[HN Gopher] Motorists have been stranded on a major interstate i... ___________________________________________________________________ Motorists have been stranded on a major interstate in Virginia since last night Author : LinuxBender Score : 161 points Date : 2022-01-04 14:46 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (lite.cnn.com) (TXT) w3m dump (lite.cnn.com) | dugmartin wrote: | 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... | thraveboy wrote: | 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) | creaghpatr wrote: | Update: Tim Kaine is apparently still out there after 27 hrs? | | https://twitter.com/timkaine/status/1478462778834833408?s=20 | imwillofficial wrote: | I was northbound yesterday and it was insane. Cars backed up 59 | miles or more. | [deleted] | mhandley wrote: | 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. | kaesar14 wrote: | Truly a nightmare situation. | [deleted] | dragontamer wrote: | 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. | azylman wrote: | 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... | erik_seaberg wrote: | "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. | njarboe wrote: | 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. | bluGill wrote: | 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. | adventured wrote: | > 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. | wyager wrote: | 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. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | > 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? | azylman wrote: | > 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. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | > 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. | azylman wrote: | 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. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | > 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. | tshaddox wrote: | 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. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | 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. | asoneth wrote: | 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.) | AnthonyMouse wrote: | > 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. | whatshisface wrote: | 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. | mjmahone17 wrote: | 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. | massysett wrote: | 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] | twoodfin wrote: | 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. | alistairSH wrote: | 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)? | kevinmchugh wrote: | 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 | JPKab wrote: | 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. | zip1234 wrote: | If driving demand can be induced by massively subsidizing | it with billions as is currently done, so can other forms | of transportation. | mrfusion wrote: | You're spot on. Plus the argument doesn't hold water since | there are a finite number of potential drivers. | asoneth wrote: | "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.) | nostromo wrote: | 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. | azylman wrote: | > 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. | asdff wrote: | Go to /r/urbanplanning and you will find this creed of | road dieting written in stone tablets by a thundering | voice | ufmace wrote: | How is he arguing against a strawman? He's saying that's | exactly what they actually did in his city. | VintageCool wrote: | > 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. | dont__panic wrote: | 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. | robcohen wrote: | > 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. | crowbahr wrote: | 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? | twoodfin wrote: | _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. | zip1234 wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | alistairSH wrote: | 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). | mikestew wrote: | _Transit still mostly sucks, but now driving sucks too._ | | And now bicycling and walking suck just a little less. | _That_ is a success. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | > 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. | potta_coffee wrote: | 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. | kaesar14 wrote: | > 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. | azylman wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | njarboe wrote: | 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. | tshaddox wrote: | 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"). | Spooky23 wrote: | 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. | mrfusion wrote: | But those extra people are choosing to be there so there | must be some benefit. | tshaddox wrote: | 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. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | > 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. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | 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. | bsder wrote: | > 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. | NikolaeVarius wrote: | If the point of adding lanes is to reduce delays, and | induced demand prevents that, you have failed in the task. | asdff wrote: | 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). | bluGill wrote: | 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. | dragontamer wrote: | > 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. | NikolaeVarius wrote: | Well sadly, roads have a bad habit of being confined by | physical time and space and cannot just be arbitrarily | widened. | dragontamer wrote: | 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. | azylman wrote: | 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. | NikolaeVarius wrote: | 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 | nostromo wrote: | The point of adding lanes is to increase throughput. | kaesar14 wrote: | Because the metric people care about is traffic on the | roads, not how many motorists are able to use the road in a | given day. The Big Dig by this metric was a resounding | success in Boston, able to dramatically scale up the amount | of commuters in and out of the city, but driving still | absolutely sucks because of traffic. To the person on the | road, the Big Dig solved nothing. | | Parent comment is saying the only way to scale with higher | demand of transportation in a way that feels like an actual | improvement to people is public transit, because public | transit scales so much better with higher numbers of people | commuting. | whatshisface wrote: | 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. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | > If the metric was really traffic, then that could | easily be solved on any road by only allowing even- | numbered license numbers to drive on even-numbered days, | and vice-versa. | | They tried this in Beijing. People would just buy second | cars so they could drive on both days. Eventually they | had to restrict new license plates as well. | tshaddox wrote: | 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. | kaesar14 wrote: | I mean, I don't see how that's really a fair response to | saying what people care about is traffic. Yeah, ability | to use the road, sure. I don't think people want a new | highway to be built and then told they can't use it | because they don't have a new car or something. | | I as a motorist could not give less of a shit if I'm | stuck in traffic for 3 hours a day but the road is able | to move hundreds of thousands of cars a day. I'd prefer a | road that could only move 20 people a day with 0 traffic. | It's the only thing I care about. | bagacrap wrote: | why would you count that as a win? you almost certainly | wouldn't be one of those 20 people allowed on the road | kaesar14 wrote: | 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. | sokoloff wrote: | Having lived through it all and seeing the outcome, the | Big Dig was a pain while it was happening, but a smashing | success now that it's done. A later removal of some of | the toll booths in favor of automated tolling has made | the road network even more effective. | | Is there still some traffic? Yes. Is it better than it | was 30 years ago, even as the roads handle way more | traffic? Absolutely. | kaesar14 wrote: | I'd rather the T be functional and get me to where I need | to be, and a better commuter rail system, then having to | drive to and fro on Storrow at rush hour. There's no | amount of bridges or expansions to the roads that would | make it better short of leveling the city to build a | giant highway, which I'm sure some percentage of | Massachusetts drivers would be in favor of. | sokoloff wrote: | You prefer the T or commuter rail. That's fine and | improving those modes of transit seems a fine goal as | well. That preference/goal doesn't support an argument | that the Big Dig solved nothing for those who choose to | drive. | kaesar14 wrote: | 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. | animal_spirits wrote: | 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 | massysett wrote: | 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. | criddell wrote: | 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. | shkkmo wrote: | > 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. | [deleted] | tshaddox wrote: | 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. | asdff wrote: | 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. | dragontamer wrote: | 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. | tshaddox wrote: | 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. | mrfusion wrote: | But more people wouldn't drive if there wasn't a benefit | to it. So you're benefiting more people. | Ajedi32 wrote: | 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 | ThrustVectoring wrote: | 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. | Spooky23 wrote: | 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! | IdoRA wrote: | 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. | tshaddox wrote: | 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?" | twoodfin wrote: | 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". | tshaddox wrote: | 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_. | twoodfin wrote: | 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! | yuliyp wrote: | 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. | mrfusion wrote: | 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? | yifanl wrote: | Depends on where that 0 lanes is initially I guess. You can | bulldoze a housing block to add a new lane, that's not | necessarily an economic success. | asdff wrote: | It is if destroying those ten houses relieved a trucking | bottleneck at the train yard. | dave_aiello wrote: | HOV lanes, special toll lanes, driverless vehicles, new | alternative means of transportation that never quite | materialize, etc., don't cut it and never did. | animal_spirits wrote: | 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 | rayiner wrote: | 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. | polygotdomain wrote: | 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. | R0b0t1 wrote: | Use public transit to incentivize development. | baq wrote: | 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. | vjust wrote: | 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. | alistairSH wrote: | 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. | stransky wrote: | You forgot to include time to park. | alistairSH wrote: | 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). | 0_____0 wrote: | 8 miles in 2 hours? That's a brisk walk! | aidenn0 wrote: | 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... | seanmcdirmid wrote: | > 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. | flavius29663 wrote: | > 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. | KerrAvon wrote: | Caltrain in the SF Bay peninsula is basically that and | people do cope with it and manage to lead happy, | fulfilling lives. | MandieD wrote: | 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. | kaesar14 wrote: | Is there a downvote brigade of motorists in this thread | or something? The quoted comment here is absolutely | ridiculous. Hop on a train in Hong Kong and tell us again | how rail transit is dysfunctional and meant for 1950's | America. Hell, visit New York. | asdff wrote: | Visit NYC but try to take a train from somewhere in | brooklyn to somewhere in the bronx without having to | spend almost an hour with a transfer in midtown | manhattan. Even in NYC the rail network is primarily | oriented toward you having a 9-5 job in midtown or lower | manhattan, and everyone else gets served nearly an hour | commute transferring on busses or trains. | kaesar14 wrote: | Sure, I wish we had more outer borough connection lines. | This country sucks at building anything but 12 lane | freeways. | weberer wrote: | Sometimes the majority of people just disagree with you. | It doesn't always have to be some conspiracy. | kaesar14 wrote: | It's a good thing the majority of the world's population | in non-dysfunctional countries live in places where the | parent is just wrong, then. | barneygale wrote: | Because the readership of HN is mostly Americans who | can't imagine not driving. The knee-jerk against public | transport is pathetic and predictable. | dugmartin wrote: | Some numbers for comparison according to a Google search: | | Hong Kong Area: 427 mi2 | | Washington DC Metropolitan Area: 5,565 mi2 | seanmcdirmid wrote: | Hong Kong is actually just a few urban areas separated by | a bunch of really really tall hills (and rural areas in | between). That anyone can get around at all in that city | is already amazing. | | The DC metro area is just a pretty flat sprawl. It should | be an easy case transportation wise, but...Americans. | kaesar14 wrote: | Ok, just compare the Metropolitan areas. The actual city | of DC is 68.34 mi2, smaller than Hong Kong. Still worse | to get around in. | mardifoufs wrote: | 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. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | > 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. | mardifoufs wrote: | 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. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | > 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. | kaesar14 wrote: | 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.... | mardifoufs wrote: | 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 | kaesar14 wrote: | You can connect those smaller cities with stuff besides | rail, you know. | qaq wrote: | bus service is fairly decent in NoVA | asdff wrote: | >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. | btreecat wrote: | >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. | scythe wrote: | 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? | worstestes wrote: | The future is Dallas suburbs? Let's just call a quits now | and save America the trouble | NikolaeVarius wrote: | Seriously, suburbia is hell | selimthegrim wrote: | >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. | andrewflnr wrote: | 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. | asoneth wrote: | 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. | tshaddox wrote: | 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. | meheleventyone wrote: | 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. | azylman wrote: | 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. | andrewflnr wrote: | 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. | njarboe wrote: | 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. | azylman wrote: | 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. | dekhn wrote: | 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. | asdff wrote: | 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. | massysett wrote: | 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. | trhway wrote: | public transportation doesn't work for people with pets, in | many situations for people with children, people with various | health issues. | enragedcacti wrote: | they can still drive? | acdha wrote: | > 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. | trhway wrote: | 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". | acdha wrote: | > 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. | jcranmer wrote: | > 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. | cafard wrote: | 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. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >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. | jdavis703 wrote: | > 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. | shadowgovt wrote: | 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. | imapeopleperson wrote: | ~2006? | dragontamer wrote: | 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). | Larrikin wrote: | 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. | dwater wrote: | 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/... | lsllc wrote: | 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. | zitterbewegung wrote: | Well there is US Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, that is stuck in | this situation (But not in immediate danger ). | dragontamer wrote: | 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. | drewcoo wrote: | Sounds peaceful. If it were of military importance, that would | not be the case. | [deleted] | michaelnik wrote: | 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...] | gumby wrote: | 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" | cm2187 wrote: | I thought we were told to make a distinction between "climate" | and "the weather"... | _moof wrote: | 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. | abyssin wrote: | But nobody told us there's no link at all between these two. | CountDrewku wrote: | 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. | acdha wrote: | 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. | heartbeats wrote: | 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. | dotancohen wrote: | > Where is the scientific proof that this isolated weather | event is climate change? | | There is no evidence that this 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. | badthingfactory wrote: | I want to have this comment tattooed on my forehead. | evilotto wrote: | 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: | X(n+1) = r * Xn * (1 - Xn) | | "r" is the amount of energy in the system (i.e., heat in the | atmosphere) and Xn is the severity of the behavior. The insight | is that while the "severity" naturally goes up as the "energy" | goes up, once you get to a certain point, the severity goes | both well above and below the "natural" level in unpredictable | ways. In other words, a more energetic atmosphere leads to both | much hotter _and_ colder days. | | 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. | rsj_hn wrote: | 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. | outside1234 wrote: | 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. | ratboy666 wrote: | What about the snow in Miami then? (Jan 19, 1977) | gumby wrote: | 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. | rsj_hn wrote: | 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. | mullingitover wrote: | 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. | frenchy wrote: | Both terms have been in use since the 80s: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Terminology | rsj_hn wrote: | 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+ch | a... | oh_sigh wrote: | 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. | gruez wrote: | >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. | Maxburn wrote: | I had no idea CNN had a "lite" mode. | sbierwagen wrote: | 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/ | Nition wrote: | 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. | dublinben wrote: | 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... | mardifoufs wrote: | 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! | tomohawk wrote: | 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. | Animats wrote: | 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. | IdoRA wrote: | 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... | kbutler wrote: | Does climate change also explain the larger storms in the 18th, | 19th, and 20th centuries? | | https://www.novec.com/About_NOVEC/Virginias-Historic-Snowsto... | Animats wrote: | 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... | s1artibartfast wrote: | 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. | kbutler wrote: | 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... | [deleted] | s1artibartfast wrote: | >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. | InitialLastName wrote: | It could certainly explain the increased density of such | snowstorms in the late 20th and early 21st. | meatsauce wrote: | It is called winter. | arberx wrote: | How do electric vechicles hold up in something like this? | exhilaration wrote: | 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! | relaytheurgency wrote: | 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. | hotpotamus wrote: | 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. | BeefWellington wrote: | > 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-februa | ry-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/ | oneplane wrote: | 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. | grayfaced wrote: | Not well, the heater is a major drain. If you stop the heater, | the batteries get cold and perform significantly worse. | s5300 wrote: | 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. | kube-system wrote: | 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. | beerandt wrote: | There's similar efficiency losses for EVs, but (besides | battery efficiency or thermal penalties) they're just | further upstream. | crooked-v wrote: | 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. | dont__panic wrote: | 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? | toomuchtodo wrote: | 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. | whoopdedo wrote: | 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. | toomuchtodo wrote: | 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. | TedShiller wrote: | The governor doesn't seem to care. Good to know. | chasd00 wrote: | 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. | basseq wrote: | 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. | carabiner wrote: | May the fates hold off the coming of the storm. | lsllc wrote: | 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? | binaryblitz wrote: | 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. | lsllc wrote: | Ah, thanks! Seems that the weather info is only available for | a Premium account though. | vjust wrote: | 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. | evilotto wrote: | 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... | Starlevel001 wrote: | admiral33 wrote: | 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 | cortesoft wrote: | Umm if a doordash driver could get to them, then the cars could | just leave themselves. | kbutler wrote: | "...on snowmobiles..." | | So the drivers could leave, but the cars would remain | stranded. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | Are there that many snow mobiles in VA? | dotancohen wrote: | That's a Fermi question if I've ever heard one. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem | kbutler wrote: | :-D Great question. | | Probably? https://www.yellowpages.com/search?search_terms | =snowmobile+r... | daveevad wrote: | > 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...) | [deleted] | chasd00 wrote: | road's closed. maybe airdrop with drones? | Larrikin wrote: | 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. | jart wrote: | 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. | emptybottle wrote: | 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. | R0b0t1 wrote: | 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. | kadoban wrote: | 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. | asdff wrote: | You could easily fit it all in a milk crate and shove it in | the back of your trunk with your spare tools. | btgeekboy wrote: | 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. | analog31 wrote: | 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. | bombcar wrote: | 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). | silisili wrote: | +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. | jcims wrote: | >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. | pempem wrote: | No one kitts their car out like this in DC bc this amt of snow | is basically unheard of...? | fundad wrote: | we have a new climate | chiefalchemist wrote: | One storm is not a trend. | rbanffy wrote: | I'm almost willing to bet that storms will get | progressively worse in the next few years. | throwawayboise wrote: | Right, we've never had snow and cold in Virginia before. | jcranmer wrote: | 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. | alistairSH wrote: | 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 | cure wrote: | 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. | HeyLaughingBoy wrote: | 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... | repiret wrote: | 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. | bix6 wrote: | 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 3/4+ full. Haven't tried charging a phone from it | though. | cure wrote: | I have actually used this thing several times to jump a | car. It works _great_. | massysett wrote: | Is possible battery damage or malfunction due to the heat in | a car a concern? | binaryblitz wrote: | 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. :) | cure wrote: | Mind you that's 3100mAh at 12V. That's roughly 7400mAh at | 5V (USB voltage). | Tuna-Fish wrote: | Since you are probably not talking about | kilometeramperehours, might want to fix the unit to just | Ah. | nanidin wrote: | 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. | carabiner wrote: | 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... | throw_nbvc1234 wrote: | How does this logic work with electric cars; just cut the range | in half? | _moof wrote: | 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. | bix6 wrote: | 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. | TedShiller wrote: | How do foil blankets work actually? Doesn't metal foil | transmit heat very well which would make them a bad blanket | to trap heat? | nerfhammer wrote: | It's actually mylar that they're made of. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BoPET | jwagenet wrote: | 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. | zepearl wrote: | 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). | MikeKusold wrote: | 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. | throwawayboise wrote: | If you get one of those vacuum pack bags you can store a | blanket or sleeping bag in very little space. | dqv wrote: | 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. | Jxl180 wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | neom wrote: | Never heard of these before, after skimming amazon reviews | on a few products, looks like most folks like "Travel John" | and "OUMEE" brand the best. Seems useful! | Jxl180 wrote: | Yes, Travel John is what's in my glove box. | globalise83 wrote: | Why didn't you just take a pee by the side of the road? | hyperbovine wrote: | In my experience, men will piss anywhere/on anything/in | front of anybody. Women not so much. | SauciestGNU wrote: | Believe it or not, in some parts of the USA that can get | you labeled a sex offender for life. | globalise83 wrote: | Wow, didn't know that! In the UK and most of Europe it's | standard practice. | Jxl180 wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | julianh95 wrote: | 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. | javagram wrote: | http://longbridgeproject.com/ | | Virginia is working to double rail capacity between DC and | Richmond by 2030. | | People will still drive cars though. | weberer wrote: | Its called the Acela Express, but most people don't take it | because its so expensive. | jeffbee wrote: | 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! | kube-system wrote: | People are also stuck on Amtrak in VA | | https://www.upmatters.com/news/national/snow-stalls-amtrak-i... | jeffbee wrote: | 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. | kube-system wrote: | 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. | wayoutthere wrote: | 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. | cm2187 wrote: | Trains are often disrupted in Europe by snow. Even the tube in | London is a mess when it snows. | newaccount2021 wrote: | shadowgovt wrote: | 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. | ceejayoz wrote: | 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.) | epistasis wrote: | 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. | HarryHirsch wrote: | 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. | epistasis wrote: | 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. | dangrossman wrote: | 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. | jackson1442 wrote: | 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! | alphabettsy wrote: | 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. | ceejayoz wrote: | 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. | jonpurdy wrote: | 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.) | ninefathom wrote: | 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). | asdff wrote: | 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. | maxwell wrote: | 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... | rbanffy wrote: | > no matter how much money is poured in | | Challenge accepted. | | Now we need the money. | 58x14 wrote: | 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. | mrweasel wrote: | 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. | jakub_g wrote: | Southern France, same. The highways get closed when it snows, | or due to heavy rainfall (happens a few days per decade) | scifi6546 wrote: | 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. | guntars wrote: | 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... | PopeUrbanX wrote: | Thanks, I hate having to resize my browser window just to make | 100% width paragraphs readable. | coolso wrote: | 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... | oneplane wrote: | 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. | buybackoff wrote: | 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. | meatsauce wrote: | 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. | symlinkk wrote: | I think something satellite based would be superior, e.g. | Garmin inReach | manquer wrote: | A satellite phone seems a simpler solution which is more | reliable than Ham radio? | Spooky23 wrote: | The ineptitude of the state governments in DC/VA/MD is amazing to | me. Snow happens in these places? | vgel wrote: | 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. | steelframe wrote: | > 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. | vgel wrote: | 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...) | Bud wrote: | 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". | whimsicalism wrote: | > 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/2 | 021/01/14/washington... | wiredfool wrote: | 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. | wiredfool wrote: | 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. | Spooky23 wrote: | 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. | IdoRA wrote: | 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. | asdff wrote: | 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. | beezle wrote: | 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. | whimsicalism wrote: | MD not MA, MA is certainly prepared for snowstorms | IdoRA wrote: | 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. | Spooky23 wrote: | 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. | IdoRA wrote: | 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. | whimsicalism wrote: | If you see it coming, maybe ban 18 wheelers temporarily? | Agree it's not a major problem with the govt. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-01-04 23:00 UTC)