More lanes → more people driving + more people taking that specific route → problem gets worse.
Usually a better approach is to invest on mass transport; for example even if a bus takes the space of three cars (I’m guessing), it’s able to comfortably transport at least 20 people.
Sadly, any sort of mass transportation system is also prone to the same sort of vicious cycle; for example, if queue time for buses is too long, people will avoid taking them unless strictly necessary, so their usage is lower, so the companies put even less buses on those lines, so queue times increase even more. It’s basically what happened in my city (Curitiba), that used to have a fairly decent mass transport system.
I’ve heard the rule of thumb is that mass transit will basically always take about as long as driving there: because people will choose one or the other based on time.
So if you want your mass transit to improve it’s always worth it to do it at the expense of drivers: they’ll become your riders.
I’ve heard the rule of thumb is that mass transit will basically always take about as long as driving there
From personal experience this is true with some caveats - it doesn’t take into account waiting times, or that mass transport will never stop exactly where you want it to, or that sometimes you need take multiple ones to reach your destination. All those things add time that potential passengers take into account before deciding “I’ll take the bus” vs. “I’ll drive” or “I’ll take a uber”.
So if you want your mass transit to improve it’s always worth it to do it at the expense of drivers: they’ll become your riders.
Yup - and that’s what a mayor here did in the 90s, to encourage the usage of the bus system. For example certain central avenues got bus-exclusive lanes, and car transit in the leftover lines actually decreased because of that.
Same in my city, although mass transit was already terrible to begin with. Now, buses are often late or don’t arrive at all. Bus stops still have no shade which is miserable in this heat.
More lanes → more people driving + more people taking that specific route → problem gets worse.
Usually a better approach is to invest on mass transport; for example even if a bus takes the space of three cars (I’m guessing), it’s able to comfortably transport at least 20 people.
Sadly, any sort of mass transportation system is also prone to the same sort of vicious cycle; for example, if queue time for buses is too long, people will avoid taking them unless strictly necessary, so their usage is lower, so the companies put even less buses on those lines, so queue times increase even more. It’s basically what happened in my city (Curitiba), that used to have a fairly decent mass transport system.
I’ve heard the rule of thumb is that mass transit will basically always take about as long as driving there: because people will choose one or the other based on time.
So if you want your mass transit to improve it’s always worth it to do it at the expense of drivers: they’ll become your riders.
From personal experience this is true with some caveats - it doesn’t take into account waiting times, or that mass transport will never stop exactly where you want it to, or that sometimes you need take multiple ones to reach your destination. All those things add time that potential passengers take into account before deciding “I’ll take the bus” vs. “I’ll drive” or “I’ll take a uber”.
Yup - and that’s what a mayor here did in the 90s, to encourage the usage of the bus system. For example certain central avenues got bus-exclusive lanes, and car transit in the leftover lines actually decreased because of that.
Same in my city, although mass transit was already terrible to begin with. Now, buses are often late or don’t arrive at all. Bus stops still have no shade which is miserable in this heat.