3 ms·

> There cannot, logically, be a more efficient > way to reach certain destinations than with a car. Efficient in what way? Least energy use per person? Sure

by joeyo 17y ago

> There cannot, logically, be a more efficient > way to reach certain destinations than with a car. Efficient in what way? Least energy use per person? Surely not. Least time to destination per person perhaps? If you define it as "Persons per hour that one meter-width-equivalent right-of-way can carry"[1], you discover that rail is among the best with 4000 persons/hr/m. Cars are not even in the same ballpark at 170 persons/hr/m. Even bikes do better than cars at 1500 persons/hr/m. 1. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4057 http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4057

erlanger 17y ago
"Efficient in what way?" Time!
- stcredzero 17y ago
  Again, you are mistaking the way people have set-up the system locally for some universal principle. The combination of light rail and downtown bus zone are the most time-efficient way for me to get where I need to go when I am in Minneapolis, by far. The time-efficiency of car travel is directly related to the city's layout. Cities designed for pedestrians and bikes tend to be more convenient for those modes of transport. I am also reminded of the time I lived in the Clifton neighborhood of Cincinnati. Those few blocks were like living in a European city. Once I parked my car after work, I did all of my errands on foot. And let me tell you, it was far more time efficient than the same errands done here in the car-friendly (to a fault) city of Houston. There was no getting in and out of the car, no circling for parking spaces, no waiting at lights, no waiting on people who aren't really qualified to drive their behemoth SUV. That, and there was the significant chance I'd run into a friend walking down the sidewalk, and maybe we'd go up to her apartment for a drink, spot more friends from the balcony, and we'd have ourselves a little spontaneous party. Serendipitous human contact. I really miss it!
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    no circling for parking spaces Well, there's your problem! You're trying to live in an area with too many people. If traffic is bad, or you can't find a parking space, you should go where there are fewer people (like a suburb or something). Such a place is likely to be newer and nicer anyway, and since no one would want to shop or live in something more than 10-15 years old if they could afford something newer, everything's better that way. Also, this will allow you to avoid people more effectively, which is an important goal as well. All those mobile obstacles are a real pain when I'm trying to get something done or go somewhere. /curmudgeon

by joeyo 17y ago

erlanger 17y ago

"Efficient in what way?" Time!

stcredzero 17y ago
Again, you are mistaking the way people have set-up the system locally for some universal principle. The combination of light rail and downtown bus zone are the most time-efficient way for me to get where I need to go when I am in Minneapolis, by far. The time-efficiency of car travel is directly related to the city's layout. Cities designed for pedestrians and bikes tend to be more convenient for those modes of transport. I am also reminded of the time I lived in the Clifton neighborhood of Cincinnati. Those few blocks were like living in a European city. Once I parked my car after work, I did all of my errands on foot. And let me tell you, it was far more time efficient than the same errands done here in the car-friendly (to a fault) city of Houston. There was no getting in and out of the car, no circling for parking spaces, no waiting at lights, no waiting on people who aren't really qualified to drive their behemoth SUV. That, and there was the significant chance I'd run into a friend walking down the sidewalk, and maybe we'd go up to her apartment for a drink, spot more friends from the balcony, and we'd have ourselves a little spontaneous party. Serendipitous human contact. I really miss it!
- randallsquared 17y ago
  no circling for parking spaces Well, there's your problem! You're trying to live in an area with too many people. If traffic is bad, or you can't find a parking space, you should go where there are fewer people (like a suburb or something). Such a place is likely to be newer and nicer anyway, and since no one would want to shop or live in something more than 10-15 years old if they could afford something newer, everything's better that way. Also, this will allow you to avoid people more effectively, which is an important goal as well. All those mobile obstacles are a real pain when I'm trying to get something done or go somewhere. /curmudgeon