Should Cities Install Moving Sidewalks?
theodp writes "The real problem nowadays is how to move crowds,' said the manager of the failed Trottoir Roulant Rapide high-speed (9 km/h) people mover project. 'They can travel fast over long distances with the TGV (high-speed train) or airplanes, but not over short distances (under 1 km).' Slate's Tom Vanderbilt explores whether moving walkways might be viable for urban transportation. The first moving sidewalks were unveiled at Chicago's 1893 Columbian Exposition, and at one point seemed destined to supplant some subways, but never took root in cities for a variety of reasons. Vanderbilt turns to science fiction for inspiration, where 30 mph walkways put today's tortoise-like speed ranges of .5-.83 m/s to shame. In the meantime, Jerry Seinfeld will just have to learn to live with 'the people who get onto the moving walkway and just stand there. Like it's a ride.'"
Yours is apparently "hurr durr, drivin's a faster'n walking, hurr durr!". Perhaps you should learn some comprehension skills?
OK, I was wrong about the comprehension skills. Maybe you should learn to read first.
Take a middle value from the range, rather than one that's extreme like your stupidity. Half a mile. You can walk that, both ways, in 16 minutes.
To drive that - on clear roads and a typical urban speed limit - would take you one minute for the round trip. Bravo, fatty, you win by a quarter of an hour!
But wait. Before you can start driving you have two minutes to walk to your car. Then two to find a space at the restaurant. Still up by 11.
Then it takes you four minutes to find a space when you get back, and all the good ones are taken and it's another three minutes walk from there to work. So your remaining advantage - four whole minutes - soon disappears if you hit a red light or there's heavy traffic - which there will be if everyone's on the road at the same time because they're all as fucking dumb and lazy as you.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."