You must log in or # to comment.
A 175m road scaled in reference to the 35m wide lane:
Quality contribution. I completely overlooked the relative sizes.
deleted by creator
relatives 🥁
Yeah i was thinking that too, no way 175m is that narrow.
Thank you for this, the picture was really bothering me.
Thank you! That really bothered me but I was also too busy (read: lazy) to illustrate it myself.
Okay, but if you look carefully at the top of the inverted pyramid, you’ll notice that there are no homeless people allowed to participate.
Also, the bottom has no less than six trees which is Woke.
The whole thing stinks of socialism.
Like we should, idk, pool our resources to “improve” our lives or something…
Nah, I’d rather burn prehistoric forests in my trukk because I’m so free.
America, fuck yeah
“Now I’m gonna go roll coal just to own the libz”
Removed by mod
That pisses me of too. Especially since cars are even worse than the infographic makes it look like.
A very large blender and a single water truck.
or blended and sent down a tube! then you get reconstituted into a person at the other end of the pipe.
who needs the train.
*reconstitution methods tbd
Isn’t this pretty much how the teleportation tech in Star Trek works?
their version is a bit less moist
Commuter smoke. Don’t breathe this.
deleted by creator
I’m afraid I don’t understand your comment, my good sir. Nothing has ever happened in Tiananmen. Certainly not in 1989.
Very much not proportional this representation.
How about for bicycles?
Just 1 tandem bike with 50,000 seats
And, once again, we re-invent the bus.
Heheh. I know enough compsci to appreciate that from a data structure perspective. Cheers.
that’s gonna suck for the last guy on the route
It’s fine, it’s only 49,999 farts at most
So instead of a quint bike you get a quindecuple bike?
Who’s Barry Badrinath?
deleted by creator
1 meter wide road with one ebike attached to 10 trailer behind.
Forget the electric part, you could develop some killer quads hauling all that.
Some say that cars represent freedom and the ability to go where you want when you want.
But tech oligarchs want to destroy that, too. Basically by having their cars require a connection and monitor your every movement within the car and where you are going and when. They also are obsessed with self-driving cars because they then would have more control over your movements.
In short there will BE no plus side to having a car in the very near future. They are enshittifying everything.
If it wasn’t so dystopian, I’d be for it. Self driving cars that you can book as needed would require less space be devoted to parking and one vehicle could serve as transportation for more people. Combined with easy and accessible public transit and thoughtful pedestrian and cyclist-friendly city design, being less reliant on vehicles sounds like a dream. If you could book the equivalent of an Uber and have it be available within 5 minutes for a reasonable price, why wouldn’t you? In such a scenario, cars would only be for hobbyists. Those who aren’t able to drive (elderly, people with disabilities) would have more equitable access to, well, anything that requires you to physically be somewhere.
Truthfully though, I don’t see a place where capatilism would allow this to happen. Selling everyone their own vehicle, with their own maintenance fees (and now subscription fees), accessories, fuel, etc… is way too lucrative.
i maintain that in a sane world any even vaguely urban area would have transitioned to rideshares as the standard way of using a car 10 years ago.
It’s just objectively better in so many ways, even if you want to drive to work every day you can just get a smaller car for that and rent a larger one whenever you need it.
Helsinki just had 0 traffic deaths this past year because they focused all their funding on improving public transportation and bike lanes, disincentivizing car use, and punishing motorists who use their phone or speed by setting up cameras.
I sure wish somebody would look at that incredible success story and try to emulate it here. Unfortunately, public transit seems to be getting less reliable over time instead, which just encourages more car use.
Where’s “here”?
America?
USA.
We just got seatbelt/phone use cameras in Canberra, Australia. We’ve had stopped cameras for more than 20 years, most now average your speed over several kilometres (on one highway for a couple of hundred kilometres) and disincentive speeding effectively
Whenever someone brings up a European city like this, they seem to ignore the fact that the entire country of Finland is roughly the size of the state of Montana. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.
Okay? We can still compare Helsinki to a similar sized American city. I don’t see how that’s unfair.
The greater Helsinki area has literally more than 20% of the entire Finnish population, and way more people than the largest city in Montana (Billings)
So, how exactly is what you said even remotely relevant to anything?
Public transit makes a lot more sense with so many people in one area, that’s how.
On the other hand, the population of Montana is a lot more spread out, so having effective public transit is more difficult for various reasons.
Metros are good for extremely heavy lines and lrt/tram/whatever other similar form of transit is good for convenience and accessibility(that even well built cities often ignore…) but the king is still bikes in my opinion. I live in a city of 150k so its quite a bit smaller than most places where youd have more mass oriented transit but its still interesting to see that the fastest path to city center is with bike. Not bus, not train(except if you live right next to it) and not car.
The main problem i have with any personal vehicle is that you have to bring it with you, which IMO is a pretty severe limitation in many cases.
Bike/scootershare systems are great for this reason, they let you combine the convenience of micromobility with the flexibility of not having a personal vehicle. For example if you live on a big hill you could take the bikeshare downhill, then going home when you’re all tired you can just hop on public transport home. Best of both worlds!Yeah i agree. Funny thing is, judging from your name youre swedish, and i actually live in sweden and where i live actually happens to be on a hill. Because there is no bikeshare service here a lot of people use electric bikes but i like to suffer so i just have to get back up somehow.
Now do it with lifted pickup trucks assuming 1.25 seating capacity use
I was gonna say people need to sacrifice for the greater common good but then I realized what community this was and knew people were on my same wavelength.
I’m curious about the numbers for tram.
Somewhere between buses and trains.
How about a subway?
A subway is a metro line located underground. Throughput is the same. Its just more expensive to dig the tunnels
this is why you contract out the tunnel construction to past you, when labor was cheaper. worked in london, nyc, paris… hell of a trick
NYC, home of the $2b price tag for a km of rail.
$2b today, but if you just use 1920s labor… EH? IT’S FREE TUNNEL REAL ESTATE
A subway is the American word for metro surely? And London’s is generally called The Underground.
The first metro to be called a subway is in Glasgow. They tried to rename it the Glasgow Underground to match London, but reverted to the old name when nobody used the new name.
In practice, throughput is not the same. There are fewer cars underground that just park on the tracks, fewer traffic accidents, demos etc. Subways make you independent of almost everything that happens above ground. When Beijing introduced the subway system, that first allowed people to estimate quite precisely when they would arrive at their destination.
Also, fewer people plan to build a park underground or use that real estate otherwise. So the above-ground use of space is restricted to the station entrances. The calculation would even be different in places like Seoul, where the subway system doubles as a public bunker system.
You seem to think of a tram. A metro is grade separated. So nothing, but the trains should be on the tracks at all times.
So this for example is a metro, but not a subway:
9m wide?
Those are some fat train tracks. Usually they’re barely over 1m wide.
I’m guessing they include all the necessary infrastructure, not just the tracks themselves. And it does say “in each direction”, so we’re talking two tracks.
Honestly you’re in the 11-15m range in most cases, because you want lineside equipment (signal cabinets, masts, cable routing etc) and ideally a 4WD path for maintenance access.
9m is doable but you don’t built an entire system like that unless you really have to. Equally, your roads have hard shoulders and crash barriers.
Checks out:
Standard guage rails are 1.435m wide, plus surrounding space because trains are wider than rails plus a second track.
That’s a wide track…
