Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by evandale 19 days ago
Designing for public transit and cycling benefits far more people than designing exclusively for single passenger cars.

Who do you think are on bikes and in buses?

1 comments

> designing exclusively for single passenger cars

What is design for single passenger cars? Most cars can fit 5 people and roads also carry buses, ambulances, and trucks that carry every single product* in the economy.

* Probably with the exception of coal and some mining materials.

> Most cars can fit 5 people

So you agree that most cars are far larger and heavier than required? First search result for "average car occupancy"[1]:

> In 2022 the Average Number of Occupants Per Trip for Household Vehicles in the United States Was 1.5

This discrepancy is the reason for car pooling, ride-sharing, etc. (Note that Uber, Lyft, etc. are taxi services, not "ride sharing"; since the drivers themselves are not typically intending to travel the routes they drive)

> roads also carry buses

Yes, which is why cars should be removed from such roads, to avoid slowing down buses.

> ambulances

Emergency vehicles can drive in places where cars are forbidden (cycle paths, pedestrianised roads, etc.)

> trucks that carry every single product* in the economy.

Again, you're undermining your own argument: the subsidies given to private car infrastructure are so large, that freight companies exploiting that infrastructure can end up more cost-effective than those which use rail; despite rail being more efficient not only in terms of fuel, but also in terms of labour (since so many trucks would be required to do the job of a single freight train, and each of those trucks require a separate driver). Also note that heavier vehicles degrade the road infrastructure disproportionately; which is even more reason to reduce the number of trucks as far as possible.

[1] https://www.energy.gov/cmei/vehicles/articles/fotw-1333-marc...