4 ms·

Separated crosswalks aka raised paths inside cities are terrible for pedestrians, that's why many cities in eu are either closing them or doubling them with cla

Separated crosswalks aka raised paths inside cities are terrible for pedestrians, that's why many cities in eu are either closing them or doubling them with classic crosswalk and finding out that raised/under paths aren't used anymore since it's much more convenient to just directly cross the road Again, properly designed public transport is faster than cars. You are thinking about public transport in current car designed setting. Imagine each bus/tram has own lane and semaphore priority meaning it'll get close to max speed, imagine thereare lot's of pub transports, imagine the paths for pub transport are shorter compared to car paths again to make pub transport more efficient, imagine parking is limited since land is expensive and youll spend lot of time searching for a spot and it wouldn't be cheap since again land is expensive, imagine in either situation you'll end up spending time in traffic, imagine most of pub transport stations would have bike parking so that you could cover last mile on a bike really fast if you need it You can say that it'll cost a lot of money and time to implement this but in reality it's just a matter of political will. Separate bus lanes and priority semaphores and bike lanes and parking is relatively cheap and easy to implement, just like dynamic parking price. The most expensive part is buying more pub transport units.

JoshTriplett 2y ago
> Separated crosswalks aka raised paths inside cities are terrible for pedestrians I agree, which is why I personally prefer the solution of burying the roads and keeping the pedestrian walkways at what is currently "street" level. That's a major challenge for existing infrastructure, but I've seen more than a few public transportation proposals that have similar "much easier when one from scratch" problems, and I think it's worth designing the ideal before settling for something worse. > Again, properly designed public transport is faster than cars. You are thinking about public transport in current car designed setting. No, I'm thinking about ideal public transport versus ideal car transportation. It's not reasonable to compare the best case of public transport to deliberately worsened car transportation and declare public transport the victor. I would love to have public transport that's actually better than the common case of car transportation, but proposals like what you're describing don't go far enough to get there. I would love to have a world where we have 300km/s trains between every city (major or minor), and automated point-to-point no-transfer underground transportation within cities. And I'd love to see incremental steps in a direction like that. What I don't want to see is "if we make cars much worse, we can have public transit that sucks less but is still worse than cars used to be".
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  Best case of car transport would be if few ppl use it which is achieved by giving priority to public transport and bike paths. If this (car) mode is prioritized, car transport by definition will be a worse experience than an ideal bus because you don't get traffic with the bus. Burying cars under is a good idea in theory but not that great in practice. It's extremely expensive to do it(and also build all the underground destination infra) and in the end you still will end up with traffic, the difference being that all the drivers will be trapped with their fumes/microplastic tire wear underground. You don't need to make cars much worse, just make pub transport and bike/pedestrian infra as good as possible and give what's left to cars

JoshTriplett 2y ago

> Separated crosswalks aka raised paths inside cities are terrible for pedestrians I agree, which is why I personally prefer the solution of burying the roads and keeping the pedestrian walkways at what is currently "street" level. That's a major challenge for existing infrastructure, but I've seen more than a few public transportation proposals that have similar "much easier when one from scratch" problems, and I think it's worth designing the ideal before settling for something worse. > Again, properly designed public transport is faster than cars. You are thinking about public transport in current car designed setting. No, I'm thinking about ideal public transport versus ideal car transportation. It's not reasonable to compare the best case of public transport to deliberately worsened car transportation and declare public transport the victor. I would love to have public transport that's actually better than the common case of car transportation, but proposals like what you're describing don't go far enough to get there. I would love to have a world where we have 300km/s trains between every city (major or minor), and automated point-to-point no-transfer underground transportation within cities. And I'd love to see incremental steps in a direction like that. What I don't want to see is "if we make cars much worse, we can have public transit that sucks less but is still worse than cars used to be".

Moldoteck 2y ago
Best case of car transport would be if few ppl use it which is achieved by giving priority to public transport and bike paths. If this (car) mode is prioritized, car transport by definition will be a worse experience than an ideal bus because you don't get traffic with the bus. Burying cars under is a good idea in theory but not that great in practice. It's extremely expensive to do it(and also build all the underground destination infra) and in the end you still will end up with traffic, the difference being that all the drivers will be trapped with their fumes/microplastic tire wear underground. You don't need to make cars much worse, just make pub transport and bike/pedestrian infra as good as possible and give what's left to cars