Automotive
Civil servants have been pushing mass transit (busses, shuttles, trolleys, street cars, subways, elevated trains) as the solution to traffic congestion and gridlock for 100 years.
Obviously, that's bullshit, just look at New York, it's had mass transit, for the same 100 years, and still has gridlock and congested traffic.
So, what about the idea of making wider roads? Why is it that it was the solution when all we had were single 2 rut roads, and then when adding a lane to go in the other direction (a road became a highway) traffic moved much faster in each direction.
When we needed even more relief a 2nd lane was added in both directions. (Highway became freeway/interstate) but then the city planners and transportation experts said that was the limit. Adding more lanes, they said, would only worsen the problem, and no matter how many lanes you add, they would all become full, and nothing was going to be solved that way.
So they pushed trains, trolleys, and subways. Then GM killed the streetcars and pushed busses for profit, and then politicians saw where their bread was buttered and became puppets for unions who built more mass transit projects. Manila just passed a 374 billion dollar mass transit project... seriously.
Soon we may see if a loop of the BART around the San Fran / San Jose / Santa Clara will reduce congestion.
Some cities try to get people to bicycle... and some, like Toronto, shut the door on bike lanes
Others tried to fix a problem with metering lights at entry ramps.... oh boy, did that backfire and the went from a 10 minute commute to an hour.
But then, Texas proved them all wrong. https://www.wired.com/2016/04/widening-highways-never-fixes-traffic-darnit-texas/ Texas paved the shoulders along both sides of a 6.3-mile stretch of State Highway 161 between Dallas and Fort Worth in September. Then it opened them up to traffic during the daily rush hour, and based on figures from April 2016 traffic “started sailing,” after the new lanes opened in September. Traffic has increased since then, though the TxDOT says traffic is still moving faster than before the project.
And today on KNX 1070 at about 2:10 this afternoon, someone from UCLA was interviewed and pointed out that there is NO EVIDENCE that mass transit has ever reduced traffic congestion.
Every city with traffic problems has mass transit (NY, LA, Chicago, Boston). The opposite is sometimes true, cities that won't allow mass transit, nor highways and interstates, through do not have traffic problems, look at Pasadena they blocked the 710 from EVER going through.
Put it this way, you know they are lying to you when the politicians aren't using the very "solution" they want to create. American transportation officials and polticians simple won't use them. Why? Probably because they suck, they aren't luxurious, and they don't whisk the typical governor, mayor, etc from place to place... helicopters do, airplanes do, hell even the heads of police departments have been questioned about their personal use of city helicopters. Of course, that only happens when they are already on the griddle for screwing up royally.
Obviously, that's bullshit, just look at New York, it's had mass transit, for the same 100 years, and still has gridlock and congested traffic.
So, what about the idea of making wider roads? Why is it that it was the solution when all we had were single 2 rut roads, and then when adding a lane to go in the other direction (a road became a highway) traffic moved much faster in each direction.
When we needed even more relief a 2nd lane was added in both directions. (Highway became freeway/interstate) but then the city planners and transportation experts said that was the limit. Adding more lanes, they said, would only worsen the problem, and no matter how many lanes you add, they would all become full, and nothing was going to be solved that way.
So they pushed trains, trolleys, and subways. Then GM killed the streetcars and pushed busses for profit, and then politicians saw where their bread was buttered and became puppets for unions who built more mass transit projects. Manila just passed a 374 billion dollar mass transit project... seriously.
Soon we may see if a loop of the BART around the San Fran / San Jose / Santa Clara will reduce congestion.
Some cities try to get people to bicycle... and some, like Toronto, shut the door on bike lanes
Others tried to fix a problem with metering lights at entry ramps.... oh boy, did that backfire and the went from a 10 minute commute to an hour.
But then, Texas proved them all wrong. https://www.wired.com/2016/04/widening-highways-never-fixes-traffic-darnit-texas/ Texas paved the shoulders along both sides of a 6.3-mile stretch of State Highway 161 between Dallas and Fort Worth in September. Then it opened them up to traffic during the daily rush hour, and based on figures from April 2016 traffic “started sailing,” after the new lanes opened in September. Traffic has increased since then, though the TxDOT says traffic is still moving faster than before the project.
And today on KNX 1070 at about 2:10 this afternoon, someone from UCLA was interviewed and pointed out that there is NO EVIDENCE that mass transit has ever reduced traffic congestion.
Every city with traffic problems has mass transit (NY, LA, Chicago, Boston). The opposite is sometimes true, cities that won't allow mass transit, nor highways and interstates, through do not have traffic problems, look at Pasadena they blocked the 710 from EVER going through.
Put it this way, you know they are lying to you when the politicians aren't using the very "solution" they want to create. American transportation officials and polticians simple won't use them. Why? Probably because they suck, they aren't luxurious, and they don't whisk the typical governor, mayor, etc from place to place... helicopters do, airplanes do, hell even the heads of police departments have been questioned about their personal use of city helicopters. Of course, that only happens when they are already on the griddle for screwing up royally.
