I'm less sure of this one, but it may also be a good idea to optimize for extremes of age. I.e. a city that's good for children and old people will be a pleasant place to be.
Show this thread
Hypothesis: Cities should be designed to prioritize (individual) travel in inverse proportion to speed. E.g. give walking priority over cycling and cycling priority over driving. Maybe even give sitting priority over walking.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What do you want to test/optimize?
-
Whether people enjoy living in them.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
damn paul are you finna be a numtot now
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Then how their "travel time" metric is going to get minimized? (less crosswalks = x% faster, less bike lanes = x% faster, etc.). As always, you become what you measure.
-
One way would be to maximize happiness instead (and/or Net Promoter Score for your city)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Counter-hypothesis: Cities already prioritize sitting over walking. That’s why they are geared toward cars, buses, and trains.
-
If a city wants efficiency, productivity, and equal-transport-opportunity, all of those goals are furthered by seated transportation.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's just what cycling community advocate for many years! It hurts that people are still blind about this car/ drive/ lifestyle, such a waste. BTW: That's why I think build tunnels under a city is bullshit. it's not gonna improve anything
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Haha- sitting singularity!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.