• ChilledPeppers@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 months 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)

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Part of it is that the organisations that design and build roads are also the ones who assess whether a road is needed. No big surprise that they “forget” about induced demand

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      You know what would work just as well, but without isolating people?

      Mixed zoning and mass rapid transit

      Let people work walking distance to their home, give those who need to go somewhere a way of going there quicker than traffic

      It’d also be good to mandate easy availability of work from home for anyone in a job where that is practical

    • conorab@lemmy.conorab.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is the most infuriating part. The best solution to these issues is to remove the need to move in the first place, and WFH for the people that want it and who can do it removes a huge amount of traffic with comparably little cost (company laptop, a screen and maybe a desk and chair, many of which could just be taken from the office).

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      So many people commuting to jobs that could easily be done from home nowadays

      I work in the freight industry in a position I can’t do from home but when the whole work from home thing was in full swing I didn’t get stuck in traffic except a few times when the local drawbridge went up

  • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months 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
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months 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
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months 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.

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      My town wants to widen a section of road near me. It’s the only part of the road with only one lane each way

      I’m torn. I know widening the road won’t help traffic (right now that narrow bit reduces through traffic, making it a nice bit of road to drive) but if they do widen it, they will also add cycle lanes.

  • yokonzo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Any city’s skylines players know what actually would fix this problem?

    • Sconrad122@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 months 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

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      2 months 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
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

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

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months 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.

    • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      One long meandering 6 lane road that makes up the entire city. I’m not even kidding, that’s pretty much the optimal solution in the game.

  • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I wonder if a picture like this could be used to fool future archeologists (or paleontologists or historic internetologists, or whichever would be studying it) into thinking we put great effort into segregating people with white lights and scum with red lights from using the same roads.

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Another solution is mass transit. That right of way could support light rail and still have several car lanes in each direction

      The light rail also gives work from home people a way to get to shops, shows, and sports without driving

      Light rail also can be built to not get stuck in traffic, which makes it faster than driving too

    • Kayana@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t really like including pedestrians in there. Like sure, you can fit a bunch of people in a small area, but another point you shouldn’t ignore is the throughput over time, and pedestrians are by their nature rather slow. Obviously if you’re looking at shopping in a street lined by shops left and right, then that street becomes tailor-made for pedestrian traffic (and nothing else except perhaps bicycles). But public transport is much better suited for travelling any further distances, and that should be the main focus when deciding to ditch cars.

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        The units are passengers per hour. If they didn’t account for speed, pedestrians would theoretically be one of the highest, since you can pack people together fairly tightly and still have them walk.

        • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          That reminds me of how shipping hard drives full of data is technically faster than downloading over the internet. Technically true, but almost always a poor choice in practice.

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I wonder what the people/hour max is on something like a stadium entrance or hallway? I bet it’s insanely high. Definitely some safety concerns though with crushing or trampling

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 months ago

        Sure! Both speed and distance matters a lot for throughput. The advantage of pedestrian traffic is that designing for it reduces the distance people have to travel and that it combines very well in conjunction with public transport, unlike cars. Also, the speed of mixed traffic is inverse correlated to the number of vehicles, hence is a special case in this regard where throughput may decrease as the volume per lane increases. The overall point however is that a single train can substitute a staggering amount of private vehicles (and who doesn’t love leaning back, listening to music and reading the news while commuting?).

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you design your cities well people live near the places which people want to visit, and pedestrian speed is fine

        Lots of cities are well designed, though most that were so designed in the US got modified after cars became important

        • Kayana@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          That may be true for smaller cities, but in bigger cities it becomes impossible, because there just isn’t enough space to house all the people near areas of interest. Cars don’t factor in there at all. Give me a subway for the major areas, and perhaps a tram or bus system so you don’t need that many subway stations in the residential areas, and you can have car-free city centers.

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months 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…

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        My town does buses better than that, but peak hour buses get stuck in traffic

        So times when it’s a 20 minute drive, it’s 30 or 40 minutes by bus, when the same drive is 45 minutes in slow traffic, the bus is not a lot worse, at 1 hr

        Anyway the better solution has busses only as a last mile solution, with trunks covered by rail

        • kungen@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I don’t really understand, how can the bus be so much worse? I assume it’s on the same lanes as the cars? Is it that busses are forced to drive significantly slower than cars, or are you including the time to+from the bus station perhaps?

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            The bus must stop at other stops, wait at an interchange for passengers, then drive in the same lanes as cars (though there are limited lanes on some major roads)

            There are no dedicated lanes on the route in my example, though it also is an express bus which doesn’t stop at the interchange between where I live and the town centre. Also it is speed limited slower than the rest of traffic on the main road of the route

      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months 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

        • Lad@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Public transport is shit where I live. If I want to go and visit my grandma, it’s a 20 minute drive, 15 on a good traffic day.

          If I want to use public transport, its a 45 minute walk to the nearest train station, then a 30 minute train journey, then a 40 minute walk to grandma’s.

          • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            its a 45 minute walk to the nearest train station,

            Yeah, this is a really, really, really big problem with designing society for cars. Tons of people live in suburbia, with no mixed zoning, where they’re a 2 hour walk from their nearest church, a 4 hour walk if they want a coffee; and so like you say, driving becomes their only option. It’s the only thing they can do, realistically. And if they ever lose their car somehow, uh, say hello to poverty. Good luck getting a job at that coffee shop 4 hours away.

            In situations where someone who lives very far from a city is visiting someone else very far, cars probably still make some sense. In the OP picture example, though, that is a prime candidate for transit refactoring. The presence of cars there is actually hurting them.

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months 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.

      • MuffinHeeler@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t know what they call it where you are from but here light rail is trams. Similar to San Francisco cable cars.

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          I guess everything I’ve been calling light rail fits into the suburban rail category. Multiple cities I’ve lived in are adding in “light rail” tracks between major centers

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Suburban rail is heavier than trams, the London tube is suburban rail, as are Sydney trains

        • Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          A step heavier. For the London example, think more like the Overground, the Purple Train or Thameslink. Or the many railways radiating out.

          For other examples, think systems like the LIRR in NYC, the RER in Paris or the S-bahn in most major German cities. (though the Berlin one functions more as a metro that’s just legally a train)

          • Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Re: legally a train
            Metros and anything lighter are governed by different laws than trains. So German U-bahn is legally a tram, governed by the BOStrab, while S-bahn is legally a train, governed by the EBO

  • Xenon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    132
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Elon:

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

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      2 months ago

      He seemed to casually ignore that at the end of the tunnel was still the concept of an offramp with a 25mph street that everyone was funneling to.

      Of course he never planned on building it anyway. It was all just to distract from California High Speed Rail, because that directly gets in his way of selling more cars.

      • mondoman712@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Just to be pedantic, the dumb car tunnels (or Loop), are the weird thing elon “invented” to “solve” traffic and reduce competition for his cars for urban transport. This eventually became one tunnel in LA to get between elon’s house and office, and the dumb taxi tunnel in Las Vegas.

        The hyperloop, where elon “invented” the vacuum train, is a separate thing that exists to distract from CAHSR, and elon didn’t want to work on himself because “he’s too busy”, and not because it’s effectively just a scam and won’t work, and most of the companies that started up to develop it have since gone bust.

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        because that directly gets in his way of selling more cars.

        Which is stupid in itself, because the entire goal of the CA HSR project is to link long distance corridors, not putzing around town like most do with a Tesla.

        • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          2 months ago

          In fact I think there’s a missed opportunity for EVs to partner with long distance public transit.

          The main limitations of electric cars is distance, but if people knew they could go across the state or several states comfortably without their car, they might be more willing to take a electric car for city driving.

    • Annoyed_🦀 🏅@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      79
      ·
      2 months ago

      I recently watched a video about autonomous car and the dude argue the tech isn’t here yet, but it will work if we build a lane just for autonomous car and put every autonomous car on that lane.

      Everyone in the comment basically calling him out for reinventing the train lol.