I’m struggling with this average vs potential. If I stand on a 3.5m wide sidewalk on average I’m going to see 15,000 people pass me by? And there is no room for potential improvement as the sidewalks are completely full on average? And how are we figuring cars can potentially be improved by 33%? Are all cars 3/4ths full already?
I’m very pro public transit, I’m just unclear what is being shown in this chart.
They’re showing capacity, i.e., a 3.5m sidewalk can move about 15k people per direction per hour. I’m guessing there’s leeway for cars depending on intersection types/design, speed, etc., whereas there is much less variation in average speed for pedestrians.
Unfortunately, I’m immunocompromised, so most of these options are too high risk.
Biking isn’t a “too high risk”. Nor is walking.
Gonna use some of that suburban rail to travel dooway-to-doorway. Oh wait. No, you can’t. It is almost as if having options for different needs is important. Instead let’s use overly simplistic explanations for a rather complicated problem.
You can walk and bike. (Or get disability compatible versions for those, aka wheelchairs and wheelchairbikes). Commuter sharing systems also exist between stops.
Or are you weak?
Efficiency is not the objective. In fact, were all energy and materials used in making and powering cars from relatively renewable sources, it wouldn’t be a problem. I am aware they’re not. All else being equal, efficiency is a worthwhile goal. But the tradeoff for inefficiency here is the freedom to go where you want when you want.
There are places here in Europe, contrary to what some people in this community might claim, that simply cannot be accessed by train. Smaller villages and the like.
Access to a car is useful. Ownership might not be unless you live there. But cars have their place.
But cars have their place.
True. However with all the downsides of cars, they should be only the fallback if most other options don’t work. As it is, in many places, they are the highest priority that everything is planned around.
Mods are an incredibly inefficient way to moderate people.
Really the only justification for a car is when you have kids. I have 3 of them, and a car is super super useful. But yeah, for everyone else, use public transport.
In a better set up society, public transport is perfect for kids, it teaches them how to plan and how to use public transport, it also gives you all the time to focus on them while travelling instead of being split between the road and the kids.
Sadly not a NL wide thing, but Amsterdam has free public transport for (accompanied) kids in the summer this year, and (accompanied) kids under 12 travel for free on all trains in NL (and have a 34% discount on other modes of transport).
Not even then. Transport bikes exist and they can easily transport kids on front and back.
Some can carry three plus groceries as well.
That sounds nice in theory, but if your public transportation sucks you’re still going to have a car.
Where I live, most places around me that are too far to walk (over 30 mins) but that take 5 minutes by car have terrible public transport. For example, the mall closest to where I live is 45 minutes by foot, 5 minutes by car, and around 30 to 40 minutes on bus (assuming no wait time at all). The reason is that it doesn’t go straight to the mall, it goes into many streets on its route and the mall is its last stop.
Similarly, it takes 10 minutes by car to get to the closest train station but about an hour to do it by bus.
That’s why I don’t think you can simply use a “no kids? no car” logic as a universal one. Rather, the logic would be “use your car as an alternative to public transport”. Which means, try to use public transport as primary means, but use the car instead if it’s not viable or the difference would be big.
I believe you but to me that just means where you live sucks.
I’m lucky enough I can choose to only live places with good transit options. Sometimes I forget not everyone has that option and when people are like “but the nearest thing is a 45 minute walk” I’m like “so fucking move!” But of course it’s not that simple.
But I really would rather people considered the lack of transit options a higher priority. If you lived somewhere without running water you’d probably not put up with it.
The mall is part of the problem. Concentrating all groceries into one place instead of having mixed urban development.
Ground floor for groceries, upper floors for housing. That’s often done in shopping areas, and it helps a lot. It also helps having small shops spread out evenly.
Another part of the problem is car-brained development. An easy dirty fix would be making most streets bike and pedestrian-only, and making the ‘big’ streets be bus/tram lanes, financed by the municipality/county/state, ie. for and by the people.
![[image] Cars are an incredibly inefficient way to move people](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a55ce0e0-9740-4207-9d5f-64bc68231a3d.jpeg){kind=link}