Office of the Department of Internal Affairs feat. SoIA morgieb (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 01:15:51 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Office of the Department of Internal Affairs feat. SoIA morgieb (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Office of the Department of Internal Affairs feat. SoIA morgieb  (Read 2271 times)
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,738
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« on: September 23, 2012, 01:04:22 PM »

The problem with low-density communities and transit systems is that determining where to place stops and where to establish optimal transportation hubs becomes a huge challenge. How do you create routes that will even cover half your population?

One of the benefits of proactive transportation planning is that transportation hubs can become a magnet for commercial growth. In a low density community, you have to account for the fact that the population isn't concentrated in a specific area. That means you have to leave room for parking at major terminals, which erases some of the potential for smart growth. Plus, the further away transit is from your home, the less likely you are to use it at all.

I'd actually argue that the money would be better spent in places that do have other forms of existing transportation. When transit systems work together, the benefits multiply. Businesses grow, cities become more walkable, and you have real hubs of growth.

I think you'd be better off eliminating the least dense communities from your list. Keep the 8 billion, but you'd be better to spend more money on the best suited communities. You don't want to pour money into a community that can't possibly establish smart transit routes... or else you'll have an expensive system with continued upkeep costs that very few people will use.

Sorry to nose my way in here, but I've spent a lot of time studying transit systems for university. I don't want to see you spending money in places that won't benefit from it.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,738
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2012, 02:06:16 PM »

I really can't disagree with anything you've said. It's nice to find someone with similar interests. Smiley

I'd emphasize, though, that if you're only looking to establish transit routes around the population centres for those low-density counties (which is the optimal way to do it), your ridership market will end up being lower than the 60,000 people you talked about. I haven't gone county-by-county though, so you're probably better informed on the specifics than I am. I'm not sure how many counties on your list are right at the 60,000 mark.

Anyhow, best of luck. TOD has the potential to solve a lot of regional problems. If you ever want to talk about it more, let me know. I love this stuff.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 12 queries.