5 ms·

>What many cities have realized is that trying to provide sufficient road capacity to meet demand is a game lost before they've even begun, and instead focused

>What many cities have realized is that trying to provide sufficient road capacity to meet demand is a game lost before they've even begun, and instead focused their efforts on trying to coax better utilization of current corridors... here's a radical proposal: improve public transit. it needs funding at the federal level. which currently isn't forthcoming, despite all the rhetoric about improving the nation's infrastructure.

hrktb 8y ago
GP’s point still stands though. We can look at the best tier public transit systems, they will be themselves congestionned as they are the best mean to go from A to B on the area they cover, while also keeping the other transportation axes congested at peak hours for those benefiting from the mass move to public transport by average people. It’s still better for everyone to have congestionned public transit, it’s just not a magic way to eliminate congestion itself.
- dajohnson89 8y ago
  I think that's basically correct. an interesting corollary is that along with increased congestion for both modes, comes economic growth. when it's easier to get around for more people, productivity goes up, consumption goes up. it's really shocking to me that politicians don't get this. my suspicion is that a major public transit project generally lasts longer than a term of office.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    It's more than that. Transit requires more infrastructure costs up front. Trying to build transit effectively in SOV-dependent cities also requires playing the long game of trying to change commuters' habits. LA is trying to build out transit, and started around 1990. Even now, you see lots of complaints (such as in this article and a few of the comments) about "why are you spending so much money on useless transit when the real problem is clogged roads?"

5 ms·

>What many cities have realized is that trying to provide sufficient road capacity to meet demand is a game lost before they've even begun, and instead focused

by dajohnson89 8y ago

hrktb 8y ago
GP’s point still stands though. We can look at the best tier public transit systems, they will be themselves congestionned as they are the best mean to go from A to B on the area they cover, while also keeping the other transportation axes congested at peak hours for those benefiting from the mass move to public transport by average people. It’s still better for everyone to have congestionned public transit, it’s just not a magic way to eliminate congestion itself.
- dajohnson89 8y ago
  I think that's basically correct. an interesting corollary is that along with increased congestion for both modes, comes economic growth. when it's easier to get around for more people, productivity goes up, consumption goes up. it's really shocking to me that politicians don't get this. my suspicion is that a major public transit project generally lasts longer than a term of office.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    It's more than that. Transit requires more infrastructure costs up front. Trying to build transit effectively in SOV-dependent cities also requires playing the long game of trying to change commuters' habits. LA is trying to build out transit, and started around 1990. Even now, you see lots of complaints (such as in this article and a few of the comments) about "why are you spending so much money on useless transit when the real problem is clogged roads?"