LogFAQs > #972778417

LinkPizza posted...

So, if thats the case, I dont think anywhere has adequate coverage, & I also dont see how it would be possible in the places Ive been

And yet plenty of cities (mostly outside of North America) have pulled it off, with no greater population density than any American city.

LinkPizza posted...

The thing is I dont think it will ever work that way. Kind of like how when you tweak something one way, a bunch of stuff changes.

Like what? The problem you're proposing would really only come into play if a transit route runs through something that's expected to grow into a successful commercial distract, but the commercial district actually ends up growing a few blocks over for various other reasons (like a couple well-established businesses doing particularly well and making it more attractive to open similar or complementary businesses next to them than on the transit route). In that case, shifting the transit route a few blocks over to align with the growing district would bring it closer to the higher-demand area, help that area grow even better because it would be more accessible to people outside of cars (remember that it's substantially more likely for people walking past to stop in a shop and buy something than for people driving past), but that shift shouldn't trigger any changes that would prevent the neighbourhood from growing.

LinkPizza posted...

They would want to. But whether they could or not would be different

If they can't go without a car, then they'll need to buy a house with a driveway. The whole idea behind this discussion, though, is the value of designing a neighbourhood around transit such that most people moving there don't actually need cars. Some will, since even the best transit system can't cover absolutely everyone's needs, but if it's billed as being a neighbourhood where cars aren't necessary (and that prospect is becoming increasingly popular with the rise of armchair urbanism and increasing anti-oil sentiment) and where most houses don't have driveways as a result, a good chunk of the people interested in moving there won't have cars (or will be looking to ditch them).

LinkPizza posted...

And most will ask about the price. And the developer isnt going to just say the driveway. Hell most likely explain how it has a lot more land Then go into percentages if they ask. But they stay vague until someone wants specifics

"It has more land" when the only apparent difference is a driveway isn't going to convince many people to drop an extra 20%+ on a house. That's a very sizable amount of money, such that people will want to know just where the extra cost is coming from if there's a cheaper alternative with only one apparent difference.

LinkPizza posted...

More land is more expensive. But you can also have the same amount of land where one has a driveway and one doesnt where theyd be equal

Well, yes, but that's not the point. Having the same size of lot and just not paving 20% of it will save the paving costs for the developer and offer a bit of savings that way, but we're not talking about an identical size plot of land. We're talking about what can happen to a development if it's designed to be transit-centric instead of including parking in every lot, and that means the only change is to remove the land allocated to driveways.

LinkPizza posted...

chances are most developers are going to make houses with driveways since they may not know if a place is going to try to make things public transport friendly.

Generally speaking, transit-centric development happens alongside transit development, including establishing whatever routes or other transit infrastructure is needed usually before the developer even breaks ground on any houses. Really, though, that's no less true of car-centric developments. Those developments need roads, water, power, sewer, and communication lines run to them, which happens in collaboration with the city, and there's always a non-zero risk that somewhere down the line the city will be unable to maintain any of those pieces of infrastructure or something else will change to make living there less enjoyable (the most likely of which is that another car-centric development shows up that relies on the same highways to connect it to the city core, making traffic worse than when this first development was built).