Hacker News Reader

Comment by ff0066mote | Hacker News Reader

I read the whole article, but stopped taking it seriously at: "a vicious collection of roadblocks"

I think it's fine for people to desire quieter neighborhoods in this era of high population density. I don't think that the people in all of those examples were pursuing change for the financial gain.

View on HN

Roadblocks make one part of a neighborhood quieter at the expense of another part. They also make traffic worse, which increases wasted time and pollution. If enough of those policies get implemented, people will find it too hard to get to downtown Palo Alto, and the shops that make it attractive to live there in the first place will suffer.

Policymaking based on parochial interests without regard to the effect those policies have on the rest of a city tends to be a bad strategy. Unfortunately, this is the status quo in many cities.

On the other hand, I live at the bottom of a hill, 100ft from a traffic light. A new development opened up at the top of the hill, and now SUVs barrel down the hill at >50mph, see the green light, and accelerate. The speed limit is 25mph.

So when I hear about communities in Palo Alto "viscously" blocking traffic, I wonder if perhaps they are simply attempting to return traffic levels that were present when they bought their houses to raise their children.

Perfect example of NIMBY-ism. You bought a house at the bottom of a hill. You got a price that likely had this negative quality priced in, because cars drive fast downhill. Now, you act like people just started driving fast downhill in the last few years, and that this problem needs to be resolved immediately to suit you.

So, according to you, the problem of drivers regularly doing 50 mph in a 25 mph zone need not be resolved "immediately"?

When should it be resolved?

You're missing the point. There likely isn't a problem at all. His perception that drivers all of a sudden are greater in number and more aggressive since he moved in is probably completely inaccurate.

It's definitely the case that most drivers gain a bit of speed going down a hill, but it's been that way forever and it's not something you're going to change. So if one of your main concerns is the speed of traffic outside, don't buy a house at the bottom of a freaking hill.

Well I guess I explained the history too briefly. Our neighbors don't drive down the hill too fast. Unfortunately, the new gated community that was built recently has a primary exit at the top of our street. The fastest way for these SUV drivers to get to the freeway is through our neighborhood. Our street is no longer a dead-end for our neighbors. Its now the primary traffic route for an entire community. So I'm "acting" like people just started driving fast down our hill in the last few years because, yes, that is true. In 2005 they did not. In 2008 they did.

Now, there is another route, along a major roadway, with a higher speed limit and more lanes. But its not a direct route and is 0.8 miles longer. I doubt that the quality of life of this new community would be severely impacted if they were "encouraged" to take this existing route.

For what it's worth, your complaint seems legitimate to me. However, if there are only two routes to get to a freeway, that sounds like poor urban design to begin with. Street connectivity is a virtue, and suburbs are designed to avoid it at all costs. You want fewer routes to the freeway to fix your problem, but having more routes would probably be the optimal solution to balance both your street's interests and your city's. Given your description of the neighborhood, I'm guessing that's not even possible anymore.

Anyway, take a video of people barreling down the hill and send it to a city council member. Newspapers also like this sort of thing when it's egregious enough.

PA city council is already hard at work at this, choking off key arteries like Arastradero/Charleston Rd for "safety" (their attempt at lowering speed was to choke bandwidth, worsening traffic jams at peak hours).

> I think it's fine for people to desire quieter neighborhoods in this era of high population density. I don't think that the people in all of those examples were pursuing change for the financial gain.

It's fine for people to desire see things (either quiet ,increased property values, or both), but the point of the article as I see it is that they don't necessarily deserve to have them when it comes at the expense of even a mild cost to lots of people.

"they don't necessarily deserve to have them when it comes at the expense of even a mild cost to lots of people."

That argument has been used to justify demolishing inner-city neighborhoods to make way for overhead freeways benefiting suburban commuters.

I know I run into them a lot trying to drive around Berkeley. It's a huge pain in the ass to cars trying to navigate through. Obviously home owners must love them, though. "How would you like if we blocked off your road to traffic so it becomes a quiet cul-de-sac?" "Yes, please!" Forget about hurting everyone else coming through.

"It's a huge pain in the ass to cars trying to navigate through."

And therefore it's a real pleasure to bike, walk, or take transit.

Having moved away from Berkeley to a city that prioritizes car travel above all else, I find I choose now to drive two blocks rather than walk because it's just unpleasant to get buzzed by cars doing 50 in a 35 on residential streets.

MUNI averages 7-8 MPH, which is why a short round trip across San Francisco takes two hours (assuming it even shows up). It's exceptionally hard to start with awful at-grade transit and somehow make driving so much worse that people stop doing it. "Traffic calming" isn't bad enough, it just produces unpredictable and impatient driving.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com