Do you mean efficiency in terms of
..
a) wasted resources
b) actually getting there

I've been trolling /o/ with these images for a while now. They're raging so hard.
>>>/o/1385025
>>>/o/1385080
>>>/o/1385036
>>>/o/1385094

I'd go with:

C. fifty bicycles

...only if all of those fifty people live and work at the same place.

>>86713

lol you call like 4 posts in a thread raging hard ? half of those are yours!

>>86728
Or at fifty different places that happen to be on the same rail line and within walking distance of a station.

>>86728
Why would they not? Thousands of people live well in the catchment area of a single stop. Using two lines in combination gives lots of potential start and stop stops, modern-day cities though tend to settle with three. It's more likely than you think.

It only involves actually building cityscape, not suburban sprawl. Nobody wants to walk around in land built for cars.

>>86751
Go back to Europe. In America, people buy cars.

>>86761
Not forever they won't. American will have to develop sensible urban planning and public transportation, or be crushed under the weight of its own inefficiency.

>>86761
in Europe, cars come in bags

>>86761
In America, people sit in traffic jam every day.

>>86762
You would think so, but it goes directly against the American desire for space and room of their own. I myself would absolutely hate to be forced to live in an inner-city environment.

>>86750
thats a tram, you dont have stations you have stops
>>86761
>Go back to Europe. In America, National City Lines bought and shut down all the major city light trail
fix'd

>>86766
thats the suburbanization propaganda that began in the 1950s you know

>>86771
Which was based on a desire to return to the more agrarian conditions in America before the late 1800's/early 1900's.

According to the Census Bureau,
in 1900, 39.6% of Americans lived in urban areas.
in 1930, 56.1% of Americans lived in urban areas.
in 1960, 69.9% of Americans lived in urban areas.
in 1990, 75.2% of Americans lived in urban areas.

>>86770
They are on platforms raised above street level, they are stations.

>>86771
Funny that. Here in Great Britain, city councils ripped up all their remaining tramways in the '50s and '60s to make room for cars. Then in the '90s the Tories sold off the railways. Suddenly the millenium comes along, environmentalism kicks in and we start building trams and railways again, and government policy is to get people out of cars and back onto public transport.

Its only a matter of time before this starts happening in the US.

B.) really needs to include in the drawing the electrified grid it would require.

>>86776
>Platforms raised to a little more than normal curb

>>86783

only a matter of time before privatizing public infrastructure falls out of fashion? it's going to be a while

>>86785

A.) really needs to include in the drawing the roads it would require.

bikes for the WIN!

Do 50 random people all go to work at exactly the same time and live in and work at exactly the same place?

>>86792
>Do 50 random people all go to work at exactly the same time
ever hear of a 9-5 job?

>>86726
or D) nothing (50 telecommuters)

>>86789

You mean the ones that are already there?

>>86697
DAT ELECTRIFIED ARTICULATED BUS

With my Internet powers....

I can work from anywhere!!

Even my house!

>>86773
which was based on a major effort to condition the US population
>>86783
yeah the roads lobby got England too, Australia as well except Melbourne

>>86785
still far more efficient than all the cars:
http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html
http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/boyapati.shtml

>>86792
they and countess others would go somewhere in the vicinity of one of the lines

>>86773
wtf is "agrarian" about a suburb?

>>86936
Not a damn thing.

But they did a good job of selling it as being somewhat close to actually living with nature, all the way down to giving the streets silly nature related names. Since no one could actually leave the cities, they tried to bring as much of the country as they could to them...with horrid results.

>>86932
To condition the population into what?

>But they did a good job of selling it as being somewhat close to actually living with nature
because it was torn up to make way for the suburb

>>86942
into atomized individuals

You all best be trollin. "Do they all work at the exact same place?" "Do they all start and end work at the exact same time?" Jesus, that doesn't even matter. Run more trains at rush hour, run them less frequently at other times. Boom, a potential 50 lanes of traffic replaced.

For the pro-suburb people, I'd highly recommend "Subdivide and Conquer", it's an excellent documentary on the subject. It kind of has a cheesy vibe like something you'd watch in high school, but it's extremely interesting and makes a very convincing argument. There are several other documentaries out there but I haven't seen them.

>>86936
As if suburbs looked remotely like that.

>>86953
>Run more trains at rush hour, run them less frequently at other times. Boom, a potential 50 lanes of traffic replaced.

Vague. It totally depends on the system, but if they're not a max capacity during rush hour why would they need to run more trains? Also, what is running them less frequently other hours going to solve? Are you going to shift the space/time continuum and put the trains they use other times in service during rush hour?

>>86953

Pfft, run trains/buses/trams/flying carpets/ground-level-automated-light-rail-vehicles at max frequency all day everyday. Do cities close roadlanes around the world at night? No. But omg a six-lane road isn't cost effective at this time!

>>86925
Unless your job is digging coal. Or fishing.

Protip: Personal automobiles sit unused some 90% of their daily life. If all the transport needs of the society were perfectly staggered, we'd need one tenth of the auto count to let everyone drive their car.

4-lane carriageways are on the peak of efficiency. More lanes are hit hard by diminishing returns, as people can't drive as well surrounded by other traffic. It starts getting prohibitively expensive to widen that road for the gains it gives, even in suburban landscape where there's plenty of cheap land. Try the same thing in actual cityscape, where the road is already lined by big buildings.

>>86948
:)
>>86949
Ok, I agree with you there. But I actually like my individuality.

Secondly, I guess I wouldn't mind moving into a denser area, but not into a area with the same niggers I live around now. The secondary benefit of expansion is the ability to not live around undesirables.

How does gentrification come into play? You know, taking the ghetto parts of the inner city, kicking out the poor people, and building high-rent apartments and Starbucks shops?

>>87074

When I moved into the city, that's the kind of area I moved into - ten years ago it had been one of the city's most dangerous ghettos, now its one of the nicest areas. Its also the most racially-mixed area of the city. I lived in that neighborhood for quite a few years and was quite happy. The problem is the houses themselves are all really old and weren't taken care of by the previous owners. So, the apartments in the area where all falling apart, but the prices began going up anyhow because they build some fancy-shmancy new elementary school and everyone wanted in. I wanted to upgrade to a bigger/nicer apt, but had to move to another neighborhood. My new hood is nice, but I still miss my old hood sometimes.

tl;dr Live by the sword, die by the sword.

>>86713

lol you had a total of like 15 posts from all of those threads, with maybe 2 actual newfags who raged, and the rest was you pretending.
When is moot going to nix this shitty board anyway, it's just full of eurofags and underageb& who can't get their license yet.

>>87074
I doubt it would matter at all unless kicking out the poor suddenly means that density is increased. Where it matters is in whatever poor suburb all these displaced poor people move to.

So is instituting improved public transit a manner of class or density, then?

>>87101
In a perfect world, neither.

In America it seems to be class-bnased as the stereotype is that the only people who ride public transit are hippies and poor people.

Although density would seem to be important when it comes to making sure that whatever you build stays profitable and successful, thereby encouraging future growth.

>>86697 Lawl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuNBTet27cI

>>87074
being a traditionally poor area they'll be poorly serviced or entirely neglected by public transport, encouraging the yuppie bastards to drive

>>86762

Not forever they won't. American will have to develop sensible urban planning and public transportation, or be crushed under the weight of its own Double Big Macs.


fixed

>>86771

No, it isn't. Surely, folks like yourself who think mass urbanization of people in lower-density areas have given due thought to the cost and effort of relocating all of those people in low-density areas to more urban regions?

Yeah, didn't think so. Go 'way.

>>87127
wat.

>>87127
Surely, folks like yourself who post rebuttals have read and understood the post they are replying to, and use comprehensible English to make the reply.

Yeah, didn't think so. Go 'way.

i got a masters degree in transport planning, i can resolve this little dispute my going on the record to say that cars are here to stay and ya'all are a bunch of train fuckers

>>87155
win?
I will be living in D.C. soon, so I won't be using a car much for a long time.

I like the idea of collectivist transportation as a supplement instead of a replacement of the individual freedom to go where I want when I want.

I'm all for promoting efficient transit and urban environments, but these comics are the very epitome of self-righteous hippy bullshit, and so they fill me with infinite rage.

>>87127
cant be more than the effort of moving them to the suburbs and sustaining them there for a couple decades

>>87172
But no one moved people to the suburbs, they moved themselves there.

>>87173
People moved to suburbs because suburbs had cheap land and apartments compared to high-rise cities. Of course, there are hidden costs included, namely the required use of a personal car. Marketing has a big part in making that suburbian plentiful free space a desirable thing, in apartments and in the gardens, too, but people *require* very little room themselves. People can live happily in large numbers in small apartments, but we perceive that as what the poor do -- rather be poor in a large house in the suburbs than be poor in a small apartment in the city. The status we associate with cars help with that, too.