Hacker News Reader

Comment by pif | Hacker News Reader

> This would seem to contradict the finding that lower commute times are associated with overall happiness

Not at all! Happiness _is_ correlated to shorter door-to-door time, but higher speed does not equate to shorter times if the distance grows as well. From the article:

> We have a strong hunch as to why traveling faster might not generate more satisfaction with the transportation system. Faster travel is often correlated with lower density, and longer travel distances to common destinations, such as workplaces, schools and stores.

View on HN

It seems like the whole study is missing the point. The question is whether people in New York would be happier if their system was faster, not if they'd be happier if they moved to St Louis.

Basically the study finds that trains go faster if there's a larger gap between stops. Not really that interesting a result. It then has a headline that implies a causal relationship where clearly none exists.

Sure, but in context this is an argument for, "see, we should slow cities down, because you'll be equally happy."

It's easy to move farther out in response to faster travel. Low housing prices in the outer suburbs with reasonable commutes attract people to a city. How are people going to move closer in if fast travel is eliminated? Should the people who can only afford the outer suburbs just leave?

> Not at all! Happiness _is_ correlated to shorter door-to-door time, but higher speed does not equate to shorter times if the distance grows as well.

Exactly! This is also related to the The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: building new roads just allows people drive more. (See Duranton and Turner.)

You can view this as an equilibrium. People will prefer uncongested roads until they become congested.

Surprising, yet simple when it's pointed out.

> building new roads just allows people drive more.

Not only that: it allows more people to drive.

I'm not the first to say this: people will choose to drive into congested agglomeration as long as the alternative (public transport) yields a longer door-to-door time.

Different regions have dramatically different average commute times which don't directly correlate with population. Thus disproving your point.

Insufficient roads, poor zoning, etc all add up into a complex whole. But, roads reduce the value of some peoples property which is why you get such strong opposition.

PS: Importantly, congestion has a cost not just for the average commute but the number of hours in the day that are congested.

> Different regions have dramatically different average commute times which don't directly correlate with population. Thus disproving your point.

Average commute time is not the desired metric here, see Duranton and Turner[1].

[1]: http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Matthew_T...

Road miles driven has utility, but there feedback effects which make it a poor long term measure. Duranton and Turner have a biased view of the situation as which does not map to economic, social, or even environmental utility.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com