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.
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