4 ms·

You're explaining why we don't build useful rail. It seems like there's a really easy first place to look in every major city. Find the biggest interstate, disc

You're explaining why we don't build useful rail. It seems like there's a really easy first place to look in every major city. Find the biggest interstate, discriminating also by straightness and grade, pick one direction, and start building rail. Divide the other side up into two directions. There are very few places that wouldn't be left with >2 lanes of freeway for each direction, even after halving the right of way. For the few exceptions, they'd have to think a little harder. In reality, such a series of actions could only exist in a society that got seriously focused on moving away from private auto, and that means density would increasingly be in style. As soon as the NIMBY floodgates came down, property prices would plummet in all but the smallest cores of desirable areas, since it would be readily apparent that you can't build all expensive areas to the level of intensity that justifies insane land values seen in sprawling cities. Again, we could, but I recognize that we don't. Let's just not say that we can't.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I actually think density would go out of style in that scenario. IF the time and cost of commuting were drastically reduced, many people would prefer a suburban lifestyle. This reminds me of many high GDP parts of Europe where there are towns of 500-1000 people every few km, connected by rail and busses.
- QuarterReptile 3y ago
  I don't think the time of commuting seems to change much: people just re-equilibrate and reconfigure to use the newly saved time/distance. But, yes, you would expect to see significant clustering. Nonetheless, the most effective clustering since the advent of indoor plumbing is the cluster of clusters, the city, and I doubt that would change. The connectivity is just so much better than a lineal expansion of small towns along a corridor.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think most people place negative value on living in that connectivity, especially if it can be accessed easily via public transports. I agree time wouldnt change that much, but presumably that time would translate to greater distances with better throughput and speed.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I actually think density would go out of style in that scenario. IF the time and cost of commuting were drastically reduced, many people would prefer a suburban lifestyle. This reminds me of many high GDP parts of Europe where there are towns of 500-1000 people every few km, connected by rail and busses.

QuarterReptile 3y ago
I don't think the time of commuting seems to change much: people just re-equilibrate and reconfigure to use the newly saved time/distance. But, yes, you would expect to see significant clustering. Nonetheless, the most effective clustering since the advent of indoor plumbing is the cluster of clusters, the city, and I doubt that would change. The connectivity is just so much better than a lineal expansion of small towns along a corridor.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think most people place negative value on living in that connectivity, especially if it can be accessed easily via public transports. I agree time wouldnt change that much, but presumably that time would translate to greater distances with better throughput and speed.