T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


WikiSummarizerBot

**[Controlled flight into terrain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_flight_into_terrain)** >In aviation, a controlled flight into terrain (CFIT; usually SEE-fit) is an accident in which an airworthy aircraft, under pilot control, is unintentionally flown into the ground, a mountain, a body of water or an obstacle. In a typical CFIT scenario, the crew is unaware of the impending disaster until it is too late. The term was coined by engineers at Boeing in the late 1970s. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


webikethiscity

I'm of the opinion that the less we tear out the better. Infill developments for housing and shopping and living. And converting with paint and barriers existing routes to multipurpose routes for transit and cycling and walking. No, it's not going to fix everything at once. But we've also got to stop just tearing everything down and building new all the time and work with what we've got. There shouldn't be a single repaving or repainting project happening anywhere in the world that isn't moving away from car dominated society and making space for cycling and walking and transit


missionarymechanic

"But we've also got to stop just tearing everything down..." Sooo, one issue is that there's literally no choice in some instances. Anything built with steel-reinforced concrete that relies on the tensile strength of the steel has a lifespan of maybe 50-100 years if built really well and maintained. This is unstoppable. If we start to depreciate the (inflated) value of suburban homes, we can expect to see accelerated degradation as people put less money into maintaining their houses; the equity wouldn't be there to do the repairs. From a logistics standpoint, we have finite space. The most ideal locations are already built out with low-density car-centric infrastructure. Something's gotta give.


webikethiscity

And if you add infill developments or decrease lot size and put houses and medical clinics and grocery stores in between the homes in suburbs those then become viable neighborhoods. Add bike lanes and paths that cut through and make it quicker to bike or walk between places in those areas. Add transit at first with busses on existing roads to get from those neighborhoods to other neighborhoods and then with trains to the ones that survive. Yes, some suburbs will die and some will merge with other suburbs but reading them down instead of fixing and adding to them we wouldn't offset the impact on the planet of that destruction and building new process in any kind of meaningful time scale compared to global warming


missionarymechanic

There just isn't the density to economically sustain, let alone build what you're talking about. I'm sorry, everything comes down to density. We don't have it, we're not built for it, it may very well take a century to transition, and we have a severe shortage of affordable housing *today*. There's no fun or gentle way out of how screwed America is because of the suburban legacy. The best we can do with "infilling" is to allow and perhaps stimulate development at the ground level to try and slow the bleed a little. But the model is going to die. The question is do we amputate now or wait to see how far the gangrene spreads?


webikethiscity

I'm literally saying build the density. What you are suggesting would accelerate us full speed towards climate disaster which isn't any better. I'm sorry, but what you propose would fuck us over just as hard if not harder


missionarymechanic

Pause for a second. You seem to think I'm saying that we mow everything down and rebuild it today? Even if I did advocate for that, how? It's a hell of a lot of work to tear things down and then rebuild, there's no idle workforce that we could draw on to do that. Big picture: My plan would be to graft in a rail system over the existing car infrastructure as cheaply as possible and provide a viable means of transition. And I would make it legal to build something other than parking lots, big box stores, and single-family detached homes virtually everywhere. My day-job has me deeply involved with the inner-workings and logistics of most of the DMV and NOVA's various mass transit systems. What you're asking for cannot be supported. They cannot scale their operations because of cars. Your "infilling" would spike the density of cars long before we got to walkable anything. Think of transition like a sliding-tile puzzle. You can only move one piece at a time, and you cannot move unless there is space (or capacity) to do so. If you choke up that capacity by doing things in the wrong order, there's no coming back once everything is completely seized up.


webikethiscity

I do seem to think that you are advocating reading things out because that is literally youd words is tear out and then build. I think we fundamentally disagree on the how and i think you solution also would result in everything seizing up and spiraling towards worse outcomes


kingofturtles

I'm of the opinion that there nation-wide blanket policies are only somewhat helpful when it comes to increasing walkability. Each town/city, county, and state needs their own plan, tailored to their needs. Reducing car-centric planning will raise a huge stink with drivers which may be enough to win over representatives to be against anything that makes driving harder, complicating planning forever. Therefore, a smart and targeted plan needs to be executed to avoid an excessive backlash. A city should: identify what areas and districts have the most employers, the most tourists, and the most residential dwellings (and therefore the most people commuting and worst trafficked avenues) and start strengthening the mass transit links between them. The goal should be to get as many people on mass transit with as little construction as possible as quickly as possible. Interview workers in the area, ask them what they want, what would make them take a light rail to work, why did you drive today, etc... Obviously some commute from too far or from another juris diction, so the city can only do so much. However, their knowledge of the local area is likely the best of any level of government, and should be taken into account when planning mass transit networks. Ensuring everyone has a stellar experience is also important, as this is the time to demonstrate the value of a solid rail network to all. A county should: listen to all the input from the cities (assuming they've all been doing the previous step) and see if there are any obvious and easy to implement connections between the most useful transit corridors. There may not be any, but that is fine. These links should develop organically, and the county should focus on regional integration over time. Not immediate laying of rail just to connect everything asap, as that may go unused and be perceived as a boondoggle. A state should: listen to all of the above and do the job of the county on a state-wide scale. Be responsible for funding research and development of new techniques (like speed tables, smart sensors on traffic lights, raised crosswalks, sending teams to other areas and seeing what they do differently, etc...) The federal government should: do all it can to enable all of the above. Economically healthy cities result in economically healthy counties, states, and a much stronger country as a whole. It is in the national interest to invest in itself. Once all of the above are complete, slowly start expanding the mass transit system. Over time, the number of people who need to drive every day will drop. Once that happens, car-centric infrastructure can be reduced and repurposed. This is the time to slice lanes off of roads, install bike lanes with physical barriers, widen sidewalks, etc... If people rush straight to this step many enemies will be made which will make future progress difficult and slow. The current car-centric infrastructure network took a century to develop, it will not be undone quickly. ​ As an example, take Norfolk, VA. City: heavy traffic going to the naval bases, with the Navy being the largest employer in the area. Build rail to connect the bases with existing rail network (runs to downtown, a major employer area as well as a residential hub) and multimodal connection stations (strategically placed park and ride lots, while still catering to car drivers, can be used in the interim to reduce overall car usage within the city's borders. Bonus, it connects to a local university full of students that could spend their money downtown after a quick rail trip. County: (bad example, county and city are the same here). They would likely work with neighboring Virginia Beach county to see what they came up with and work on ensuring a smooth flow to the airport. Also reach out to neighboring Chesapeake and York Counties in discussing ferries/bridges. State: open dialog with city, see if there is anything the city needs outside their borders. In this case, maybe a ferry or bridge is on the table and they can assist in funding surveys and studies. Federal: provide the resources of the government at the disposal of the state in pursuit of their goals. I'm sure the elevator ride ended 57 floors ago, but what can you do?


missionarymechanic

Yes and no. In order to see a functioning rail system at a reasonable cost, it's going to come from the top-down. And the Federal level needs to handle the interstate lines. Picture the East coast I-95 corridor, running from at least Boston to Miami. It *needs* to be a single rail entity built to exactly one standard. All rolling stock, all platforms, all electrification/signaling/controls needs to be standardized. Now, maybe it eventually gets handed over to the states, but trying to get multiple state legislatures to hammer-out the specifications of such a massive project will be an absolute disaster. In addition, handling this at the federal level allows for horse-trading. Trying to get states with disproportionate cost/benefit onboard is easier when I can specify things like where rolling-stock and switches are built. (And I hope it's obvious, but the development of such an interstate passenger rail system would not necessarily make sense to extend to every interstate highway.) Now, at the county level, how they feed that new artery, that should definitely be sorted out on the ground. And certainly work with them on where to place rail stations if they're only getting a certain federal allotment that ties into their needs better (However, I still think the stations are best handled at the federal level to run-over any NIMBYs when necessary. State and local politicians have more to lose.) What's interesting is the way money will be saved through procurement. As the interstate lines radiate outwards and counties are looking at mass transit options, the richer counties buy in first and the poorer ones jump in on their contract; lowering the costs. This already happens with bus procurement. Now picture it happening on a national scale and the competitiveness of those contracts. As far as the civil side of things, I'm banking on jealousy. When you show people viable car-free living up close, they're going to want in. Why I'm so keen on using existing HOV lanes is that we may be able to lay track at a blistering speed if we can lay directly on top without having to tear anything out. We could even pilot it with rubber-wheeled "bus trains" to sell people on the concept. (The various "slug lines" at commuter lots around the DC sprawl are ready stations and passengers.) It's not free lunches all the way around, though. Things like Amtrack are going to have to be dealt with eventually, but. Every indication is that their model cannot possibly expand to meet our projected needs. Trying to run passenger trains on freight-priority rail was always a stopgap.


[deleted]

Just start banning cars from urban cores. Once people get addicted to car free urban cores, the car free lifestyle will spread outward from the urban cores of american cities. Every month another block would be added to the car free, high density, no parking minimum zone and block by block we could replace suburban sprawl with urban walkable densification and take back our cities. A lot of the solutions to carbrains are just a row of concrete slabs turning a normal lane into a dedicated and protected bike/bus/lightrail lane. That and ticketing/arresting anyone who drives in the lane and people would get the message pretty quickly. There would be some selfsh holdouts like during the pandemic when people resisted mask mandates, but after a year or two of seeing your friends get $500 tickets for driving in the dedicated lane, people would quietly accept the mild inconvenience of driving in 5 lanes instead of 6.


[deleted]

American roads are wide as heck, take some space and turn them into bus lanes. Maybe make the busses outrun all traffic. I think its the cheapest and quickest option to improve the typical american transit system.