- cross-posted to:
- urbanism@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- urbanism@hexbear.net
You must log in or # to comment.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=R2oD1ZHNMFE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Tiny cars should not be in any city. Large trucks make sense for various delivery and construction activities. If you can do it with a small car you can do it with a cart (possibly moved by bike, or pushed onto public transit). I guess I’ll make an exception for the disabled as well, but most people wouldn’t describe their devices as cars.
Did you watch the video? The idea* seems the same as (electric) Kei-trucks or Tuk-tuks yet more limited on who can have it (like the thumbnail, also in the video “you live up a hill? Sorry, you can take a taxi”). With the restrictions in place, I’d imagine people bike to work and likely do use a(n e)bike for jobs/conditions that allow it. Also “but not the shops, also not the restaurants. We are really strict that, since 20 years we have around 520 vehicles”
*=Smaller footprint of vehicles, higher visibility, less weight to propel (+less momentum), less damage to infrastructure, more efficient usage for smaller (most common) trips etc
Tiny vehicles may actually work pretty well in winter conditions for people who don’t want to cycle.
A taxi is not really better than any other private vehicle, other than being less affordable. That, in turn, means that poor people will be further disadvantaged.
For people with good enough mobility, we should facilitate walking, cycling, and public transit. That said, I understand some people have such poor mobility that they can’t walk to a bus stop, so there will always be a need for taxis, but private vehicles need to be the last resort for human transport.
A taxi is not a personal vehicle though, it means less risk (higher scrutiny on driver, less people driving) and less parking.
I was just quoting the video, and also yeah it’s understandable that their town is designed a specific way and appears to be higher wealth. Depending on gaps with public transport, I could very well see some systems for residents for free transport (shuttles, vouchers for home/work travel etc) but I can see why such a thing wouldn’t make it into the video.
A taxi fleet has minimal ability to transport amounts of people, just like any other car. It is not an efficient use of public resources, such as roads. Active transport and transit are both more efficient and more equitable.
I am not arguing against transit/active mobility, again it was just a comment included in the video. Though even the taxis shown look to have more seats than a standard taxi cab (sedan), so that might not even be the best thing to call them. There is potential for taxi sharing setup for more throughput, but again that’s nuance/detail that I understand why it wouldn’t be in the video.
Also my point in my first response to you was much like saying that carpooling is better than driving to work alone. Especially in a shuttle (minibus) setup with multiple trips/destinations etc is going to be better than a car that will sit in a garage or parking space most of the time.
That and the enclosed system with custom efficient/utilitarian vehicles, lower speed, smaller roads etc makes it seem like a good system if you’re going to have roads. Especially when it’s a need-based system as described in the video. Though in the video it looks like there isn’t much vehicle traffic anyway, so still walkable/bikable etc.
Thanks for mentioning disabled. I can do everything by foot, bike, or transit but my wife can’t. We have even looked at electric bikes but she just can’t really handle the posture for any amount of time. Heck even our vehicle is based on something that is not so low she has to fall into it but not so high she has to climb into it. It does drive me nuts though because I hate owning an auto.
