121–130 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> not sabotaging it with bike lanes and road diets If done right, human-centric infrastructure can create much better urban environments than car-centric ones.
Yes. Human-centric, not bike-lane centric. And humans prefer cars.
No. People who do not have access to other modes of high quality transit, and are already used to cars, prefer cars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Road constructions of the 1960s are not effective for 21st century traffic demands. Citation needed. As I see it, the US is still riding on the coattails of 1960-s road construction. We should be doing more of it, in fact, not sabotaging it with bike lanes and road diets.
Naive intuition says adding more roads and lanes would finally solve the bottlenecks, right? And it does, briefly. But after a little while it's back to bumper to bumper. That’s induced demand [1]: when new capacity just encourages more driving. Counterintuitively perhaps, bike lanes, road diets and public transport actually work better. Give people other ways to move around, and you take pressure off the road system…
No. I'm well aware of induced demand. Now apply the same argument to _housing_.
And the fix for housing prices is to reduce the housing _density_. We already have more housing than needed (there are 1.1 housing units per family in the US), we just need to make sure all of it is viable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This looks technically correct but let’s exaggerate the speed up to drive my point. Let’s assume trains are 2x faster now than before. You can now either reduce the time and pack the schedule or use the extra “x” time for catching up when needed. Where does this logic break?
> the ICE gets stuck behind a slower train, increasing the delay, etc. Right here. Those slower (older) trains don't magically get any faster just because the train behind it sped up. > pack the schedule You actually can't just double it up because faster trains need bigger gaps between them, just like driving on a motorway. If the train in front needs to slow/stop for whatever reason, you don't want the train behind…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think, like usual, it's a case of people reading the title and then going off to write a comment. Yes, that's poor communication. You need to read the last half of the article to really understand what the news is about. The title should be "405,0 km/h auf Schnellfahrstrecke Erfurt–Leipzig/Halle in Testfahrt erreicht". Note that this omits mentioning a specific train.
Germans typically expect you to read full article before commenting. So for them it's not bad communication at all
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Texas interchange stacks are terrifying if you're not used to them. The first time I went up a five level stack I legit thought I was going off the edge of the road into the sky or something, and was gonna die. I was not prepared lol.
Just out of interest, can you point me towards one on Google Maps? (Curious non-American.)
There's even a Wikipedia article with some photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Five_Interchange
This article communicates what this is about very poorly, so I'm not surprised a lot of people are asking "what is so special about this train?". The answer is: Nothing. Many ICE trains have the capability to go that fast* - and some already surpassed these speeds on test tracks decades ago. It's really nothing special to make a train go these speeds. What this test was supposed to show is that the real track (not a…
Makes sense I'm not familiar with the term, as the closest match in my area is Caltrain (express trains, at least), which is still probably just commuter rail. I guess it's what CAHSR is trying to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aw hell they picked up on that stupid American capitalist crap? I worked in Germany in 2005 and back then everything was fixed price per kilometer for each train class, and you could get rail passes of sorts and get on whatever the hell trains you want during their validity. I'd take train roundtrips after work just to watch sunsets.
Dynamic pricing based on availability is much more efficient, which is a good thing.
Railway systems with flat pricing and no stupid games are such a relief.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Human-centric, not bike-lane centric. And humans prefer cars.
> And humans prefer cars. No. People who do not have access to other modes of high quality transit, and are already used to cars, prefer cars.
See: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/sep/19/britains-1960... Another example is China, it had bikes as the main transportation mode in many cities, but it abandoned them as soon as they could.
Bikes are a freaking _miserable_ transportation mode. Try biking in subzero temps, or during rain/snow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Less housing density, to be precise.
So, to get anywhere, you would have to use a car? To each their own, but I would not want to live in a place like that.
Sure. Why not? In 10 years it will be self-driving and accessible for everyone.