SF has third worst traffic, city govt to make sure it stays that way...

[dead0man]

...to protect their dangerous, slow, highly inefficient and dirty bus lines

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MasterJedi]

I see you've fallen victim to the fallacy that road expansion will alleviate traffic. You need more public transit (trains, buses) to get people out of their cars, it's the only way it'll go down. You increase lanes/capacity more people will just use it, no change.

[Holmes]

I see you've fallen victim to the fallacy that road expansion will alleviate traffic. You need more public transit (trains, buses) to get people out of their cars, it's the only way it'll go down. You increase lanes/capacity more people will just use it, no change.

Can we not do both? There's two freeways near me thst are always completely horrible. One is a two lane and the other is one lane. An expansion would easily alleviate some congestion.

[MasterJedi]

I see you've fallen victim to the fallacy that road expansion will alleviate traffic. You need more public transit (trains, buses) to get people out of their cars, it's the only way it'll go down. You increase lanes/capacity more people will just use it, no change.

Can we not do both? There's two freeways near me thst are always completely horrible. One is a two lane and the other is one lane. An expansion would easily alleviate some congestion.

Freeway expansion has never caused traffic alleviation. It will be just as bad with more people.

[Tintrlvr]

I see you've fallen victim to the fallacy that road expansion will alleviate traffic. You need more public transit (trains, buses) to get people out of their cars, it's the only way it'll go down. You increase lanes/capacity more people will just use it, no change.

Much as I agree with this sentiment as a general matter (traffic expands to fill all available space), the issue at hand here seems to be that the city government is trying to legislate private buses out of existence on a "fairness" basis (private routes banned from duplicating public ones because the public bus users feel slighted when that happens). That's just stupid anti-transit populist policy.

[KingSweden]

I see you've fallen victim to the fallacy that road expansion will alleviate traffic. You need more public transit (trains, buses) to get people out of their cars, it's the only way it'll go down. You increase lanes/capacity more people will just use it, no change.

Much as I agree with this sentiment as a general matter (traffic expands to fill all available space), the issue at hand here seems to be that the city government is trying to legislate private buses out of existence on a "fairness" basis (private routes banned from duplicating public ones because the public bus users feel slighted when that happens). That's just stupid anti-transit populist policy.

Exactly.

[dead0man]

I see you've fallen victim to the fallacy that road expansion will alleviate traffic. You need more public transit (trains, buses) to get people out of their cars, it's the only way it'll go down. You increase lanes/capacity more people will just use it, no change.

that was an odd conclusion to jump to.  wait wait wait......are you a robot?

[Santander]

Nothing wrong with this. The private sector should never be in competition with the government. They can run the routes after hours if they'd like.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I see you've fallen victim to the fallacy that road expansion will alleviate traffic. You need more public transit (trains, buses) to get people out of their cars, it's the only way it'll go down. You increase lanes/capacity more people will just use it, no change.

Much as I agree with this sentiment as a general matter (traffic expands to fill all available space), the issue at hand here seems to be that the city government is trying to legislate private buses out of existence on a "fairness" basis (private routes banned from duplicating public ones because the public bus users feel slighted when that happens). That's just stupid anti-transit populist policy.

I doubt its populist so much as they want to protect the revenue from passengers.

[pbrower2a]

I have seen traffic on Interstate 69 between Muncie, Indiana and Lansing Michigan go from lightly-traveled in the 1960s to almost as heavily-traveled as Interstate 94, although mostly built in the 1960s and early 1970s. (Indiana is adding lanes to I-69 between Muncie and Indianapolis, as Muncie is on the fringe of commuting distance to Indianapolis... the well-paying jobs for people in Muncie are in Indianapolis).

That's mostly rural driving.