I take issue with this graphic. It is disingenuous to imply that foot traffic isn’t the highest density form of transit. You can’t load a train with other trains. People have to walk.
Odd take. You don’t load trains from the front, you load them from the side. A suburban rail lets you turn ~5 3.5m wide “lanes” of pedestrian traffic into a single equivalent lane of rail.
You forgot to account speed. Trains go something between 20-40+ times (or far more if you account carriage) faster than average person walking. This increases the throughput of the lane massively.
![[meme] Why do people only seem to mean cars when they talk about electric and/or autonomous vehicles?](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8b4f07d2-ffe9-468c-a7da-0e970998b67f.png){kind=link}
This video explains really well exactly why transit is better than cars: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=j4s9WDDRE2A
This one too: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=WiI1AcsJlYU
I also like to point to this graphic:
Cars are just an insanely inefficient way to move people around in cities.
I would like to provide this XKCD in case the last graphic was too helpful.
I take issue with this graphic. It is disingenuous to imply that foot traffic isn’t the highest density form of transit. You can’t load a train with other trains. People have to walk.
Odd take. You don’t load trains from the front, you load them from the side. A suburban rail lets you turn ~5 3.5m wide “lanes” of pedestrian traffic into a single equivalent lane of rail.
You forgot to account speed. Trains go something between 20-40+ times (or far more if you account carriage) faster than average person walking. This increases the throughput of the lane massively.
Wouldn’t things like trains and buses be more dense because you can design them to have multiple floors?
This is, of course, not true for all of them but it’s definitely the case in many places.