LogFAQs > #913006006

adjl posted...

So long as there are more than 2-3 people on the bus, it's still going to be an improvement over having them all in their own cars. Here's a gif that illustrates just how inefficient cars are: https://imgur.com/gallery/sCvRIEd

That's more than a little idealized, since it assumes that every one of those drivers/passengers would be on the same bus/train, but the fact of the matter is that car traffic takes up an absolutely massive amount of space compared to the alternatives. So many more people could be moved around cities if public transit and active transportation options were made more viable, rather than continuing to rely on cars and develop cities accordingly.

That brings up different issue. In my town, that amount of people would completely fill 6 buses, and about half of a 7th. If that many people were going in that direction at the time, you would definitely need a lot of buses for that. And I know where I live, it's only one bus per hour. Which is why I said it would cost a lot. To have even twice as many buses coming than what we already have would cost double the amount at least. It can clear the roads at least a little. I won't argue there. But it's also about getting enough vehicles in public transport to be able to do it. And to get them there at a good time. Sometimes, people don't use public transport because of the times. Like they would either get somewhere too early or too late. I would say changing the cities could work. But most cities don't have money like that. Ours in struggling to get the roads fixed. Not to mention we have like storm drains.

adjl posted...

Yeah, public transit falls prey to a vicious cycle: It sucks, so people don't use it, so the demand isn't there to justify further investment/provide capital, so it keeps sucking. It's one of those problems where the only way to solve it would be a massive, up-front investment to make a really good system in the hopes that people would use it. Of course, there's also the option of adopting a congestion charge like London does to discourage people from driving in areas where transit is a viable option, helping to offset that investment while also ensuring the investment will be more worthwhile, but that's not going to be an easy thing to get past the voter base.

It would take way more money than we could come up with. And then it would take many years for even part of it to be useful to anyone. The cost or changing a city would cost a crazy amount. Depending on what kind of transportation you would like to use could also up the cost. Buses are good. But you would need a lot to have them come constantly. Anything than runs on rails would require you to add the rails all over. And then you have to make good routes. And probably have to add a station for each of these. Making routes doesn't seem hard but can be depending on how much money, vehicles, and time you have to work with. And you would need a station because you usually don't have one bus going around the whole city. The route would be too long and wouldn't get people to the places they need to go in a timely manner.

Then you have the people that need to travel farther. People who commute out of the state to work everyday. Most public transport would probably be for around the city first, then around the state, then from one state to another. I know we have ways to travel from one state to another already. But not for someone commuting everyday. Where driving is much cheaper, faster, and more efficient...

I like the idea of being able to help make things better. I don't like having to rely on public transport, especially in the state that it's in now. I don't like having to do things I need to do on the time of someone else. I wouldn't like to not get to work on time because there isn't enough space on the bus. Or be able to take care of my errands because I have to wait for public transport.
---

Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.