Hacker News Reader

Comment by JDDunn9 | Hacker News Reader

Many of the benefits you listed are good examples of how people are actually pretty bad at predicting what will make them happier. We have a lot of data on the subject.

- People think that living in a larger home will make them happier than a shorter commute. Cohort studies show the opposite is true. We adapt most quickly to things (good/bad) that stay the same (like the size of your house), and poorly to things that change (like the traffic situation from day to day).

- People think they will be more active if surrounded by parks and greenery, but city dwellers actually walk/bike more. People moving to the city lose weight within a few months (~3 lb. if I remember correctly)

- People think that cities are dangerous, but you are more likely to be killed young in the suburbs. This is because car accidents are far more likely than homicides, and you drive more in the suburbs.

We know people in cities are, on average, happier and healthier.

View on HN

The one thing that definitely won't make people happy is someone else telling them they don't know how to make themselves happy. People want choice, even if that means making a few incorrect choices.

>We know people in cities are, on average, happier and healthier.

Some people really dislike cities. I need woods. I need open spaces. I need to see the stars at night. I need a place for my dog to run without some stranger screaming about leash rules. But I also need to work. Personal transport, my own vehicle to carry myself and my dog, allows me to both work and enjoy the open spaces. So I'm all for parking spots.

And yes, weather permitting, my dog does come to costco with me. She would much rather sit in the car than sit at home. If she wants we'll hit any number of dog parks on the way home. If I took the bus, or Uber, she would have to sit at home ... alone all afternoon rather than being with me. That's what having parking spots at Costco means for us.

> People want choice, even if that means making a few incorrect choices.

I don't agree. I often feel liberated when someone takes away a meaningless choice from me. If (and only if) the choices that are left are acceptable to me, of course.

For example, I was going to shop for a new kitchen, and I hated the idea of it. Having to comb through dozens of wood and handle options, arguing all day about the layout, it sounded really dreadful. Then my brother moved into a new house that had a kitchen, so I just bought his old one and had it installed at my home. That was absolutely awesome. I didn't have to think about anything.

> takes away a meaningless choice from me

What is meaningless is completely subjective to every person, so there is no way to remove options without affecting someone.

Also, how do you buy a "kitchen"?

And I don't have a problem with this, but I do have a problem with minimum numbers of parking spots, or giant parking lots that are unutilized during the night or while you're not at work.

Parking spots at place should like Costco are notoriously bad for the planet and aren't some of the least efficient things possible. At some point, the things you value (such as your parks and woods and scenery) are going to brush up against this suburban sprawl and you're going to be upset.

If you value green spaces, you should be encouraging the disuse of cars and mass parking lots.

America is extremely large, our economy is shrinking not growing, and our native population is not growing either.

Note that the above situation is fractal similar at different scales ranging from my state to the entire world. Similar but not identical.

If this is the case, it just shows we need to further urbanize.

It's a funny thing. I don't mind a long commute, of say, 1 hour each way mostly highway. I can use that time to listen to podcasts, audiobooks, or music. Things I rarely find time to in my daily life. But if I have 1 hour commute in heavy traffic, I feel that I'm wasting my time. The former I'm okay with, the latter I avoid at all cost, even if the net result is the same for me.

If you had a self-driving car, do you think the heavy traffic or even stop-and-go traffic would be as bothersome?

It's hard to say. Maybe not. When driving, I am 100% aware of what is happening in a self-driving car I would be focused on other things, perhaps work. In that case I wouldn't mind at all I think.

But it's the thought that I'm spending so much time, on what should take far less. In essence losing time compared what it could be if not for the external factors.

New York, San Francisco, and Washington D.C. have significantly higher commute times (including by public transit) than less dense cities. New York's subway riders have it particularly bad, spending an average of 7.5 hours per week on the trains [0]. This is despite those cities having some of the best transit systems in the country [1].

I'm aware of the finding that lower commute times are associated with happiness, but that makes the opposite of your argument. The lowest commute times are found in small, low-density, car-oriented cities. Even in New York, drivers and taxi-riders have shorter commutes than public transit users.

As you'll see in the report, a very lucky few have short walks, but it is not at all the norm. I surmise that if you can afford to live within walking distance of work in New York, you're likely an order of magnitude too rich to need to work.

Your other points are valid, but I'm highly skeptical that these benefits are worth the extra $2000/mo they bring in housing costs (when collapsing a 3-bedroom house family into a 1-bedroom apartment), particularly when we are talking about people who do not have $2000/mo.

I say this as a relatively new Berkeley to SF public transit commuter. I love my job, but I'd rather stab my eyes out than spend 80 minutes on overstuffed, lurching BART trains every day for the rest of my life. Fortunately, the gruesome death vs. BART tradeoff is available in the form of motorcycling, which I'm trying next.

[0] http://origin-states.politico.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazo...

[1] http://ao.umn.edu/research/america/transit/2014/index.html

But is driving the same as being in public transport? You can read a book, watch a video, and in general not pay attention to your surroundings (more or less). Meanwhile driving in traffic is half boring, half stressful.

Getting a seat is absolutely not the norm during commute hours. Two transit systems I use (BART and CTA) are actually migrating rolling stock to designs with fewer seats to free up more standing room.

Unless you board at the beginning of the line and show up well before departure, you're going to be standing. Likely pressed up against strangers, holding the overhead rail, trying to keep balanced while the operator does his best to knock you over with violent throttle and brake inputs. On rare, blissful occasions I'll get some wall to lean on. Usually stuck in the center.

I have tried to read this way, but it doesn't work well. It's hard to find a nook where there's enough space in front of me to hold a book. The one handed book grasp is awkward, and I always seem to choose the wrong moment to take my other hand off the rail to turn a page.

You can wear headphones, same as you can listen to the the radio while driving.

I wish I could not pay attention to my surroundings; that's pretty hard when in a hot stuffy smelly claustrophobic space trying my hardest not to make physical contact with strangers' bodies.

Healthier too, as much of that time is spent walking or standing instead of sitting on your ass.

BART is way over capacity and a terrible experience for sure.

Have you tried the transbay busses? I ride the F from North Oakland every day and I have a seat every morning and, with a little planning, a seat every night on the way home (get to the stop early).

A motorcycle will probably be faster, but a 40 minute "leisurely" commute on the transbay is a pretty nice option.

http://www.actransit.org/transbay-lines-in-east-bay-neighbor...

The Transbay buses are all standing room by the time they get to me, and I've been denied boarding several times. BART is somewhat easier to stand on then they are.

> We know people in cities are, on average, happier and healthier.

I've lived in both and had a happy, healthy life in both.

When I was young, the city was definitely where I wanted to be. I loved the energy and the density. I was close to my friends and because of easy transportation, could get to them anytime I want.

Almost thirty years later, I'm now living in the 'burbs and I never want to leave. It's quiet and I have space to work on my motorcycle, I have a garden, I like my neighbors and I like that they aren't right on top of me. It's fantastic for dog walking and my office is a very scenic 7 mile bike ride from my home.

With self-driving cars on the horizon, I think the suburbs might go through some type of re-birth.

> With self-driving cars on the horizon, I think the suburbs might go through some type of re-birth.

Suburban sprawl. I have several concerns with that. In places like San Francisco, there is no space to sprawl. It’s healthier for kids to use physical activity to move around. Only 7 miles from the office? When everybody goes to the suburbs, typical commuting distances are measured in the dozens of, or even over 100, miles.

But I haven’t seen an answer to the concern about economic sustainability. The tax revenues from the properties have not been high enough to maintain the infrastructure, and likely cannot be high enough with middle-class people living there. I can imagine Donald Trump, how would he solve it? Hire contractors to rebuild the infrastructure and then threaten to sue them when they present the bill? That’s how he built his own properties. I don’t think it will work for the rest of the nation.

http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/

Even in mildly dense areas like San Francisco, revenues do not cover maintenance. The BART district just passed bonds to rebuild the tracks, but we haven’t finished paying off the bonds to construct the tracks. This entire region needs to become dramatically more dense, preferably gradually over the last 50 years, but now we might finally have the political will to do it; just so we can afford to maintain the infrastructure.

And I think everyone is OK with your choice, they just don't want to subsidize it.

I'm okay with taxes going up, but isn't that just how taxes are? Pacifists don't want their taxes to pay for the military. Pro-lifers don't want national healthcare to cover abortions. Some people think NASA is a waste of money.

The military, healthcare, and NASA are have at least some aspect of being a public good.

But that's not true of the suburbs, it's just a lifestyle choice. And it's just as weird as the federal government heavily subsidizing video game purchases.(ignoring externalities.)

The Quakers I grew up with might argue with you about the military, but I get what you are saying.

Maybe a better comparison would be the tax deduction for mortgage interest or agricultural subsidies.

I think this depends vastly on the city. An unhealthy city won't have these kinds of benefits.

I think, particularly in the climate that I'm in, a /cave of steel/ style city WOULD have those benefits. If instead of streets for cars we had a mesh of (Babylon 5 style) 'zocolo' (sp) markets that had smaller storefronts and a lightly park like median.

Classic case of cherry picking statistics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com