[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-17/the-dutch...
It’s big because lots of people transit through; the bridges are high because they go over interstate 66. It’s big because because one of the main purposes of the station is to serve as a transfer point from cars to light rail.
Would you suggest that the bridges over an interstate be 10 feet high? Would you rather the rail system just not service that area?
Tysons is next to a ring road for DC, and the greater DC-Arlington-Alexandria metro area has 6.6M.
It's by n mean the only issue though; A study of the silver-line construction could be a masters class in how boondoggles happen.
It has what appears to be identical segregated cycleways and has done for 60+ years now ( https://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/wp-content/uploads/... ), yet cycle usage is less than 3% despite the town being literally designed around and built with cycleways from day 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevenage
Both Milton Keynes and Stevenage are notorious in the UK as a result - people (rightly) view them as soulless hellscapes
I mean I could go on. Don’t get me wrong, Ive done a bike a primary transit for a year or so. But anyone who’s confused why the average American doesn’t want to is probably a little out of touch to say the least.
Does it mean something different in the US? And what would be the French equivalent then?
Here’s a fairly representative picture of the geometry: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS8zguy...
How do emergency vehicles get in and out?
If a doctor is called in to an emergency, walking or biking is too slow. How do they get to the case?
In that area I couldn't come up with a route between two points that took longer than 10 minutes by car. And that was by trying to find the two most inconvenient points in the town. I don't know if Houten has this feature but there are often movable bollards that allow emergency vehicles to take shortcuts.
From their centrally located public health center, I couldn't find a location that was more than 6 minutes by car or 10 minutes by bike.
A 6 minute response time is better than most people can hope for in many major cities in Europe.
Doctors don't drive emergency vehicles, they drive their own cars.
When doctors get called in to hospitals for emergencies, they travel in their own cars. Is that really unknown around here? If it is, none of you are competent to decide who needs a car and how cities should be designed.
On call docs (the ones that would be coming to the hospital) are the specialists that other doctors call to assist after the emergent issue is handled. A 6 minute worst case scenario drive time is perfectly acceptable.
There are hospitals in the states where it will take you longer than 6 minutes to walk to the ED from another location in the hospital after getting paged.
Not always. This might be true in larger hospitals, but I have personal experience in small towns where, yes, someone will get called in to handle an emergency.
Emergency doctors also don’t hang out at home when they are on call. They hang out at hospitals.
They just do. And they do it more easily because they don’t have to fight car traffic to do it.
> If a doctor is called in to an emergency, walking or biking is too slow. How do they get to the case?
In America you’re looking at a 20+ minute drive for any physician so they are already at the hospital or it takes just as long if not longer to drive to the hospital in a typical American layout. It’s not an issue.
On roads where motor vehicles aren't allowed? On roads blockaded so motor vehicles can't access?
That's what "stopped up for cars" means.
Kids being run over is not a common problem, by any standard. You'd struggle to argue that it even qualified as "rare". It's more along the lines of "unheard of".
The 2016 census reports the population of 0-19 year olds as 81,880,000. According to this article in US News ( https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2018-12-19/... ), "motor vehicle crashes" are the leading cause of death in that age group.
There were 4,074 such fatalities in 2016, making for an annual death rate of 0.005%. Every year, one in every 20,000 kids in America dies in a car crash. (Assuming 19-year-olds are "kids".) But "motor vehicle crashes" include cases where the child who died was a passenger in a vehicle that crashed, or where they were a passenger in a vehicle that was hit, or where they were driving a vehicle that crashed, or where they were driving a vehicle that was hit. NHTSA tells us that in 2016, there were just over 7,000 non-vehicle-occupant fatalities from motor vehicle crashes among all age groups combined. ( https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... ) This is about 19% of the total number of traffic fatalities for that year; if we apply that figure to our teen-and-under deaths, the number of kids getting run over in 2016 would be 770 out of almost 82 million kids.
In other words, the annual rate of this problem occurring is estimated at 0.000009; it is, in your terminology, a 99.9991% problem. That's still about 90 times as common as a 99.99999% problem, but I have a sneaking suspicion you were just making that number up. To a first, second, third, and fourth approximation, kids in the United States don't get run over.
Think about it. Do you personally know of any occasion on which a child was run over? In what sense could it be a "common problem"?
> Every year, one in every 20,000 kids in America dies in a car crash.
And I bet that 770 kids dying each year from being directly run over occurs 70x more often than someone dying because a doctor can't make it to the hospital in time. Really optimizing for an unimportant detail at the expense of the entire system.
From the other comments in the thread, it's a huge problem, and it's one that kills.
So doctors won't be allowed to drive to the hospital in emergencies.
That kind of thing kills people.
> So doctors won't be allowed to drive to the hospital in emergencies.
You might as well say "so doctors will be stuck in traffic jams on the way to the hospital, these things kill people".
Also:
> You know they have attending physicians and emergency room staff who work there right?
They don't do anesthesia, they don't do surgery, they are, in general, not specialists.
Don't try to make points in a realm you know nothing about.
When was the last time you were in a hospital ER or ICU? I've been there off and on for the last few weeks and months. Broadly saying that physicians that specialize in anesthesia, surgery, or other specialties are not staffed at a hospital or emergency room is factually incorrect.
It's also not a problem in the first place with the context in this thread. If a specialist was required to be X minutes away from the hospital incase they were on call they'd live or be within X minutes away from the hospital regardless of the mode of transportation. On top of that, any emergency would necessitate emergency hospital staff being on-site to stabilize the patient while a specialist arrives and reviews the case anyway. I bet more doctors die every year in car crashes going to emergency calls like the one you are conjuring up than patients who die as a result of a doctor being late.
Doubling down on this irrelevant point is bizarre, and even more so when you fail to imagine that maybe we could find a solution for this non-problem anyway.