this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
1210 points (97.4% liked)

Memes

45646 readers
1090 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Xenon@lemmy.world 130 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Elon:

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

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 78 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 35 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Trains are the crabs of transportation.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 10 points 6 months ago

Can’t improve a crab.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 43 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 18 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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 14 points 6 months ago (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee 70 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Work 👏 from 👏 home👏 !

The answer to so many manufactured problems.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 6 months ago (1 children)

But what about the office landlords, are no one think about how they are going to feed their yatchs?

[–] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

After the Covid lockdown, Italian politicians, pundits, and talking heads used sandwich sales as a reason for a return to office.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] psud@aussie.zone 30 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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

[–] Hammocks4All@lemmy.ml 66 points 6 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 57 points 6 months ago (4 children)

I heard a city planner talk about why adding a new lane doesn't help, and the term they use is "induced demand."

Basically, people are going to take the route that they consider the most convenient, and that usually comes down to time and effort. Traffic hurts both by taking more time and being more stressful to deal with. When you add a new lane to a road, people think that the traffic will be easier there, so they take that route instead of their normal one. So you're just adding more cars to the traffic that match or exceed the throughput of your new lane, basically putting you back at square one but a few billion dollars more poor.

You've essentially added a single lane one-way road to help ease traffic across the entire city.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Eigerloft@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 64 points 6 months ago (11 children)

Just going to leave this one here:

[–] Kayana@ttrpg.network 27 points 6 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 16 points 6 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?).

[–] Liz@midwest.social 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 6 months ago (4 children)

What is suburban rail, and how is it different from light rail?

[–] MuffinHeeler@aussie.zone 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 48 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Study: 83% Of Road Construction Stops Right Before They Would Have Added The Lane That Would Solve Traffic Problems

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 30 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Think of it like trickle down economics. If it hasn’t worked yet, you just need to make sure that the fat cats on top are fed so forcefully and so fast that something starts trickling down eventually.

Just keep going. We will tell you when to stop.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] botorfj@lemdro.id 23 points 6 months ago

omg poland 🇲🇨🇲🇨🇲🇨🇲🇨

[–] DanglingFury@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago (3 children)

One more train* will fix it

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 18 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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

[–] ChilledPeppers@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months 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.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip 13 points 6 months ago

The approach worked as intended, more perfectly even.

Look at all those useless expenses on the pic, some people profited on products that weren't necessary to begin with, and put a lot of moneys in so the system wouldn't accidentally change for the better.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 11 points 6 months ago

No! Don't stop now! We are so close!

[–] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] yokonzo@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (6 children)

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

[–] Liz@midwest.social 27 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sconrad122@lemmy.world 20 points 6 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

[–] notabotactually@sh.itjust.works 15 points 6 months ago

Viable alternatives to driving

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

Delete the save and start again

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›