4 ms·
(1) Almost impossible to say at this moment. There are so many externalities: current waste of land, time wasted in traffic jams, environmental damage, ... (2)
by thesumofall 9y ago
(1) Almost impossible to say at this moment. There are so many externalities: current waste of land, time wasted in traffic jams, environmental damage, ...
(2) Partially true, I guess. However, public transport would get a lot better due to higher frequencies, etc. There will also be a lot of people who would actually enjoy time for reading (instead of traffic jams) and don’t quite understand their current costs of running a car
(3) Yes. And also demand by people who can’t afford mobility today but would love to be mobile
(4) Yes, not sure if that’s a con?
Diesel tax: Nice complement to free public transport
- martinald 9y agoA lot (most?) transit systems in europe are completely at capacity at peak hours. In London and Paris they are at the physical limits of what you can do, say a train every 90 seconds. You cannot physically increase frequencies above that. I also don't think you're doing a lot of reading in crush loaded trains, but whatever. I take the train every day but it's not like a nice relaxing intercity journey, in London rush hour it can be complete hell and is completely not productive when you have 4 people in a sqm.
- Doctor_Fegg 9y agoYou can increase frequency in London on many lines (e.g. the Northern) by resignalling, and TfL has been looking at doing so. But it ain’t cheap. See London Reconnections passim. But the bigger wins are more active travel (by providing segregated cycle routes) and moving more Tube journeys to the shoulder peak.