I agree that personal muscle cars are a “go fuck yourself” to the climate, but look at that bus. It doesn’t look fast because it has no reason to be aerodynamic. That thing is either stopped or going like 30 mph a majority of the time. If driving takes you 15 minutes but taking the bus takes you an hour, those with enough money will trade it to get that time back.
Why does it need to be aerodynamic? You know you don’t need a Formula 1 shaped car to go faster than 30mph right?
Also the bus pictured is a London city bus. They can’t go faster anyways because of all the traffic in London. There’s busses designed to go on the highway at least like 60 mph.
My point was that it doesn’t need to be aerodynamic, because it won’t be going fast. I’m sure it is still capable of going fast, and that some bus routes go on the highway, but if the designers expected that to be happening with any regularity, they would have designed it with that in mind. Most busses are not aerodynamic because its not necessary. Busses are generally slow.
My commute to work is literally 15 minutes by car or 60 minutes by bus. Traffic is rarely a significant factor for me. It may sometimes add as much as 5 minutes to my travel time.
Would there be significant benefits if everyone used public transportation? Yes.
Do I want to spend an extra 90 minutes commuting every day? Not even a little bit.
It’s also the reason why dedicated bus-only lanes are so based. They let the car owners wait in the stupid traffic jam lineup with all the other car owners while the bus chads all fly past them in the bus lane 😎
That’s why good public transit networks using multiple modes are important, as well as reducing car infrastructure to disincentivize driving at the same time
I agree that personal muscle cars are a “go fuck yourself” to the climate, but look at that bus. It doesn’t look fast because it has no reason to be aerodynamic. That thing is either stopped or going like 30 mph a majority of the time. If driving takes you 15 minutes but taking the bus takes you an hour, those with enough money will trade it to get that time back.
Why does it need to be aerodynamic? You know you don’t need a Formula 1 shaped car to go faster than 30mph right?
Also the bus pictured is a London city bus. They can’t go faster anyways because of all the traffic in London. There’s busses designed to go on the highway at least like 60 mph.
My point was that it doesn’t need to be aerodynamic, because it won’t be going fast. I’m sure it is still capable of going fast, and that some bus routes go on the highway, but if the designers expected that to be happening with any regularity, they would have designed it with that in mind. Most busses are not aerodynamic because its not necessary. Busses are generally slow.
My commute to work is literally 15 minutes by car or 60 minutes by bus. Traffic is rarely a significant factor for me. It may sometimes add as much as 5 minutes to my travel time.
Would there be significant benefits if everyone used public transportation? Yes. Do I want to spend an extra 90 minutes commuting every day? Not even a little bit.
That’s why the example 15min vs an hour is not working, because both are stuck in traffic
It’s also the reason why dedicated bus-only lanes are so based. They let the car owners wait in the stupid traffic jam lineup with all the other car owners while the bus chads all fly past them in the bus lane 😎
Absolutely based
If only there was a way to get rid of traffic… maybe we have to add a few more lanes.
This time it’s really the last ones we need, I swear!
That’s why good public transit networks using multiple modes are important, as well as reducing car infrastructure to disincentivize driving at the same time