4 ms·

~80% of the population lives in cities. If we transition over cities, then we've solved most of the problem already.

forgetfreeman 2y ago
Uh uh. That 80% figure includes suburbs, exurbs, and all manner of low density residential settings where mass transit is uneconomical. So now what?
- protimewaster 2y ago
  If you only include sufficiently dense areas, what percentage of the population do you get? I suspect it's still high enough to make a big difference. And, honestly, I think some number of people would be willing to move into denser areas if there was good transit, so it's a problem that might work to solve itself in time.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    I'd love to figure out a way to come up with concrete numbers here. Any ideas?
    - defrost 2y ago
      ArcGIS or other geospatial program and access to quality population density polygons via r/datahoarders or other community that can point out sources for you. (and recommend tooling - PostGIS is likely ok for this kind of thing without too much effort (fingers crossed)) It's a learning curve if you haven't done such things before, perhaps worth it if such questions interest you. You'll also be doing some seat of the pants Fermi estimations so it's be handy to run your thoughts past others that are into that kind of thing.
      - forgetfreeman 2y ago
        Much appreciated, I'll look into it!
- Qwertious 2y ago
  Rail works just fine in the suburbs of Sydney, Australia. It's not great, but it's still cheaper than cars. Besides, if you care about costs then suburbs/exurbs are fundamentally uneconomical in general - most of the cost of housing comes from the land, of which suburbs are fundamentally wasteful. Literally everything there is (relatively) uneconomical, and is only widespread because the alternative is literally illegal.
  - Ray20 2y ago
    >Rail works just fine in the suburbs of Sydney, Australia. It's not great, but it's still cheaper than cars. Cheaper like cheaper or cheaper like more expensive, but subsidized by taxpayers who don't use it?
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      Haha there's a rhetorical question if ever I've seen one.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    Most of the cost of housing absolutely does not come from land except in massively overpopulated cesspits. Proof: a 1600 sq foot single family home on an acre of land is going for approximately $350k here currently. At current land valuation $30k of that is the lot. I live 15 minutes away from one of Apple's satellite offices so we aren't talking a ghost town in Nevada either. Cities suck, as does the expectation that everyone crowd into one.
- fch42 2y ago
  It's uneconomical only where little used. The conundrum for suburbs is not to put bus lines or trams in, but to get people to switch. Once/where widely used, these services pay for themselves. But an empty bus costs more to run than one single-occupant SUV, that's true. And it can never match the "convenience".

Uh uh. That 80% figure includes suburbs, exurbs, and all manner of low density residential settings where mass transit is uneconomical. So now what?

protimewaster 2y ago
If you only include sufficiently dense areas, what percentage of the population do you get? I suspect it's still high enough to make a big difference. And, honestly, I think some number of people would be willing to move into denser areas if there was good transit, so it's a problem that might work to solve itself in time.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  I'd love to figure out a way to come up with concrete numbers here. Any ideas?
  - defrost 2y ago
    ArcGIS or other geospatial program and access to quality population density polygons via r/datahoarders or other community that can point out sources for you. (and recommend tooling - PostGIS is likely ok for this kind of thing without too much effort (fingers crossed)) It's a learning curve if you haven't done such things before, perhaps worth it if such questions interest you. You'll also be doing some seat of the pants Fermi estimations so it's be handy to run your thoughts past others that are into that kind of thing.
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      Much appreciated, I'll look into it!
Qwertious 2y ago
Rail works just fine in the suburbs of Sydney, Australia. It's not great, but it's still cheaper than cars. Besides, if you care about costs then suburbs/exurbs are fundamentally uneconomical in general - most of the cost of housing comes from the land, of which suburbs are fundamentally wasteful. Literally everything there is (relatively) uneconomical, and is only widespread because the alternative is literally illegal.
- Ray20 2y ago
  >Rail works just fine in the suburbs of Sydney, Australia. It's not great, but it's still cheaper than cars. Cheaper like cheaper or cheaper like more expensive, but subsidized by taxpayers who don't use it?
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    Haha there's a rhetorical question if ever I've seen one.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  Most of the cost of housing absolutely does not come from land except in massively overpopulated cesspits. Proof: a 1600 sq foot single family home on an acre of land is going for approximately $350k here currently. At current land valuation $30k of that is the lot. I live 15 minutes away from one of Apple's satellite offices so we aren't talking a ghost town in Nevada either. Cities suck, as does the expectation that everyone crowd into one.
fch42 2y ago
It's uneconomical only where little used. The conundrum for suburbs is not to put bus lines or trams in, but to get people to switch. Once/where widely used, these services pay for themselves. But an empty bus costs more to run than one single-occupant SUV, that's true. And it can never match the "convenience".