this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
74 points (91.1% liked)

Fuck Cars

9645 readers
267 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ConfidentLonely@lemmy.world
Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
toaster@slrpnk.net
74
More Lanes = More Congestion (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Xanderill@lemmy.world to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

More lanes → more people driving + more people taking that specific route → problem gets worse.

Usually a better approach is to invest on mass transport; for example even if a bus takes the space of three cars (I'm guessing), it's able to comfortably transport at least 20 people.

Sadly, any sort of mass transportation system is also prone to the same sort of vicious cycle; for example, if queue time for buses is too long, people will avoid taking them unless strictly necessary, so their usage is lower, so the companies put even less buses on those lines, so queue times increase even more. It's basically what happened in my city (Curitiba), that used to have a fairly decent mass transport system.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've heard the rule of thumb is that mass transit will basically always take about as long as driving there: because people will choose one or the other based on time.

So if you want your mass transit to improve it's always worth it to do it at the expense of drivers: they'll become your riders.

[–] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’ve heard the rule of thumb is that mass transit will basically always take about as long as driving there

From personal experience this is true with some caveats - it doesn't take into account waiting times, or that mass transport will never stop exactly where you want it to, or that sometimes you need take multiple ones to reach your destination. All those things add time that potential passengers take into account before deciding "I'll take the bus" vs. "I'll drive" or "I'll take a uber".

So if you want your mass transit to improve it’s always worth it to do it at the expense of drivers: they’ll become your riders.

Yup - and that's what a mayor here did in the 90s, to encourage the usage of the bus system. For example certain central avenues got bus-exclusive lanes, and car transit in the leftover lines actually decreased because of that.

[–] scytale@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Same in my city, although mass transit was already terrible to begin with. Now, buses are often late or don’t arrive at all. Bus stops still have no shade which is miserable in this heat.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

What is the train wreck of a post description all about?!