5 ms·
My hunch is that in the first picture there was at least one person inside each car and they seemed to be going to work. In the second picture, there are a lot
by decross 3y ago
My hunch is that in the first picture there was at least one person inside each car and they seemed to be going to work. In the second picture, there are a lot less people and they are definitely not going to work. Are they getting rid of people and jobs?
- Swenrekcah 3y agoI’m curious why you would think people in the first picture are going to/from work but not in the second.
- eigenspace 3y ago1) Those photos are probably taken at different times of day, so the destinations can differ a lot 2) The second photo may have less people in it, but it's a *much* more zoomed in perspective. It's pretty clearly at least a higher density of people. 3) What makes you think these people aren't going to work?
- comte7092 3y agoClearly, if you aren’t in a car, you aren’t a serious person doing serious, important things. /s
- mden 3y ago4) Throughput is probably a better metric than density and that's hard to guess from static images.
- tzs 3y ago1) Assuming that this is a one-way street for cars and the direction has not changed between the two pictures, it does seem approximately the same time of day based on the shadow angles. But that doesn't tell us anything about day of week which could be a huge factor. 2) Assuming at least one person per vehicle, and assuming that the first stories of the buildings are about the same height in both photos in order to compare scales between the photos, the first seems to have a higher density of people.
- cwoolfe 3y agoDuring the same time period, working from home probably increased due to COVID
- epistasis 3y agoWeird hunches.... How do you know what the people in cars are doing? How do you know what the people are doing? Cars take tons of space, and traffic means that they take it up for longer, and use the space even less efficiently. Cars are an inherently space-inefficient transport mechanism. Replacing cars with bikes improves street throughput several fold, removing that traffic. Removing cars mean that the same physical street can serve the transportation needs of more people, and let them travel more quickly. We have to start to realize that the failures of car infrastructure result in less jobs, less leisure time, less living.
- stackedinserter 3y ago> Cars are an inherently space-inefficient transport It is time efficient and convenient though. > We have to start to realize that the failures of car infrastructure result in less jobs, less leisure time, less living. How come? Having a car, I can reach tons of places in ~40km radius, without planning ahead too much, in any season. I would have to chop significant portion of my life if I were not able to drive anymore.
- Equadex 3y agoThat only works for the select few, not for the many. In dense cities it falls apart.
- ForestCritter 3y agoDoing groceries for a family is an ordeal in a city with only public transport. Bicycles are useless for family groceries no matter having baskets and racks and there are no baskets and racks on city owned bikes. Cities with cold winters are even worse. Also terrible going to work in rainy weather or high winds. Bus routes go by their time and not yours and can add hours to your work week plus you have to be early in case they are and stand out in the elements while waiting.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Pearse 3y agoIn the video he specificly says that that road was reduced from 6 lanes to one to make room for bikes.