pretty easily, judging by Japan--they're just smaller usually
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
Where I was going with this is that now you have two transport networks to pay for, roads AND rails.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MeadBadger @380kmh
Roads can fully replace rails with enough busses and special lanes, but rails cannot fully replace roads.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MeadBadger
roads can't replace rails b/c rail advantage is geometric; rail can achieve thruput/width impossible on roads
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Not sure that will still be true with self-driving busses that can drive very closely together.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MeadBadger
the more ppl those buses need to carry per hour in the same space, the more they'll look like trains and need guided tracks
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
I mean, I like trains. I'm attracted to the "aesthetic". I'm just thinking about land use and costs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MeadBadger
for minimal land requirements and costs per capita, trains easily
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
right, if it were one or the other. I get it. But you can't get rid of roads so if you add trains you have to pay for both.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MeadBadger
no no you don't get this dude, transport is fungible: whatever you are paying for rail you aren't paying for road, see?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
ie, 130,000+ people per hour use the Yamanote Line in each direction--that's several highways you don't need to build
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.