one_more_lane.copypasta

In the end the city will have to bulldoze the houses and offices that make up to the city to make room for more roads and cars, increasing costs and destroying their own tax revenue in the process, or realize less cars are the answer.

Long story: short the city will eventually have to decide whether to put one last parking space or one last lane.

Man, I'm flashing back to my visit to Detroit and the massive 'boulevard' that cuts the city in two. The car I was riding in had to get on to what was basically a highway, change lanes a half dozen times, and exit via ramp in order to get from one neighborhood to another. (In the span of a quarter mile).

It was eerie, but doable, because there weren't many other cars on the road. I can only imagine how difficult it would have been when there was actually traffic.

Roads can be walls as well as nooses.

It probably just attempts to indicate it's the same 3 cars again, likely pointing out the fact that there are legitimate reasons to drive, those people are just fucked by everyone else and brain-dead traffic planning.

It looks like the green cars have passengers, while the red cars have single occupants.

Nevermind, some of the red cars have passengers, too. I guess the green cars survive to the final graphic… why that’s relevant, I don’t really understand.

I think it’s more for design language, you’re subconsciously drawn to the green vehicles because they’re different, and subconsciously when you’re looking at the traffic, you’re reminded what it’s like being in the traffic yourself.

So you imagine yourself as the green car.

1st scenario: traffic is really bad. 2nd scenario: they’ve added more lanes, but you, the green car, are still stuck. 3rd scenario: public transportation has alleviated the traffic and it’s better for all.

Notice in the 3rd scenario, all the transportation is green. I think it’s to make you think, “I can ride my bike to work” or “I can take the bus” or “I can still drive my car if where I live requires me to” depending on your own situation. It’s to show all options can be viable, if you support public transportation.

That’s how I see it at least.

I was thinking it's electric?

I assumed that Green = Moving. The pedestrians in the city are green, as are the busses and bikes in the bottom diagram. The greens in the top two are there to show just how few vehicles can actually move at any given time.

Denmark checking in. A lot of our highways have separate parallel bicycle highways. It's really great! They have exits in the same spots as cars do and have big sound barriers.x

anywhere that you might say "we shouldn't have a bike lane here, it's too dangerous for cyclists" is a place where there should be a bike lane.

If you only have a hammer ...

Well it’s a good thing no one is proposing that! Seriously, where do you people come from?

You're looking at what is obviously a conceptual diagram and acting as if it's some kind of literal blueprint. IMO it's something closer to a Sankey diagram showing the overall flow and moda share of traffic into the city than a plan sketch of an individual road. I don't think it's even reasonable to conclude that it's actually suggesting using the same alignment for cars, bikes, and pedestrians at all, let alone strawmanning it as "a bike lane on a highway."

Frankly, I'm found it to be a tough call deciding whether you genuinely didn't understand that or if you were commenting in bad faith (which violates rule 1), and the only thing that made me give you the benefit of the doubt was your later comment talking about the cement barrier (i.e. a somewhat constructive comment about how to make it better) instead of continuing to flatly reject it.