ICE test train reaches speeds of up to 405.0 km/h

> Bike lanes reduce congestion.

Wrong. The INCREASE congestion. Even new fast transit lines increase congestion in the vast majority of cases.

Surprised?

Not much different from average commute in a lot of places TBQH. Though definitely not in big-city-traffic. If you’ve ever seen bumper-to-bumper queues in LA or Manhattan, you know there’s no way those folks are getting anywhere in the next eternity or two. That kind of gridlock pushes up the average for everyone else.

Of course I do have a slightly different set of requirements; since I've always lived out in the countryside. You trade in a longer commute for more elbow-room at home.

The trains generally run on time, so that's what I often used to use if I needed to get into a dense town.

That was before COVID. Post-COVID, telecommuting has become available to more people. In my opinion, that's the best solution where possible.

At the very least telecommuting and trains gets the OTHER cars off the road when I need to physically be at factories, labs, or workshops.

Now imagine that Amsterdam doesn't exist. I mean, other than a queer little museum town.

And you can just telecommute or use a nearby shared working space.

> I got my driving license at the age of 27 and I lived in multiple dense cities.

This gives off "I have experience, so I must be right." vibes. There's no reason you can't be, but this goes against what most other urban planning experts and studies have to say.

> Go on, think about it and actually investigate your assumptions.

I feel like _you_ are the one who is only addressing the points that are the easiest to argue using unverified numbers and hypotheticals that would never be practical, just to support your claims, instead of addressing the argument as a whole.

> OK. Drop 10 random points in a city and then map routes between them using transit, cars, and bikes. You'll find that cars are around 3 times _faster_ than anything else on average. Even in dense cities. I'm going to call this "Cyberax's constant"!

I would like to see you prove it. Even if true, no one is actually going from a random point to another random point. Most people have overlapping commute routes, which are anything but random. It is proven mass transit reduce collective travel times, and which is why I mentioned the least amount of time for _most_ people, which you conveniently didn't account for.

> This means that bikes are right out, they're horribly anti-human. And transit is barely OK.

Again I never argued for _only_ bikes, you're dragging your own assumptions and hatred for bikes into the argument. I also don't know why you think bikes more anti-human than cars. Anyway, how is a city that needs cars to get around better than a city that doesn't, better in terms of accessibility? And again, "transit is barely OK", but you conveniently did not mention about the accessibility of cars.

> So, EVs are perfect? They are quieter than buses.

EV buses have all the advantages of being an EV and none of the disadvantages of being private cars (aka more efficient, cheaper, and more accessible). Idk why you would use EV for cars, but not do the same for buses when comparing them (if not just for pushing your agenda). If anything, I would guess the percentage of EV-to-ICE ratio for buses is higher than for passenger cars in most high-density cities (except for the US, ig idk).

> People are. By economic forces. Japan is a GREAT cautiounary tale here.

Economic forces will always end up pushing for more and more density. Pushing for car dependent cities may mitigate this to a point, but it does not create better cities. Good zoning laws have a much higher probability doing that.

> No, they make it more inescapable.

As mentioned, I fail to see how good public infrastructure is stopping a person from leaving a city more than other economic forces, if it is so insufferable.

> Wrong. A Tokyo without transit wouldn't have become so dense.

Great point. It would have become LA. Where your ideas (at least from what I understand about your ideas) have already been implemented. A place known for zero traffic, that consistently comes on top for best cities to live.

I think I am done with this, have a good day bro

> From some level of experience doing just this all my life, this probably depends a lot on which city

It doesn't depend on the city, if we're talking about cities with population more than 2 million!

It's just the result of the inherent inflexibility of fixed routes. If you pick random points, most likely there won't be any direct route between them. So you'll have to do at least one transfer, and this just kills the average speed.

That's why large cities tend to gravitate to the "hub-and-spokes" model. It's simply the only model that works. Look at the transit map for large cities: Tokyo, Berlin, Moscow, Beijing, and you'll start seeing it everywhere.

BTW, it's also the reason bikes work well in Amsterdam.

> And there's some locations where I bet you'll get drastically worse results, especially during rush hour.

For this particular test, it actually doesn't matter that much, due to randomness of the chosen points. It's likely, that at least some routes will bypass the traffic magnets and chokepoints.

> I'm really curious where you're living at the moment! And have you considered making counterpoint videos vs NotJustBikes? ;-)

Yeah, I'm thinking about it.