Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It’s generally accepted that more lanes does not equal less traffic, and can often lead to the opposite effect due to the effect of induced demand [1]. I personally believe providing multiple alternative transport options is more effective but obviously that’s a matter of opinion...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand



Serious question but is there a reason more isn't invested in public transport? I've only ever lived in the UK before Tokyo but America is rich enough I don't see why they can't do what those places do.


The major reason seems to be a lack of cultural support. Despite everything, people still largely dislike the idea of public transit. I read a very good article that said to generate interest, transit must preemptively provide better service... its a catch 22


Simple: sprawl and ultra low density. Public transport thrives in areas where a single bus stop serves hundreds or more of people, but in rural areas it's cost-prohibitive.


[flagged]


Why can't people cooperate outside of government?


By that logic we shouldn't upgrade internet infrastructure either.


The implicit context of this argument is that space is limited and we can't indefinitely expand roads. We almost certainly can indefinitely lay more fiber.

That said, the logic does apply to wireless spectrum, which is a limited resource. If we allocate enough spectrum that people can replace wired connections, there will definitely be significant and unsustainable demand for even more bands.


With wireless, you can decrease the number of folks served per station to increase effective bandwidth in an area.

And the idea you can’t build lanes to reduce traffic assumes there is always enough demand to fill up those lanes.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: