Its terrible because it is geometrically impossible for a form of transit to simultaneously have high capacity and to carry people directly to their destination.
Cars average an occupancy of about 1.5, while trains routinely carry hundreds of people. A bit of thought about the implications of everyone arriving directly at their destination should reveal why the average occupancy of such a transit mode can never be much higher than 1.5. This is something that many many advocates of PRT (personal rapid transit) systems fail to understand.
By the way, a pedestrian oriented space can be made to accommodate people that have difficulty walking, but it is virtually impossible to make a city safe and accessible for people with difficulty seeing if the expectation is that everyone is driving a car to their destination.
Yes, because it’s terrible to get somethwete in a timely manner, especially people unable to walk moderate distances.
Its terrible because it is geometrically impossible for a form of transit to simultaneously have high capacity and to carry people directly to their destination.
Cars average an occupancy of about 1.5, while trains routinely carry hundreds of people. A bit of thought about the implications of everyone arriving directly at their destination should reveal why the average occupancy of such a transit mode can never be much higher than 1.5. This is something that many many advocates of PRT (personal rapid transit) systems fail to understand.
By the way, a pedestrian oriented space can be made to accommodate people that have difficulty walking, but it is virtually impossible to make a city safe and accessible for people with difficulty seeing if the expectation is that everyone is driving a car to their destination.
Yes, but the point is: if people who can walk a short distance do walk a short distance, it frees up space for the people who cannot.