Lurker > LinkPizza

cuh posted...

I use my iPad. It works. Also, I view a lot of content in color (DK nature books, for instance), which is why I didnt opt for a Kindle

Certain kindles have color My Kindle is basically a tablet until I want to read

A kindle. I like it And I have that unlimited thing

Wipe until I dont see anything. But I take a shower before I let anyone else near it

Clench281 posted...

If you don't have a car you don't need the same amount of land. That's the entire point. You should be able to buy a bigger lot that can fit your car if you want. Don't force me to do it. Let me buy a smaller cheaper one.

Tbf, theres a lot of things we dont need, like a backyard or front yard There could also be people that dont need a car when they first move into a place But then need one after being there for a while But this is also a slight tangent. We both already know that more land should cost more Im was saying that lots with parking should only cost more if they have more land And that some houses could be neighbors where one has a driveway, and one doesnt, but both can have the same land I think they should cost the same amount, instead of one costing more just because it has a driveway

Vampire_Chicken posted...

Marketing probably figured that "fresh lemon scent!" sounded better than "fake lemon scent!"

Tbf, they were right

I mean, eventually, itll happen

Did one pair shrink?

Clench281 posted...

Unfortunately we live on earth and storing cars does in fact take up space (land) that cannot be used for other things.

What Im taking about is if two people had the same amino of land, but one just had more lawn where the other have a driveway Of that case, they have the same amount of land, even though one doesnt have space to park Which also happens on Earth, in case you didnt know

Clench281 posted...

You have discovered capitalism! Sellers will always try to get the most money from the sale, and buyers will try to get the most value for their money. If a developer lists two properties for the same price, but one has 20% more property due to a garage and or driveway, guess what that will do to demand? More people bid on the bigger lot because it's "more for your money" and the price goes up. The only world where you expect both would sell for the same is if the extra space and structures afforded for parking provides no positive OR negative value to the buyer or seller.

Yeah. Im just saying it because thats what going to happen And most know that the value of one with more space, and space for their (or others) cars are usually the more valuable one Even with good public transit in the area And that doesnt change that someone gets screwed more than usually when they make the house and land with it smaller, and try to sell for the same price Especially since the developer is still paying more than usual I dont know why you went off on that tangent

Clench281 posted...

homebuyers who want to buy lots with parking would be paying more. As they should.

I dont think they should be paying more unless its just for more land which obviously cost more. But what I mean is the developer is still going to try to make the most money he can. Hes probably try to sell the house for the same price even if theres less land Even if the potential homeowners are smart enough not to do it, some guy with lots of money might not care if all they plan to do it rent it out or make it an AirBNB which then screws over all the potential homeowners

Clench281 posted...

developers want to build more units. that's how they make money. building and selling units.

I know. What Im saying is sounds like someone is getting screwed. In the end, the developer wants to sell units, and either way, they usually will But it sounds like in this case, someones getting screwed somewhere and getting less money (or paying more)

adjl posted...

That actually might be because of the infrastructure needs it would create. If something brings in a sizable influx of people, that means extra traffic, extra parking, and the need to build extra places for them to stay. All of that is done on the gamble that Six Flags will actually bring in the expected number of people, generates enough taxes to cover the extra infrastructure (which it probably won't on its own), and sustains that level of tourism indefinitely. Otherwise, you end up with a bunch of useless, expensive infrastructure that nobody's paying for.

At the extreme end, you see this pretty often with things like the Olympics, World Cup, and Eurovision: Whichever city ends up hosting often has to invest heavily in creating stadiums, extra accommodations, and other improvements to be able to handle the massive spike in tourists. When the event ends, however, that tourism mostly disappears, often leaving the city with significantly more debt from building all of that infrastructure than they were able to make from such a short-lived spike in tourism. Tourism is good for cities, but only if it's sustainable enough to maintain the infrastructure needed to accommodate it. Temporary, one-off spikes tend to cost more than they make.

Now, would Six Flags be a temporary, one-off spike? Probably not. It's an established franchise, it operates continuously, and expected attendance will be fairly predictable by virtue of how established it is. But if it's attracting significantly more tourism than normal, that does mean quite a lot of investment from the city will be hinging on Six Flags' success, and that's a pretty risky strategy. Something like Six Flags should be part of a broader tourism plan that includes other attractions of a similar scale.

The Six Flags they built seems to bring in a lot of people on its own That said, even if they didnt want to build extra hotels, it would have been packed with three colleges and a military base here, that Six Flags would have definitely made a good chunk of change. The colleges are constantly rotating new kids in and out. And the military base frequently brings new people and families to the city, as well Not to mention the amount of events wed have there Its doesnt seem like itd be that risky I mean, people from the base and college travel to 2 hours to go to where the Six Flags was actually built pretty often Any extra hotels they wanted to build after if they wanted more for people would have been helpful afterwards

And an amusement park is kind different from a stadium built for a one time event like the Olympics This is sometimes to be use nearly for the whole year (if not the whole year), and every year So, chances are, itd be worth it

adjl posted...

It's exceedingly rare for the person building the house to also be the one selling it. More often, it's a developer who owns the land hiring a contractor to do the building. In that case, the builder gets paid the same amount to build the same house, then the developer sells the property for the price of the house plus the price of the land. Generally speaking, reducing the amount of lawn/driveway by 20% will reduce the sale price of the house, but by a lot less than 20% because home prices do not scale linearly by lot size. That means that when all those 20% reductions add up to one new lot every 5 properties, the developer sells 20% more homes. Even if those homes are sold for 85% of the price that would be charged for the full lot (which is a very generous estimate of the discount), selling 20% more means the developer is making 2% more money off of exactly the same amount of land, while creating more 20% construction jobs to build them all, providing 20% more homes, and making homes 15% more affordable for those looking to buy.

It's a win all around, provided that driveway isn't needed. If the driveway is needed, this is no longer an option, which is why I presented this as being something that a city can do when it's not designed so people need to own cars. Otherwise, it is indeed not a viable idea.

Would the developer have to pay more? Thats what is sounds like, at least. More houses would cost more to build due to labor, but also due to materials. I dont see how hed pay the same amount when hes building more house, even if for the same amount of land more houses is more labor and more materials. I still see someone getting shorted Because you said the builder get paid to build the same houses. But hes building more of the same houses. So, hed have to get paid more And buy more material Both which would up the price for the developer, and probably the property, as well

adjl posted...

Literally all of this is predicated on transit being improved to the point of being faster than driving, which is entirely possible. I don't know why you insist on bringing up "well what if transit wasn't faster than driving so people kept driving?" when that's not part of the goal at all. By and large, people will do what's most efficient for them. If you make transit most efficient for them, most of them will take transit.

I disagree. Because of routes, I dont see how it could be faster in most cases, even with bus lanes Since they have routes that have set times. You know exactly when youre going to get to that place. In most cases, its not going to be faster than heading straight there And the thing is, for most people, faster is what would be more efficient. Taking over an hour to get somewhere that could have driven to in 20 minutes isnt efficient Nor is having to change buses in the middle instead of being in the same vehicle the whole time. Which is why I said I most cases, its less efficient. And those are things that wont change even if transit got better. Not every bus can/will go to every stop. And routes are routes for a reason Cant make them shorter without making more route inefficient. And the people who the buses are efficient for (or who only have the buses) already ride them And because of those things, buses wont be more efficient for most people, even with changes. Meaning most people will still drive, as that would be more efficient

adjl posted...

You dramatically overestimate the competence of American city planning. Thanks to decades of propaganda from the car industry and investment into suppressing effective transit initiatives from people like the Koch brothers that stand to profit from more people driving, transit is overwhelmingly seen as an afterthought after designing the city around cars, tacked on for the sake of the handful of people that can't/really don't want to drive. The routes you have now are designed around that philosophy, aiming to have the bare minimum number of routes (and therefore buses and drivers) needed to cover everyone that needs to use them. That means routes go all over the place for the sake of getting within easy walking distance of as many homes as possible, slowing them down and making them more prone to being caught in traffic problems because they're trying to go through a greater number of different areas.

When cities are designed from a transit-centric perspective, transit routes are established first (sometimes to the extreme of building train stops literally in the middle of nowhere) that draw the most direct lines possible between high-priority areas, then development happens along those lines because when transit actually works, "near a major transit line" is a very attractive feature for a property (whether commercial or residential) to have, and that development can be much denser because there's a lot less need to build around everyone having a car when everyone has ready access to viable alternatives.

I thought we were talking about cities already built. Like my city has been working and re-working the routes to make them the most efficient. And did do a few years ago. Though, they are always looking for new ways. If youre talking about building cities, thats different, though Also, they dont really go to residential areas much, if at all... They get close to them, but stay in the main road Why is why traffic is almost never an issue unless theres inclement weather. And depending on how bad it is, they sometimes have to stop running Again, the traffic isnt always the issue. Because getting to another stop faster (because of bus lanes) doesnt mean much if you have to wait until the right time to leave. Also, having more stops is more efficient than having fewer Fewer stops means more people have to go to the station to switch buses It makes things slower for most, tbh

adjl posted...

That's where carshares come in. If you don't drive to work, you really don't need to own a car. In cities where it's viable to get around without a car most of the time and local governments haven't actively prevented carshare services from getting a foothold (because most of them are bought and paid for by the oil/car industries), carshare networks tend to thrive to the point of being only marginally less convenient than owning a car, while being vastly cheaper, requiring no personal parking space, and having the added bonus of letting you pick the kind of vehicle that's best-suited to what you're doing (like getting a cargo van to pick up large items).

Even if you don't go that far, though, having viable alternatives to driving such that you don't need a car to get to work cuts down on how many cars families need. It's pretty typical for a family to have two cars, simply because both parents need to get to work. Adding in a third when kids get old enough to drive isn't unusual, especially if the house is somewhere where it's pretty much impossible to do anything without a car (a huge portion of the "people need cars to be independent" attitude comes from people remembering how little independent mobility they had as children). Making space for one car is a lot easier than making space for 2-3, such that simply parking on the street is likely to be good enough. That's still not ideal, since it means streets have to be wider (which is a lot of extra space and also contributes to speeding issues), but the bottom line is that people having fewer cars on average allows for greater flexibility and efficiency in how residential areas are built.

Carshares seem more expensive (depending on what someone pays for their car) than driving based on what Ive seen online (I think it said $10 an hour plus distance, and $50 for a day) And the ones I always hear about are never good That said, that was a couple years ago, so maybe theyve gotten better From the stuff I heard, many said they werent cleaned enough, or just werent there in som cases Many people were talking about their gripes with them. And trying to figure out which was the best to use But they were apparently all bad Some were good, but only in certain areas, from the sounds of it

Clench281 posted...

Less money earned per housing unit (yay from buyer perspective for lower home price) but more money earned in total because you can develop more units, and parking is the least profitable part of the unit, next to lawns.

Its sound likes one person gets screwed. Either the houses cost the same amount for less land, meaning the buyer is spending the the same amount of money for less land overall, erring the builder more. Or the builder is getting screwed because the house are worth less because they have less land meaning they arent making more for more house, but doing more work for less money

Clench281 posted...

Individual buses routes shouldn't need to go far. They're intended for local travel. Longer distance travel is where rail comes in.

Part of the problem is people living 60 miles away from their place of work or 20 miles from their nearest grocery store. Which people only do because that inefficient and wasteful lifestyle is heavily subsidized by others.

I imagine that behavior would change pretty quickly if people actually paid the true cost of doing so. Sub/exurban single family homes would pay at least 5x the property tax they do now, and gas would be priced about twice what it is now cover its negative externalities

We dont have passenger trains here. Thats back home. But Im talking about local travel for the buses. The buses dont leave town. Its doesnt take too long to go from one side of the town to the other. But it takes long enough that if a bus had a 30 minute route, they wouldnt be able to make many stops when going to the edge and getting back (That would make them even more inefficient).The hour routes allow for that, though So, its not because things are far. They are pretty close here. Its just that the buses want to serve the whole city, and not just part of the city

Lil_Bit83 posted...

I don't know why they think they own the word monster? It's such a common word.

Yeah. Its been around for a while. It be different if they made up a new word. But you dont just get to own an old word

adjl posted...

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.

Yeah. But thats only if traffic is actually a problem for them But not everybody has a problem with traffic. And some people could still get to where they want to go with bad traffic just because they can go straight to their destination Meaning that just having better traffic isnt always going to benefit someone, or will benefit someone enough to actually take public transportation

adjl posted...

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.

The things is if they couldve made better routes, they would have. My station spent weeks making new routes when I was there. Also, its the route lengths. But I dont really think they can make them much better Making them too short (like 30 minutes) would actually screw up even more people. Because then their normal routes might not go to where they need to. And some stops would be really far to get to and back to the station in time. The hour long routes are not the best. But in most cases, then are like that for a reason. Just because it has a reason to be that long doesnt mean its good. Its just the best they can do I understand why they do it, and why they have to to make the route better But that still means theyll probably always take long than going straight there, and be loess efficient than cars And for many people, it might not make them good enough to take the place of cars for them Making them too short also means buses probably wouldnt be able to go too far, and would make everything much more confusing Not only that, but would increase the amount of buses needed

adjl posted...

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.

Its only more money if people decide to pay more money for them Less land, and no space for parking or garage for storage could end up making those houses less desirable, which could end up lowering the prices Most people arent going to play the same price for a house when they get less land overall And basically have no place for a vehicle. Because most people would still want to have their own vehicle, even if they normally use public transport Or space for others who visit to park

adjl posted...

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.

I mean, some cities just dont care. Or get money from other sources. Like my city turned down Six Flags because they didnt want people to come to the city. So, in some cases, they just dont care

potdnewb posted...

it just fun to make you ramble on pointlessly.........

potdnewb posted...

housemate is typically and technically the lesser used term.......

I also know its lesser used. Which is why I said most people use roommate when they mean housemate Most people are fine with calling a housemate a roommate instead Not to be rude, but is there a point to this? Why are you just saying stuff that I already know, and that should be obvious I know by the way I posted what I posted

potdnewb posted...

technically........
roommate. noun a person with whom you share a room, apartment, or house.

Yeah. I already know that. I said technically since a lot of people use roommate when they mean housemate Your post changes nothing I still stand by what I said

Metalsonic66 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/0/7/AAFUswAAEXfn.jpg

They gave that nickname to a guy on base once Not my base, thank God

Muscles posted...

Is a housemate the same as a roommate or just similar? What's the difference?

Technically, housemates share a house, where roommates share a room. But many people use roommates for people who share a house, as well But they are suppose to be used for different things

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

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

BlackScythe0 posted...

wtf is wrong with you?

I believe that is a valid question

Metalsonic66 posted...

Still relevant
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/7/0/AAFUswAAEXSi.jpg

At work, my co-worker always asks how my cat is. And I pretty much always say, Still kind of a bitch most of the time

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

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

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

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...

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

I like Dark Deception. Didnt play much on my own, but have seen a ton of it when people were playing forever ago I wonder when they added the monsters and morals part

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

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

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

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

Probably this weekend

MeatiestMeatus posted...

I wanna see that DnD movie

It was awesome, tbh I went with my DND group to see it

Just ate the Garlic & Herb Roasted Mushrooms with Olive Oil Mash Potatoes, Roasted Green Beans & Tomatoes sans tomatoes I mentioned. It was good

WBC_Injury posted...

It would be irresponsible to do that instead of calling 911. You cannot simultaneously drive to a hospital and apply pressure to his wounds. You are going to let him die in your car seat.

Basically this Anyone trying to give him a ride would be actively killing him Let and ambulance who can help and possibly stablalize him pick him up. They can legally go fast enough to hopefully reach the hospital in time is a more safe manner than the average driver... So, people absolutely should not drive him there if you can get the ambulance fast enough

White supremacist groups aim to recruit US Military members to attack minorities

https://www.rawstory.com/amp/atomwaffen-2659742184

Like so said, calling the cops in fine. I would do that, but not get out

For the person mentioning other games being better, why does that matter. Its not asking for the best game. Its just mentioning games that are impossible to hate. While I dont think a game like that exist, saying another game is better doesnt mean anything in this context

I dont believe there is one

For people saying to help, its not the smartest decision. There are people who pretend to be hurt or whatever just to get people to get out of a car to help, only to ambush them, take their car, and possibly kill them. They even had people who would lay in the middle of the road to get you to stop. Even if you didnt het out of the car, they would try to break you window or shoot you. In this case, for all you know, the wounds could have been fake or shallow, and he could have been planning to kill/stab you. Or the stabber could have been close by Calling the cops and waiting is probably fine (the probably is for the waiting part) But getting out or letting him in might not be Though, if they recognized him, they may have been more willing to help And if they actually knew him, they most likely would have helped, as that changes things

TheSavageDragon posted...

You know who says this?

People desperately trying to justify being cowards. I've had knives pulled on me and I've seen a buddy get stabbed. Know what I didn't do? Leave him bleeding on the ground while I ran like a coward.

This is different. You actually knew the person. How do I know I wont get stabbed. It sounds like they didnt see him get stabbed. So, how would they know he didnt stab himself. Or the person who stabbed him wasnt close by Your situation was very different from this one So, of course you would act differently. Most people who saw their buddy get stabbed wouldnt leave them But this situation is different

opopopza posted...

If someone came up to me covered in blood at 3am, I would definitely call 911. But that's about all I'm doing, I'm not trained to help in that situation and I doubt I'm going to getting him to the hospital any quicker than calling an ambulance and having professionals take over.

Not to mention the ambulance can help to stabilize him in the way tk the hospital, as well Having him get in the car wouldnt actually help at all So, this makes sense

It has to be certain things for them to not leave it at the door That said, you could always pick it up at the facility, I would think Though, Amazon might be better. Because even if they couldnt leave it at the door, they have those boxes all around cities and stuff now Also, while I think it changed based on a lot of stuff (like area), my Amazon orders are usually sent through UPS

0Renegade posted...

cant be any worse than fedex that will only wait 15 seconds at the door then say you werent home, then when you get the package the box is all mangled

15 seconds is generous They didnt even knock one time. They came up and out the sticky note on my door and left. I know because I was waiting in the living. My dogs were there, too. And went crazy if there was even a light knock. And they didnt even move much

ReturnOfFa posted...

it actually makes them have some value if they're more difficult to obtain

i'm being more flippant because i don't have much attachments to game-stuff, even though I do like to have a few fun collectibles. it's fair that other people care more.

Personally, I dont even care about the value. Id just like to have it. Like to look through it and stuff Sucks that scalpers want to ruin it for other people And then act like theyre doing us a favor I hope the ones that get it get stuck with them

ReturnOfFa posted...

maybe you get it, maybe you don't. it's luck and timing. it's a video game, who really cares. still sad there're so many robo-scalpers - that should actually be illegal. it really fucks up everything, from video game pre-sales to concert tickets.

It kind of sucks to miss out on cool collectibles