Hacker News Reader

Comment by naringas | Hacker News Reader

there are many pedestrian overpasses in some big cities (like the one I live in)

but it's not so simple, because then you have to climb up stairs, which takes more time... you walk more steps

add some heavy duty sun and people rather wait in the shade down below rather than climb up.

Also pedestrian overpasses tend to be really narrow (read: uncomfortable)

Also, why should we be so stingy with time? it's better (IMHO) to lived relaxed, otherwise we will end up under conditions similar (they say) to amazon warehouse workers which have their bathroom breaks measured in seconds.

View on HN

Ideally, the road would be at a lower level than the sidewalk. Then you wouldn’t need to spend time climbing up the bridge, and it wouldn’t be a big deal to have multiple wide bridges. Think Venice, except roads instead of canals.

Presumably engineering tech will also get better and cheaper and some sort of rapid outdoor escalator or elevator could also solve the problem.

Regarding stinginess: I understand where you’re coming from, but I also feel like there are time-intensive aspects of modern life which have little-or-no value, like waiting in traffic.

The problem to solve is not how to make traffic faster, but how to reduce the need for traffic. Many books on the subject but the basic gist is we've designed our cities incorrectly and suburbs are inefficient for many reasons - time, energy, land use and even self reported happiness and satisfaction.

> why should we be so stingy with time?

Because it's fungible. If I save 10 seconds, maybe I get to keep those for myself.

The idea that time is fungible is misleading. I can only drink coffee using my before noon time, or else I take away from the utility of my night time. I’m less productive in the time immediately after a big meal. I can only smell the roses for 30 or so consecutive seconds, and then need a break.

As human beings, time isn't really fungible. I can't wake up at 3am, choose to be productive for 45 minutes, go back to sleep, and then take a 45 minute nap later on in the day. If I stop myself from watching an hour of TV, it doesn't mean that I'll gain an extra hour of productive time tomorrow.

to each their own, I guess...

I am just (strangely) reminded of Charles Dickens' classic a christmas story: "bah! humbug!".

I think an interesting question is whether we are respectively good judges on the "real" value of those ten saved seconds vs more abstract quality of life issues such as mental health or reductions in stress.

That sounds stressful...

uncovered bridges and people being lazy... compared to saving lives and time, these sound like bad excuses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com