Comment on Well done, all of you!
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 weeks agoIf you think that’s a lot of infrastructure, wait until you learn how huge roads are.
Comment on Well done, all of you!
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 weeks agoIf you think that’s a lot of infrastructure, wait until you learn how huge roads are.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
You’d have a point if you were getting rid of the roads. But you’re not. You’re leaving them underutilized, out in the boondocks, where they are needed and used to service farms and mines and everything else your urban centers require. Those same roads serving population densities of <10 people per square mile are readily capable of serving population densities of 320 people per square mile. So, again, why not spread out? Why cram ourselves in like sardines, where we need buses and trains and trams and subways and rentable scooters littered everywhere?
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
The road IS going away, at least temporarily. That’s the whole fucking point of this scenario. That’s why the throughput is determined ONLY by how many lanes will continue through.
It’s not hard to comprehend. It’s basic traffic throughput…
The people racing up an empty lane when the through-lanes are slow or stopped ARE “cramming themselves in like sardines”.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
I think you lost the plot. This thread diverted to a discussion on the pitfalls of urbanization.
I think we are largely in agreement on the closed lane issue.