173
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
173 points (95.8% liked)
pics
19662 readers
1007 users here now
Rules:
1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer
2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.
3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.
4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.
5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.
Photo of the Week Rule(s):
1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.
2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is why traffic sucks. Super highways don't reduce traffic, they create it.
I'm not disagreeing necessarily (I know nothing about city planning), but wouldn't a smaller highway just force people onto the side streets and city roads? How does a superhighway make traffic worse?
Most people will think traffic behave like water that you need to send through a network of pipes. It is not, traffic is made of humans and humans reactions will make traffic behave wildly differently than waters in pipes.
The exact reasons for the increase in traffic is complex and my example could be totally off. But we don't need to know the exact reason for the increase in traffic, we know it happens because it has been observed on every road enlargement projects in the last decades.
There are some good videos by notjustbikes on this topic, iirc the main problem is that big streets make people want to drive more which makes everything more crowded
Ah, bikes. Driving is a necessity. I'm not going to commute 30 miles to work on a bike, and I'm not going to haul a pallet of drywall on a bicycle.
Off-road bikes are great, and they're good machines for exercise. Bicycles should not be allowed on public roads. They're a hazard.
The bicycles aren't the hazard, the cars are.
In europe a few countries have city centers where you aren't allowed to drive your car and some countries have seperate paths where bikes can ride.
Bikes are way better for the environment and trips around 5-15 km can easily be done with a bike without having to pay for gas or insurance etc.
Bikes also help you do excercise without having to waste time because you are doing the excercise while travelling somewhere.
Bikes and public transport are so much more efficient than cars
Tbf there's assholes who behave recklessly in traffic on every mode of transportation. I've been run into by a bike twice in the past few years. But guess what, if we built proper infrastructure for them, they wouldn't choose the sidewalk in order to protect themselves from cars. Also, the choice between whether you'd rather a bike or a car runs into you is pretty obvious.
No doubt. I pick car every time. Listening to the douchebag cyclist whining after the accident would be too much for me to bear.
When I was 11 a cyclist ran me over while I was getting off a bus and then proceeded to scold me for a few minutes. I prefer a bruise and a scolding despite being in the right over a broken bone and an apology. But you do you.
Bicycles ARE the hazard. If your vehicle of choice isn't able to reach and maintain the speed limit, then you are a hazard to everyone else on the road.
If you really don't want to drive a car, buy a motorcycle.
If you had access to good public transport you could take a train for those 30 miles and relax, work or read instead of wasting time being focused on traffic. But if there's too much supply of roads built for the purpose of everyone driving their car everywhere, there won't be much demand to build something like that.
Biking and walking can then be for mid and short distances, respectively. But both will be dangerous unless there's proper infrastructure for that. And again, not happening until they stop the over supply of roads.
And for hauling the dry wall, yes, use a car. Imagine how much nicer traffic and parking will be if most commuters who aren't transporting big loads aren't in private vehicles.
The problem is that the infrastructure doesn't exist, and introducing it is cost-prohibitive for large parts of the US. I would love to be able to take a train from my small town to the nearest metro area 30 miles away and then take a tube to a block away from my destination--but that's just not going to happen in my lifetime, because the city can't afford to install a subway, and the auto lobby won the war against commuter rail before I was born.
Could it be better? Sure. Might it become better? Maybe, but probably not in my lifetime.
In the meantime, people are de facto dependent on cars. Destroying infrastructure necessary to support the reality of how people must, through no fault of their own, travel punishes the traveling public without addressing the actual problem.
If we're going to transition to better transit infrastructure, we first have to build the better infrastructure--and pay for it by ~~eliminating~~ unseating political opposition. Only then can we dismantle these kinds of monstrosities without disenfranchising the people who depend on them.
Yes absolutely! It's a systemic issue and there's no reason to blame the individuals who take cars because they're literally not provided an alternative. It's so fucked that you literally can't do anything in much of the US if you can't afford a car.
And of course it's absolutely critical to start providing an alternative before dismantling existing infrastructure, fucking people over even further. It doesn't have to start with a big rail line, even local buses and bike lanes and safe side walks within the small town will help a lot in reducing short car trips, such as to the shops or to school.
But for anything at all to happen, there will have to be enough problem in favour of traffic reform, and they'll have to be loud. The car lobby is a huge opponent. But in local politics, like on a town level, they don't have as much of a say. Maybe, just maybe, small change is possible
I know none of this will happen over night, but fingers crossed you'll get to experience a better future in your lifetime.
It's more the political opposition than the cost, rail used to be the de-facto long distance transport and it worked very well.
Rail still hauls a lot of freight, but in many areas people no longer enjoy the benefit of rail transport.
Freight rail is still alive in my area--and that means commuter rail could be. But like a lot of places, the public has been duped into voting against their own interests. I don't want to hijack the thread, but it's an issue that--if you care about it, you should be voting for Amtrak Joe. Public transportation needs to be part of the nation's climate agenda, and the Criminal Cheetoh wants to sacrifice us all on the altar of petrol.
Your particular commute might not be feasible without a car, but many are. Adding bike infrastructures allows those who can commute by bike to do so, while freeing space on the road for those who can't..
Let’s flip the equation here.
If driving wasn’t an option, you wouldn’t live 30 miles away from your job. Driving was an option, so you did and so did your neighbors. More neighbors move in, more cars, more traffic, more lanes, more neighbors, more cars, etc.
Alternatively, you move closer to work in a town with half decent sidewalks and walk or bike in. Bikes and people take up much less space which allows things to be closer together.
And yes, cars are necessary for hauling large objects over long distances, but how many vehicles in this photo do you think are carrying more than just people?
Building larger highways always encourages more traffic. For a better explanation, check out this video by Adam Something. His youtube channel has a lot of interesting videos about transportation infrastructure.