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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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?
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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.
Quote from: kenarmy on February 10, 2021, 09:10:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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.)
Basically this is one of the primary reasons this exists:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/california-state-route-1-cabrillo.html?m=1
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 10, 2021, 09:30:57 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2021, 09:12:47 PM
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.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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.
Quote from: kenarmy on February 10, 2021, 09:10:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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.
Quote from: kenarmy on February 10, 2021, 09:10:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 09:43:02 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 10, 2021, 09:30:57 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 10, 2021, 10:06:25 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 09:43:02 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 10, 2021, 09:30:57 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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.
The Blue Ridge Parkway and pretty much every modern mainline National Park Road are also recreationally oriented.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 09:46:27 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 10, 2021, 09:10:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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-
Quote from: kenarmy on February 10, 2021, 10:52:03 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 09:46:27 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 10, 2021, 09:10:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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?
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 11:04:11 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 10, 2021, 10:52:03 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 09:46:27 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 10, 2021, 09:10:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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...
Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2021, 09:11:41 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 10, 2021, 09:10:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 10, 2021, 11:16:04 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2021, 09:11:41 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 10, 2021, 09:10:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 11:26:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 10, 2021, 11:16:04 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2021, 09:11:41 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 10, 2021, 09:10:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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.
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.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 11:26:58 PM
I've twice injured myself biking. Neither one of those were caused by cars.
sounds like you suck at riding a bike then
Quote from: jakeroot on February 10, 2021, 11:16:04 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2021, 09:11:41 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 10, 2021, 09:10:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 10:15:48 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 10, 2021, 10:06:25 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 09:43:02 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 10, 2021, 09:30:57 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 11, 2021, 12:53:31 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 10, 2021, 11:16:04 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2021, 09:11:41 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 10, 2021, 09:10:28 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 08:12:08 PM
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 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx) 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?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2021, 10:20:42 PM
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.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2021, 09:10:52 AM
That is the vast, vast minority of road trips that people take.
And this is exactly why it shouldn't be considered when planning.
People's motivation for driving shouldn't matter. All that should really matter is where they're driving, and how many of them are doing it. Doesn't matter if they think it's enjoyable or not.
Bicycle lanes and walking paths should be built where people actually walk or ride. Doesn't matter if they're doing so for pleasant evening exercise or just to get to/from work.
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2021, 12:59:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2021, 09:10:52 AM
That is the vast, vast minority of road trips that people take.
And this is exactly why it shouldn't be considered when planning.
People's motivation for driving shouldn't matter. All that should really matter is where they're driving, and how many of them are doing it. Doesn't matter if they think it's enjoyable or not.
Bicycle lanes and walking paths should be built where people actually walk or ride. Doesn't matter if they're doing so for pleasant evening exercise or just to get to/from work.
But it would undermine the argument behind induced demand. If building a new freeway leads people to drive more and they get pleasure out of driving, then society is better off.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2021, 01:02:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2021, 12:59:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2021, 09:10:52 AM
That is the vast, vast minority of road trips that people take.
And this is exactly why it shouldn't be considered when planning.
People's motivation for driving shouldn't matter. All that should really matter is where they're driving, and how many of them are doing it. Doesn't matter if they think it's enjoyable or not.
Bicycle lanes and walking paths should be built where people actually walk or ride. Doesn't matter if they're doing so for pleasant evening exercise or just to get to/from work.
But it would undermine the argument behind induced demand. If building a new freeway leads people to drive more and they get pleasure out of driving, then society is better off.
1. Induced demand is generally an argument
against new construction or widening, as any benefits to overall traffic will presumably be diminished by the traffic being induced to use the newer and better road. Roads aren't constructed or improved
for the purpose of induced demand. Latent demand is a similar phenomenon (for which roads
are built and improved), which you may have had in mind, but I'm not even sure that fits what you're thinking.
2. Few are those who claim more driving means a better society–whether people enjoy it or not. More driving means more sitting on your butt. More driving means more pollution. More driving in wilderness areas means less pristine wilderness, as anything engine-powered is generally considered to diminish the 'pristine' nature of nature.
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2021, 01:16:36 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2021, 01:02:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2021, 12:59:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2021, 09:10:52 AM
That is the vast, vast minority of road trips that people take.
And this is exactly why it shouldn't be considered when planning.
People's motivation for driving shouldn't matter. All that should really matter is where they're driving, and how many of them are doing it. Doesn't matter if they think it's enjoyable or not.
Bicycle lanes and walking paths should be built where people actually walk or ride. Doesn't matter if they're doing so for pleasant evening exercise or just to get to/from work.
But it would undermine the argument behind induced demand. If building a new freeway leads people to drive more and they get pleasure out of driving, then society is better off.
1. Induced demand is generally an argument against new construction or widening, as any benefits to overall traffic will presumably be diminished by the traffic being induced to use the newer and better road. Roads aren't constructed or improved for the purpose of induced demand. Latent demand is a similar phenomenon (for which roads are built and improved), which you may have had in mind, but I'm not even sure that fits what you're thinking.
2. Few are those who claim more driving means a better society–whether people enjoy it or not. More driving means more sitting on your butt. More driving means more pollution. More driving in wilderness areas means less pristine wilderness, as anything engine-powered is generally considered to diminish the 'pristine' nature of nature.
All those negatives are already covered by Environmental Impact Statements, as they should be. I'm saying they should also consider the positives to people who enjoy driving.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2021, 01:25:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2021, 01:16:36 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2021, 01:02:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2021, 12:59:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2021, 09:10:52 AM
That is the vast, vast minority of road trips that people take.
And this is exactly why it shouldn't be considered when planning.
People's motivation for driving shouldn't matter. All that should really matter is where they're driving, and how many of them are doing it. Doesn't matter if they think it's enjoyable or not.
Bicycle lanes and walking paths should be built where people actually walk or ride. Doesn't matter if they're doing so for pleasant evening exercise or just to get to/from work.
But it would undermine the argument behind induced demand. If building a new freeway leads people to drive more and they get pleasure out of driving, then society is better off.
1. Induced demand is generally an argument against new construction or widening, as any benefits to overall traffic will presumably be diminished by the traffic being induced to use the newer and better road. Roads aren't constructed or improved for the purpose of induced demand. Latent demand is a similar phenomenon (for which roads are built and improved), which you may have had in mind, but I'm not even sure that fits what you're thinking.
2. Few are those who claim more driving means a better society–whether people enjoy it or not. More driving means more sitting on your butt. More driving means more pollution. More driving in wilderness areas means less pristine wilderness, as anything engine-powered is generally considered to diminish the 'pristine' nature of nature.
All those negatives are already covered by Environmental Impact Statements, as they should be. I'm saying they should also consider the positives to people who enjoy driving.
Really? The health impact of a sedentary lifestyle is included in EISes?
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2021, 01:32:30 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2021, 01:25:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2021, 01:16:36 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2021, 01:02:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2021, 12:59:31 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 11, 2021, 09:10:52 AM
That is the vast, vast minority of road trips that people take.
And this is exactly why it shouldn't be considered when planning.
People's motivation for driving shouldn't matter. All that should really matter is where they're driving, and how many of them are doing it. Doesn't matter if they think it's enjoyable or not.
Bicycle lanes and walking paths should be built where people actually walk or ride. Doesn't matter if they're doing so for pleasant evening exercise or just to get to/from work.
But it would undermine the argument behind induced demand. If building a new freeway leads people to drive more and they get pleasure out of driving, then society is better off.
1. Induced demand is generally an argument against new construction or widening, as any benefits to overall traffic will presumably be diminished by the traffic being induced to use the newer and better road. Roads aren't constructed or improved for the purpose of induced demand. Latent demand is a similar phenomenon (for which roads are built and improved), which you may have had in mind, but I'm not even sure that fits what you're thinking.
2. Few are those who claim more driving means a better society–whether people enjoy it or not. More driving means more sitting on your butt. More driving means more pollution. More driving in wilderness areas means less pristine wilderness, as anything engine-powered is generally considered to diminish the 'pristine' nature of nature.
All those negatives are already covered by Environmental Impact Statements, as they should be. I'm saying they should also consider the positives to people who enjoy driving.
Really? The health impact of a sedentary lifestyle is included in EISes?
No it doesn't. And now that we have a drug for obesity (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/health/obesity-weight-loss-drug-semaglutide.html), we don't need to worry about that as much.
Obesity is the only downfall of a sedentary lifestyle? News to me!
Drugs are preferable to a healthier diet? News to me!
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2021, 01:42:32 PM
Obesity is the only downfall of a sedentary lifestyle? News to me!
Drugs are preferable to a healthier diet? News to me!
Getting severely ill also is a great way to lose weight. I lost 18 pounds in 2019 with what maybe the Flu?...or maybe early COVID? I needed to trim down for a distance run anyways in February to get some extra speed so it worked out in a backhanded fashion. It almost made the weeks or chills and vomiting worth the ride. It certainly didn't have the addiction possibility drugs can carry.
(Sarcasm aside don't use drugs or make yourself intentionally sick to lose weight)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 11, 2021, 12:53:31 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 10, 2021, 11:16:04 PM
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.
Basically all data that I can find on pedestrian deaths is relegated to three places: freeways, non-freeway arterials, and collectors & local streets. The vast majority are along non-freeway arterials.
I don't really see how it would help "the fight" to improve pedestrian safety by including data beyond incidents that occur along roadways. I'm not really worried about someone falling down a flight of steps when there's two tons of metal coming at me. Mandates like the ADA should be able to advocate for general safety improvements to the built environment enough for roadway safety advocates to not have to worry about it.
To be fair, I also don't think vehicular deaths should include anyone that dies from their car being left on in a garage or something. But I do think it should include "health"-related deaths (like those from a heart attack that causes a crash), as improvements in vehicular safety technology will hopefully advance enough to the point where cars can take over just long enough to safely stop a vehicle if someone passes out, has a heart attack, etc. After all, something the weight of a car, moving at speeds that cars do, without someone safely operating it, is a massive hazard to both the "non-operational occupant" and anyone else in the vicinity.
(are we sufficiently off-topic?)
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 09:46:27 PM
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.
Per capita? Absolutely not.
Sure, one bus pollutes more than one car when it drives the same distance...but if you put people in that bus, that's fewer people driving cars.
Also, this thread is about the recreational value of highways. There are plenty of ways to recreate and see places that don't involve driving an automobile - such as bicycling, walking, hiking, ... and you might notice that none of those produce any direct carbon emissions.
Quote from: US 89 on February 11, 2021, 06:48:57 PM
Also, this thread is about the recreational value of highways. There are plenty of ways to recreate and see places that don't involve driving an automobile - such as bicycling, walking, hiking, ... and you might notice that none of those produce any direct carbon emissions.
-- inb4 he claims that it's not recreating if it requires any level of exertion beyond operating a throttle pedal --
What about former highways that have been converted to trails? I frequent stuff like; the Old Ridge Route, Old Wawona Road and Old Big Oak Flat Road for things like hiking or cycling. They aren't "drives" really anymore given their abandoned nature but definitely have a semi-recycled recreational value. It definitely works pretty well when done purposely when old railroad grades are repurposed into cycling/recreation trails.
Quote from: US 89 on February 11, 2021, 06:48:57 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 10, 2021, 09:46:27 PM
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.
Per capita? Absolutely not.
Sure, one bus pollutes more than one car when it drives the same distance...but if you put people in that bus, that's fewer people driving cars.
Also, this thread is about the recreational value of highways. There are plenty of ways to recreate and see places that don't involve driving an automobile - such as bicycling, walking, hiking, ... and you might notice that none of those produce any direct carbon emissions.
Don't be so sure, a recent study found that most train stations (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28518.0;topicseen)
have dangerously high levels of PM 2.5 in the air.
Bicycling, walking, and driving all have their advantages and disadvantages. For driving, the advantages are speed and comfort. And it's a pretty obvious fact that lots of people enjoy driving. It's why automakers market "drivers' cars". And one study quantified this (https://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2017/is-travel-really-that-bad/), with people who drive being found to be in a more positive mood than those who walk or take public transit, only falling behind cycling, and that may only be because of self-selection bias.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 11, 2021, 06:57:13 PM
Quote from: US 89 on February 11, 2021, 06:48:57 PM
Also, this thread is about the recreational value of highways. There are plenty of ways to recreate and see places that don't involve driving an automobile - such as bicycling, walking, hiking, ... and you might notice that none of those produce any direct carbon emissions.
-- inb4 he claims that it's not recreating if it requires any level of exertion beyond operating a throttle pedal --
And your smugness gets you nothing. I walk 2 miles every day.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tenor.com%2Fimages%2F5467961effc806df794ebad9b01baaf1%2Ftenor.gif&hash=5af39ebf7a225db2a2c690eeab62d40c5494bdcc)
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2021, 07:12:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 11, 2021, 06:57:13 PM
Quote from: US 89 on February 11, 2021, 06:48:57 PM
Also, this thread is about the recreational value of highways. There are plenty of ways to recreate and see places that don't involve driving an automobile - such as bicycling, walking, hiking, ... and you might notice that none of those produce any direct carbon emissions.
-- inb4 he claims that it's not recreating if it requires any level of exertion beyond operating a throttle pedal --
And your smugness gets you nothing. I walk 2 miles every day.
That's basically the US average? I walked eight yesterday.
Putting aside this dick measuring contest; I advocate for environments where walking or cycling is the preferred option. These leaves room on the road for those who need to drive
and for those who want to drive for fun.
Typical automotive advocates (maybe you, maybe not) seem to encourage cars at every possible point. I can see why someone would want to do this; I recognize the comfort and accessibility of driving. But when you construct an environment entirely for cars, it becomes difficult to leave room for those who want to drive for fun.
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2021, 01:16:36 PM
1. Induced demand is generally an argument against new construction or widening, as any benefits to overall traffic will presumably be diminished by the traffic being induced to use the newer and better road. Roads aren't constructed or improved for the purpose of induced demand. Latent demand is a similar phenomenon (for which roads are built and improved), which you may have had in mind, but I'm not even sure that fits what you're thinking.
2. Few are those who claim more driving means a better society–whether people enjoy it or not. More driving means more sitting on your butt. More driving means more pollution. More driving in wilderness areas means less pristine wilderness, as anything engine-powered is generally considered to diminish the 'pristine' nature of nature.
You know people also sit on their butts on trains, buses and bicycles too. I know, bike riding promotes more exercise and a healthier lifestyle, and what not, and there's no way anyone should try to argue against that. But it's easier to be mugged on a bike than in a car. And that's true whether you're in the South Bronx or Suburban Long Island.
Simple logic would dictate that making roads harder to drive on would increase pollution. But even if you build better roads, when you force everybody to build one big road, you render them dysfunctional. This is part of the reason I believe roads like the Staten Island Expressway, the Belt Parkway, Cross Bronx Expressway and Long Island Expressway failed.
As far as recreational use, I once drew a Super 2 that had a semi-parallel bike path and a series of random interchanges that lead to the bike path. This wasn't when I was a kid either, in fact it was only as recently as the 1990's. When I was dragged down to Florida, I found out about the Suncoast Parkway, and the parallel bike trail that's part of it. I wish I could brag and say I gave Florida's Turnpike Enterprise the idea, but it's strictly a coincidence. Nevertheless, I still remember recommending a new set of parking areas along the Pennsylvania Turnpike for a bike trailhead at the end of the abandoned turnpike east of the Sideling Hill Service Plaza. So, there's your recreational value of the turnpike at least.
Since when is 2 miles walking considering a lot? That might translate into 3,000-4,000 steps a day which is far below the standard that even most fitness watch companies recommend.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2021, 07:12:15 PM
And your smugness gets you nothing. I walk 2 miles every day.
Okay, and? I've walked at least 4 miles every day for the past two weeks, except one ... guess what I did that day? I drove. Nice little route and county clinching day drive to east GA and SC.
Let's get back to the question presented in the OP: Should the recreational value of a potential highway improvement be considered when exploring options?
Example: Is the elimination of annoying stop-and-go traffic valuable beyond mere efficiency metrics? If all other things were somehow equal, should an option that creates a more "pleasant driving experience" be more highly favored than one that doesn't? And if the answer is yes, then should it be possible for such considerations to actually edge out another option when all things were not equal?
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2021, 08:29:00 PM
Let's get back to the question presented in the OP: Should the recreational value of a potential highway improvement be considered when exploring options?
Example: Is the elimination of annoying stop-and-go traffic valuable beyond mere efficiency metrics? If all other things were somehow equal, should an option that creates a more "pleasant driving experience" be more highly favored than one that doesn't? And if the answer is yes, then should it be possible for such considerations to actually edge out another option when all things were not equal?
It depends on what kind of road we are talking about, but basing it off of his examples I'm gonna say no. Forget enjoying driving, what other benefit is the freeway going to offer? Sure, getting from point to point faster. But that's it. Now if it was something like the Natchez Trace, maybe the recreational value would be weighed more than the cost.
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2021, 08:29:00 PM
Example: Is the elimination of annoying stop-and-go traffic valuable beyond mere efficiency metrics? If all other things were somehow equal, should an option that creates a more "pleasant driving experience" be more highly favored than one that doesn't?
See, that doesn't sound like a recreational benefit to me, but a quality-of-life one. Stop-and-go traffic is stressful, so I think most people (beyond even weirdos like us) would be much happier with, say, a road that flows at a consistent rate than one that had stop-and-go traffic, where all other things, including efficiency, were equal.
For example, when the interstates in OKC are stop-and-go (usually only happens during evening rush), I'll bail out onto a surface street and follow that to my destination. Am I making any better time? No, probably not, because there's stoplights and the speed limit is only 45 mph at most (and the interstate probably gets back up to its usual 60+ past the jam). Do I feel better? Well, yeah.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 11, 2021, 08:46:19 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2021, 08:29:00 PM
Example: Is the elimination of annoying stop-and-go traffic valuable beyond mere efficiency metrics? If all other things were somehow equal, should an option that creates a more "pleasant driving experience" be more highly favored than one that doesn't?
See, that doesn't sound like a recreational benefit to me, but a quality-of-life one. Stop-and-go traffic is stressful, so I think most people (beyond even weirdos like us) would be much happier with, say, a road that flows at a consistent rate than one that had stop-and-go traffic, where all other things, including efficiency, were equal.
For example, when the interstates in OKC are stop-and-go (usually only happens during evening rush), I'll bail out onto a surface street and follow that to my destination. Am I making any better time? No, probably not, because there's stoplights and the speed limit is only 45 mph at most (and the interstate probably gets back up to its usual 60+ past the jam). Do I feel better? Well, yeah.
Today I drove up to Maynard just for the heck of it, I used the Boston Post Road and it was a very unpleasant experience between all the traffic lights and constantly getting stuck behind some slow poke, a situation not helped by MA's insistence that every single piece of asphalt down to parking lots have a double yellow line. On the other hand, driving on 95, with no traffic lights and 8 lanes, that's fun, as long as there are no traffic jams.
Quote from: kenarmy on February 11, 2021, 08:35:24 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2021, 08:29:00 PM
Let's get back to the question presented in the OP: Should the recreational value of a potential highway improvement be considered when exploring options?
Example: Is the elimination of annoying stop-and-go traffic valuable beyond mere efficiency metrics? If all other things were somehow equal, should an option that creates a more "pleasant driving experience" be more highly favored than one that doesn't? And if the answer is yes, then should it be possible for such considerations to actually edge out another option when all things were not equal?
It depends on what kind of road we are talking about, but basing it off of his examples I'm gonna say no. Forget enjoying driving, what other benefit is the freeway going to offer? Sure, getting from point to point faster. But that's it. Now if it was something like the Natchez Trace, maybe the recreational value would be weighed more than the cost.
I don't think any highway improvement would get built solely for recreational benefits, but I think adding it to the benefits of time savings and reduced accidents would make a difference at the margin.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2021, 08:55:45 PM
MA's insistence that every single piece of asphalt down to parking lots have a double yellow line.
This is not my experience.
Quote from: 1 on February 11, 2021, 09:12:32 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2021, 08:55:45 PM
MA's insistence that every single piece of asphalt down to parking lots have a double yellow line.
This is not my experience.
Mine too. Plenty of passing zones in Mass. Just not on US 20 where there is wall-to-wall traffic within I-495.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 12, 2021, 08:02:06 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 11, 2021, 09:12:32 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2021, 08:55:45 PM
MA's insistence that every single piece of asphalt down to parking lots have a double yellow line.
This is not my experience.
Mine too. Plenty of passing zones in Mass. Just not on US 20 where there is wall-to-wall traffic within I-495.
I was actually referring to residential roads that have no line at all. I haven't seen that many dashed yellow lines.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 12, 2021, 08:02:06 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 11, 2021, 09:12:32 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2021, 08:55:45 PM
MA's insistence that every single piece of asphalt down to parking lots have a double yellow line.
This is not my experience.
Mine too. Plenty of passing zones in Mass. Just not on US 20 where there is wall-to-wall traffic within I-495.
Has anyone ever considered widening US 20 to 4 lanes?
Quote from: kernals12 on February 12, 2021, 08:51:59 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on February 12, 2021, 08:02:06 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 11, 2021, 09:12:32 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 11, 2021, 08:55:45 PM
MA's insistence that every single piece of asphalt down to parking lots have a double yellow line.
This is not my experience.
Mine too. Plenty of passing zones in Mass. Just not on US 20 where there is wall-to-wall traffic within I-495.
Has anyone ever considered widening US 20 to 4 lanes?
What's really needed is a north-south corridor.
Approximate corridor (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Burlington+Mall,+Middlesex+Turnpike,+Burlington,+MA/42.3319595,-71.1810716/@42.3953911,-71.2095681,12.36z/data=!4m29!4m28!1m25!1m1!1s0x89e39e3839224bdb:0x4804e9e18f70bcf6!2m2!1d-71.2137008!2d42.4824802!3m4!1m2!1d-71.1973001!2d42.4466111!3s0x89e39df94e138627:0x4e5fe342f59b1918!3m4!1m2!1d-71.1828958!2d42.4210973!3s0x89e3762f8fcdde49:0x66d8ea312da88e56!3m4!1m2!1d-71.173904!2d42.3891927!3s0x89e377ea2536258d:0x7b996e1fb640d0da!3m4!1m2!1d-71.1822172!2d42.3438904!3s0x89e3787a97b61177:0xc4a61b38000a0f1b!1m0!3e0), but it would be new terrain except for the northernmost 2 miles (use the existing road) and the part that interchanges I-90 (connect it to the ramps on the east side of Exit 17, making the ramps frontage roads). It would continue as the Hammond Pond Parkway to the south and the Middlesex Turnpike to the north. I imagine the design speed to be 50 mph and the speed limit to be 45 mph.
Note that Google's routing changes based on congestion, but since it's a rough corridor, it shouldn't matter much.
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2021, 08:29:00 PM
Let's get back to the question presented in the OP: Should the recreational value of a potential highway improvement be considered when exploring options?
Example: Is the elimination of annoying stop-and-go traffic valuable beyond mere efficiency metrics? If all other things were somehow equal, should an option that creates a more "pleasant driving experience" be more highly favored than one that doesn't? And if the answer is yes, then should it be possible for such considerations to actually edge out another option when all things were not equal?
If the answer isn't "it shouldn't matter at all," it's "it should matter very little.
Roads are very expensive. Much more expensive than a bike or walking path. And they also have significant negatives (pollution, carbon emissions) associated with them. And since the vast majority of car trips are not taken for recreational purposes, then I really can't see the societal good in including "recreational purposes" in road planning.
I guess I can consider that things like the Blue Ridge Pkwy and Natchez Trace Pkwy were built more for recreational value, but were also built when cars were a rather new thing.
I've always longed for a similar style roadway in the Northeast if the weather wouldn't kill its usage half the year. I guess the closest a New Englander has is something like NH 112 in the White Mts. That is a road that definitely owes part of its existence due to scenery and tourism.
However, all these roads allow all types of traffic, though pedestrians are typically only on them to park somewhere and look at stuff along the road. These roads are also typically congested solely due to their recreational draw, if at all.
According to the National Household Travel Survey (https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/2017_nhts_summary_travel_trends.pdf), over 30% of all travel by car is for "social/recreational" purposes. Obviously a lot of that is for going to see friends/relatives or driving out to the countryside to go mountain biking, but I think the type of people who go on frequent road trips enjoy their time behind the wheel and they'd rather spend it on open roads rather than on congested arterials.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 12, 2021, 09:42:02 AM
I guess I can consider that things like the Blue Ridge Pkwy and Natchez Trace Pkwy were built more for recreational value, but were also built when cars were a rather new thing.
I've always longed for a similar style roadway in the Northeast if the weather wouldn't kill its usage half the year. I guess the closest a New Englander has is something like NH 112 in the White Mts. That is a road that definitely owes part of its existence due to scenery and tourism.
However, all these roads allow all types of traffic, though pedestrians are typically only on them to park somewhere and look at stuff along the road. These roads are also typically congested solely due to their recreational draw, if at all.
We came very close to getting that in the 30s with the Green Mountain Parkway (https://sos.vermont.gov/vsara/learn/general-assembly/referendum/history/1936/).
Quote from: kernals12 on February 12, 2021, 09:44:01 AM
According to the National Household Travel Survey (https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/2017_nhts_summary_travel_trends.pdf), over 30% of all travel by car is for "social/recreational" purposes. Obviously a lot of that is for going to see friends/relatives or driving out to the countryside to go mountain biking, but I think the type of people who go on frequent road trips enjoy their time behind the wheel and they'd rather spend it on open roads rather than on congested arterials.
Their definition: "Social/Recreational (exercise, movies, parks, museums and bars)"
However, there were also categories of "Vacation" and "Visit Friends and Family" in the survey that were not listed in the tables. (Also "Medical/Dental") So between the survey and the results, there was some combining of categories. It is impossible to determine what part of the results applies to road trips.
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2021, 01:42:32 PM
Obesity is the only downfall of a sedentary lifestyle? News to me!
Drugs are preferable to a healthier diet? News to me!
The drug in question is Ozempic. The news story doesn't mention the brand name but it does name the manufacturer. I started on it in 2019 because my A1C wasn't responding well to the medication I was on, and I didn't want to start on mealtime insulin. They advertise the potential for weight loss in their omnipresent commercials (oh-oh-oh-Ozempic) but the amount mentioned is, on average, 12 pounds.
After I started on Ozempic, my appetite went away. I lost 60 pounds in 2019. I got to within 20 pounds of what I weighed when I graduated from high school in 1979. Then, in 2020, I had some issues with my thyroid. My hypothyroidism got worse and I put on some weight. It didn't help that I started working from home in the spring and it's easier to snack when you're working within sight of the kitchen. I ended up gaining back everything last year that I had lost the year prior.
After my thyroid medication was adjusted and my TSH levels got straightened out, the weight gain has stopped and my weight has stabilized over the past four or five months. My A1C is now below 6 (target is 7). My endocrinologist is pondering increasing my dose of Ozempic to get the weight loss back on track. She told me that, indeed, Ozempic is being prescribed as a weight-loss medication. The story posted just came out this week, but my endocrinologist had mentioned its use as a weight-loss drug early on.
I ran into some suspicious looking guy on the corner when I was at lunch today. He was selling some Recreational Roads, I just said no and left:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 10, 2021, 10:20:42 PM
The Blue Ridge Parkway and pretty much every modern mainline National Park Road are also recreationally oriented.
Oh, not to mention the parkways of Long Island, New York City, the east side of the Hudson River, Palisades Interstate Parkway, the two-lane parkways of Harriman State Park, the parkways of Western New York,... in fact I even dare to say that the Garden State Parkway was originally for recreational purposes.
Ian McHarg, the noted landscape architect, noted in his 1969 Magnum Opus Design with Nature (https://archive.org/details/designwithnature00mcha/page/32/mode/2up) that one of the benefits of new freeways was
"increased pleasure"
Pew Survey from 2006 found that 27% of Americans had gone for a pleasure drive in the past week
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/10/Cars.pdf
Quote from: kernals12 on March 20, 2021, 12:27:24 AM
Pew Survey from 2006 found that 27% of Americans had gone for a pleasure drive in the past week
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/10/Cars.pdf
And there was a significant decrease from 1991 to 2006. It's probably gone down even more.
Quote from: 1 on March 20, 2021, 06:56:24 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 20, 2021, 12:27:24 AM
Pew Survey from 2006 found that 27% of Americans had gone for a pleasure drive in the past week
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/10/Cars.pdf
And there was a significant decrease from 1991 to 2006. It's probably gone down even more.
Why would you assume that? Gas is cheaper now (especially with the increase in fuel efficiency)
More competing recreational activities now than there were in 2006, plus in many places congestion has increased, meaning a drive is less likely to be pleasurable (and in some places there's fewer people who even have licenses or access to cars).
I like roads, but the only recreational roads are scenic roads in national parks, like the going-to-the-sun road.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 20, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
I like roads, but the only recreational roads are scenic roads in national parks, like the going-to-the-sun road.
You should recognize this recreational road (it's in the name), which is only a few miles from you.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.335415,-71.2561891,3a,69.1y,341.8h,82.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZyl9ld0Jpc5TMfpE8mH-oQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: 1 on March 20, 2021, 03:58:14 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 20, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
I like roads, but the only recreational roads are scenic roads in national parks, like the going-to-the-sun road.
You should recognize this recreational road (it's in the name), which is only a few miles from you.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.335415,-71.2561891,3a,69.1y,341.8h,82.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZyl9ld0Jpc5TMfpE8mH-oQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I agree that blasting down 128 at 70 MPH is very fun.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 20, 2021, 04:00:35 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 20, 2021, 03:58:14 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 20, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
I like roads, but the only recreational roads are scenic roads in national parks, like the going-to-the-sun road.
You should recognize this recreational road (it's in the name), which is only a few miles from you.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.335415,-71.2561891,3a,69.1y,341.8h,82.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZyl9ld0Jpc5TMfpE8mH-oQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I agree that blasting down 128 at 70 MPH is very fun.
I am going to pour maple syrup down the back of your shirt.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 20, 2021, 04:04:27 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 20, 2021, 04:00:35 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 20, 2021, 03:58:14 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 20, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
I like roads, but the only recreational roads are scenic roads in national parks, like the going-to-the-sun road.
You should recognize this recreational road (it's in the name), which is only a few miles from you.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.335415,-71.2561891,3a,69.1y,341.8h,82.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZyl9ld0Jpc5TMfpE8mH-oQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I agree that blasting down 128 at 70 MPH is very fun.
I am going to pour maple syrup down the back of your shirt.
I don't get it.
Quote from: 1 on March 20, 2021, 03:58:14 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 20, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
I like roads, but the only recreational roads are scenic roads in national parks, like the going-to-the-sun road.
You should recognize this recreational road (it's in the name), which is only a few miles from you.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.335415,-71.2561891,3a,69.1y,341.8h,82.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZyl9ld0Jpc5TMfpE8mH-oQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I don't know why that road is called that, it's nothing special.