Can you name any examples, though? I mean, one of the thing that annoys me about urbanists is the assumption that their ideas work in a vacuum and then apply to it any city. I'm going to try to break down the post as is.
Examples of what? that local circumstances determine what is the best solution? It's literally the thing you are complaining about in that sentence...
Removing grade crossings doesn't change volume, it changes travel time, which is important to consider in building a road network, because more stops = slower, plus especially during slow traffic you want to make sure the road ahead clears before making your way across the railroad tracks. It doesn't help train capacity, though the rail operators like it so they can have a long stretch to stop, don't have to blow the horn, and go faster.
Dude, removing crossing absolutely changes volume of both rail and road traffic as in the real world there has to be a balance, one of the key planks of level crossing removals here is that the boom gates can be down for 30-45 mins per hour in the peak due to the number of suburban services, and if they ran trains at the level they wanted to, it would have been 60 mins per hour
but the number of trains is limited by the need to allow road traffic to cross, so removing it reduces congestions by allowing higher traffic volumes AND allows more trains as they don't have to worry about crossing traffic.
Well, if by "demand" the amount of people wanting to use the service that's mostly numbers that can't be changed.
Firstly 'Demand' is to travel, what mode they travel will depend on need and circumstance, that's why increasing road capacity to lower congestion can pull travelers off trains and onto the road, and why improving rail or even location specific stuff like ferry services can pull travelers out of cars and onto PT, most people don't give a fuck about what specific mode they get to their destination, just what they need to get where they are going
That is why urbanists and grifters arguing about only trains or only roads are fucking retarded. It's why 'induced demand' is a fucking meme because it's actually
Unmet demand that extra lanes can now cater for.
And on people wanting to use a service fucking Amtrack in the states is proving that wrong right now the Borealis has only been around for a year, hit over 100k passengers in 6 months, and this year was crowing about hitting 250k passengers by July, and lets face it the USA passenger rail is pretty mid at best by most standards, and they still pulled those numbers.
All those passengers trips were either unmet demand or converted from other options like roads, or air, meaning there is now more capacity in those modes to satisfy demand with existing infrastructure.
But the cars will show up anyway and cram onto narrow highways if it's a growing city (I think I've brought up Austin before) and just make traffic worse. Strictly on freeways and city growth, cars represent population, not how much the highway holds. They don't materialize out of nowhere, and can either cram onto increasingly congested freeways or not.
I know this may come as a shock,
but people may choose to not travel, amazing I know! People can look at a congested traffic report and decide 'nah fuck it, I can't be bothered with traffic' cars on the road represent
people who either have to travel or decided it's worth the price to deal with the congestion, not fucking population, people don't drive around randomly like NPC's in peak hour,
they drive to fucking get somewhere, it's why people will wait at work or at a wherever they are for the worst of the peak hour traffic to subside.
Suburban areas dislike public transit because the taxes are drawn from the entire metro area and the suburbs pay into it but barely see any results. Urbanists hate it because they have to route mass transit all the way out to suburbs where it does less good (and the suburban board members will often throw a monkey wrench in decisions) but while suburbs can survive without Greater Area Mass Transit or whatever it's called, the transit authority can't survive without it.
There is this amazing place called 'the rest of the world' that doesn't use the retarded funding and governance model the USA does, and in fact this place has suburbs that are Complaining
that they don't have enough Public Transport options and they want better PT, because the regular train service(because it's a regional service) can't handle the number of people who want to use it, and the roads are congested.
It's not "right-wing grifting" to throw cold water on mass transit and urbanism and saying that "both are bad" is some weasel pseudo-centrist move
Oh, you're a retard, explains a lot, saying "different transport options have different positives and negatives and so should be decided on based on those positives and negatives and not retarded politic views that ignore reality' is not 'bOtH aRe BaD hUr DuH' but if you weren't a retard you would have figured that out, hell even a daily rake article was posted further back in the thread if you desperately need a 'right wing' article, even has 'soyboy' in the title, careful tho it has some dangerous ideas like 'car drivers should want roads and PT to be good, and PT users should want roads and PT to be good because that makes both options better'
You do you though I guess.
Back on Topic:
The Japs are playing with Maglev's again and urbanists not beating the allegation they are alcoholic's
Also is it just me or are the Urbanists/YIMBY types posting less slop that's funny and getting more people calling them out, not sure if it's just a feed algo thing, but I'm seeing less full throat retarded posts and more mildly retarded ones that have a bunch of comments calling them out.
AmericanFatster's post are fairly milqtoast when I look, I don't really see anything from NotJustCucks since he's descended into his hugbox, and I haven't come across any Yimby/Urbanist that are particularly funny lately.
