4 ms·

> If they won't get a lot of new development it is better to stay just below capacity. If a developer comes in and says "Hey I want to develop in this area", i

by stale2002 7y ago

> If they won't get a lot of new development it is better to stay just below capacity. If a developer comes in and says "Hey I want to develop in this area", it is a contradictory response to say that this development should be prevented, because there is not enough demand. If a bunch of developers are trying to build houses, then by definition, we are in a situation where there is demand. This supports my point even more, because I was saying that the developers should build first, and then if the infrastructure starts to hit capacity, THEN the infrastructure should be updated. Don't build the infrastructure first. Instead build the housing, and fix any problems that come with it. Also, this is how all this infrastructure gets built in the first place, also. The developers, who are building the buildings, will upgrade the infrastructure as part of the process of building the buildings.

bluGill 7y ago
You are assuming linear costs. However they are not. The system is good for 1 development at no extra cost, but the second goes over capacity and so they have to tear down the old system and build a bigger one. The new one is good for not 1 more development but 100 - which might or might not come. If it comes good, but if you just have the 1 development everybody is on the hook to pay it off, not that one development.
- stale2002 7y ago
  > but the second goes over capacity This is not how "capacity" works. It is not that there is some constant limit to something, and everything is 100% fine as long as you are under capacity, but breaks entirely when you go over capacity. Instead, capacity is flexible, and there are costs to it being flexible. Instead, capacity is something that you start bumping up against, and this starts to cause problems. And the more that you bump up against capacity, the more problems that you get. So, if you are only slightly over capacity, it means that, your roads will be a little bit congested some but not all of the time, or the town will have to purchase a little bit of energy from the town next over (or raise prices a little bit during certain times of the day to reduce demand), or a school will have a little bit more people attending it than previously intended, or you'll have to pay the police overtime hours more often. And when these problems get big enough, THEN, people will decide that it makes sense to upgrade the network. That solves your step wise function, that you are talking about. "Capacity" is actually pretty flexible. And you don't have to do some maximum upgrade, if you go over it. You can instead wait until you are over capacity enough that it makes sense to do the upgrade.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    Capacity of a water system is a big deal. You cannot go over capacity without serious health risks. There are a few temporary storage solutions that you can use cheaply, but if you cannot treat all the sewage that comes in over the course of a day you have to release raw sewage somehow. For drinking water you can do lawn watering bans to get capacity. For roads rush hour lasts longer. However there are still limits that you may not to run up against. If your traffic is already bad you might not be able to build more roads where they need to be (either you tear down something historic, or you have to build overpasses). If you are a small city you may have traffic problems while not having enough population to get your transit system in shape.
    - stale2002 7y ago
      The problems that you are talking about can be fairly linear, though. For example, for things like water, a city can increase the price of water, to reduce demand, especially for commercial usage. > However there are still limits that you may not to run up against. The limits are much further out than you'd think. And systems are often build with a large buffer, to handle spikes and increases anyway. By the time you get close to hitting the true limit, you would have enough pent up demand that you can just spend the money to upgrade the system. And the people who are building the new buildings, can also just find it as well. This stuff happens all the time. Cities run up against limits all the time, and the world does not fall apart. Instead, they implement stop cap measures, that work, and builders fund upgrading the system as they build new things. Stuff is also often planned out for a long time.

bluGill 7y ago

You are assuming linear costs. However they are not. The system is good for 1 development at no extra cost, but the second goes over capacity and so they have to tear down the old system and build a bigger one. The new one is good for not 1 more development but 100 - which might or might not come. If it comes good, but if you just have the 1 development everybody is on the hook to pay it off, not that one development.

stale2002 7y ago
> but the second goes over capacity This is not how "capacity" works. It is not that there is some constant limit to something, and everything is 100% fine as long as you are under capacity, but breaks entirely when you go over capacity. Instead, capacity is flexible, and there are costs to it being flexible. Instead, capacity is something that you start bumping up against, and this starts to cause problems. And the more that you bump up against capacity, the more problems that you get. So, if you are only slightly over capacity, it means that, your roads will be a little bit congested some but not all of the time, or the town will have to purchase a little bit of energy from the town next over (or raise prices a little bit during certain times of the day to reduce demand), or a school will have a little bit more people attending it than previously intended, or you'll have to pay the police overtime hours more often. And when these problems get big enough, THEN, people will decide that it makes sense to upgrade the network. That solves your step wise function, that you are talking about. "Capacity" is actually pretty flexible. And you don't have to do some maximum upgrade, if you go over it. You can instead wait until you are over capacity enough that it makes sense to do the upgrade.
- bluGill 7y ago
  Capacity of a water system is a big deal. You cannot go over capacity without serious health risks. There are a few temporary storage solutions that you can use cheaply, but if you cannot treat all the sewage that comes in over the course of a day you have to release raw sewage somehow. For drinking water you can do lawn watering bans to get capacity. For roads rush hour lasts longer. However there are still limits that you may not to run up against. If your traffic is already bad you might not be able to build more roads where they need to be (either you tear down something historic, or you have to build overpasses). If you are a small city you may have traffic problems while not having enough population to get your transit system in shape.
  - stale2002 7y ago
    The problems that you are talking about can be fairly linear, though. For example, for things like water, a city can increase the price of water, to reduce demand, especially for commercial usage. > However there are still limits that you may not to run up against. The limits are much further out than you'd think. And systems are often build with a large buffer, to handle spikes and increases anyway. By the time you get close to hitting the true limit, you would have enough pent up demand that you can just spend the money to upgrade the system. And the people who are building the new buildings, can also just find it as well. This stuff happens all the time. Cities run up against limits all the time, and the world does not fall apart. Instead, they implement stop cap measures, that work, and builders fund upgrading the system as they build new things. Stuff is also often planned out for a long time.