The Recreational Value of Highways

[kphoger]

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.

[kernals12]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[kernals12]

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.

[kphoger]

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?

[kernals12]

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, we don't need to worry about that as much.

[kphoger]

Obesity is the only downfall of a sedentary lifestyle?  News to me!

Drugs are preferable to a healthier diet?  News to me!

[Max Rockatansky]

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)

[jakeroot]

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?)

[US 89]

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.

[jakeroot]

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 --

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[kernals12]

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
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, 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.

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.

[NE2]

[jakeroot]

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.

[D-Dey65]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[US 89]

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.

[kphoger]

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?

[kenarmy]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[kernals12]

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.

[kernals12]

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.

[hotdogPi]

MA's insistence that every single piece of asphalt down to parking lots have a double yellow line.

This is not my experience.

[SectorZ]

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.