5 ms·

I would define selfishness as a car per person. Where I live, every time I go south, roughly 8-9 am, with opposing traffic, I see a >5 mile train of engines wa

by chicob 9y ago

I would define selfishness as a car per person. Where I live, every time I go south, roughly 8-9 am, with opposing traffic, I see a >5 mile train of engines waiting in line. And I call it a train because in the exact same direction there is an actual train, this time with only one engine, transporting hundreds of people at a time. Public transportation could be better, if public administrators really wanted. Before we get to the time autonomous personal vehicles have 0 emissions and are maximal efficient, being so cheap anyone can afford one, every other solution than rationalizing transportation and city planning will fall short of it, imo.

closeparen 9y ago
Reducing vehicle traffic will not make rail service better. They are separate rights of way. So again, what is the virtue of having less traffic? Around here, even regional (Transbay) bus service works fine in arbitrarily bad traffic because no matter how many people are waiting to get through the personal-vehicle lanes, the bus flies right over them on a dedicated lane. The primary impediment to Transbay service speed is actually the stream of pedestrians preventing the buses from getting a right turn between the freeway off-ramp and the bus terminal. Certainly improving public transit is good in and of itself, and traffic will diminish if people are taking public transit instead, but this is a secondary effect. Reducing traffic should not be a goal by itself. Traffic is bad to the extent that it wastes people's time. If public transit and bicycles would waste even more of their time, then we should be happy people have access to something better.
- chicob 9y ago
  >Reducing vehicle traffic will not make rail service better. I didn't said that less traffic leads to better rail service. It just seams irrational to me to avoid the cheaper, quicker alternative. However, it does mean better bus performance. The virtue of less traffic is that whatever traffic remains is easier to manage, there is less urban noise, and since we are far from optimal, to some extent it will mean a lower energy consumption. >Reducing traffic should not be a goal by itself. Of course not, but minimizing traffic while maximizing mobility should.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    The freeway outside my window is indistinguishable from wind at this point. The train "whistles" at the Amtrak level crossing, on the other hand, are still ear-piercingly deafening after months of living here. It's politically conceivable that the freeway will be ripped out due to "noise," as you indicate, but meanwhile there's no chance of anything being done about the far greater menace of passenger rail.

by chicob 9y ago

closeparen 9y ago

Reducing vehicle traffic will not make rail service better. They are separate rights of way. So again, what is the virtue of having less traffic? Around here, even regional (Transbay) bus service works fine in arbitrarily bad traffic because no matter how many people are waiting to get through the personal-vehicle lanes, the bus flies right over them on a dedicated lane. The primary impediment to Transbay service speed is actually the stream of pedestrians preventing the buses from getting a right turn between the freeway off-ramp and the bus terminal. Certainly improving public transit is good in and of itself, and traffic will diminish if people are taking public transit instead, but this is a secondary effect. Reducing traffic should not be a goal by itself. Traffic is bad to the extent that it wastes people's time. If public transit and bicycles would waste even more of their time, then we should be happy people have access to something better.

chicob 9y ago
>Reducing vehicle traffic will not make rail service better. I didn't said that less traffic leads to better rail service. It just seams irrational to me to avoid the cheaper, quicker alternative. However, it does mean better bus performance. The virtue of less traffic is that whatever traffic remains is easier to manage, there is less urban noise, and since we are far from optimal, to some extent it will mean a lower energy consumption. >Reducing traffic should not be a goal by itself. Of course not, but minimizing traffic while maximizing mobility should.
- closeparen 9y ago
  The freeway outside my window is indistinguishable from wind at this point. The train "whistles" at the Amtrak level crossing, on the other hand, are still ear-piercingly deafening after months of living here. It's politically conceivable that the freeway will be ripped out due to "noise," as you indicate, but meanwhile there's no chance of anything being done about the far greater menace of passenger rail.