hddsx

joined 2 years ago
[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with because I don't think we disagree. I'm not advocating for removing intersections to make arterials or freeway/highways. I'm not advocating for raising the speed limits.

I'm not sure what the equivalent of MS paint for linux is so it's hard for me provide a graphical example.

Let me try one more time with text. If we still seemingly disagree, I'll try to provide a graphic.

The way cities /should/ be designed are that you should use bigger roads to get close to your destination, and then take smaller roads to get there.

So highways -> arterials -> roads -> streets.

So, if I'm traveling to London, Ontario, Canda, I would take the 401/402 into the area, then take Wonderland road to get to the block I'm looking for, and then if that lands me in a neighborhood, I might have to take another small street to get to my final destintation.

So if a city is made of rough grids, you'll still have one or two of those roads be arterials in from the highway, then major roads, then small streets.

From a motorized vehicle point of view, the pain points are intersections because you have to let other vehicles into your path. If you have very small grids, then traffic will stop very often.

If we keep a grid pattern, and we remove most of those intersectinos and make bigger "grids", we can keep traffic flowing LONGER because there are less places vehicles need to stop. No interchanges -- just intersections. Yes, it would still disrupt flow, but you can minimize that throughu the use of PROPERLY SIZED ROUNDABOUTS (traffic circles, for those of us in the US).

Furthermore, unless you can add an arbitrary number of lanes, adding more lanes does not reduce congestion (I'm looking at you Texas). There's basically an acceptable amount of congestion/slow traffic. So if we make more lanes, more cars will fill it. If we take away lanes, people will find other alternatives (ie. biking, walking).

The thing is, many municipalities have really stupid rules about parking spaces and, more importantly, they allow above grade parking spaces. This is a very inefficient use of space. If you /really/ want to accomodate parking, build it underground and don't make it an eye sore.

So, what is the better solution? Use mixed-use zoning to create areas where, if provided, parking is below grade, commercial is at/above grade, and above commercial is residential. This reduces the need for residents to leave the walkable area. And we simply increase walkable areas. And we build public transportation for those of us that need to move between areas.

Also, we REDUCE the speed limit to something that makes sense (again, I'm looking at you America) with infrastructure (read: narrow roads, service-use only roads, speed bumps) so that people will find alternatives. And goddammit we can actually use the acres of wasted space devoted to roads.

And again, I don't belong in this community because I like cars. So what would I do for myself? All roads in a city center should be narrow with really slow speed limits. We should have "toll roads" like the Nurburgring so we can actually enjoy driving our cars instead of being stuck during the commute.

Let me know if we still disagree.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 28 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There is no pollution in the USA

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The US Marshalls of the DOJ is usually the enforcement arm for the judiciary.

Deputizing someone is an enforcement mechanism and not the enforcement arm.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

Because it’s not an arm of enforcement and has rarely been attempted

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

According to the link you posted, it is correct. The usual enforcement arm for the courts is the US Marshalls under the DOJ. However, they have other options that have never been tried.

So what’s stopping the President from ordering the FBI/Marshalls/etc from actively preventing the arrest of the person in contempt?

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (9 children)

No it’s not. The judiciary doesn’t have an enforcement arm. It’s troubling

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Okay so as much as I don’t fit in because I like cars, it’s not just about making things one way. You also have to replace lanes with public transport. And you have you have walkable pedestrian only areas with multi use zones

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Isn’t synology basically a Linux system with lots of slots for storage? Can’t you just… buy a pi?

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (4 children)

One way streets have another function - it’s to help direct traffic. Properly used, it allows you to have minimum entry and exit points.

The issue with downtowns is that there are too many intersections. If you take a line of like a mile, take out all the cross streets in between, and make it a one way to arterials, you’ll have better results.

But, yes, too many vehicles is also a problem.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I am passionate about this subject even if I don’t belong in this community.

Zoning is important. It’s what prevents a nuclear power plan next to your house.

The isn’t is that they don’t allow multi-use zoning. There’s very little reason you can’t have commercial below residential.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 50 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Four years? Boy, you are optimistic

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago

Ah okay this makes more sense. With all electric driving ranges the EPA/CARB more pessimistic than, say, WLTP. The probable place that could be gamed in determining this range, to my knowledge, is to shut off anything that might require more power (ie. AC).

However, if the range estimated in the software for the dashboard does not match reality, that is indeed the fault of Tesla

view more: ‹ prev next ›