cross-posted from: https://mastodon.uno/users/rivoluzioneurbanamobilita/statuses/113485559637864463
La soluzione al #traffico era già nota nel 1927
In un manifesto dell’azienda di trasporto di Wichita Falls, si chiede di dare priorità al trasporto di massa, perché molto più efficiente: in un #tram possono sedersi comodamente le persone portate da ben 28 #auto (con 2 persone per auto, stima ottimistica).
100 anni fa era già tutto li: problema e soluzione
@energia #mezziPubblici #mobilitaSostenibile
Trovata qui:
https://www.facebook.com/100033858551663/posts/1365019054636700/
You must log in or # to comment.
Weird to think that a conservative ass tiny Texas town with absolutely NOTHING in it besides an Air Force base was once pushing community benefits like street cars.
I wonder what it could’ve been today if they had gone with this plan 100 years ago. 🤔
Yea but the street car won’t drop me off directly at my door in the suburbs 20 minutes out of town where I pay cheaper property taxes. Why should my taxes pay for something only the city people can use? Once my car is parked downtown it isn’t in anyone’s way while I’m at work. /s
I agree we need fewer cars and more pubic transport, but these comparisons always assume maximum efficiency in bus use and minimum efficiency in car use. What if we only have 3 people on the bus? Maybe people prefer cars to an extent because they are not all crammed up? We need to make buses/trains enjoyable to use for those people who are now using cars (not me, who is already on the train anyway)
In the city where my mother lives they are repeatedly cutting down on the number of public busses, to the point where there is one bus per hour on Sundays. This is the 3rd largest city in the country of Denmark. The thinking goes: Well nobody is using the busses so why have so many. Then as less busses serve the city, less people use them. And round and round we go.
How do you interpret “averages 1 3-5 passengers”?
3 to 5 on average
I think it’s a speech thing that got written down, but then also written as the number instead of the word.
Like they use of the word “one” like this:
That’s one weird thing to do.
That’s a weird thing to do.
So I read that as:
averages 3-5 passengers
averages a 3-5 passengers
averages one 3-5 passengers
averages 1 3-5 passengers
It seems odd that the average would be a range… Or that the range would include 5! I think 1 3/5 = 8/5 is more likely. Especially since they go on to assume 2 passengers, which would be pretty disengenuous if the average was higher than 2.
I can totally follow that logic. 1 and 3/5ths, rounding up to 2 for the next hypothesis. Very plausible explanation.
Thanks for the Italian translation, it was very helpful.
Bene!
