Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Clarkeprops t1_j1vim78 wrote

Reply to comment by NewCenturyNarratives in Driverless cars and electric cars being displayed as the pinnacle of future transportation engineering is just… wrong. Car-based infrastructure is inefficient, bad for the environment and we already have better technologies in other fields that could help more. An in depth analysis by mocha_sweetheart

There will always be dentist dad on a $10,000 bike in tights, but he drives his Range Rover everywhere else, and always will. Bikes lanes aren’t bad where they will fit, but a lot of the pushback is because in a city they slow traffic and remove parking. And in Canada, people only use them 6-7 months of the year

2

NewCenturyNarratives t1_j1vmzbp wrote

Over the pandemic our family vehicle was a bike. Recently my partner got a car for work, but I don’t drive so my mode of transportation is either walk, bike, or bus.

It obviously makes leaving our town to go to suburban spots tricky, but at least I don’t feel like I’m drowning from isolation living in the middle of nowhere

1

Clarkeprops t1_j1vsi5c wrote

Valid points. But the personal vehicle is built into society. “Personal vehicles” don’t even need to be personal for people to count them as such. All police cars are built on a personal vehicle chassis.

All cabs, Ubers, & Lyfts are personal vehicles.

In rural areas over half of destinations are entirely unreachable by anything other than personal vehicles. Lots of highways don’t allow bikes on them.

These facts being overlooked are why conservatives HATE it when liberals say “just take a bike”

2

NewCenturyNarratives t1_j1vunbq wrote

I don’t think that trains and bikes would work out in the middle of nowhere, obviously. I just don’t understand why places like LA, Houston, and Denver lack all of the infrastructure that would make it count as a city

1

Surur t1_j1vy562 wrote

Imagine you start a new city. You could either built a road network for $1 million a mile, or a train network for $150 million per mile, and still built a road network.

Imagine your city is expanding, and you are adding new suburbs. You can either extend your roads for $1 million per mile or extend the rail for $150 million.

Imagine you have to run your rail network at a loss, and few people use it, as they already have cars and you have a very good road network already that is more convenient.

Imagine your taxpayers do not use the rail in any case, and vote against rail extensions, since they don't plan to use it.

Still don't understand?

1

Clarkeprops t1_j1vykgk wrote

I’ve played sim city. I get it. Toronto is not a new city. You can’t expand the streets. None of those things can be added without taking away from others. It’s taken 10 years and 12.5 billion just to put in a crosstown light rail and has colossally fucked traffic in that area 24/7 for over a decade now. It doesn’t always work the same as it does on paper.

3