How long it takes 200 people to reach the front of the line with 5 modes of transport
How long it takes 200 people to reach the front of the line with 5 modes of transport
Attached: 1 video :AngeryCat: :KEKW: #traffic #meme #UrbanPlanning #trains #trams #PublicTransportation #transportation #WarOnCars #InducedDemand #TrafficJam #buslanes
Video shared from a Mastodon user.
This would solve so many problems.
But it would make Batman a lot less effective.
The resulting pandemics probably would solve earth's problems but not necessarily humanity's.
I get the idea, but comparing straight lines is not at all a representative visual.
As a Londoner, on my 10 mile commute on a bike I easily beat the underground; and that includes the shower. During peak times I also beat cars. But when it comes to any other time - cars are just faster.
I'm also not going to cycle 60 miles to my favourite sea town. Nobody's laying tracks all over the place to actually make cars obsolete - that would be an insane waste of space, resources and time. That also frees my up from any worries about whether whatever union will threaten to strike this month trying to protect their drunk/high/incompetent colleague from taking responsibility.
Trains should connect towns, but most of the time when people say that they don't really think about it. What ends up happening is a spiderweb sort of layout, where one can reach the regional centre from all surrounding towns, but going north to north-east requires taking north - regional centre - north-east route. Which is simply obnoxious.
Bike lanes should be separate. Certain mayors should not, during covid, promise to spend 2 billion on cycling infra, then force councils to immediately make it a reality, only to undo it all a few weeks later when it turns out that giving 2 of the 4 lanes of the road to cyclists it just fucking stupid. And then tearing all the separation columns/paint/etc down. 2 bil well spent.
Bikes and cars should not share the same lights. Bike lights should not delay car lights from turning green to create an impression that cyclists are cared after. All that does is make drivers annoyed and create useless delays for everyone. Either cars or bikes should get under/overpasses, depending on the environment.
In general - it's never the mode of transportation.
Driver's licence should be considered a privilege that is only granted to those who can actually attentively, assertively and safely. Notice I haven't said slowly - speed has very little to do with problems on the road. It's always alcohol, drugs, phone or some other stupid thing that ruins it.
I will never support requiring a licence/insurance/bollocks for cyclists, but something has to be done. The amount of obnoxious daydreamers is astounding. I'm not asking you to race to the next lights, Karen; all I'm saying is you should put your phone in your pocket and start paying attention to your surroundings. People have to start giving a damn.
Public transit. It's great, until it isn't. It just so happens, that moving six 60 ton cars (that's mass loaded with people) creates excessive amounts of heat with no easy way to get rid of it. Love me a good sweaty armpit first thing in the morning. Buses. The only somewhat efficient setup I had ever seen was in Westminster. Everywhere else - garbage. They run too infrequently, they're too slow, the routes are barely tolerable - you always have to keep changing the bus. Throw in the dumbass Arriva contract bullshit where it's cheaper for them to cancel the route and hold the bus for half an hour that to be late a few minutes to every stop till end of route and you've got yourself a perfect shitshow.
Taxis are probably a great thing, but something's wrong with their drivers - they're always trying to crash into me. It's annoying while driving, but life-threatening while cycling. I guess this one wounds back at "driving should be a privilege".
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Thanks for replying to my post in earnest.
Nobody's laying tracks all over the place to actually make cars obsolete - that would be an insane waste of space, resources and time.
On the contrary, I'd argue that the car-centric infrastructure we have is a massive waste of space... that was a massive decades-long project costing hundreds of billions in today's money.
Complete privatization of the freight rail industry was a disaster in the UK, US and Canada (and passenger rail for some time in the former case). However long it takes for us all to figure that out is at least how long it will be until we get more usable intercity rail services. Bus service is also getting screwed by increased privitization as your example rightly points out.
Motorways are convenient sometimes but most times are just places to be miserable. The cultural shift and investment so that access to good transit and bike infrastructure isn't just limited to big cities, needs to happen within our lifetimes.
Agree with everything you're saying.
I think current tech just doesn't permit trains to be a viable car replacement - they cannot make turns. There's DLR in London that has a few insane curves, but that ability costs it greatly in terms of top speed. As such it's only viable in very population dense areas.
Which also leads to a common problem when building public infra - some people just won't let go of their home, no matter what. Current laws (in a few countries I keep an eye on, at least) do not enable forced buyouts, and I don't really have a straightforward answer. Part of me says such projects should have the ability for it, but then I'm not sure I'd agree if I myself were in such a position.
There's also a less tangible benefit of a car that I'm subconciously avoiding to mention because I don't know how to fully express myself appropriately - freedom. It's freedom to go anywhere, which could be almost fully be covered by perfect public transit; but it's also freedom from big orgs such as governments and corporations. It is possible to go across the whole Europe on a couple of tanks of an average car and 4-5 tanks if it's something thirstier. That little fuel can be easily stocked up by an individual. If rail gets shut down - you're stuffed. No policy can stop me from moving in a car.
The context of this is russia invading Ukraine and movement restrictions put in place during covid. While I don't argue too much about covid - something had to be done; implementation and enforcement in some countries outright sucked, though - russia is an actual threat that would affect my family if it invaded further west. And if that happened - nothing beats a car in that case. Rail gets shut, roads and borders closed.
I'm probably expanding a bit too much.
Nobody's laying tracks all over the place to actually make cars obsolete - that would be an insane waste of space, resources and time.
Cars may not require tracks, but they require infrastructure. You're not driving anywhere without roads, bridges, and other car infrastructure, unless you are driving a fully off-road vehicle.
During peak times I also beat cars. But when it comes to any other time - cars are just faster.
Okay, now factor in the total cost of individual car ownership + the cost of the infrastructure per capita divide it by the median hourly wage to find out how many extra hours people have to work to pay for car dependency
Next, to the public life expectancy and minus the average age then times that by the total automotive fatalities per year. That gives you an estimate of the time stolen from others to fuel car dependency.
Now find out the travel times of a pedestrian/ bike friendly city like the Netherlands. The first hour of biking each day contributes the medically necessary exercise recommendations so that time should not be factored into the travel time since it is time that a person needs to spend to be healthy in the first place.
Also, try to factor in how much quicker travel times could be if we didn't need to waste so much space supporting car dependency. ....
Hopefully you are starting to see cars are no where as great as they seem. The best argument for owning a car is sadly just to be safe from all the other cars, but even that is wrong because the health benefits far outweigh the risks
I'm sorry but there is no way people walking beat cyclists which kind of pokes holes in this.
It's relative to the amount of space a bicycle takes up including a safe following gap. The pedestrians only have to go 28 metres.
The real issue is that there isn't a real world scenario quite like this. We don't just line people up at a line. Real traffic/transit has a lot more factors around optimization.
For example if the distance to be traveled was 1km, then people walking would be dead last.
It's an interesting simulation, and does help make a point, but it definitely over simplifies.
We absolutely line people up at stops; that’s what traffic is.
As much as the example stretches circumstances, everyone who’s driven is familiar with the number of traffic lights you often go through, and it can get you to think about the amount of interruption when this example is multiplied.
It can even go one further because pedestrians crossing other pedestrians don’t even have to stop to wait for perpendicular movement.
Obviously, pedestrians would handle very long distances worse, but navigation in dense areas is often a paced jog, not a sprint.
Heads-up: you'll want to mute the audio on the video, if you watch the source.
Yeah that's a good point, it's quite loud for headphone users.