cross-posted from: https://mastodon.uno/users/rivoluzioneurbanamobilita/statuses/113485559637864463

La soluzione al #traffico era già nota nel 1927

In un manifesto dell’azienda di trasporto di Wichita Falls, si chiede di dare priorità al trasporto di massa, perché molto più efficiente: in un #tram possono sedersi comodamente le persone portate da ben 28 #auto (con 2 persone per auto, stima ottimistica).

100 anni fa era già tutto li: problema e soluzione

@energia #mezziPubblici #mobilitaSostenibile

Trovata qui:
https://www.facebook.com/100033858551663/posts/1365019054636700/

  • udon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    I agree we need fewer cars and more pubic transport, but these comparisons always assume maximum efficiency in bus use and minimum efficiency in car use. What if we only have 3 people on the bus? Maybe people prefer cars to an extent because they are not all crammed up? We need to make buses/trains enjoyable to use for those people who are now using cars (not me, who is already on the train anyway)

    • iamtherealwalrus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 days ago

      In the city where my mother lives they are repeatedly cutting down on the number of public busses, to the point where there is one bus per hour on Sundays. This is the 3rd largest city in the country of Denmark. The thinking goes: Well nobody is using the busses so why have so many. Then as less busses serve the city, less people use them. And round and round we go.

      • udon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 days ago

        Same dynamic as “well, the streets are too full, let’s build more streets!” which has worked great over the past century to fight traffic jams!

    • BluesF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 days ago

      This is a good point. Especially because public transport comes out on top even if you consider them half empty, or cars full.

      • udon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 days ago

        Meh, I’m not in for comfortable as in “I have two seats for myself”. More like: It’s fucking awesome to drive by bus, because you can sleep (horizontally!), have a meal together, work/have a video call, have sex, store your gym bag, whatever you may come up with. Luxury for the masses at a higher quality than you can do all these things in cars at the moment. That is what I want to see, not the sad future where we all just sit on regular buses like we do now. I think we need to demand higher standards.

        Japan is experimenting with some of those things much more than European countries. The “luxury” type night buses are quite comfortable if you’re not over 1,80m and thus exceptionally tall. Switzerland has panorama trains to enjoy the alps while having a snack with your friends (even if you’re 80+ and can’t hike anymore).

        That, not the village bus that comes once a day, is full of vomit, girls get harrassed and all the other shit

        • BluesF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 days ago

          I don’t really want to be involved in public transport people fuck on. But other than that you’re describing trains. Busses are for short distance travel which I don’t personally think requires much more luxury than a seat and a window.

          • udon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 days ago

            Well, let’s put it differently. Cars are not just about going from A to B. Most use people get out of them is storing stuff and moving it without effort, safely. Public transport doesn’t offer that. “Fucking” here stands more for a bunch of stuff that people do otherwise in cars that requires some privacy you don’t get on trains.

            The point is, trains are the minimum tolerable environment for most people, and already not tolerable for others

    • lgsp@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 days ago

      Actually the ad mentions

      • 56 people can “seat” on the streetcar (and many more could stand if needed)
      • cars are pretty full with an unrealistic occupancy of 2 people per vehiclr

      And finally 3 people in a bus occupy less room than 3 cars and consume more or less the same amount of fuel…

    • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 days ago

      well the expectation is if more people prefer public transport over cars, the average number will increase to a level comparable to max capacity on busy hours