[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




Should cager expressways be placed underground and out of sight?
>>
>>1260880
Yes, it will reduce number of idiots driving significantly.
>>
ideally, but that would surely be prohibitively expensive
>>
>>1260880
That's not really underground. It's just a typical trenched highway that happened to be capped.
>>
>>1260880
> Hates them
> Spends a lot of money to let them enjoy an exclusive space below you, still there
Hence a meme.
> Pic
Loks like simply at ground level covered with overhead landscape deck. Might be a more acceptable solution, but the same can be achieved with noise barriers on the sides and a simple roof. That's not burying them as what you implied. Using noise barriers instead of retaining walls would be easier for construction and maintenance, and the structural requirement and complexity will be less with a plain concrete structure without more elaborate tunnel support. Rooftop greening would be a significant load due to soil, trees, and permeation.
Would love to cover sunken roads more, but personally I like elevated and embanked roads the most.
>>
>>1260885
Oh you might be right. I >>1260887 only paid attention to the slope on the right and assumed it's at ground-level.
>>
>>1260887
the point is the let the two sides of the expressway be reunited
>>
>>1260880
Hopefully it traps all the pollution in and they die while passing through when they don't have the entire planets atmosphere to absorb their mess.
>>
No, they should simply be eliminated
>>
>>1260890
Honestly with the amount of exhaust and ventilation required would mean more power plants and thus a ton more pollution for everyone...

Here I have a unique idea, lets just burn the entire earth and kill everyone and be done with it.
>>
>>1260884
We can build it as a pilot project and say all future projects will be like this. Then because it was so expensive, we toll it massively. So either it ends up only being used by the rich, or closes entirely.

>>1260891
This, highways as built are just being filled up by induced demand. Perhaps not eliminated, but vastly reduced.
>>
No, costs too much
>>
>>1260880
I think we should put you underground and out of sight, OP, about six feet under to be precise.
>>
>>1260880
no they should not exist
>>
>>1260880
expressways should simply not exist in cities
>>
>>1260880
>tunnels
please god yes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpDOcioBJyI
>>
File: image.png (1.59 MB, 1100x732)
1.59 MB
1.59 MB PNG
>>1260880
>>
>Put highways underground
>But not the power lines
Whoever made that image is a moron.
>>
>>1261830
The Outer expressways should be converted into high speed rail.
>>
>>1261830
Why the... I seriously do not get why you'd have one highway inside another without some serious retardation happening on the part of planners. Kindly explain.
>>
>>1262449
I'd assume that's a single highway, and the lanes in the middle are for people who don't intend to get off it for the time being, maybe alongside an increased speed-limit in order to encourage them to use the middle lanes.

Maybe they are separated this massively in order to reduce the mental load on the drivers. I don't think they could handle 9 lane roads. You'd feel lost.
>>
>>1262449
> He does not understand local-express lanes
You can question the number of lanes, but separation of traffic is standard.
>>
>>1261839
>high speed rail
Don't think you understand this word.
>>
>>1261831
Client requirement must be. Road officials don't know how to reap interest from their business.
>>
>>1260880
>should a majority of people be disadvantaged by ridiculous and prohibatively expensive regulations to suit my prejudices

No. Stop being a faggot. Isn't it against board rules or something?
>>
>>1262525
In his defense: It's not like that separation was a thing everywhere (like you claim).
In conjunction with the number of lanes it's probably a sign something went massively wrong in that area.
>>
File: image.png (1006 KB, 770x819)
1006 KB
1006 KB PNG
>>1262449
That's Leningradskiy Avenue in Moscow. Earlier it was a green, nice city street with alleys, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and trams. Somewhat like in 2007-2008 it was transformed in a highway to "remove traffic jams", however the traffic jams have become worse. Imagine there were 12 lanes and there were traffic jams, while now there are 18 to 19, and there are still traffic jams, even worser.
>>
>>1263004
dumb slav monkeys
>>
>>1263011
Unfortunately... Russian road designers are quite dumb at their job. They still do not have knowledge about the induced demand. They still think "let's add another lane and/or remove traffic lights and the traffic jams will disappear".
>>
>>1260880
If you insist on cut and cover why not reduce the footprint and put two rails in there instead of 6 lanes of highway?
>>
>>1263015
>>1263011
>>1263004
m80s, they know exactly what they're doing. They dgaf about traffic jams, they just want to boost car sales.
>>
I've seen a very small form of this in Germany
>>
File: ike.png (995 KB, 1000x551)
995 KB
995 KB PNG
same goes to railway
>>
All the lanes in the middle should be enjoined and have controlled entry/exit systems and run it directionally based on commute times, unless it's a ring road
>>
>>1260880
yeah guys the whole world should just be bike paths, then we can all ride around with seats up our asses and be fuckheads to eachother.

KYS cyclefags.
>>
>>1260880
Why do you want to spend MORE money on highways?

Their budget should be cut significantly and multi lane highways should be slowly restricted into single or double lane ones.

Even better, highways should be restricted for only carpools / freight / public transit and similar types of vehicles.
>>
>>1260884
>ideally, but that would surely be prohibitively expensive

They floated trying this is KC. Price tag was 250 million for a 1/2 mile tract of 670 that loops through central downtown.

It will never get built of course. They can't even fix the sewers or the Buck Oneil bridge.
>>
>>1263004
>while now there are 18 to 19, and there are still traffic jams, even worser
It's a known fact, even if counterintuitive, that increasing traffic capacity actually leads to worse traffic conditions.
Of course the people in power don't really care because they're not the one commuting.
>>
>>1263843
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess's_paradox
>>
>>1263843
>>1263861
This means you didn't add capacity in the right place.
>>
>>1263921
i.e. public transport.
>>
>>1263928
If that's what you want to call the road network.
>>
>>1263835
>Why do you want to spend MORE money on highways?
Highways provide more net utility to more people than public transit and are more of an economic multiplier too
>>
>>1263960
Utterly wrong for developed countries where road traffic has peaked.
>>
>>1263964
Oh it's peaked? No need to expand mass transit capacity then
>>
>>1264039
Without expanding mass transit capacity, road traffic wouldn't have peaked.
>>
>>1264039
Of course we need to, because road traffic must approach 0.
>>
>>1260880
How about gas stations though? We're going to have to build around large cargo trucks and military vehicles (in the US and Germany motorways were build mostly for military travel, they just happen by some cities) so these tunnels are going to be massive, expensive, and given America's shitty oversight with private contractors dangerous. Also, while digging, you're probably going to temporarily displace shit loads of people and cause surrounding communities
>>
>>1264391
>>1264406
Nope
>>
>>1264406
Road traffic approaching zero is impossible as long as there are humans at all.
A pedestrian or cyclist counts as traffic as well, after all.

What needs to happen is that the long core stretches of trips become bundled.
Be it a highway, be it an autobahn. That's where by far the most fuel is used, and could be saved by using, say, high speed rail.
The problem is what you do before and after that ride, and I think the solution to that is the autonomous car.
>>
>>1264475
Then why don't we remove those humans?
>>
>>1260880

No.
>>
>>1264420
>and given America's shitty oversight with private contractors dangerous.
Virtually every part of the US Interstate system was built and is maintained by contractors, and that's not going to change. Not like actual government inspectors catch everything anyway (I-35 bridge collapse)

>Also, while digging, you're probably going to temporarily displace shit loads of people and cause surrounding communities
You're really just building an overpass over the interstate that's miles wide at a time and can support a layer of soil and whatever else they want to put on it. Actually boring underground tunnels is way too expensive and impractical.


>>1264475
True, but I think an interim solution is HSR with auto carrying capability. It's expensive and time consuming though.
>>
>>1266064
>an interim solution is HSR with auto carrying capability
Until a few years ago regular speed automobile trains were a thing in Europe.
They were abolished alongside sleeper trains.
In Germany there are only a few trains to/from Hamburg and Düsseldorf left, and they mostly go towards Austria.
>>
>>1260880
lol good luck building anything below 10 feet in Florida
>>
>>1266196
Port Miami Tunnel
>>
File: ecoart_talkintrees2.jpg (61 KB, 537x421)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>1262449
We have some in New York. It makes sense for major thoroughfares. The center lanes are for through traffic and the outside lanes are for local traffic
>>
sometimes i come here just to laugh at all of you pathetic manchildren
you're not important, and infrastructure will never ever change to benefit you because you want to ride your bike or scooter or whatever you faggots ride
>>
>>1269265
thanks dad you close-minded idiot
>>
>>1263004
The problem is there aren't enough lanes/roads. I am sick and tired of this fucking cuck meme. The level of dishonesty you faggots use is right up there with the (((climatologists))) who only ever use the past couple hundred years of data and completely ignore the other couple hundred million years of data we have.
>>
>>1263832
SEETHING cager
>>
>>1269387
>The problem is there aren't enough lanes/roads.
Or there are too many junctions. Junctions induce jams by entangling traffic between lanes.
>>
>>1260880
>instead of living next to a highway you can live on top of one
oh boy.
>>
honestly it would be nice if we could get all highways and railways underground and out of sight, but thats a terrible idea for very obvious reasons.
>>
>>1269516
>too many junctions
This too. But that doesn't really matter unless you have off ramps leading straight into an intersection with minimal buffer, or a road with too few lanes.
>>
>>1269521
see: >>1267795
>>
>>1260880
I think we should put (You) underground and out of sight, OP, about 6 feet underground.
>>
>>1260880
yes in cities
>>
>>1269566
At that point I'd raise the question why you'd need expressways in cities in the first place.
With the right (public transport) infrastructure you don't need them at all in urban areas.
>>
>>1269656
>With the right (public transport) infrastructure you don't need them at all in urban areas.
Because unless you can come up with an infinitely scaling tessellating structure that takes into account resource management, resource reprocessing, power generation, power transport, heat management, heat expulsion, and momentum, you're just making everything worse for everyone except commie niggers.

Come back in 1000 years when we've got a substantial number of orbital colonies and we still reject public transit for being inefficient and retarded no matter the scenario.
>>
>>1269689
>inefficient

If you had said "ineffective", okay, since there are trips that are cumbersome to do with public transport, but using the one thing that applies first and foremost to motorized individual mobility, shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
>>
File: repeating dodecahedron.jpg (249 KB, 459x460)
249 KB
249 KB JPG
>>1269691
The ONLY scenario in which I can imagine public transit being efficient is in in a ring/rung world or orbital cylinder matrix (specifically for transit between cylinders more than 10 cylinders away). Maybe on a toroidal planet because at that point you have more mass and energy than sense, so you do stupid shit like build a toroidal planet and so transit efficiency is of no concern.

But the point is that properly planned areas don't incorporate public transit as it makes things less efficient, and that unplanned areas don't incorporate public transit as it makes things less efficient. You have to design from the ground up specifically for public transit in order for it to be marginally viable; and at that point you're a faggot for going with an inferior system just because you like the idea of public transit.
>>
>>1269691
>>1269701
Oh, outside of geometrically consistent mega-structures, I guess also children. But that is a special case because of the consistent/regular nature and the singular destination. It is also an incredibly obsolete and anachronistic case.
>>
>>1269701
Public transport is orders of magnitude more efficient than motorists.
Cars scale linearly, while rail and bus scale logarithmic.
You don't need to have mass transit to the door. It's sufficient to do that between central places and then do the last stretch individualized.
>>
>>1269708
Let me just put this out there. It's not the fundamental idea of public transit that I oppose, just the (((communist))) version. If you privately fund your public transit and don't steal any money or use any threats of (((coercive force))), I have zero problems with it.

>Cars scale linearly, while rail and bus scale logarithmic.
No. Unless you're being a faggot and doing your analysis based on capacity per mile traveled per unit area of footprint.

>You don't need to have mass transit to the door. It's sufficient to do that between central places and then do the last stretch individualized.
but 99% of travel is door to door. The travel needs are too dispersed for centralized public transit to work. Let's look at the possibilities:
1. Absurdly low population density and large distances: Not enough demand to be efficient by any reasonable metric.
2. Absurdly high population density and large travel distances: Enough demand, and reasonably efficient by reasonable metrics.
3. Absurdly low population density and medium distances: Not enough demand to be efficient by any reasonable metric.
4. Absurdly high population density and medium travel distances: Enough demand, and maybe/maybe-not reasonable.
5. Absurdly low population density and small distances: Enough demand, but inefficient by any reasonable metric.
6. Absurdly high population density and small travel distances: Enough demand, but inefficient by any reasonable metric.

Cont.
>>
>>1269708
>>1269712

So of the possible scenarios, only 2 and 4 are good outlooks for public transit. Scenario 2 doesn't really exist on earth and scenario 4 while technically possible to be viable gets destroyed when you consider that people need to get from A to B locally and need to do the same once they get to their destination. That problem doesn't exist in a dystopian world devoid of rights and freedom, where you can prohibit personal transportation and have the peasants use the commissar's fleet of cars once they get to their destination a medium distance away (in exchange for their wheat and blood of course)

Again, you can easily conceive of a scenario where public transit is efficient, it just requires that you force that scenario because it will never arise organically. It also requires that you be evil, and desire to use that force for public transit instead of just forcing properly designed/planned cities.
>>
>>1269708
>>1269713
Sorry, once more I am a faggot. Localized public transit can also be viable if you have a large and regular supply of tourists.
>>
>>1269712
>but 99% of travel is door to door.
Travel in public transport != mass transit
Mass transit is only a single possibility. and it's what in the end will replace expressways.

>No. Unless,,,
One additional car rider means - on average - one additional car.
One additional bus rider means practically no (=close to zero) increased fuel usage/emissions/footprint.
>>
>>1269708
>Public transport is orders of magnitude more efficient than motorists.
>Cars scale linearly, while rail and bus scale logarithmic.

You are so full of shit dude lol
>>
>>1269731
>You are so full of shit dude lol

If you have counter-arguments, I'd be interested in hearing them.
>>
>>1269738
The burden of proof is on you.
>>
My city is thinking of a making a small freeway cap near a residential area. Not sure how well it will work.
Columbus, Ohio has one but the circumstances are completely different so I don't know how applicable they are to our region.
>>1269753
I think these were his arguments. (>>1269719)
>One additional car rider means - on average - one additional car.
>One additional bus rider means practically no (=close to zero) increased fuel usage/emissions/footprint.
>>
>>1269813
>I think these were his arguments. (>>1269719)
>>One additional car rider means - on average - one additional car.
>>One additional bus rider means practically no (=close to zero) increased fuel usage/emissions/footprint.
Oh... he doesn't understand what linear or logarithmic mean.
>>
>>1269823
I'd be curious to how he interprets logarithmic scaling but there is no doubt the efficiencies of public transit are tremendously better than private automobile.

>>1269713
>force that scenario because it will never arise organically.
I think you'd be interested in market urbanism. These scenarios absolutely grow organically but are typically prevented by placing restrictions on development and land use.
>>
>>1269828
>I'd be curious to how he interprets logarithmic scaling but there is no doubt the efficiencies of public transit are tremendously better than private automobile.

How?
>>
>>1263015

Lets get rid of all roads to solve all traffic jams bro
>>
>>1269956
there are people on /n/ that are so retarded/blind/etc that actually believe in the less roads means less traffic sophistry.
>>
>>1269835
uses less land, especially when parking is considered
>>
>>1269960
>There's a shortage of land in America
>>
File: 1534614653907.jpg (1.44 MB, 2400x1271)
1.44 MB
1.44 MB JPG
>>1269835
Surely you've seen a picture like this before?
>>
>>1269823
>Oh... he doesn't understand what linear or logarithmic mean.
Linear means \mathcal{O}(n).
Logarithmic means \mathcal{O}(log_c(n)), c \in \mathds{N}.

Saying that it's logarithmic is exaggerating a little (and strictly speaking it's wrong), but the marginal cost of public transport approaches zero with rising ridership, while for individual cars there is a significantly larger constant summand you can't get rid off.
>>
>>1269956
>>1269959
I don't think there was any implication that removing roads will solve all traffic jams. The simple fact is you can't build your way out of congestion and that adding road capacity frequently increases travel times.

Some links if you are truly this ignorant and not just trolling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
>>
>>1269965
In cities, yes there is a shortage of land. You can't live in northern Nevada and commute to LA dumbass
>>
>>1269974
Is that supposed to change my mind about something? Nifty pic though


>>1270007
>In cities, yes there is a shortage of land.
In other words, the urban model itself has more limitations than previously imagined

> You can't live in northern Nevada and commute to LA dumbass
Nice strawman
>>
>>1270013
>Than previously imagined

People have been successfully living in dense cities for thousands of years, and never had an obesity epidemic or destroyed the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. The recent obsession with cages has been a mistake
>>
>>1269835
>>1270013

Public transport is inherently more efficient than private transport (ie, cars) simply because you can transport more people with fewer resources. I figure you would appreciate facts and tangible data so let's use my home city of Melbourne, Australia as an example.

The primary route for road vehicles from the southeast is the Monash Freeway. For the purposes of this calculation let's say it is operating in basically perfect conditions. It differs in width from two to five lanes per way, so let's simply assume that there are five lanes for its entire length. Assuming only a single person per car (reflective of the fact most people drive only themselves to work, and one of the primary arguments in favour of a car is the freedom to drive yourself wherever you want) and a separation of only two seconds between cars, that gives us 1,800 people per lane, and a total of 9,000 people per hour (1800×5).

On the other hand, there are multiple train lines in the same general direction - Sandringham, Frankston and Cranbourne/Pakenham - but for simplicity's sake we'll just calculate using the latter. The rolling stock used can carry more than 1,500 people crush load per six-car train, but we'll use this as a rough figure. Existing peak hour frequency is at most 15 trains per hour. That gives us 22,500 people per hour (1500×15). Already that is over double the throughput of the freeway.
>>
>>1270363

You can see that a two track railway easily surpasses the capacity of a five lane freeway. And I think you'll agree that a freeway of that size (which is five lanes in each direction, so ten lanes in total) takes up more resources and space than the railway. It would take a freeway 12 lanes in each direction to equal the capacity of the existing railway line. Victorian standards stipulate that the absolute minimum width of a double track rail corridor is 10m, and a freeway lane is 3.5m. Disregarding any additional infrastructure - shoulder, on/off ramps, median etc - the freeway is seven times less efficient purely on a physical metric of footprint alone. (Freeway = 2×10×3.5 = 70m, railway 10m)

Additionally, it is far easier to add more capacity to the railway - indeed, we are adding more capacity by extending trains, initially to seven cars but with provision for up to ten, for which we'll say a crush load is 2,000 people. Additionally, the existing signalling can handle up to 20 trains per hour. Applying these figures in a “perfect” scenario instead gives us a capacity of 40,000 people per hour (2,000×20). Roadways simply just don't scale in a similar way - adding another lane would only be equivalent to two more trains at most, but at many times the cost.

In conclusion, trains and by extension public transport as a medium are far more efficient than cars - at the very least in terms of space constraints and not even taking into account the increased emissions released by a thousand internal combustion engines compared to a single electric train. This is the core of the argument that public transport is more efficient - as you can see from >>1269974 , the same amount of people fit in a lot less space if they are on public transport than if they are in private cars.
>>
>>1270364
Public roads = public transport
>>
>>1264420
>in the US motorways were build mostly for military travel
That's horseshit. It might have been the horseshit Eisenhower believed/spewed to justify it, but it's horseshit. Military travel is done mostly by rail, and the military is far more up the butt of rail owners to maintain compliance with what they need to transport equipment than they are with highway construction. They were built because America wanted the cage and was wealthy. Germany's initial motorways were mostly for employment and the cage.
>>
>>1270034
Suburbs were the biggest mistake of all.
>>
>>1270670
>Suburbs were the biggest mistake of all.

Can't imagine why people don't want to live in an overpriced cage w/ shitty schools surrounded by bums and street savages. Well we need to show these wh*te suburban racists the error of their ways
>>
>>1270693
In civilized countries the schools all receive equal funding and the bums are given social assistance.
>>
>>1270696
School funding isn't correlated with academic success. Bums should be thrown in boxcars and sent to California
>>
>>1270699
Schools are not only about academics, but also extracurriculars to keep the kids out of trouble.
>>
>>1270702
Lol shut up. Virtue signalers like you fall over yourselves to spend more money on people with nearly zero ambition or goals for their lives. Until that changes there's no point in spending more money on their schools ('muh poor inner city schools' has been a meme for years) or living in-town for that matter.
>>
File: 14446506861580.jpg (68 KB, 500x685)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
>>1263004
>That's Leningradskiy Avenue in Moscow. Earlier it was a green, nice city street with alleys, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and trams. Somewhat like in 2007-2008 it was transformed in a highway to "remove traffic jams", however the traffic jams have become worse. Imagine there were 12 lanes and there were traffic jams, while now there are 18 to 19, and there are still traffic jams, even worser.
People bought more cars, you idiot. Here's some stats for Moscow:
1990 — 900 000 registered cars
2000 — 1 800 000
2010 — 3 300 000
2017 — 4 700 000

To put this in context: almost 5 000 000 cars in a 30x30 km sqare.
If you count cars registered in Moscow and Moscow oblast number comes up to 8 000 000 cars, that's 15% of all cars in Russia.
Of course there's going to be traffic jams.
>>
>>1271199
That's called induced demand, the more you build roads, the more people buy cars. That's why when they widen another street and remove traffic lights on it, soon it becomes even more jammed than before
>>
File: FULL_RETARD.png (1.21 MB, 1190x1184)
1.21 MB
1.21 MB PNG
>>1271200
>That's called induced demand, the more you build roads, the more people buy cars.
Induced demand has nothing to do with Moscow, trust me. People would buy cars even if nothing would be done to improve traffic.
It's an old infrasctuctural problem caused by commie hypercentralization. Cities surrounding Moscow often have one-way (or even none at all) direct road connections so you have to use MKAD or inner highways to travel between them.
And because you lack intercity connections public transport is shit, so you have to have a car.
>>
>>1271199
>build shitload of roads
>barely improve public transit
>people buy cars
FUCKING MAGNETS HOW DO THEY WORK
>>
>>1271206
>People would buy cars even if nothing would be done to improve traffic
WRONG
If there's a lot of traffic jams and the city didn't build more roads people would try harder to avoid using cars. Even more so if surface transit got more ROW.
>>
>>1271206
>MKAD
>110
Huh? More like 100
>People would buy cars even if nothing would be done to improve traffic.
This. People will buy cars anyway. There is no way around it, so in order to prevent chaos like Moscow, roads have to be designed properly, and number of citizens limited.
>>
>>1271200
>That's called induced demand
>the more you build roads, the more people buy cars
Sure
>>
But if cagers don't get sunlight, they're bound to road rage when they do!!!!!
>>
>>1271235
>>1271236
Why are you trying to debunk me with imaginary cases?
>>
>>1271345
Not one of the guys you are replying to, but your argument only applies to >>1271236
And well, >>1271235 is what has happened in the "First World" since the 60s. It's not imaginary in the least.
If you reduce the attractiveness of public transport (by reducing network, frequency and comfort), while increasing the attractiveness of cars (wide roads, low taxation, parking spots everywhere), the result is obvious.

Cars are fucking awesome, but a "Cars First" mentality has grave consequences for everyone in the long run.
You can practically only hope to die before they catch up with you.
The car has its rightful place in the future, but there is no way it remains in the spot it occupies today. Well, either that, or there is no future involving anyone of us, but I hope human kind preserving to this day is more than a fluke and the anthropic principle.
>>
>>1271365
Again, i'm talking about a concrete case, with specific roots of the problem.
I don't need generic textbook examples.
>>
>>1260891
Based as all hell
>>
>>1263004
What the fuck that's new? I thought that it was retarded Soviet planning. I simply cannot express my hatred for this project. It's like I'm living through the closure of the Pacific Electric.
>>
File: image.png (656 KB, 700x468)
656 KB
656 KB PNG
>>1271463
In Soviet times this street had green alleys, pedestrian crossings with traffic lights and a tram line. Somewhat in 2007 they tore down all this and built a tunnel with 10 lanes totally not to make cagers stop at traffic lights and made pedestrians go into over/underpasses.
They still think as if there were 1 car per 1000 people, which probably belongs to the Soviet Communist Party official who will now get faster to the party assembly.
>>
File: this is you.jpg (630 KB, 1280x1024)
630 KB
630 KB JPG
>>1271199
>People bought more cars, you idiot.
No shit they bought more cars. Do you think we were implying millions of people owned cars but just kept them in the garage until the roads were widened? As the population grew the mass transit system did not because the government prioritized road expansion, so no shit people will buy cars as they are forced too with there being no viable alternative.
>>1271282
>people will buy cars anyways
No, they really wont. In Japan car ownership, especially in the cities, is low because the taxes for owning them are prohibitively expensive and there is no space to actually park your car. Most homes don't even have a garage and the streets are so narrow that you can't just leave it parked in front of your house. Also, the speed limits are much slower so it is faster to use mass transit. But I guess you are right that people will keep buying cars as long as the government incentivizes them to own one, but we are trying to argue that the government shouldn't do that. It's funny how you lolberts always whine about mass transit being "communist" without realizing that the personal automobile is only viable after decades and trillions of dollars of infrastructure investment to force cars to be viable.
>>1271367
>concrete examples
Just look at LA in the 40s and 50s as GM bought out all the tram lines and replaced them with more roads. Just because you refuse to do any sort of research (because it's "communist" or whatever) doesn't mean these scenarios are "imaginary".
>>
>>1271662
>No, they really wont
>taxes

Think you ruined your own argument champ
>>
>>1271662
>As the population grew the mass transit system did not because the government prioritized road expansion
>Just look at LA
That picture is highly ironic.
Your whole argument is based on an ignorant assumption that Californian transport infrastructure and it's history translates to post-soviet countries.
It doesn't. At all.

I can tell you why, on an example of Moscow, if you're interested.
>>
I knock u lance Armstrongs off ur bikes with 150db’s any chance I get
And I have a dashcam so I won’t let off the fuel if u stray in my path
>>
File: 54651654651.png (35 KB, 800x313)
35 KB
35 KB PNG
>>1263004
I N D U C E D
D E M A N D
>>
>>1272113
The word for the concept you're describing is simply 'demand.'

""""Induced demand"""" is a bugman buzzword. Don't fall for it.
>>
>>1272161
Good to know that you and your MAGA friends know more than every planner, civil engineer, and anyone who’s ever taken a single economics course.
>>
>>1272161
Given that no one here takes you seriously, why are you still posting?
>>
>>1271669
LMAO. Imagine supposedly being over the age of 18 and not knowing how taxes work.
>>
>>1272166
I majored in urban planning


>>1272168
Thanks for the (you)


>>1272172
Read it again



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.