Poll of the Day > dominance of personal automobile ownership in the US is bonkers

(+) Yeah! (+)

people spending $900 / month on car expenses and cities simultaneously going bankrupt over suburban sprawl, it's lose/lose for everyone but car manufacturers and fossil fuel companies

it's absolutely insane how much governments subsidize car-centric life just to make people fatter and poorer than they could be otherwise, while encouraging the worst possible behaviors re: climate change

this planet is doomed

What are you doing that costs 900 a month?

Yes, the planet is doomed but not because of fucking cars.

jsb0714 posted...

Yes, the planet is doomed but not because of fucking cars.

not just cars, nah, but in part.

cars, aviation, animal agriculture, single family homes and the unending manufacturer/purchase of wasteful crap covers most of the bases.

I don't expect everybody to be perfect in all these dimensions, but when most people in the US lean heavily into most of these categories (on a global scale), it's not a good sign

coincidentally they're all things that are encouraged by being cheaper for the consumer than the cost incurred by society. and we could change that, thus allowing people to make rational choices based on the true costs of their consumption

BlackScythe0 posted...

What are you doing that costs 900 a month?

sounds like pretty average vehicle costs to me, even low, if you actually take into account insurance, repairs and gas.

I live somewhere where they could literally slap one commuter train down with a few tiny branches and it would eliminate commuting for fucking everyone. The highway is so bloody dumb.

America was developed under the Eco-Fascist doctrine of "What's good for General Motors is good for America"

Car culture is the single largest mismanagement of resources in human history.

what do you think the mazda zoom zoom kid is doing now

ConfusedTorchic posted...

what do you think the mazda zoom zoom kid is doing now

Hopefully in therapy from bullying

BlackScythe0 posted...

What are you doing that costs 900 a month?

I spend close to that between car payments, insurance and gas.

Yall must be rolling in money or living in Cali.

The need for car ownership will never change until public transportation improves 10,000%. I am 68 years old and until 2 years ago when my car was destroyed by vandals and made unrepairable I had owned a car since 1971. The only reason I haven't starved to death is thanks to New Hampshire caring for it's elders more than any other state I know of. We have a community action program (free with voluntary donations) for elderly and disabled people to get to doctors and groceries and the like. Without that or a car I'd be dead now.

Cars are the devil's product

I think the most I ever spent in a month on a car was $400, most of that being insurance. That was also when I was <25 because after that insurance goes WAY down. Now I am probably paying something like $90 a month, although if I was driving regularly it would probably be closer to $150.

peanutt121 posted...

The need for car ownership will never change until public transportation improves 10,000%. I am 68 years old and until 2 years ago when my car was destroyed by vandals and made unrepairable I had owned a car since 1971. The only reason I haven't starved to death is thanks to New Hampshire caring for it's elders more than any other state I know of. We have a community action program (free with voluntary donations) for elderly and disabled people to get to doctors and groceries and the like. Without that or a car I'd be dead now.

It doesn't matter how much personal transportation improves, it'll never be as convenient or give as much freedom as a personal vehicle. Unless you just have a couple taxis waiting on every street, which would be much worse for the environment. Im not sure what public transportation supporters actually want that would be an improvement over cars.

That being said, the industrial revolution was a mistake, so was the agricultural revolution. The world would be better off without society but we already opened pandoras box so we have to make the best of what we got.

Muscles posted...

That being said, the industrial revolution was a mistake, so was the agricultural revolution. The world would be better off without society but we already opened pandoras box so we have to make the best of what we got.

muscles moment

peanutt121 posted...

The need for car ownership will never change until public transportation improves 10,000%. I am 68 years old and until 2 years ago when my car was destroyed by vandals and made unrepairable I had owned a car since 1971. The only reason I haven't starved to death is thanks to New Hampshire caring for it's elders more than any other state I know of. We have a community action program (free with voluntary donations) for elderly and disabled people to get to doctors and groceries and the like. Without that or a car I'd be dead now.

A lot of that shit is chicken or the egg scenarios, also I will point out in the modern world many areas have grocery delivery services. Now some small town in bum fuck nowhere might not have that but you can easily order groceries from a good number of grocery stores and they will deliver.

But yeah public transportation is heavily not a thing because of the car culture in America. Some cities do have a reasonable public transport and obviously larger cities typically do, but since so many in America buy cars and invest heavily into them it never becomes a major focus.

You're not getting anywhere in the US without a car. Other countries have public transit to go anywhere, but in the US it's just a bunch of slow and dirty buses.

Some larger cities have had no choice but to move away from car based infrastructure, but it's pretty obsolete in general.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

muscles moment

Holy fuckin shit absolutely

Muscles posted...

It doesn't matter how much personal transportation improves, it'll never be as convenient or give as much freedom as a personal vehicle.

That "freedom" loses a lot of its lustre when you realize the true cost associated with it. When cities are designed so overwhelmingly for cars, you have to drive everywhere. You don't have the freedom to not own a car, unless you can rely on somebody who does (which still isn't all that free). It means cities need to have higher taxes. It means cities spend all their efforts courting developers willing to build new car-centric suburbs instead of maintaining any sort of historical character to set themselves apart (often bankrupting themselves in the process because that's basically a ponzi scheme). It means poorer-quality infrastructure all around. It means bulldozing acres upon acres of high-value downtown real estate to make room for all the cars that sit and do nothing all day. It means higher housing prices and more homelessness because land that could be housing ends up being used to widen roads. It means small businesses struggling because they depend so heavily on foot traffic. It means orders of magnitude more pedestrian injuries and deaths despite the fact that so many fewer people try to walk anywhere because it's so miserable. It means air pollution, noise, stress, and traffic that will inexorably get worse no matter how many more lanes you add.

But hey, at least you can leave when you want instead of 5-10 minutes earlier or later, and if you're lucky you might only have to circle the block for 10 minutes to find a parking spot closer than the transit stop would be. I guess that's pretty nifty.

Are there merits to personal cars? Sure. But designing cities such that personal cars are the default mode of everyday transportation is utterly asinine. Cities need viable alternatives to driving. It's an inescapable law that traffic will only get worse until a faster alternative exists. If you don't make faster alternatives, you're just going to spend the rest of your life in traffic.

Instead of fondly remembering how liberating it felt to get your driver's license, try getting mad at how imprisoned you felt for the first 16 years of your life, and ask why your community decided to inflict that on you. Being unable (or even unwilling) to drive doesn't have to limit you. That it does is a failure.

adjl posted...

That "freedom" loses a lot of its lustre when you realize the true cost associated with it. When cities are designed so overwhelmingly for cars, you have to drive everywhere. You don't have the freedom to not own a car, unless you can rely on somebody who does (which still isn't all that free). It means cities need to have higher taxes. It means cities spend all their efforts courting developers willing to build new car-centric suburbs instead of maintaining any sort of historical character to set themselves apart (often bankrupting themselves in the process because that's basically a ponzi scheme). It means poorer-quality infrastructure all around. It means bulldozing acres upon acres of high-value downtown real estate to make room for all the cars that sit and do nothing all day. It means higher housing prices and more homelessness because land that could be housing ends up being used to widen roads. It means small businesses struggling because they depend so heavily on foot traffic. It means orders of magnitude more pedestrian injuries and deaths despite the fact that so many fewer people try to walk anywhere because it's so miserable. It means air pollution, noise, stress, and traffic that will inexorably get worse no matter how many more lanes you add.

But hey, at least you can leave when you want instead of 5-10 minutes earlier or later, and if you're lucky you might only have to circle the block for 10 minutes to find a parking spot closer than the transit stop would be. I guess that's pretty nifty.

Are there merits to personal cars? Sure. But designing cities such that personal cars are the default mode of everyday transportation is utterly asinine. Cities need viable alternatives to driving. It's an inescapable law that traffic will only get worse until a faster alternative exists. If you don't make faster alternatives, you're just going to spend the rest of your life in traffic.

bro how do you put this much effort into posting here. Im genuinely curious

DirtBasedSoap posted...

bro how do you put this much effort into posting here. Im genuinely curious

*Shrug*

Zareth posted...

Hopefully in therapy from bullying

who bullied the zoom zoom kid

adjl posted...

But hey, at least you can leave when you want instead of 5-10 minutes earlier or later, and if you're lucky you might only have to circle the block for 10 minutes to find a parking spot closer than the transit stop would be. I guess that's pretty nifty.

This probably depends on where you live and need to go Most places Ive needed to go have enough parking that I wasnt looking for long, if at all And I do like being able to leave whenever Especially since depending on the how long the route is, and how many buses there are, I might I have to leave like 30 minutes earlier I would hope it would be better than the public transportation here, though. So, maybe not Though, based on how its worked here, and back home where it was used more, it still could end up being much earlier That said, Im also forgetful. So, being able to just turn around and go home to get whatever I forgot is definitely helpful

ConfusedTorchic posted...

who bullied the zoom zoom kid

No idea, but if anyone deserves to be bullied it's him

LinkPizza posted...

Most places Ive needed to go have enough parking that I wasnt looking for long, if at all

And what ratio between productive land and parking has been needed to make that possible? What impact has that had on the ability of a given parcel of land to produce tax revenue to sustain the infrastructure needed to reach it (not to mention everything else the city has to do)? What does it do to the walkability of an area to have ample parking space close to every destination?

It's possible, but it comes at a considerable cost.

LinkPizza posted...

And I do like being able to leave whenever Especially since depending on the how long the route is, and how many buses there are, I might I have to leave like 30 minutes earlier

That would be an example of inadequate transit. Again, traffic will get worse until a faster alternative exists. If you want to improve traffic, you need to figure out a way to make transit faster, such as dedicated bus lanes and advance bus signals to prevent buses from getting stuck in traffic, trams/streetcars that have their own lanes and infrastructure that bypasses traffic, or trains. If transit is slower, that's either a design failure (more likely) or an indication that your local traffic isn't actually bad enough to warrant making efforts to improve it (which is actually true of a lot of smaller towns, but those towns can still benefit from building around transit instead of cars as they try to grow because that growth will be more sustainable).

LinkPizza posted...

That said, Im also forgetful. So, being able to just turn around and go home to get whatever I forgot is definitely helpful

That is indeed a situation where transit isn't likely to be able to match cars, but as you say that's a fairly minor personal issue and therefore not really something worth considering when designing a city.

Iv been lucky. Owned my civic now 8 years. 3 years no payments. No major repair bills. 170k miles. Should get me to 200k. 1-2 more years. Bought it for 14k in 2016 35k miles. I fear car buying

adjl posted...

And what ratio between productive land and parking has been needed to make that possible? What impact has that had on the ability of a given parcel of land to produce tax revenue to sustain the infrastructure needed to reach it (not to mention everything else the city has to do)? What does it do to the walkability of an area to have ample parking space close to every destination?

It's possible, but it comes at a considerable cost.

Theres still walking areas around Sidewalks and stuff Though, people would rather drive. But it is walkable So, it hasnt really affected that. For how much land is needed for parking spaces, depends on what it is. For example, restaurants need much less that places like work or grocery stores That said, most spaces get used. We made just a patch of land that was sitting there useless into more parking spaces since it wasnt used for anything else. So, now its usually full with a couple spaces open. And thats usually enough for everybody to park. And since its a 24 hour operation, they are usually getting used through the whole day

Though, tbf, base just has a lot of extra land that just sits there unused. Mostly just fields Some have trees, and some just have grass They should probably use it for something. But they dont have a need for anything new right now. But its not used for parking or living or anything. Just the local wildlife, I guess. So, it seems like it works well since everything it close-ish on base Still a big base, though

As for tax, either way, tax will be expensive I dont see it getting cheaper with public transportation At least, not anytime soon I can see it getting way more expensive, though

adjl posted...

That would be an example of inadequate transit. Again, traffic will get worse until a faster alternative exists. If you want to improve traffic, you need to figure out a way to make transit faster, such as dedicated bus lanes and advance bus signals to prevent buses from getting stuck in traffic, trams/streetcars that have their own lanes and infrastructure that bypasses traffic, or trains. If transit is slower, that's either a design failure (more likely) or an indication that your local traffic isn't actually bad enough to warrant making efforts to improve it (which is actually true of a lot of smaller towns, but those towns can still benefit from building around transit instead of cars as they try to grow because that growth will be more sustainable).

Its more than just making transit better. Its a money issue. Well, an equipment issue that money would solve, at least Buses and trains have routes. So, even with the bus lanes, it just depends on the route. With a personal vehicle, I head straight to wherever Im going. With public transport, I can end up going a bunch of places around town first (and possibly the transit station) first And if the bus Im on doesnt go to the place, Ill have to go to the transit station first, anyway With more money, you could get more buses and build new lanes and stuff, though that would take up more space, meaning less sidewalk That said, more buses only help with getting picked up kore frequently. So, waiting for the bus for less time. It doesnt solve the whole route issue thing

adjl posted...

That is indeed a situation where transit isn't likely to be able to match cars, but as you say that's a fairly minor personal issue and therefore not really something worth considering when designing a city.

Yeah. Mostly just me And most of the people that leave their card on base Which happens way more than people might think. Haha. But I was mostly saying that even if things changed to make public trans more common or whatever, Id stick with cars still. In the end, its save me much more time over all Especially when it comes to base Though, I would say more of a consideration in a military town. But thats only because Ive seen how it is in this base Could be different for others, though I know that having used lots of public transit before, youre at the mercy of everything else. You could have multiple buses or trains to switch to, going to places you dont need to be because those places have stops, and run the possibility of buses or trains being a little late, which causes you to miss your next bus or train For some people, it can work. But even having bus lanes might not help with that

People should travel via pneumatic tubes

LinkPizza posted...

I know that having used lots of public transit before, youre at the mercy of everything else. You could have multiple buses or trains to switch to, going to places you dont need to be because those places have stops, and run the possibility of buses or trains being a little late, which causes you to miss your next bus or train

These issues all exist with private transportation though, and imo are a lot more impactful there. Especially so if public transportation infrastructure isn't shit. In the event of an accident, the chances of you having a spare car are a lot lower than bus company having a spare bus. Countries with a lot of train infrastructure have their schedules reliable to the minute because they know trust and reliability are important.

agesboy posted...

These issues all exist with private transportation though, and imo are a lot more impactful there. Especially so if public transportation infrastructure isn't shit. In the event of an accident, the chances of you having a spare car are a lot lower than bus company having a spare bus. Countries with a lot of train infrastructure have their schedules reliable to the minute because they know trust and reliability are important.

While it is true that youll have more spare buses, the buses breaking down or having accidents seem to also happen more than ones personal car doing the same So, Id say driving, youll probably have less of a chances of something breaking down or being late in your own car over public transport if you take it everyday. I only say that based on my knowledge of working public transport (and from my Step-dads storylines working in public transport back home) And I would think trains are more reliable Though I know Ive been around late trains back home Though, not in other countries, so

That said, as long as I dont have to pay more, and I can still use my personal vehicle without any issues, they can redo the city if they want As long as they can make things more convenient/good for them without inconveniencing me, its whatever

LinkPizza posted...

Theres still walking areas around Sidewalks and stuff

Having sidewalks doesn't make an area walkable. Having stuff within a comfortable walking distance does, which is much more difficult when stores are routinely set a kilometre back from the road to accommodate the parking lot, or when entire blocks that could have been destinations are bulldozed to make space for parking. It also relies on walking being a safe option, which it really isn't when the street has been designed to prioritize moving as many cars as possible as quickly as possible, since that results in narrower sidewalks with fewer obstacles between the sidewalk and the road (which minimize the harm of cars mounting the curb for whatever reason), frequent driveways, more complex intersections where drivers have more to pay attention to than pedestrians (right turns on red lights are a particular issue, since drivers are typically looking to their left while making those turns and have a harder time noticing pedestrians coming from the right), longer crossings... The issues are countless.

LinkPizza posted...

That said, most spaces get used. We made just a patch of land that was sitting there useless into more parking spaces since it wasnt used for anything else. So, now its usually full with a couple spaces open. And thats usually enough for everybody to park. And since its a 24 hour operation, they are usually getting used through the whole day

That's kind of the point. Designing the city around cars means all that parking space is necessary, because everybody has to drive and everybody that drives needs somewhere to store their car when they get where they're going. That land wasn't useless, it was unused, which I'd be willing to bet was a consequence of zoning laws, minimum parking requirements, and other car-centric policies making it non-viable to develop it into something more valuable than parking. If it's valuable as parking, then it's close enough to other things to have been valuable as a commercial destination or housing (or both, since mixed-use, medium-density housing is fantastic for cities despite the fact that many cities don't even allow such properties to be built), which it could have been if not for the need to allocate so much land to parking.

LinkPizza posted...

Though, tbf, base just has a lot of extra land that just sits there unused. Mostly just fields Some have trees, and some just have grass They should probably use it for something. But they dont have a need for anything new right now. But its not used for parking or living or anything. Just the local wildlife, I guess. So, it seems like it works well since everything it close-ish on base Still a big base, though

Bases are a bit of a different situation in that they tend to be designed to be self-sufficient and allow people to do what they need to do without travelling far. University campuses are often designed around similar principles, assuming that those living in dorms don't have cars and making everything pleasantly walkable as a result. It'll depend a bit on the base, but I expect you actually can enjoy some of the benefits of good city design already and that there are errands you prefer to run on the base instead of on your way home because the base is just better designed.

LinkPizza posted...

As for tax, either way, tax will be expensive I dont see it getting cheaper with public transportation At least, not anytime soon I can see it getting way more expensive, though

Road infrastructure is unfathomably expensive, and far and away the least cost-efficient way to move people around cities (putting aside obvious silly alternatives like personal, tax-funded helicopters). Low-density housing, industrial parks, and other car-centric designs need way more road infrastructure (and also power, sewer, water, phone, internet, and other forms of infrastructure that every one of those spaced-out buildings needs) to connect them to the rest of the grid, so not only do those parcels of land generate less tax revenue per unit of area, they cost more tax dollars to service. People routinely balk at the idea of spending half a million to install a few protected bike lanes (which improve traffic flow by getting more people out of cars), but happily swallow spending a hundred times that just fixing the potholes that showed up over the winter (which is the bare minimum needed to keep roads usable and does nothing to improve traffic flow).

Would there be a front-end cost? Sure. Is that front-end cost going to be very quickly mitigated by fares, increased property and sales tax revenue, and reduced road maintenance requirements? Absolutely. Cities routinely invest more in road "improvements" than it would take to pivot to a less car-centric model, and those improvements don't actually help anything in the long run.

LinkPizza posted...

Buses and trains have routes. So, even with the bus lanes, it just depends on the route. With a personal vehicle, I head straight to wherever Im going. With public transport, I can end up going a bunch of places around town first (and possibly the transit station) first

Buses tend to follow the same major arterial roads that you'd take in a car anyway, or at least something closely parallel to it. Personally, I don't walk/bike to work on the same road that my bus to work would take, but it's only 1-2 blocks over for most of the trip, and that's the same distance I'd have to walk to get to the stop in the first place. On the rare occasion that I drive, I'll take either of those two roads and see similar results either way. Now, that bus comes once every 20 minutes at best, is routinely very late, sometimes doesn't show up at all, and I'm still leery of public transit amid the pandemic, but I would at least say that the route is well-designed and improving it to be properly usable is going to be a matter of improving the frequency and reliability.

If transit is well-designed, you won't be meandering aimlessly around on a bus before getting to where you're going. It might not be quite as direct a route as you would drive, but it should be comparable, especially with provisions like bus lanes and advance signals to help it avoid getting stuck in traffic (which is a major part of making it faster than driving).

LinkPizza posted...

I know that having used lots of public transit before, youre at the mercy of everything else.

That's no less true of cars. You don't control traffic any more than you control bus schedules. Heck, in most places that just throw buses in with the rest of the cars and wonder why nobody wants to use them, that same traffic is often going to be the main reason buses show up late or miss stops. By and large, machinery that is professionally maintained on a prescribed schedule and operated by trained professionals is going to be less prone to randomly breaking down or getting into an accident than any given car being driven by any given person, to the main factor for unpredictability is traffic, which there are many ways to mitigate for transit (including making transit reliable enough that people take it instead of driving, which improves traffic from the outset).

adjl posted...

University campuses are often designed around similar principles, assuming that those living in dorms don't have cars and making everything pleasantly walkable as a result.

Now that I think of it, that was literally the one time in my life I could actually walk places or had any kind of access to public transportation (a couple of buses ran around campus and occasionally out into town). I could literally go weeks without touching my car unless I wanted 3AM taco bell. It was so fucking good. Sometimes I would just lend my car to family members for months at a time because it was unnecessary for me... but that's because dorm life was designed from the start to be a walkable microcosm.

agesboy posted...

Now that I think of it, that was literally the one time in my life I could actually walk places or had any kind of access to public transportation (a couple of buses ran around campus and occasionally out into town). I could literally go weeks without touching my car unless I wanted 3AM taco bell. It was so fucking good. Sometimes I would just lend my car to family members for months at a time because it was unnecessary for me... but that's because dorm life was designed from the start to be a walkable microcosm.

Yep. A lot of people reflect very fondly on their time in university for exactly that reason: they didn't have to drive if they didn't want to.

adjl posted...

Having sidewalks doesn't make an area walkable. Having stuff within a comfortable walking distance does, which is much more difficult when stores are routinely set a kilometre back from the road to accommodate the parking lot, or when entire blocks that could have been destinations are bulldozed to make space for parking. It also relies on walking being a safe option, which it really isn't when the street has been designed to prioritize moving as many cars as possible as quickly as possible, since that results in narrower sidewalks with fewer obstacles between the sidewalk and the road (which minimize the harm of cars mounting the curb for whatever reason), frequent driveways, more complex intersections where drivers have more to pay attention to than pedestrians (right turns on red lights are a particular issue, since drivers are typically looking to their left while making those turns and have a harder time noticing pedestrians coming from the right), longer crossings... The issues are countless.

Oh. In that case, still walkable. The parking lots change. Some are in front, but some are to the side, as well And some are across the street like in the downtown area Although, those are for the bigger lots. Like some of the fast food places have small low that are like 50 feet maybe Basically, not far to walk past And in the downtown area, they have parking areas in front of stores, but the lots are usually across the street, and work for most parts around a small area

That said, if walking areas arent safe because they are close to the road, I havent seen many safe walking areas in my life (compared to the amount of non-safe Ive seen, at least)

adjl posted...

That's kind of the point. Designing the city around cars means all that parking space is necessary, because everybody has to drive and everybody that drives needs somewhere to store their car when they get where they're going. That land wasn't useless, it was unused, which I'd be willing to bet was a consequence of zoning laws, minimum parking requirements, and other car-centric policies making it non-viable to develop it into something more valuable than parking. If it's valuable as parking, then it's close enough to other things to have been valuable as a commercial destination or housing (or both, since mixed-use, medium-density housing is fantastic for cities despite the fact that many cities don't even allow such properties to be built), which it could have been if not for the need to allocate so much land to parking.

It didnt have to do with zoning laws It was on base, where they basically just follow their own laws Because of where it was, there was nothing that would make sense to be there So, they decided to use it for more parking. They were going to do stuff to make it pretty at first. Then decided that it worked fine the way it was And nothing else would have been as valuable. If something was, they would have done it But it was basically just land not being use. And had we not used it, it would still be unused as nothing would make sense to be there And since its on base, it wouldnt be commercial housing. Housing is all in one area. Commercial is spread out more, but they wouldnt want everyone coming there for something random. Not only that, but the land was a small spot. So, even if they put a building there, itd be a small one So, it was only really valuable as parking

adjl posted...

Bases are a bit of a different situation in that they tend to be designed to be self-sufficient and allow people to do what they need to do without travelling far. University campuses are often designed around similar principles, assuming that those living in dorms don't have cars and making everything pleasantly walkable as a result. It'll depend a bit on the base, but I expect you actually can enjoy some of the benefits of good city design already and that there are errands you prefer to run on the base instead of on your way home because the base is just better designed.

I wouldnt say ours is designed better. And part of the problem is half of everything is 24 hours, while the other half isnt When everything should be 24 hours if anything on base is Though, they can be self-sufficient for the most part But people still use cars to get around. And would rather use them in most cases Like the only time I see people walking is when they have to, or live right across the street from whatever Like there are only a couple dorms that people walk from to the dining facility or gym Further than that, and they just drive Which can make sense for both, tbh Not to mention, some thing are just spread out The reason people do stuff on base is because they can sometimes do it while on the clock. Or because its technically on the way home That said, when you work in the back corner of the base, most things are on the way home, regardless or where on base it is

adjl posted...

Road infrastructure is unfathomably expensive, and far and away the least cost-efficient way to move people around cities (putting aside obvious silly alternatives like personal, tax-funded helicopters). Low-density housing, industrial parks, and other car-centric designs need way more road infrastructure (and also power, sewer, water, phone, internet, and other forms of infrastructure that every one of those spaced-out buildings needs) to connect them to the rest of the grid, so not only do those parcels of land generate less tax revenue per unit of area, they cost more tax dollars to service. People routinely balk at the idea of spending half a million to install a few protected bike lanes (which improve traffic flow by getting more people out of cars), but happily swallow spending a hundred times that just fixing the potholes that showed up over the winter (which is the bare minimum needed to keep roads usable and does nothing to improve traffic flow).

Would there be a front-end cost? Sure. Is that front-end cost going to be very quickly mitigated by fares, increased property and sales tax revenue, and reduced road maintenance requirements? Absolutely. Cities routinely invest more in road "improvements" than it would take to pivot to a less car-centric model, and those improvements don't actually help anything in the long run.

They dont really fix the roads here, anyway So, reduced roads maintenance wont get us much Plus, theyll still need to fix the roads. The public transport will still use them, plus most people would still tend to drive cars Fares also wont get us much. The fares they currently get is not even enough to run the bus station. Its currently needs the city to keep paying it constantly They dont actually seem to make a profit Like at all And lots of people can get reduced bud fare in most cases. Like children, the elderly, and college students. They also might have a military thing, as well And most people who ride the buses everyday get the month pass thing. You pay a pretty cheap price and get a month pass that you can use for like 31 days or something. Its to help out, and its probably the only things this city does right. But that also means that fares, which are already low, would probably stay low, and not offset any cost And the front-end cost would end up being a ton to change a whole city around to be public transport friendly And thats not even getting in the amount of money the bus station would need for more buses, fuel, and literally everything else they need. And more space for everything

adjl posted...

Buses tend to follow the same major arterial roads that you'd take in a car anyway, or at least something closely parallel to it. Personally, I don't walk/bike to work on the same road that my bus to work would take, but it's only 1-2 blocks over for most of the trip, and that's the same distance I'd have to walk to get to the stop in the first place. On the rare occasion that I drive, I'll take either of those two roads and see similar results either way. Now, that bus comes once every 20 minutes at best, is routinely very late, sometimes doesn't show up at all, and I'm still leery of public transit amid the pandemic, but I would at least say that the route is well-designed and improving it to be properly usable is going to be a matter of improving the frequency and reliability.

If transit is well-designed, you won't be meandering aimlessly around on a bus before getting to where you're going. It might not be quite as direct a route as you would drive, but it should be comparable, especially with provisions like bus lanes and advance signals to help it avoid getting stuck in traffic (which is a major part of making it faster than driving).

It really depends on the transit in that city. For my current city, we have 8 1-hour routes. So, if you miss the bus, you have about an hour to wait. While that can be better with more buses (which would cost an insane amount for our station), it cant fix the next problem (on its
own, at least). Like if you are going from point A to point B in a similar scenario: Point A is 15 minutes into a 1-hour route on Bus One, and Point B is 30 minutes into a 1-hour route on Bus Seven. That means it will take 1 hour and 15 minutes for a drive that would take 15-20 minutes on its own And more buses on its own doesnt fix that since the hour routes are fixed that way They would need to change the routes. But I dont see them changing them any time soon as they found whats seems to be the perfect routes. They would need more routes to fix it Which would also call for more buses But even then, it could still take some random amount of time thats still more than driving And honestly, Im not even sure how much shorter most of the routes could be, tbh

Also, the buses lanes and advance signals wont help much. The buses actually dont have much trouble reaching their stops on time. They get to stops pretty early. But are suppose to wait until that time before leaving. For example, if a bus is suppose to get to a stop at 10:31, and they get there at 10:27, they still have to wait until like 10:31 or 10:32 before they can leave So, the route takes the same amount of time either way The issue is the route length itself So, in the end, its still ends up being at least a little slower And much slower in probably the average case

My hometown is better, but not much. I think they have more buses come around. So, shorter waits. But I believe the routes are about the same length. Like being hour long routes. But Id have to check to make sure

adjl posted...

That's no less true of cars. You don't control traffic any more than you control bus schedules. Heck, in most places that just throw buses in with the rest of the cars and wonder why nobody wants to use them, that same traffic is often going to be the main reason buses show up late or miss stops. By and large, machinery that is professionally maintained on a prescribed schedule and operated by trained professionals is going to be less prone to randomly breaking down or getting into an accident than any given car being driven by any given person, to the main factor for unpredictability is traffic, which there are many ways to mitigate for transit (including making transit reliable enough that people take it instead of driving, which improves traffic from the outset).

You have more control in a car, though For example, you dont have to go on long city tours, and can go directly to your destination. Or have to worry about random delays and changes at the station Or unruly passengers Or passengers that take time to get on/off And can control where I get on or off Thats what I meant. Basically, extra stuff compared to cars And they are actually more prone to breaking down Cars are driven for a much smaller amount of time for the average driver, AFAIK But the buses will be going all day. For my bus station, thats 12 hours, plus the time before and after. So, around 13-14 hours (and sometimes more) at a time. Even with regular maintenance, they broke down enough to where the maintainers had to constantly work on them And even the newer buses They broke down less than the old buses, but more than most cars on people I know That said, maybe other people have cars breaking down on a weekly basis While making it more realizable might net it a few new customers, many would probably still take their personal cars. Most of the time, itll still be faster and a straight shot. And for some, much more comfortable to not be around strangers. Not have to wait for the bus to come. Can change their mind on a dime. And can easily
Go back if they forget something, or whatever Its just more convenient in most cases

LinkPizza posted...

Fares also wont get us much. The fares they currently get is not even enough to run the bus station. Its currently needs the city to keep paying it constantly They dont actually seem to make a profit Like at all And lots of people can get reduced bud fare in most cases. Like children, the elderly, and college students. They also might have a military thing, as well And most people who ride the buses everyday get the month pass thing. You pay a pretty cheap price and get a month pass that you can use for like 31 days or something. Its to help out, and its probably the only things this city does right. But that also means that fares, which are already low, would probably stay low, and not offset any cost And the front-end cost would end up being a ton to change a whole city around to be public transport friendly And thats not even getting in the amount of money the bus station would need for more buses, fuel, and literally everything else they need. And more space for everything

roads and personal vehicles don't make profit either. they're notoriously expensive.

As for space, I don't think you realize how much space within cities is dedicated to parking. Sometimes over half of all space. Even if you make more space for bus depots, you come out ahead by greatly reducing parking.

It costs so much to build and maintain extensive car infrastructure that it can save cities money to operate alternative modes 'at a loss' because it gets people out of cars.

And parking lots bring in very little tax revenue to the city. Replace parking with residences or business and voila, your city isn't insolvent any more.

The 1950s pushed a lot of social things that became norms in media: car culture, single generational homes, working for big companies, etc. A lot of this has still persisted to the point that modern media pushes it and tries to make people feel bad if they aren't spending money in the proper avenues to achieve the dream.

Clench281 posted...

roads and personal vehicles don't make profit either. they're notoriously expensive.

As for space, I don't think you realize how much space within cities is dedicated to parking. Sometimes over half of all space. Even if you make more space for bus depots, you come out ahead by greatly reducing parking.

It costs so much to build and maintain extensive car infrastructure that it can save cities money to operate alternative modes 'at a loss' because it gets people out of cars.

And parking lots bring in very little tax revenue to the city. Replace parking with residences or business and voila, your city isn't insolvent any more.

Youre right that personal vehicles dont make profit. But they dont need to, either. The reason I mention fares not making profit is because he mentioned that fares would cover some of the front-end cost of making a city public transport friendly But I mentioned how the fares were rarely covering keeping the buses station up

As for parking, its true that I may not know. I would need a birds eye view to see and know for sure That said, is having a lot of parking bad? Sure its extra space. But who says that extra space would be used for anything? The town is filled with extra space that no one uses already At least the parking is used As for the bus station, Im not sure theyd want to move based on the location. And theyd have to to be bigger

That is also true that cost of building and maintaining it is expensive. So, if they want to build a new one around public, thats fine. Though, it would also be crazy expensive to change a city thats already made for cars, as well Plus, on those cities, its hard to know how many would really switch. Like personally, I wouldnt. But technically, I couldnt, either (Nor would/could anyone on base) Bases arent the best when it comes to public transport. Theres one stop thats close-ish to base (though its still quite a walk), but youd need a car to get around base better As for maintaining the roads, Im still trying to figure out if theyre even doing that here Because it sure doesnt seem like it

As for the city being insolvent, it still will be. Im sure Ive mentioned before, but our city doesnt care about the money, apparently We were offered an amusement park a long time ago. And they denied it because It would bring too many people to the city They also keep denying food places and stuff. Only recently (since some of the old council has been dying or forced into retirement) has there been changes. So, things are changing now But only still a little. And if all they wanted was space to make new buildings, they can already do that. We have plenty of field that all they need is clearing out, and a bunch of abandoned buildings and plots of land. Getting rid of parking gets them extra space. But if all they need is space, we already have plenty without getting rid of parking that most people use, and will probably continue to use Using the abandoned building would probably be cheaper than having to get rid of a parking lot. And would be better for businesses in the area. Since if you get rid of the parking in an area, and you lose business Because people arent going to just switch to public transportation just because it exist Meaning they end up losing business Not to mention that the buses only run for a certain time, anyways meaning until they could operate for longer, its useless for like half the day Bit those abandoned building are basically already made for a building. The only thing you may do is knock it down and rebuilding, or start building on the empty plot. Id start with the abandoned and unused areas instead of the used parking areas first

LinkPizza posted...

That said, if walking areas arent safe because they are close to the road, I havent seen many safe walking areas in my life (compared to the amount of non-safe Ive seen, at least)

Welcome to America.

LinkPizza posted...

It didnt have to do with zoning laws It was on base, where they basically just follow their own laws

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.

LinkPizza posted...

They dont really fix the roads here, anyway So, reduced roads maintenance wont get us much Plus, theyll still need to fix the roads. The public transport will still use them, plus most people would still tend to drive cars

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.

LinkPizza posted...

And more space for everything

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.

LinkPizza posted...

And the front-end cost would end up being a ton to change a whole city around to be public transport friendly

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.

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

#notjustbikes

LinkPizza posted...

Thats only if everyone have up their car.

It's true if even one person chooses to take the bus instead. It's just a question of magnitude, since obviously the savings become greater the fewer people are driving (which, in turn, makes traffic better for those that do drive). It's never going to be an all-or-nothing deal, as much as conspiracy theorists like to interpret "we should expend transit so people don't have to drive everywhere" as "we should take away everyone's cars and leave them stranded and helpless," but any improvement offers benefits.

LinkPizza posted...

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)

Which is why all of this is predicated on transit service being improved to the point of being better than driving. That figure is based on frequent, reliable buses that just share the lane with cars (which is a terrible way to do buses because it guarantees they will never actually be faster than cars due to being stuck in the same traffic while also having to stop periodically). If buses are infrequent and unreliable, people don't ride them.

LinkPizza posted...

As for the parked car, most probably spend time parked at home in a garage or driveway

The average residential driveway is about 10-12 feet wide. The average suburban lot in America is about 60 feet wide, though cutting that in half to have 30 feet of frontage isn't uncommon. That means the narrowest point of the driveway - which may widen further than that to accommodate a garage or have two cars side-by-side - takes up potentially 18-36% of the width of the lot, usually running back far enough that it cuts into space that could otherwise be part of the house (especially if it's trying to have room for two cars, which most suburban houses do because they're meant for families and getting by with only one car in a car-dependent suburb is difficult). If those suburbs were properly serviced by transit or otherwise connected such that driveways and garages didn't need to be an absolute requirement, you could fit as many as 20-30% more houses of exactly the same size in the same area, even without getting into zoning changes and developing some of those lots as mutli-family homes or mixed-use properties.

It's not just suburbs that this applies to, either. On average, when you take into account access lanes and whatnot, each parking spot in a parking lot or garage takes up ~288 square feet (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/07/05/ parking-takes-up-more-space-than-you-think/, minus the space, because apparently this random blog really has my back for this discussion). That means that, to provide a parking spot for every resident of an apartment or condo building with 1200-square foot units, the equivalent of one unit has to be sacrificed to parking for every four units that are available for occupancy. There could be up to 25% more housing in every building like that if there wasn't a need for every resident to park a car, which is huge. Now, buildings like that usually use their basements for parking, which means it's not necessarily a simple matter of being able to use the space for apartments instead, but it's still a huge amount of space rendered useless by the fact that so many people need a place to leave their cars for the vast majority of each day.

LinkPizza posted...

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

Depending on how much car-dependent sprawl they've already built, they may not have a choice. When developers propose new subdivisions to cities, it's often with the offer to pay for the initial construction of all roads and other infrastructure (transit excluded) required to connect that subdivision to the rest of the city. That means the city gets a sizable infusion of extra property tax revenue at no immediate cost. Fast-forward ~25 years, though, and that free infrastructure starts to wear out and need maintenance, while the property tax infusion from when the development was built has already been spent on maintaining older infrastructure that wore out in that time frame, so they need a new source of revenue in the form of a new development. Lather, rinse, repeat until they can't find new growth to capitalize on and the city goes bankrupt.

Now, that's not every city. If yours is stable at a relatively small size and low density and doesn't have traffic issues, your city might not actually benefit from this. But most cities in the US lean heavily on subsidies from the state and federal governments to keep their infrastructure afloat because they can't maintain it with their own tax income, and quite a few have outright gone bankrupt because those subsidies weren't enough to offset the shortfall. If you live in an exception, for whatever reason, that's great, but many, many American cities cannot claim the same.

Clench281 posted...

cars, aviation, animal agriculture, single family homes and the unending manufacturer/purchase of wasteful crap covers most of the bases.

Guess we should just go back to the stone age then.

adjl posted...

It's true if even one person chooses to take the bus instead. It's just a question of magnitude, since obviously the savings become greater the fewer people are driving (which, in turn, makes traffic better for those that do drive). It's never going to be an all-or-nothing deal, as much as conspiracy theorists like to interpret "we should expend transit so people don't have to drive everywhere" as "we should take away everyone's cars and leave them stranded and helpless," but any improvement offers benefits.

Its not all or nothing. But it still depends on how many people stop driving compared to how many more buses we add For example, adding 24 more buses to be constantly driven around for 12 hours (or more if they want to actually make it useful) just to take 100 cars off the road that would only be on the road for an hour max (and probably be spread out throughout the day, as well) doesnt really seem like it would help that much Which is why I mentioned it would have to be a lot of people who would switch over Because in the end, just because people can switch over doesnt mean they will Depends on if switching will actually benefit them or not And that depends on a bunch of factors

adjl posted...

Which is why all of this is predicated on transit service being improved to the point of being better than driving. That figure is based on frequent, reliable buses that just share the lane with cars (which is a terrible way to do buses because it guarantees they will never actually be faster than cars due to being stuck in the same traffic while also having to stop periodically). If buses are infrequent and unreliable, people don't ride them.

The problem isnt always the traffic, though The routes themselves are the problem. Like I said, out buses are usually on time. And they literally arent suppose to leave a stop early, even if they are way ahead of schedule. The routes are a problem, though. With cars, you can go straight there. Where with public transport, you have to follow a route, and possibly switch buses/trains/etc Even if they had no cars to compete with on the roads or dedicated bus lanes, that wouldnt change. They would still have to follow the routes Meaning that whether the road was busy or not, the hour and 15 minute ride will still be an hour and 15 minutes. Maybe they shave off 5, depending on the stop That said, out buses only come once an hour. So, not frequent. But it comes on time (early in many cases), so reliable But without more buses (which we also cant afford), we can come more frequently Also, they can only work from 6am-6pm The timing sucks, too Basically, if they wanted to work 24 hours and have the buses come every 20 minutes, they would need 6x the amount of buses we currently have Wed also need more drivers, which would be hard considering the turnover rate there. They can barely keep the drivers they have Not only are they constantly firing people, but people quit all the time. They barely have enough drivers for the regular shifts, let alone a whole second night set

adjl posted...

The average residential driveway is about 10-12 feet wide. The average suburban lot in America is about 60 feet wide, though cutting that in half to have 30 feet of frontage isn't uncommon. That means the narrowest point of the driveway - which may widen further than that to accommodate a garage or have two cars side-by-side - takes up potentially 18-36% of the width of the lot, usually running back far enough that it cuts into space that could otherwise be part of the house (especially if it's trying to have room for two cars, which most suburban houses do because they're meant for families and getting by with only one car in a car-dependent suburb is difficult). If those suburbs were properly serviced by transit or otherwise connected such that driveways and garages didn't need to be an absolute requirement, you could fit as many as 20-30% more houses of exactly the same size in the same area, even without getting into zoning changes and developing some of those lots as mutli-family homes or mixed-use properties.

It's not just suburbs that this applies to, either. On average, when you take into account access lanes and whatnot, each parking spot in a parking lot or garage takes up ~288 square feet (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/07/05/ parking-takes-up-more-space-than-you-think/, minus the space, because apparently this random blog really has my back for this discussion). That means that, to provide a parking spot for every resident of an apartment or condo building with 1200-square foot units, the equivalent of one unit has to be sacrificed to parking for every four units that are available for occupancy. There could be up to 25% more housing in every building like that if there wasn't a need for every resident to park a car, which is huge. Now, buildings like that usually use their basements for parking, which means it's not necessarily a simple matter of being able to use the space for apartments instead, but it's still a huge amount of space rendered useless by the fact that so many people need a place to leave their cars for the vast majority of each day.

Chances are that the driveway would be extra lawn if they removed them And people can already convert garages into more house if they want to. Though, many people like the extra storage, even if they dont use it for cars.
And if they built houses without driveways or garages, theyd probably build them smaller. But youd still get the same amount of land for front and back yards. Meaning that even without driveways or garages, you probably wouldnt get more house Theyd just change the design up some And they probably wouldnt put more houses there. Now apartments with outside parking spaces could benefit But they could also benefit from parking garages that build up (and down, though I know both have limitations), so Still takes land, but more parking altogether without too much more land than was already used

adjl posted...

Depending on how much car-dependent sprawl they've already built, they may not have a choice. When developers propose new subdivisions to cities, it's often with the offer to pay for the initial construction of all roads and other infrastructure (transit excluded) required to connect that subdivision to the rest of the city. That means the city gets a sizable infusion of extra property tax revenue at no immediate cost. Fast-forward ~25 years, though, and that free infrastructure starts to wear out and need maintenance, while the property tax infusion from when the development was built has already been spent on maintaining older infrastructure that wore out in that time frame, so they need a new source of revenue in the form of a new development. Lather, rinse, repeat until they can't find new growth to capitalize on and the city goes bankrupt.

Now, that's not every city. If yours is stable at a relatively small size and low density and doesn't have traffic issues, your city might not actually benefit from this. But most cities in the US lean heavily on subsidies from the state and federal governments to keep their infrastructure afloat because they can't maintain it with their own tax income, and quite a few have outright gone bankrupt because those subsidies weren't enough to offset the shortfall. If you live in an exception, for whatever reason, that's great, but many, many American cities cannot claim the same.

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?

And I probably live in one of those exceptions. Out of the three factions here, the church is the biggest one. They keep things out of the city. And have a lot of money, somehow (Though, Im pretty sure I know how) I cant say exactly what happens back home, but I know public transit isnt good At least, in my home town. And barely anyone uses it Kids mostly walk until they can drive because walking long distances fucking sucks Even with shortcuts So, even if public transit is a thing there, its not good And I know they have tons of extra buses that they just dont use

For the train, its a coin toss Though, thats not my hometown, but a place close by, I guess

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.