I mean no shade, but I was honestly expecting as I scrolled down that this would be posted in c/ABoringDystopia
Sorry- “progress”???
I was being ironic.
Totally missed that tone. My bad, sorry.
le sigh though
Text isn’t always the best medium to convey irony/sarcasm.
From the picture, I count 16 lanes. Is the pic accurate?
I know. They should add more lanes.
/s
shit could have been 1 long passenger and 1/10th of a freight train
THAT’S MY AMERICA 🇺🇸 🦅🔥🔥🔥 ONE MORE LANE DOESN’T FIX IT MY A$$ LOOK AT THIS AND TELL ME IT ISN’T WORKING 🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🔥🔥🔥🦅🦅
And traffic STILL sucks in Houston
This is why traffic sucks. Super highways don’t reduce traffic, they create it.
I’m not disagreeing necessarily (I know nothing about city planning), but wouldn’t a smaller highway just force people onto the side streets and city roads? How does a superhighway make traffic worse?
There are some good videos by notjustbikes on this topic, iirc the main problem is that big streets make people want to drive more which makes everything more crowded
Ah, bikes. Driving is a necessity. I’m not going to commute 30 miles to work on a bike, and I’m not going to haul a pallet of drywall on a bicycle.
Off-road bikes are great, and they’re good machines for exercise. Bicycles should not be allowed on public roads. They’re a hazard.
Let’s flip the equation here.
If driving wasn’t an option, you wouldn’t live 30 miles away from your job. Driving was an option, so you did and so did your neighbors. More neighbors move in, more cars, more traffic, more lanes, more neighbors, more cars, etc.
Alternatively, you move closer to work in a town with half decent sidewalks and walk or bike in. Bikes and people take up much less space which allows things to be closer together.
And yes, cars are necessary for hauling large objects over long distances, but how many vehicles in this photo do you think are carrying more than just people?
The bicycles aren’t the hazard, the cars are.
In europe a few countries have city centers where you aren’t allowed to drive your car and some countries have seperate paths where bikes can ride.
Bikes are way better for the environment and trips around 5-15 km can easily be done with a bike without having to pay for gas or insurance etc.
Bikes also help you do excercise without having to waste time because you are doing the excercise while travelling somewhere.
Bikes and public transport are so much more efficient than cars
Tbf there’s assholes who behave recklessly in traffic on every mode of transportation. I’ve been run into by a bike twice in the past few years. But guess what, if we built proper infrastructure for them, they wouldn’t choose the sidewalk in order to protect themselves from cars. Also, the choice between whether you’d rather a bike or a car runs into you is pretty obvious.
the choice between whether you’d rather a bike or a car runs into you is pretty obvious.
No doubt. I pick car every time. Listening to the douchebag cyclist whining after the accident would be too much for me to bear.
Bicycles ARE the hazard. If your vehicle of choice isn’t able to reach and maintain the speed limit, then you are a hazard to everyone else on the road.
If you really don’t want to drive a car, buy a motorcycle.
How are they a hazard if they can’t even do damage to anyone, the cars however weigh multiple tons and would instantly kill anthing smaller than a car if hit at something above 30kmh
If you had access to good public transport you could take a train for those 30 miles and relax, work or read instead of wasting time being focused on traffic. But if there’s too much supply of roads built for the purpose of everyone driving their car everywhere, there won’t be much demand to build something like that.
Biking and walking can then be for mid and short distances, respectively. But both will be dangerous unless there’s proper infrastructure for that. And again, not happening until they stop the over supply of roads.
And for hauling the dry wall, yes, use a car. Imagine how much nicer traffic and parking will be if most commuters who aren’t transporting big loads aren’t in private vehicles.
The problem is that the infrastructure doesn’t exist, and introducing it is cost-prohibitive for large parts of the US. I would love to be able to take a train from my small town to the nearest metro area 30 miles away and then take a tube to a block away from my destination–but that’s just not going to happen in my lifetime, because the city can’t afford to install a subway, and the auto lobby won the war against commuter rail before I was born.
Could it be better? Sure. Might it become better? Maybe, but probably not in my lifetime.
In the meantime, people are de facto dependent on cars. Destroying infrastructure necessary to support the reality of how people must, through no fault of their own, travel punishes the traveling public without addressing the actual problem.
If we’re going to transition to better transit infrastructure, we first have to build the better infrastructure–and pay for it by
eliminatingunseating political opposition. Only then can we dismantle these kinds of monstrosities without disenfranchising the people who depend on them.Yes absolutely! It’s a systemic issue and there’s no reason to blame the individuals who take cars because they’re literally not provided an alternative. It’s so fucked that you literally can’t do anything in much of the US if you can’t afford a car.
And of course it’s absolutely critical to start providing an alternative before dismantling existing infrastructure, fucking people over even further. It doesn’t have to start with a big rail line, even local buses and bike lanes and safe side walks within the small town will help a lot in reducing short car trips, such as to the shops or to school.
But for anything at all to happen, there will have to be enough problem in favour of traffic reform, and they’ll have to be loud. The car lobby is a huge opponent. But in local politics, like on a town level, they don’t have as much of a say. Maybe, just maybe, small change is possible
I know none of this will happen over night, but fingers crossed you’ll get to experience a better future in your lifetime.
It’s more the political opposition than the cost, rail used to be the de-facto long distance transport and it worked very well.
Rail still hauls a lot of freight, but in many areas people no longer enjoy the benefit of rail transport.
Your particular commute might not be feasible without a car, but many are. Adding bike infrastructures allows those who can commute by bike to do so, while freeing space on the road for those who can’t…
Most people will think traffic behave like water that you need to send through a network of pipes. It is not, traffic is made of humans and humans reactions will make traffic behave wildly differently than waters in pipes.
- Some people and businesses will move next to the new highway for its supposed ease of access, creating traffic
- some people might change their habits and go shopping to this place instead of that place, or getting a job far away from their home (or a home far away from home)
The exact reasons for the increase in traffic is complex and my example could be totally off. But we don’t need to know the exact reason for the increase in traffic, we know it happens because it has been observed on every road enlargement projects in the last decades.
Building larger highways always encourages more traffic. For a better explanation, check out this video by Adam Something. His youtube channel has a lot of interesting videos about transportation infrastructure.
You can turn the entire freeway system into a grid and it will still suck - Los Angeles
Los Angeles also has a higher population than 50% of the countries on the planet.
An anecdote fully lacking in relevance on account of there being larger cities than Los Angeles which do not at all have the same problems efficiently moving their populations where they need to go.
It’s all about the transportation infrastructure.
We getting out of the traffic jam with this one 🇺🇸🦅🔥🇺🇸
One more lane, bro
I swear bro, just one more, please
WE’RE GONNA FIX TRAFFIC, FOR REAL THIS TIME
Worked every time so far, I swear!
Just one more and it’ll all be fixed, trust me bro
Double it and pass the problem to the next generation
Extraterrestrial observer: And, do they know each of those vehicles are directly killing all life as they know it?
‘Murican: (Proudly) Yes!
Reason #354 why I loathe cities.
Cities don’t inherently create this much private traffic. Car centric city planning does. You can build cities that are not centered around cars. It is, in fact, easier to plan for fewer cars per person if everyone lives close together, because the places you need to go will be closer and you can bike or walk, and there’s enough people for public transport to go frequently and everywhere without being half empty.
Infrastructure like this is mutually exclusive with the urban density of a real city.
If you have a highway like this, all you get is a highway, instead of a city.
This is literally a consequence of urban sprawl & cars, not cities. lol
What does a 26 lane highway have to do with cities?
You tend not to find 26 lane highways out in the middle of the bush?
You also tend to not find them in the middle of cities. Texas just happens to be a car-dependent wasteland.
If I count the roads off the sides, on ramps and off ramps, etc, the highest I can get is 18 lanes. Is this the photo of where it’s 26 wide? I can’t seem to find it.
I can get to 22 in the foreground of the pic with some lanes underneath others with the flyover ramps.
Lol, the title even says only 20 with 12 main and 8 feeder lanes.
Texas highways are fucking terrible.
And I’m gonna have to deal with them in a couple weeks.
And was we can all observe, it has solved traffic for Houston due to accommodating all the cars possible by upgrading with enough lanes perpetually.
It is expected to be complete once the lanes exceed N+1 or the population drops below N.
I hate cars and highways so much.
I wish we had good mass transit like Europe.
Everyone always disparages the cost of public transport but how much does it cost to maintain these highways every year? A few dozen/hundred billion dollars across the country?
Also how much supposed leasure time is wasted sitting in all those cars, making the people frustrated, sick and unfulfilled?
In USA they fund maintenance by developing the sprawl. So they are stuck in this circle where if they don’t develop, they can’t maintain, but developing means more surface to maintain, etc.
they’re not really maintained much anymore other than minor stuff. even that costs tons of money and is of minimal benefit for job security of departments doing it. you’ll all be dead before any major development or changes occur. and even if they decided to do something major, the construction of it while you wait for it to be done over the years will make transportation even more unbearable for those years.
China’s mass transit is better. Probably we should just hire the Chinese to construct a national bullet train network in ten years like they did in China. But wait, we can’t do that because that threatens the profits of the bourgeoisie, who are the true rulers of amerikkka. Oh well, enjoy your eight hour commute to make your bosses richer!
Japan pretty much has it figured out. Bunch of trains, slow or fast, fancy or frugal. Whatever fits you there’s an option. You can get a Pikachu train with a shop and children’s playground if you want to.
Tofu dregs. You should look that up.
Which corporate CIA source should I use to excuse the nazis who run the USA?
China also kinda just forces anyone out who’s in the way. To build any new infrastructure the US ends up getting slowed down to a crawl because of red tape and beurocracy. Land owners have a lot more rights in the US.
Unless the landowners are Black or Indigenous. I don’t recall euro-kkkolonizers asking their opinion about colonization either in the seventeenth century or today.
I’m not talking about history. I’m talking about the US today.
I’m not taking sides really, but I just want to point out that the US very much DOES still do shit to bipoc communities regarding infrastructure and construction and housing.
They will run a new highway right through a neighborhood. And sure, they offer to buy up the land first usually, so that’s nice I guess, but they don’t pay well for it and if you don’t move they just take it anyway. Rail lines run through lower income areas. Highways too. There are “easements” and “imminent domain” legal fuckery that they use against bipoc people mostly too. If it’s a rich neighborhood they go around, if it’s poor people tough luck to them.
Residential can also get rezoned to commercial and force everyone out.
There are LOTS of legal and quasi legal things that are done all the time here. But even the legal ones are often ethically/morally wrong.
So there’s that.
How can you separate one from the other? History doesn’t just begin and end at the convenience of white supremacists. When did the colonization end, for instance? All the euro-kkkolonizers are still here, they just changed their flag and started sending their taxes to DC instead of London.
These “euro-kkkolonizers” were all several generations ago. Maybe you want to pretend nothing has changed, but things have gotten significantly better since then.
I won’t pretend we don’t still have problems. People of color are still statistically lower income, and they’re still affected by all the same capitalist problems that come with that.
The problem is also not the same across the country. Every state has their own top issues.
