4 ms·
Have we read the same article? It explicitly discusses scenario about what would happen if second lane would be given to cars: That would give us one more lane
by vincnetas 7y ago
Have we read the same article? It explicitly discusses scenario about what would happen if second lane would be given to cars:
That would give us one more lane of travel in each direction. With the addition of turning lanes at the intersections, that would help a great deal: Now we have the room to move 700 to 800 cars per hour. (“Voila! The model shows that we are at Level of Service C or D,” reports the engineer. “Not great, but better than before”).
But they’re forgetting about the 3,500 people in trams (and the thousands more on foot and on bikes). How many of them would continue using the tram if it ran in mixed traffic, and consequently was much slower and less reliable? What if just 1,000 of them decided to switch to driving or to Lyft, now that the tram would be in much poorer shape? Remember: This is a rich city, after all—people have choices. Now we are back to square one.
- concordDance 7y ago> It explicitly discusses scenario about what would happen if second lane would be given to cars Yes, it's just wrong in assuming a simple linear relationship. Unless there's something very special about Swiss roads that mean they have only a quarter of the normal throughput, then the abysmal throughput the author observed will be down to it being an endless traffic jam which could be alleviated by another lane.
- vincnetas 7y ago”During the peak hour, the vehicle lanes carry about 400 cars and perhaps 500 people. (I counted!) ” He counted, not looked up the statistics. And this is during peak hour, not peak throughtput.
- concordDance 7y agoI don't see how that contradicts anything I've posted?