of how far they are willing to commute.
The way out of this is to make some alternative to increasing sprawl more attractive than increasing sprawl. Relaxing zoning rules to allow higher density is an obvious one, because people would rather have a 15 minute commute than a 30 minute commute, so they'll prefer to build housing where it's a 15 minute commute unless that's prohibited by law. When it is, they have to build further away and you get more sprawl.
But also notice that you're assuming population growth.
If the population was stable, and you built a road which is sufficient now, it'll probably stay sufficient as long as the population remains stable, because who is building enough new housing to move the needle on traffic in a city that isn't growing?
If the city's population is growing, continued population growth will require you to expand highways and such over time in proportion to the population. What else would you expect? The only alternative is intentional scarcity.
> Notice that this is true of anything that relieves the highway congestion in any way whatsoever.
Is that true if we charge an appropriate price for road use? Isn't that what we do to manage availability of every other scarce resource to ensure it is being used optimally?
If you increase the price of using the road at the busiest times then eventually you will arrive at a price that maintains the optimum flow rate. You may need to adjust the price occasionally to track shifts in inflation and population, it has equity issues, and (like most sustainable solutions) it is politically difficult. But I don't understand what would cause it to stop working. In the places it has been implemented (e.g. Singapore, London, Stockholm) it is generally unpopular at first and then extremely popular after a year or so. And administering it should become cheaper as technology improves which may make it feasible for smaller cities as well.
> If the population was stable, and you built a road which is sufficient now, it'll probably stay sufficient as long as the population remains stable, because who is building enough new housing to move the needle on traffic in a city that isn't growing?
Even in metro areas that have stable populations, heavily subsidizing transportation infrastructure (whether transit or highways) between the city and the suburbs often has the effect of slowly shifting the current metro population outward to those suburbs. By subsidizing suburban commuters you are making living in the suburbs more attractive than it would be otherwise. As you make it more attractive, more people who currently live in the city will rationally choose to move to the suburbs.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea to build more lanes, just that on it's own it is not a sustainable approach. As long as rent/land prices are largely set by the market and roadways are free or heavily subsidized then it's not surprising that people take advantage of that and you end up with a shortage of road space.
(I agree with your comments on zoning.)
Is that true if we charge an appropriate price for road use? Isn't that what we do to manage availability of every other scarce resource to ensure it is being used optimally?
If you increase the price of using the road at the busiest times then eventually you will arrive at a price that maintains the optimum flow rate. You may need to adjust the price occasionally to track shifts in inflation and population, it has equity issues, and (like most sustainable solutions) it is politically difficult. But I don't understand what would cause it to stop working. In the places it has been implemented (e.g. Singapore, London, Stockholm) it is generally unpopular at first and then extremely popular after a year or so. And administering it should become cheaper as technology improves which may make it feasible for smaller cities as well.
> If the population was stable, and you built a road which is sufficient now, it'll probably stay sufficient as long as the population remains stable, because who is building enough new housing to move the needle on traffic in a city that isn't growing?
Even in metro areas that have stable populations, heavily subsidizing transportation infrastructure (whether transit or highways) between the city and the suburbs often has the effect of slowly shifting the current metro population outward to those suburbs. By subsidizing suburban commuters you are making living in the suburbs more attractive than it would be otherwise. As you make it more attractive, more people who currently live in the city will rationally choose to move to the suburbs.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea to build more lanes, just that on it's own it is not a sustainable approach. As long as rent/land prices are largely set by the market and roadways are free or heavily subsidized then it's not surprising that people take advantage of that and you end up with a shortage of road space.
(I agree with your comments on zoning.)
You're missing half the story; "demand" only makes sense with reference to a price. At the moment, that price is zero, but it needn't be. As we all know, market prices are an efficient mechanism to allocate scarce resources. People have a curious blindspot about this when it comes to roads.
> As we all know, market prices are an efficient mechanism to allocate scarce resources. People have a curious blindspot about this when it comes to roads.
It's not a blind spot. It's a characteristic of services with a high fixed cost and trivial variable cost.
To ask if we should price roads is to ask if the price needed to deter usage enough to relieve congestion without expanding the road would generate less revenue than it would take to expand the road. But this is basically never the case because most of the expansion cost is one-time (e.g. buying the land) whereas the congestion charge would have to be collected forever to continue deterring usage.
The strongest case for not expanding the road is if there is a more efficient way to relieve congestion, e.g. by relaxing zoning restrictions to allow higher density housing and reduce travel distances.
But if people value using the road at more than the cost of expanding it, and there are no higher efficiency alternatives, that implies the road should be expanded. And once it has been and there is no congestion even at zero unit price, there is no benefit in charging a unit price to deter congestion that isn't there anyway, and a detriment in deterring use of a public resource for which the same fixed cost has to be paid whether you use it or not.
Charging road tolls is also especially inefficient because the collections process has a high administrative overhead and a high privacy cost. Every dollar spent collecting tolls -- toll tags, gantries, billing, maintenance, customer service -- is a deadweight economic loss not incurred by any alternative that doesn't require them. The privacy cost is the same.
It's not a blind spot. It's a characteristic of services with a high fixed cost and trivial variable cost.
To ask if we should price roads is to ask if the price needed to deter usage enough to relieve congestion without expanding the road would generate less revenue than it would take to expand the road. But this is basically never the case because most of the expansion cost is one-time (e.g. buying the land) whereas the congestion charge would have to be collected forever to continue deterring usage.
The strongest case for not expanding the road is if there is a more efficient way to relieve congestion, e.g. by relaxing zoning restrictions to allow higher density housing and reduce travel distances.
But if people value using the road at more than the cost of expanding it, and there are no higher efficiency alternatives, that implies the road should be expanded. And once it has been and there is no congestion even at zero unit price, there is no benefit in charging a unit price to deter congestion that isn't there anyway, and a detriment in deterring use of a public resource for which the same fixed cost has to be paid whether you use it or not.
Charging road tolls is also especially inefficient because the collections process has a high administrative overhead and a high privacy cost. Every dollar spent collecting tolls -- toll tags, gantries, billing, maintenance, customer service -- is a deadweight economic loss not incurred by any alternative that doesn't require them. The privacy cost is the same.
>To ask if we should price roads is to ask if the price needed to deter usage enough to relieve congestion without expanding the road would generate less revenue than it would take to expand the road. But this is basically never the case because most of the expansion cost is one-time (e.g. buying the land) whereas the congestion charge would have to be collected forever to continue deterring usage.
First of all, that just doesn't follow. You can take out a loan to pay for the up-front cost and pay it back using the revenue you collect from tolls. Second, roads cost a lot of money to maintain. There are the usual ongoing costs to fix potholes and so on, and then they have to be totally replaced after 25-30 years. This is far more than what local taxation can bear in many cases. Replacement costs are chronically underestimated.
(e.g. Winnipeg would have to raise taxes 95% to properly fund their existing road liabilities: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/1/3/death-of-a-car-... )
>But if people value using the road at more than the cost of expanding it, and there are no higher efficiency alternatives, that implies the road should be expanded.
This is wrong, they are not valuing it properly because it is paid for by taxation and debt. A motorist pays exactly the same amount directly as a non-motorist: zero. The true costs are diffuse, invisible, and incomplete.
>And once it has been and there is no congestion even at zero unit price, there is no benefit in charging a unit price to deter congestion that isn't there anyway, and a detriment in deterring use of a public resource for which the same fixed cost has to be paid whether you use it or not.
This situation hardly ever happens. There is almost always more congestion after expansions than predicted by planners. If you wanted to overpower induced demand and get rid of all congestion the roads would have to be utterly gargantuan.
>Charging road tolls is also especially inefficient because the collections process has a high administrative overhead and a high privacy cost. Every dollar spent collecting tolls -- toll tags, gantries, billing, maintenance, customer service -- is a deadweight economic loss not incurred by any alternative that doesn't require them. The privacy cost is the same.
Time spent stuck in traffic is also deadweight loss, and it creates pollution.
First of all, that just doesn't follow. You can take out a loan to pay for the up-front cost and pay it back using the revenue you collect from tolls. Second, roads cost a lot of money to maintain. There are the usual ongoing costs to fix potholes and so on, and then they have to be totally replaced after 25-30 years. This is far more than what local taxation can bear in many cases. Replacement costs are chronically underestimated.
(e.g. Winnipeg would have to raise taxes 95% to properly fund their existing road liabilities: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/1/3/death-of-a-car-... )
>But if people value using the road at more than the cost of expanding it, and there are no higher efficiency alternatives, that implies the road should be expanded.
This is wrong, they are not valuing it properly because it is paid for by taxation and debt. A motorist pays exactly the same amount directly as a non-motorist: zero. The true costs are diffuse, invisible, and incomplete.
>And once it has been and there is no congestion even at zero unit price, there is no benefit in charging a unit price to deter congestion that isn't there anyway, and a detriment in deterring use of a public resource for which the same fixed cost has to be paid whether you use it or not.
This situation hardly ever happens. There is almost always more congestion after expansions than predicted by planners. If you wanted to overpower induced demand and get rid of all congestion the roads would have to be utterly gargantuan.
>Charging road tolls is also especially inefficient because the collections process has a high administrative overhead and a high privacy cost. Every dollar spent collecting tolls -- toll tags, gantries, billing, maintenance, customer service -- is a deadweight economic loss not incurred by any alternative that doesn't require them. The privacy cost is the same.
Time spent stuck in traffic is also deadweight loss, and it creates pollution.
> You can take out a loan to pay for the up-front cost and pay it back using the revenue you collect from tolls.
The fact that you can do this is the point. It means the value of expanding the road is more than the cost of expanding the road, which implies it should be done absent some better non-toll alternative like increasing housing density.
But once you have enough capacity that there is no congestion without congestion charges, it's inefficient to deter use of the sunk cost road.
> There are the usual ongoing costs to fix potholes and so on, and then they have to be totally replaced after 25-30 years.
These costs aren't linear in the number of lanes. Resurfacing a four lane highway doesn't cost four times more than resurfacing a one lane highway (or your contractors are ripping you off).
Moreover, the initial cost is typically the highest, because you have to acquire land and possibly rebuild bridges and overpasses the first time.
> This is far more than what local taxation can bear in many cases. Replacement costs are chronically underestimated.
This applies to roads to nowhere that are under-utilized but still have to be maintained. Anything with traffic congestion is seeing more use than its cost.
You also have problems with corruption in government contracting inflating the cost of everything, but that's a separate problem and applies equally to mass transit etc.
> This is wrong, they are not valuing it properly because it is paid for by taxation and debt. A motorist pays exactly the same amount directly as a non-motorist: zero.
It's not a question of what they're actually paying, it's a question of what they would be willing to pay, i.e. the value they assign to the road. If you put a toll somewhere there is congestion, would the toll pay enough to expand the road? The answer is almost always yes, which implies that that the road should be expanded when congestion exists, unless there is some more efficient alternative to relieve the congestion.
It shows that expanding the road is more valuable than deterring usage with tolls. The possibility remains that some non-toll method of relieving congestion is still better than expanding the road, but it shows that expanding the road is better than deterring usage with tolls.
And whether to expand the road is a separate question from whether to actually fund the expansion from the tolls, because toll collection is inefficient and privacy invasive the deterrence function is undesired when the congestion can be relieved without it. The toll being able to fund the road proves that people value the road at more than its cost, but it's not the most efficient way to fund it.
> If you wanted to overpower induced demand and get rid of all congestion the roads would have to be utterly gargantuan.
This is only the case if you for some reason insist on using road expansion as the only solution to relieve congestion.
Mass transit can relieve congestion in higher density areas. Zoning that allows higher density housing to be built near jobs relieves congestion by both reducing the distances people have to travel and making mass transit more efficient.
Expanding roads works where those don't, or in combination with them. For example, if you have a growing city with restrictive zoning and a congested road between a large suburb and the city center, what you want to do is cause new housing to be built closer to the city instead of further expanding the suburbs, but the road to the suburbs still needs to be expanded because it is already too small for the existing traffic from housing which is already there and is not about to be removed.
This is politics. The most effective solution involves allowing higher density housing near urban areas, but this is not the solution desired by existing land owners, so they push inefficient alternatives like tolls. Because that increases rather than decreases property values closer to the city center by making it more expensive to live further away without increasing the supply of housing that isn't further away, so existing land owners collect higher rents to the detriment of residents.
> Time spent stuck in traffic is also deadweight loss, and it creates pollution.
Which is why we should relieve congestion by using the alternatives with fewer deadweight losses, like building higher density housing where that works and expanding roads where that works.
The fact that you can do this is the point. It means the value of expanding the road is more than the cost of expanding the road, which implies it should be done absent some better non-toll alternative like increasing housing density.
But once you have enough capacity that there is no congestion without congestion charges, it's inefficient to deter use of the sunk cost road.
> There are the usual ongoing costs to fix potholes and so on, and then they have to be totally replaced after 25-30 years.
These costs aren't linear in the number of lanes. Resurfacing a four lane highway doesn't cost four times more than resurfacing a one lane highway (or your contractors are ripping you off).
Moreover, the initial cost is typically the highest, because you have to acquire land and possibly rebuild bridges and overpasses the first time.
> This is far more than what local taxation can bear in many cases. Replacement costs are chronically underestimated.
This applies to roads to nowhere that are under-utilized but still have to be maintained. Anything with traffic congestion is seeing more use than its cost.
You also have problems with corruption in government contracting inflating the cost of everything, but that's a separate problem and applies equally to mass transit etc.
> This is wrong, they are not valuing it properly because it is paid for by taxation and debt. A motorist pays exactly the same amount directly as a non-motorist: zero.
It's not a question of what they're actually paying, it's a question of what they would be willing to pay, i.e. the value they assign to the road. If you put a toll somewhere there is congestion, would the toll pay enough to expand the road? The answer is almost always yes, which implies that that the road should be expanded when congestion exists, unless there is some more efficient alternative to relieve the congestion.
It shows that expanding the road is more valuable than deterring usage with tolls. The possibility remains that some non-toll method of relieving congestion is still better than expanding the road, but it shows that expanding the road is better than deterring usage with tolls.
And whether to expand the road is a separate question from whether to actually fund the expansion from the tolls, because toll collection is inefficient and privacy invasive the deterrence function is undesired when the congestion can be relieved without it. The toll being able to fund the road proves that people value the road at more than its cost, but it's not the most efficient way to fund it.
> If you wanted to overpower induced demand and get rid of all congestion the roads would have to be utterly gargantuan.
This is only the case if you for some reason insist on using road expansion as the only solution to relieve congestion.
Mass transit can relieve congestion in higher density areas. Zoning that allows higher density housing to be built near jobs relieves congestion by both reducing the distances people have to travel and making mass transit more efficient.
Expanding roads works where those don't, or in combination with them. For example, if you have a growing city with restrictive zoning and a congested road between a large suburb and the city center, what you want to do is cause new housing to be built closer to the city instead of further expanding the suburbs, but the road to the suburbs still needs to be expanded because it is already too small for the existing traffic from housing which is already there and is not about to be removed.
This is politics. The most effective solution involves allowing higher density housing near urban areas, but this is not the solution desired by existing land owners, so they push inefficient alternatives like tolls. Because that increases rather than decreases property values closer to the city center by making it more expensive to live further away without increasing the supply of housing that isn't further away, so existing land owners collect higher rents to the detriment of residents.
> Time spent stuck in traffic is also deadweight loss, and it creates pollution.
Which is why we should relieve congestion by using the alternatives with fewer deadweight losses, like building higher density housing where that works and expanding roads where that works.
But there is some limit to the number of lanes you can add, even theoretically from a topological perspective, but more imminently from a practical standpoint of limited budgets and ability to tear down existing non-road infrastructure.
The theoretical limit is irrelevant. It's like saying you can't always improve emergency response time because of the speed of light. Nobody is really up against the theoretical limit.
The practical limits are all trade offs. How much does it cost to add two lanes? How much does it cost to maintain low ridership bus service to low density suburbs? There are circumstances in which adding more lanes is the best available alternative.
The practical limits are all trade offs. How much does it cost to add two lanes? How much does it cost to maintain low ridership bus service to low density suburbs? There are circumstances in which adding more lanes is the best available alternative.
“People drive more instead of giving up and staying home” is latent demand being met. “People drive more because building the highways made everything farther apart” is induced demand being created.
I love how people think induced demand is an iron clad argument against any road building.
What about the induced demand of going from 0 lanes to 1 lane?
What about the induced demand of going from 0 lanes to 1 lane?
Is there really that much induced demand in rural interstate highways? They're congested rarely enough and still almost everywhere the standard 4 lane interstate can handle things without seeing demand fill the available capacity. Certain corridors see increased demand at times but that's because of the surrounding communities happening to grow (and thus need more goods delivered / ability to ship goods) more than the highways necessarily inducing that growth.
I understand that induced demand is a thing in sprawling metropolis where transport is the bottleneck preventing growth in certain areas, but this feels like a different situation.
I understand that induced demand is a thing in sprawling metropolis where transport is the bottleneck preventing growth in certain areas, but this feels like a different situation.
HOV lanes, special toll lanes, driverless vehicles, new alternative means of transportation that never quite materialize, etc., don’t cut it and never did.
The idea that highways are “never” a solution due to induced demand is an utter falsehood. It may well be that the expense of sufficient highway capacity is, in some cases, more than society is willing to bear. But that does not mean that highway construction is “never” a solution.
> never a solution, due to induced demand
That's false. The mistake universally made by people repeating that claim is a failure to account for the fact that vehicles and population are finite. In the US there isn't much population growth, except for in a select few urban areas. It's baffling that it gets repeated so often as though it's always true, when it's not. You can swamp the amount of induced demand with additional roads, it all depends on the number of vehicles you're dealing with. Which is to say, it depends on context and it's incorrect to suggest matter-of-fact that induced demand defeats additional roads.
You'd need to run a study on the traffic potential and local + regional population growth to know one way or another what additional roads might do as it pertains to inducing demand over time and whether you can overcome the expected increased demand. The demand doesn't just keep rising forever as you build more roads.
That's false. The mistake universally made by people repeating that claim is a failure to account for the fact that vehicles and population are finite. In the US there isn't much population growth, except for in a select few urban areas. It's baffling that it gets repeated so often as though it's always true, when it's not. You can swamp the amount of induced demand with additional roads, it all depends on the number of vehicles you're dealing with. Which is to say, it depends on context and it's incorrect to suggest matter-of-fact that induced demand defeats additional roads.
You'd need to run a study on the traffic potential and local + regional population growth to know one way or another what additional roads might do as it pertains to inducing demand over time and whether you can overcome the expected increased demand. The demand doesn't just keep rising forever as you build more roads.
>You can swamp the amount of induced demand with additional roads, it all depends on the number of vehicles you're dealing with
Do you realize just how extravagantly expensive that would be?
Do you realize just how extravagantly expensive that would be?
public transportation doesn't work for people with pets, in many situations for people with children, people with various health issues.
> public transportation doesn't work for people with pets, in many situations for people with children
Do you mean the millions of people who do this every day don't exist? You might personally prefer that and it's certainly an opinion which has been lavishly subsidized in the U.S. but this is a lifestyle choice, not a truth.
> people with various health issues.
How many of the people who cannot take transit are capable of safely driving cars? Public transportation — whether bus/rail mass transit or on-demand access services — is key for a large number of people who cannot drive themselves and a large number of people who could but are not affluent enough to afford the $10K/year or more that personal car ownership (considerably more if you need a vehicle customized with assistive technologies).
Again, you obviously have an opinion on this issue but that doesn't make such blanket statements less incorrect.
Do you mean the millions of people who do this every day don't exist? You might personally prefer that and it's certainly an opinion which has been lavishly subsidized in the U.S. but this is a lifestyle choice, not a truth.
> people with various health issues.
How many of the people who cannot take transit are capable of safely driving cars? Public transportation — whether bus/rail mass transit or on-demand access services — is key for a large number of people who cannot drive themselves and a large number of people who could but are not affluent enough to afford the $10K/year or more that personal car ownership (considerably more if you need a vehicle customized with assistive technologies).
Again, you obviously have an opinion on this issue but that doesn't make such blanket statements less incorrect.
It isn't a preference nor choice. It is direct experience. More than half of my life i was using public transportation in USSR/Russia, no issues, we'd take our cats/dogs when needed. Not the case in US.
>How many of the people who cannot take transit are capable of safely driving cars?
It doesn't matter how many (though a lot of people for example develop back issues by mid age and beyond so prolonged walking/standing is much harder than sitting in the car especially after a workday). The point is you just dismiss them. And this is why those tone-deaf public transportation proponents like you aren't going anywhere - you dismiss all those supposedly small groups and thus as a result left with pretty much no support.
And just a bit of meta to illustrate the point - notice that i'm telling you about the issues with your approach and instead of addressing them, you're dismissing them outright as supposedly just "my preferences".
>How many of the people who cannot take transit are capable of safely driving cars?
It doesn't matter how many (though a lot of people for example develop back issues by mid age and beyond so prolonged walking/standing is much harder than sitting in the car especially after a workday). The point is you just dismiss them. And this is why those tone-deaf public transportation proponents like you aren't going anywhere - you dismiss all those supposedly small groups and thus as a result left with pretty much no support.
And just a bit of meta to illustrate the point - notice that i'm telling you about the issues with your approach and instead of addressing them, you're dismissing them outright as supposedly just "my preferences".
> The point is you just dismiss them
This is pure projection: I was pointing out that millions of people's daily life contradicted the absolute statement you made. If you'd said “doesn't work for many people” I would have agreed: it's no secret that the U.S. has heavily subsidized car-centric design for the last century and there are many people living in neighborhoods which don't even have sidewalks, much less transit or bike paths.
This has also encouraged many people to think that they must drive even if it's not a great choice: in the city I live in, it's not uncommon for people to cling to the habits they acquired growing up and trying to drive everywhere even though it means they're paying considerably more to sit in traffic while their friends who biked or took the train wonder why they're late.
There isn't a single answer here but the important thing is remembering that these are choices. Giving private car owners exclusive use of public land might be a popular choice but it's not a law of nature, and when it doesn't work well it's reasonable to question whether it's the right design for the context. There's no reason to think that the same answers will be true in rural areas, suburbs, and dense urban cores.
This is pure projection: I was pointing out that millions of people's daily life contradicted the absolute statement you made. If you'd said “doesn't work for many people” I would have agreed: it's no secret that the U.S. has heavily subsidized car-centric design for the last century and there are many people living in neighborhoods which don't even have sidewalks, much less transit or bike paths.
This has also encouraged many people to think that they must drive even if it's not a great choice: in the city I live in, it's not uncommon for people to cling to the habits they acquired growing up and trying to drive everywhere even though it means they're paying considerably more to sit in traffic while their friends who biked or took the train wonder why they're late.
There isn't a single answer here but the important thing is remembering that these are choices. Giving private car owners exclusive use of public land might be a popular choice but it's not a law of nature, and when it doesn't work well it's reasonable to question whether it's the right design for the context. There's no reason to think that the same answers will be true in rural areas, suburbs, and dense urban cores.
they can still drive?
> there are no alternative roads to take if this one road closes.
US Route 1 basically parallels I-95 in most of VA. I was once detoured on it after a military HAZMAT incident. It’s slow going, but it works.
US Route 1 basically parallels I-95 in most of VA. I was once detoured on it after a military HAZMAT incident. It’s slow going, but it works.
Route 1 seems like a local-road to me with lots of traffic lights though.
I-95 works really well as long as its clear. But as soon as an emergency happens, the spillover traffic is too massive for Route 1 to ever hope to handle. An interstate-highway can't rely upon a traffic-light laden local road to handle the traffic from a 4-lane interstate.
EDIT: In the case of the 2017 eclipse, the traffic was so heavy that truckers started to pile up on the side of the roads (allegedly due to the laws stating that they could only drive for X hours at a time). Losing a few lanes slowed down traffic dramatically, causing even more truckers to just pull over due to legal requirements. I don't think the GPS / Waze ever recommended for us to leave I-95 during this time, so Rt. 1 was never a consideration.
----------
A 2-lane highway without traffic lights that runs parallel would help a lot. I don't know the lay of the land in Virginia (ideally such a road would be coordinated with local suburbs / local cities to lessen day-to-day traffic as well).
I-95 works really well as long as its clear. But as soon as an emergency happens, the spillover traffic is too massive for Route 1 to ever hope to handle. An interstate-highway can't rely upon a traffic-light laden local road to handle the traffic from a 4-lane interstate.
EDIT: In the case of the 2017 eclipse, the traffic was so heavy that truckers started to pile up on the side of the roads (allegedly due to the laws stating that they could only drive for X hours at a time). Losing a few lanes slowed down traffic dramatically, causing even more truckers to just pull over due to legal requirements. I don't think the GPS / Waze ever recommended for us to leave I-95 during this time, so Rt. 1 was never a consideration.
----------
A 2-lane highway without traffic lights that runs parallel would help a lot. I don't know the lay of the land in Virginia (ideally such a road would be coordinated with local suburbs / local cities to lessen day-to-day traffic as well).
It looks that way on Google maps maybe, but as someone who grew up in Richmond it's a route nearly all Virginians take up to DC if there is any traffic on I95 and is a well known alternative route.
US Route 1 is already an interstate highway with 4+ lanes through the area you're talking about. Development was encouraged down the I95 corridor since its creation and the density that has resulted pretty much makes this unavoidable. There was a similar situation with the Woodrow Wilson Bridge on 495 outside of DC in 1998 when it was closed due to a jumper during afternoon rush hour, and the traffic jam lasted overnight despite there being alternate major routes in every direction. The problem is that the bridge carried more traffic than all of the alternate routes put together (I'm assuming based on my experience).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/wilson/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/wilson/...
301 through Maryland is the next closest highway that has fewer traffic lights.
The former Jefferson Davis Highway (now Emancipation Highway) has never had the capacity to back-stop I-95. It can be used in emergencies, but only if one wants to get stuck in a slightly different place with an occasional soda machine within walking distance... A feature one stuck on that road may be able to take advantage of, given the speed one will be going.
And I don't imagine it would be much use in a sudden-onset winter storm, since it's right next to I-95; it's going to get blanketed about as fast as I-95 will, and most of it lacks enough shoulder for plows to get along it if it gets jammed with traffic.
And I don't imagine it would be much use in a sudden-onset winter storm, since it's right next to I-95; it's going to get blanketed about as fast as I-95 will, and most of it lacks enough shoulder for plows to get along it if it gets jammed with traffic.
~2006?
Tokyo: In 2007, _65_percent_ of trips within a 50 mile radius were by mass transit. Overall transit usage is [...] approximately double that of all combined usage in the United States and nearly 10 times that of Paris [http://www.newgeography.com/content/002923-the-evolving-urba...]
> Other locations have "Backup" highways to lighten the load or otherwise take up the slack if the main road closes. Not so here.
Well... not really. Taking the 95 corridor in the Northeast as an example, the only places with alternative highways are 95/295 between DC and Baltimore, 295/NJT in lower New Jersey, and Merritt Parkway/95 in Connecticut to New Haven. In all of the other segments, 95 doesn't have a close-ish parallel highway to take off traffic.
And when you dig deeper into traffic statistics, the traffic tends to be heavy on both segments at the same time. That is, there are two highways there because the traffic needs require there to be two highways; the second highway isn't just "merely" a there-for-when-the-first-one-is-full kind of highway. And induced demand basically says that it's impossible to have that kind of highway setup.
Well... not really. Taking the 95 corridor in the Northeast as an example, the only places with alternative highways are 95/295 between DC and Baltimore, 295/NJT in lower New Jersey, and Merritt Parkway/95 in Connecticut to New Haven. In all of the other segments, 95 doesn't have a close-ish parallel highway to take off traffic.
And when you dig deeper into traffic statistics, the traffic tends to be heavy on both segments at the same time. That is, there are two highways there because the traffic needs require there to be two highways; the second highway isn't just "merely" a there-for-when-the-first-one-is-full kind of highway. And induced demand basically says that it's impossible to have that kind of highway setup.
Well, there is Route 1, if you can get to it.
Back in I think 1995, somebody rolled a tanker full of sulphuric acid on I-95 southbound about Fredericksburg. It took a long time to get to the Acquia exit from just past the previous one, and Route 1 didn't move that well once we were there.
Back in I think 1995, somebody rolled a tanker full of sulphuric acid on I-95 southbound about Fredericksburg. It took a long time to get to the Acquia exit from just past the previous one, and Route 1 didn't move that well once we were there.
>Instead, the state of Virginia focused on building additional lanes to the already existing highways
They do this because they get to turn the extras into toll/HOV lanes and rake in dough without making tons of people's lives worse and getting pressure put on them to not be jerks like that.
Follow the incentives.
They do this because they get to turn the extras into toll/HOV lanes and rake in dough without making tons of people's lives worse and getting pressure put on them to not be jerks like that.
Follow the incentives.
If VADOT were unable to sand and plow I-95 for this storm then presumably they'd have the same problem with the backup highway. I suppose given a bad crash then the backup highway would help, but in that case, detouring off the highway between the crash-adjacent exits would work too.
[deleted]
Well there is US Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, that is stuck in this situation (But not in immediate danger ).
Tim Kaine maybe could push through a US Senate bill for more infrastructure, but that's really high level and may not necessarily benefit Virginia directly. The ones who need convincing are the local officials, not the national-level ones.
Sounds peaceful. If it were of military importance, that would not be the case.
Back in 2004 a friend and I were driving from Seoul (Korea) to Daejeon when a huge snowstorm blew in. We were on a 56 mile stretch of expressway through the mountains with no exits when the traffic ground to a halt. After a couple of hours it was clear from the radio that the road would be struck for a long time (the jam was reported to be 50 miles long), so we walked a couple of miles back to a service station we'd passed and queued in a huge queue to buy some snacks. What was interesting was that everyone was very polite, and although there was a sense that maybe things could descend into anarchy with little provocation, no-one was buying more than they immediately needed and there was no arguing. If this had been Europe or the US, I suspect it would have been very different.
We walked back to the car and waited, turning the engine on for 5 minutes every half hour to warm up. Fortunately we had warm clothes with us. What was most frustrating was that the road was clear of traffic and not too much snow in the other direction, but was blocked many miles further ahead. The radio kept saying they were air-dropping water and food, but we never saw any. Eventually a bunch of people just in front of us formed a plan and shuffled a few cars back and forward to make some space. Then they built a ramp out of snow up and over the crash barrier. A bunch of SUVs escaped that way. We debated whether it would be possible for us to get over in a normal car - we didn't think so. Eventually a few more SUVs got over, and there was just enough space for us to get a short run up. The car grounded in the middle, but we carried on over and down the other side. We checked under the car, and were surprised to see we hadn't done any damage. We drove the couple of miles back the service station, filled up and returned to Seoul after an 18 hour drive to nowhere.
We heard later that it took two days to free everyone, and that 10,000 cars had been stuck. We were very glad we hadn't waited. Since then I've always carried some spare warm clothing and never let the fuel run low when the weather looks doubtful.
We walked back to the car and waited, turning the engine on for 5 minutes every half hour to warm up. Fortunately we had warm clothes with us. What was most frustrating was that the road was clear of traffic and not too much snow in the other direction, but was blocked many miles further ahead. The radio kept saying they were air-dropping water and food, but we never saw any. Eventually a bunch of people just in front of us formed a plan and shuffled a few cars back and forward to make some space. Then they built a ramp out of snow up and over the crash barrier. A bunch of SUVs escaped that way. We debated whether it would be possible for us to get over in a normal car - we didn't think so. Eventually a few more SUVs got over, and there was just enough space for us to get a short run up. The car grounded in the middle, but we carried on over and down the other side. We checked under the car, and were surprised to see we hadn't done any damage. We drove the couple of miles back the service station, filled up and returned to Seoul after an 18 hour drive to nowhere.
We heard later that it took two days to free everyone, and that 10,000 cars had been stuck. We were very glad we hadn't waited. Since then I've always carried some spare warm clothing and never let the fuel run low when the weather looks doubtful.
Interesting. Here's a reference I found to that particular storm...
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/12846/south-korea-r...
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/12846/south-korea-r...
That is an awesome idea for escaping! Thank you for sharing
Lots of comments here about public transit or whatnot in the DC area. Virginia is about the same size as maybe Hungary or Czech Republic and about 60% bigger than Ireland. The area being discussed here is not in the DC area but about 50 miles/80km south of there between D.C. and the State capital Richmond. The nearest area to this disaster is Fredericksburg which is a small historic town and an exurb from D.C. around 50 miles/80 km away from D.C. and about 60 miles from Richmond.
It truly is in the middle of nowhere with most turnoffs going to farming/rural areas. In European terms it's similar to the stretch on the A4/A6 between Vienna and Bratislava, but about 2x as long and about half as populated. If you drive here you basically see nothing but highway and trees for a couple of hours, with the occasional turn-off into a stand of fast food restaurants and gas stations and really nothing else until you get nearer to Richmond or head a bit east towards Hampton Roads.
The local towns simply don't have the support infrastructure to clear the roads and wrecks and the state. This combined with a drop in temperature from over 60F to under 30F (15C to -0C) in a few hours and a massive snow drop caused the early falling snow to melt, then freeze into a solid layer of ice before road crews could salt the entire 110 mile stretch between DC and Richmond.
Predictably the result was a giant mess, and few areas for motorists to exit onto local roads to get around the affected area or get food, gas, or other provisions. There aren't even many hotels as options in the area given how rural much of this part of the state is. Google maps has simply marked the entire 110 mile stretch of the Interstate as black and provides directions around the entire thing on local farm roads.
Directions from New York City to Miami Fl (which typically use mostly I-95) simply route around that part of I-95 from Baltimore, Md to just North of Richmond using local roads, a distance of 152 miles (244 km) or about 3 hours driving, and includes crossing bridges over the Potomac River in incredibly more rural areas.
Another way to look at it is that D.C. is the southern-most tip of the heavily populated D.C. to Boston megalopolis mega-region and any further South is basically farms and wilderness until Richmond, the next distinct and different metro area from the North-East mega region. This problem has occurred in the gap between those two areas.
It truly is in the middle of nowhere with most turnoffs going to farming/rural areas. In European terms it's similar to the stretch on the A4/A6 between Vienna and Bratislava, but about 2x as long and about half as populated. If you drive here you basically see nothing but highway and trees for a couple of hours, with the occasional turn-off into a stand of fast food restaurants and gas stations and really nothing else until you get nearer to Richmond or head a bit east towards Hampton Roads.
The local towns simply don't have the support infrastructure to clear the roads and wrecks and the state. This combined with a drop in temperature from over 60F to under 30F (15C to -0C) in a few hours and a massive snow drop caused the early falling snow to melt, then freeze into a solid layer of ice before road crews could salt the entire 110 mile stretch between DC and Richmond.
Predictably the result was a giant mess, and few areas for motorists to exit onto local roads to get around the affected area or get food, gas, or other provisions. There aren't even many hotels as options in the area given how rural much of this part of the state is. Google maps has simply marked the entire 110 mile stretch of the Interstate as black and provides directions around the entire thing on local farm roads.
Directions from New York City to Miami Fl (which typically use mostly I-95) simply route around that part of I-95 from Baltimore, Md to just North of Richmond using local roads, a distance of 152 miles (244 km) or about 3 hours driving, and includes crossing bridges over the Potomac River in incredibly more rural areas.
Another way to look at it is that D.C. is the southern-most tip of the heavily populated D.C. to Boston megalopolis mega-region and any further South is basically farms and wilderness until Richmond, the next distinct and different metro area from the North-East mega region. This problem has occurred in the gap between those two areas.
And this stretch of road is prone to massive traffic jams even on good days.
Link for people that DO want megabytes of tracking Javascript and, you know, media:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/weather/winter-weather-tuesda...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/weather/winter-weather-tuesda...
I was actually about to comment that I had forgotten about the light (or 'lite' as they like to commercially re-spell it since the 1950's) version and was pleasantly surprised that it works as expected.
This page made me smile almost like when I had only started to use internet. Expected to see such a subthread before wanting to post similar.
And here are some links for people who prefer to avoid CNN:
https://apnews.com/article/snow-storm-weather-195-virginia-6...
https://www.nbc12.com/2022/01/04/vdot-continues-clear-i-95-h...
https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-i-95-winter-storm-traffi...
https://wtop.com/traffic/2022/01/the-storm-paralyzed-traffic...
https://wjla.com/amp/news/local/drivers-stranded-stuck-for-h...
https://apnews.com/article/snow-storm-weather-195-virginia-6...
https://www.nbc12.com/2022/01/04/vdot-continues-clear-i-95-h...
https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-i-95-winter-storm-traffi...
https://wtop.com/traffic/2022/01/the-storm-paralyzed-traffic...
https://wjla.com/amp/news/local/drivers-stranded-stuck-for-h...
Thanks, I hate having to resize my browser window just to make 100% width paragraphs readable.
I've been stuck on closed interstates because of snow ( I-40 between Amarillo TX and Santa Fe NM ). It sucks, i've never had to spend the night though. We were re-routed in the middle of the night off I-40 during a storm and spent about 5hrs navigating pretty bad conditions way out in the middle of nowhere. I remember slowly creeping up on a dark figure in the middle of the road to go around, it turned out to be a giant boat that had fallen off a trailer! It was pretty surreal to see out in the middle of the desert in a snow storm.
Thankfully we were with a ton of other traffic, if we were by ourselves it would have been scary.
Thankfully we were with a ton of other traffic, if we were by ourselves it would have been scary.
Unprecedented? This happens all the time. It is called a major winter storm and they happen every year. It is also a cautionary tale. If you rely on cell phones for communication, you may find yourself in big trouble when the cell phones no longer work. Get a two way radio. At least a FRS or CB radio, but better off with an amateur radio license so you can use the many repeater sites and HF if you are truly stuck someplace that is remote.
I think something satellite based would be superior, e.g. Garmin inReach
A satellite phone seems a simpler solution which is more reliable than Ham radio?
Satellite phone subscriptions aren't cheap, but chucking a Baofeng in the car pre-programmed with some repeaters along your route (CHIRP can do this) is free.
With starlink and eventual Tesla tie ups , sat phones should become much cheaper in the future.
Also many cars do come with sat system packages that are only emergency use and cheaper in this mode of operation.
Also many cars do come with sat system packages that are only emergency use and cheaper in this mode of operation.
14 inches of snow at Fredricksburg, VA. All at once. The annual average is 13 inches.
This seems to be an unexpected consequence of climate change. Slower moving storms, with huge amounts of rain or snow in a short period.
This seems to be an unexpected consequence of climate change. Slower moving storms, with huge amounts of rain or snow in a short period.
The average doesn’t tell the whole story. F’burg weather is strange, it never seems to line up with Richmond nor DC. We’ve gotten these sorts of snowfalls every 5–10 years since the 80s, give or take: https://fredericksburg.com/lifestyles/johnston-a-look-back-a...
I'm firmly on the side of science with regards to climate change, and I don't think this type of commentary helps convince anyone. When there's a heatwave, it's climate change. A cold snap, also climate change. Tornado? Climate change. We would rightly ridicule a climate change denier if they equated weather events with climate, we shouldn't do it either.
Then I'll give you the sciencey answer. Global warming was so called not because of higher expected temperatures, but rather because there is more energy in the atmosphere. For scientists, broadly, when talking about a system energy is almost equivalent to temperature.
The excess energy is manifested is more extreme weather - including more extreme cold. This is especially true for the US, as the changes in weather patterns move the Gulfstream further north. This pushes the colder, polar air right onto Canada and then the US. For the past decade there has been a trend when the US has these cold snaps, the polar regions are a few tens of degrees (pick your scale, doesn't matter) hotter than what is generally expected historically for that time of year.
The excess energy is manifested is more extreme weather - including more extreme cold. This is especially true for the US, as the changes in weather patterns move the Gulfstream further north. This pushes the colder, polar air right onto Canada and then the US. For the past decade there has been a trend when the US has these cold snaps, the polar regions are a few tens of degrees (pick your scale, doesn't matter) hotter than what is generally expected historically for that time of year.
Burn the witch! Welcome to science.
Does climate change also explain the larger storms in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries?
https://www.novec.com/About_NOVEC/Virginias-Historic-Snowsto...
https://www.novec.com/About_NOVEC/Virginias-Historic-Snowsto...
UN: "In the period 2000 to 2019, there were 7,348 major recorded disaster events claiming 1.23 million lives, affecting 4.2 billion people (many on more than one occasion) resulting in approximately US$2.97 trillion in global economic losses.
This is a sharp increase over the previous twenty years. Between 1980 and 1999, 4,212 disasters were linked to natural hazards worldwide claiming approximately 1.19 million lives and affecting 3.25 billion people resulting in approximately US$1.63 trillion in economic losses.
Much of the difference is explained by a rise in climate-related disasters including extreme weather events: from 3,656 climate-related events (1980-1999) to 6,681 climate-related disasters in the period 2000-2019.
The last twenty years have seen the number of major floods more than double, from 1,389 to 3,254, while the incidence of storms grew from 1,457 to 2,034. Floods and storms were the most prevalent events."
[1] https://www.undrr.org/publication/human-cost-disasters-overv...
This is a sharp increase over the previous twenty years. Between 1980 and 1999, 4,212 disasters were linked to natural hazards worldwide claiming approximately 1.19 million lives and affecting 3.25 billion people resulting in approximately US$1.63 trillion in economic losses.
Much of the difference is explained by a rise in climate-related disasters including extreme weather events: from 3,656 climate-related events (1980-1999) to 6,681 climate-related disasters in the period 2000-2019.
The last twenty years have seen the number of major floods more than double, from 1,389 to 3,254, while the incidence of storms grew from 1,457 to 2,034. Floods and storms were the most prevalent events."
[1] https://www.undrr.org/publication/human-cost-disasters-overv...
Sounds really conclusive, doesn't it?
If you look a bit deeper at the statistics, this database "records disasters which have killed ten or more people; affected 100 or more people; resulted in a declared state of emergency, or a call for international assistance."
What factors besides frequency and severity of weather events could affect these statistics?
Most obvious are population growth (doubled over that period) and increased urbanization (reversed from 60:40 primarily rural, to 60:40 primarily urban). This means that an event with the same severity is greatly more likely to be reported and included in this database. Similarly for economic effects - because of the growth in assets, infrastructure, and GDP, that doubling of economic losses, even if in constant dollars, represents a decrease in losses relative to total assets. So this data doesn't really represent a measure of change in the weather as much as change in human society (and the page is titled, "The human cost...")
The IPCC report is somewhat equivocal about change in the actual heavy precipitation events, stating "the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation have likely increased...with increases in more regions than there are decreases". (with "likely" meaning > 2/3 probability)
Roger Pielke, Jr., has done a lot of work on extreme weather events: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-to-understand-the-n...
If you look a bit deeper at the statistics, this database "records disasters which have killed ten or more people; affected 100 or more people; resulted in a declared state of emergency, or a call for international assistance."
What factors besides frequency and severity of weather events could affect these statistics?
Most obvious are population growth (doubled over that period) and increased urbanization (reversed from 60:40 primarily rural, to 60:40 primarily urban). This means that an event with the same severity is greatly more likely to be reported and included in this database. Similarly for economic effects - because of the growth in assets, infrastructure, and GDP, that doubling of economic losses, even if in constant dollars, represents a decrease in losses relative to total assets. So this data doesn't really represent a measure of change in the weather as much as change in human society (and the page is titled, "The human cost...")
The IPCC report is somewhat equivocal about change in the actual heavy precipitation events, stating "the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation have likely increased...with increases in more regions than there are decreases". (with "likely" meaning > 2/3 probability)
Roger Pielke, Jr., has done a lot of work on extreme weather events: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-to-understand-the-n...
I believe in climate change, but hate when people trot out these poor arguments every time a weather event occurs.
Not every storm is or can be caused by climate change, and average weather occurs in a minuscule amount of the time. even without climate change, 50% of the times it will be more than the average, or 50% it will be less.
Similarly, your data shows a doubling of events in 20 years, which is completely outside the range of predictions and models from actual climate scientists. I get that the intention is good, but poor arguments only pollute discourse.
Not every storm is or can be caused by climate change, and average weather occurs in a minuscule amount of the time. even without climate change, 50% of the times it will be more than the average, or 50% it will be less.
Similarly, your data shows a doubling of events in 20 years, which is completely outside the range of predictions and models from actual climate scientists. I get that the intention is good, but poor arguments only pollute discourse.
>Jan. 16-18, 1857: The Great Blizzard’s foot of snow and wind wrecked ships at sea and almost buried Norfolk under 20-foot snowdrifts. Virginia’s rivers froze. At the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, one could walk from the lighthouse 100 yards on the frozen Atlantic.
Amazing... It really puts a 14 inch snowstorm into perspective.
Amazing... It really puts a 14 inch snowstorm into perspective.
It could certainly explain the increased density of such snowstorms in the late 20th and early 21st.
[deleted]
Update: Tim Kaine is apparently still out there after 27 hrs?
https://twitter.com/timkaine/status/1478462778834833408?s=20
https://twitter.com/timkaine/status/1478462778834833408?s=20
He got to DC a hour after that tweet. (context: Tim Kaine is a US senator for Virginia) https://twitter.com/timkaine/status/1478476547552169987
> He said one trucker was handing out bottles of water and one bread delivery truck opened its doors and people handed out loaves.
I love hearing stories about the positive aspects of humanity. It's too easy to hear about the negative.
I love hearing stories about the positive aspects of humanity. It's too easy to hear about the negative.
Hey doordash here is your marketing opportunity. Bring them food, water, handwarmers, etc on a bunch of snow mobiles. Some people get helped and you get a super bowl ad
Umm if a doordash driver could get to them, then the cars could just leave themselves.
"...on snowmobiles..."
So the drivers could leave, but the cars would remain stranded.
So the drivers could leave, but the cars would remain stranded.
Are there that many snow mobiles in VA?
:-D Great question.
Probably? https://www.yellowpages.com/search?search_terms=snowmobile+r...
Probably? https://www.yellowpages.com/search?search_terms=snowmobile+r...
> 1.3 million registered snowmobiles in the US [0]
For fun, let's just say those are evenly distributed amongst the states and there are 26,000 snowmobiles available in Virginia at DoorDash's disposal. I'd wager snowmobiles wouldn't be the limiting factor in this operation.
[0](https://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-statistics-and-facts...)
For fun, let's just say those are evenly distributed amongst the states and there are 26,000 snowmobiles available in Virginia at DoorDash's disposal. I'd wager snowmobiles wouldn't be the limiting factor in this operation.
[0](https://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-statistics-and-facts...)
There are probably not very many snowmobiles in Florida.
That is a good point that I had anticipated, but severely under appreciated.
I had presumed a somewhat more normal distribution of snowmobiles.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/420693/us-snowmobile-reg...
I'm adjusting my mental model to the reality that Virginia likely has less than 1000 registered snowmobiles.
I had presumed a somewhat more normal distribution of snowmobiles.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/420693/us-snowmobile-reg...
I'm adjusting my mental model to the reality that Virginia likely has less than 1000 registered snowmobiles.
something tells me Florida Man likes snowmobiling across the swamp a la https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NySgXKgfICM
This is a remarkable video (there's a helicopter and a snowmobile) but is that really in Florida?
That's a Fermi question if I've ever heard one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem
[deleted]
Being profitable and showing their value during a time period where most of the world was locked in their homes and restaurants couldn't seat anyone would have been a better marketing opportunity.
But they couldn't even do that and had to race to an IPO.
But they couldn't even do that and had to race to an IPO.
road's closed. maybe airdrop with drones?
I'm getting a bit of a chuckle over these suggestions of "backup roads" and "alternative routes." NoVa is just as strapped for housing as it is for transportation. Mass transit in this area doesn't and won't work, no matter how much money is poured in, because much of it is not a "city" in the usual sense, but rather endless miles of suburban sprawl stretching from one horizon to the opposite. The only viable solution- though the idea seems to make people break out in a rash- is to move the capital. Move it somewhere central to the nation, geographically speaking, keep it as compact as possible, and for heaven's sake prohibit its use as a place of residence (ahem).
Agreed, let's combine the Kansas Cities into a new Metropolis federal district on the Missouri River.
https://qr.ae/pG6gOR
https://smallville.fandom.com/wiki/Metropolis
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27749590
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/yes-let...
https://qr.ae/pG6gOR
https://smallville.fandom.com/wiki/Metropolis
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27749590
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/yes-let...
Where would they possibly move it? St. Louis and everywhere else you could imagine that isn't a corn field or a feedlot in the central U.S. also has suburbs sprawling to the horizon and suburban office parks. Constructing a new capital in the middle of nowhere is like corrupt dictator tier stuff.
"Constructing a new capital in the middle of nowhere"
What? You mean the middle of nowhere like some sparsely-populated riverbanks near the border between two states that happens to be near the geographic center of the nation at the time it's built, but hours away from the nearest metropolitan areas? Yeah that's a crazy idea - the United States would never do that.
What? You mean the middle of nowhere like some sparsely-populated riverbanks near the border between two states that happens to be near the geographic center of the nation at the time it's built, but hours away from the nearest metropolitan areas? Yeah that's a crazy idea - the United States would never do that.
> no matter how much money is poured in
Challenge accepted.
Now we need the money.
Challenge accepted.
Now we need the money.
Interesting to consider that the oil industry may have made a mistake by reframing “global warming” as “climate change”.
Harder for people to see events like this as part of “global warning” while it is more understandable as a consequence of “climate change”
Harder for people to see events like this as part of “global warning” while it is more understandable as a consequence of “climate change”
I thought we were told to make a distinction between "climate" and "the weather"...
Only to entertain the delusion that most people have when they hear the word "weather": that it doesn't involve anything outside a 1 cm buffer around them. When you gain even a tiny understanding of how the atmosphere works at a planetary scale, that misapprehension vanishes.
But nobody told us there’s no link at all between these two.
For some reason, we only get told to make this distinction when the weather in question is exceptionally cold, never when it's exceptionally warm.
The way I think of global warming is just that the atmosphere as a whole is containing more energy. If this idea is translated to simple and easy to understand mathematical models, wild behavior results as a direct outcome.
The simplest version of this is the period-doubling bifuration:
The Lorenz attractor was described in a very similar way, related to turbulence and temperature gradients. It's not weather or climate, but I do find it a useful analogy.
The simplest version of this is the period-doubling bifuration:
X(n+1) = r * Xn * (1 - Xn)
The Lorenz attractor was described in a very similar way, related to turbulence and temperature gradients. It's not weather or climate, but I do find it a useful analogy.
Where is the scientific proof that this isolated weather event is climate change?
Just like you cannot claim that one day of bad weather refutes global warming you also cannot claim that an isolated event is climate change. It takes time to prove that.
Getting tired of everyone spouting off about climate change every time bad weather occurs. It's just as anti-science as denial.
Just like you cannot claim that one day of bad weather refutes global warming you also cannot claim that an isolated event is climate change. It takes time to prove that.
Getting tired of everyone spouting off about climate change every time bad weather occurs. It's just as anti-science as denial.
This is a common argument encouraged by the fossil fuel industry but it's not that simple. Climate science operates on a longer time scale so there isn't a single “We did it – Exxon, et al.” note to find but what you can talk about are the probabilities shifting (100 year floods become 20 year floods, etc.) and that tends to happen after most major events. For example, two noteworthy weather events this summer:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/pacific-northwest-he... https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/europes-july-floods-...
In this case, what I'd look at is whether this event is in line with what the climate scientists have been saying for decades, namely that we'd see more volatility and extreme weather events. This is especially compatible with predictions for the mid-Atlantic region which have called for more big snow events despite generally less snow on average. No, it's not definitive enough that you could use it in a criminal case but it tells anyone that cares to expect higher insurance rates, taxes, etc.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/pacific-northwest-he... https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/europes-july-floods-...
In this case, what I'd look at is whether this event is in line with what the climate scientists have been saying for decades, namely that we'd see more volatility and extreme weather events. This is especially compatible with predictions for the mid-Atlantic region which have called for more big snow events despite generally less snow on average. No, it's not definitive enough that you could use it in a criminal case but it tells anyone that cares to expect higher insurance rates, taxes, etc.
You guys are talking past each other. It's (mildly) dishonest to point at any one event and say "this is global warming". It's entirely accurate to point at a single event and say "if it weren't for global warming, there would be a 1% this happened, but with global warming, it's a 10% chance".
It's like the Swiss cheese theory of accidents: accidents don't happen because one guy wasn't paying attention, they happen because one guy wasn't paying attention AND because the guy who was supposed to supervise him was off AND because the manager hadn't thought to call someone else in AND because the system designers forgot to add a rule for this AND the regulators because they forgot to require ...
There's a fine line to thread here. On one side, you're lying if you say that global warming was the sole, isolated cause of this. On the other side, you're criminally irresponsible if you forget to mention the fact global warming certainly was an important contributory cause.
It's like the Swiss cheese theory of accidents: accidents don't happen because one guy wasn't paying attention, they happen because one guy wasn't paying attention AND because the guy who was supposed to supervise him was off AND because the manager hadn't thought to call someone else in AND because the system designers forgot to add a rule for this AND the regulators because they forgot to require ...
There's a fine line to thread here. On one side, you're lying if you say that global warming was the sole, isolated cause of this. On the other side, you're criminally irresponsible if you forget to mention the fact global warming certainly was an important contributory cause.
> Where is the scientific proof that this isolated weather event is climate change?
However, this is not an isolated event. Do you not remember Texas' snowstorm last year? These "freak, isolated" events are becoming more and more frequent. That is climate change.
Why are you comparing Texas weather to Virginia?
I want to have this comment tattooed on my forehead.
>the oil industry [...] reframing “global warming” as “climate change”.
source? The wikipedia section on it is surprisingly scant on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology, and a search for "global warming climate change" on google doesn't reveal much either.
source? The wikipedia section on it is surprisingly scant on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology, and a search for "global warming climate change" on google doesn't reveal much either.
The man you're replying to is so prolific that if there isn't a citation (and there are) then his comment would become the citation.
It wasn't "the oil industry", but climate activists who, during a period when the earth wasn't warming starting around 1998, decided to reframe it as "climate change" in order to maintain the sense of crisis.
It's not that global warming isn't happening, it's that the effects aren't just a blanket 'warming.' Increased warming in one area can affect weather patterns that result in extreme weather (or even cooling!) in another. Climate change is a more understandable term for the layperson.
Both terms have been in use since the 80s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology
Yes, both terms existed since the 19th Century, but the concerted push on branding dates to the late 90s by green groups which began to discourage the phrase "global warming" and replace it with "climate change".
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22climate+cha...
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22climate+cha...
That's my recollection as well. There was a conservative meme in the late 90s/early 2000s about "Huh...it's cold during summer...how's that for global warming?", and I feel like "climate change" is a result of climate activist groups realizing global warming is a bad/confusing descriptor. I also recall in the early 2000s there was an attempt to get "global weirding" to replace "global warming" among activist communities, also seemingly in direct response to the conservative meme above.
That's correct. The idea that a Republican pollster like Frank Luntz is actually in control of climate messaging is not a serious claim, and I'm really confused why people are clinging to the idea that either the Republicans or "Oil Companies" are the ones responsible for the switch. That's bad history.
Obviously when you realize that there is critical mass of dense people you want to use phrase that is more clear.
And it scientifically makes sense to call it this.
While the planet overall is warming, the extra energy in the system can actually make colder in some places.
For example, by enabling stronger storm systems to push arctic air farther south than previously.
While the planet overall is warming, the extra energy in the system can actually make colder in some places.
For example, by enabling stronger storm systems to push arctic air farther south than previously.
What about the snow in Miami then? (Jan 19, 1977)
Err, no, though I wasn’t completely accurate either, as Luntz came up with it after he’d stopped being a lobbyist for a while in order to join the Bush White House: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
There are various articles and interviews with him on this topic. Layoff has an excellent discussion of the topic too.
There are various articles and interviews with him on this topic. Layoff has an excellent discussion of the topic too.
Luntz did not "come up" with it. By 2003 -- when Luntz started pushing for this term, all the green groups were already using it. The inflection was point was 1998. You can see this in the google n-gram data or just do a time-boxed google search. Every single green group switched to "climate change" by 2001, two years before Luntz started talking about it.
How do electric vechicles hold up in something like this?
If they’re not moving and have a heat pump, well, but like a combustion vehicle will exhaust their energy storage eventually. Resistive heat or suboptimal battery architecture? Poorly.
Jerrycans for some, tows to Fast DC chargers for others. Class 8 semis should have sufficient diesel reserves for long loiters, even with truckers using auxiliary power units for heat. If not, it is trivial to refuel them on the road with a transfer pump.
Jerrycans for some, tows to Fast DC chargers for others. Class 8 semis should have sufficient diesel reserves for long loiters, even with truckers using auxiliary power units for heat. If not, it is trivial to refuel them on the road with a transfer pump.
This is a misconception. Heat pumps can improve things a little but often far from as much as people expect. The problem is that in cold conditions most of the loss is from reduced battery performance right from the start. In really cold conditions it can be 50% and more reduction in battery performance. This is energy you're not getting back, heat pump or not. In addition the performance depends on the temperature. There is a sweet spot and the colder it gets from there the less effective it becomes. At around -20 degrees C and below it's effectively useless.
There are already vehicles that have been tested in real world conditions. Tesla Model 3s exist with and without heat pump. The difference isn't that large, around 10% more range with the pump in perfect conditions. I've seen people doing tests sleeping in their cars all night and in cold North American winters it's not pretty. With a fully charged battery you will get enough heat for a comfy good nights sleep, 8 hours or so. So lets say in an emergency situation you can stretch it to 12 or so by reducing the temperature. But that's on a full charge! Most cars getting stuck in traffic are not going to have fully charged batteries. It absolutely is a problem with EVs even more than with ICE cars.
There are already vehicles that have been tested in real world conditions. Tesla Model 3s exist with and without heat pump. The difference isn't that large, around 10% more range with the pump in perfect conditions. I've seen people doing tests sleeping in their cars all night and in cold North American winters it's not pretty. With a fully charged battery you will get enough heat for a comfy good nights sleep, 8 hours or so. So lets say in an emergency situation you can stretch it to 12 or so by reducing the temperature. But that's on a full charge! Most cars getting stuck in traffic are not going to have fully charged batteries. It absolutely is a problem with EVs even more than with ICE cars.
https://youtu.be/i3E0t0kGeug
Doesn’t appear to be the case.
Doesn’t appear to be the case.
Aren't EVs programmed to hold a reserve charge for emergencies? To avoid the cost and inconvenience of a tow, shut off power before you lose the ability to drive yourself to the nearest charger. (Bonus points for adjusting the threshold based on the distance to known stations.)
But in the case that a car does drain the battery, how difficult is it to get a portable charger to someone? Have roadside mechanics started carrying generators in their trucks now? They probably should, with the appropriate cables.
But in the case that a car does drain the battery, how difficult is it to get a portable charger to someone? Have roadside mechanics started carrying generators in their trucks now? They probably should, with the appropriate cables.
To your first paragraph, yes, but battery charge can decline rapidly in the cold at low states of charge. You may exhaust the reserve depending on your circumstances.
To your second paragraph, AAA (the tow service) piloted mobile generators for stranded EVs. There was no demand, and the service was discontinued.
To your second paragraph, AAA (the tow service) piloted mobile generators for stranded EVs. There was no demand, and the service was discontinued.
Unable to driving is better than freezing death by not using heater.
Not well, the heater is a major drain. If you stop the heater, the batteries get cold and perform significantly worse.
A heat pump system (such as in a Tesla Model Y or a Kia Niro) is significantly more efficient than a plain electric heater, though I haven't seen any hard numbers for cars with that equipment in winter weather.
Doesn't Tesla recommend that users use the heat as little as possible, and use the seat warmers instead, to conserve battery? Or has that changed in more recent models?
I’m pulling this out of really old knowledge I’ve not looked over in years so may be incorrect…
While you are right about “not well”, the other option can often be “not at all”
The batteries used in most EV’s should always work to some degree, with regards to temperatures experienced on Earth - the batteries & other systems in most ICE can be completely crippled/not work at all under certain temps faced on Earth
Now, you can specifically go out of your way to ruggedize all systems in your ICE so it works to a much better degree than the EV, but the average person is definitely not doing that.
While you are right about “not well”, the other option can often be “not at all”
The batteries used in most EV’s should always work to some degree, with regards to temperatures experienced on Earth - the batteries & other systems in most ICE can be completely crippled/not work at all under certain temps faced on Earth
Now, you can specifically go out of your way to ruggedize all systems in your ICE so it works to a much better degree than the EV, but the average person is definitely not doing that.
The saving grace with ICE is that they are so inefficient that they literally are mostly heat generators that also produce some mechanical force as a significant byproduct. They might not like starting in the cold, but once they're started, they're fine.
There's similar efficiency losses for EVs, but (besides battery efficiency or thermal penalties) they're just further upstream.
A stranded ICE vehicle will exhaust its gas tank in 8 hours, max. You can turn it on an off to stretch it out but I wonder if you'll just burn more gas that way. Google (and Quora) suggests that a Tesla will last 36-72 hours, "or less" if it's very cold. I think EVs win in this case, assuming a full tank versus a full charge.
Regardless if you're in a place where this could happen you should have a box of chemical handwarmers, a heavy blanket, food, water, and other stuff in a box for emergencies.
Edit: looks like I'm wrong, much better answers below!
Regardless if you're in a place where this could happen you should have a box of chemical handwarmers, a heavy blanket, food, water, and other stuff in a box for emergencies.
Edit: looks like I'm wrong, much better answers below!
Where are you getting the 8 hours from? A car that gets 30 mpg with a 14 gallon tank can _drive_ for nearly 8 hours at 60 mph. That same car may burn (on the highest end) 1/2 a gallon an hour idling which would be more than 24 hours of idling time.
> A stranded ICE vehicle will exhaust its gas tank in 8 hours, max. You can turn it on an off to stretch it out but I wonder if you'll just burn more gas that way.
Idling consumes little gas compared with actually moving the vehicle: https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-861-february-23-20...
A 4.2L engine burns 0.39gal/hr under no-load conditions according to the study there for a large sedan. Let's assume that the load of putting the blower and heater on equate to even 1 gal/hr (an absurdly high value, the rule of thumb I can find quoted in a few places tends to be add 10-20% depending on interior size and conditions outside). Let's also assume a fuel tank size on the lower end (~15gal) for this sedan.
This means in the absolute worst case conditions (you're blasting maximum heat the entire time) around 15 hours of operation for a full tank, 7.5 if you had half a tank.
Comparatively, the Tesla, depending on Model, could use as much as 4.8kWh[0][1] under similar worst-case conditions. Modern versions of Tesla and other electrics have or are moving to heat pump heaters, which is encouraging as it will likely be better generally (though this comes with the caveat that they don't work as well in lower temperatures and I believe are supplemented by coil heaters under those conditions).
At any rate, the worst-case electric scenario gives a full-charge length of 18.75 (90kWh useable out of a 95kWh pack in the largest long-range models) or 9.38 at half. Note, this is giving the Tesla an enormous advantage here as I'm going with the largest battery pack possible. With the long range pack available in the Model 3 those numbers drop to basically the same as the smaller-tanked gasoline sedans.
If you have better sources for those numbers on the Tesla idling with the heaters on, these were all I could find quickly.
[0]: https://insideevs.com/news/340327/lets-look-at-energy-consum... [1]: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/idling.139235/
Idling consumes little gas compared with actually moving the vehicle: https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-861-february-23-20...
A 4.2L engine burns 0.39gal/hr under no-load conditions according to the study there for a large sedan. Let's assume that the load of putting the blower and heater on equate to even 1 gal/hr (an absurdly high value, the rule of thumb I can find quoted in a few places tends to be add 10-20% depending on interior size and conditions outside). Let's also assume a fuel tank size on the lower end (~15gal) for this sedan.
This means in the absolute worst case conditions (you're blasting maximum heat the entire time) around 15 hours of operation for a full tank, 7.5 if you had half a tank.
Comparatively, the Tesla, depending on Model, could use as much as 4.8kWh[0][1] under similar worst-case conditions. Modern versions of Tesla and other electrics have or are moving to heat pump heaters, which is encouraging as it will likely be better generally (though this comes with the caveat that they don't work as well in lower temperatures and I believe are supplemented by coil heaters under those conditions).
At any rate, the worst-case electric scenario gives a full-charge length of 18.75 (90kWh useable out of a 95kWh pack in the largest long-range models) or 9.38 at half. Note, this is giving the Tesla an enormous advantage here as I'm going with the largest battery pack possible. With the long range pack available in the Model 3 those numbers drop to basically the same as the smaller-tanked gasoline sedans.
If you have better sources for those numbers on the Tesla idling with the heaters on, these were all I could find quickly.
[0]: https://insideevs.com/news/340327/lets-look-at-energy-consum... [1]: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/idling.139235/
So in essence, if you're stuck for a day you're going to be screwed regardless, except for some edge cases like a large full tank and an ICE that doesn't consume a lot of fuel when idle, or a heat pump driven EV with a full charge in a decently sized pack.
There will always be older or less efficient cars, smaller gas tanks, smaller battery packs, resistive heaters, and people not rationing the energy available to them.
There will always be older or less efficient cars, smaller gas tanks, smaller battery packs, resistive heaters, and people not rationing the energy available to them.
8 hours seems quite quick. I've heard that the average car will idle for 2 days on a full tank, though I haven't tried it myself.
Rough metrics say idling can consume anywhere from 1/3 of a gallon to a gallon per hour of idle time.
Taking the worst case, and why not because it's cold, and people may be inclined to do more than idle their engine, means roughly an hour per gallon of fuel.
Some ICE cars may only idle for a few hours, others a lot more, depending on what's in the tank.
Best move is to pulse the engine. Start up, idle until the vehicle is really warm, shut down and repeat every other hour or so, depending on the cold and what people have to stay warm with.
Taking the worst case, and why not because it's cold, and people may be inclined to do more than idle their engine, means roughly an hour per gallon of fuel.
Some ICE cars may only idle for a few hours, others a lot more, depending on what's in the tank.
Best move is to pulse the engine. Start up, idle until the vehicle is really warm, shut down and repeat every other hour or so, depending on the cold and what people have to stay warm with.
The ineptitude of the state governments in DC/VA/MD is amazing to me. Snow happens in these places?
In this case, a major issue was that the weather was rain transitioning to heavy snowfall. VDOT couldn’t pre-treat the roads because the rain would wash it away, and they couldn’t clear the roads of snow fast enough to prevent ice formation. Similar to the Atlanta “snowmageddon” in 2014, once you have enough 18-wheelers stopped, they can’t start moving again on ice, and they (plus the normal car traffic) clog the roads enough that the snow trucks can’t operate. I am having difficulty envisioning how a hypercompetent northeastern DOT could do better in these circumstances, other than improved communication.
The major issue is that VA, for whatever reason, does not have plows and trucks to put them on (unlike say NYC that puts them on the garbage trucks when needed) - at least in numbers necessary to keep the highway relatively passable in the first place. As others have said, (relatively) heavy wet snow storms in VA/MA are not once in a century type events, more like every three to five years. Paying the consequences for failing to pay to be prepared.
The secondary issue is the stupidity of semi-drivers to have tried to keep driving in the storm. It wasn't like there was no warning at all. Reports I have read indicate disabled trucks are the largest impediment to getting things going again.
The secondary issue is the stupidity of semi-drivers to have tried to keep driving in the storm. It wasn't like there was no warning at all. Reports I have read indicate disabled trucks are the largest impediment to getting things going again.
Does increased numbers of plows allow you to clean this portion of road quickly enough to keep it navigable? The main issue is that the road is a sheet of ice, so as I understand it you really need chemical treatments, not just snow removal (although snow removal should certainly help). And does the density of cars pose a unique problem? The F’burg portion of 95 sees around 130,000 cars/day pre-pandemic.
New York and Massachusetts are different, but usually the only thing that truly overwhelms them is lake effect snow in Western NY and some nor’easter events. I grew up in the NY metropolitan area, and things like flash floods ancient parkways in the Bronx were the only total disaster like this.
The key thing is that they have equipment and close roads to trucks. VA express lanes gouge drivers avoiding traffic, there should be plenty of money to put plows on 2 1/2 ton trucks.
The key thing is that they have equipment and close roads to trucks. VA express lanes gouge drivers avoiding traffic, there should be plenty of money to put plows on 2 1/2 ton trucks.
I lived in Rochester. At least when I was up there, there may have been a hundred inches of snow in the year, but there was rarely fresh ice. This storm delivered a sheet of ice with snow on top, and because of the earlier rain, you couldn’t pre-treat the roads. How does the northeast deal with those conditions, other than people being smart enough to stay home? How do plows remove ice when the roads can’t be pretreated? I’m very, very open to the idea that VDOT is doing a bad job with winter road maintenance, but “more plows” isn’t a convincing improvement plan for the wintery mix seen here.
I currently live in Rochester and we recently just had a bit of a wintry mix the other day. Towns have their trucks going basically through the storm as it happens and they are able to prioritize emergency routes for both plowing and salt pretty well.Plus many folks up here are used to driving in these conditions and have the tires and or vehicles for it.
More plows in my opinion would definitely have helped as long as they were dispersing treated road salt. During snow storms, traffic on our interstates do not grind to a halt because there is a constant rotation of plows for every lane doing the best that they can to keep the priority routes clear.
More plows in my opinion would definitely have helped as long as they were dispersing treated road salt. During snow storms, traffic on our interstates do not grind to a halt because there is a constant rotation of plows for every lane doing the best that they can to keep the priority routes clear.
MD not MA, MA is certainly prepared for snowstorms
This sort of weather pattern is not unusual at all. This is how winter is for the most part in places that have winter. I'd go out to clear snow off my car and find that my car would regularly be coated in an inch thick layer of ice from rain-turned-ice before the storm progressed to snow like a dozen times a month in the winter when I lived in the east.
VDOT could just close the freeway section in advance of the storm if they knew they didn't have the capacity to keep up with the snowfall and have the road be drive able, like other state DOTs do for their freeways when bad weather is coming. I feel like this must have been a textbook whiff in transit department circles.
VDOT could just close the freeway section in advance of the storm if they knew they didn't have the capacity to keep up with the snowfall and have the road be drive able, like other state DOTs do for their freeways when bad weather is coming. I feel like this must have been a textbook whiff in transit department circles.
I’ve lived here for decades, so I am very familiar with the weather here—I am of the opinion that it was an unusual volume of rain leading up to the snowfall, rain all night before transitioning to heavy snowfall early AM where I am.
Closing the freeway feels like a good idea, but then you’d have ~130,000 cars/day traveling on surface streets? The Rappahannock doesn’t allow for many crossings other than 95.
Closing the freeway feels like a good idea, but then you’d have ~130,000 cars/day traveling on surface streets? The Rappahannock doesn’t allow for many crossings other than 95.
What happens is you close the freeway, it makes the news that its a bad storm and the freeway is closed, you call your boss (or if they are any good they'd call you) and say you along with everyone else is not going in, your kids aren't going to school, and the truckers sleep in their trucks at the gas station for the night. Then by the next day, or whenever the storm is over, roadworks will have had enough time to clear it off and salt it. That's how its done where it snows in other states.
I don’t see how you can stop, for example, the flow of Rt. 17 truck traffic onto I-95 diverting to the surface streets. Something like 75% of the 95 traffic in the affected section is not local. How do you ensure that they not use 95 and also not use the surface streets (which in this area are absolutely not capable of handling their current traffic, let alone overflow from the highway)?
You would divert them to some surface streets like 15, 1, 301, 66. You'd ensure they not use 95 by putting up a sign on the onramp that says road closed and you'd leave it unplowed while you focused your efforts on keeping other routes clear. Many trucks would probably just lay up at a gas station.
Are you familiar with the area? I’ve been here since ‘89. Those streets cannot handle the volume of traffic we’re talking about. There aren’t enough gas stations for the truck volume we’re talking about either.
There simply wouldn't be the normal volume of traffic on the roads if that interstate was closed. People would call off work and not drive to schools. The local roads will do fine with the remainder of people who absolutely cannot get off work during a blizzard, probably emergency workers. Plenty of major interstates that see huge volumes of traffic endure closures and the local community just responds accordingly.
If you see it coming, maybe ban 18 wheelers temporarily? Agree it's not a major problem with the govt.
I used to live in VA and how incredibly incompetent VDOT is baffles me. There's basically no public transport in the state, and the roads are still horrible. Where does the money go? They're building new lanes on the highways like SR66, but they're privately-funded hotlanes (toll lanes), not regular lanes.
I live in Seattle now, public transport is infinitely better, and the roads are better (though they still kinda suck). Baffles the mind.
I live in Seattle now, public transport is infinitely better, and the roads are better (though they still kinda suck). Baffles the mind.
> I live in Seattle now, public transport is infinitely better
Perhaps it's because of the bias one always seems to have against the infrastruture where they live, but until at least half of the planned light rail expansion opens up, I'm not exactly inclined to sing praises about Seattle's public transport. Virginia must be downright miserable.
Perhaps it's because of the bias one always seems to have against the infrastruture where they live, but until at least half of the planned light rail expansion opens up, I'm not exactly inclined to sing praises about Seattle's public transport. Virginia must be downright miserable.
Yeah, it is. For reference, I have a biological sister in VA, and a sister-in-law out here, both of whom can't drive. Both live a similar driving distance from the main city (DC vs Seattle).
My SIL can bus basically anywhere with enough patience. She goes to board game nights, college (pre-covid), etc.
My sister in VA can't go anywhere without getting a ride from my mom. She's actually only a few miles away from the one DC subway line that comes out in her direction, but despite having a disability that qualifies her for the public transport door-to-door vans, she's ever-so-slightly out of their service radius. Even if she could use that, that line is a commuter line that goes straight into DC, it's useless for anything else, and they heavily cut service due to covid + derailment incidents (inspectors were falsifying inspection reports) + car fires. She could use Uber or Lyft, but that's expensive and she's read about people getting assaulted and is scared to use it (I know it's rare, I've tried...)
So, yeah. I complain about Seattle PT too don't get me wrong, but thinking about other states does put it into perspective (even if thinking about Europe puts it into a different perspective...)
My SIL can bus basically anywhere with enough patience. She goes to board game nights, college (pre-covid), etc.
My sister in VA can't go anywhere without getting a ride from my mom. She's actually only a few miles away from the one DC subway line that comes out in her direction, but despite having a disability that qualifies her for the public transport door-to-door vans, she's ever-so-slightly out of their service radius. Even if she could use that, that line is a commuter line that goes straight into DC, it's useless for anything else, and they heavily cut service due to covid + derailment incidents (inspectors were falsifying inspection reports) + car fires. She could use Uber or Lyft, but that's expensive and she's read about people getting assaulted and is scared to use it (I know it's rare, I've tried...)
So, yeah. I complain about Seattle PT too don't get me wrong, but thinking about other states does put it into perspective (even if thinking about Europe puts it into a different perspective...)
Snow actually didn't use to happen in those places. Not in this way. That's why the word "change" is in "climate change".
DC, btw, is not a state, and has no "state government".
DC, btw, is not a state, and has no "state government".
> Snow actually didn't use to happen in those places. Not in this way. That's why the word "change" is in "climate change".
Grew up in DC, this is wrong. Large snowfall happens irregularly, but it absolutely happens.
The 2009-10 Nor'easters had substantially more snow than this.
See the charts here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/01/14/washington...
Grew up in DC, this is wrong. Large snowfall happens irregularly, but it absolutely happens.
The 2009-10 Nor'easters had substantially more snow than this.
See the charts here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/01/14/washington...
Grew up outside of DC. Snow absolutely happened then, and it was a standing joke that the Russians were investing in weather control so they could cause an inch of snow to shut down the city.
I still remember Feb 1979, when we got 2 feet of snow overnight and school was closed for a week.
I still remember Feb 1979, when we got 2 feet of snow overnight and school was closed for a week.
What is new is the leaves coming off the trees in December instead of the end of October, and the common occurrence of 70 degree days in the winter.
It used to be that shorts weather at Christmas was something to remember and retell to the next generation. (That would be the year of the roller skates, and the horrifically muddy ski trip) Now it’s just last week.
It used to be that shorts weather at Christmas was something to remember and retell to the next generation. (That would be the year of the roller skates, and the horrifically muddy ski trip) Now it’s just last week.
You can be pedantic about it, but DC functions in many ways like a state government.
Snow has always happened. Large accumulations are atypical, but snow is a thing and Virginia is uniquely incompetent at handling it.
Snow has always happened. Large accumulations are atypical, but snow is a thing and Virginia is uniquely incompetent at handling it.
Everything south of the river is Virginia, and that is a state.
[deleted]
Sounds like a mini version of Route 128 outside Boston after the "Blizzard of 1978". I wasn't there (I was experiencing the same blizzard in northern Illinois at the time) but the over 3,000 vehicles had to be rescued.
Lots of good pics here: https://www.boston.com/news/history/2018/01/29/photos-blizza...
Lots of good pics here: https://www.boston.com/news/history/2018/01/29/photos-blizza...
The geographical location is I-95 near Fredericksburg, VA if anyone wants to look it up on Google Maps.
I can't tell if this video is a deep fake or a modern compression algorithm but one of the guys stuck in the jam for 15 hours says he hasn't seen a single emergency or police vehicle https://twitter.com/DeFede/status/1478361020670394370 So I wouldn't be surprised if some political scandal comes out of this, similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal
The function of government is mostly to do things like build roads, collect garbage, operate sewers, and segregate criminals. Roads aren't much good if the roads don't work. If the U.S. Government continues to fail at these kinds of core competencies then there'll likely be opportunities for truly revolutionary startups in the future.
I can't tell if this video is a deep fake or a modern compression algorithm but one of the guys stuck in the jam for 15 hours says he hasn't seen a single emergency or police vehicle https://twitter.com/DeFede/status/1478361020670394370 So I wouldn't be surprised if some political scandal comes out of this, similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal
The function of government is mostly to do things like build roads, collect garbage, operate sewers, and segregate criminals. Roads aren't much good if the roads don't work. If the U.S. Government continues to fail at these kinds of core competencies then there'll likely be opportunities for truly revolutionary startups in the future.
I95 in that section is only 3 lanes, when it should have been upgraded to 4 many years ago. Instead, they focused on adding 2 HOV lanes which change direction mid day. They could have added 3 lanes in EACH direction (6 total) given the space required for the HOV, and spent less money doing it.
In addition, NIMBY cancelled the eastern bypass (upgrade of US 301 to I97), which would have allowed interstate traffic to bypass this section of I95. So there is really only one major trunk route in this area. You have to go a couple of hours west to get to I81.
So, they essentially have 8 lanes worth of traffic trying to share 3 lanes. And they have both interstate and commuter traffic on the same route.
Many commuters have adapted as best they can to the situation (look up "slug lines", HOV, and a few other things). That plus rail is all maxed out. They need more roads and lanes.
In addition, NIMBY cancelled the eastern bypass (upgrade of US 301 to I97), which would have allowed interstate traffic to bypass this section of I95. So there is really only one major trunk route in this area. You have to go a couple of hours west to get to I81.
So, they essentially have 8 lanes worth of traffic trying to share 3 lanes. And they have both interstate and commuter traffic on the same route.
Many commuters have adapted as best they can to the situation (look up "slug lines", HOV, and a few other things). That plus rail is all maxed out. They need more roads and lanes.
It appears from Google Street View they are expanding the 301 bridge at least but it won't be done until 2023.
Not useful in this situation, but a friend of mine recently convinced me to buy an offline mapping app and all the maps for my country. Apparently, he was able to get out of trouble with plenty of battery to spare by turning off cell/wifi/bluetooth and just relying the app and the built-in GPS.
Or just get a paper map.
Driving apps like Waze don't seem to have a "weather on my route" option which would be a key feature for long distance drives in any climate that can have severe weather.
Can anyone recommend a navigation app that supports weather forecasts along the way?
Can anyone recommend a navigation app that supports weather forecasts along the way?
https://abetterrouteplanner.com/
It's designed for electric cars, but it does include weather info in its routes. I'm not 100% sure how it works, but it is there.
It's designed for electric cars, but it does include weather info in its routes. I'm not 100% sure how it works, but it is there.
Ah, thanks! Seems that the weather info is only available for a Premium account though.
It sucks a little less, but some customers in California are going on a week without electricity after big snowstorms, with a few days yet to go. That's rough when you rely on a well for water.
https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/california/pge-pres...
https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/california/pge-pres...
It's remarkable how quickly our vehicles and roads succumb to such conditions. I used to drive that route on I95, and in the winter I would always pack a blanket and bottled water. I can only imagine having children with me.
From an infrastructure perspective, realistically, I suppose it isn't feasible to account for more extreme snowfall.
From an infrastructure perspective, realistically, I suppose it isn't feasible to account for more extreme snowfall.
It's not just in the US. Denmark had a snowstorm about a month ago and it was chaos because people take stupid risks. Large numbers of people drive around on summer tires as well as the majority of both trucks and busses.
If people only put themselves at risk, fine. The issue is when trucks and people who felt compelled to drive on summer tires, in a snowstorm, during covid, block the roads and prevent the remaining population from getting home safely.
If people only put themselves at risk, fine. The issue is when trucks and people who felt compelled to drive on summer tires, in a snowstorm, during covid, block the roads and prevent the remaining population from getting home safely.
a big part of it is how prepared both the government and the people are. In fairbanks, alaska we recently had a much larger storm and although many people lost power for a couple of days and most of the town was stuck at home we recovered pretty much immediately after the snow stopped falling. For many town along the coast large winter storms are normal so they recover even quicker.
Southern France, same. The highways get closed when it snows, or due to heavy rainfall (happens a few days per decade)
It's easy to account for extreme snowfall, you look at the weather report. Other states just close stretches of the freeways and focus their plows on keeping some local roads open. VDOT saw the weather report and failed to account for their plowing capacity and decided to keep this road open. These drivers wouldn't have even been on that road if this storm happened in another state.
VDOT (Virginia Dept. of Transportation) had such a bad reputation for delayed/costly projects (among lawmakers/funders) that they once decided only fixing patches/potholes (basically minor stuff like that) would be given to VDOT - it was too risky to fund VDOT projects for new road infrastructure.
My mom drove the ~120 miles from Northern VA to Richmond yesterday, leaving around 3pm. This trip takes 2 hours on a good day, and has taken me 4+. It took her SEVEN HOURS. She ended up taking "back roads", had to backtrack several times, and eventually came into Richmond on I-64 from the west.
Even the trains didn't get a break - https://www.nola.com/news/article_e69c9cc2-6dbc-11ec-a224-cb...
Jesus why isn't this front page news?
Every time this happens it is a chance for us to figure out how to avoid this. Due to climate change this will only get worse.
People shouldn't have to 'just buy more provisions and you'll be moderately more ok'.
Every time this happens it is a chance for us to figure out how to avoid this. Due to climate change this will only get worse.
People shouldn't have to 'just buy more provisions and you'll be moderately more ok'.
I was northbound yesterday and it was insane. Cars backed up 59 miles or more.
Boring for Hacker News.. when Hacker News top stories are the same as Google News, it lessens the impact. (I know it's an algorithm)
Truly a nightmare situation.
Some _fast_ and reliable mass transit like the trains in Japan/Europe sure would be nice to help alleviate situations like this and general traffic.
It happens to trains, too.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/01/12/national/heavy-...
> Around 430 passengers in Niigata Prefecture were forced to spend the night on a packed four-car train after it got stranded Thursday evening by heavy snow along the Sea of Japan coast.
https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/1904881/jap...
> About 110 passengers on a Sanyo Shinkansen bullet train bound for Shin-Osaka Station stayed overnight on the train at Okayama Station, western Japan, after the train arrived around 2am on Monday.
> The train had been stranded en route for about two hours due to a breakdown of railway equipment, apparently caused by snow.
(I'd rather be stuck in a train, that said.)
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/01/12/national/heavy-...
> Around 430 passengers in Niigata Prefecture were forced to spend the night on a packed four-car train after it got stranded Thursday evening by heavy snow along the Sea of Japan coast.
https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/1904881/jap...
> About 110 passengers on a Sanyo Shinkansen bullet train bound for Shin-Osaka Station stayed overnight on the train at Okayama Station, western Japan, after the train arrived around 2am on Monday.
> The train had been stranded en route for about two hours due to a breakdown of railway equipment, apparently caused by snow.
(I'd rather be stuck in a train, that said.)
Agreed, being stuck on a train in a winter storm is far far less terrifying to me than being stuck in a small car, running out of gas (or battery charge), without water or food or access to bathrooms.
If you're in the middle of Virginia on I95 in an electric car, you'd be fine.
To get from Fredericksburg to Richmond or vice versa, you have at least 60 miles of charge in your tank or you were never going to make it. At highway speeds, that's at least 20 kWh of battery power. It won't take more than 300-500 watts to heat the cabin continuously even in the middle of a blizzard. That means your battery will last 44 to 66 hours at minimum. So you've got multiple days of heat, water is falling from the sky, and the bathroom is immediately outside your doors.
This is one of the nice things about electric cars: the motor uses no energy while idling, and moving the car requires so much energy that you'll never run out if you're stationary. Most new EVs today have 60-80 kWh batteries. It would take several weeks to drain a full battery just running A/C or heat along with the radio and screens.
To get from Fredericksburg to Richmond or vice versa, you have at least 60 miles of charge in your tank or you were never going to make it. At highway speeds, that's at least 20 kWh of battery power. It won't take more than 300-500 watts to heat the cabin continuously even in the middle of a blizzard. That means your battery will last 44 to 66 hours at minimum. So you've got multiple days of heat, water is falling from the sky, and the bathroom is immediately outside your doors.
This is one of the nice things about electric cars: the motor uses no energy while idling, and moving the car requires so much energy that you'll never run out if you're stationary. Most new EVs today have 60-80 kWh batteries. It would take several weeks to drain a full battery just running A/C or heat along with the radio and screens.
Also of note- in a snowstorm situation there are no exhaust pipes that can be clogged with snow on an EV. It’s self-contained!
I’ve never heard of exhaust pipes getting clogged with snow, the gas coming out is hot. I’d be surprised if this has ever happened unintentionally.
If what you mean is that the exhaust can linger too long or be redirected in ways that aren’t ideal then yea.
If what you mean is that the exhaust can linger too long or be redirected in ways that aren’t ideal then yea.
If you're trapped for a day in a inches-per-hour snowstorm, you're not going to be able to run the engine the whole time. You may also be in a snowbank, with wind causing drifts to build up.
It definitely happens.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/carbon-monoxide-poi...
> In New Jersey, 23-year-old Sashalynn Rosa, of Passaic, and her 1-year-old son, Messiah Bonilla, died of carbon monoxide poisoning while sitting in a running car that had its tailpipe covered in snow. Rosa's 3-year-old daughter, Saniyah Bonilla, was hospitalized in critical condition and died on Jan. 27. The father of the children was just steps away shoveling snow from around the car.
> Angel Ginel of New York died in a similar way Monday afternoon. Police say Ginel was found inside his running, plowed-in car in Brooklyn. His relatives believe he got inside the car to warm up Sunday, and the car got buried.
It definitely happens.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/carbon-monoxide-poi...
> In New Jersey, 23-year-old Sashalynn Rosa, of Passaic, and her 1-year-old son, Messiah Bonilla, died of carbon monoxide poisoning while sitting in a running car that had its tailpipe covered in snow. Rosa's 3-year-old daughter, Saniyah Bonilla, was hospitalized in critical condition and died on Jan. 27. The father of the children was just steps away shoveling snow from around the car.
> Angel Ginel of New York died in a similar way Monday afternoon. Police say Ginel was found inside his running, plowed-in car in Brooklyn. His relatives believe he got inside the car to warm up Sunday, and the car got buried.
Pedantic, but you said clogged. And you’re right, which is why I acknowledged the possibility of exactly the situation in those stories.
These deaths were avoidable, and of course some thing that EV’s don’t have to deal with.
These deaths were avoidable, and of course some thing that EV’s don’t have to deal with.
I ran a similar calculation for my Spark EV with 14 kWh capacity remaining. I can run my router and two wifi APs for around 15 days (at least) if needed. So I picked up a small inverter and will manually fail over from my UPS if a power outage goes beyond an hour or so. (Of course, if there's no power for 15 days there are likely bigger problems than internet access.)
And that's why you always have a blanket, a few cans of water, a few cans of food and a book in the trunk in wintertime. There's no excuse not to.
Still significantly less comfortable than being able to walk around and use a proper bathroom.
And if you have young kids.... yikes I can't even imagine the hell of that sort of situation.
It would be really nice to have an alternative to being forced to drive for every day tasks. Instead, we have forced car dependent through law and through federal spending.
And if you have young kids.... yikes I can't even imagine the hell of that sort of situation.
It would be really nice to have an alternative to being forced to drive for every day tasks. Instead, we have forced car dependent through law and through federal spending.
People are also stuck on Amtrak in VA
https://www.upmatters.com/news/national/snow-stalls-amtrak-i...
https://www.upmatters.com/news/national/snow-stalls-amtrak-i...
That happens even without snow. I've been stuck on Amtrak trains because there was some object on the track (crashed vehicles) and the train just sat there for hours and they refuse to open the doors even though were were in the center of Oakland and could have happily just walked out.
Amtrak is not a great example of how trains should work.
Amtrak is not a great example of how trains should work.
I don't think any train operators are immune to the issues caused by track obstructions. Nor are car drivers immune to obstructions on I95.
Amtrak is particularly vulnerable in that they lease their tracks from freight companies, who generally prioritize their own (much longer) trains over Amtrak. So a small delay can snowball into a large one very quickly.
Snow covered trees fell across the tracks, delaying Amtrak's northbound Auto Train by 12 hours.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/t...
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/t...
The Crescent too - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29805678
http://longbridgeproject.com/
Virginia is working to double rail capacity between DC and Richmond by 2030.
People will still drive cars though.
Virginia is working to double rail capacity between DC and Richmond by 2030.
People will still drive cars though.
Right? Imagine a mode of travel which does not suffer from emergent collapse, which is managed by professionals with expertise and specialized heavy equipment, which in any case is not normally troubled by snowfalls of less than 2 meters in depth, and which in clear weather is dramatically faster and cheaper than driving, and which, as a bonus, is systematically cheaper than cars and highways and which will not destroy the atmosphere!
Trains are often disrupted in Europe by snow. Even the tube in London is a mess when it snows.
It's less likely to help in this specific corridor. The I-95 is for people going from everywhere to everywhere up the eastern seaboard; there's definitely room for improvement on, say, the Richmond-to-DC direct trains, but to really take pressure off I-95 here you'd need a total overhaul from Florida to Maine and up through to Chicago. I-95 north of Richmond choke-points almost everyone driving any of that.
It'd be a good idea though.
It'd be a good idea though.
Its called the Acela Express, but most people don't take it because its so expensive.
How would electric cars hold up under this situation?
The governor doesn’t seem to care. Good to know.
May the fates hold off the coming of the storm.
I had no idea CNN had a "lite" mode.
Many news sites from the dial up era have legacy low bandwidth modes. There's a text-only npr.org, for instance. https://text.npr.org/
These sites aren't a legacy of the dial up era. They were relatively recently introduced (circa 2017) to more efficiently deliver vital information during natural disasters. They're a reaction to the bloated nature of their primary homepages.
https://www.poynter.org/tech-tools/2017/text-only-news-sites...
https://www.poynter.org/tech-tools/2017/text-only-news-sites...
Wow. I've just used text.npr.org and I've realized that I forgot just how fast a website can be. Even on a current gen S21+ Ultra I've had the habit of "zoning" out for the few moments that I'm expecting a news website to load for. Thanks for the link!
Similarly if a Reddit link on mobile ever harasses you to get the app or whatever, just change the www to i. i.reddit.com is the low-bandwidth mobile site.
[deleted]
The biggest issue is that the area covers two states, at least ten counties depending on what you count as the “DC area”, plus the District of Columbia, which isn't a state, doesn't have control over its own budget, and has no representation in Congress. Oh, and in Virginia cities are not part of counties so for instance Arlington is it’s own political entity. Plus DC doesn't have control over a large part of its own tax base because the biggest landholder in the city is the federal government, which is exempt from local property taxes. And because unlike everywhere else in the US DC workers who live in Virginia or Maryland don't pay DC taxes, because the Virginia and Maryland Congressional delegations have warped the DC tax code such that all that money stays in their own states.
Any area-wide public transit project thus has to politically negotiate two Congressional delegations, one city that is in theory represented by the entirety of Congress, and 10+ local governments, any of which effectively has veto power over a project; and the primary beneficiary of the project, DC, is de facto not going contribute financially in proportion to how much it benefits because it’s budget won't allow it to do so.
Similarities to e.g. Hong Kong or Europe fail on those grounds. DC area public transit fails because the DC area is a living example of how federalism fails.