• biddy@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This visualization is space efficiency.

      Obviously cars have terrible energy efficiency. The most efficient vehicle is a bicycle, since exercise is good for you it’s arguably negative energy usage.

      As for time efficiency, you have to consider car dependent development as a package. Everything spreads out, so overall there may not be an improvement in time efficiency, especially when you factor in the longer travel time of people not in cars. You could even consider the time spent working to pay for the car, or the time lost from people killed by the car, and I doubt cars would come out particularly time efficient then.

    • Thadrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And usage of space. And money, at least if you include all the externalities.

    • mindrover@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They’re measuring how many people can pass through a fixed point in space in an hour, not how long it takes one person to get from point A to point B.

      So not really time or energy, but quantity.

      • txru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or throughput, which is important in areas with congestion, like busy streets and highways.

    • herrvogel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Depends on the city and the route. It takes me an hour to get to work by public transit, from my place to the office that’s at the other end of the city. Google maps assures me it’d be longer if I drove, and knowing this city I definitely believe it.