The Recreational Value of Highways

[kernals12]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widening an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

[kenarmy]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

But those things are usually safer, cheaper, and better for the environment than roads.. And most importantly health. Thinking in a sense, driving is destroying the environment and is very deadly, and people enjoying them surely doesn't outweigh this.

[hotdogPi]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

But those things are usually safer, cheaper, and better for the environment than roads.. And most importantly health. Thinking in a sense, driving is destroying the environment and is very deadly, and people enjoying them surely doesn't outweigh this.

Per mile, driving is much safer than walking. (I'm not sure about per hour.)

[Max Rockatansky]

Basically this is one of the primary reasons this exists:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/california-state-route-1-cabrillo.html?m=1

[SEWIGuy]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

I would guess 99.9% of car rides have a distinct purpose other than recreation. Biking and walking are nowhere near that.

[kernals12]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

I would guess 99.9% of car rides have a distinct purpose other than recreation. Biking and walking are nowhere near that.

Just because you're not driving purely for the sake of driving doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable.

[kernals12]

Basically this is one of the primary reasons this exists:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/california-state-route-1-cabrillo.html?m=1

It's also the primary reason for the existence of the Bronx River and Merritt Parkways.

[Ned Weasel]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

You could always move to the middle of nowhere, where there's no congestion.

[kernals12]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

But those things are usually safer, cheaper, and better for the environment than roads.. And most importantly health. Thinking in a sense, driving is destroying the environment and is very deadly, and people enjoying them surely doesn't outweigh this.

Freeways are the safest roads we have and cars produce the least pollution when they aren't in stop and go traffic. And cycling is much more dangerous than driving.

[Terry Shea]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

But those things are usually safer, cheaper, and better for the environment than roads.. And most importantly health. Thinking in a sense, driving is destroying the environment and is very deadly, and people enjoying them surely doesn't outweigh this.

Without driving, most of us would be unable to hold down a good job we could easily travel to.  We'd probably be in very poor health or be dead.

[SEWIGuy]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

I would guess 99.9% of car rides have a distinct purpose other than recreation. Biking and walking are nowhere near that.

Just because you're not driving purely for the sake of driving doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable.

But then it's by definition not recreational.

[kernals12]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

I would guess 99.9% of car rides have a distinct purpose other than recreation. Biking and walking are nowhere near that.

Just because you're not driving purely for the sake of driving doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable.

But then it's by definition not recreational.

I sometimes seek out faraway beauty spots precisely because I want to spend some time behind the wheel.

[Max Rockatansky]

The Blue Ridge Parkway and pretty much every modern mainline National Park Road are also recreationally oriented. 

[kenarmy]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

But those things are usually safer, cheaper, and better for the environment than roads.. And most importantly health. Thinking in a sense, driving is destroying the environment and is very deadly, and people enjoying them surely doesn't outweigh this.

Freeways are the safest roads we have and cars produce the least pollution when they aren't in stop and go traffic. And cycling is much more dangerous than driving.

I was talking about cycling recreationally. Walking and Cycling in a park is more dangerous than "recreationally" driving on a freeway?  ch-

[kernals12]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

But those things are usually safer, cheaper, and better for the environment than roads.. And most importantly health. Thinking in a sense, driving is destroying the environment and is very deadly, and people enjoying them surely doesn't outweigh this.

Freeways are the safest roads we have and cars produce the least pollution when they aren't in stop and go traffic. And cycling is much more dangerous than driving.

I was talking about cycling recreationally. Walking and Cycling in a park is more dangerous than "recreationally" driving on a freeway?  ch-

Have you ever fallen out of a car?

[kenarmy]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

But those things are usually safer, cheaper, and better for the environment than roads.. And most importantly health. Thinking in a sense, driving is destroying the environment and is very deadly, and people enjoying them surely doesn't outweigh this.

Freeways are the safest roads we have and cars produce the least pollution when they aren't in stop and go traffic. And cycling is much more dangerous than driving.

I was talking about cycling recreationally. Walking and Cycling in a park is more dangerous than "recreationally" driving on a freeway?  ch-

Have you ever fallen out of a car?

What's that supposed to prove 😭? And yes I have, but if it was on a freeway...

[jakeroot]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

But those things are usually safer, cheaper, and better for the environment than roads.. And most importantly health. Thinking in a sense, driving is destroying the environment and is very deadly, and people enjoying them surely doesn't outweigh this.

Per mile, driving is much safer than walking. (I'm not sure about per hour.)

But we drive about 20 miles for every mile we walk, so driving is still more dangerous.

And let's be real: pedestrians aren't mowing over each other, apart from the occasional trampling. Most pedestrian deaths are caused by drivers. So one way or another, cars are the problem.

[kernals12]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

But those things are usually safer, cheaper, and better for the environment than roads.. And most importantly health. Thinking in a sense, driving is destroying the environment and is very deadly, and people enjoying them surely doesn't outweigh this.

Per mile, driving is much safer than walking. (I'm not sure about per hour.)

But we drive about 20 miles for every mile we walk, so driving is still more dangerous.

And let's be real: pedestrians aren't mowing over each other, apart from the occasional trampling. Most pedestrian deaths are caused by drivers. So one way or another, cars are the problem.

I've twice injured myself biking. Neither one of those were caused by cars.

[jakeroot]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

But those things are usually safer, cheaper, and better for the environment than roads.. And most importantly health. Thinking in a sense, driving is destroying the environment and is very deadly, and people enjoying them surely doesn't outweigh this.

Per mile, driving is much safer than walking. (I'm not sure about per hour.)

But we drive about 20 miles for every mile we walk, so driving is still more dangerous.

And let's be real: pedestrians aren't mowing over each other, apart from the occasional trampling. Most pedestrian deaths are caused by drivers. So one way or another, cars are the problem.

I've twice injured myself biking. Neither one of those were caused by cars.

That has nothing to do with my comment.

[Max Rockatansky]

I've had lots of accidents and injuries from distance running over 20 years.  The only one that came close to killing me was when a car ran a stop sign in 2010 and hit me at about 25 MPH.  So if we are going to get into a debate about what causes the most serious pedestrian injuries I can assure anyone in this thread that it is cars.

[Scott5114]

I've twice injured myself biking. Neither one of those were caused by cars.

sounds like you suck at riding a bike then

[jeffandnicole]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

But those things are usually safer, cheaper, and better for the environment than roads.. And most importantly health. Thinking in a sense, driving is destroying the environment and is very deadly, and people enjoying them surely doesn't outweigh this.

Per mile, driving is much safer than walking. (I'm not sure about per hour.)

But we drive about 20 miles for every mile we walk, so driving is still more dangerous.

And let's be real: pedestrians aren't mowing over each other, apart from the occasional trampling. Most pedestrian deaths are caused by drivers. So one way or another, cars are the problem.

However, there's probably a serious under-reporting of how many pedestrian deaths there are, and the rate.

The term pedestrian is often narrowed to a public place, like a sidewalk or a crosswalk, and thus pedestrian accidents are only counted in those type areas. Whereas a car accident is when someone is in a car, anywhere, crashes, even in a private garage.

If someone were to fall down a public staircase, it would be a pedestrian accident. If someone fell down a staircase from their front porch, it would be termed an accidental fall and a household accident, but not a pedestrian accident.

If someone has a heart attack while driving and crashes their car and dies, that's a car crash. If someone has a heart attack in their kitchen and falls, not a pedestrian death. If someone was walking in their backyard and a tree limb fell and killed them, or they were running on a track and fell, hitting their head, they're not gonna be termed pedestrian accidents.

If you were to widen the definition of a pedestrian, suddenly those accidents probably occur at a much greater rate than car accidents.  And for anti-car people, they would probably push to keep the definition narrow for that very purpose.

[SEWIGuy]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

I would guess 99.9% of car rides have a distinct purpose other than recreation. Biking and walking are nowhere near that.

Just because you're not driving purely for the sake of driving doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable.

But then it's by definition not recreational.

I sometimes seek out faraway beauty spots precisely because I want to spend some time behind the wheel.

That is the vast, vast minority of road trips that people take.

[SEWIGuy]

Whenever they consider building a new highway or widen an existing one, they always judge the costs against the benefits. The benefit they consider is how much time is saved by the added capacity. But here's the thing: driving isn't just a means to an end, it's often an end in itself. A Gallup poll found 78% of Americans enjoy driving either a "great deal" or "a moderate amount". We build parks, footpaths, and bike lanes for the enjoyment of people who walk and bike, so why shouldn't we consider the pleasure people derive from uncongested roads with no traffic lights?

But those things are usually safer, cheaper, and better for the environment than roads.. And most importantly health. Thinking in a sense, driving is destroying the environment and is very deadly, and people enjoying them surely doesn't outweigh this.

Per mile, driving is much safer than walking. (I'm not sure about per hour.)

But we drive about 20 miles for every mile we walk, so driving is still more dangerous.

And let's be real: pedestrians aren't mowing over each other, apart from the occasional trampling. Most pedestrian deaths are caused by drivers. So one way or another, cars are the problem.

However, there's probably a serious under-reporting of how many pedestrian deaths there are, and the rate.

The term pedestrian is often narrowed to a public place, like a sidewalk or a crosswalk, and thus pedestrian accidents are only counted in those type areas. Whereas a car accident is when someone is in a car, anywhere, crashes, even in a private garage.

If someone were to fall down a public staircase, it would be a pedestrian accident. If someone fell down a staircase from their front porch, it would be termed an accidental fall and a household accident, but not a pedestrian accident.

If someone has a heart attack while driving and crashes their car and dies, that's a car crash. If someone has a heart attack in their kitchen and falls, not a pedestrian death. If someone was walking in their backyard and a tree limb fell and killed them, or they were running on a track and fell, hitting their head, they're not gonna be termed pedestrian accidents.

If you were to widen the definition of a pedestrian, suddenly those accidents probably occur at a much greater rate than car accidents.  And for anti-car people, they would probably push to keep the definition narrow for that very purpose.

Why should someone who falls down a staircase off their front porch be called a pedestrian?

[hbelkins]

The Blue Ridge Parkway and pretty much every modern mainline National Park Road are also recreationally oriented.

And aesthetics are kept in mind when lots of roads are built. Such as the brown guardrail and signposts along the easternmost parts of Corridor H.

And then sometimes highway features become tourist attractions in and of themselves, such as the New River Gorge Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Linn Cove Viaduct on the aforementioned BRP.