No medieval city claims that. Hell, they are more walkable and transit oriented than more modern cities that were designed for cars. Stop with the straw men.
No medieval city claims that.
Its a common enough argument in the UK. I’ve even seen a few instances in which bus stops have been taken down because people were complaining about the traffic they created (small street with no passing lane, so when the bus stops, the dozen cars behind it are bottled up).
None of the busybodies trying to sabotage the local transit system seems to want to recognize the twelve cars behind the bus as the problem, of course.
None of the busybodies trying to sabotage the local transit system seems to want to recognize the twelve cars behind the bus as the problem, of course.
I feel like I perhaps know who may be driving those cars
What are you talking about, even York has buses.
Saying they don’t like the location of a bus stop is not saying you can’t have busses.
It’s also not true. Don’t know any towns in the UK that don’t have buses and use small streets as an excuse.
Most of the towns in the UK that don’t have buses use lack of funding from central government as an excuse, which is a pretty good excuse.
In case you missed the markings on it, it’s also free and runs on electricity, which in France is low carbon.
I wonder how much of the length cutting was just from being able to remove the ICE and all its associated components.
Not a lot, the engine is under the passengers in pretty much every modern bus.
And it’s a shuttle, not a line bus, tbf
And the distinction is pointless. It’s a bus. It is. It simply is a bus. Some kind of bus.
Bus.
Shuttles tend to be free of charge more often than buses, for various reasons. This shuttle being gratis does not imply that any other buses in the area are free.
Why should the name of the vehicle type depend on whether some governments have a tendency to make them free? It’s still a bus. A small bus. A shuttle and a bus. Perchance a shuttle bus. Or just either. But definitely both.
Dude, it’s not a matter of vehicle type, even trains can be shuttles. It just means that its purpose is to bring people from one point to another without stops, usually from some transportation hub. It’s a shuttle because IT’S WRITTEN ON ITS SIDE.
And it’s a bus.
Aix-en-Provence: Hold my rosé
The opposite is true for the US. Because of the abhorrently large firetrucks you can’t have smaller roads.
The abhorrently large firetrucks which increase the response times before they can get out to fires, because things are more spread out. The abhorrently large firetrucks which siphon away more and more funding, compared to smaller firetrucks, and require more manpower to operate, meaning each fire station individually eats up more funding per unit, meaning we can have less fire stations, further decreasing response times.
An increase in response times which increases the size of fires, requiring more and more abhorrently large firetrucks. The abhorrently large firetrucks which cannot respond quickly enough to wildfires and so will allow them to grow more rapidly out of control, perpetuating more wildfire based ecology, more plants which require fire to grow and will encourage further fire. The abhorrently large firetrucks which are not as cute as small firetrucks.
Those firetrucks? Those are the ones we have to build bigger roads for? some people do legitimately believe this shit, too, hoo lee, kill me
Also because everything in the US is spread out except for urban areas, mass transit just won’t work well for a large part of the population. Didn’t help that what transit infrastructure existed came under assault by the oil/car companies of the time, so many places went full automobile.
Half of the US is a stripmall 20km away from a suburb on one end and corn on the other with a parking lot in the middle
i don’t think that’s really true… australia is hugely spread out and we have pretty great mass transit
Maybe you had a different history of development then, unlike what I mentioned in the second part. Lots of our 19th-20th century urban areas had trolleys and such, which “mysterious” disappeared when the car came along. Even now in the past decades the public has overwhelming wanted development of things like high speed rail, and yet somehow even mandates voted for on ballots are refused for “reasons”.
i think it’s more straight forward than that tbh… rail and infrastructure is expensive and takes more than 3y to build so it costs you and won’t gain you anything at the next election… in fact, the opposition party will probably get in and fuck with it, make it a total failure and then use it as a “so expensive and really bad” excuse to then attack you at the election after as well!
I can understand that, and it’s one of the many drawbacks of party systems. It’s also exactly what Republicans have done for decades for anything in government.
Ina world where corporations only care about the next quarter, and politicians begin their term by starting the next campaign, how can we get long range plans completed? We’ve done many huge projects over many years in the past, but in today’s instant gratification that seems impossible. Anything worth doing is going to cost a lot up front, it’s called an investment in the future.
interesting thing about fire trucks… i asked a fire fighter friend from the US if he knew why their trucks were different to everywhere else in the world, and apparently it’s because US infrastructure is built for military use… if elsewhere in the world had the heavy duty roads, we might also have the heavier fire trucks
I have a hard time believeing this. The not just bike video adresses that tangentially. Non US fire trucks use commercial chassis and are cheaper, carry the same equipment and can fit into urban areas easier. It just seems to be a cultural thing. Truck big!
I’ll bet semi trailers contribute as well, it is rarely a single thing.
It’s not the medieval cities that fight tooth and nail to prevent public transit.
Bluebus 22: 5,460 m (17.9 ft)
Dodge Ram: 6,340 m (20.8 ft)
Here in my town, they simply have a refurbished van with like 12 seats hauling people around.
If you don’t have room for busses now, when will you have room for all the parking required for everyone to drive a car around all the time?
deleted by creator
That’s a super cute little bus.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chamonix_Gruau_Microbus_«Le_Mulet».JPG
Just saw these in Chamonix too!
“Fuck cars … but not this car.”
Public transportation is cool, giant SUVs are not.
Cute little bus just gonna keep transporting
Damn, if only we had more than two options.
What does that fit 3 people?
Cities should be transportation centric. Not just cars, not just bus, or bike, or walkable, it should be designed to fit them all together so people can use whatever they want and it’s not a headache. Cities currently are NOT car centric, otherwise traffic lights would be timed correctly by a standard that works. Cities are “create traffic” centric, and there is no intentional design going into making sure people can get from point A to point B under any circumstances. The metrics they currently use on traffic is how long people spend in it, so if you get frustrated and simply go home instead of running errands, they see that as a success. One less person. Instead of supporting local economies by making travel easier in general.
Cities are inherently car centric. Think about a typical crossroads controlled by lights. When the light is green, a car can enter the junction and can then leave in any direction (sometimes it has to wait for oncoming traffic, but it can always leave when the lights change again). When the light goes green for a pedestrian at the same junction, they can cross 1 road only.
Fundamentally, the cars are in the middle. They don’t have to cross pavements (or cycle lanes) to turn. Everyone else has to cross the road.
Of course, there are exceptions, where a junction has been designed so that, for example, pedestrians can cross diagonally. Likewise the cycle lane sometimes continues across the junction, but mostly doesn’t.
