Just one more lane bro. I promise bro just one more lane and it'll fix everything bro. Bro, just one more lane. Please just one more, one more lane and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro c’mon just give me one more lane i promise bro, bro bro please! Just need one more lane
In the end the city will have to bulldoze the houses and offices that make up to the city to make room for more roads and cars, increasing costs and destroying their own tax revenue in the process, or realize less cars are the answer.
Man, I'm flashing back to my visit to Detroit and the massive 'boulevard' that cuts the city in two. The car I was riding in had to get on to what was basically a highway, change lanes a half dozen times, and exit via ramp in order to get from one neighborhood to another. (In the span of a quarter mile).
It was eerie, but doable, because there weren't many other cars on the road. I can only imagine how difficult it would have been when there was actually traffic.
When you have enough tarmac, you don't even need lanes or lights, there'll be space for everyone.
Lanes are a commie plot to steal freedom anyway.
It's obvious from the picture that it is the buildings in the city that cause the congestion. get rid of em.
I once got stuck behind someones house once, I politely honked three times and flashed my headlights , but it wouldn't budge, so in the end i had no choice but to ram right through it. Fucking cities stealing all our open roads.
It probably just attempts to indicate it's the same 3 cars again, likely pointing out the fact that there are legitimate reasons to drive, those people are just fucked by everyone else and brain-dead traffic planning.
It looks like the green cars have passengers, while the red cars have single occupants.
Nevermind, some of the red cars have passengers, too. I guess the green cars survive to the final graphic… why that’s relevant, I don’t really understand.
Might just be that those three cars have legitimate reasons to be driving. Like, it could be a carpenter's or electrician's van on the way to a job site in the city.
I think it’s more for design language, you’re subconsciously drawn to the green vehicles because they’re different, and subconsciously when you’re looking at the traffic, you’re reminded what it’s like being in the traffic yourself.
So you imagine yourself as the green car.
1st scenario: traffic is really bad.
2nd scenario: they’ve added more lanes, but you, the green car, are still stuck.
3rd scenario: public transportation has alleviated the traffic and it’s better for all.
Notice in the 3rd scenario, all the transportation is green. I think it’s to make you think, “I can ride my bike to work” or “I can take the bus” or “I can still drive my car if where I live requires me to” depending on your own situation. It’s to show all options can be viable, if you support public transportation.
I assumed that Green = Moving. The pedestrians in the city are green, as are the busses and bikes in the bottom diagram. The greens in the top two are there to show just how few vehicles can actually move at any given time.
Denmark checking in. A lot of our highways have separate parallel bicycle highways. It's really great! They have exits in the same spots as cars do and have big sound barriers.x
Spending billions of dollars connecting two cities and not spending a couple percent more for parallel active transportation infrastructure also seems like a terrible idea.
Nobody cares if you block them. We object to the things you say. You don't just block people and get on with your life, you attempt to weaponize blocking people. For your own petty needs.
Definitely put cameras in the bus lane and fine all the cars who are driving in it then.
There are solid black lines in the bottom diagram instead of dashed in the top two, this suggests something more than a lane line, it might be representing a kerb or could easily be a more physical barrier. but as far as a simplified diagram goes that looks pretty clearly separated as can be depicted in plan view.
I assume this is not the detailed plans. If it is those buildings are way too small for all of these people to fit inside.
There’s a bus lane before getting to the cars, and there’s a stoplight and a tighter lane which indicates that that’s no longer a fucking 70+mph zone lol.
Look, it’s ok to not be that smart but being such a massive prick about it is a bad look, broski.
You're looking at what is obviously a conceptual diagram and acting as if it's some kind of literal blueprint. IMO it's something closer to a Sankey diagram showing the overall flow and moda share of traffic into the city than a plan sketch of an individual road. I don't think it's even reasonable to conclude that it's actually suggesting using the same alignment for cars, bikes, and pedestrians at all, let alone strawmanning it as "a bike lane on a highway."
Frankly, I'm found it to be a tough call deciding whether you genuinely didn't understand that or if you were commenting in bad faith (which violates rule 1), and the only thing that made me give you the benefit of the doubt was your later comment talking about the cement barrier (i.e. a somewhat constructive comment about how to make it better) instead of continuing to flatly reject it.
If you had looked at my replies to other people who replied to me, you would see I wasn't antibike lanes in general. The diagram looks far closer to a city street than a highway.
I'm unironically all for removing stop signs, traffic lights, and speed limits. If you build streets and roads properly, you don't need those, frequently ignored, control devices.
It would remove gridlock, but not necessarily congestion.
As an often pedestrian, i often prefer lights. If it's a busy dual carriageway roundabout It can often be hard to route pedestrians across. You end up with elaborate and winding pedestrian subways.
Roundabouts are ok on rural junctions, but round here we often have to have traffic lights on roundabouts as you start to get closer in to urban areas - and they do seem to help flow.
I just don't believe road design alone can remove the need for coordination as population density gets above a certain level. Fuck in central London you need traffic lights just to coordinate all the buses never mind cars. Of course they need an overhead s-bahn type light rail system there though, but planning rules/landowners won't allow it. At this point they just need less people - but again the govt/electorate/landowners won't allow that because they're all a bunch of tw4ts.
As Jason Slaughter (Not Just Bikes) says—and I agree—any city street with more than one car lane in each direction is an abject failure of urban planning. Multi-lane roundabouts should never exist in places where people are expected to walk.
If enough people are going the same direction at the same time that they need more than one lane for cars, then that's the perfect route for transit.
Round abouts, peanuts, uncontrolled, yielded, modal filtered, raised, edged, sunken, and more.
There are a lot of ways to give clear cues to all road users on what to do, and how to do it, without relying on signage. Traffic lights in particular are extremely low throughput; their primary advantage is allowing vehicles to drive really fast between intersections, so they are great for roads/highways but not for streets.
Ok with that, but you also need to remove other cars from the road. Every time I've been stuck in traffic, it was because there were so many other cars. This has got out of control! Who are all these people and where are they all going?!?
There was a guy who took his guitar before the Portland City Council and sang a song about induced demand. If you build more lanes, more drivers will come and fill them.
The project actually still hasn't started due to ongoing litigation and budget constraints. It did get redesigned with more bike infrastructure and pedestrian bridges to cross the freeway, but local bike and pro-transit groups still oppose the project.
One of the main arguments is that the state's proposal is not consistent with the city's regional plan, which says that the interstate can only be expanded if congestion pricing is also implemented to discourage additional traffic.
At this point, the state is planning to fix up some bridges while the rest of the legal fight plays out. Expansion probably won't start until 2028 in any case... at which point this song will be an "oldie."
I'm stuck on this rock with people like that. The worst part is they speak with such confidence and authority that their opinions will carry more weight than mine in the real world.
Oh how naive I was when I used to think that spread of the internet would mean spread of intelligence. Who knew that the dumb-and-the-loud would have an easier time than the smart folks when spreading information.
To fight despair, organize. Find and join your local advocacy groups for transit, cycling, etc. Many improvements that happen are the result of fierce advocacy behind the scenes.
Or at the very least, participate in a critical mass in your city from time to time.
It amazes me that this country literally has state borders built around rail systems, a huge dependence on rail for shipping, but decided to just pave over trolley rails, and jack prices of train transit to thousands of dollars for just a few hundred miles. Then the government forces us to pay shittons of money into our vehicles in taxes, insurance, etc without regulating the private companies that we're forced to pay. Meanwhile other countries have super fast trains to travel, subsidized with tax money, and travel seems to be more efficient.
Provide no public benefit for your taxes while forcing the populace to funnel money into predatory private businesses. This ensures the powerful can rob the population with impunity and without pesky competition while making the populace distrustful of public programs that might benefit them and deprive those wealthy, powerful robber-barons of their golden eggs.
I wish they'd follow that mental thread backward, and question why they have a kneejerk response to call anything that's about caring for other people communist, and then why they think that's a bad thing.
That's the thing. They don't really do the whole "thinking" thing. Their argument is based entirely around emotion, parroting words they've heard before which correspond with the emotion they are feeling rather than actual meaning. If you tried to engage this person in a meaningful dialogue, they would likely dodge your questions, or start engaging in ad homenim attacks, or start talking in circles.
Ah yes. Words as magic spells to be rearranged into weapons until you've won the argument or else exhausted your "opponent," rather than trying to communicate thought. And only ever used offensively, to manipulate. If you actually think about what the enemy is trying to communicate rather than just skimming for keywords, then you risk having them infect your mind and changing you.
As a cyclist I've noticed a, harshness, recently. In Ontario our premier did a distraction campaign where he villanised bike lanes. Turns out he was talking about a couple of specific ones but all of the sudden, after biking in town for years. People nearly hit me. There is no Lee way any more. I've been swiped by mirrors and pickup trucks try to roll coal on me (pretty sure you little dicks need a diesel and your just fucking up your engines for nothing) because I like a bike ride on a sunny day. Or want to stay in shape. Or need to get to work. It really does feel like "get a haircut and drive an f150!!!" around here and that wasn't always the case.
I'm a 2A friendly American and even I say that's absolutely not a good idea for this scenario. The person you're replying to is either trolling or needs serious help.
Fun fact: The faster a car travels, the bigger the spacing between the cars gets. That's necessary to leave enough distance for emergency stops.
While the speed increases linearly, the spacing increases with the square, meaning at double the speed, the spacing quadruples, which in turn means that throughput (number of cars per hour) halves.
This is the reason why many regions use electronic speed signs to drop the speedlimit lower when there's congestion. Because it increases throughput and thus reduces travel times.
The optimum speed for high throughput is 30km/h.
Counterintuitive as it might be, drivers should be all for 30km/h speed limit in cities, because it would make them get to work faster.
You can cite an infinite amount of proven facts and studies, car brains will never accept your „communist propaganda“. This whole discussion is too emotionally loaded to be based on facts.
Yep, and at that speed, 50km/h on an "empty" street INSIDE a city, that's also the most "efficient" speed to avoid those pesky children bits getting stuck on your windchill were you to tackle one while checking your phone.
Apologies for the sarcasm but most drivers I encounter on a daily basis absolutely do not have the sustained concentration behind wheels to safely drive a 50km/h within actual cities.
If children are a factor (residential street, school zone, playground, etc) there's all the reason to limit to 30, or even 20 (like the street I live where kids are playing around). Optionally time restricted.
Main avenues with clear sidewalks separated by a green strip can have 50 or even 60 km/h limits.
As an adult, relatively big (1m85) who doesn't randomly run across a street but rather use solely clearly marked zebras I sadly have to report that I had numerous encounter with cars at a very uncomfortable distance to my body, some even touching me (not an accident proper though). I did have of course the occasional wave saying "Oops, sorry I didn't see you or care for slowing down, moving on!". When I say occasional it's probably once a month or more.
To clarify this happened next to a park with very VERY good visibility, a straight line without trees, where it's slightly higher speed than around. Namely small streets around the park are 20km/h, that avenue is 50km/h. It is actually such a problem a red light has been installed 200m further. I assume that enough cars refused to yield so that this change was made.
This makes me believe that unfortunately, even though MOST drivers are indeed able to safely drive in "Main avenues with clear sidewalks" there is still a non negligible amount from my experience as a pedestrian who absolutely can not and are a danger for everyone, kids and adults alike.
That being said, you have the right to believe that few accidents are acceptable if it allows most people to keep such a certain speed.
To clarify this happened next to a park with very VERY good visibility, a straight line without trees, where it's slightly higher speed than around.
That's not surprising to me (as an engineer); the dangerous encounters probably happened because the street was straight and had a generous clear zone.
Strong Towns "30 days of confessions" series has a couple of good (short! -- under 2 minutes each) videos explaining it:
Of course it makes sense. In fact I believe I have a similar problem while cycling on a one way street for cars while cycling on the (non protected) bike lane of the opposite direction. I hate that street because very often cars do not move away... because they don't look up. They are busy doing I don't know what in their cars... probably because, if I understood the idea properly, they think it's all fine, nobody "should" come from anywhere but behind them, so the "can" be "distracted".
I'm an adult just slightly bigger and have never had an encounter like you describe, and I lived in a big city decades, using public transport and walking exclusively. If drivers in your environment are that bad, stricter limits are reasonable.
Yet I also see them and a lot more frequently since pandemic. I still claim everyone forgot how to drive safely.
For me the big problem is that it’s legal to “turn right on red”. However people for get that you’re supposed to come to a full stop and to yield to any road user. So many times I’m in the crosswalk with the walk signal lighted yet someone zooms through to take a right on red barely slowing and without concern for pedestrians
We also seem to have gotten a lot worse with “stretching a yellow”. Why is it that I can wait for a light to turn red, then wait a couple more seconds for the walk signal to come on, yet still be endangered by someone blasting through the intersection claiming “my light was yellow, bro”.
Or maybe it’s just the self-centeredness. People have so much trouble being aware that someone is travelling differently than they are. Pedestrians are invisible because “everyone drives”, cars zoom right up to and through crosswalks at a red light because “no one will be in the crosswalk”.
It’s become a running joke with my kids that you always have to look the wrong way before crossing the street. We regularly cross a one way street where we have twice had close calls with someone going the wrong way. Knowing the layout, I’m pretty sure it’s intentional. It would be difficult to do on accident and I can see the “short cut” being much more convenient
My guess North American (because of the turn right on red) and European car cultures are different. European cities are much more walkable and drivers are used to pedestrians. I rarely have a car not stop if I come up to a cross walk, and basically 100% if I'm with my kids.
And there’s where we invent roundabouts. Even when the streets are not congested the time to cross any urban area is dominated by the stops. It much more beneficial to eliminate stop signs and red lights, to keep you moving consistently than to let you speed a little more to your next stopping point
A MAGA-before-there-was-MAGA family member of mine actually used to say "If we didn't have these big slow buses on the streets, and commuter trains blocking the rail crossings, we wouldn't have a traffic problem."
Higher speeds do the opposite for congestion than what you'd think. If everyone and their mum wants to drive on the same stretch of highway at 5pm sharp, there's not enough space - at speed.
Obviously, everyone fits when standing still. The amount of asphalt is immense.
Reducing the speed limit from 120kph to 80 will allow 50% more cars to fit on the same stretch of road, thereby reducing stop and go, and not really impacting your average speed; you'd be stopping and going during rush hour, anyway. But now traffic flows, which is safer and easier to follow.
Why? Because - let's assume safe driving - every car has two seconds of safety distance to the car in front. Those two seconds remain two seconds, but that means the distances you need are twice as large with 120kph than with 60kph. Your car length doesn't even really matter, two seconds at 120kph are ~67m. So the road will always transport 1 car every two seconds per lane, no matter the speed.
You can either rage in a congestion, not knowing if farther up someone has caused a crash and completely blocked everything, or drive slower but steadily. The throughput of the road is the same.
The Soviet Union is long gone. Communist should no longer be a derisive and should sound like a 20th century cliché in 2025.
I wonder (can't confirm) if the evergreen state of communist or socialist as derision is due to the far right propaganda industrial complex still pushing (hard) that anything that isn't capitalism is a moral wrong.
Any time I see or hear someone using "communist" as an insult, I immediately assume they're a right-winger using the word to mean "something I'm afraid of."
My fundie-Christian family members use it as a synonym for "atheist" because that's what they're afraid of.
bro just a few more power plants, gimme a nuclear one and some coal fired, please bro, it'll all be worth it with just a few more gigawatts. It'll make sense then, just a few more plants broooo
Reminds me of a quote "Every single drop of water felt it could not be to blame for causing the tidal wave/flood"
Me remembering it is a little rough, but the concept stays the same lol.
Rain doesn't "create' flood. Removing infrastructure from cars, creating parks, using solar panels and gay marriage MANUFACTURE floods. I don't know how you are trying to talk to, Communist.
I once had the pleasure of cycling the Shimanami Kaido in Japan, a bike route that connects the islands of Honshu and Shikoku, hopping between all these minor islands on the way over suspension bridges carrying the main highway.
The bike lane is protected the whole time. In one case, the bike route is actually below the deck of the bridge, and you're on a fenced-in catwalk hundreds of feet over the channel between the islands. Views for miles over Osaka bay.
Honestly, when I look back at my life, it's probably my favorite thing I've ever done. If only the U.S. invested in bike infrastructure like that.
Current plan for the new cape cod bridges include a protected bike lane with a great view over the canal!
Too many people complain we could fit an extra lane in that space without thinking. Sure there are huge backups, but those are addressed with the new design not making cars slow down and not having entrance and exit ramps right there. Most importantly, you’re crossing to a two lane highway so there is no benefit to more than two lanes. Allowing continuous flow to the amount that the other side can handle reduces congestion. Anyone you can get on a bike is the one that will reduce congestion. And for all that is holy, let’s run the Cape Flyer often enough to be useful
That's great to hear! I was actually living in Somerville when I did that Japan trip. The extension of the bike path and really that whole rails-to-trails project were wonderful for the community. We need more projects like that - glad to hear the cape is getting some.
Yeah, what you don't see in all those pictures of gridlocked Los Angeles is the huge mass of bike races clogging the entire freeway just out of frame.
It's a really embarrassing problem for the city, having a bunch of folks with jacked quads lookin' like highlighters jamming their freeways and stroads.
Otherwise everyone could really hit the gas and go maybe 30 mph without a major collision incident!
(The internet is crazy so I must clarify this is intended to be delivered as satire.)
Congrats on winning the argument, anyone who gets told this. If their entire argument is "you're a commu-social-marxist" then they have no argument and they're delusionally living in the McCarthy age.
Who the fuck do you think you're talking to like this?
LMAO am I supposed to know who this guy is? Because this sounds like an "I'm so important you should have more respect and by respect I mean do what I say" but it could be a "you aren't fooling anyone" I suppose.
It's wild deer, there might not actually be any but just the idea of them makes people drive in a less efficient manner. It doesn't help that the deer are communist.
I'm contributing to traffic? I'm doing my part joining the traffic?
So many tempting options highlighting our individual responsibility to the collective problem... yet none of them actually used. Ever. I wonder why. Surely it's because of "others"!
Who cars what science says, I love my penis-size-compensating huge truck, so I want more and faster lanes!
Well, mr dumbfuck, why don't you go to North Korea, they have 5 lane highways and only 3 cars a day driving them. Oh wait, true communists have no traffic jams? What?
I think it’s established fact that you can’t reduce congestions by adding more lanes and roads. Not because of bad road design but because the amount of cars will fill up those new lanes. So saying ‘cars cause congestions’ is pointing at the fact that regardless of how many roads or lanes we have the will be filled. Hence roads aren’t the problem, but cars are.
Another reason it doesn't reduce congestion is that lane changes are frequently the cause of accidents or hard braking, which creates traffic jams. And Americans' complete lack of lane discipline just makes it all worse.
Actually, inadequate lanes do contribute to congestion. The traffic will always be pretty much standard... the time of transit however is slowed so it may seem like there are less cars... but no, it is less road. Also, the curvature of the roads -- especially on on ramps can affect visibility of oncoming traffic and not providing for a properly lengthed merge lane is also a big problem. Some things that can help slow down (prevent speeding at merging areas/onramps) so it is easier to merge is having islands between the right and left lanes with greenery, more lights/slowdowns and providing a fast lane for carshares and buses. Building in service roads and bypasses also decreases the congestion.
Cars create congestion, so they build more roads, so things are further away, so the can sell more cars (and gas), so they can get more tax revenue, but more cars on the road creates more congestion, so they build more roads ....
200 XYZ employees are riding a metro line and 150 are in 3 busses, and they all decide to drive one day, OH look there are now up to 350 extra cars on the road today, all going to the same building.
Please tell me how it's XYZ employees themselves that create congestion and not the extra 350 cars, without saying something along the lines of "if they didn't all decide to drive that day" or "they should have done something else"
Poorly implemented bike lanes do create a lot of congestion though.
My city just half assed bike lanes so one street has them and others do not, with bikes having to constantly enter and leave vehicle lanes as bike lanes appear and then disappear.
This just leads to less people using bikes and then the bike lanes that are installed go unused while taking up space from the road.
Either go all in on bike lanes or don't, stop half assing it city planners.
Just because you made a bike lane doesn't mean you are a green city, the lanes actually have to be used!
That's wrong. A bad bike lane is better than nothing. Because the first step is appropriation of the space, once people get use to have a smaller space for cars, the painting can be more easily transformed into proper infrastructure.
The problem there is enforcing said smaller space. Painted bike lanes do absolutely nothing to ensure people get used to having the smaller space because drivers still have all that space. A painted line doesn't stop them from swerving into the bike lane whenever they please.
At the very least you put flexi-posts on there to enforce it if you can't build a full curb to protect the bike lane. That tends to discourage drivers if not stop them entirely
There’s a ten mile stretch of road that I live in a community off of. It’s a really busy road. Grocery store, gas stations, fast food restaurants, one of the elementary schools, one of the middle schools, and the high school. So while it’s normally busy it’s insane during school start and release times. There is a five mile section in the middle of that ten mile stretch where the sidewalk is on the opposite side of the main road for some reason. They decided to make bike lanes by painting lines and bike symbols on the road on the sidewalk side for the entire stretch of road. While they have crosswalks with lights at all the regular intersections, at each end of that five mile ‘bike lane’ they painted a dashed yellow line path across traffic to transfer the bike path to the other side and put blinky amber lights on each side of the road.
I’m fairly certain you would need to be suicidal to knowingly traverse that bike path from start to finish. It’s bad enough you’re kissing mirrors the entire ride but then you would need to cross a busy street, twice, with no actual assurance anyone will actually stop for you. The cherry on top is there’s also an increased number of student drivers on the road regularly from the high school.
Y'all are both stupid. Society creates congestion in car-transportation and on-foot transportation. Mass transportation is just more efficient in certain societal configurations and needs. There will still be trucks and deliveries of all kinds and workers and shit that need to use cars for their jobs to be efficient.
A lot of people could use mass transportation or try to reduce the distance they need to travel, but all of this petty back and forth is fucking stupid and worthless if it remains petty and shallow, and continues to avoid the real topic, which is not cars, which are just tools that allow an individual a range of autonomy that is faster and further in certain societal configurations.
So, the issue should be societal configurations (and human values), not cars.
Using cars is such an unproductive wedge issue that just irritates everybody who can see the bigger issues. It's noble, but amounts to basically greenwash trolling to anybody outside of your community (fuckcars). It's a hyperfixation on a ultra specific, single-solution to an ultra broad collection of societal efficiency and random other related topics that feels like some of you are just misplacing personal childhood trauma, and really need therapy, or you just enjoy being irritating, thus my belief that some of this really is just greentrolling, which, if you really wanted to fix stuff, there are better ways of doing it.
To be absolutely transparent, I don't entirely dislike y'all's existence, in fact, I quite appreciate it in many ways. But, everytime I see one of your posts or memes, I just kinda.... Tsk. And it irritates me a little bit, I can't upvote it, and I think I've finally been able to put that irritation into words, and feel compelled to voice my opinion.
NYC is so fucking hostile that even if they did implement those things, absolutely no one would use them. Half of it wouldn't fit in the part of Manhattan that has congestion pricing anyway.
What actually causes congestion is a shit ton of cars trying to kill each other to get 5ft ahead of the next guy while competing with box trucks and ebikes for the only lane that isn't blocked by a double parked cop car.
See, the problem is that you only have two lanes in the city /s
one_more_lane.copypasta
Just one more lane bro. I promise bro just one more lane and it'll fix everything bro. Bro, just one more lane. Please just one more, one more lane and we can fix this whole problem bro, bro c’mon just give me one more lane i promise bro, bro bro please! Just need one more lane
In the end the city will have to bulldoze the houses and offices that make up to the city to make room for more roads and cars, increasing costs and destroying their own tax revenue in the process, or realize less cars are the answer.
In addition to all the parking lots that the increased car traffic would require
Long story: short the city will eventually have to decide whether to put one last parking space or one last lane.
Man, I'm flashing back to my visit to Detroit and the massive 'boulevard' that cuts the city in two. The car I was riding in had to get on to what was basically a highway, change lanes a half dozen times, and exit via ramp in order to get from one neighborhood to another. (In the span of a quarter mile).
It was eerie, but doable, because there weren't many other cars on the road. I can only imagine how difficult it would have been when there was actually traffic.
Roads can be walls as well as nooses.
When you have enough tarmac, you don't even need lanes or lights, there'll be space for everyone.
Lanes are a commie plot to steal freedom anyway.
It's obvious from the picture that it is the buildings in the city that cause the congestion. get rid of em.
I once got stuck behind someones house once, I politely honked three times and flashed my headlights , but it wouldn't budge, so in the end i had no choice but to ram right through it. Fucking cities stealing all our open roads.
Do you have the key for the car colour coding? Is it occupancy?
It probably just attempts to indicate it's the same 3 cars again, likely pointing out the fact that there are legitimate reasons to drive, those people are just fucked by everyone else and brain-dead traffic planning.
It looks like the green cars have passengers, while the red cars have single occupants.Nevermind, some of the red cars have passengers, too. I guess the green cars survive to the final graphic… why that’s relevant, I don’t really understand.
That's what tripped me up too, haha
Might just be that those three cars have legitimate reasons to be driving. Like, it could be a carpenter's or electrician's van on the way to a job site in the city.
I think it’s more for design language, you’re subconsciously drawn to the green vehicles because they’re different, and subconsciously when you’re looking at the traffic, you’re reminded what it’s like being in the traffic yourself.
So you imagine yourself as the green car.
1st scenario: traffic is really bad. 2nd scenario: they’ve added more lanes, but you, the green car, are still stuck. 3rd scenario: public transportation has alleviated the traffic and it’s better for all.
Notice in the 3rd scenario, all the transportation is green. I think it’s to make you think, “I can ride my bike to work” or “I can take the bus” or “I can still drive my car if where I live requires me to” depending on your own situation. It’s to show all options can be viable, if you support public transportation.
That’s how I see it at least.
Full marks for interesting nuance, for what it's worth. I would love to think every designer thought this hard about their own work.
I was thinking it's electric?
I assumed that Green = Moving. The pedestrians in the city are green, as are the busses and bikes in the bottom diagram. The greens in the top two are there to show just how few vehicles can actually move at any given time.
I think red is just to show the effective capacity advantage of the bus lane once it appears in the final diagram.
A bike lane on a highway seems like a terrible idea.
Denmark checking in. A lot of our highways have separate parallel bicycle highways. It's really great! They have exits in the same spots as cars do and have big sound barriers.x
Separate makes sense
anywhere that you might say "we shouldn't have a bike lane here, it's too dangerous for cyclists" is a place where there should be a bike lane.
And this is why the Marianas Trench needs a bike lane.
Inside rail racks? That is such a dumb decision making process.
Spending billions of dollars connecting two cities and not spending a couple percent more for parallel active transportation infrastructure also seems like a terrible idea.
On and near are not the same thing.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Get blocked, you-know-what. You are noise.
As if you don't block people who are rude and bad faith with you.
Nobody cares if you block them. We object to the things you say. You don't just block people and get on with your life, you attempt to weaponize blocking people. For your own petty needs.
Ah so it is considered petty to tell someone why you are blocking. We? You are plural?
If you only have a hammer ...
Well it’s a good thing no one is proposing that! Seriously, where do you people come from?
the return of /r/all
You are the asshole. You need to look at the image again. They are separated.
When cars are going 70+ mph 6 feet of fucking grass is not enough there needs to be a cement barrier.
Definitely put cameras in the bus lane and fine all the cars who are driving in it then.
There are solid black lines in the bottom diagram instead of dashed in the top two, this suggests something more than a lane line, it might be representing a kerb or could easily be a more physical barrier. but as far as a simplified diagram goes that looks pretty clearly separated as can be depicted in plan view.
I assume this is not the detailed plans. If it is those buildings are way too small for all of these people to fit inside.
There’s a bus lane before getting to the cars, and there’s a stoplight and a tighter lane which indicates that that’s no longer a fucking 70+mph zone lol.
Look, it’s ok to not be that smart but being such a massive prick about it is a bad look, broski.
You're looking at what is obviously a conceptual diagram and acting as if it's some kind of literal blueprint. IMO it's something closer to a Sankey diagram showing the overall flow and moda share of traffic into the city than a plan sketch of an individual road. I don't think it's even reasonable to conclude that it's actually suggesting using the same alignment for cars, bikes, and pedestrians at all, let alone strawmanning it as "a bike lane on a highway."
Frankly, I'm found it to be a tough call deciding whether you genuinely didn't understand that or if you were commenting in bad faith (which violates rule 1), and the only thing that made me give you the benefit of the doubt was your later comment talking about the cement barrier (i.e. a somewhat constructive comment about how to make it better) instead of continuing to flatly reject it.
If you had looked at my replies to other people who replied to me, you would see I wasn't antibike lanes in general. The diagram looks far closer to a city street than a highway.
I did, hence my reference to "your later comment talking about the cement barrier."
The right side of it does, sure, because that's what it's depicting the highway transitioning to.
I was referring to other comments. Ones the people I blocked could have checked before attacking me.
Nobody "attacked" you until you attacked them first. That's why your comments were removed for being uncivil and theirs weren't.
oh no they called me a communist however shall i cope
When it gets to the stage that you get called a communist, you know you have won the argument.
As if the GOP even hold back anything after the first round
usually when I get called a communist, it's when I'm explaining that people deserve basic human rights.
When someone calls you a communist you know that you won the argument.
Absolutely something a Sith would say.
If you're stuck in traffic, you ARE the traffic.
"Hi boss, I'll be a bit late into work. I am traffic."
"Hi boss, I'll be a bit late into work. I'm stuck in me."
"Goddammit Phalange, I don't need to know what kinky shit you're into. Go to the hospital if it's that bad."
"Can't. I'm stuck."
Call your step-brother?
Yeah! Thanks! That'll help. 🤣
Sounds more like it'll make you even more late.
“I’m the main character and everyone else is the NPC traffic!”
It's crazy how our 18-lane highway, with none of the stuff mentioned, is gridlocked all the time. 🤔
Maybe one more lane, bro!
It's the stoplight's fault! Ban stop signs, traffic lights and remove speed limits and we'll never have gridlock again!!!
I'm unironically all for removing stop signs, traffic lights, and speed limits. If you build streets and roads properly, you don't need those, frequently ignored, control devices.
It would remove gridlock, but not necessarily congestion.
This person urban designs.
Round about gang for life
As an often pedestrian, i often prefer lights. If it's a busy dual carriageway roundabout It can often be hard to route pedestrians across. You end up with elaborate and winding pedestrian subways.
Roundabouts are ok on rural junctions, but round here we often have to have traffic lights on roundabouts as you start to get closer in to urban areas - and they do seem to help flow.
I just don't believe road design alone can remove the need for coordination as population density gets above a certain level. Fuck in central London you need traffic lights just to coordinate all the buses never mind cars. Of course they need an overhead s-bahn type light rail system there though, but planning rules/landowners won't allow it. At this point they just need less people - but again the govt/electorate/landowners won't allow that because they're all a bunch of tw4ts.
As Jason Slaughter (Not Just Bikes) says—and I agree—any city street with more than one car lane in each direction is an abject failure of urban planning. Multi-lane roundabouts should never exist in places where people are expected to walk.
If enough people are going the same direction at the same time that they need more than one lane for cars, then that's the perfect route for transit.
Abject failure of urban planning, or democracy?
Oh there are many other intersections
Round abouts, peanuts, uncontrolled, yielded, modal filtered, raised, edged, sunken, and more.
There are a lot of ways to give clear cues to all road users on what to do, and how to do it, without relying on signage. Traffic lights in particular are extremely low throughput; their primary advantage is allowing vehicles to drive really fast between intersections, so they are great for roads/highways but not for streets.
Ok with that, but you also need to remove other cars from the road. Every time I've been stuck in traffic, it was because there were so many other cars. This has got out of control! Who are all these people and where are they all going?!?
All these bums without cars trying to cross the road made me late! Do they really need a crossing every five blocks? /S
There was a guy who took his guitar before the Portland City Council and sang a song about induced demand. If you build more lanes, more drivers will come and fill them.
https://youtu.be/ujvG6vbpSPc
OMG, I love this man! That video is 7 years old... Did they add more lanes? 🫣
The project actually still hasn't started due to ongoing litigation and budget constraints. It did get redesigned with more bike infrastructure and pedestrian bridges to cross the freeway, but local bike and pro-transit groups still oppose the project.
One of the main arguments is that the state's proposal is not consistent with the city's regional plan, which says that the interstate can only be expanded if congestion pricing is also implemented to discourage additional traffic.
At this point, the state is planning to fix up some bridges while the rest of the legal fight plays out. Expansion probably won't start until 2028 in any case... at which point this song will be an "oldie."
I'm stuck on this rock with people like that. The worst part is they speak with such confidence and authority that their opinions will carry more weight than mine in the real world.
I despair.
yes but i will upvote you :3
Their entitlement truly knows no bounds.
Oh how naive I was when I used to think that spread of the internet would mean spread of intelligence. Who knew that the dumb-and-the-loud would have an easier time than the smart folks when spreading information.
To fight despair, organize. Find and join your local advocacy groups for transit, cycling, etc. Many improvements that happen are the result of fierce advocacy behind the scenes.
Or at the very least, participate in a critical mass in your city from time to time.
Congestion is literally made out of cars. Without cars, there would be no congestion.
You know what would REALLY fix congestions?
MORE CARS!!
Just one more lane bro. Just one more.
I swear I can stop anytime I want man!!
What's the solution after EVERY. SCHOOL. SHOOTING?
Moar guns.
This could not possibly be said any better, I think.
Communism is when bike
tell me more 💕
The people sieze the means of commuting, and install bike lanes and public transport.
It amazes me that this country literally has state borders built around rail systems, a huge dependence on rail for shipping, but decided to just pave over trolley rails, and jack prices of train transit to thousands of dollars for just a few hundred miles. Then the government forces us to pay shittons of money into our vehicles in taxes, insurance, etc without regulating the private companies that we're forced to pay. Meanwhile other countries have super fast trains to travel, subsidized with tax money, and travel seems to be more efficient.
And they just ignore the negative health outcomes here vs countries where cars are not the norm.
That’s the American system working as designed.
Provide no public benefit for your taxes while forcing the populace to funnel money into predatory private businesses. This ensures the powerful can rob the population with impunity and without pesky competition while making the populace distrustful of public programs that might benefit them and deprive those wealthy, powerful robber-barons of their golden eggs.
My car doesn't create congestion. It's everyone else's that's the problem.
Like people driving during the pandemic and talking how amazing it felt to drive
Communism is when you don't like cars. Apparently.
I wish they'd follow that mental thread backward, and question why they have a kneejerk response to call anything that's about caring for other people communist, and then why they think that's a bad thing.
That's the thing. They don't really do the whole "thinking" thing. Their argument is based entirely around emotion, parroting words they've heard before which correspond with the emotion they are feeling rather than actual meaning. If you tried to engage this person in a meaningful dialogue, they would likely dodge your questions, or start engaging in ad homenim attacks, or start talking in circles.
Ah yes. Words as magic spells to be rearranged into weapons until you've won the argument or else exhausted your "opponent," rather than trying to communicate thought. And only ever used offensively, to manipulate. If you actually think about what the enemy is trying to communicate rather than just skimming for keywords, then you risk having them infect your mind and changing you.
At least that's how I imagine they would put it.
This must be a bot.
Socialism is when you want speed limits
You're right. They don't create congestion.
They ARE congestion.
This, exactly.
You're not sitting in traffic .... You are traffic .
The guy in the OP also gives off small dick energy. Just saying.
Is water wet?
"Cars don't create congestion; People in cars create congestion!"
Can't wait for self-driving cars so the capitalists can flood the road with passengerless self-driving taxis
I thought single occupancy cars were the worst for congestion. Now imagine being stuck behind 5+ empty driverless cars in a traffic jam.
I think I'll keep asking for some adequate public transport.
Particularly single occupants
I think the comment was meant to resemble the popular "guns don't cause death, murderers cause death" comment
Oh, I got it
Solution: Self-driving cars with no one inside.
As a cyclist I've noticed a, harshness, recently. In Ontario our premier did a distraction campaign where he villanised bike lanes. Turns out he was talking about a couple of specific ones but all of the sudden, after biking in town for years. People nearly hit me. There is no Lee way any more. I've been swiped by mirrors and pickup trucks try to roll coal on me (pretty sure you little dicks need a diesel and your just fucking up your engines for nothing) because I like a bike ride on a sunny day. Or want to stay in shape. Or need to get to work. It really does feel like "get a haircut and drive an f150!!!" around here and that wasn't always the case.
Not Just Bikes made a video on that. https://youtu.be/KgFCQ7jEZxI
Strap a visible gun on yourself or a bag. That'll get you some extra space. Saw an article or post about someone who did that and it's like magic.
Why is the American reaction to every single issue "just get a gun"???
As infants, we're given "bottles" in the .22lr range. By 4th grade, were sucking 9mm straight from the tap. It's onto .45acp by highschool...
I'm a 2A friendly American and even I say that's absolutely not a good idea for this scenario. The person you're replying to is either trolling or needs serious help.
Specifically in this instance, the type of people who roll coal on bikers are also people who automatically respect people with guns.
Canada does not allow open carry, and handguns have heavy restrictions on use and transportation
May I humbly propose an alternative…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQpaEN_TN_U
In another video, one was demonstrating how easier it was to cross streets with the same accessory.
I'm Ontario that isn't legal.
Without a gun, a brick would be a fine stand in
Fun fact: The faster a car travels, the bigger the spacing between the cars gets. That's necessary to leave enough distance for emergency stops.
While the speed increases linearly, the spacing increases with the square, meaning at double the speed, the spacing quadruples, which in turn means that throughput (number of cars per hour) halves.
This is the reason why many regions use electronic speed signs to drop the speedlimit lower when there's congestion. Because it increases throughput and thus reduces travel times.
The optimum speed for high throughput is 30km/h.
Counterintuitive as it might be, drivers should be all for 30km/h speed limit in cities, because it would make them get to work faster.
That's also the fastest speed before sharply increasing the likelihood of fatality in pedestrian collisions
You can cite an infinite amount of proven facts and studies, car brains will never accept your „communist propaganda“. This whole discussion is too emotionally loaded to be based on facts.
That's when you then turn it around to them.
"We must drive 30 km/hr to show these bastards who's boss!".
Another related fun fact: Larger vehicles are harder to see around, so people have to leave even more distance which reduces throughput.
The problem is that often streets are not congested, and then 50km/h is much more time efficient.
Yep, and at that speed, 50km/h on an "empty" street INSIDE a city, that's also the most "efficient" speed to avoid those pesky children bits getting stuck on your windchill were you to tackle one while checking your phone.
Apologies for the sarcasm but most drivers I encounter on a daily basis absolutely do not have the sustained concentration behind wheels to safely drive a 50km/h within actual cities.
I have seen old people driving around with oxygen tubes in their noses more times than I feel is safe.
If children are a factor (residential street, school zone, playground, etc) there's all the reason to limit to 30, or even 20 (like the street I live where kids are playing around). Optionally time restricted.
Main avenues with clear sidewalks separated by a green strip can have 50 or even 60 km/h limits.
As an adult, relatively big (1m85) who doesn't randomly run across a street but rather use solely clearly marked zebras I sadly have to report that I had numerous encounter with cars at a very uncomfortable distance to my body, some even touching me (not an accident proper though). I did have of course the occasional wave saying "Oops, sorry I didn't see you or care for slowing down, moving on!". When I say occasional it's probably once a month or more.
To clarify this happened next to a park with very VERY good visibility, a straight line without trees, where it's slightly higher speed than around. Namely small streets around the park are 20km/h, that avenue is 50km/h. It is actually such a problem a red light has been installed 200m further. I assume that enough cars refused to yield so that this change was made.
This makes me believe that unfortunately, even though MOST drivers are indeed able to safely drive in "Main avenues with clear sidewalks" there is still a non negligible amount from my experience as a pedestrian who absolutely can not and are a danger for everyone, kids and adults alike.
That being said, you have the right to believe that few accidents are acceptable if it allows most people to keep such a certain speed.
That's not surprising to me (as an engineer); the dangerous encounters probably happened because the street was straight and had a generous clear zone.
Strong Towns "30 days of confessions" series has a couple of good (short! -- under 2 minutes each) videos explaining it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHXiZ3wEzMY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGwe1Hf2Igg
Fascinating, thanks for sharing!
Of course it makes sense. In fact I believe I have a similar problem while cycling on a one way street for cars while cycling on the (non protected) bike lane of the opposite direction. I hate that street because very often cars do not move away... because they don't look up. They are busy doing I don't know what in their cars... probably because, if I understood the idea properly, they think it's all fine, nobody "should" come from anywhere but behind them, so the "can" be "distracted".
Also makes me think of Jevons's paradox (or the rebound effect) but for attention or even more broadly cognition.
I'm an adult just slightly bigger and have never had an encounter like you describe, and I lived in a big city decades, using public transport and walking exclusively. If drivers in your environment are that bad, stricter limits are reasonable.
Yet I also see them and a lot more frequently since pandemic. I still claim everyone forgot how to drive safely.
For me the big problem is that it’s legal to “turn right on red”. However people for get that you’re supposed to come to a full stop and to yield to any road user. So many times I’m in the crosswalk with the walk signal lighted yet someone zooms through to take a right on red barely slowing and without concern for pedestrians
We also seem to have gotten a lot worse with “stretching a yellow”. Why is it that I can wait for a light to turn red, then wait a couple more seconds for the walk signal to come on, yet still be endangered by someone blasting through the intersection claiming “my light was yellow, bro”.
Or maybe it’s just the self-centeredness. People have so much trouble being aware that someone is travelling differently than they are. Pedestrians are invisible because “everyone drives”, cars zoom right up to and through crosswalks at a red light because “no one will be in the crosswalk”.
It’s become a running joke with my kids that you always have to look the wrong way before crossing the street. We regularly cross a one way street where we have twice had close calls with someone going the wrong way. Knowing the layout, I’m pretty sure it’s intentional. It would be difficult to do on accident and I can see the “short cut” being much more convenient
My guess North American (because of the turn right on red) and European car cultures are different. European cities are much more walkable and drivers are used to pedestrians. I rarely have a car not stop if I come up to a cross walk, and basically 100% if I'm with my kids.
And there’s where we invent roundabouts. Even when the streets are not congested the time to cross any urban area is dominated by the stops. It much more beneficial to eliminate stop signs and red lights, to keep you moving consistently than to let you speed a little more to your next stopping point
Yeah, big thumbs up for roundabouts.
Why's it a problem? I crossed them every day, cars usually drive quite slowly around them.
A MAGA-before-there-was-MAGA family member of mine actually used to say "If we didn't have these big slow buses on the streets, and commuter trains blocking the rail crossings, we wouldn't have a traffic problem."
Higher speeds do the opposite for congestion than what you'd think. If everyone and their mum wants to drive on the same stretch of highway at 5pm sharp, there's not enough space - at speed.
Obviously, everyone fits when standing still. The amount of asphalt is immense.
Reducing the speed limit from 120kph to 80 will allow 50% more cars to fit on the same stretch of road, thereby reducing stop and go, and not really impacting your average speed; you'd be stopping and going during rush hour, anyway. But now traffic flows, which is safer and easier to follow.
Why? Because - let's assume safe driving - every car has two seconds of safety distance to the car in front. Those two seconds remain two seconds, but that means the distances you need are twice as large with 120kph than with 60kph. Your car length doesn't even really matter, two seconds at 120kph are ~67m. So the road will always transport 1 car every two seconds per lane, no matter the speed.
You can either rage in a congestion, not knowing if farther up someone has caused a crash and completely blocked everything, or drive slower but steadily. The throughput of the road is the same.
That's your problem, caring about safety of others smh
Some Houston traffic napkin math confirms this
The Soviet Union is long gone. Communist should no longer be a derisive and should sound like a 20th century cliché in 2025.
I wonder (can't confirm) if the evergreen state of communist or socialist as derision is due to the far right propaganda industrial complex still pushing (hard) that anything that isn't capitalism is a moral wrong.
you expect people that are emotionally stuck in the 1950s to recognize the USSR is gone?
Any time I see or hear someone using "communist" as an insult, I immediately assume they're a right-winger using the word to mean "something I'm afraid of."
My fundie-Christian family members use it as a synonym for "atheist" because that's what they're afraid of.
Also there's plenty of completely car-brained infrastructure in Eastern Europe, built by communist regimes. Budapest is absolutely atrocious.
"Please bro one more line on the highway bro please just one more lane"
See not congested at all.
There's quite some room in between the lanes. If they all move in a bit, I bet there's plenty of room for an extra bike lane on either side.
this line makes me think of ai:
bro just a few more power plants, gimme a nuclear one and some coal fired, please bro, it'll all be worth it with just a few more gigawatts. It'll make sense then, just a few more plants broooo
It's one of those "guns don't kill people", but with cars. These people deserve to be run over by a licensed rifle
Or shot with a car.
Guns would be an effective solution to congestion.
Florida made it legal to open fire while driving in a fit of road rage. Just say "I felt threatened" and you're good to start spraying.
Reminds me of a quote "Every single drop of water felt it could not be to blame for causing the tidal wave/flood" Me remembering it is a little rough, but the concept stays the same lol.
Rain doesn't "create' flood. Removing infrastructure from cars, creating parks, using solar panels and gay marriage MANUFACTURE floods. I don't know how you are trying to talk to, Communist.
THIS communist manufactures floods on a daily basis.
: Waits for applause, but upon hearing silence solemnly picks up his tenth of potato and leaves:
Homie literally said gay marriage is a contributor to flooding 😭😂 hes trolling for sure.
What it wrong with that guy? Did a bike fuck his wife or something?
Bikes are not usually allowed on the highway, yet the highway experiences congestion. How is that?
I once had the pleasure of cycling the Shimanami Kaido in Japan, a bike route that connects the islands of Honshu and Shikoku, hopping between all these minor islands on the way over suspension bridges carrying the main highway.
The bike lane is protected the whole time. In one case, the bike route is actually below the deck of the bridge, and you're on a fenced-in catwalk hundreds of feet over the channel between the islands. Views for miles over Osaka bay.
Honestly, when I look back at my life, it's probably my favorite thing I've ever done. If only the U.S. invested in bike infrastructure like that.
Current plan for the new cape cod bridges include a protected bike lane with a great view over the canal!
Too many people complain we could fit an extra lane in that space without thinking. Sure there are huge backups, but those are addressed with the new design not making cars slow down and not having entrance and exit ramps right there. Most importantly, you’re crossing to a two lane highway so there is no benefit to more than two lanes. Allowing continuous flow to the amount that the other side can handle reduces congestion. Anyone you can get on a bike is the one that will reduce congestion. And for all that is holy, let’s run the Cape Flyer often enough to be useful
That's great to hear! I was actually living in Somerville when I did that Japan trip. The extension of the bike path and really that whole rails-to-trails project were wonderful for the community. We need more projects like that - glad to hear the cape is getting some.
What... next thing you know you'll ask people to use reason. /s
Because of the bike lanes in the other streets of course.
Yeah, it's all those cyclists that you're stuck in traffic with when there's a traffic jam.
Yeah, what you don't see in all those pictures of gridlocked Los Angeles is the huge mass of bike races clogging the entire freeway just out of frame.
It's a really embarrassing problem for the city, having a bunch of folks with jacked quads lookin' like highlighters jamming their freeways and stroads.
Otherwise everyone could really hit the gas and go maybe 30 mph without a major collision incident!
(The internet is crazy so I must clarify this is intended to be delivered as satire.)
What is this 'satire' thing you talk about?? I'll bet it's just another word for CUMMUNISM!!
CUM?! In my -NISM? It's more likely than you think.
It's true, before we started creating cycling facilities there was no such thing as congestion or pollution /s
"Road rage doesn't exist!" - Road raging driver
Well he's right. Cars don't create congestion, in the same way that raindrops don't create floods. Cars ARE congestion.
Hope someone show him the gif of cars being congested in a circular road with no obstruction.
There are so many images of gridlocked roads full of cars I hope all the replies are no repeated ones
That looks like a nightmare. Like that photo from America with all the gas stations, McDonald's and stuff.
Horrible American Urban Hell.
That's half the towns I drive through, usually right off a highway.
It's gross.
The problem is that the highway is only 4-lane wide in each direction. If it were 400-lane wide there wouldn't be any congestion.
/s shouldn't be necessary but it is the Internet
I am always reminded of this picture when people are "just one more lane". Cause that has always fixed the congestion issues
And if we scrapped all existing aircraft nobody would have a late flight ever again!
Needs one more lane bro. Just one more lane, please
Look at all those mostly/stopped cars I can breeze by on my bike...
I can smell this picture.
Isaiah is kinda stupid, isn't he?
Kinda? More like extremely and painfully
Do you know SpongeBob? And the character Patrick Star? Isaiah is the stone Patrick lives under.
Ignorance combined with arrogance is a terrible cocktail
Congrats on winning the argument, anyone who gets told this. If their entire argument is "you're a commu-social-marxist" then they have no argument and they're delusionally living in the McCarthy age.
LMAO am I supposed to know who this guy is? Because this sounds like an "I'm so important you should have more respect and by respect I mean do what I say" but it could be a "you aren't fooling anyone" I suppose.
Gee, I wonder what causes congestion in high speed lanes and roads? Too many fucking cars at the same time? Nah, it must be some communist subversion
It's wild deer, there might not actually be any but just the idea of them makes people drive in a less efficient manner. It doesn't help that the deer are communist.
Water falling from clouds doesn’t mean it’s raining.
"Communist"
I'm 14 and this is deep.
asdf
I'm contributing to traffic? I'm doing my part joining the traffic?
So many tempting options highlighting our individual responsibility to the collective problem... yet none of them actually used. Ever. I wonder why. Surely it's because of "others"!
I like "I'm traffic." Succinct, to the point.
Who cars what science says, I love my penis-size-compensating huge truck, so I want more and faster lanes!
Well, mr dumbfuck, why don't you go to North Korea, they have 5 lane highways and only 3 cars a day driving them. Oh wait, true communists have no traffic jams? What?
Being independent and getting to use your bike is communist now
Carbrain is a disease
maybe this person is a car in disguise
The first three letters of this first and last name spell Isa Car. Is a car.
Fix and expand the US public transportation system. Building infrastructure for automobiles is fucking backwards.
I think it’s established fact that you can’t reduce congestions by adding more lanes and roads. Not because of bad road design but because the amount of cars will fill up those new lanes. So saying ‘cars cause congestions’ is pointing at the fact that regardless of how many roads or lanes we have the will be filled. Hence roads aren’t the problem, but cars are.
I mean, if it worked we would see the successes in all those giant freeway cities but instead the problem just grows.
If we just turn everything into road then nobody will have anywhere to go. It's the perfect solution
Another reason it doesn't reduce congestion is that lane changes are frequently the cause of accidents or hard braking, which creates traffic jams. And Americans' complete lack of lane discipline just makes it all worse.
Actually, inadequate lanes do contribute to congestion. The traffic will always be pretty much standard... the time of transit however is slowed so it may seem like there are less cars... but no, it is less road. Also, the curvature of the roads -- especially on on ramps can affect visibility of oncoming traffic and not providing for a properly lengthed merge lane is also a big problem. Some things that can help slow down (prevent speeding at merging areas/onramps) so it is easier to merge is having islands between the right and left lanes with greenery, more lights/slowdowns and providing a fast lane for carshares and buses. Building in service roads and bypasses also decreases the congestion.
pretty sure that mostly applies to mega cities that shouldn't have multi-lane roads to begin with
It applies to smaller cities as well as fat as you I’m aware, not just mega cities.
TIL that the US before Ford was communist.
Cars create congestion, so they build more roads, so things are further away, so the can sell more cars (and gas), so they can get more tax revenue, but more cars on the road creates more congestion, so they build more roads ....
This is the same logic that says the only answer to gun violence is more guns
"No one in New York drove. There was too much traffic." -Phillip J. Fry
This dude is a fat fuck. Ofcourse he gets mad when people suggest they should ride a bike or walk
Cars don’t create congestion just like guns don’t kill people. Well, that line of thinking would probably go over his head too.
"Ants don't *create* ant colonies."
communism is when bike lanes.
I dunno, there are lots of dumb people too.
I looked him up, you're right, this guy is just a really weird black Republican. Just about all of his tweets are inflammatory like this.
Uncle Ruckus vibes
Indeed
I'm confused, does he also get mad at fractions because they don't reduce the way he wants them to?
running into luminaries like these online feels like stepping into dog poop :/ and the streets are plenty afoul these days.
Shit, look at LA.
this Chud is like proven to be wrong by math and science so we could just tell him that facts don't care about his feelings
Oh look, another bootlicker (the Isiah guy not the responder). Just move along folks.
Isaiah is not a smart man.
Has he seen the roads in so called communist nations? Good luck cycling on those.
Honestly, Cuba and North Korea both have pretty decent (urban) roads. Pyongyang even has some bike lanes, bike parking, and bikesharing infrastructure
I guess it helps when only 1 in 1000 people is allowed to have a car.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_motor_vehicles_per_capita
This cannot be genuine.
To be fair it's exactly what you'd expect someone like this to tweet
I see. It's a brand.
the thing about being an influencer is that one has to let oneself be influenced by someone else first
Is that supposed to be satirical or...?
It's a jab at "gun don't kill people" phrase used by the anti-gun control crowd.
Okay good. I was concerned they were serious for a second there.
200 XYZ employees are riding a metro line and 150 are in 3 busses, and they all decide to drive one day, OH look there are now up to 350 extra cars on the road today, all going to the same building.
Please tell me how it's XYZ employees themselves that create congestion and not the extra 350 cars, without saying something along the lines of "if they didn't all decide to drive that day" or "they should have done something else"
Actually none of those cause congestion, not demolishing 1,000,000 of homes to add 100 lines to my commute route does :3
/s
Poorly implemented bike lanes do create a lot of congestion though.
My city just half assed bike lanes so one street has them and others do not, with bikes having to constantly enter and leave vehicle lanes as bike lanes appear and then disappear.
This just leads to less people using bikes and then the bike lanes that are installed go unused while taking up space from the road.
Either go all in on bike lanes or don't, stop half assing it city planners.
Just because you made a bike lane doesn't mean you are a green city, the lanes actually have to be used!
That's wrong. A bad bike lane is better than nothing. Because the first step is appropriation of the space, once people get use to have a smaller space for cars, the painting can be more easily transformed into proper infrastructure.
The problem there is enforcing said smaller space. Painted bike lanes do absolutely nothing to ensure people get used to having the smaller space because drivers still have all that space. A painted line doesn't stop them from swerving into the bike lane whenever they please.
At the very least you put flexi-posts on there to enforce it if you can't build a full curb to protect the bike lane. That tends to discourage drivers if not stop them entirely
Cars are only thing that creates congestion.
There’s a ten mile stretch of road that I live in a community off of. It’s a really busy road. Grocery store, gas stations, fast food restaurants, one of the elementary schools, one of the middle schools, and the high school. So while it’s normally busy it’s insane during school start and release times. There is a five mile section in the middle of that ten mile stretch where the sidewalk is on the opposite side of the main road for some reason. They decided to make bike lanes by painting lines and bike symbols on the road on the sidewalk side for the entire stretch of road. While they have crosswalks with lights at all the regular intersections, at each end of that five mile ‘bike lane’ they painted a dashed yellow line path across traffic to transfer the bike path to the other side and put blinky amber lights on each side of the road.
I’m fairly certain you would need to be suicidal to knowingly traverse that bike path from start to finish. It’s bad enough you’re kissing mirrors the entire ride but then you would need to cross a busy street, twice, with no actual assurance anyone will actually stop for you. The cherry on top is there’s also an increased number of student drivers on the road regularly from the high school.
oh no the unbeatable twitter "trust me bro" move. why has no one ever thought about his input??2?
Y'all are both stupid. Society creates congestion in car-transportation and on-foot transportation. Mass transportation is just more efficient in certain societal configurations and needs. There will still be trucks and deliveries of all kinds and workers and shit that need to use cars for their jobs to be efficient.
A lot of people could use mass transportation or try to reduce the distance they need to travel, but all of this petty back and forth is fucking stupid and worthless if it remains petty and shallow, and continues to avoid the real topic, which is not cars, which are just tools that allow an individual a range of autonomy that is faster and further in certain societal configurations.
So, the issue should be societal configurations (and human values), not cars.
Using cars is such an unproductive wedge issue that just irritates everybody who can see the bigger issues. It's noble, but amounts to basically greenwash trolling to anybody outside of your community (fuckcars). It's a hyperfixation on a ultra specific, single-solution to an ultra broad collection of societal efficiency and random other related topics that feels like some of you are just misplacing personal childhood trauma, and really need therapy, or you just enjoy being irritating, thus my belief that some of this really is just greentrolling, which, if you really wanted to fix stuff, there are better ways of doing it.
To be absolutely transparent, I don't entirely dislike y'all's existence, in fact, I quite appreciate it in many ways. But, everytime I see one of your posts or memes, I just kinda.... Tsk. And it irritates me a little bit, I can't upvote it, and I think I've finally been able to put that irritation into words, and feel compelled to voice my opinion.
So, opinion voiced, carry on /rant
NYC is so fucking hostile that even if they did implement those things, absolutely no one would use them. Half of it wouldn't fit in the part of Manhattan that has congestion pricing anyway.
What actually causes congestion is a shit ton of cars trying to kill each other to get 5ft ahead of the next guy while competing with box trucks and ebikes for the only lane that isn't blocked by a double parked cop car.
Cars don't create congestion, roads do.