Why Traffic Can't Be Solved With More Highway Lanes
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 фев 2023
- Traffic and congestion has been worsening in American cities for decades. What to do about it divides opinion. Some say cities need more of everything: widened roads, public transit, and better urban design and planning. Some say however that widening roads won't solve traffic. Some economists, for example, argue that congestion pricing is the only way to reduce traffic. The solution is politically controversial though. Though it is implemented in cities like London and Singapore, attempts to implement it in America cities such as New York have incurred a lot of pushback.
Chapters:
1:16 - Intro
1:22 - Chapter 1: The case against road-building
4:48 - Chapter 2: Nuance
7:35 - Chapter 3: New Normal
Produced by: Robert Ferris
Edited by: Nora Rappaport
Senior Managing Producer: Tala Hadavi
Graphics By: Christina Locopo, Jason Reginato
» Subscribe to CNBC: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBC
» Subscribe to CNBC TV: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBCtelevision
About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.
Connect with CNBC News Online
Get the latest news: www.cnbc.com/
Follow CNBC on LinkedIn: cnb.cx/LinkedInCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Facebook: cnb.cx/LikeCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Twitter: cnb.cx/FollowCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Instagram: cnb.cx/InstagramCNBC
#CNBC
Why Traffic Can't Be Solved With More Highway Lanes
I feel like this video glossed over the walkability argument by just saying more walkable infrastructure induces demand there too. Maybe, but especially in dense urban contexts, walking and public transit is fundamentally _much_ more scalable. As the video briefly mentions, 1 person on a train, bus, bike or walking is _much_ smaller than 1 person in a car, and there's no parking required. And that's leaving aside all the other advantages of public transit or walking (health, air pollution, safety...etc). Cars are also expensive to own.
It's utterly insane to talk about congestion being a problem and not devote most of your attention to 'how do we get fewer cars in cities'
i mean congestion pricing works great in new york but in Phoenix that only worked if you live with in 1 mile of our 30 mile light rail. (which is practically nothing)
We need to build cities like Coruscant from star wars. Multiple levels of walkways.
As of now the only 3d transit infrastructure is for cars they get roads on the ground and elevated freeways in the city. Give pedestrians elevated walkways that connect tall buildings together.
@Leeeroy Jenkins or instead of star wars stuff we could just, you know, build some bike lanes and bus lanes and remove some parking
Also missing from their presentation and yours is the fact that people need to get TO the stations (Train, bus, metro, etc). Since we are a suburb culture, how are they to get there - oh yeah, by car. And park where? Oh yeah, lots that fill up before you even get there. All that idea has done is move the congestion out of the downtown to another location. So you haven't solved anything.
@@LeeeroyJenkins sooo expensive you have no idea. Literally trillions of dollars. We need star wars construction robots to get star wars cities.
btw does anybody know why the robots in star wars are sentient? It wouldn't be an issue if they weren't, but since they are they're just slaves, right??? They are literally brain-controlled to work all day! Why give them sentience?? why???
I love how america will try anything and conduct any type of study to avoid just working on good public transport. All of europe has got it figured out, can't be that hard of a conclusion
But they still got traffic 😂😂😂. Can you explain why with so many transit ?
It's to dangerous. There have been multiple mass shootings on the NYC subway. aka America's best public transit hub.
So yea. It's not just a black and white solution of build more transit. Also people are getting stabbed on the subway every 2 days.
Also the NYPD has over 50 outstanding people with warrants for sexually harassing Subway riders since the start of the year.
@@yssasylla1770 At least you have the option avoid traffic.
@@yssasylla1770 Usually only at rush hour and not at all hours of the day like in America
@@yssasylla1770 I'll give you London - old city grid and overcrowded public transport due to lack of funding, that's why it's important to keep investing on public transport.
Bike lanes and public transit is way more space and cost efficient. Cars are far bigger than individual people and remain mostly empty inside. Bikes are comparatively small and light, causing almost no damage to the road surface and no pollution, noise or otherwise.
Public transportation is really bad here, in other countries it has features making it preferable to driving, it's clean, it's fast, it's comfortable, it's safe, and it's everywhere. We could have that here, but we don't.
It's too general of a statement to say that public transportation is bad here in the US because it all depends on where you live. For example, I'm born and raised in Chicago and growing up I either walked, took the bus or EL wherever I needed and had no issues. When I went to college in NC public transportation sucked & didn't even run on Sundays so you had to have a car. I now live in the suburbs of DC where I need a car but my office in in downtown DC where I can take a commuter train or the metro into the city. However I have also lived Germany & have traveled all over Western Europe and once again, public transportation all depends on where you are. In Frankfurt or Paris there's virtually no difference than Chicago or DC when it comes to public transportation. However the further you go out the worse it is. I have also sat in horrible traffic in Chicago, DC, Paris & Frankfurt.
Consider also that the US is very, very big. It's difficult to build efficient and cost-effective public transportation for people in the middle of nowhere, Montana, for instance. I would suggest having congestion charge on the bigger offenders regarding pollution. For instance, the giant lifted coal-rolling truck down the street, not my econobox.
@@christianj252 Europe is as big as the US but they still have trains going to rural parts. Most of our population is in specific parts of the country. For example the North East corridor is a perfect place to introduce high speed rail. It’s very dence and would be perfect. Saying that the US is big is not excuse.
@@christianj252 Illinois, Indiana Ohio, have similar densities as France Spain and the distances between major cities between those Midwest cities are ideal for fast trains (100-200km). Minnesota is nicked Land of 1000 lakes , it is fitting that Finland has a same density. With 25/sqkm Sweden has same density as Oklahoma or Arkanas . The distances between Kansas City, Tulsa,Oklahoma City and Dallas, are same as in Sweden or France !
Only states like Alaska, Wyoming , the Dakotas are really sparce population too thin for trains maybe. But the rest could do fine !
@@kenyattaclay7666 most cities abandoned their infrastructure for car centric purposes.
Investing in public transit is one of, if not, the best way to get people off the road because they still need to go somewhere whether you charge them or not.
I would love to agree to this, but Puget Sound & many other transit systems only attach rail one way, ours are along the South North but nothing on the West or East. Seems like Public Transit, even in NY, only benefits the select few who live in those burrows. Last I check NYC still has a Traffic problem & their public transit almost failed a few times before COVID.
Funny how traffic increases with the decreased available housing. Almost like making people drive from 2 hours away into a city will cause a bottleneck in the city they all have to drive to. If they built more high rises and filled them with apartments(for rent) or condos(to own). People could walk or bike to work instead of driving for 2 hours because they live so close.
In Europe we have "good" public transport but still a lot of traffic jams. Just too many people travelling at the same time. During covid (work from home) there was no issue. So solution is, work from home if you can. Should be mandatory for companies.
@@LeeeroyJenkins
That would work if the average worker could actually afford to live in the cities.
@@thomasridley8675 danchi, anyone?
Imagine, trusting somebody from Texas to tell you if you need more lanes on your highway
😂
imagine thinking that charging $23 on top of the $15 (Holland or Lincoln) it takes to enter Manhattan from NJ is a good idea.
Imagine trusting non-Texans, telling us to ride bicycles in the 110 degree heat in the summer time.
@@damiantoth8577 might help fix y’all’s obesity problem.
IMAGINE.....having governments that have a BALANCED budget every quarter and sending more refunds to you
I do think that inducing demand for biking and walking in the city (by building bike lanes and more walkable area's) is definitely a good think! Way more bikes can fit in the same space compared to cars.
Biking is very dangerous to health. The fatality rate is way high per mile than other forms of transportation.
@@LiveWell6 ?
Biking is dangerous because the infrastructure is poor. When you have bicycles and cars in close contact with each other, fatal collisions are more likely. Bike lanes need to be protected and not adjacent to car traffic.
@@LiveWell6 You mean because cars keep driving into people on bikes? If biking was that bad for people's health we would be able to see that in The Netherlands, or even just Amsterdam, where about 50% of people don't even own a car...
@@LiveWell6 I guess in the USA? But if there are no safe biking lanes, then it can be quite dangerous.
Building bicycle lanes have a HUGE capacity of travellers/hour, much, much higher than highways. That is regularly, but even more so if you look at capacity per width of the lane.
3:02 Building transit and bike lanes are subject to induced demand, but unlike inducing more car traffic, this is a good thing. It is GOOD when more people bike or ride transit because they aren't pushing a 3,000 lb machine around with them like they would be if they were in a car.
Space efficient and no noise pollution or other pollution.... it’s all upsides!!
@@KooShnoo And lower road maintenance costs. Bikes and pedestrians don't tear up asphalt like cars can.
@@ooogyman busses do though because they are like semi trucks with the amount of weight in their axles. I support transit but that a fair point. Streetcars are better because while they are even heavier than busses they on in steel rails that are more durable than asphalt roads
@@TheAmericanCatholic A bus may be heavier than a car but 1 bus carrying 60 passengers does way less damage to roads than 60 cars. Even if those buses run the same route every 5-10 minutes.
@@KooShnoo riding the bus is dangerous were I live. Not riding, no way, no how.
People are on the road because they need to go from A to B. So, bring B closer to A, and offer several alternative modes of transportation, and people will travel less miles. You could, for example, establish small neighborhood shopping centers (with a supermarket and shops that people frequently visit) in the suburbs, so people don't need to drive for miles for a pack of milk. Also, people from the neighborhood will run into each other more often, get in contact with each other and who knows, maybe some sort of small town vibe will grow, despite living in a big city.
But, so many people will want to walk that they'll have to spend more money to expand the sidewalk! /s
I always liked the circle method of neighborhoods where the external road has traffic and in the middle in a beautiful park, local mainstreet filled with local farmers and shops. Just get corporate out and we'll be fine
@@jiecut - I live in England, where the model of a cluster of shops servicing a neighbourhood has been the norm for centuries. Crowded footpaths in suburban areas are not a problem here.
What's more likely to cause problems in America are laws which require a large number of car parking spaces per square foot of retail space. In the UK the amount required for shops in newer developments is intentionally kept low both to save space (critical in a country twelve times more densely populated than America) and to encourage people to use other modes of transportation - foot, bus, bicycle, mobility scooter, etc.
Zoning laws need to be overhauled to allow for mixed use development again.
@@jiecut So, what is the problem? If you need to expand, it costs money. Or don't spend any money and see if anyone is going anywhere. Chosing between spending money to built yet another road or car lane or to built more walking and biking space, which would be the cheaper, which can carry more people, which will improve the living standards, which will improve the neighborhood, which will improve the profitability for the shops, which will give freedom to kids, disabled people, elderly people, people who can't drive a car, which will make people happier?
To get more people off the road you need to invest in better public transportation and invest in bike paths and maintain them as well! I'd gladly ride my bike to work everyday even if it took me an extra 20 minutes just because it's free and safe! I can't tell you how many times I've almost been hit by other stupid drivers. I really wanna be off the road pedaling to work enjoying fresh air, music and exercise! You also won't be as tempted to stop for coffee and food every morning. Bike paths are so inexpensive compared to roads. If they made more bike paths then people would start using them. It's called the bandwagon effect. Imagine seeing a large group of people riding their bike to work everyday. Suddenly you'd think hmm I can do that too. Bandwagon effect...
That and zoning changes to allow small compact businesses like stores and restaurants to exist in residential areas. That way more amenities are within biking distance.
I saw another video where apparently there is a new heavy duty hummer like vehicle that is being touted as “able to out cyclists in their place” 🤬
Remove suburban lifestyle and start urban planning. Suburbia is mentally and physically toxic, not sustainable and not efficient. Suburbia is the reason why people in the US are so materialistic and greedy.
True. I would also argue that our cities need severe design and zoning overhaul. Hard to make public transit and bike lanes work if everything is spread out. The auto and oil lobbies have paid politicians/bureaucrats to codify car-centric design into our communities. Smart of them, but sad.
@@christianokolski9701 exactly. Suburbia was an experiment created and propagandized by oil and automobile industry in 1940s. Which created a toxic mentality that “American Dream” is having two cars and house with picketed fence.
If only public transportation lobbyists were stronger than car & oil lobbyists
Like they were in the Netherlands, Denmark, most other European countries
@@rommelangus stopdekindermoord
@@rommelangus not really, germany is still dominated by big oil and car corporations, the Netherlands overcame this cause they don’t have such a big industry.
Vote vote vote!!!
Or at least Big Bike, everyone would not skip leg day
The first way to reduce traffic congestion is changing how cities and towns are zoned. We need to stop the Euclidean zoning policy of everything is segregated and instead switch to more mixed use zoning and transit oriented development. This reduces the number of trips when going to the grocery store is a 10 minute walk and 5 minute bike ride. Over half the trips are less then 3 miles.
@davidandrews9914 Euclidean zoning is actually a really good idea. The problem is it was taken too far, after all in the beginning Euclidean zoning was used to separate industrial buildings, mainly factories, from the places were people lived, however people started applying it on everything from shops, schools to workplaces that aren't as polluting as heavy industry. Euclidean zoning should be applied to heavy industry and maybe light only and not the rest.
@@user-BasedChad yes really good point about industry and I can see heavy noisy polluting industry away from residential. It's just that in the USA we have so many endless single family homes with everything 20 minute drive away.
David, YOU SIR are assuming people get in a car for 3 miles. I do not
@@timberwolfe1645 no, the traffic studies show that 50% of the driving trips are made by those driving miles or less. I'm saying more mixed use walkability and bikeability to reduce those driving trips. Be more like you!
@@user-BasedChad I think City Beautiful made a video about US and Europe Zoning.
The US needs to take a lesson or two from Amsterdam and Japan on how to (better) run public transportation.
It’s not about public transportation. You can’t build public transit in car dependent suburbia. Suburbia is a Ponzi scheme and mentally/physically toxic to people. No pros to suburban lifestyle besides wanting to live “me me me” greedy lifestyle.
If cities start urban planning, instead of going into debt for massive concrete road and parking infrastructure, it’ll go into public transit naturally.
lool imagine Americans rolling around on bicycles 🥲
New York
@@maYTeus , yes, while that IS a hilarious concept, it would also be quite beneficial.
Those countries are GEOGRAPHICALLY SMALL, and filled in with Mountains and water. The USA is expansive and sparsely populated outside of coastal towns
"Come on man just give me one more lane. I promise I will get you back." - Traffic addict.
And then when you ask them to actually pay their fair share with tolls and congestion pricing they complain more.
"A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It's where the rich use public transportation."
im sure this isnt for the rich-rich but it certainly holds its truth.
Mayor Bloomberg rode the Sunday to work at city hall. But he’s definitely an anomaly. Or is it NYC? Many celebrities take the subway as well.
This report sideswept some major information. Yes, increasing capacity of all modes of transportation induces demand. However, public transit and cycling infrastructure work differently than automobile infrastructure. With respect to trains, increased demand and increased capacity go hand in hand. If more people ride the train, there is greater incentive to run the trains at higher frequency, making trains more efficient. Increased bus capacity also increases demand which increases frequency, but buses are typically limited by the flow of surrounding traffic. Reducing auto traffic while increasing bus capacity in the form of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with dedicated bus lanes increases demand for the bus, decreases demand for the car, and makes the bus system more efficient. Onto cycling, bikes are much smaller than cars and travel much more slowly than cars. As a result, you can fit many more people in the same volume on bikes than in cars, and the risk of serious injury caused by collision is substantially decreased. Half of all trips in the US are less than 3 miles, which means that given cycle-safe roads, all other things the same, the effect of induced demand would be decreasing the number of people driving and increasing people cycling by around 50%. Compared to bikes, cars are massive, and they wear roads at a rate that approximately requires a road to be rebuilt every 30 years, which many towns and cities across the US are well aware they cannot afford.
This👆👆. What this idiot failed to mention here(Intentionally) is that you WANT to induce demand to public transport because it creates a positive feedback loop as you mentioned and it makes it frankly better for the people that want to drive too since less cars= less traffic. Although for American city transit to work Americans need to densify their cities which will make housing also more affordable lol.
Genuinely insane that this video didnt say this
I think this video really missed out on what actually causes rush-hour traffic, which is the fact that it is the logical result of car-centric suburbanization where a lot of people drive to a region's downtown at the same time. They mentioned building denser walkable cities in this video which is part of the solution, but I think more broadly the best solution I've heard for reducing traffic is what Charles Marohn from Strong Towns said: "Focus on building neighborhoods". In our current transportation system, people from a large region surrounding a city (suburbs) are funneled into a few interstate highways and then eventually to the downtown of that city. When people in the US think of a neighborhood they mostly think of a car-centric residential area. But in most of the world a neighborhood is a place where people live closer to where they work, shop, and live. We used to have fully-functional neighborhoods in the US, but we demolished or abandoned them in favor of spreading out over a large residential-only area. And we designated the major cities as a place only to work, and not to live. That is the fundamental reason for congestion in every US city and other cities around the world, and as long as we rely on the suburban commuter model that will not change.
People moved to the suburbs for more privacy, green space, and to avoid urban mismanagement. Urban mismanagement in particular continues to be a problem.
Honestly if you look to Europe and other devolope economies that had this problem. The only awnser is less cars. I like cars, but I think they shouldn't be a requirement in order to achieve transportation. Bike lanes, public transit and most importantly walkable spaces are the real awnser. Not only they save time and money but also make people more active and healthier. And on top of all that these solutions solve the traffic issue but also helps with people's mental and physical health by making commuting more enjoyable. Just imagine a world without road rage.
We shouldn't make owning a car a privilege for the wealthiest
@@blazinpyromaniac It's better for car to be a privilege than a requirement for any functioning member of society.
Bicycle rage exists in the Netherlands. It's much more personal because there is no steel box acting as a filter. If you want no hate, you will need religion or morality. You can be antisocial regardless of how you get around.
@@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 That's just the propaganda getting to you. People should have the ability to move around freely on their own time. Public transportation doesn't "save time." For those it does, they already take that option.
Helping with people's mental health? That's laughable. In NYC, commuting is draining of mental health. The more dangerous the neighborhood, the more prevalent that is.
@@blazinpyromaniac I dont think its sustainable to live in a world where everyone gets around by using cars. Like it wouldn't be sustainable in almost all ways imaginable, I'd imagine.
Finally catching on to what independent creators have been saying for years. 👏🏻
Aaand the suggestions are completely carbrained. Tolls and "just build more". The designs are broken, replace them with more efficient ones.
Unfortunately I don't think its a knowledge gap. Most civil engineers and city planners know more lanes doesn't equal less traffic but corruption and resistant-to-change politicians who control the funding keep progress gummed up.
Almost lol they fell just short of that by instead concluding that they just need to charge ppl more money as a deterrent. No discussion about fewer cars and public transit which is the obvious solution
Stop pushing remote workers to return if their job role functions well remotely. It might only be a small portion of workers but every little bit helps.
It's just another leftist propaganda to just spending more money on buses and trains. It's impossible to do in Southern California.
I think we should just look at people's individual preferences. Some definitely PREFER to work in an office environment.
We should remember that it was only the pandemic that gave rise to the remote worker and the essential worker. We built our societies and all of their physical and non physical institutions by being physically present. Don't be lured into thinking that can be changed much, not without real cost. Just think that the Dutch cycle networks were established by people taking the pains to go to the workplace. Watching a webcam of an intersection and reading a spreadsheet on your device will not tell you everything.
@@beback_ Shut up boomer
There is something called positive feed back loops.
Exclusionary single use zoning and parking requirements makes new development scale horizontally (LA urban sprawl) as opposed to vertically (think New York City). This means that destinations are further apart. That makes car travel more convenient than walking. As a result, people drive more and walk less.
As people drive more, they demand more car infrastructure. More car infrastructure is built. More horizontal development. Public transport is less efficient as ridership drops especially between low density areas. Public transit and pedestrian infrastructure is neglected. For the sake of safety and convenience, more people opt to drive.
The positive feed back loop goes the other way. If density is allowed (more mix use zoning, eliminate/reduce parking requirements). Job centers like universities, hospitals, shopping malls, business centers would have more housing built for workers and students. Businesses would like to be in these places to take advantage of foot traffic. The destination becomes more lively and desired. This is perfect for a public transit station. More public transit is demanded. More is built.
Stations with high density have higher ridership. Higher ridership justifies the cost and high frequency service and expansion. More people are enticed to take public transit because its convenient and takes you too important and interesting places.
The best comment made in this video! You also forgot building setbacks and height/number of unit restrictions.
Areas can be car-dependent even in high density areas. It really depends on the layout of buildings, traffic flow and land use. An area of 100% detached homes can be more pedestrian friendly than 100% high-rise developments.
Growth patterns isn't the only factor when it comes to mass transit use. It is also the type of mass transit along management being able to make the projects on-time and cost effective.
However there will always be certain activities and housing especially large lots that need cars. Therefore freeways still make sense but not stroads/arterials/collectors of course.
When was it ever complicated? If you have a container with water dripping through a single point. It doesn't matter how much bigger the container gets, there's only one point of exit. The simple solution is less cars on the road. Not only would it solve the traffic problem but it would save ppl a lot of money that they could use to better their lives.
If you add more lanes the number of exits still stay the same
so add more exits?
The real reason traffic even exists is due to human error.
If we all had autonomous cars that communicated with each other we wouldn't have this problem.
Am I advocating for autonomous cars. No. I'm just saying human error causes most of the worlds problems. So engineers have to account for human error in their designs
@@kevinmanan1304 induced demand happens with adding more exits too
And Entrances = slow meets fast🔥🚗🏎️🚓
@@thekevinager5294 Best solution is have more people work from home but I doubt politicians or Jeff Bezos would like that very much.
Glad to see this topic going more mainstream. I do wish there was more mentioned about land use and zoning. Those impact people's ability to travel in more effiecient ways like walking, biking and transit. Many communitiies in the U.S. have been designed for nothing but the car. Even if poeple wanted to walk, bike or transit, the existing conditions preclude many from doing so safely or in a timely manner. Yes, walkable neigtborhoods are the way to go and so is mixed use zoning. What makes neighborhoods walkable is that they are not single use zoned. For example many places only allow detached single family houses to be built. If we were able to convert our neighborhoods to have a mix of housing types such as townhomes, rowhomes, small scale apartment building mixed in with corner stores, shops, resturants, bars etc... it would make this situation better. People love going on vacation to Europe, Asia, and even Disney World and gush about how they walked everywhere and rode transit because once you get there, you can easily move around without the need for a car. I'm convinced that most Americans drive because they have to, not because they want to. Yes, there will always be people who want to drive or have to drive but when we make our communities more walkable, bikeabke and transifit friendly, we give people choices.
The reason they HAVE to have a car is because housing in the urban city is either crap or to expensive. If they got rid of air rights and let people build more residential skyscrapers like they did in the roaring 20's there wouldn't be a housing crisis and a subsequent ballooning in housing costs. Why? Because the housing supply would skyrocket and demand would be met.
Cities try to be green when it comes to building impact reports. However it's easier to build a skyscraper in the center of an already sky high downtown because the impact won't be as detrimental to the environment as compared to building one on the outskirts. Mainly due to concerns of the skyrise's shadow. [In the downtown they don't have to worry because the shadow just gets distributed onto the other 4-6 high-rises] Henceforth the skyline never expands outwards and only expands upwards and the buildings get skinnier due to air rights which mean the building occupies the same amount of volume as it did before, but is made taller at the expense of width.
@@LeeeroyJenkins If I was a big real estate guy I would oppose anything that made house prices drop because that's how i would be making money. if skyscrapers made housing cheap (NY famous for housign affordability btw) (they do not at all, lmao), then they wouldn't build them because it would make the rest of their investments make less money.
you could do some funny public policy to make it work, but you can't just "get rid of air rights" and "let people build more"
@@LeeeroyJenkins suburbs are cool and skyscrapers should be in moderation, i thikn. too many skyscrapers ruins it because there's no views left. suburbs should be tall but not too tall, 3-8 stories maybe. the onse farther from the cities should not exist, they cause maximum traffic and are isolating. the ones close to the city should fit more people like this, with height. more space for parks and stores this way. there should be more residential-over-commerical like in the good-old-olden days(golden days for short)
@@nerooeeroo i agree, and not beacuse we are all different youtube accounts of the same person!
@@kooshnoo2719 but we are all different youtube accounts of the same person though
The key thing is what type of demand you want to induce. Inducing more car trips only makes things worse for everyone, while inducing more public transit promotes the transit agency to improve service. (for example, an overcrowded bus route could get better service, making it better for the users of that route)
More lanes encourages more people to drive. It also means that there are more lanes to the left of the slow lane which encourages yet more idiots to camp in the fast(er) lanes and block the truly faster traffic behind them.
JUST ONE MORE LANE BRO JUST ONE MORE LANE BRO JUST ONE MORE LANE BRO JUST ONE MORE LANE BRO I SWEAR BRO JUST ONE MORE, I SWEAR
Using public transit like subway is a better choice. Math doesn’t like of moving one unit of 300 people compared to have 300 cars
Math does like it when it comes to saving people's time, who are going in 300 different directions in their own vehicles.
@@damiantoth8577 those fringe cases not having to travel to a centralized buisness area. And that logic doesn’t work in Manhattan during the day I can literally out walk buses and cars
@@zo62 Manhattan would be considered a fringe case, compared to the rest of the country.
@@damiantoth8577 Phil Boston? Terrible traffic Los Angeles is insane. Hell the Vegas strip
@@damiantoth8577 you will be able to go anywhere in your car now and in the future, that wont change for a long time. We just want "more" options for us peasents who don't have a car.
I lived in China and Japan for years. Returned to the US briefly and left. Living out there put everything into perspective. Trains and subways and walkability is so much better than disgustinf highways. It makes those countries much more liveable than the crap in the US. I remember getting on a train and getting to a nearby city in an hour. The same distance in a car would be like 2 and half hours, maybe more. The chokehold oil and car have over US infrastructure is absurd. Can't imagine moving back.
Predictably, you got very close to figuring out how to solve traffic, but wimped out just before you got there. There needs to be full commitment to alternative transportation. Yes, it costs money, but car infrastructure is more expensive. Roads take a lot of abuse from heavy vehicles. Bike lanes rarely need to be repaved because people and bicycles are many times lighter. Bike infrastructure is cheaper, it moves more people, it's quieter, zero emissions, fewer fatal accidents, more money in people's pockets, the list goes on. And that's not even including mass public transit like buses and trains. If you're telling me I could walk or bike 5-10 minutes to the local grocer, I'd take that over getting in the metal box that costs me thousands every year, and having to deal with other garbage drivers who don't want to be there either. You WANT to induce demand when it comes to alternative transportation. If you are in a car, you are the traffic. The only way to solve car traffic is get people out of cars.
And of course, mixed use, walkable neighborhoods make this way easier, instead of the urban sprawl that creates car dependency and bankrupts towns and cities.
Perfectly said
The car gives nearly the same personal access as the bicycle and the same physical range as mass transport, all with less time, everything else being equal ( a lot rides on that). Early urban sprawl was caused by the tram, because not everyone wants to live on top of or near others, and some would rather ride 10 minutes to the store than walk for the same.
@@delftfietser While cars are definitely convenient, they cause too many issues, especially when too many people have no choice but to drive. When you're not in a car, you need a place to put it. So driveways, street parking, and parking lots have to built and maintained. Minimum parking requirements mean that big box stores have huge parking lots that rarely ever get filled (at least in my town. Even around Christmas there's still ample parking). And it's not a war against cars. Anyone who wants to drive can still drive, and it would be better for those drivers since there are way fewer cars on the road. Hopefully, all of the bad drivers would have switched to an alternative. And while the tram may have been the start of urban sprawl, it wasn't long before they ripped out the tram lines and changed zoning laws. So now people are stuck in the suburbs with no access to any businesses unless they drive there. It's too far/ dangerous to walk or bike, and public transport like buses are infrequent and are traffic just like cars, without dedicated bus lanes. Transportation is too big a topic to fit in a comment section. 😛
@@delftfietser do you sleep with your car at night?
@Anant Pathak No. Is your phone the center of meaning in your life?
Oh CNBC, you were THIS close to the correct answer. #walkableneighborhoods #density #bikeability #masstransit #multiusezoning
Somehow they said induced demand works on what you tag too, which is weird. It may work on transport, bikes, etc, but they occupied less space compared to cars. And walking people dont need parking space
Well when GM bought up rail car companies and then ran them into the ground we screwed ourselves. Not only did GM get to remove competition but they also got to destroy organized labor? One of the most successful US labor unions for instance? The Indiana tram workers union that one time went on strike and actually had their demands met.
Why are we not talking about making cities safer for bicycling and walking?
Yes, riding public transit is very dangerous where I live. The only people at the bus stops are drug addicts. Add to that, they don't pay fares & do drugs on the bus. I would not let anyone that I love take the bus.
@@lorijharman-runyan6433 Personal Rapid Transit?
Originallly most large American cities were dense with ample bus/trolley systems. The automakers bought up and dug up much of that existing infrastructure in order to profit their businesses. We are living with the result of that, planned inefficiencies.
Or maybe as the price of vehicles dropped (thanks to Henry Ford's Model T) more people rather have the freedom to drive. Bus and trollies went of the way of the horse and buggy.
The automakers didn't force Americans to change their lifestyles, the marketing was astute and responded. When working class Americans saw a Model T Ford they knew they could use them, even if the roads weren't paved. Households wanted their own space, given that the majority of Americans have rural roots -that was a natural choice. Persons who want urban amenities can chose certain cities, but the costs tend to be spendy - you could possibly avoid owning a vehicle in those cities, but likely just about everything else where be more costly
@Damian Toth lol, are americans this stupid
Then what about europeans, they were always rich enough to afford cars
@Timothy Keith Yes they did
There's no way it's a coincidence that every city is perfectly designed to encourage cars
Big 3 and big oil definitely bribed city officials
@@pranaym3859 I don't live in Europe; therefore, I don't care what they do with their money.
Theres a bigger issue that they missed. Canadian and American cities were built for the car not the pedestrian. This car centric infrastructure is the main cause of this combined with urban zoning laws that prohibit anything but single family housing. People are not asking the question as to why so many people are driving in the first place, its because of the fact that most US and CAD cities require a car to get around. When the suburban sprawl happened in the 60s this lead to a record amount of car sales. When I go to Europe Im amazed at how well the cities are designed compared to here in North America. Since our cities here are built for the car we have to drastically change urban planning because look at Toronto for example. The GTA to me feels like one massive parking lot its so car infested its not even funny. People wonder why there are so many cars, its because of the suburbs. The suburbs are terrible for this you can't do anything without a car. Its brutal I recommend watching the youtuber 'Not Just Bikes" because he explains everything perfectly. But again, this video missed the walkability part completely maybe if our North American cities weren't built like this we wouldn't have a problem. I mean look at downtown Houston in the 1900's downtown was literally one massive parking lot.
That's how American and Canadian cities are now, but not how they were built. Most US cities had robust tram systems (along with one of the best national rail networks in the world) and were built to be walkable before personal automobiles became mainstream. All this transit infrastructure was intentionally destroyed by the oil & automobile lobbies who funded politicians to promote a car-dependent suburban model. They also pushed for the zoning restrictions we have these days that ensure cities grow outward instead of upward.
Basically, suburban sprawl didn't just happen and create demand for cars. Suburban sprawl was politically designed by the car industry to create demand for their products.
It's not that they were built for cars, as I'm sure Not Just Bikes mentions, many of these cities were filled with trams/trains initially until lobbyists and the auto industry encouraged a dependency on the automobile.
Idk why areas like DMV (DC, Maryland and Virginia) adding lanes like the sunbelt and west coast states? They need to invest in pedestrian/handicap/shared transportation accessbilitles, more reliable light rail, public/rapid transportation, bringing back street cars especially on those larger roadways.
Yall come on down to Atlanta and see how adding a lane works for us. On I-85, we use the emergency shoulder as an "extra lane" during rush hour and sh*t is still backed up LOL.
Yeah in Atlanta we need to raise the speed limits to 90 miles per hour. Oh wait, we already drive 90! I guess 120 might help…
Anyone who knows anything about this topic: "Walkable and bikeable urban design with public transportation!"
Oil and auto lobbies: "Look at these big roads and shiny 'new' cars!"
The goal is not to stop *people* from moving around during high-demand hours just by charging them. The goal is to stop people from overusing *cars* mainly by providing them a reasonable alternative that takes up less space. So the induced demand of walkability, biking, and using public transit is literally what we're aiming for here.
When I worked from home, I hardly used my car! Instead of putting gas into my tank every week, it lasted a month or longer. So the last part they mentioned people get in their car more when they work from home that definitely did not happen to me.
You mentioned Singapore's road pricing system as a solution. Yup. Been there for decades. Traffic jams are rare. But the approach is holistic. This included making car ownership notoriously expensive to own and operate. As an alternative, a massive network of bus routes and metro stations, all integrated into one public transport network that is fast, efficient, frequent and cheap. The goal is to have a metro station no more than ten minutes from any home, kinda the same or less for a bus stop. The city is also very walkable and bikeable, with more bike lanes being built. Yes, roads are being built or expanded, though much less than before, as the nation is transitioning to a "car-lite" future. Yes, the plan is also how towns and districts are designed, of course this is easier in new developments. Bottom line? It's not building more roads OR public transport OR something else. It's ... AND.
Here's a quick answer to the problem: BUILD... MORE... TRANSIT!
I've ridden public transit many times when I was the only passenger on board. Why? Because the routes don't go everywhere people need to go. Making 3 or more transfers consumes too much time, and then you might have to walk were there aren't any side walks.
@@timothykeith1367 or you were traveling off peak hours. Also if it's worth the money and a better alternative transfers are not the end of the world. I was in NYC 2 weeks ago and had to do multiple transfers from LaGuardia to reach my destination, was I tired, yup but I did it all on 1 fare that costs $2.75, compared to the $60 Uber and $54 Lyft I would have had to order.
@@TimothyBrown2010 I used the bus system during peak hours. On the initial leg of the trip I was the only passenger - like an Uber bus I rode 15 miles with just me on board. If I had carried a bicycle with me I could have regained some of the lost time. This city doesn't have the dense commercial clusters like some other large cities might have, many bus routes have few passengers. i live 9 miles from the nearest bus station.
Definitely should've talked more about alternative methods to driving. Let's not forget what channel this is released on. CNBC's modo is literally "first in the business world".
I personally don't trust business men to help us get out of this mess since they helped start it.
They claim that building denser more walkable/bike-able cities "doesn't solve the problem either" because it will just induce demand for walking and biking.
THAT'S THE EXACT THING WE WANT TO BE INDUCING! If your problem is "too many people want to use the walk and bike lanes", that seems like we're headed in the right direction to me.
We don't want to induce demand for car traffic because cars are loud, dangerous, bad for our health, polluting, and the infrastructure is ungodly expensive. A single lane on a highway actually has terrible throughput compared to a train or even a bike lane. Cars need a lot of space per person
Induced demand in transit and pedestrian/bike infrastructure is good tho, compared to car induced demand
They mention of the cost of expanding highway lanes but not the cost of installing light rails or hyper mass transit options. The reality is, we're not back in the old times where politicians can simply bull doze a neighborhood through - See Paradise Valley Detroit. So for today, we're literally in grid lock of what we can do.
I mean you could, as has been done in my country to much affect many times, bulldoze a car lane :) But I guess that would currently probably still be a step to far for American politics. In a dense urban core however it is by far the best way of doing it, and you guys have massive roads running through most of your cities so there is lots of roads to bull-doze, it would probably even lead to drivers being able to go faster through the city as the capacity created by 1 rail/metro line far outstrips a car lane.
Edit: even better, those massive roads are build through poor neighbourhoods as is (due to some historical policies as you mentioned) which means that building public transport on them would specifically give quite good access to a lot of poor places.
So, yes, induced demand does also apply to walking/cycling, but walking and cycling infrastructure can handle A LOT more people than private car road infrastructure because you can pack A LOT more people into the same space. The solution is NOT to just make people move less, it is to make people move smarter. When they have to be somewhere probably won't or can't change, but how they get there probably can. Not saying congestion pricing is bad, just saying transportation other than private cars is important to leverage because it usually is more efficient at moving large quantities of people.
Yikes, this video seriously misunderstands induced demand. Addressing 02:56 induced demand is not an inherently bad thing, what's bad is when you induce the "wrong" kind of demand, i.e. cars, which are inefficient modes of transport that take up too much space. Yes, bikes are affected by induced demand too, which is why we want to build more bike infrastructure, precisely because it will induce more demand for bikes, which are more efficient on space and cost less in the long run for individual people and for cities, not to mention that they are healthier for us and the environment.
Also, congestion, like induced demand, is not an inherently bad thing. What's good or bad is how that congestion is handled. The right way to handle it is by supporting better infrastructure for walking, biking, and public transit.
limit unsustainable urban sprawl, invest in transit oriented neighbourhoods, invest in public transport, build cycle lanes. Build cities where only those that absolutely have to drive, drive.
Like many others have said, this video just seems to have glossed over the possible solutions to the problem to just say "It's a hard problem and we don't really know how to fix it yet". Figures, if you only consider bad option A and bad option B...
We need more and better transit, bike lanes, and walking infrastructure
3:23 That's a faulty point because Singapore has excellent walkability and public transit. The US and Canada does not. If you start requiring toll fees to drivers but don't provide them with an effective alternative to transit (public transportation, pedestrian infrastructure, bike lanes, etc.), they will still drive to where they need to go but be poorer
because their subway system is new (started operations in 1987) and was very cheap to build because they could use dirt cheap labor from Malaysia.
Singapore’s sidewalks outside of the downtown core are horrible tbh. They’re too narrow like the ones in NA. Even in some streets in SG, the sidewalks are basically nonexistent. SG, as pointed out by another RUclips video, also has too many stroads that create a hostile walking environment because the sidewalks are just not wide enough. Even the HDB’s have their own parking lots.
Bummer that CNBC fell flat on its face when saying that walkable bikeable cities also don't work because of induced demand. And they only had to ignore cities like Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, Amsterdam do to do. All cities that prove that (and say it with me) the only way to solve traffic is to provide good alternatives to driving.
Try better next time CNBC.
And I think another thing that is possibly overlooked is that if more people are out in public, there would possibly be less crimes. If you have more people walking, biking, etc, there are “more eyes”, more visibility in public. Just a thought.
Lmfao. If that were true, crime wouldn't be such a big issue in New York.
@@justrandomthings319 Dont listen to the media look at the statistics, New York City is still a very safe city today in comparison to other US cities even with its huge population. In any of the heavy foot traffic areas, you are very safe during the day.
Driving in Los Angeles during the day is unbearable. The traffic is INSANE.
I like how the car centric solution to congestion is to make transportation less convenient by simply charging the working class more to run their life on their own schedule.
There are too many bottlenecks where new roads meet old.
That last point about remote working is so ridiculous. How do we ensure ppl working from home, making trips don't impact congestion? I don't know, restructure zoning so they don't have to go several miles to get a carton of milk when they could have walked or biked to the corner store. Also, no one working from home is driving during peak hours because one of the main reasons for remote working is not wasting hours in traffic.
Bike lanes are literally the cheapest transportation infrastructure you can build. It also needs the LEAST amount of maintenance, because bicycles don't destory concrete and asphalt, cars do.
They missed a key point that induced demand also impacts transit, but trains, buses, and even walking is far more sustainable economically, environmentally, and space-wise than automobiles are. A million people can fit in a city, a million cars can’t.
You would think a YT channel and TV company who’s primary focus is money & finance would’ve picked on up the financial inefficiencies of car centric urban design.
America had designed it's cities for cars. They need to redesign it for public transport. Things of basic necessities like grocery and vegetable shops, resturants, cafe's should be made available close to where people stay not outside the city. Peak hour pricing is a good idea but it should be in conjunction with good public transportation system and city planning for least movement.
We destroyed out cites for cars because we thought it was “futuristic”
@@TheAmericanCatholic Yup, no one knew there would be so much cars.
Just as there will always be a line for free ice cream, there will always be a line to use free roads.
Yes but it does lower the cost of transportation if the economic demand is there
Too much focus on car centric infrastructure (rather than investing in walkability, separate bike roads, and reliable public transit that actually starts where people live and goes to places people want to be) roads don't even pay for themselves after a certain point anymore. It's literally why Detroit is bankrupt. Recent research revealed if the gas tax actually kept up with the maintenance cost of road infrastructure for everyone (including parking lots), it would be a whopping 77 cents per gallon.
If you added a dedicated bus lane for local and intercity transit along with adding tolls, I’d imagine that would help out significantly. It would also help if entire neighborhoods didn’t have to drive just to go to a playground, or grocery store, or work, you get the idea.
Congestion pricing might deter some people, but the issue will stay the same. Every city needs to push for more bus routes and more stops (once or twice every hour is not good enough), better bike paths that lead to urban central areas and work places, and any type of subways/trams/trains where they can manage. The solution to relieve car traffic is offer consistent, alternative forms of public transportation.
Really learnt something new today! THANKS
I think if everyone didn’t have a 9 to 5 work week, rush hour traffic would not be so damn congested and such a headache for everyone 💯🤷🏻♂️
It’s part of the rat race they wanna keep us in …
In America it’s not just 9 to5 commuters but literally everyone because there usually isn’t any other option
🙌
LA's busiest traffic time is on a Saturday afternoon though..
Not just that, SEMITRUCKS are the problem. Restrict semitrucks from highways from 9-5 would resolve a lot of the congestion.
Mixed use zoning and not having people being forced to live 15 to 20 miles from where they work goes a long way
Imagine if you didn't have to pay for, maintain, fuel, and drive a 2 ton vehicle per person per day. Calculate the cost of that. Now add 77 cents to every gallon to account for the actual infrastructure maintenance cost you're paying in taxes for each car. See? The cost of this silly over complicated system literally bankrupts cities due to the infrastructure maintenance cost. If the gas tax actually matched the cost to maintain the road infrastructure it wouldn't be like, 18 cents per gallon. It would be more like 77 cents per gallon.
The solution is reducing vehicles users. We need more Class I and IV bike lanes and more walkable infrastructure. Almost every city is only exclusively car friendly. Of course you’ll get car congestion…
Making mixed used buildings, spread out throughout the city is an effective solution. If you put all office work in one area of the city, that's a problem.
Did you guys say more transit, density, and bikes weren't the solution? Walkability and public transit are the best solutions
Pricing people off roads? I don’t think that’s it. The walkable city and public transit parts were glossed over… A combination of walkable, biking, and public transit is more efficient.
Yeah the walkability and infrastructure changes, but pricing people off roads did encourage me to use the nice bike infrastructure a city has to offer. I fell for the parking prices once and have completely avoided that ever since.
I'm a truck driver, so I spend countless hours on the highways all over the country. I've noticed the #1 reason for highway congestion is the way cars enter and exit the highway. The addition of lanes intensifies the problem as drivers attempt to merge from the far left lanes to exit the highway slowing travel across all lanes. The reverse is true on entry, as drivers tend to merge to the far left lane before reaching highway speeds. Maybe more left lane exits along with the traditional right lane would help in reducing traffic.
Very true in Atlanta. More public transportation definitely needed and left lane exits. Also more roads need to be closed and converted to walking streets. This reduces traffic enormously. Look at Barcelona where city blocks are closed to cars. Everyone is out walking Las Ramblas and trying to outdo each other in fashion style. It’s super. Of course they have high speed rail everywhere and metro rail all integrated into a single system. I drove two weeks there and never saw a lot of trucks anywhere. Traffic yes but a lot of motorcycles and bikes!!! Very different place with long afternoon siestas. Europeans know how to live!
Something that I feel people never mention is that people like having cars. It's something personal to them, they can get in right from their garage and drive ANYWHERE they want to at ANY TIME. We are spoiled with this and is a main reason why no one really cares about public transit. And we seem to not mind spending time in traffic being in our own private space on wheels.
Yep, suburbanites love them and that's the problem. Just because someone likes something doesn't make it good. I love eating packets of chips, doesn't make it great.
@@tobyb6248 keep crying
@@LowMax_ cope
A mindset that was heavily induced by the auto industry, there's always added benefit in keeping the population ignorant and when you tie it to their identity and self worth you can convince them of anything. A car is the worst investment you will ever make in your life. It's a depreciating asset the moment you drive it off the lot, yet it can cost the same as a house.
Okay, while building a bigger road may attract more drivers, it takes more drivers away from smaller roads. For me, a 1 lane road gets me home faster than a 4 lane road since everyone is attracted elsewhere
Induced demand for transit, biking and walking is really desirable, as: a) it has a much greater capacity than individual cars on the road, b) it much lesser environmental impact and other externalities, c) these are much cheaper at the end.
Which means, transit, bikes and walking are much efficient, environment friendly, can be integrated into a livable city environment and do cost (if done right) much less.
It really bugged me how they just skipped over that as if being affected by induced demand made it unusable.
why doesn’t this channel address the actual problem that car and oil industries lobby politicians to prevent reliable and accessible public transportation?
Did the auto industry pay for this video? You mentioned walkability and bike lanes and public transit almost as a footnote. And that point at the end, that with telecommuting people end up 'driving more' because they're taking shorter trips, I'm assuming they're going to the store? You know what would help with that? Walkable neighborhoods. If they had a neighborhood grocery store within walking distance, they'd probably be driving even less and walking more to the store. If it's all expensive as hell anyway, then clearly the best choice is to invest in what will have the highest impact, like public transit. This video also glossed over how EXPENSIVE roads are to maintain and how much it costs to repave asphalt. Yeah it'd be expensive to maintain a subway too, but the cost saved in maintaining a car, registering a car, putting gas in a car, etc, etc, would definitely make up for the taxes that would go toward subway maintenance.
Trains, we need cheap high speed rail.
Incredible! We are finally figuring out what the rest world has figured out years ago. Two things have to go right to fix traffic, better support and care of public transportation, and letting go of the stigma that using public transportation is “lower” class status.
the train systems in Asia are definitely not lower class, way more efficient but the only problem is needing a car at your destination, that’s where they can rent out Smartcars and Honda Fits for one way drops
It’s important to mention that toad infrastructures alone will not undo the mess that has been going on for almost 7 decades. For people to start walking again, there has to be places they want to be walking to. We have to redo the zoning regulations. There has to be more neighborhood shops and less housing exclusive spots.
That's great, but why the roads for frogs?
Gentrification has made city living nearly impossible for the average worker. So these workers get pushed out of the cities. But that is where the jobs and services are located. Creating the very problem they are trying to solve.
And punishing them because they have to drive more miles to work will affect the minimum wage and service workers the most. Since it wouldn't really impact the wealthy. Cost isn't one of their major considerations.
No, charging people to drive won't work. Creating cities where people choose to use other modes of transit instead of driving is the one and only way to reduce traffic. Transit, bike lanes, greater density have time and time again proven to be the best way to reduce traffic. You can't charge people to drive when they don't have other options
Please mr eisel tell me what other modes were people using in Texas ?
Finally, thanks for spreading the message! Tell this to Dallas or Houston. They're just building more lanes, I saw it when I was there. There was already like 12 lanes!
Edit: Nevermind, this is just classic liberalism. Ignore the source of the problem... Think: Why do people have to travel by car in the first place? Because everything is forced to be spread out by law. If that wasn't the case, then people wouldn't have to drive so much. They could walk a few blocks to get a snack, go to the bar, the park, or get some basic groceries. But in America, building a city like that is currently illegal. And of course this channel ignores that here. Also, they should have stressed more about how people on foot or bicycle is nothing compared to cars. They saved that for the end as a passing point. That should have been focused on more.
9:20 Any statistical evidence on your last claim (how remote workers end up commuting longer distances than office workers) ? To me, that sounded like a blatant lie, in an effort to bring people back to the office.
I mean I can belief longer distances, if you are at home in a suburb the roads are gonna be emptier so if you do the same driving time or even a lot less you end up driving far more miles. Not to say that people should come back to work, but if driving places takes less time people will do more of it and the roads will still feel that.
You have to take space from cars and give to other modes of transportation. Private vehicles have already gotten too much privileges. But this is an utopia because the person that does that will risk being very unpopular.
How about moving away from car dependance and towards better transit infrastructure?
When you design your cities/towns in a manner that basically forces you to have to use a car to go anywhere, there's gonna be traffic
More railway lines 💯
And tolls won't work either. It's just another tax that we don't want, don't need and can't afford. The money from tolls will end up in a Politician's pocket too. Tolls will actually increase traffic.
that doesn't make any sense and is not based on any factual information, tolls will be required to simply fund the repairs
@@Lildizzle420 There's a very good chance the money from tolls will wind up in a Politician's pocket.
@@Lildizzle420 Ah yes another poor tax. The American way. The rich don't care about a 10 dollar toll.
So your just gonna ignore the 10s of thousands of dollars you are forced to pay for a car and the thousands of dollars each year which has to go to that car? That ends up in billionaires pockets which is far worse than any politician.
The Netherlands is like: Hold my bicycle
The US needs to expand public transportation and walking/biking infrastructure to reach the quality level of car infrastructure. Congestion pricing alone isn't going to work because there aren't sufficient alternatives to driving for most people.
remote work will solve this problem as per the pandemic. you don't need any studies when you have empirical evidence during the pandemic.
In my city there are very clear commute directions on the major highways during certain kinds of days. For example, the BA expressway is bumper to bumper on the west bound but nearly empty on the east bound in the morning then reversed in the evening. I've often thought businesses and local governments could get together and find a way to stagger opening and closing times to help relieve the congestion. I think even just adjustments as small as five minutes would make a difference.
Good luck explaining that to the WORKERS who'd have to change their whole lives
@@timberwolfe1645 ummmm... Leaving for work five minutes later than usual is hardly changing your whole life.
Sitting in traffic is a part of the American Dream
They added more lanes on a bridge in my area but it narrows down at the exit causing worse traffic. I wanna know who thought that was a wise idea.
Time to switch to mopeds.
All modes of moto bikes.
In other words, leave the road to the rich who can afford it, and the rest of you pasent pay a good chunk of your pay just in order to move around.
How about a good public transportation alternative like in most European countries instead. Cars are the most inefficient way of transportating people or goods. By the way, the car culture, suburbs, and highways didn't come by accident. It was deliberately done by the car industry.
In Europe we have "good" public transport but still a lot of traffic jams. Just too many people travelling at the same time. During covid (work from home) there was no issue. So solution is, work from home if you can. Should be mandatory for companies.
5:16 he didn't want to say it but he definitely described induced demands close relative, known as latent demand. The only part that was missing was the fact that with latent demand some people who chose alternative forms of transit, May go back to driving if that becomes more convenient. ( Which is a bad thing.)
It does make sense to focus from the bottom of Manhattan all the way up to 60 St. Financial district, major retailers, various top notch restaurants, entertainment industry, special events, and some of the museums are located there in addition to getting people traveling from Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Long Island, and New Jersey to pay a fee. Bronx, Westchester County, and Manhattan Upper East, Upper West, Harlem, and Washington Heights residents would be able to think on how to get free/bargain parking in that area and then either walk or take public transportation going below 60 St.