• Xenon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Elon:

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

    • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

  • Hammocks4All@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        If you make driving easier than transit, more people will drive who previously took transit. The reverse is also true. One of these situations is more desirable for myriad reasons.

        As well, additional demand can be created by convenience. People will make trips they otherwise never would have if it’s easier to make them.

        • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Communist transportation will never ever ever ever ever ever ever be easier than driving.

          Because driving is “get in the car, go directly to destination”

          Public transport adds walk to transport rally point, wait, follow a compromise route to accomodate other travellers with many stop, consider all the strangers gazing and judging you, arrive at not your destination, walk 5 to 20 mins to your actual destination. Plus you must carry any object on your person while navigating the terrain (good luck hauling 50lbs of groceries).

          I am simply not interested in this nightmare, find a solution that isn’t horrible.

          And NOoo I don’t want Musks robot taxis from the “you will own nothing” dystopia.

          • Signtist@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            As much as I personally disagree with you, given that all you’re thinking about is your own benefit, and not any of the myriad of benefits to the city, the world, the people who can’t afford cars, etc, I understand that your outlook is shared by the vast majority of Americans, and can’t be ignored if we ever hope to have an effective public transport system.

            We’re going to need to somehow devise a system so convenient that it actually sounds attractive to the huge amount of people who spend 10%+ of their paycheck on car payments not because they have to, but because they want to.

    • Kayana@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        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?).

      • MuffinHeeler@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

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

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I guess everything I’ve been calling light rail fits into the suburban rail category. Multiple cities I’ve lived in are adding in “light rail” tracks between major centers

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Passenger per hour going where? If everyone is going from A to B, ok. But people need to go allover the place.

      For me a 10min car ride is a 1.15h bus ride…

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Well, no one is saying cars are worse for all purposes. If you want to take your family and dogs to a cabin in the mountains while also shopping for food along the way, it is probably going to be your best bet. Still, that is not what is pictured in the post. These are commuters that are probably moving from work to home (or vice versa), where cars really are the worst of most options. If the bus takes longer, it is probably an issue of allocation of funds for a shorter route and exclusive lanes for it.