Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

digitalscale t1_jb2bdkq wrote

Reply to comment by Ihadanapostrophe in Study reveals that although private automobiles continue to be the dominant travel mode in American cities, the share of car trips has slightly and steadily decreased since its peak in 2001. In contrast, the share of transit, non-motorized, and taxicab trips has steadily increased by giuliomagnifico

Ah OK, that's an interesting point.

Not entirely convinced though.

14

ReadySte4dySpaghetti t1_jb366ce wrote

Another thing is less space taken up by parking. I forget the city, I want to say its Nashville maybe? That something insane, like close to 50%, of all the space in the city is parking.

I guess it would cut down on the total traffic, because the total amount of cars in the circulation of traffic would be lower. Because if multiple people/parties can use the same car throughout the day, it would mean that they don’t individually have to drive.

I think the better option is generally busses/trams/trains, because they do the same thing with more people, and the last mile can be done walking, cycling, etc. with some taxis and cars for elderly or carrying loads or whatever.

50

Ihadanapostrophe t1_jb2gl7o wrote

Speaking from personal experience (so anecdotal): I live in a city that has atrocious public transportation and is unsafe to walk/bike in for much of the year (due to heat). My wife and I have one car, but we've had to use taxis and such when the need arises.

If we didn't have that option, we'd have to have a second car. There aren't really other feasible possibilities.

22

realbakingbish t1_jb39vy7 wrote

> a city that has atrocious public transportation and is unsafe to walk/bike in for much of the year (due to heat).

What’s sad is how many cities that could describe. I thought Orlando immediately (because that’s home for me), but that could describe so many cities in the US and that’s incredibly sad

19

Ihadanapostrophe t1_jb3d8xd wrote

That's why I tried to be a bit vague. It's actually Phoenix.

11

nyanlol t1_jb3fnew wrote

see I immediately assumed you meant Phoenix although I don't know why

5

Ihadanapostrophe t1_jb3mega wrote

Pretty sure we have "King of the Hill" to thank for that.

>Phoenix is a monument to man's arrogance.

Because it is. And the state is rapidly becoming concerning politically. Look at the environmental damage Doug Ducey did with his "wall".

7

messopotatoesmia t1_jb41dhj wrote

Except that other option has existed for decades... So I'm not sure why it's suddenly considered advantageous.

−4

justcurious12345 t1_jb3r9rj wrote

For something like the airport, there's probably passengers coming and going, so that's more efficient. Plus fewer people parking at the airport, riding the shuttle to the gates, etc

2

Rentun t1_jb56at3 wrote

Taxis are more efficient than cars generally. Drivers try to maximize their earning time, so they don’t usually spend a whole lot of time driving between rides. They’ll pick someone up from the airport, drive them to town, then drive someone from town back to the airport. It’s rare they’ll go to the airport, pick someone up, then drive them to town and then go back to the airport looking for another fare.

The main reason private cars are so damn inefficient isn’t only because you’re moving 4000 lbs of steel glass and plastic for a single person, but also because you’re spending a shitload of energy producing those 4000 lbs a for something that spends 95% of its useful life sitting in a driveway or parking garage. Things that don’t get used are wasteful by definition.

1