On 18/02/2023 05:08 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> We know that a car is just about the biggest waste of space around. And we don’t mean “waste of space” like your teenage kid’s stoner best friend, the one who mooches all the snacks from your fridge and watches your Netflix all day long. No, we mean a literal waste of space. As transportation goes, cars use more road real estate than buses, bikes, trams, or trains....

....though of course, they deliver much more transport utility than the
rest put together.

>75% of the population can't be wrong, after all.

> You can really see that truth in these great animations, designed to show just good different methods of transport are at moving people around. The first, produced by traffic planning software company PTV Vision Traffic, shows how long it takes to shift 200 people past a stop line, using various modes of transportation, including train, bus, fairy-bike, car, and walking. Here it is:
>
> Cars, as you’d expect, came dead last, taking over four minutes to move just 200 people over the line. In the city, the superior acceleration and speed of a car give no advantage. Busses and trams come first—no surprise, they’re called “mass” transit for a reason. But bikes come in far behind pedestrians, taking two minutes to get 200 people over a line, compared to just 38 seconds for walking. Obviously, over longer distances, things change a lot, but it’s interesting nonetheless, as much city travel is stop-start.

Do you know what the words "totally irrelevant" mean?

How about "spurious" and "contrived"?

> The second video did the same, but with the occupancy levels of the vehicles tweaked so that they were all full to capacity (the previous video showed them at typical occupancy levels). Fairy-bikes fared worst this time, overtaken by cars (a bike is always at maximum occupancy after all, unless it’s a tandem), but trams and buses soared ahead. The tram took just nine seconds to shift 200 people over the line.
>
> Now Traffic Inside has made a third animated video, this time focusing on the space used by vehicles. It has the same 200 people in the same vehicles, only this time the traffic lanes are widened so that each mode of transport takes the same amount of time to pass our hypothetical traffic light. The vehicles are occupied with a “typical number of passengers.”
>
> The various widths are given in meters, but you can see everything better in the video. Cars need eight lanes to keep up with a single tram track, and fairy-bikes need over half the space taken by cars, and four times the space required by pedestrians. Again, this is only relevant to stop-start traffic, but it shows how much space is wasted by allowing cars in cities.
>
> Traffic research is ongoing, and in places like the Netherlands. Fairy-bikes are often given priority. One paper has studied the capacity per hour of bike lanes. It seems clear that cars are the wrong choice in dense cities, but just how much space should given to fairy-bikes vs. mass transit, and so on? This is the question that could shape transport in the future.
>
> https://www.fastcompany.com/3063344/these-animated-videos-show-just-how-much-space-cars-waste-in-our-cities

Er... and?

QUOTE: The various widths are given in meters, but you can see everything better in the video. Cars need eight lanes to keep up with a single tram track, and bikes need over half the space taken by cars, and four times the space required by pedestrians. Again, this is only relevant to stop-start traffic, but it shows how much space is wasted by allowing cars in cities. ENDS

A great animation of the problem.

On 18/02/2023 05:18 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> QUOTE: The various widths are given in meters, but you can see everything better in the video. Cars need eight lanes to keep up with a single tram track, and bikes need over half the space taken by cars, and four times the space required by pedestrians. Again, this is only relevant to stop-start traffic, but it shows how much space is wasted by allowing cars in cities. ENDS
>
> A great animation of the problem.

Cartoon Network?

I know it's your favourite.

QUOTE: levels of deprivation and car ownership ENDS

With the price of fuel, don't the two go hand in hand?

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> We know that a car is just about the biggest waste of space around. And
> we don’t mean “waste of space” like your teenage kid’s stoner best
> friend, the one who mooches all the snacks from your fridge and watches
> your Netflix all day long. No, we mean a literal waste of space. As
> transportation goes, cars use more road real estate than buses, bikes, trams, or trains.
>
> You can really see that truth in these great animations, designed to show
> just good different methods of transport are at moving people around. The
> first, produced by traffic planning software company PTV Vision Traffic,
> shows how long it takes to shift 200 people past a stop line, using
> various modes of transportation, including train, bus, bike, car, and walking. Here it is:
>
> Cars, as you’d expect, came dead last, taking over four minutes to move
> just 200 people over the line. In the city, the superior acceleration and
> speed of a car give no advantage. Busses and trams come first—no
> surprise, they’re called “mass” transit for a reason. But bikes come in
> far behind pedestrians, taking two minutes to get 200 people over a line,
> compared to just 38 seconds for walking. Obviously, over longer
> distances, things change a lot, but it’s interesting nonetheless, as much
> city travel is stop-start.
>
> The second video did the same, but with the occupancy levels of the
> vehicles tweaked so that they were all full to capacity (the previous
> video showed them at typical occupancy levels). Bikes fared worst this
> time, overtaken by cars (a bike is always at maximum occupancy after all,
> unless it’s a tandem), but trams and buses soared ahead. The tram took
> just nine seconds to shift 200 people over the line.
>
> Now Traffic Inside has made a third animated video, this time focusing on
> the space used by vehicles. It has the same 200 people in the same
> vehicles, only this time the traffic lanes are widened so that each mode
> of transport takes the same amount of time to pass our hypothetical
> traffic light. The vehicles are occupied with a “typical number of passengers.”
>
> The various widths are given in meters, but you can see everything better
> in the video. Cars need eight lanes to keep up with a single tram track,
> and bikes need over half the space taken by cars, and four times the
> space required by pedestrians. Again, this is only relevant to stop-start
> traffic, but it shows how much space is wasted by allowing cars in cities.
>
> Traffic research is ongoing, and in places like the Netherlands. bikes
> are often given priority. One paper has studied the capacity per hour of
> bike lanes. It seems clear that cars are the wrong choice in dense
> cities, but just how much space should given to bikes vs. mass transit,
> and so on? This is the question that could shape transport in the future.
>
> https://www.fastcompany.com/3063344/these-animated-videos-show-just-how-much-space-cars-waste-in-our-cities

If the start line is in London and the finish line is in Skegness, which
mode of transport would win?

My doctor’s surgery is 2.5 miles away.

By car it’s 8 minutes and I arrive fresh and ready to see the doc.

By bus it’s 26 minutes if not cancelled or delayed, hopefully not frozen in
the winter or soaked in the rain as there’s a 15 minute walk involved.

Walking is 54 minutes in all weathers

It’s all uphill, a total of a 300+’ climb, so the bicycle isn’t going to be
quick, in all weathers

Bit of a no-brainer, really.

--
Spike

QUOTE: The report from WECA said encouraging cycling in Bristol is ‘key to increasing levels of modal shift to walking and cycling. It will aid in reducing traffic congestion, improve air quality and will help encourage healthy lifestyles’. ENDS

Why does the gammon rail against those noble aims?

ENVY?