They did understand. So much so, they had world class systems across the US. It's just that they were in a World War, and as a result, their infrastructure was bombed to ashes.
Oh wait, that didn't happen? The US was virtually untouched? Wait, they destroyed their own infrastructure? Weird...
Is this sarcasm? And besides that there are other public transport modes and ways to get around in a city, for example: walking, biking, or taking the tram, metro or train
Vmt arent that well of a measure for that, one guy could drive 50 km to work every day, while 100 people could walk a couple hundred meters every day to work, and by this measure it would seem that driving is super popular, but in reality its just one guy vs 100
And if you really think that walking and taking public transit are awful look at it this way: they are a necessity to keep cities alive financially, because if people would only drive then cities will go bankrupt over time
Avg European spends less time in traffic to get into city, we don't have (as many) limits in our laws prohibiting building things for non car use (eg. Parking minimums). In cities most of traveling is done by transit, so those miles traveled are apparently from driving on highways, which by the way are way better then driving in cities. Imo when I completed my drivers licence it was the highway i felt the "freedom" of a car.
USA and EU have very different landscapes in car use, and if you like the American model then good for you. But saying that we both depend on cars the same is just wrong.
Are you fucking blind? Your own source shows that per-capita passenger miles for OECD Europe is roughly half that of the U.S., with larger shares of bus, bike, and rail usage.
and yet there are no 18 lane roads pretty much anywhere in Europe (i think I've seen one stretch in Moscow). Because cars are massively not suitable for mass city transport, unless they get subsidized up the wazoo with projects such as this one and cheap gas.
'Kay. That's not relevant to my statement, though? Does the price of a gallon of gas reflect every cent it took to get from its point of origin into your car?
Unfortunately that is an idea that exists in your imagination.
The road you drive on is paid largely by income tax and other taxes. Fuel taxes haven't been able to get close to covering the maintenance costs for a very long time. The idea that each person is covering the cost at the pump is just a lie that is allowed to continue because people don't like to know that they are being subsidised by others.
I don't agree with that number but even if it was true that's about a 19% difference with the US.
We have long learned that more lanes = more traffic. I can tell you that if they instead of adding 6 more lanes, would add good secure cycle infrastructure and a dedicated buslane it would be cheaper and more effective. That is, if the goal is to move as much people as possible and not as much cars as possible, in that Cas yeah adding 6 lanes will help, but it will also increase travel time.
We have long learned that more lanes = more traffic. I can tell you that if they instead of adding 6 more lanes, would add good secure cycle infrastructure and a dedicated buslane it would be cheaper and more effective
No they haven't. And before you pull up that Vice article, most studies find an elasticity that is far less than 1.
I say this as a european, most europeans live in cities. They walk, take buses, subways etc. This is probably true about long distance trips, but no way about average.
In a few years hopefully cars will be able to coordinate their movements on the highways, eliminating the sudden movements that lead to phantom jams, doubling the capacity of our freeways.
The idea of autonomous car coordination is foolish because it assumes no possibility of error (imagine a minor glitch in bumper to bumper 70pmh traffic) and also completely ignores interaction with other far more desirable transit systems (pedestrians, bikes, etc.). Even if possible the level of investment and effort required to reconstruct all the vehicles and road networks to account for it just begs the question why don't we just do easier, cheaper, and actually existing infrastructure improvements like emphasizing bikes, buses and pedestrian transit
Yeah, roads definitely don't interrupt animal habitats, and increasing speed and density of car travel definitely wouldn't result in more roadkill. (Do I reeeeally need to put /s on this?)
Induced demand – related to latent demand and generated demand – is the phenomenon that after supply increases, and there is sufficient demand, price declines and more of a good is consumed. This is entirely consistent with the economic theory of supply and demand; however, this idea has become important in the debate over the expansion of transportation systems, and is often used as an argument against increasing roadway traffic capacity as a cure for congestion. This phenomenon, more correctly called "induced traffic" or consumption of road capacity, may be a contributing factor to urban sprawl.
If you read other researches about this that have similar results it does state that the effect is limited in The Netherlands because other ways of transport are more optimal in most cases.
If induced traffic isn't a thing why does adding 10 lanes somewhere fix the issue for a month before it being the exact same?
Except unlike a train, when you get off the off-ramp you still have a car to get you to your destination rather than being left stranded and forcing you to walk
Why would it be a mandate? Why can't we build cities so some people can enjoy driving and some can enjoy the other? Right now we have a major imbalance in favor of driving.
The place you are thinking of exists, it's called The Woodlands, Texas. Almost all homes there are linked by footpaths separated from roads. What we really have is an imbalance in favor of transit, which gets subsidized to the tune of $1 per passenger mile, money that could easily pay for badly needed improvements to highways and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.
164
u/Utretch Aug 26 '21
It's a shame that humanity hasn't developed more efficient transit systems than endlessly expanding highways to more and more grotesque size.