Source: https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1665308737026904065
The point he makes is correct of course, but the way he does the comparison is not very honest. If he wants to compare to the maximum capacity of a tube train, he'd also have to take the maximum capacity of a car, not the average passengers.
A bicycle is so much more efficient than a car!
3 people one a bike in 2m vs 3km for cars, 1 person per car, with a 1km gap between every car !
Fuck cars, but he's pushing it too much in one direction to try and make a point.
No, it's very honest.
When you increase the number of passengers on a train(e.g. rush hour), the volume doesn't increase. The size of the train stays fixed up until it hits capacity.
When you increase the number of passengers on a road, they tend to still have around 1 car/person. Encouraging people to carpool just doesn't really happen. So an "at capacity" road still has most cars with just the driver. This is one of the main reasons cars are so inefficient, people are lugging around capacity for 5 people and tons of cargo, but it never gets used even when the roads are "at capacity".
But this is what happens. Every rush hour the roads are packed with cars, mostly just with one person in them, while the trains are actually full.
During rush hour you definitely won't have a distance of 10 meters between each car though.
If they're moving there should be, and if not it doesn't seem fair to me to compare transport to a car park.
Now try adding up all the square footage parking spaces take.
For example, consider that adding a parking space to a 400 sq.ft. studio apartment — or adding two spaces to a 800 sq.ft. two-bedroom — effectively increases the total square footage by a whopping 50%. And since concrete parking decks are more expensive to build than habitable area of dwelling units, that likely represents a greater than 50% increase in costs.
And yet people unironically defend minimum parking requirements while simultaneously removed about housing costs.
