
Going faster doesn’t make you happier; you just drive farther - oftenwrong
http://cityobservatory.org/going-faster-doesnt-make-you-happier-you-just-drive-farther/
======
closeparen
This would seem to contradict the finding that lower commute times are
associated with overall happiness [0, not the best link but there are many].

Slowing down a metro area by, say, forcing a modal shift towards bicycles will
not make conveniently located housing any cheaper. If anything, it'll be more
desirable and therefore more expensive. Absent a change in housing spend,
commute times will rise and free time will sink.

EDIT: I'll add that while I don't live far from work for a bigger yard, I _do_
live far from work so I can have my own apartment, instead of roommates.
Having lived both with roommates and without, I'm confident I really am
happier this way.

[0] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kirsten-dirksen/happiness-
rese...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kirsten-dirksen/happiness-research-
ranks-_b_829591.html)

~~~
pif
> 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.

~~~
widdma
> 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.

~~~
Retric
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.

~~~
widdma
> 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...](http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Matthew_Turner/papers/published/Duranton_Turner_AER_2011.pdf)

~~~
Retric
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.

------
TheCapn
I've always been under the impression that commute satisfaction is related to
various levels of consistency. Constant speed, constant commute times.

I drive 3x as far at my new home to my job as I did at my previous home but
since my workplace is on the edge of the city and I moved to a rural home I
drive 90% of the way on highway. Set cruise, set podcast, arrive at work in 20
minutes (+/\- 5 minutes). Old home? 15 minutes but through a dozen
intersections and several road merges and lane changes.

Much happier now.

EDIT: I should say that my first career job was about 2km from my home. I
could choose to drive and battle 10 intersections and then the hell that was
parking, or I walked. It took 15 minutes longer but it was consistent and
smooth any day of the week, regardless of construction. Highly satisfied.

~~~
jasonmp85
I feel like this is part of the story behind Lyft and Uber. They traded
inconsistent timing and consistent pricing for consistent timing and
inconsistent pricing. Certain people seem to like the better (I do).

I can always get a Lyft in a minute or two in a major city. I might pay
slightly more for that at certain times of the day.

~~~
seanp2k2
It's also about a third of the price of a cab when using UberX or Pool.

------
dbg31415
Speak for yourself. When I'm out on the road, top down, if I'm going over 70 I
can drive for days. Ideally light traffic, roads with curves, and clear bright
visibility. Figuring out how to pass the car in front of me is a puzzle that
gives satisfaction when accomplished. Cut my speed down to under 35 in heavy
traffic where I just have to trudge along with everyone else, where I have to
shift between low gears a lot, or where I'm staring at headlights... man it
just isn't fun.

(Side note, what's with all the super bright headlights in the last 2-3 years?
I see about 20% of new cars with these ridiculously bright lights that just
shred my eyes at night -- is it a change in the law or a change in the tech
that's allowing these to become so prevalent? Feels like these people are
driving cars with their high-beams on... and I can't help but think that the
drivers are assholes for doing it.)

~~~
saurik
I really want to make a giant LED sign to put in my rear view window that says
"adjust your headlights: they are blinding me :/" with a switch I can use to
turn it on :(.

~~~
mantas
Auto-dimming rear view mirrors are awesome. There're aftermarket options too.
They're not cheap but may be worth it if you spend a lot of time driving in
the dark in heavy traffic.

~~~
GrinningFool
I can't stand my autodim mirror. It is always dimming too much and/or at the
wrong time.

~~~
cardiffspaceman
For a brief shining period I had an autodimming mirror which was right on, and
I didn't even realize it at first. The car that replaced that car does not
have this, and just the mirror itself is a ton of money so I'm bearing life
without. Y'all are using your high beams on your lifted SUV's too much (I
don't mean, YOU, you know what I mean).

------
binarymax
See that blip for Rochester,NY with the top satisfaction and a high speed
index? That's where I live and I can say it's the best driving city I've ever
experienced.

An excellent balance of bandwidth and saturation and average distance, makes
most drivers here really easy going and happy.

...unless your trying to get to East Ave Wegmans at 5:30 pm on a Friday :)

~~~
eternalban
A game I used to play back in the day when I had to drive on the interstates
was to maintain sufficient distance to the car in front of me so that anyone
could trivially make lane changes, etc. The amazing side effect was that
typically the cars behind me would start doing the same thing. It was mildly
pleasurable.

~~~
sosuke
I've entertained the idea on multiple occasions that there might be a way to
introduce good actors which use traffic calming driving techniques onto the
road with the purpose of helping to regulate the flow of traffic. This assumes
that there is a way to influence traffic on a large scale by way of a few good
drivers.

------
Ensorceled
This is a completely unsurprising result.

My happiness is strongly correlated with my commute time NOT the speed at
which I'm driving.

We keep establishing the second part of human nature, for instance better
insulation resulted in bigger homes, not energy savings[1]

[1] [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/09/as-
american-...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/09/as-american-
homes-get-bigger-energy-efficiency-gains-are-wiped-out/)

------
sametmax
Speed alone is a useless factor if you don't take in consideration the
conditions of the drive.

Taking hours in a comfortable train, with my laptop, a power socket and 4G is
not the same as in the sub suck standing between to a fat sweating smelling
dude and a crying baby.

It's not the same if I have an appointment or if I'm going to my holiday.

It's not the same if it's cold and raining or sunny with birds singing.

People don't just go fast for the sake of speed. It has a purpose.

So yeah, slowing down in life is a good advice. Chew and taste the food,
exercice, take the time to read, stop to talk to your kids, etc.

But all lifes happen in a context.

The context is not the same when you have a shitty underpaid job with heavy
commute in terrible conditions and 2 kids to drive to school, or, if you are
like me, in the sunny south of france driving your cool-ass motorbike. Yeah I
take my time, there. But I guaranty you, when I'm in the US traffic, I really
don't want to take my time.

------
brookside
I'm definitely of the Mr. Money Mustache school of thought on commuting- there
should be a fairly strong reason that you aren't dwelling in place from which
you can bike to work.

[http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-
of-c...](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-of-
commuting/)

~~~
Declanomous
I love biking to work, but being able to do that consistently depends as much
on the amenities at your office as it does on the distance from your work.
Unless you live in Sacramento, or some other place with nearly perfect
weather, you are either going to need a locker room and shower at work, or you
will need to drive whenever it is snowing or raining.

That being said, my commute time has gone from 30 minutes a day to an hour a
day as the areas in between where I work and where I live have become more
popular. It's a large part of why I'm considering a new job. The commute to
work isn't bad, about 20 minutes or so, but the commute home can be more than
twice that. The added commute has definitely made me a less happy person in
general, due to things like added stress, less free time, etc.

Edit: I live in Chicago, and looking at the data the only place that has a
slower average speed is Miami. I think the higher than expected satisfaction
is from the reasonably good public transit. I'd be much happier if my commute
allowed me to easily take the L to work. I'd be interested in seeing
individual results from within the city though. I wouldn't be surprised if
there was a binomial distribution of some kind.

~~~
dmm
> or you will need to drive whenever it is snowing or raining.

I think you could bike every day, if you wanted to.

Fenders would keep dirty road water off you and a rain shell with rain pants
would keep you dry. Or if it's warm you can wear shorts and change once you
get to work.

If it's too snowy to safely bike, should you really be driving? And how much
does it really snow anymore? This year Chicago had the first January without
measurable snowfall in recorded history :(.

~~~
Declanomous
It's not about safety, it's about getting to work and being presentable.
Riding a bike in snow takes an incredible amount of effort. Even if dressed in
a manner which allowed me to stay dry and warm, I will arrive at work
completely drenched with sweat.

Even if I have a change of clothes with me, I still need to wash myself, and
find a place to stash my wet and smelly clothes I rode in on. Giving myself a
sponge bath in the handicapped stall and hanging my sweaty clothes up to dry
in the basement is not a winning idea.

Also, my car has winter tires, AWD, enough gas to run for 8 hours at idle,
food, water, blankets, etc. I think that's a far safer thing to be in a
snowstorm in. Not to mention the fact that cars are inherently stable, unlike
bikes, so I can go as slow as I need to be safe without falling over. Plus, if
someone else who is less patient hits me, I'm far more likely to be safe in a
car.

Regardless, the biggest issue is the fact that physical exertion makes me
sweat, doubly so when I am wearing weather-appropriate gear, and I don't have
a shower at work.

~~~
dmm
You say

> It's not about safety

but then you present several arguments about how the car is safer.

I bike all year in a similar climate. Take a hot shower before you leave. It
kills surface bacteria that produce odor. Change clothes when you get to work
if you're really sweaty.

> the biggest issue is the fact that physical exertion makes me sweat

You specifically mentioned rain and snow before so that's what I addressed.

As you acclimate to the heat you'll sweat less. Also on a bike you naturally
produce a breeze. With experience you can balance your effort and the cooling
affect of the air to minimize how sweaty you get.

Most people drive to work and think that's fine and normal. I'm just saying
what's stopping you from biking to work is not the weather but what you've
decided to value.

~~~
Declanomous
This isn't an ideological argument. Cars are safer than bicycles in almost all
circumstances. I sweat to the point where I need to shower after getting to
work. If I don't shower after I sweat, my hair is a mess and I will have
breakouts, despite being a grown man.

I ride my bike to and from work almost every day from April to October, 8
miles each way. I think I have enough experience to say the barriers to
cycling more. Perhaps if my ride was 2 or 3 miles I'd probably be able to ride
my bike at a leisurely pace, but at that point I could also walk.

I think the argument that you acclimate to the heat is baloney. I play pickup
basketball in a gym without AC 5 days a week, and despite that and the bike
riding I still sweat a lot. Some people sweat more than others. It is just a
thing. There is one guy I play with who literally looks like he stood in the
shower ten minutes after we start playing. Other people can play for an hour
and look like they just stepped on the court.

Either way, it's still a bit ridiculous to claim that if I really cared I'd
ride my bike to work come hell or high water. There have been days when I've
been able to drive to work where winds have been high enough to shut down the
train lines, and when I'd almost certainly be blown off my bike.

------
bbitmaster
I disagree with the premise. Happiness with a transportation system does not
correlate with the absolute speed you can go. Instead, I think it would
correlate with "how many interesting/useful places can I reach with x effort".
Most of the regions listed with fast transportation have things spread out
much more.

If the grocery store is a mile away, and it takes 5 minutes to drive there it
is equivalent to being a couple of blocks away and it taking 5 minutes to walk
there. (This assumes walking and driving are equally as easy). Or likewise if
I had to commute to work every day by car for 1 hour, it doesn't matter how
fast the car moves. I lost 1 hour of my time and that hour is traded for
transportation happiness.

I would argue that the faster regions have things spread out so far that it
doesn't make up for the faster travel. I lived in both the Southern U.S. and
now in San Francisco and I easily see this as being true. Travel by car in the
south is MUCH faster than in SF, but it doesn't make up for way things are
spread out.

~~~
akgerber
That is the premise, and you agree with it?

"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."

~~~
wtetzner
I think the real issue is that it seems pretty obvious that people don't drive
fast because it makes them happy to go fast. People drive fast because if they
don't, it takes them longer to get where they're going.

Also, there's another reason I think people like to go fast. If you're stuck
behind someone that's going slower than you've been going, you feel trapped
and frustrated. It seems like this happens even if the person in front of you
is only going a few MPH slower than you were.

------
pif
> 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,

Indeed, who ever thought that speed alone could matter? Time is the key. 2 km
at 30 km/h is much better than 60 km at 120 km/h.

------
mc32
I don't know. I've been on slow systems (SJ VTA, for example) and they are
irksome. Also bus lines in SF which take circuitous routes to get you
somewhere --they are very frustrating and are reasons I've driven instead of
ridden public transit many an occasion. The most frustrating part is you feel
like you have no control over the situation. You know you are at the whim of
the system and there is no wishing for skipping a stop or overtaking a slow
motorist or cyclist.

~~~
monster_group
I took the bus to work for several years. And I totally get what you are
saying about not having control and getting frustrated. But to me the whole
point of taking the public transport is to not have to worry about those
things in the first place. Don't look at the traffic or how the driver is
driving. Read a book, listen to an audio book, learn a new language, put on
noise canceling head phones and do meditation - don't worry about how the
traffic is or if the bus driver is slow. I did my entire Master's degree on
the bus. Two hours of study time every day! After I got done with my Master's
I studied tensor calculus on the bus because I wanted to understand general
relativity. Nobody to disturb - no kids, no spouse. I don't take the bus
anymore because I changed jobs and there is no public transportation available
to the new destination. But I would happily take it again if there was one.
Also walking to and from the bus/train stop is some physical exercise that
otherwise I would not get.

~~~
closeparen
I wish I could do all those things while standing. I _do_ have to look at how
the driver is driving to anticipate jerky movements if I want to keep my
balance.

------
threepipeproblm
Ivan Illich told us this in the 70's, in "Energy and Equity"

[http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/EnergyEquity/Energy...](http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/EnergyEquity/Energy%20and%20Equity.htm)

~~~
ashark
Thanks for this link. Not done yet, but it's outstanding so far.

------
barrkel
Transport speed increases the feasible size of a city. That size could be to
fit more people in, or it could be bigger houses, or whatever; but it
effectively creates room for some form of growth, just like a big tree needs a
thick trunk.

~~~
mantas
This. My city is currently in sprawling mode (thanks to commie blocks
occupying good spots). Most of the new development happens along the major
highways. New quality roads increase development in said direction a lot.

------
plaguuuuuu
Seems a bit interesting to just ignore the whole s=d/t relationship and go for
the 2D graphs. Adding the extra variable and doing some nice 3D charts can
only create more meaningful data and conclusions.

------
exabrial
I disagree. I'm much happier on my R1. I get to 75mph much quicker too :D

~~~
nf05papsjfVbc
Unfortunately, not everyone can ride a motorcycle or lives where the other
motorists are friendly (or at least not-hostile) to motorcyclists. Many also
consider it beyond their tolerance for risk.

I am really lucky to live where people are happy to accommodate motorcycles
(cars make room for motorcycles to split lanes when we have slow moving
traffic) and I use one to commute to work everyday. I do sincerely wish more
people could share in the joy of riding a motorcycle :-)

However, I am aware that there are places where people are hostile to
motorcycles. I just hope that some day things get better.

~~~
louhike
The noise of motorcycles is a problem when you live in cities. I'm afraid most
city-dwellers would not be faborable of more motorcycle-friendly cities
because of that.

~~~
mattthebaker
Not all motorcycles are that loud, especially the smaller ones more suitable
for getting around IN the city. In proper urban areas, scooters are more
convenient anyway -- smaller, more maneuverable, automatic transmissions, and
more storage.

------
beat
This is pretty obvious stuff. People have a limited tolerance for daily work
commute of a max one hour each way, whether they're driving 70mph from one
suburb to another, or walking from their village to the fields, or hunting and
gathering in the woods.

------
Neliquat
Its not about average speed, its about absence of frusturation events, many
just so happening to be backup of traffic, or delay in transport.

------
StClaire
There's a metaphor for life in there somewhere

~~~
dredmorbius
One trip in which it's the journey, not the destination.

------
jlebrech
it's depends how loud the engine is and if it's supposed to make that noise.

------
1_2__3
The daily HN dose of anti-car hysteria is here right on schedule. I can't help
but think there's some deep-pocketed companies making sure that "autonomous
cars are our only future!" and "there's no point in trying to get the
government to spend money on roads!" are the standard refrains on this and
other sites frequented by millenials.

~~~
clock_tower
What companies do you have in mind? I'm not aware of any organization that
spends heavily on lobbyists and would stand to profit from more trains; train
manufacturing is generally a small part of big conglomerates, like Siemens and
GE. (This is the product of long, frustrated research on exactly that point.)

If it's self-driving cars you're thinking of instead of trains (and self-
driving cars are a ludicrous solution, with all the drawbacks and none of the
advantages of both cars and trains), they're a fad, and they sort of market
themselves. When they fail to deliver in 5-10 years, we'll be free of that
crap.

The majority of this sentiment is the millenial preference for living in
cities like traditional civilized peoples, instead of out in plastic suburbs
with no commerce except retail chains and no social activities except TV,
Evangelical megachurches, and sportsball. Kunstler's _Geography of Nowhere_
might be worth reading on this subject.

