Comments by "Laurence Fraser" (@laurencefraser) on "Why Build Higher?" video.

  1. In a lot of US cities it was basically oil/car companies pulling shenanigans with legislation at the federal/state/city level to make anything other than buses and cars a horrendously expensive and impractical option early on. A number of those used to have Great public transportation systems before that happened. Many other places just don't have the money for it. And public transportation proposals are almost always Buses (not surprising, they use the existing roads and are fairly cheap.) The problem is, the buses use the existing roads (so still get stuck in the gridlock until Enough people use them, but people won't use them until that's not a thing because...), are typically far less comfortable, often feel crowded, take longer to get from A to B due to constant stopping to pick people up and drop them off, AND often involve lengthy walks at either end (never mind Changing buses, which (as buses often fail to keep their schedules) can result in Further delays, which can become Very large if the one you're on is late enough that the one you need to change to has already Left on a rout that doesn't see enough use to run a bus every 5-10 minutes.) Trams are Better, as they have generally higher comfort, the tracks can be built such that they aren't actually on the road in the higher traffic areas, either by elevating them, running down the median, or turning off and going their own way to cut corners or the like, and they usually look nicer too. The other side of that is that they are more expensive to build (a lot) and maintain (tracks). Though on the third hand, it's quite possible to set them up so they can haul goods around as well, reducing Truck numbers, as well as cars. (bonus points if you use the same gauge and couplings as the main railways so that moving freight from a tram to a train is a matter of shunting rather than offloading and loading. Might even work with standardized shipping containers if the tram in question is just an engine that pulls passenger carriages or freight wagons rather than a bus-on-rails (which is how most were designed in the past.) ... But still not perfect. Subways are, of course, better still, though have a bit of a tendency to be horribly over crowded if used enough to justify their existence. A state of affairs which can be mitigated Greatly by not putting all your residential areas miles away from your jobs/shops/etc. Thing is, as long as you have usable roads going from where people are to where they want to go, the car will continue to have a lot to recommend it. To get rid of the roads, you need a system which can handle passengers (including those with mental and physical disabilities, which can get a bit interesting), freight, and emergency services, and to some extent the military (at least in places where there's any chance of being attacked in a way the military can deal with.) Other than that, there are a bunch of variations on the tram or subway which... basically continue to have the same issues as those. (standard railways used within a city in any useful way are just 'subways' which aren't actually underground, so far as passenger services go.), Ferries, which are basically Great in some situations and awful in others (basically, if you can build a rail bridge, it's Probably better than a Ferry. A car bridge is always worse... except for the part that the car takes care of everything on both Sides of the ferry anyway, and you can always have a Ferry which can carry the cars across anyway) are only relevant if you have a decent sized body of water which needs crossing regularly, and calling Aircraft viable public transportation within a city is just silly. If you want good public transportation, you have to combine good city layout with intelligently arranged rail and tram systems (as well as foot and bicycle paths, ideally), emergency access roads (not available for use by the citizenry, emergency services vehicles only) ... All put in place when the city is first laid out, because otherwise you have to buy and then bulldoze things to build it, adding More expenses, or people get in the habit of using their cars rather than the public transport and then never switch over due to perceived convenience. (it also really helps if the cost of the public transport infrastructure is bundled into the local taxes rather than it being "pay to use". If it's in the taxes, people feel somewhat obligated to Use it to 'get their money's worth'. If it's "pay to use" people tend to go "but... cost to comfort/convenience/speed most times but not always, Car is better..." (even when it's not.)) Also other factors I've not even thought of, of course. but those are all fairly big ones.
    1
  2. To be fair, the main problem with building up is... well... Earthquakes. No reason not to build four or five stories up, I suppose, but actual skyscrapers? ... Let's not and say we didn't. Not only is it a problem for the people In said skyscraper... there's also all the Other buildings it falls on if it comes down! Now, to be fair, there's a fair bit which can be done to mitigate that, but it's borderline, if not actually, impossible (or at least seriously impractical) to build something capable of withstanding a sufficiently large earthquake, and said sufficiently large earthquake could well happen. More people in a smaller space is also a problem in the event of a need for evacuation (earthquake, tsunami, whatever else one might think of.) Especially if they don't have their own transport. Though, to be fair, depending on exactly what you're evacuating For, Suburban sprawl's not really better for that one, you probably need more, smaller, cities, with proper spacing, with better arterial transport between them if you want to improve that issue. But a tonne of skyscrapers in the path of a tsunami? It's just more people you're not going to be able to get out in time. There's a reason New Zealand as a whole doesn't build Up much. (or down, for that matter.)
    1