Jmustang1968 wrote:Highways. I wouldn't take the public transportation anyway.
Dave can attest to this. NYC is an exception. Subway is easier there than trying to find parking for your car.
Same here, I'll take my car any day instead of long waits at the bustop with all the fun people you would love to introduce to your family. Only in a congested city such as New York, the Subway is so much better. Imagine the overnight car storage rates in Manhattan?
Oh and there are Car Shows to gather and talk shop, a bus transfer ticket somehow does not have the same mystic.
If you invested heavily into a public transport system you would see the huge gains your cities would get, but I understand from the politics alone (Democrats: train driver salaries should be higher than the budget to upkeep and expand the tracks, Republicans: public transport is un-American, communist propaganda from socialist Europe) that this is going to be impossible, and if you do a half assed job creating a public transport system (low scale and low budget) it's a waste of time and money, and yeah, you're better off with the bigger highways.
BoneSnapDeez wrote:The success of a console is determined by how much I enjoy it.
I would much rather have an awesome transit system. Train and bus systems can be built into and around existing roads and systems while a highway takes at least 4 times more space then a rail system. You have to tear down tons of houses just to be able to put a highway anywhere in a major city.
A better mass transit system will also help traffic flow better then more highways. Los Angeles has what? Highways 8 lanes wide and they still get some of the worst traffic back up in the country.
flex wood wrote:A better mass transit system will also help traffic flow better then more highways. Los Angeles has what? Highways 8 lanes wide and they still get some of the worst traffic back up in the country.
You don't actually want wide highways; it leads to needing to merge across a bunch of lanes and merging is what destroys the traffic flow. You'd be better off expanding vertically for parallelization. You could go further and set up one level as an express level that only lets off at a few points in the major urban centers and at interstate junctions.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
flex wood wrote: A bikers actions can only hurt themselves.
Not true. Even a plastic bag blowing across the street can cause someone to swerve if it catches them off guard. A person on a bike that makes a sudden move can cause a driver to swerve as well.
MrPopo wrote:
You don't actually want wide highways; it leads to needing to merge across a bunch of lanes and merging is what destroys the traffic flow. You'd be better off expanding vertically for parallelization. You could go further and set up one level as an express level that only lets off at a few points in the major urban centers and at interstate junctions.
Has that been tried anywhere? That sounds extremely cost prohibitive. I know when they were in talks to build a train system here the projected cost tripled I think to do Assn elevated train.
But yes you are correct we could use vertically as a great way to cut congestion I just don't think it's a feasible option.
@hobie yea that's my point. A biker swerving is going to happen, to avoid things on the road, but that in itself isn't going to cause an accident, a bad driver over reacting to a quick movement by a biker is.
I love my car, I don't love all the money is takes though. I really have no choice where I live (in the outer suburbs), there is like three buses a day and the nearest train station is 20 minutes drive. Even if I did live near a train station, I don't know how much I would use it. The trains are every 15 minutes during the day, and finish up quite early every day compared to other cities (usually around 10pm). God damn this town.
I've seen some excellent examples of public transport in my travels; the train system in Hong Kong and Singapore sticking out the most. They have trains 24 hours a day, arriving every couple of minutes. If I lived in a city like that, I would use those for sure over a car.
And you just perfectly demonstrated the biker mentality that I hate. You want the best of both worlds - you want to be on the roadway, where people have to follow the laws of the road like signaling and stopping at traffic control devices, but you don't want to follow those laws yourself, and then you get mad at the people that your idiocy caused a hard time for.
How does me not signalling effect traffic? Or me running a light when no one is coming? I don't take a turn unless no one is coming same with going through a light. You think I don't have much more to worry about in cars that don't do those things? I have no airbags on my bike. I have much more to worry about killing me when I'm biking than any driver on the road. I'll make a list then.
Things that can kill you on a bike
squirrels, cats, dogs and any other animal that jumps in front of me
potholes
cars
other bikers
pedestrians at crosswalks
pedestrians going to their cars
people opening their parked car doors
and a ton of other shit I'm not going to bother listing because I think you get the point
Things that can kill you while driving
other cars
your own shitty reactions to all of the things I listed above except you have the chance to kill other people and as long as you are following the traffic laws and not drunk you won't even get into trouble for hitting any of the above objects.
First of all, you not signaling and just cutting left and right if there's traffic around means I might have to slam on my brakes when you cut in front of me. Sure, you might think (I'm sorry, "know") you have enough room to pass by, but if you misjudge my speed and I hit you, who do you think is getting blamed/ticketed/sued? Spoiler alert: Me! But I'll assume you meant "Me not signaling when there's no one on the road" just like you meant you blowing lights when there's no one coming. And the answer to that is summed up by Popo's response: Maybe it doesn't, but it's still against the law and you still have to take your turn at a red light like any other vehicle if you want to be considered a vehicle that has rights to the road. Otherwise, you're just a pedestrian and should be on the sidewalk like other pedestrians, not in the road.
