there is much less space to design anything neatly.
That’s absolute nonsense. We can design things perfectly well when it suits us.
Even if it were true (it isn’t; Uttar Pradesh is one of India’s largest states, there’s no dearth of space there – this is borne of pure greed and stupidity), that’s not an excuse. Quite a few other regions that are painfully short on space have been able to come up with brilliant, compact designs that serve their intended purpose without putting people in grave danger every day. Hong Kong comes to mind
he he, the Taj Mahal? That structure built by a king from an invading dynasty, after which he had the artisans’ hands cut off? Much like what the British later threatened to do to weavers and healers and fighters who didn’t toe their line?
Like I mentioned, UP has no shortage of space. The HK comparison was to say that even if they were short on space that’s no excuse to build piss poor infrastructure like this
Everything else remaining the same, you may be wrong. Here, there is no danger at the speeds Indian traffic moves at, that was a sped-up time-lapse. The cyclist was on the wrong side of the road.
I don’t know about Hong Kong - more than absolute space, what is the population density - but I imagine control over all the aspects makes for parts that fit better together. Over here, there may be a case for smaller roads planned better, mini buses instead of buses, etc. But the buses already exist. The land is already owned by somebody before they laid down roads. Designed around all that, it isn’t that bad.
We have so much infrastructure at the per-capita income levels as they are of a billion people. This isn’t something to fret over.
more than absolute space, what is the population density
Come on. Google is a click away. You knew the answer already.
Uttar has a population density of 829 / Km^2. Hong Kong is 6800 /Km^2. That makes Hong Kong 8.5x more dense. And land is owned in Hong Kong, Japan and even the US. When roads are built, the owner is given market rate money for the land.
HK population-dense
And yet, they prioritized roads? Car brain right there?
… given market rate for the land diverted
Why should anybody agree to give up their land for roads? These might not be empty lands possessed decades ago, it might be ancestral family land for centuries. I don’t like that those lands are uncultivated, but putting down asphalt liberally everywhere is car-brain.
Why should anybody agree to give up their land for roads?
Transportation of some sort is needed. It doesn’t matter if it is for bikes, trains, or cars. Land must be used for the good of the people. Absolute ownership, no matter the cost to society is capitalist-brain.
I think your ire is misdirected, but I agree with the ire. The problem is the elevated road there! It serves car-brain, and that space could have been put to good use for the “low income” people as somebody put it, instead of catering to the “high income” people zooming above in cars.
That’s absolute nonsense. We can design things perfectly well when it suits us.
Even if it were true (it isn’t; Uttar Pradesh is one of India’s largest states, there’s no dearth of space there – this is borne of pure greed and stupidity), that’s not an excuse. Quite a few other regions that are painfully short on space have been able to come up with brilliant, compact designs that serve their intended purpose without putting people in grave danger every day. Hong Kong comes to mind
If you can do the taj mahal you can do an intersection
he he, the Taj Mahal? That structure built by a king from an invading dynasty, after which he had the artisans’ hands cut off? Much like what the British later threatened to do to weavers and healers and fighters who didn’t toe their line?
Irrelevant, don’t you think?
more to the point 3/4 of the visible land in that vid is empty, no need to compare to hong kong.
Like I mentioned, UP has no shortage of space. The HK comparison was to say that even if they were short on space that’s no excuse to build piss poor infrastructure like this
Everything else remaining the same, you may be wrong. Here, there is no danger at the speeds Indian traffic moves at, that was a sped-up time-lapse. The cyclist was on the wrong side of the road.
I don’t know about Hong Kong - more than absolute space, what is the population density - but I imagine control over all the aspects makes for parts that fit better together. Over here, there may be a case for smaller roads planned better, mini buses instead of buses, etc. But the buses already exist. The land is already owned by somebody before they laid down roads. Designed around all that, it isn’t that bad.
We have so much infrastructure at the per-capita income levels as they are of a billion people. This isn’t something to fret over.
I fight for my life in Indian traffic every day, don’t even give me that guff.
Urban or rural? This video is from rural land off the highway, from the looks of it.
I wouldn’t play down the rashness in urban traffic, I too am a sufferer!
Come on. Google is a click away. You knew the answer already.
Uttar has a population density of 829 / Km^2. Hong Kong is 6800 /Km^2. That makes Hong Kong 8.5x more dense. And land is owned in Hong Kong, Japan and even the US. When roads are built, the owner is given market rate money for the land.
There is no excuse.
Transportation of some sort is needed. It doesn’t matter if it is for bikes, trains, or cars. Land must be used for the good of the people. Absolute ownership, no matter the cost to society is capitalist-brain.
I think your ire is misdirected, but I agree with the ire. The problem is the elevated road there! It serves car-brain, and that space could have been put to good use for the “low income” people as somebody put it, instead of catering to the “high income” people zooming above in cars.
Transportation is necessary. Roads existed long before cars. You didn’t even watch the video. The problem was the road couldn’t handle a bus turning.