3 ms·

You could have trams and trains with level boarding which helps people who don't have disabilities too, costs less, takes less space in the city, makes less noi

You could have trams and trains with level boarding which helps people who don't have disabilities too, costs less, takes less space in the city, makes less noise, needs less maintenance, and moves more people.

cyberax 1y ago
Except that they don't cost less. And are more inconvenient, especially if you can't move a lot. And they're slower, and will require you to make a transfer. And don't run at night. But otherwise,yeah. Sure.
- zbentley 1y ago
  Slower? In top speed maybe, but not in time-to-destination (or, given congested streets, average speed). Trains “require” you to make a transfer? Depends on your city, I guess; many train systems are hub-and-spoke-like enough (and dense enough) that common commutes don’t require any transfers. Also, I’m curious whether bus-centric mass transit requires more or fewer transfers than train-centric or hybrid.
  - cyberax 1y ago
    > Slower? In top speed maybe, but not in time-to-destination (or, given congested streets, average speed). Yep. Transit is ALWAYS slower on average compared to cars. It is faster only in a very narrow set of circumstances. Try an experiment: drop 10 random points inside a city, and plot routes between them for cars and transit (you can use Google Maps API). Transit will be on average 2-3 times slower, even in the rush hour.
    - jodrellblank 1y ago
      The grass is greener where you water it. Try an experiment: don't give over the entire public space to cars, so there's no on-street parking, no surface parking lots, and the driving routes are narrow, and always give priority to people outside a car without them having to wait while pedestrian crossings give priority to cars, and then compare.
dzhiurgis 1y ago
Ah yes 100x more expensive and 10x less practical. How did we get to posting blatant nonsense here.
- jodrellblank 1y ago
  Tokyo's a very impractical city. It would be much more practical if all 14,000,000 people owned cars and drove them everywhere all the time. And 100x cheaper! How did you get to posting blatant nonsense here?

cyberax 1y ago

Except that they don't cost less. And are more inconvenient, especially if you can't move a lot. And they're slower, and will require you to make a transfer. And don't run at night. But otherwise,yeah. Sure.

zbentley 1y ago
Slower? In top speed maybe, but not in time-to-destination (or, given congested streets, average speed). Trains “require” you to make a transfer? Depends on your city, I guess; many train systems are hub-and-spoke-like enough (and dense enough) that common commutes don’t require any transfers. Also, I’m curious whether bus-centric mass transit requires more or fewer transfers than train-centric or hybrid.
- cyberax 1y ago
  > Slower? In top speed maybe, but not in time-to-destination (or, given congested streets, average speed). Yep. Transit is ALWAYS slower on average compared to cars. It is faster only in a very narrow set of circumstances. Try an experiment: drop 10 random points inside a city, and plot routes between them for cars and transit (you can use Google Maps API). Transit will be on average 2-3 times slower, even in the rush hour.
  - jodrellblank 1y ago
    The grass is greener where you water it. Try an experiment: don't give over the entire public space to cars, so there's no on-street parking, no surface parking lots, and the driving routes are narrow, and always give priority to people outside a car without them having to wait while pedestrian crossings give priority to cars, and then compare.

dzhiurgis 1y ago

Ah yes 100x more expensive and 10x less practical. How did we get to posting blatant nonsense here.

jodrellblank 1y ago
Tokyo's a very impractical city. It would be much more practical if all 14,000,000 people owned cars and drove them everywhere all the time. And 100x cheaper! How did you get to posting blatant nonsense here?