LogFAQs > #972720603

adjl posted...

Ah, well then that's not overly relevant to city planning. Self-contained microcosms like bases and campuses tend to be designed better (by virtue of having a cohesive design vision instead of just making it up as they go along), and in the case of bases, it's never really going to happen that the government says "we allocated a bit more land than was actually needed for this base, let's develop it into something more functional" because of security concerns and wanting to have some flexibility available if something changes that demands more land.

Bases are just weird in general. Constantly moving and changing stuff You right that they can mostly be self-contained (If you dont Ming going without certain things) But most arent designed better. The ones Ive been to have been a confusing mess Or at least, not much better than cities I go to Even to this day, people who have been there for years barely know where certain things are (or that we had them) And moving stuff around all the time doesnt help

adjl posted...

Roads still need to be maintained, but if those roads are being used more efficiently than to carry around a bunch of single-occupant cars, you end up paying less per person moved.

Thats only if everyone have up their car. If not, even with less people, wed need more buses, and many would still have cars. So, the roads would probably need about the same amount of maintenance Maybe certain areas would need more or less, though Depending on how they do it

adjl posted...

This, I think, might be the big thing tripping you up. Car-centric infrastructure requires more space to mvoe the same number of people than any other alternative. Period. If building transit infrastructure does entail taking up more space instead of converting existing space (most likely on-street parking), that's an expansion that would end up happening in the not-too-distant future anyway for the sake of trying to move more car traffic (which is only ever a band-aid solution because induced demand means that new lane will fill up pretty quickly and traffic will continue being just as bad).

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/05/10/how-can-cities-move-more-people-without-wider-streets-hint-not-with-cars/

As outlined there, a lane filled with just cars can generally move somewhere between 600 and 1600 people per hour. You can nearly double that just by throwing frequent buses into the mix (bear in mind that a bus can comfortably carry 50 times more people than most cars have in them, with ~3-4 times the footprint). Make it a dedicated bus lane instead (with appropriate bus saturation), and you can push 4000-8000. Building for transit does not require "more space for everything." Precisely the opposite: Building for private vehicle use is what requires more space, which is why it comes at such a massive infrastructure cost and actively impairs walkability (by making everything further apart), even before considering the question of what has to be done with all those cars that spend an average of 96% of their lifetimes parked.

I dont think more space is the big thing Its probably not even the highest concern on that list of stuff I mentioned alongside it I was just also mentioning it

As for doubling the amount of people, thats only if people rode the bus We already have buses, but people still dont ride them (and I dont blame them after working there, tbh) So, the doubling only works when people use the public transport. And most people dont for various reasons Also, many people buses can carry depends on the bus The buses Id seen in my current and home town cant carry that many I think our buses here are like around 40. Back home, its a little more, I think That said, I cant say the average amount of people
In cars here. I do know plenty of people that car pool to most places, though But that from what I see As for the parked car, most probably spend time parked at home in a garage or driveway Even when they spend a good chick parked in the parking lot of a place, its not too bad

adjl posted...

Depends how you do it. Tweak zoning laws to allow mixed-use developments of an appropriate density for where they are, put a complete halt on developing new suburbs that don't have enough population/commercial density to pay for the road/transit infrastructure needed to connect them to everything else, and right off the bat you've got a near-zero-cost initiative that will encourage the city to grow sustainably and help to ensure that new transit projects will be used enough to justify the expense.

Beyond that, though, there is indeed a front-end cost, but it's a front-end cost that can be expected to yield a significant return on investment. The alternative is to maintain the status quo and continue hemorrhaging money (quite a bit more than this front-end cost, long-term) trying to tread water and never actually making anything better. Gotta spend money to make money, and in this case, the alternative is spending just as much money and not making anything. There's a pretty clear winner.

Wouldnt that depends on if the people who run the city wanted it to grow Because I can tell you they dont. Thats why they deny so much stuff already

As for return investment, thats if there is any. Most people would probably still use their cars, whether for convenience, time, distance, or because they have to. So, we probably wont get a return At least in my city. Traffics not bad, so getting some cars off the road wont significantly help. If anything, it would get worse with more buses (If we even got them) So, I dont see where Im getting any return. So, Id have to help with front-end cost that dont even benefit me