LogFAQs > #972742873

LinkPizza posted...

Depends on if switching will actually benefit them or not And that depends on a bunch of factors

Which gets back to the point that traffic won't improve unless alternatives to driving are better than driving. That's perfectly attainable, just not without making some significant changes to how cities approach transit, active transportation, and planning.

LinkPizza posted...

The problem isnt always the traffic, though The routes themselves are the problem.

All of this objection is boiling down to "buses aren't good enough now to take the place of cars," but this whole idea entails making buses better to the point that they are good enough to take the place of cars. If the current routes meander too much, make better routes (and adjust zoning laws to allow development around those routes that will take proper advantage of them), actually designed around the premise that they will be used by lots of people and not stopping at everybody's back door to try and cram all of the people that can't afford cars into one bus.

LinkPizza posted...

Chances are that the driveway would be extra lawn if they removed them

If you remove it from existing houses, sure. If you design a new subdivision around transit instead of ensuring every house has room for 2+ cars, though, that's 100% going to allow for smaller lots and more houses, which developers will gladly do because that means more money.

LinkPizza posted...

What Im asking is what if when they propose new subdivisions, the cities say no to them? Wouldnt they still need approval from the city to build the subdivision?

Then they can't build, I guess. Not everything gets approved automatically, but many cities do have to actively court development and growth to stay financially solvent, which just isn't a sustainable model.