Do you mean efficiency in terms of
..
a) wasted resources
b) actually getting there

I've been trolling /o/ with these images for a while now. They're raging so hard.
>>>/o/1385025
>>>/o/1385080
>>>/o/1385036
>>>/o/1385094

I'd go with:

C. fifty bicycles

...only if all of those fifty people live and work at the same place.

>>86713

lol you call like 4 posts in a thread raging hard ? half of those are yours!

>>86728
Or at fifty different places that happen to be on the same rail line and within walking distance of a station.

>>86728
Why would they not? Thousands of people live well in the catchment area of a single stop. Using two lines in combination gives lots of potential start and stop stops, modern-day cities though tend to settle with three. It's more likely than you think.

It only involves actually building cityscape, not suburban sprawl. Nobody wants to walk around in land built for cars.

>>86751
Go back to Europe. In America, people buy cars.

>>86761
Not forever they won't. American will have to develop sensible urban planning and public transportation, or be crushed under the weight of its own inefficiency.

>>86761
in Europe, cars come in bags

>>86761
In America, people sit in traffic jam every day.

>>86762
You would think so, but it goes directly against the American desire for space and room of their own. I myself would absolutely hate to be forced to live in an inner-city environment.

>>86750
thats a tram, you dont have stations you have stops
>>86761
>Go back to Europe. In America, National City Lines bought and shut down all the major city light trail
fix'd

>>86766
thats the suburbanization propaganda that began in the 1950s you know

>>86771
Which was based on a desire to return to the more agrarian conditions in America before the late 1800's/early 1900's.

According to the Census Bureau,
in 1900, 39.6% of Americans lived in urban areas.
in 1930, 56.1% of Americans lived in urban areas.
in 1960, 69.9% of Americans lived in urban areas.
in 1990, 75.2% of Americans lived in urban areas.

>>86770
They are on platforms raised above street level, they are stations.

>>86771
Funny that. Here in Great Britain, city councils ripped up all their remaining tramways in the '50s and '60s to make room for cars. Then in the '90s the Tories sold off the railways. Suddenly the millenium comes along, environmentalism kicks in and we start building trams and railways again, and government policy is to get people out of cars and back onto public transport.

Its only a matter of time before this starts happening in the US.

B.) really needs to include in the drawing the electrified grid it would require.

>>86776
>Platforms raised to a little more than normal curb

>>86783

only a matter of time before privatizing public infrastructure falls out of fashion? it's going to be a while

>>86785

A.) really needs to include in the drawing the roads it would require.

bikes for the WIN!

Do 50 random people all go to work at exactly the same time and live in and work at exactly the same place?