It increases the efficiency of car traffic, not moving people. It’s still good engineering from a car perspective, but terrible urban design.

How so? It’s a total traffic killer, in more ways than one :P

The designer of this intersection type actually touted that island as a place where you can “beautify” the intersection with a sculpture of landscaping. Lmao

I mean… the second exit is usually going straight. So that makes sense. First exit would be a right turn (or left in the UK)

Apparently this is actually less wide compared to his original concept that served 19,000 vehicles per hour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwE3GzzHIhI

21 lanes wide, however there are medians making it wider than that.

if exercising imminent domain is on the table

It isn’t. This concept was not ultimately chosen for this intersection. In fact the inventor of this concept was a pretty… interesting guy.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2024/04/23/greg-parsons-bomb-threat-tampa-fdot-district-7/

It honestly is quite amazing from an engineering standpoint but would be pretty immoral to build in real life

I hate when I hit those children and my car slows like 20 miles per hour so I have to waste gas getting it back up to 70.

This comment provides no value to this discussion. If you want to contribute, you should explain the big deciding difference and not just expect everyone to magically know the point you are trying to make.

If you are fine with being circumcised, that seems like the best possible outcome and I’m glad you are happy with your body in that way. However, many people were circumcised and are not fine with it. After all, it is a choice made for them without their consent. Also, it shouldn’t matter what women prefer. It should be your body, your choice. If someone wants to get circumcised later in life, that is their choice.

I mean… it would seem like it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itg27-Cwlg4

Oregano trail

“Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised.”

Ah man, the end of that quote must’ve gotten cut off by a guillotine or something

Especially in this context where 1969 is the moon landing and Woodstock year

I understood that reference

Next step will be trying to erase trans people from being able to go outside or have a job

Kansas, like most all of the USA is very car dependent so losing a drivers license could result in not being able to commute to a job

Relevant video essay

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M7i_i-KnDFA

Non-YouTube version

https://kolektiva.media/w/mGf43YP2t6FtjASnTA1APD

Nothing on AO3 can beat this writing

I’m proud of the one NOT doing the immoral thing.

So are you an anarchist? That’s the only way this logic would make sense to me.