4 ms·
> If you try the hybrid model: collective transports just for certain routes in specific hours where they are at least half full then you get a very big investm
by Bluestrike2 2y ago
> If you try the hybrid model: collective transports just for certain routes in specific hours where they are at least half full then you get a very big investments underutilized, it's not different than the office+apartment model where the apartment get used just a bit less than half a day and the office equally for the other nearly half a day, wasting the rest of time in pointless commuting [...]
Unless I've misunderstood your comment, I'm not sure I'd consider that a hybrid model; if anything, that's kind of how much of our current mass transit system works across North America.
That said, the solution there is increased density with mixed uses. More housing in close proximity to and mixed in with offices, restaurants, schools, shops, etc. means more people living within walking and/or biking distance of their most common destinations. It also gives you better locations for building transit stops, to the benefit of both those who live in that area as well as those traveling to it. Infill can't fix everything or undo our current sprawl, but it can improve a lot of it. For all the damage we've down to American towns and cities, most towns built before the 1950s still have their old bones. They can be restored to their former glories without turning everything into Manhattan, giving communities a solid core capable of supporting them for the long-term.
In any case, you don't have to build out a perfect transit system with stops outside every conceivable destination, including areas that lack any sort of real density. You just need something that's convenient and helps move most people to most places without having to wait an hour for a bus or train. If those whose destinations are outside those areas have to use a car, that's perfectly fine. They aren't any worse of, and in fact, their own commutes would almost certainly be improved by helping get other drivers off the road.
- kkfx 2y ago> the solution there is increased density This is a common narrative but no, it's not a viable solution except in the short term, witch means a way too costly solution in the mean and long term. Intermixing homes, restaurants, schools, shops, yes it's a MUST, yes, it's why here in EU spread areas works well even today, but not density. Take as an example the classic paper mail: any condo have a dedicate area with a wall of mailboxes, a wonderful dense solution, anyone get the mail, the postman have a very shorter trip to delivery them. Ah, yes, they do not work much for parcels but BACK THEN parcels was very rare and mails very common. After a bit of time on-line retail flourish while mails became emails. In dense city, EU level density, it's a nightmare. First delivery vehicles need to be bigger and there is no place for them to stop and deliver, delivery to single home can be quick enough for a stop&go but for a condo where you might have 5-8 parcels and the delivery man it's not alone, another have also some parcels to deliver in the very same place at the very same time it's a big issue. It's an even bigger issue inside: the mailbox area is just a wall, there is no room for enough space for parcels, so it's next to impossible delivering them in a common place in an already built condo. Few might be adapted but most simply can't. Single family homes with a bit of ground around on contrary have no issues, switching from a small mailbox to a bigger parcel box is just a matter of cutting a bit more fence and insert the new "big box". It's a very simple change in society and dense cities can't adapt. Drone delivery? Try to imaging a flying drone delivering to a balcony in a condo, it's can't work, while there is not much issues having on the same big parcel box a "special" roof for drone delivery with a very visible address mark for them. Flying cars? Well, if you have a garden adapting a place for landing it's not really an issue, in a dense city? I'm curious those who have written https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-report.pdf https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... what they have in their head... Even if we had eVTOLs today they are ALL but urban. They would be a perfect match for a spread area where there is room for take off and landing, and the quick run by air help to be "dense" while being spread. Back to today just see how much metros costs and how limited they are, how many parking issue, how impossible is to convert multi-storey buildings to the Green New Deal: no room for enough p.v., no root for proper heat-pump heating and so on. Long story short: a dense city is like a factory, very effective wen you live inside during the period it was designed for, a nightmare when things change. A nightmare to change it to adapt. That's why today thanks to modern logistic and remote work we can achieve city-like efficiency without being dense, the new right density for the economy of scale is a spread population living and working in small buildings, intermixed, not too spread, but with enough space around to change them completely, to being able to evolve at the minimum cost and maximum flexibility. That's is not advertised, even denied, because is such a society git economy can't exists. There is no room for ready-made food in a spread population where WFH is the norm for all eligible jobs, there is no room for Uber et al. for cars, there is no room for public laundry and other service, such spread society know the value of ownership and instead of owning nothing living like slaves at the mercy of few paying the slaves just the bare minimum to allow them pay services they needs to live, enough to avoid riots and revolutions, it's a society like the classic desktop model of individual interconnected and in full control of themselves, moving in a peer to peer society. Not try looking at modern cities, from Neom to Arkadag, Innopolis, Prospera etc, they are distopic realities where people are slaves AND they cost so much that's impossible to create smart cities for all.
- piva00 2y ago> After a bit of time on-line retail flourish while mails became emails. In dense city, EU level density, it's a nightmare. First delivery vehicles need to be bigger and there is no place for them to stop and deliver, delivery to single home can be quick enough for a stop&go but for a condo where you might have 5-8 parcels and the delivery man it's not alone, another have also some parcels to deliver in the very same place at the very same time it's a big issue. It's an even bigger issue inside: the mailbox area is just a wall, there is no room for enough space for parcels, so it's next to impossible delivering them in a common place in an already built condo. Few might be adapted but most simply can't. Single family homes with a bit of ground around on contrary have no issues, switching from a small mailbox to a bigger parcel box is just a matter of cutting a bit more fence and insert the new "big box". It's a very simple change in society and dense cities can't adapt. Drone delivery? Try to imaging a flying drone delivering to a balcony in a condo, it's can't work, while there is not much issues having on the same big parcel box a "special" roof for drone delivery with a very visible address mark for them. Flying cars? Well, if you have a garden adapting a place for landing it's not really an issue, in a dense city? I'm curious those who have written https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full- https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... what they have in their head... Even if we had eVTOLs today they are ALL but urban. They would be a perfect match for a spread area where there is room for take off and landing, and the quick run by air help to be "dense" while being spread. Back to today just see how much metros costs and how limited they are, how many parking issue, how impossible is to convert multi-storey buildings to the Green New Deal: no room for enough p.v., no root for proper heat-pump heating and so on. Why go through all this convoluted solution when there's already a very convenient one (which I use almost daily): get parcels delivered to your nearest packet station, it could be a small corner shop (like at least 3 in my 800m radius), a larger grocer, or even automated cabinet boxes where you receive a code and pick it up. This system works, you get your parcels conveniently delivered close by and just walk there to pick it up. No hassles or convoluted stuff like drone delivery or post workers having to deliver to each building.
- kkfx 2y ago> This system works, you get your parcels conveniently delivered close by and just walk there to pick it up. If the parcel is lightweight, it does not rain or snow, and those who get parcels are not too much because shops have a bit of room for parcels but not too much. Now imaging getting a washing machine or a fridge with this system. This system is a workaround working enough today since on-line retail is popular but not the most common solution to buy anything. In a not so far future though it will be common to buy foods, ANYTHING via web so, this system will not work anymore. Of course stores will probably disappear so there might be room for something else but anything get more and more complex, and still there is no viable solution for the green new deal. Already today I get Amazon delivered quickly here in the means than in a few dense cities "around here" (well, quoted because there are not much big cities around but in the dense costline in costal cities delivery is a bit slow than here, even if most parcels came from the coast).