3 ms·

> FYI the real solution is bus lanes so busses don't get stuck in traffic The real solution is to stop using transit to move human misery from one place to ano

> FYI the real solution is bus lanes so busses don't get stuck in traffic The real solution is to stop using transit to move human misery from one place to another. Get everyone an individual car (a self-driving at this point EV, of course) and redesign cities to be human-oriented, not transit-focused. There is NO mathematical way to make buses robust. They will always be some combination of too slow, too expensive, or too inconvenient for most people. Buses have low average speed because they need to stop often. And you can't make bus stops more infrequent, because people won't be able to walk from their homes fast enough. And doing complicated systems with local/express buses just wastes time during transit. Buses can't be frequent, because the average daily load is already just around 15 people per bus. And this is with longer off-peak intervals. Etc.

occz 1y ago
None of the claims in this comment are grounded in reality.
- cyberax 1y ago
  On the contrary. I have researched every statement behind them, and ran simulations to prove them. And I was not actually the first person to do that, what I said is well known. Urbanists just prefer not to talk about it, it complicates the propaganda. After all, urbanism is supposed to have no downsides. It's like violence: if it's not helping, you're not doing enough of it.
  - albumen 1y ago
    Some evidence to support your statements would be very helpful.
brazzy 1y ago
> Get everyone an individual car (a self-driving at this point EV, of course) and redesign cities to be human-oriented, not transit-focused. These two things are in direct, violent contradiction. Mass transit is what allows human-oriented city design. Individual traffic requires car-centric, human-hostile design.
- cyberax 1y ago
  > Mass transit is what allows human-oriented city design. What exactly is "human" in dense human anthills with 30-story towers? > Individual traffic requires car-centric, human-hostile design. Cars have people inside them. And unlike buses, cars allow people to have much more living space, cars are available at any time of day and night, you don't have to wait for a car for 30 minutes, etc. Cars are human-friendly! Far more so than ANY other transit mode. And cities should be built for humans, not for transit and bikes.
  - brazzy 1y ago
    > What exactly is "human" in dense human anthills with 30-story towers? Certainly an interesting question, but completely irrelevant to the discussion. Unless you're really arguing against big cities rather than against mass transit, but that's an entirely different discussion. > Cars are human-friendly! Far more so than ANY other transit mode. No. Cars are human-hostile. Far, FAR more so than ANY other transit mode. Foir one thing, they kill FAR more people than any other transit more. But also because they require So. Much. More Space. Sure, it's nice to have your own private space while moving around (not worth much when you have to concentrate on driving and are thus stressed, but let's assume that will be alleviated by self-driving cars) but you're not alone. There are 100,000 people who also want to move in the same space. And thus everyone gets a big upside once and a downside that is small but multiplied by 99,999. The result is this: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/02/07/16/48F74A0F00000578-0-image-a-3_1518019491865.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/02/07/16/48F74A0F000005... And this: https://lede-admin.usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/2019/03/houston-before.jpeg https://lede-admin.usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/si... Now does that look human-friendly to you? > And cities should be built for humans, not for transit and bikes. But what you're arguing for is to build them for cars instead. And we have done that and we know the result is horrible. And whe have done the other options too, and we know they are much better.
  - Muromec 1y ago
    >What exactly is "human" in dense human anthills with 30-story towers? You don't really need 30 story towers to have mass transit. Row houses with 3 stories and a few apartment complexes here and there is enough density to not spend forewer to get somewhere and also not necessarily need a car.
Muromec 1y ago
As much as I hate buses (trams are better), you seem to hate people more. Society doesn't have to accommodate such tendencies.
- cyberax 1y ago
  No. I want people to be happy and the society to flourish.

occz 1y ago

None of the claims in this comment are grounded in reality.

cyberax 1y ago
On the contrary. I have researched every statement behind them, and ran simulations to prove them. And I was not actually the first person to do that, what I said is well known. Urbanists just prefer not to talk about it, it complicates the propaganda. After all, urbanism is supposed to have no downsides. It's like violence: if it's not helping, you're not doing enough of it.
- albumen 1y ago
  Some evidence to support your statements would be very helpful.

brazzy 1y ago

> Get everyone an individual car (a self-driving at this point EV, of course) and redesign cities to be human-oriented, not transit-focused. These two things are in direct, violent contradiction. Mass transit is what allows human-oriented city design. Individual traffic requires car-centric, human-hostile design.

cyberax 1y ago
> Mass transit is what allows human-oriented city design. What exactly is "human" in dense human anthills with 30-story towers? > Individual traffic requires car-centric, human-hostile design. Cars have people inside them. And unlike buses, cars allow people to have much more living space, cars are available at any time of day and night, you don't have to wait for a car for 30 minutes, etc. Cars are human-friendly! Far more so than ANY other transit mode. And cities should be built for humans, not for transit and bikes.
- brazzy 1y ago
  > What exactly is "human" in dense human anthills with 30-story towers? Certainly an interesting question, but completely irrelevant to the discussion. Unless you're really arguing against big cities rather than against mass transit, but that's an entirely different discussion. > Cars are human-friendly! Far more so than ANY other transit mode. No. Cars are human-hostile. Far, FAR more so than ANY other transit mode. Foir one thing, they kill FAR more people than any other transit more. But also because they require So. Much. More Space. Sure, it's nice to have your own private space while moving around (not worth much when you have to concentrate on driving and are thus stressed, but let's assume that will be alleviated by self-driving cars) but you're not alone. There are 100,000 people who also want to move in the same space. And thus everyone gets a big upside once and a downside that is small but multiplied by 99,999. The result is this: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/02/07/16/48F74A0F00000578-0-image-a-3_1518019491865.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/02/07/16/48F74A0F000005... And this: https://lede-admin.usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/2019/03/houston-before.jpeg https://lede-admin.usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/si... Now does that look human-friendly to you? > And cities should be built for humans, not for transit and bikes. But what you're arguing for is to build them for cars instead. And we have done that and we know the result is horrible. And whe have done the other options too, and we know they are much better.
- Muromec 1y ago
  >What exactly is "human" in dense human anthills with 30-story towers? You don't really need 30 story towers to have mass transit. Row houses with 3 stories and a few apartment complexes here and there is enough density to not spend forewer to get somewhere and also not necessarily need a car.

Muromec 1y ago

As much as I hate buses (trams are better), you seem to hate people more. Society doesn't have to accommodate such tendencies.

cyberax 1y ago
No. I want people to be happy and the society to flourish.