I didn’t think they were making that analogy. I think they were highlighting the inefficiency of car-centric spaces. I can think of several other ways the author’s thought experiment breaks down. For example many vehicles will be moving freight and goods, not just people and I don’t know if the author has factored in anything like that. Then you could also say well what about the distance the cars are travelling compared to say how far people are likely to walk in comparison. All that said I still think it’s a thought provoking way of highlighting how car-centric spaces just suck.
I’m prepared to cut them a bit of slack. There was a bit of a nasty campaign by the police, media and state government to try and prevent the protest. It was an important protest to have and I suspect the author’s having a bit of fun at the police and government’s expense. They has done a fair bit of campaigning on the issue of public housing, people-oriented urban spaces and so on.
Yeah you’re putting words in their mouth IMO. I don’t think it’s reasonable to take “technically the bridge had higher throughput when this occurred” and jump all the way to “therefore this is how it should always operate”, that feels like you are trying too hard to read between the lines and creating meaning where there was none.
a bridge is a tool for use by people wishing to cross an otherwise difficult to cross span… the purpose of that crossing - including things like recreation - shouldn’t dictate if their crossing should be allowed or not
Your argument is “It is supposed to be the way it is precisely and only because it is the way it is”.
That’s never a good argument to make.
The real question here is “Could this bridge be used in a better way?”, e.g. by closing a lane or two and opening these up for pedestrians or bikes.
The OOP uses an extreme example to show how inefficient car infrastructure is, and it is incredibly inefficient.
I don’t know this specific bridge in question, but for most urban commuter routes rush hour means that traffic slows to a crawl because there’s more cars than throughput and thus increasing throughput is more important than increasing speed. That’s why stuff like public transport, biking and walking where possible is so important because these transport options have much, much higher throughput.
Which bit?
deleted by creator
I didn’t think they were making that analogy. I think they were highlighting the inefficiency of car-centric spaces. I can think of several other ways the author’s thought experiment breaks down. For example many vehicles will be moving freight and goods, not just people and I don’t know if the author has factored in anything like that. Then you could also say well what about the distance the cars are travelling compared to say how far people are likely to walk in comparison. All that said I still think it’s a thought provoking way of highlighting how car-centric spaces just suck.
deleted by creator
I’m prepared to cut them a bit of slack. There was a bit of a nasty campaign by the police, media and state government to try and prevent the protest. It was an important protest to have and I suspect the author’s having a bit of fun at the police and government’s expense. They has done a fair bit of campaigning on the issue of public housing, people-oriented urban spaces and so on.
That idea is nowhere in the OP, you’ve literally made something up to be mad at
Removed by mod
Yeah you’re putting words in their mouth IMO. I don’t think it’s reasonable to take “technically the bridge had higher throughput when this occurred” and jump all the way to “therefore this is how it should always operate”, that feels like you are trying too hard to read between the lines and creating meaning where there was none.
Removed by mod
no you made that implication up
so the bridge should be closed for tourism?
a bridge is a tool for use by people wishing to cross an otherwise difficult to cross span… the purpose of that crossing - including things like recreation - shouldn’t dictate if their crossing should be allowed or not
deleted by creator
Your argument is “It is supposed to be the way it is precisely and only because it is the way it is”.
That’s never a good argument to make.
The real question here is “Could this bridge be used in a better way?”, e.g. by closing a lane or two and opening these up for pedestrians or bikes.
The OOP uses an extreme example to show how inefficient car infrastructure is, and it is incredibly inefficient.
I don’t know this specific bridge in question, but for most urban commuter routes rush hour means that traffic slows to a crawl because there’s more cars than throughput and thus increasing throughput is more important than increasing speed. That’s why stuff like public transport, biking and walking where possible is so important because these transport options have much, much higher throughput.
deleted by creator