• @Xenon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    104
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Elon:

    Guys, I think I’ve got it… What if we built another lane but, you know, under the ground, like a tunnel.

    • @madcaesar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      Passenger per hour going where? If everyone is going from A to B, ok. But people need to go allover the place.

      For me a 10min car ride is a 1.15h bus ride…

      • @Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        9
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well, no one is saying cars are worse for all purposes. If you want to take your family and dogs to a cabin in the mountains while also shopping for food along the way, it is probably going to be your best bet. Still, that is not what is pictured in the post. These are commuters that are probably moving from work to home (or vice versa), where cars really are the worst of most options. If the bus takes longer, it is probably an issue of allocation of funds for a shorter route and exclusive lanes for it.

      • @ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        91 year ago

        If cars were banned then the bus lines would be a lot better to compensate

        But maybe you take a 10 minute train followed by a 5 minute bus in the utopia example

  • @Hammocks4All@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    531 year ago

    I once heard of an experiment in economics that offers insight into this.

    Say you have 100 people. You give each of them one of two choices:

    A : you get $40 unconditionally B: you get $70 - n, where n is the number of people who choose B

    You end up getting, on average across experiments, n = 30.

    If you move the numbers around (i.e, the $40 and the $70), you keep getting, on average, a number of people choosing B so that B pays out the same as A.

    I think the interpretation is that people can be categorized by the amount of risk they’re willing to take. If you make B less risky, you’ll get a new category of people. If you make it more risky, you’ll lose categories.

    Applied to traffic, opening up a new lane brings in new categories of people who are willing to risk the traffic.

    Or something. Sorry I don’t remember it better and am too lazy to look it up. Pretty pretty cool though.

    • @Eigerloft@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      201 year ago

      It’s called “Induced Demand”.

      As a road widening project is completed, traffic is alleviated for a short amount of time. Then as time passes word spreads, or more people move to the city, or kids get older and get their driver’s licences. More and more people know this widened road is the fastest route, so more people take it, thus undoing the improvement. Then the cycle starts again - either with the same road being widened again, or another one a block over, on and on until the world is covered in asphalt.

      The solution is to make alternative transit more appealing than cars. Bikes and public transit already have significant financial benefits, but lack infrastructure to make it more viable in North America. Busses get stuck in traffic, bikes are forced to share lane space with cars or sidewalks with pedestrians.

      • @corgi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -121 year ago

        How is alternative transit the solution? Cities that have public transportation still have traffic jams.

        There was an English traffic engineer that predicted that avg speed in central London will always be like 9mph. No matter how many lanes or public transit options you add. If there is no traffic, people will take cars until traffic jams are unbearable to give up. Then the system finds equilibrium.

        • @Eigerloft@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          141 year ago

          The key is public transit that doesn’t suck. For the last 100 years the car and oil/gas industries have spent billions of dollars undermining public transit.

          Dedicated transit lanes, subways, light rail, protected bike lanes all make cars less appealing to those that want to use them.

          • A Wild Mimic appears!
            link
            fedilink
            101 year ago

            Yeah, one of the best examples of this is the Vienna public transit network. About 1000 vehicles (bus, tram, light rail, subway) in service at rush hour, a daily total distance of over 200000km traveled, more year-long ticket owners than car owners in the city, and about 2 million “travels” per day, which is about 30% of all traveling done over the city (including pedestrian and bike traffic)

            If that traffic would be routed only by car, the city would be a giant parking space; to compare, one subway train carries about 900 people in rush hour, which replaces 790 cars (avg 1,14 persons per car here). the subway interval in the rush hour is about 4 minutes. i live at one of the subway final destinations, which is on one of the far ends of the city - and i can be at the other side of town in about 25 minutes.

            And constructing and running a public transit network is a pretty nice boost to the local economy, creates a whole lot of jobs. sounds like something a lot of us cities could make use of.

            Mixed traffic works here, it allows mobility for all social classes (yearlong tickets cost 365€, so about 400$ incl. taxes), nearly all stations are barrier free.

        • @grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          10
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The key is that both adding car lanes and adding alternatives like transit are subject to induced demand, but the consequences of it are different for transit than for cars. Not only is the limit of the added capacity much, much higher for a train than it is for a car lane, adding more traffic to the lane up to that limit makes the performance worse and worse (increasing congestion), while adding more transit ridership up to its limit makes the performance better and better (increasing train frequency and therefore reducing wait times).

          Similarly, induced demand for walking and biking is a good thing because more people doing those things improves public health, doesn’t pollute like cars do, and takes up much less space.

          So it’s not that induced demand is bad, it’s that inducing demand for cars, specifically is bad.

        • @BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          The goal for alternative transit is not to remove traffic jam, it’s to transport people.

          9mph is slower than a bike, it fits with my experience. When living in a city (in Europe, it might be different in the US) my feeling was always that bike was the fastest, public transport a bit slower but more comfortable (mainly protected from the elements and car drivers) and lastly car was the slowest and more stressful.

    • @xavier666@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      If you make B less risky, you’ll get a new category of people. If you make it more risky, you’ll lose categories.

      Can you explain what this part means? What do you mean by category here?

      • @Hammocks4All@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        Yes. That wasn’t the best word choice; maybe “group” would have been better. I meant groups of people who are willing to take some level of risk. Imagine the categories are “low risk takers”, “medium risk takers”, and “high risk takers”.

        Compared to A paying out $40, if you make B $50-n you’ll only get the high risk takers choosing B. If you make it $70-n you’ll get high and medium risk takers. If you make it $120-n you’ll get almost everybody.

        If risk taking is a value between 0 and 1, the categories are groups of people inside certain intervals. For example, low could be [0, 1/3), medium could be [1/3, 2/3), and high could be [2/3, 1].

  • ☂️-
    link
    fedilink
    16
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    just one more lane bro pls one more lane bro i swear just one more lane

  • @ChilledPeppers@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    141 year ago

    Um acttschually, we knew about induced demand as early as 1920, but the government just doesn’t care about science. (It used to be called traffic generation)

  • @Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    131 year ago

    The other point to make here is, obviously you look at this highway trip and say “Well I am obviously not walking or biking it.” But, the expansive gaps between home and destination are often caused by many many roads and parking lots like this one. We have dedicated gigantic land masses specifically to cars, and it actually lengthens travel time to our destinations.

    I have been to countries where, even if thin highways exist, they’re not the rule and it’s easy for other modes to get under or around them; and their roads don’t dominate the urban areas. There, the answer is simple: Just walk, you don’t even need a bike.

    • Liz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      231 year ago

      I mean, that game does not actually properly stimulate transportation. The solution is:

      1. multi use zoning to reduce commute distances
      2. Make every mode of travel equally safe, convenient, and pleasant.
      • @StaySquared@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        I believe another solution would be highways that are strictly for transporting of goods, rather than sharing roads with semitrucks.

        • Liz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          9
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Nah, very little of congestion is trucks. You can even see that in this picture. Plus, you’re not trying to make driving easier, that will just cause more people to drive (one more lane bro). You make everything else easier and people choose to walk/bike/bus and the roads clear up because there’s fewer people choosing to drive.

    • @Sconrad122@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      191 year ago

      Buses and trains. That, or spaghetti interchange that are bigger than the rest of the city. Also, replace key arterial roads with a pedestrian path, call that path a park, and charge $20 for entry. That will easily fund all the city services and nobody will be too inconvenienced by having to pocket their car as they walk across the “park” to get between neighborhoods. Now excuse me, I have to go murder a little blue bird that won’t shut up about the garbage piling up

  • @doingthestuff@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    91 year ago

    In a place with essentially nothing but narrow two lane roads, no bike lanes or sidewalks, a little wider might serve some good. Adding a turn lane and a bike lane would free up tons of traffic.

    • @Acters@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      If the highway increases in size, then more off ramps or more lanes in the off ramps are needed, which in turn need more lanes on the main street that connect to the off ramps. It’s basic filtration system dynamics.

      • @doingthestuff@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        I’m not talking about highways, I’m taking about roads connecting suburbs etc. The only way I can get to work. They’re terrible and only accessible to cars.

  • Canopyflyer
    link
    fedilink
    English
    71 year ago

    I’ve seen that exact scene in Atlanta trying to get to Alpharetta from 75 S by 675.

  • @FuryMaker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    61 year ago

    I keep thinking this during my daily commute along a 3 lane freeway. If a bus/truck overtakes another bus/truck (often), it basically becomes a single lane freeway. And during peak, that little manoeuvre is going to cost you and hundreds of cars behind you, probably for a long time.