This is what we call "induced demand". And the good news is, it also works in reverse! Check out my Patreon: / adamsomething Second channel: / adamsomethingelse
One week after completion of the new lane: "See? I told you it would solve traffic!" Three months after completion of the new lane: "Hmm, I guess we didn't add enough extra lanes".
VID SHOWS CARS CAN WORK... This video DOES show "one more lane" can get most people into cars going to work, off bikes and off walking to and waiting for train. In cold Minnesota this is pleasanter and faster. In suburbs they can build enough lanes to have low congestion. This video proves cars which are warm and fast can be helped by 1 more lane. The only real question is can a city afford enough lanes, and US and Canada can build enough to 90% of people drive to work and it's faster than biking at least or bus, and only maybe isolated spots have rush hour congestion . Per rider govt pays $10 per trip either in roads or subsidy for bus/train, same, so build both and free people choose cars, at least in Minnesota at 20 below in dark. I'm fat so walk for exercise but most people are rational and will pick cars unless their fascist govt does build roads to give them a choice, fascism. . . . EVs will make most greens accept cars, Uber means retired people or disabled people don't need transit either, cars have won unless govt is fascist.... Roads in US cost little, paid by gasoline tax and bit of property tax, per person to govt transit is costlier, this math and reality should settle the debate and govt should build roads... I love how all the finances are never discussed, it's just assumed transit run by govt with union drivers and staff is magically cheap, ha, it's not it's costly as F like $10 per trip in tax subsidy taken via sales tax from poor people so a few can commute...... So yes let's build more lanes.... I'm half serious, here in suburbia no congestion cars are wonderful....
People flock to the underground lane Due to the massive amount of cares in the underground lane, a person dies due to pollution, blocking the tunnel, an shutting it down for a day To prevent this, the city widens the tunnel
@@blob7963 They keep choosing to widen and add more tunnels before deciding _Fuck it, let's just build the city underground,_ leading to a cyberpunk dystopia with an above ground Bourgeoisie and a below ground underclass
Ngl i kinda want bikes off the sidewalks Like some cyclist ran over my dog so i kinda think they cant really work on the sidewalk At least not in an intersection or moving fast please? Fuck cars drive bikes
Expanding lanes means more cars will jam the endpoint faster, eventually, multiple lanes end so it doesn't fix the problem. But cities be like: "See guys? we're spending our budget wisely, right?"
what we need cities to spend is military (no weapons) reinforcing the buildings with EMP resistant devices so in the case of a nuke the electrical grid can still run fine allowing potentially still clean water from sinks. or how about a practically useless city that was built to withstand a nuke shockwave but have walls that have several multi-purpose rocket systems of which all have EMP resistant or even EMP proof properties allowing it to not be struck easily
Transit counting tax subsidy costs as much as roads and cars. The scam is having people by mansion 10 miles from the 2 husband and wifes work, so have mortgage and 2 cars and road tax bill.... Instead of living in van on street outside workplace, or 1 room cottage... People choose the mansion, it's human stupidity, our caveman brain wants a castle and thick walls and 100 rooms... Till we ban people having a 2nd room at all we LL have sprawl and waste, transit ain't the answer. But let the dumb transit berdy talk continue , ha...
There is always some chokepoint eventually. The thing with trains is that the chokepoint, a.k.a. railway hub, also happens to be the destination since railway hubs are usually at stations.
And then there's me. I have a driving license, but I almost never drive since I can get drunk and sleep on the bus/train. See ! alcohol can solve some problems.
@@toni6194 countries in Europe do pretty fine Where I live (Switzerland) has one of the best public transports so I’m happy. It takes me literally less time to wait in the bus, than to drive in peak hours.
If the natives were alive today they would just get a heartattack at the sight of our inefficient living and crazy environmental destruction. No smallpox needed
This is actually called the Downs-Thomson paradox. Induced demand is more about people making trips they otherwise wouldn't have made at all and less about existing trips switching modes
There is another element to it. Basically, assuming an empty road, cars are the quickest way to travel to work/home, so people will prefer it, but it is also the least efficient from a traffic standpoint (an entire car for a single occupant is obviously wildly inefficient, especially when you add parking requirements). If you prioritise creating more lanes, more people will drive, destroying the economies of scale of the alternatives. It is a chicken and egg scenario though; Lots of bikes leads to lots of bike lanes, dedicated bike bridges, and efficient bike travel (the Netherlands), lots of train riders leads to faster rail with more connections and more trains on those rail lines (Japan). But trying to get lots of people to bike while there is a 6 lane highway and no bike lanes or bike paths is a non-starter, and trying to get people to take the train to work when it is slow, there aren't very regular trains scheduled, and the service sucks due to lack of investment/maintenance is also a non-starter. The solution is to invest proactively in bike/rail infrastructure, and REDUCE the number of lanes on the highway; but the public invariably hates these plans as they seem nonsensical from a layman's perspective. It has been tried a few times though, and it works.
@@TereniaDelamay Yep, people tend to want to live about 15-60 minutes commute from work. The distance is irrelevant, only the time it takes. So the more highways you build, the farther people will commute. Or to be more precise, people value cheaper living more than 1 hour of their time but that's the limit. So as long as there is a cost of living gradient towards their workplace, they will live about an hour away. Alternative solutions are spreading out employment slots, or making long distance travelling more practical by train than by car.
yeah thats basically what ive made trying to improve the traffic only by moving it all underground the worst thing it actually worked unlike that highway
as someone who lives in a city with lots of cyclists I can agree cyclists don’t understand how cars move around where I live and will literally just cross the road whenever they want- even if it’s pretty obvious there is oncoming cars that will hit them
@@risu6894 blame your government that doesn't invest in bicycle ifrastructure, that doesn't split vehicle traffic from cyclist roads, that doesn't prioritize pedestrians/cyclists/public transportation to private cars, and that doesn't restrict the usage of motorized vehicles in the city (And yes, cyclists also need to mind the traffic and ride safely)
The 9€ ticket in Germany has indeed decreased congestion, just because it was a cheaper alternative. Now if you would expand the service and keep prices an a fair level, you'd save yourself lots of money on road construction and also have a faster city for those dependent on cars.
all demand is induced if you increase quality of some product you induce demand and if you make shitty product nobody wants to use it does that mean we should not make any good products?
A classic capitalistic scheme: - actively boycott public stuff until it sucks - complain about how public stuff sucks and only private works - make enough money for more boycott - repeat
Roads and train are both public infrastructure. The problem is most American like to use cars more than train. So the state focuses more resources on roads and neglecs trains.
@@SonTran-hr3mg Of course road are public too. They're even "more public", consider you pay nothing to ride almost all of them. But I've heard the argument "public transportation is socialism and doesn't work" so many times that I know for sure it doesn't have to make sense to convince people.
@@SonTran-hr3mg you are right, though driving a car is definitely more capitalistic and many Americans think that public transport is socialism or communism or whatever else they've heard said but don't actually know what it really is
@@SonTran-hr3mg Cars aren't public infrastructure though. And to use the roads you need to buy a car. If buses were a significant part of the equation, it might be different - but as it stands, roads are public infrastructure that forces you to depend on private companies.
It makes sense to us, but a North American town planner would look at this and wonder how many more lanes you can make if tear up the rail track and cycle path.
This is a basic prisoner's dilemma. The optimal choice for oneselves is to drive but that burdens everyone else so much that the cumulative burden is higher than what you gain from driving. There is also the fact that lanes take up space which makes everything further apart. Hell, in a lot of places you can't cross the street without a car.
It's very rarely useful to focus on individuals with big society things. Often that mindset will just make efforts to bring large scale change more difficult.
Well personally the optimal choice is public transport, it's so convenient. No need to find a spot to park, I can read on the way, drink a few beers if i feel so, etc. The problem is that this is true only if said service is very good, which rarely occurs by itself without having people and politics actively promoting it.
@@Siberius- Very rarely useful? It’s the only way to get a full perspective of an issue. Sure, quantitative data is going to be much more useful than qualitative or anecdotal, but it’s necessary if you want to understand the full scope of an issue.
@@cocolasticot9027 This right here. I had a car available to me, still took the public transport because I can focus on what I want (I see students hitting the textbooks for example) instead of driving
That doesn't even cover all of it. When you upgrade the roads and reduce travel time, you actually also enable more people to live even further out in the suburbs and commute even longer distances by car, therefore inducing previously non existent demand and making traffic even worse (=induced traffic).
@@protivoush But the underground pods keep crashing into tunnel walls and blocking the tunnel for a long time! Maybe we should make the pods roll on rails so they don't get stuck so much... And since the pods don't need to be steered anymore, why don't we couple them together so we don't have to pay so many drivers?
And that’s why Geneva keeps on removing lanes and parking from the city. People hate it and complain more but there are more people who use bikes buses and trams and the public transportation offers grow. And even if it’s annoying it works….until there’s a public transportation strike.😅
Yeah is the same in Stockholm people complain saying stuff like: "Ah it's impossible to drive around with your car, there's always traffic jams and there is nowhere you can find an empty parking spot." and I'm like yeah that's the point! Luckily the left won here at least and there will be more investments in public transport now hopefully and car-free zones.
@@unatrek2821 Do not even attempt to compare those two things. A handful of regularly inspected trains travelling in single file is nowhere near the propensity for chaos as countless THOUSANDS of individual zombies barely paying attention, cutting each other off, speeding, driving vehicles in conditions that may or may not be safe for the road.
@@michaelhaydenbell ... We already overreact to terrorists killing 200 in a plane. So yeah terrorist killing 200 on a train will cause train security and halfhour boarding checks to be normal.... No way a terrorist can bomb enough carrs to make us require such a security step for cars. Even bridges are sooooooo strong a truck bomb can't even dent them without huge effort, that bombing of the Crimea bridge knocked some of road deck down but the pillars stayed up and fixed in month. . . Im not saying its logical, but when terrorists switch to target trains say goodbye to not having a half-hour security check... Just ignoring this likelihood is not logical. . . . Trains are easy to derail, farmers in poor countries do it often, so far the West hasn't had to deal with this and when it does they're probably overract... "List of terrorist incidents involving railway systems - Wikipedia"
@@RegularEarthlingEngineer His argument in this video of induced demand shows well. But he paints public transportation/biking as something people do not want to use. If I was on the fence about building a passenger train, I would see this as proof that if I built the train vs the freeway. The freeway would be used more. As in this clip when they widened the road, the train lost riders/ and the bike trail lost bikers. He should have either presented induced demand without the train, or shown how the train took passengers off the road.
dunno what its like in warsaw but more trams, buses, bike lanes, no highways in the city center, and workplaces spread more evenly around the metropolitan area, rather than concentrated in the city center
In California, Santa Clara County stopped widening its highways because all of that money is sunk into extending one train 6 miles/10 km (2 train lines, costs $6-9B) and electrifying another going to San Francisco. Not to mention the high speed rail segment within the county that just passed environmental review as well as the expansion of the central train station.
@@InventorZahran ...for the most part. Except 80% of the county is zoned for single-family homes. Though to be fair, Transit-Oriented Development and Urban Villages are in the works at the same time.
@@InventorZahran And some highway projects to add managed lanes planned actually convert regular lanes into Toll or HOV lanes rather than adding one more lane.
In Soviet Russia everyone gets one lane and one rail. In Capitalist America everyone gets a lane! (Terms and conditions apply, your next exit will be 700 feet to the left, have fun switching lanes, don't drive safely, the responsibility is not yours.)
I’m pretty sure people would gladly take a train or tram if it was on schedule 95% of the time like Japan, was quick like in China or essentially free like in India. Adding more lanes only adds to traffic because our public transportation system is essentially worthless, with it being just barely less inconvenient than walking everywhere
never understood why car lovers hate public transit. wouldn't you want more public transit so that less people drive so that you can have a better time actually driving instead of waiting in a traffic jam...
The is also another effect where developers will build more suburbs along non-congested highways, thereby increasing congestion on this highway until it is too much to build another suburb there.
Instead of adding lines they could just fix puplic transportation. I know many people who would abandone their car if trains/buses would drive properly.
For everyone who’s confused why this means trains are the solution: The problem is over saturation. It’s the same reason everyone was told as children to get engineering degrees and now it’s hard to find engineering jobs. Sure, cars are convenient if you’re the only person on the road. But then everyone and their grandmother has the same “brilliant” idea at the same time, and now the road is backed up and it takes 2 hours to get somewhere the train would have gotten you to in 30 minutes. And after repeating this process for a while you finally give up hope that the roads will ever be clear, so you try to go back to the train, but because nobody was using the train, it got defunded and now only arrives every other hour, so now you’re stuck with no good options. And remember, you can add as many lanes as you want, but there are only so many exits, and things get backed up fast when everyone is practically forced to use the roads and people are constantly slowing down trying to find openings to cross 8 lanes of traffic. It doesn’t matter if you have the freedom to leave whenever you want, if you arrive way later than you would have if you had waited for the train.
Even though I am a right-winger, I will always support this channel because of its rhetoric supporting trains. I am visually impaired, and thus I may never be able to drive in the future. If my city does not adopt a better public transit system, I may be completely screwed in the years to come.
I agree in principal .. except .. where I am we have neither rail lines nor bike ianes, and bus lines take a 15 minute drive into a 2 hour / multi transfer mess due to balkanized bus service. so they add more lanes
The only place where adding another lane genuinely helps is when there is one section of highway that is abnormally narrow compared to the rest. Widening this section to match the other parts would remove the need for merging/unmerging lanes at the bottleneck points, which are major sources of traffic jams.
It might not even be terrible, because eventually you'd have enough lanes. EXCEPT: Those lanes have to depart from the highway at some point. And since you don't have 8, 10, 12 lanes into the city center, it's gonna jam there. Which will of course lead to jams down the road, potentially up the off-ramp, and now we're standing on the freeway.
US has shown you can build enough roads, 90% drive to work. . . Roads cost govt $1000 per user, transit is $5000. Roads are best, faster, allow free choices not hoping the govt and union likes you. Its amazing how people skip facts and numbers, and just go with gut feeling that transit is good. Remember Covid when it removed half the traffic and there was zero congestion, we could have that if we spent $2000 a year on roads but we choose not to since we want that $1000 and don't mind rush hour being congested 4 hours a day.... In Dallas, Texas, there is almost no congestion except morons trying to drive downtown, other 99% of the region is perfect driving at wonderful 80mph, vs walking to and riding a 20mph train to place I don't want to go to. Transit sucks, it just does, its amazing the illogic to deny this, by fat nerds in big houses who in every other way are awful consumeristic aholes too, like us all in the West. To not be live in a cottage next to workplace, nothing else will do, but nerds buy huge houses too,
Love it! Only thing I'd add is something like ~"the same is true for PT/active mobility, only they are effective enough that we actually can build enough of that kind of infra for everyone, provided we also stop building sprawl"
Another important aspect of more lanes are the inefficient motorway on-ramps and exits: For about 500m before an exit and the first 500m after an on-ramp people use to drive in the right lane. If the average commute is 10km on the motorway, you spend 10% of your trip in the right lane. And humans are bad at lane switches in particular in dense traffic. So for (sub-)urban traffic going from 2 to 4 lanes may almost double the capacity, going from 4 to 8 lanes does not. And going from 8 lanes to e.g. 10 lanes makes hardly any difference at all, because the additional capacity is consumed by the inefficiency of 2*10 lane switches. On long-haul distance it may make a difference if everybody would pretty much stay in his lane for 100km+. But over the the back country you rarely see motorways with 4+ lanes anyway.
it doesnt just steal commuters, it steals money because roads are expensive to maintain, which easily takes from other transportation budgets, so its a double loss
Yes and off ramps to your destination. Off ramps to places where everyone needs to go are the reason why even highways with less traffic will eventually lead to traffic jams. I see this every workday. Literally.
So what you're saying is we just need to add so many lanes, that there will be enough space even if everyone decides to drive alone in their car. Got it.
Staggered working schedules would also help a lot. So either ruin nature or ruin social interaction, those are the only options. Trains? Never heard of em.
I live in Southern California next to Interstate 5, it's always jammed with cars and they are adding more lanes. They did the same in the past. It fixes nothing.
Decided on becoming a civil infrastructure engineer. I feel like I found somthing I like because of you. Just wanted to say thankyou. It wasn't just him but I wanted to do engineering to begin with just didn't know what branch but after much research I found this aligns with what I enjoy and understand best.
Adding more lanes can ease traffic congestion in certain situations. If traffic flow is impeded by on-ramps for example, adding an additional line will minimize the impact said on-ramp has on the traffic that is already on the highway.
They cut down century old trees and eminent domain'd peoples properties in my country for more lanes. And to everyone's surprise, roads are still clogged.
In Germany, freeways / highways have either two or three lanes for each direction almost everywhere (except near crossings, where extra lanes might be needed for the diverting directions).
This is also why we should also focus on improving existing transit service. Japanese Shinkansen is able to do it despite having tough competition from air travel and highway. If your transit is actually faster than driving, very little people would choose driving even if you choose to widen the highway. Intercity train in America really is a complete pain to use, even before the Amtrack days. They are slow, sharing track with freight trains and frankly, sometimes unsafe (Amercia didn't have mandatory ATC installation until 2018, and there have been a lot of train accidents before). Biking is impractical for the distance between Suburbs and downtown, plus the security in downtown doesn't give people enough confidence that their bike won't be stolen. Toronto is probably the only city in North America realizing this, that people flock to the highway isn't just because there are more space, but because the existing service sucks. Which is why it is electrifying its regional rail, and building new subway to serve as relief line.
So why dose this happen in places that don't have public transit? I think the real problem is the fact that all roads are made to meet the big roads, and also entrance and exits are limited, so people can't change there mind after joining the road.
Short and sweet, perfectly sums up induced demand and the Downs-Thomson Paradox. And we don't build a bike lane or don't improve public transport, using low usage as a justification, an analogy I've heard which I love is that it's like having a city on either bank of a crocodile infested river and saying there's no need to join the 2 sides with a bridge because no one is swimming across
As someone living in Houston's metro area, I have mixed feelings about the Katy Freeway being held up as the crowning example of "JuSt OnE mOrE lAnE bRo". On the one hand, I like the impact it has when I'm discussing urbanism with the people who live in my area, since everyone I know is personally familiar with how awful that road is. On the other hand, I'm ashamed that my home is essentially the carbrain capital of the world.
Something else to keep in mind is that roads don't have to be overcrowded for traffic to come to a standstill. A slow vehicle, busy exit lane, or crash in so much as one lane in an 8 lane road can slow everything down as people have to merge to get in/out of lanes.
Adding lanes _can_ help in certain situations, though. The best way to manage this issue is to reduce or even eliminate fares for mass transit, and making mass transit more cost-effective than driving a vehicle. I only drive a vehicle because after doing the math, I realize that it would only cost twice as much to drive a car, and I can get to where I want to go and back in a sixth of the time, and time can be far more motivating than cost in a lot of cases for people. In my example, I live in a medium sized city, where traffic isn't too bad most of the time. But when I lived in Toronto, I barely drove my car at all, and relied on the subway for a vast majority of my Transportation needs, because it was vastly superior to driving a car. Ironically, the only part of Toronto I didn't have much trouble with traffic with was the 401 - a highway with stretches of between 12-18 lanes through the GTA. Sure, there was traffic jams, but that was more due to accidents or construction.
"reduce fares. build better trains...". my brother in christ, the people in power are literally doing all they can to prevent that from happening. they're not the causes but rather the result of car-centric policies.
Now do the same thing but instead add 3D-lanes underground with RGB lights end EVs. The results will be completely opposite because of how si-fi it sounds.
Cars are the best form of travel, timewise, on all bust 5 mile region around a metro. Unless you don't like seeing your family or working an extra hour the choice of transit is the worst choice over a car. I have taken many a bus and train and MInnesota, this is just a fact. Cars are the best. , , , ,
@@unatrek2821 sure you can go anywhere you want anytime you want, but they are also hideously expensive horrible for the environment Usually badly built more than cars usually have some in app purchases (look at Tesla. They are literally selling features that are already built into the car) and again they’re expensive as fuck. The typical British citizen players around £330. PER MONTH that is a lot of money well public transportation usually it’s just to bucks
@@Staniele ... Your facts are bit off. Cars arent hideously expensive, every worker in US from CEO to secretary can afford 1, and I use to buy running cars at Goodwill car auction for $1000. You can buy new car for $150000 in US that lasts 10 years, so $1500 a year plus $1500 petrol plus $1500 maintenance and insurance, so $4500, and not fair to add govt taxes which are really just for revenue since roads are darn cheap to maintain (see below). Also if saves 1 hour vs transit at $30wage this is 250daysX$30 so $7500 extra income, let alone benefit from being able to rush kids to hospital, school, road trip. This is why people unless their govt refuses to build enough roads chooses cars, US, Canada, even France outside Paris..... Its this simple. COMPARE TO TRANSIT, counting tax subsidy the average trip costs about $10, so 250X$10X2bothways so $5000. This $5000 is just a bit less than probable car cost of $8000. In US we spend $200billion on roads, that per 200m workers needing transport is $1000, this is FAR FAR FAR less a tax burden then transit is, at $10 per rider per trip. POLLUTION... Cars especially once we go EV are not SUPER worse than buses and trains, which often run 75% empty and require more concrete and steel. I admit pollution is the #1 strong case against cars, but do you have any specifics how much cars add to pollution vs transit (1ton? 2 tons co2, out of 15ton average??)...... And, if we drive and can work and earn more can't we just use that extra wages to buy more solar and wind and offset the EV car pollution????
@@unatrek2821 Even with climate stuff one thing I could add is the heating effect of roads. More roads = hotter cities and add that with global warming it basically becomes a sauna outside and if people add air conditioning inside you make the city much hotter as well(seen in HK)
Induced demand is not a very compelling argument to carbrains. They LIKE the idea that nobody is "forced" to use public transport. Instead, we should focus on how more lanes means more lane changes, which slows traffic, and add more complexity to intersections, which slows traffic and light cycles, decreasing efficiency of travel for everyone.
You can make cities either car-friendly or walkable; the problem is that most cities in the US are NEITHER. Phoenix gets pretty close to being car-friendly, because going outside without a car is utterly unbearable for three months out of the year. The only place where it is hard to find parking is Costco.
I mean, people could just increase the capacity of train and cycle infrastructure, but I'm guessing it's not as immediately profitable, by which I mean profitable.
I’m from Katy and was alive when they were constructing this monstrosity. It’s a headache and a nightmare and now my home town is jam packed with people and stores to the point it is almost difficult to function without becoming furious over the constant traffic on every single street be it the freeway or back roads. It ruined Katy IMO and turned it into just an extension of busy ass Houston. ** please don’t blow me up about how it’s really some other urban planning’s fault that the city turned out to be the way it is. In my mind it’s because of the freeways thank you and good day, sir.
So, although traffic isn't solved it did improve the commuting time or comfort of the cyclists and public transit users. Because that's why the now decide to take the car. If traffic would actually be worse (in that commuting time by car became longer compared to before the adding of extra lanes), those cyclist would still be cycling. Another thing that is not explained in the video is that some people might move further away from work as traffic improved, but doing that increased the total kilometers travelled on the road. Again, it doesn't solve traffic, but it enabled those people to find a better place to live. Creating more capacity might not solve traffic, but it does allow people to make different choices (and if someone chooses different that's because the new choice is better for them) and those improved choices come at the cost of traffic congestion. Don't add lanes to solve traffic, add lanes to improve the choices people have and thereby improve their lives.
Hey Adam, I got this crazy idea on how to fix traffic problems! What if we made like, cars but they're being pulled by one car so only one car needs an engine. Then we could fit much more people in each car. We could even make it go on rails or something.
That goes to show that people rather travel by car. I do believe we should make a system where driving cars and public transportation coexist. I live in New Jersey and believe it or not traffic isn't that bad. You just have to know your way around. I have to travel about 15 miles to work but there's four different ways I can easily check Google Maps to see which way is in congested. If I had to take public transportation to work I would be fired, because there isn't enough hours in a day to get to my job by bus, train and walking, do a 12 hour shift, and get back home by bus, train and walking.
So what you're saying is people use what is available, so theoretically, [and probably in practice, looking at some places in europe], if we made more cyclist/pedestrian friendly options available, more people would use them, and less would use cars.
So many unaccounted variables and over simplified explanation. If the lanes get wider that gets people off their bicycles or trains and into their car? Ok.
And you can also play it the other way around: Better transit -> less cars, Better bicycle infrastructures -> less cars etc. Except, trains accomodate 10-40 times more people and bycicle lanes around 7 times more. So, 1 trainline could COMPLETELY REPLACE a 10 lanes street. ONE! But well, people would need their brains to plan... pitty...
So if adding more lanes just shifts people to use cars, the inverse must be true as well: Get rid of lanes and more people will use bikes and public transport. Isn't that what a lot of cities want?
Most people are not "cyclists" or "carpeople". They are just people that need to get from A to B - and they will choose the method the method based on things like how convinient it is, cost etc. So if you make driving driving more convinient for them - more people drive. If you make driving less convinient more people use other methods. But also, if a road is jammed, you could consider improving public transport (more convinient busses and trains), and maybe look at the cost. And more people would take public transport - and this reducing the jam on the road.
Yes, it is mostly true. But having fewer lanes doesn't make bikes safer or reduce the minimum travel time of bikes. We need good city planning for that
@@puppieslovies Having fewer lanes means less people will use a car. In addition to that, the now available space of those former lanes can now be used to build safe bike lanes.
You did not even take into account that whatever the number of lanes, the system is as bad as the weakest point, and usually the weakest points are the intersection in the cities (and especially dumb red lights). There, this is we’re cars will be stuck. The additional lanes will only serve as a buffer for more cars to get in line before getting stuck for the same amount of time as before the new lanes at the next intersection
not to mention there is always going to be a bottle neck; spreading 800 cars across 10 lanes is no more efficient than spreading 800 cars across 2 lanes, if the lanes all eventually converge into 2, at ANY point on the road.
So basically if you want people to use other means of transport you have to nerf cars because there are so overpowered that people will always switch to them and never stick to other means.
No, this works both ways. If you make trains more convenient than cars then people will take trains. Imagine you could take a car and get there in 50 minutes, or you could take a train and get there in 35 minutes. Which would you choose? Most people would leave their car at home and take the train. Maybe take a nap on the way. Likewise, around here lots of people have a supermarket within walking distance (let's say up to 500 steps), so most take their bike (because it is faster). You could take your car, but since there is limited parking that is going to take at least as long to get inside and you don't get to enjoy the sun, the sound of the wind in the trees, the birds singing, and the sight of your neighbour chasing her escaped puppy again. Also, you run into an old hockey club friend from long ago on the bike path, you have a conversation and agree to meet up for drinks. They introduce you to their colleague, you hit it off, get married, have kids, and live happily ever after. Alternatively, you can choose road rage.
what would fix the problem is having a train that actually goes where you need it too. and people driving into the city for work. everyone crams into one building instead 10 satellite offices.
Of course people should have more options in transit to cut down on motor vehicle traffic. But people still need to travel on their own terms, and having train schedules that aren't frequent enough put people in a bind. Personal vehicles like cars will never go away, but at least we can provide more options and make traveling safe for everyone, including those on bikes. I just get this feeling that people want cars to cease to exist. If that's the case, they're pursuing a fool's errand.
If you watch his videos he doesn't want cars to disappear just to be highly discouraged (adding 1 way roads in urban areas and reducing parking spots but having large parking area on the outskirts of the city which has train / bus connection all over the city)
Adam Something has an very curious premise, that literally everyone who is biking or taking the subway will choose to drive until the exact, precise point where driving becomes as congested and slow as it was before. It won’t be that some of them quit when it’s half as bad as before, or one quarter as bad, or three quarters as bad. No, there is infinite demand for driving at the exact, precise level of congestion/speed we had before, and not one second slower or faster.
I pretty much make sure my coworkers know this since I take public transportation in Los Angeles. Takes me 2 hours to get home from work since they mostly use bus and could really use more robust rail transportation.
Having a car and using it to move your entire family is 100% logical and it's not that bad for the planet, using the metro is also a logical thing to do if you live alone. The problem comes when the transportation becomes so expensive that for the people it's more logical to buy a car/ use the taxi.
Aha, but by the time we build the 28th lane there will be no one left NOT driving and we can expand the road by one more lane by abolishing the bike lane.
![The Wrong Way to Set Speed Limits [ST06]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bglWCuCMSWc/mqdefault.jpg)
Just one more lane bro I swear bro it's gonna work just one more lane trust me bro
NOOO!!! IF YOU ADD ONE MORE LANE THE ALIENS FROM MARS 👽 WILL FILL THAT LANE
One week after completion of the new lane: "See? I told you it would solve traffic!"
Three months after completion of the new lane: "Hmm, I guess we didn't add enough extra lanes".
I swear bro just one more lane, I can stop whenever I want
@@ER0M0RI because people who take public transport don’t exist
VID SHOWS CARS CAN WORK... This video DOES show "one more lane" can get most people into cars going to work, off bikes and off walking to and waiting for train. In cold Minnesota this is pleasanter and faster. In suburbs they can build enough lanes to have low congestion. This video proves cars which are warm and fast can be helped by 1 more lane. The only real question is can a city afford enough lanes, and US and Canada can build enough to 90% of people drive to work and it's faster than biking at least or bus, and only maybe isolated spots have rush hour congestion . Per rider govt pays $10 per trip either in roads or subsidy for bus/train, same, so build both and free people choose cars, at least in Minnesota at 20 below in dark. I'm fat so walk for exercise but most people are rational and will pick cars unless their fascist govt does build roads to give them a choice, fascism. . . . EVs will make most greens accept cars, Uber means retired people or disabled people don't need transit either, cars have won unless govt is fascist.... Roads in US cost little, paid by gasoline tax and bit of property tax, per person to govt transit is costlier, this math and reality should settle the debate and govt should build roads... I love how all the finances are never discussed, it's just assumed transit run by govt with union drivers and staff is magically cheap, ha, it's not it's costly as F like $10 per trip in tax subsidy taken via sales tax from poor people so a few can commute...... So yes let's build more lanes.... I'm half serious, here in suburbia no congestion cars are wonderful....
LeTs aDD A LaNe UnDErGrOunD ThaT WiLl fIx ThIngS
People flock to the underground lane
Due to the massive amount of cares in the underground lane, a person dies due to pollution, blocking the tunnel, an shutting it down for a day
To prevent this, the city widens the tunnel
Oh no, we have too much traffic underground
Lets build another lane 🤡
Let's bore a tunnel and drive Teslas through it!
@@blob7963 They keep choosing to widen and add more tunnels before deciding _Fuck it, let's just build the city underground,_ leading to a cyberpunk dystopia with an above ground Bourgeoisie and a below ground underclass
Of course, don’t you know that simple maths and human psychology ceases to work Underground?
ngl a 6 lane bike lane would be juicy
bUt TheN ThErE wOulD be BiKe TrAfFic
@@Shiv-ym1rr i mean this does happen in the netherlands due to ehh transit being kept afloat by bikes lol
fantastic for Milwaukee traffic, you've just created 6 more lanes for cars. Cause people think they're meant for them
@@zacharyphelps6555 maybe 2 lanes for cars. Unless your bike lanes are as big as car lanes (not the case here in the US).
Ngl i kinda want bikes off the sidewalks
Like some cyclist ran over my dog so i kinda think they cant really work on the sidewalk
At least not in an intersection or moving fast please?
Fuck cars drive bikes
The ReAl SoLuTion iS To CoVer ThE entTire wOrld iN aspHalt
I laughed so hard at this 😂😂😂
Technically, anything that provides the wipe-most-of-humanity functionality would solve the issue.
@@MrRedstoner -every antinatalists ever ☠️
Come on, we're on 2022, cars should be flying by now.
Not enough lanes still
Expanding lanes means more cars will jam the endpoint faster, eventually, multiple lanes end so it doesn't fix the problem.
But cities be like: "See guys? we're spending our budget wisely, right?"
"Your next exit is 700 feet... to your left. Please start switching lanes now."
what we need cities to spend is military (no weapons) reinforcing the buildings with EMP resistant devices so in the case of a nuke the electrical grid can still run fine allowing potentially still clean water from sinks.
or how about a practically useless city that was built to withstand a nuke shockwave but have walls that have several multi-purpose rocket systems of which all have EMP resistant or even EMP proof properties allowing it to not be struck easily
Transit counting tax subsidy costs as much as roads and cars. The scam is having people by mansion 10 miles from the 2 husband and wifes work, so have mortgage and 2 cars and road tax bill.... Instead of living in van on street outside workplace, or 1 room cottage... People choose the mansion, it's human stupidity, our caveman brain wants a castle and thick walls and 100 rooms... Till we ban people having a 2nd room at all we LL have sprawl and waste, transit ain't the answer. But let the dumb transit berdy talk continue , ha...
more connections would lead to more lanes too
There is always some chokepoint eventually. The thing with trains is that the chokepoint, a.k.a. railway hub, also happens to be the destination since railway hubs are usually at stations.
And then there's me. I have a driving license, but I almost never drive since I can get drunk and sleep on the bus/train. See ! alcohol can solve some problems.
Don't drive if you have to drink!
Drink, pedal, sweat, repeat
dude where the heck do you life ? russia?
@@toni6194 countries in Europe do pretty fine
Where I live (Switzerland) has one of the best public transports so I’m happy. It takes me literally less time to wait in the bus, than to drive in peak hours.
@@toni6194 Nah, I wouldn´t be watching video about traffic on the frontline would I ?
More lanes, more cars, more consumption. People are stressed, companies are happy and nature is left behind in that equation.
Sounds like America
@@wodekw6862 It does not sound like America. It IS America and all her vassels (aka, countries that ignorantly copied American style urban design)
If the natives were alive today they would just get a heartattack at the sight of our inefficient living and crazy environmental destruction. No smallpox needed
Nature needs to have a bill of rights.
@@wodekw6862 this freeway is not in America. Its in India.
This is actually called the Downs-Thomson paradox. Induced demand is more about people making trips they otherwise wouldn't have made at all and less about existing trips switching modes
Hm, will have to Google this later. Thank ye, kind stranger.
It's more than one thing that explains induced demand. It's also people deciding to live further because the commute isn't so bad anymore.
@@TereniaDelamay yes, they all contribute to induced demand. What you just described is Marchetti's constant
There is another element to it.
Basically, assuming an empty road, cars are the quickest way to travel to work/home, so people will prefer it, but it is also the least efficient from a traffic standpoint (an entire car for a single occupant is obviously wildly inefficient, especially when you add parking requirements).
If you prioritise creating more lanes, more people will drive, destroying the economies of scale of the alternatives.
It is a chicken and egg scenario though; Lots of bikes leads to lots of bike lanes, dedicated bike bridges, and efficient bike travel (the Netherlands), lots of train riders leads to faster rail with more connections and more trains on those rail lines (Japan). But trying to get lots of people to bike while there is a 6 lane highway and no bike lanes or bike paths is a non-starter, and trying to get people to take the train to work when it is slow, there aren't very regular trains scheduled, and the service sucks due to lack of investment/maintenance is also a non-starter.
The solution is to invest proactively in bike/rail infrastructure, and REDUCE the number of lanes on the highway; but the public invariably hates these plans as they seem nonsensical from a layman's perspective. It has been tried a few times though, and it works.
@@TereniaDelamay Yep, people tend to want to live about 15-60 minutes commute from work. The distance is irrelevant, only the time it takes. So the more highways you build, the farther people will commute. Or to be more precise, people value cheaper living more than 1 hour of their time but that's the limit. So as long as there is a cost of living gradient towards their workplace, they will live about an hour away. Alternative solutions are spreading out employment slots, or making long distance travelling more practical by train than by car.
me on my way home only to discover my entire yard and my living room are now part of a 50 lane freeway
that katy freeway is wild, like something youd see in city skylines
yeah thats basically what ive made trying to improve the traffic only by moving it all underground
the worst thing it actually worked unlike that highway
@@nvagn now I know where did Elon got his ideas
@@nvagnGlad to know I'm not the only one who used the "ant farm" method
The Katy Freeway truly is a magnificent testament to urban planners incompetence
But it sells more oil and that's what's most important.
From this video you can clearly see that cyclist are the biggest problem
Now I'm imagining politicians attending their lobbying sessions in a suit and tie but also a neon-colored bicycle helmet.
For real, damn cyclists switching over to driving a car, endangering people in cars.
Yeah they should just bike upsy
as someone who lives in a city with lots of cyclists I can agree
cyclists don’t understand how cars move around where I live and will literally just cross the road whenever they want- even if it’s pretty obvious there is oncoming cars that will hit them
@@risu6894 blame your government that doesn't invest in bicycle ifrastructure, that doesn't split vehicle traffic from cyclist roads, that doesn't prioritize pedestrians/cyclists/public transportation to private cars, and that doesn't restrict the usage of motorized vehicles in the city
(And yes, cyclists also need to mind the traffic and ride safely)
And we all know the name is "induced demand".
I'll name my child "induced demand". You can make so many jokes with that!
Also "induced traffic"👍
Says it right in the description mate. I really think he thould've thrown it into the video but meh
The 9€ ticket in Germany has indeed decreased congestion, just because it was a cheaper alternative. Now if you would expand the service and keep prices an a fair level, you'd save yourself lots of money on road construction and also have a faster city for those dependent on cars.
all demand is induced if you increase quality of some product you induce demand and if you make shitty product nobody wants to use it
does that mean we should not make any good products?
the only sollution is, that every person gets an own personalized lane
oh dear god no..
A classic capitalistic scheme:
- actively boycott public stuff until it sucks
- complain about how public stuff sucks and only private works
- make enough money for more boycott
- repeat
Roads and train are both public infrastructure. The problem is most American like to use cars more than train. So the state focuses more resources on roads and neglecs trains.
@@SonTran-hr3mg Of course road are public too. They're even "more public", consider you pay nothing to ride almost all of them. But I've heard the argument "public transportation is socialism and doesn't work" so many times that I know for sure it doesn't have to make sense to convince people.
@@SonTran-hr3mg you are right, though driving a car is definitely more capitalistic and many Americans think that public transport is socialism or communism or whatever else they've heard said but don't actually know what it really is
@@SonTran-hr3mg Cars aren't public infrastructure though. And to use the roads you need to buy a car. If buses were a significant part of the equation, it might be different - but as it stands, roads are public infrastructure that forces you to depend on private companies.
But car businesses don't have to pay for road maintenance. They get to sell you things and we foot the bill!
It makes sense to us, but a North American town planner would look at this and wonder how many more lanes you can make if tear up the rail track and cycle path.
This is a basic prisoner's dilemma. The optimal choice for oneselves is to drive but that burdens everyone else so much that the cumulative burden is higher than what you gain from driving. There is also the fact that lanes take up space which makes everything further apart. Hell, in a lot of places you can't cross the street without a car.
It's very rarely useful to focus on individuals with big society things. Often that mindset will just make efforts to bring large scale change more difficult.
Well personally the optimal choice is public transport, it's so convenient. No need to find a spot to park, I can read on the way, drink a few beers if i feel so, etc.
The problem is that this is true only if said service is very good, which rarely occurs by itself without having people and politics actively promoting it.
@@Siberius- Very rarely useful? It’s the only way to get a full perspective of an issue. Sure, quantitative data is going to be much more useful than qualitative or anecdotal, but it’s necessary if you want to understand the full scope of an issue.
@@callidusvulpes5556 - I mean like, individual action. Not, data on individuals. Different topic there.
@@cocolasticot9027 This right here. I had a car available to me, still took the public transport because I can focus on what I want (I see students hitting the textbooks for example) instead of driving
That doesn't even cover all of it. When you upgrade the roads and reduce travel time, you actually also enable more people to live even further out in the suburbs and commute even longer distances by car, therefore inducing previously non existent demand and making traffic even worse (=induced traffic).
"Add one more lane" is the first idea when traffic comes, but as I learned, you should not run with the first idea that comes to mind.
Can’t we just throw in a few pods??😂😂
Groundbreaking! 🤯 Noble prize for this pal!!!
Now listen... what if we moved the pods undergroud?
@@protivoush But the underground pods keep crashing into tunnel walls and blocking the tunnel for a long time! Maybe we should make the pods roll on rails so they don't get stuck so much... And since the pods don't need to be steered anymore, why don't we couple them together so we don't have to pay so many drivers?
And make the pods bigger,
And link them together,
And put them on some kind of tracks.
Nobel prize 🏆
@@naviinprabhu2468 I like your train of thought...
I just need just one more lane bro last one I promise!
And that’s why Geneva keeps on removing lanes and parking from the city. People hate it and complain more but there are more people who use bikes buses and trams and the public transportation offers grow. And even if it’s annoying it works….until there’s a public transportation strike.😅
Yeah is the same in Stockholm people complain saying stuff like: "Ah it's impossible to drive around with your car, there's always traffic jams and there is nowhere you can find an empty parking spot." and I'm like yeah that's the point! Luckily the left won here at least and there will be more investments in public transport now hopefully and car-free zones.
Yeah but still, their bike infrastructure is far from ideal and it is still pretty car centric.
@@imperialpatriot6693 Lincoln must be spinning in his grave for Republicans using his name to create car dependency.
@@imperialpatriot6693 the far right won in sweden 😢
Or a global pandemic, or energy shortages.....
And there is pretty much guaranteed to be lane closures due to an accident(s) somewhere on the giant highway, at any given time.
There is often a rail closure due to accident or breakdown on UK trains, so its not just car travel thats not reliable.
@@unatrek2821 Do not even attempt to compare those two things. A handful of regularly inspected trains travelling in single file is nowhere near the propensity for chaos as countless THOUSANDS of individual zombies barely paying attention, cutting each other off, speeding, driving vehicles in conditions that may or may not be safe for the road.
@@michaelhaydenbell ... We already overreact to terrorists killing 200 in a plane. So yeah terrorist killing 200 on a train will cause train security and halfhour boarding checks to be normal.... No way a terrorist can bomb enough carrs to make us require such a security step for cars. Even bridges are sooooooo strong a truck bomb can't even dent them without huge effort, that bombing of the Crimea bridge knocked some of road deck down but the pillars stayed up and fixed in month. . . Im not saying its logical, but when terrorists switch to target trains say goodbye to not having a half-hour security check... Just ignoring this likelihood is not logical. . . . Trains are easy to derail, farmers in poor countries do it often, so far the West hasn't had to deal with this and when it does they're probably overract... "List of terrorist incidents involving railway systems - Wikipedia"
You just have to convince local councils of this.
Honestly though this could be a great video to show local councils to concisely make an argument against more lanes
This video is a better argument against trains/bike paths
@@commentor3485 How so?
@@RegularEarthlingEngineer His argument in this video of induced demand shows well. But he paints public transportation/biking as something people do not want to use. If I was on the fence about building a passenger train, I would see this as proof that if I built the train vs the freeway. The freeway would be used more. As in this clip when they widened the road, the train lost riders/ and the bike trail lost bikers. He should have either presented induced demand without the train, or shown how the train took passengers off the road.
@@commentor3485 You have a very low opinion on the intelligence of Council persons.
Oil and car companies: I don't see anything wrong with this
Essentially, to make enough road for everyone would require having a city of just road.
False, the cities are already just road and they still aren't large enough.
That freeway is such a monstrosity
Fast, easy and understandable. Keep it up
Dude, dude, trust me bro. BRO, just one more lane. Please bro, just one more lane, it'll fix it this time. Please just let me add one more
This works when trains and bikes are not popular in the first place...
Well, in Warsaw we have both jammed roads and packed trains every morning.
Just one more train
dunno what its like in warsaw but more trams, buses, bike lanes, no highways in the city center, and workplaces spread more evenly around the metropolitan area, rather than concentrated in the city center
In California, Santa Clara County stopped widening its highways because all of that money is sunk into extending one train 6 miles/10 km (2 train lines, costs $6-9B) and electrifying another going to San Francisco. Not to mention the high speed rail segment within the county that just passed environmental review as well as the expansion of the central train station.
Finally! An American county with planners who actually know what they're doing.
@@InventorZahran ...for the most part. Except 80% of the county is zoned for single-family homes. Though to be fair, Transit-Oriented Development and Urban Villages are in the works at the same time.
@@InventorZahran And some highway projects to add managed lanes planned actually convert regular lanes into Toll or HOV lanes rather than adding one more lane.
I mean it's super obvious. The second a method of transportation stops being inconvenient, people flock to it, which makes it inconvenient yet again.
In Soviet Russia everyone gets one lane and one rail.
In Capitalist America everyone gets a lane! (Terms and conditions apply, your next exit will be 700 feet to the left, have fun switching lanes, don't drive safely, the responsibility is not yours.)
I’m pretty sure people would gladly take a train or tram if it was on schedule 95% of the time like Japan, was quick like in China or essentially free like in India. Adding more lanes only adds to traffic because our public transportation system is essentially worthless, with it being just barely less inconvenient than walking everywhere
never understood why car lovers hate public transit. wouldn't you want more public transit so that less people drive so that you can have a better time actually driving instead of waiting in a traffic jam...
The is also another effect where developers will build more suburbs along non-congested highways, thereby increasing congestion on this highway until it is too much to build another suburb there.
Instead of adding lines they could just fix puplic transportation. I know many people who would abandone their car if trains/buses would drive properly.
For everyone who’s confused why this means trains are the solution:
The problem is over saturation. It’s the same reason everyone was told as children to get engineering degrees and now it’s hard to find engineering jobs. Sure, cars are convenient if you’re the only person on the road. But then everyone and their grandmother has the same “brilliant” idea at the same time, and now the road is backed up and it takes 2 hours to get somewhere the train would have gotten you to in 30 minutes. And after repeating this process for a while you finally give up hope that the roads will ever be clear, so you try to go back to the train, but because nobody was using the train, it got defunded and now only arrives every other hour, so now you’re stuck with no good options. And remember, you can add as many lanes as you want, but there are only so many exits, and things get backed up fast when everyone is practically forced to use the roads and people are constantly slowing down trying to find openings to cross 8 lanes of traffic.
It doesn’t matter if you have the freedom to leave whenever you want, if you arrive way later than you would have if you had waited for the train.
Even though I am a right-winger, I will always support this channel because of its rhetoric supporting trains. I am visually impaired, and thus I may never be able to drive in the future. If my city does not adopt a better public transit system, I may be completely screwed in the years to come.
I ama right winger too and I will support his transit and walkability rhetoric because I prefer to exercise instead of driving.
I agree in principal .. except .. where I am we have neither rail lines nor bike ianes, and bus lines take a 15 minute drive into a 2 hour / multi transfer mess due to balkanized bus service.
so they add more lanes
The only place where adding another lane genuinely helps is when there is one section of highway that is abnormally narrow compared to the rest. Widening this section to match the other parts would remove the need for merging/unmerging lanes at the bottleneck points, which are major sources of traffic jams.
It might not even be terrible, because eventually you'd have enough lanes.
EXCEPT:
Those lanes have to depart from the highway at some point. And since you don't have 8, 10, 12 lanes into the city center, it's gonna jam there. Which will of course lead to jams down the road, potentially up the off-ramp, and now we're standing on the freeway.
US has shown you can build enough roads, 90% drive to work. . . Roads cost govt $1000 per user, transit is $5000. Roads are best, faster, allow free choices not hoping the govt and union likes you. Its amazing how people skip facts and numbers, and just go with gut feeling that transit is good. Remember Covid when it removed half the traffic and there was zero congestion, we could have that if we spent $2000 a year on roads but we choose not to since we want that $1000 and don't mind rush hour being congested 4 hours a day.... In Dallas, Texas, there is almost no congestion except morons trying to drive downtown, other 99% of the region is perfect driving at wonderful 80mph, vs walking to and riding a 20mph train to place I don't want to go to. Transit sucks, it just does, its amazing the illogic to deny this, by fat nerds in big houses who in every other way are awful consumeristic aholes too, like us all in the West. To not be live in a cottage next to workplace, nothing else will do, but nerds buy huge houses too,
Love it!
Only thing I'd add is something like
~"the same is true for PT/active mobility, only they are effective enough that we actually can build enough of that kind of infra for everyone, provided we also stop building sprawl"
Another important aspect of more lanes are the inefficient motorway on-ramps and exits: For about 500m before an exit and the first 500m after an on-ramp people use to drive in the right lane. If the average commute is 10km on the motorway, you spend 10% of your trip in the right lane. And humans are bad at lane switches in particular in dense traffic. So for (sub-)urban traffic going from 2 to 4 lanes may almost double the capacity, going from 4 to 8 lanes does not. And going from 8 lanes to e.g. 10 lanes makes hardly any difference at all, because the additional capacity is consumed by the inefficiency of 2*10 lane switches.
On long-haul distance it may make a difference if everybody would pretty much stay in his lane for 100km+. But over the the back country you rarely see motorways with 4+ lanes anyway.
Its absolutely hilarious how the trains and bike paths barely lose capacity when people use them
it doesnt just steal commuters, it steals money because roads are expensive to maintain, which easily takes from other transportation budgets, so its a double loss
Also more suburban sprawl causes jams, because they arent serviced by bus or train...or bicycle lanes.
Yes and off ramps to your destination.
Off ramps to places where everyone needs to go are the reason why even highways with less traffic will eventually lead to traffic jams.
I see this every workday. Literally.
just delete the road and 4-track the train line, more train service, make the bike path a little wider too
So what you're saying is we just need to add so many lanes, that there will be enough space even if everyone decides to drive alone in their car. Got it.
Staggered working schedules would also help a lot. So either ruin nature or ruin social interaction, those are the only options. Trains? Never heard of em.
I live in Southern California next to Interstate 5, it's always jammed with cars and they are adding more lanes. They did the same in the past. It fixes nothing.
Decided on becoming a civil infrastructure engineer. I feel like I found somthing I like because of you. Just wanted to say thankyou.
It wasn't just him but I wanted to do engineering to begin with just didn't know what branch but after much research I found this aligns with what I enjoy and understand best.
Increasing train frequency also induces demand. But an at-capacity train simply becomes packed without jamming, unlike an at-capacity highway.
And you can pack a lot of people in a train. Just ask Tokyo-nites.
I wish we have a train going every 15 min instead of 1 hour.
:(
too infrequent, every 5 mins
Adding more lanes can ease traffic congestion in certain situations. If traffic flow is impeded by on-ramps for example, adding an additional line will minimize the impact said on-ramp has on the traffic that is already on the highway.
"You know what *would* fix traffic?"
*"T R A I N S"*
They cut down century old trees and eminent domain'd peoples properties in my country for more lanes.
And to everyone's surprise, roads are still clogged.
"Suburb"
Well, there's your problem.
In Germany, freeways / highways have either two or three lanes for each direction almost everywhere (except near crossings, where extra lanes might be needed for the diverting directions).
This is also why we should also focus on improving existing transit service. Japanese Shinkansen is able to do it despite having tough competition from air travel and highway. If your transit is actually faster than driving, very little people would choose driving even if you choose to widen the highway.
Intercity train in America really is a complete pain to use, even before the Amtrack days. They are slow, sharing track with freight trains and frankly, sometimes unsafe (Amercia didn't have mandatory ATC installation until 2018, and there have been a lot of train accidents before). Biking is impractical for the distance between Suburbs and downtown, plus the security in downtown doesn't give people enough confidence that their bike won't be stolen.
Toronto is probably the only city in North America realizing this, that people flock to the highway isn't just because there are more space, but because the existing service sucks. Which is why it is electrifying its regional rail, and building new subway to serve as relief line.
Always remember:
There's a difference between one person making a decision, and a thousand people making one decision.
So why dose this happen in places that don't have public transit? I think the real problem is the fact that all roads are made to meet the big roads, and also entrance and exits are limited, so people can't change there mind after joining the road.
Exactly. The real problem is bottlenecks. Adam Something is a hack
Short and sweet, perfectly sums up induced demand and the Downs-Thomson Paradox. And we don't build a bike lane or don't improve public transport, using low usage as a justification, an analogy I've heard which I love is that it's like having a city on either bank of a crocodile infested river and saying there's no need to join the 2 sides with a bridge because no one is swimming across
As someone living in Houston's metro area, I have mixed feelings about the Katy Freeway being held up as the crowning example of "JuSt OnE mOrE lAnE bRo". On the one hand, I like the impact it has when I'm discussing urbanism with the people who live in my area, since everyone I know is personally familiar with how awful that road is. On the other hand, I'm ashamed that my home is essentially the carbrain capital of the world.
Something else to keep in mind is that roads don't have to be overcrowded for traffic to come to a standstill. A slow vehicle, busy exit lane, or crash in so much as one lane in an 8 lane road can slow everything down as people have to merge to get in/out of lanes.
If those people would just increase their following distance and allow people to merge, it wouldn't be so bad.
@@randgrithr7387 that is never going to happen.
30 lanes and we solved traffic
And now we also have a giant sauna to go with it lol
Adding lanes _can_ help in certain situations, though. The best way to manage this issue is to reduce or even eliminate fares for mass transit, and making mass transit more cost-effective than driving a vehicle.
I only drive a vehicle because after doing the math, I realize that it would only cost twice as much to drive a car, and I can get to where I want to go and back in a sixth of the time, and time can be far more motivating than cost in a lot of cases for people.
In my example, I live in a medium sized city, where traffic isn't too bad most of the time. But when I lived in Toronto, I barely drove my car at all, and relied on the subway for a vast majority of my Transportation needs, because it was vastly superior to driving a car.
Ironically, the only part of Toronto I didn't have much trouble with traffic with was the 401 - a highway with stretches of between 12-18 lanes through the GTA. Sure, there was traffic jams, but that was more due to accidents or construction.
"reduce fares. build better trains...". my brother in christ, the people in power are literally doing all they can to prevent that from happening. they're not the causes but rather the result of car-centric policies.
Now do the same thing but instead add 3D-lanes underground with RGB lights end EVs. The results will be completely opposite because of how si-fi it sounds.
The picture of the freeway is a total infrastructure mess. How can anyone come up with this and think that it is a superb solution?
Hey Adam! Here's a serious request. Please also make a YT short explaining why cars are the worst form of transportation 🙏🏻
Cars are the best form of travel, timewise, on all bust 5 mile region around a metro. Unless you don't like seeing your family or working an extra hour the choice of transit is the worst choice over a car. I have taken many a bus and train and MInnesota, this is just a fact. Cars are the best. , , , ,
@@unatrek2821 sure you can go anywhere you want anytime you want, but they are also hideously expensive horrible for the environment Usually badly built more than cars usually have some in app purchases (look at Tesla. They are literally selling features that are already built into the car) and again they’re expensive as fuck. The typical British citizen players around £330. PER MONTH that is a lot of money well public transportation usually it’s just to bucks
@@Staniele ... Your facts are bit off.
Cars arent hideously expensive, every worker in US from CEO to secretary can afford 1, and I use to buy running cars at Goodwill car auction for $1000. You can buy new car for $150000 in US that lasts 10 years, so $1500 a year plus $1500 petrol plus $1500 maintenance and insurance, so $4500, and not fair to add govt taxes which are really just for revenue since roads are darn cheap to maintain (see below). Also if saves 1 hour vs transit at $30wage this is 250daysX$30 so $7500 extra income, let alone benefit from being able to rush kids to hospital, school, road trip. This is why people unless their govt refuses to build enough roads chooses cars, US, Canada, even France outside Paris..... Its this simple.
COMPARE TO TRANSIT, counting tax subsidy the average trip costs about $10, so 250X$10X2bothways so $5000. This $5000 is just a bit less than probable car cost of $8000. In US we spend $200billion on roads, that per 200m workers needing transport is $1000, this is FAR FAR FAR less a tax burden then transit is, at $10 per rider per trip.
POLLUTION... Cars especially once we go EV are not SUPER worse than buses and trains, which often run 75% empty and require more concrete and steel. I admit pollution is the #1 strong case against cars, but do you have any specifics how much cars add to pollution vs transit (1ton? 2 tons co2, out of 15ton average??)...... And, if we drive and can work and earn more can't we just use that extra wages to buy more solar and wind and offset the EV car pollution????
It's the other way around. Cars are perfect, that's why more people use the highway whenever a new lane is added.
@@unatrek2821 Even with climate stuff one thing I could add is the heating effect of roads. More roads = hotter cities and add that with global warming it basically becomes a sauna outside and if people add air conditioning inside you make the city much hotter as well(seen in HK)
Also more lanes encourage developers to build more suburban sprawl further out adding more drivers to fill and congest the added lanes.
Induced demand is not a very compelling argument to carbrains. They LIKE the idea that nobody is "forced" to use public transport. Instead, we should focus on how more lanes means more lane changes, which slows traffic, and add more complexity to intersections, which slows traffic and light cycles, decreasing efficiency of travel for everyone.
You can make cities either car-friendly or walkable; the problem is that most cities in the US are NEITHER. Phoenix gets pretty close to being car-friendly, because going outside without a car is utterly unbearable for three months out of the year. The only place where it is hard to find parking is Costco.
I mean, people could just increase the capacity of train and cycle infrastructure, but I'm guessing it's not as immediately profitable, by which I mean profitable.
how profitable are highways?
I’m from Katy and was alive when they were constructing this monstrosity. It’s a headache and a nightmare and now my home town is jam packed with people and stores to the point it is almost difficult to function without becoming furious over the constant traffic on every single street be it the freeway or back roads. It ruined Katy IMO and turned it into just an extension of busy ass Houston.
** please don’t blow me up about how it’s really some other urban planning’s fault that the city turned out to be the way it is. In my mind it’s because of the freeways thank you and good day, sir.
YOOO SHORT FORM ADAM SOMETHING?!??!😵😵😵
So, although traffic isn't solved it did improve the commuting time or comfort of the cyclists and public transit users. Because that's why the now decide to take the car. If traffic would actually be worse (in that commuting time by car became longer compared to before the adding of extra lanes), those cyclist would still be cycling.
Another thing that is not explained in the video is that some people might move further away from work as traffic improved, but doing that increased the total kilometers travelled on the road. Again, it doesn't solve traffic, but it enabled those people to find a better place to live.
Creating more capacity might not solve traffic, but it does allow people to make different choices (and if someone chooses different that's because the new choice is better for them) and those improved choices come at the cost of traffic congestion.
Don't add lanes to solve traffic, add lanes to improve the choices people have and thereby improve their lives.
Hey Adam, I got this crazy idea on how to fix traffic problems! What if we made like, cars but they're being pulled by one car so only one car needs an engine. Then we could fit much more people in each car. We could even make it go on rails or something.
That goes to show that people rather travel by car.
I do believe we should make a system where driving cars and public transportation coexist.
I live in New Jersey and believe it or not traffic isn't that bad. You just have to know your way around. I have to travel about 15 miles to work but there's four different ways I can easily check Google Maps to see which way is in congested.
If I had to take public transportation to work I would be fired, because there isn't enough hours in a day to get to my job by bus, train and walking, do a 12 hour shift, and get back home by bus, train and walking.
I remember when the KATY was just four lanes each way, back in 1977 ,I don’t even recognize this monster,
So what you're saying is people use what is available, so theoretically, [and probably in practice, looking at some places in europe], if we made more cyclist/pedestrian friendly options available, more people would use them, and less would use cars.
I swear, pls just give my city a train line.
Not to mention that traffic moves as fast as the weakest link in its trajectory. More lanes doesn't fix that.
I've been wondering if you were gonna try to make some shorts. Very cool and easy to understand clip here. Keep up the good work!
So many unaccounted variables and over simplified explanation. If the lanes get wider that gets people off their bicycles or trains and into their car?
Ok.
And you can also play it the other way around: Better transit -> less cars, Better bicycle infrastructures -> less cars etc. Except, trains accomodate 10-40 times more people and bycicle lanes around 7 times more.
So, 1 trainline could COMPLETELY REPLACE a 10 lanes street. ONE!
But well, people would need their brains to plan... pitty...
So if adding more lanes just shifts people to use cars, the inverse must be true as well: Get rid of lanes and more people will use bikes and public transport. Isn't that what a lot of cities want?
Most people are not "cyclists" or "carpeople". They are just people that need to get from A to B - and they will choose the method the method based on things like how convinient it is, cost etc.
So if you make driving driving more convinient for them - more people drive. If you make driving less convinient more people use other methods.
But also, if a road is jammed, you could consider improving public transport (more convinient busses and trains), and maybe look at the cost. And more people would take public transport - and this reducing the jam on the road.
Yes, it is mostly true. But having fewer lanes doesn't make bikes safer or reduce the minimum travel time of bikes. We need good city planning for that
@@puppieslovies Having fewer lanes means less people will use a car. In addition to that, the now available space of those former lanes can now be used to build safe bike lanes.
You did not even take into account that whatever the number of lanes, the system is as bad as the weakest point, and usually the weakest points are the intersection in the cities (and especially dumb red lights). There, this is we’re cars will be stuck. The additional lanes will only serve as a buffer for more cars to get in line before getting stuck for the same amount of time as before the new lanes at the next intersection
just fly across the city like super man
not to mention there is always going to be a bottle neck; spreading 800 cars across 10 lanes is no more efficient than spreading 800 cars across 2 lanes, if the lanes all eventually converge into 2, at ANY point on the road.
So basically if you want people to use other means of transport you have to nerf cars because there are so overpowered that people will always switch to them and never stick to other means.
No, this works both ways. If you make trains more convenient than cars then people will take trains. Imagine you could take a car and get there in 50 minutes, or you could take a train and get there in 35 minutes. Which would you choose? Most people would leave their car at home and take the train. Maybe take a nap on the way.
Likewise, around here lots of people have a supermarket within walking distance (let's say up to 500 steps), so most take their bike (because it is faster). You could take your car, but since there is limited parking that is going to take at least as long to get inside and you don't get to enjoy the sun, the sound of the wind in the trees, the birds singing, and the sight of your neighbour chasing her escaped puppy again. Also, you run into an old hockey club friend from long ago on the bike path, you have a conversation and agree to meet up for drinks. They introduce you to their colleague, you hit it off, get married, have kids, and live happily ever after. Alternatively, you can choose road rage.
what would fix the problem is having a train that actually goes where you need it too. and people driving into the city for work.
everyone crams into one building instead 10 satellite offices.
Y'all got anymore of them lanes?
Of course people should have more options in transit to cut down on motor vehicle traffic. But people still need to travel on their own terms, and having train schedules that aren't frequent enough put people in a bind. Personal vehicles like cars will never go away, but at least we can provide more options and make traveling safe for everyone, including those on bikes. I just get this feeling that people want cars to cease to exist. If that's the case, they're pursuing a fool's errand.
If you watch his videos he doesn't want cars to disappear just to be highly discouraged (adding 1 way roads in urban areas and reducing parking spots but having large parking area on the outskirts of the city which has train / bus connection all over the city)
i mean its not like people use cars cause they like it.
@@followengland_ballsonig2938 yeah you would be able to go leave the city and drive for fun between cities or on tracks ect
Adam Something has an very curious premise, that literally everyone who is biking or taking the subway will choose to drive until the exact, precise point where driving becomes as congested and slow as it was before. It won’t be that some of them quit when it’s half as bad as before, or one quarter as bad, or three quarters as bad. No, there is infinite demand for driving at the exact, precise level of congestion/speed we had before, and not one second slower or faster.
I pretty much make sure my coworkers know this since I take public transportation in Los Angeles. Takes me 2 hours to get home from work since they mostly use bus and could really use more robust rail transportation.
Having a car and using it to move your entire family is 100% logical and it's not that bad for the planet, using the metro is also a logical thing to do if you live alone. The problem comes when the transportation becomes so expensive that for the people it's more logical to buy a car/ use the taxi.
Simple, make one long car that anyone can board for a fee and also does the same route lots of times
Aha, but by the time we build the 28th lane there will be no one left NOT driving and we can expand the road by one more lane by abolishing the bike lane.
You missed the part where oil companies bought out all the passenger rail and forced them to close to make room for more car lanes