View previous topic | View next topic

Building bigger cities

Page 3 of 11
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

crissdee
1320707.  Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:42 am Reply with quote

It seems to me, after brief cogitation, that underground roads might well be a good idea in a city. It would/could separate vehicles and pedestrians, reducing accidents, it would allow more space up top for building, allowing the population density to be acheived with less crowding (if that is not something of a contradiction in terms). If we had not yet perfected EVs, it would help us to control where the emissions of ICVs ended up, and allow us to gather/treat them.

Certainly seems worth considering.

 
Spike
1320716.  Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:13 am Reply with quote

The problem with cars in tunnels is that when there is an accident, or car breaks down, it is hard for emergency/breakdown vehicles to get to the scene, and the congestion caused is difficult to clear.
An underground road system would be very expensive to build - look at the price of Crossrail, then add the cost of lots of up and down tunnels for cars to get into the system, or underground car parks if the car are never to surface. As for hard shoulders, the price of the tunnels would be much higher because of the extra diameter required.
Of course you could attach lots of cars together in a convoy which would reduce the risk of accidents and breakdowns, have the convoys run to a timetable, with stations that people can get on and off at...
And you could call it the underground!

 
Spike
1320717.  Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:18 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:


Spike wrote:
Because sometimes thought experiments of things that seem impractical and unachievable can produce ideas that are practical and achievable.
[snip]
The environment I understand dr bob to be talking about is the whole world (what used to be called Gaea, I think?) not just our local areas.


Spot on with both of these points. Thanks for that, Spike. I was beginning to think I was explaining myself really badly.


You're welcome.

 
barbados
1320720.  Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:38 am Reply with quote

Underground roads are doable but the cost in both time and money would be huge.
One thing that has sprung to mind on this, and that is all the while we have ICVs we will always have pollution that comes from personal sources (ie not power generation) then once we remove them from the equation, there is no need to condense the population into cities, because the pollution caused by the citizens driving from A-B rather than getting public transport would be at virtually zero anyway.

 
GuyBarry
1320723.  Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:49 am Reply with quote

Spike wrote:

An underground road system would be very expensive to build - look at the price of Crossrail, then add the cost of lots of up and down tunnels for cars to get into the system, or underground car parks if the car are never to surface.


Before this one starts to take off I'd like to stress that it was just a throwaway remark and not a seriously thought-out proposal! Although there are a few underground roads in London, most notably the 1960s Strand Underpass, which started out as a tramway tunnel, and the 1.1-mile Limehouse Link Tunnel, which cost £293 million to build in the 1990s. (Also the Rotherhithe Tunnel and Blackwall Tunnels under the Thames of course.)

I suppose what I was suggesting was that if you planned a city around its railway network rather than its road network, you could have all the railways on the surface and put roads in tunnels where they cross under the railways, thus removing the need for an underground railway network.


Last edited by GuyBarry on Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:01 am; edited 1 time in total

 
PDR
1320724.  Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:51 am Reply with quote

As I understood it, when DrBob used the word "environment" he was really talking about the climate, while when Guy used the word he was talking about the whole environment (physical, social, economic, emotional etc). That would certainly help to explain the differing views they have expressed. But this is just an assumption - if it's not the case then please just correct me!

The other point which seems to come over is that most people think of cities in the sense they exist (for most of the UK) at the moment - essentially urban housing estates. When DrBob talks about high-density populations I THINK he means everyone living in high-rise blocks of flats - certainly that's the only way I can reconcile the suggested benefits. If that is the case (and again, it's a guess on my part) I think the concerns over social/emotional effects would be much more significant, because in our country I think most people would regard that prospect for a family home with abject horror, and certainly the experience to day suggest that except when it's done with significant opulance the resulting communities tend to be less than desireable places to raise families.

These problems could probably be addressed, but I'd want to see some workable, tested proposals on how before I dismissed them as "not relevant to a thought experiment".

PDR

 
GuyBarry
1320726.  Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:34 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
As I understood it, when DrBob used the word "environment" he was really talking about the climate, while when Guy used the word he was talking about the whole environment (physical, social, economic, emotional etc).


Well yes, and I think the hijacking of the word "environment" by the climate change lobby is particularly unfortunate in this context. To suggest that things like overcrowding or excessive urban development are somehow not part of the environment is to deny the experience of the people who are most directly affected by them.

The claim that anything that reduces carbon emissions is ipso facto good for the environment is rather like the claim that anything that increases GDP is ipso facto good for the economy. Climate change is just one of very many environmental considerations, and if it's allowed to take priority over everything else then I think we could well be in danger of creating an ideology that's every bit as dogmatic as capitalism, and potentially even more dangerous.

Quote:
When DrBob talks about high-density populations I THINK he means everyone living in high-rise blocks of flats - certainly that's the only way I can reconcile the suggested benefits. If that is the case (and again, it's a guess on my part) I think the concerns over social/emotional effects would be much more significant


Well of course high-rise blocks were supposed to be the answer to all our problems back in the 50s and 60s, and now they're being demolished all over the country. The Grenfell Tower tragedy has raised further questions over their long-term viability.

 
barbados
1320729.  Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:45 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
Spike wrote:

An underground road system would be very expensive to build - look at the price of Crossrail, then add the cost of lots of up and down tunnels for cars to get into the system, or underground car parks if the car are never to surface.


Before this one starts to take off I'd like to stress that it was just a throwaway remark and not a seriously thought-out proposal! Although there are a few underground roads in London, most notably the 1960s Strand Underpass, which started out as a tramway tunnel, and the 1.1-mile Limehouse Link Tunnel, which cost £293 million to build in the 1990s. (Also the Rotherhithe Tunnel and Blackwall Tunnels under the Thames of course.).

This idea has already been thought out, and implemented, so is not a new idea. As for whether the inconvenience caused is worth it in the end perhaps Jenny or Efros could advise?

 
Jenny
1320738.  Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:27 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
it means that dr. bob is proposing a scenario which he knows would make people's living conditions worse, purely because it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


Again, this is an assumption you are making. Why would it *necessarily* make people's living conditions worse? On what evidence do you base this assumption?

 
barbados
1320740.  Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:57 am Reply with quote

Jenny, I think even dr.bob has acknowledged that those who choose to live away from the densely populated cities do so to enhance their quality of life.
Would you for example give up your home in leafy Mn to go and live In Manhattan or Downtown Boston?

 
GuyBarry
1320745.  Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:05 pm Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
GuyBarry wrote:
it means that dr. bob is proposing a scenario which he knows would make people's living conditions worse, purely because it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


Again, this is an assumption you are making. Why would it *necessarily* make people's living conditions worse? On what evidence do you base this assumption?


Jenny, I don't wish to be rude, but are you quite sure you appreciate the point at issue here? This is from post 1320704:

dr.bob wrote:
GuyBarry wrote:
Now, having re-read the quote this morning I realize that it can be interpreted another way: that he [dr. bob] agreed with my statement that people's living conditions would be worse. I suspect that's what he actually meant, and if that's the case then I apologize for the misunderstanding.


That is indeed what I meant, and there's no need to apologise. One of the problems of discussing things in this format is that the written word is not the perfect way of expressing ideas. Subtleties, like tone of voice, are lost and misunderstandings happen.


So dr. bob has explicitly stated that he agrees with my view that his scenario would make people's living conditions worse.

If you wish to challenge that point of view, that's fine; but the onus is on you to advance an argument that it would not make living conditions worse, not on me to advance an argument that it would.


Last edited by GuyBarry on Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:31 am; edited 1 time in total

 
Woodsman
1320758.  Mon Apr 29, 2019 10:31 pm Reply with quote

Referencing the building of roadways under cities:

The Central Artery/Tunnel Project (The Big Dig) in Boston is a 1.5 mile long multi-lane interstate highway buried beneath Boston, along with a sub-harbor tunnel to the airport and a nearby bridge. It took 16 years to build and cost over $14.8 Billion, and ultimately around $22 billion with interest payments on the bonds. It replaced an elevated highway that visually disconnected downtown Boston from its central waterfront and north Boston.

Ironically, a proposed companion North-South Rail Link between the North Station and South Station terminals (which are adjacent to the Big Dig) was never built as a part of this construction. So it is all cars, all the way.

 
Alfred E Neuman
1320764.  Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:07 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
Jenny, I don't wish to be rude, but do you understand the principles on which debates such as this take place?

More rules that no-one else has a copy of. Yay!

 
GuyBarry
1320771.  Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:40 am Reply with quote

@AEN: My wording in post 1320745 was a little harsh so I've rephrased it to "Jenny, I don't wish to be rude, but are you quite sure you appreciate the point at issue here?" Sorry for any offence caused.

 
Alfred E Neuman
1320778.  Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:40 am Reply with quote

It wasn’t that harsh, but it did refer to a set of rules that doesn’t exist except in your head. I suppose your next step will be to deny that you attempt to impose your rules on us, then you’ll announce that you’re not going to be answering me ever again, and then you’ll start with the frothing-at-the-mouth personal insults. Perhaps you could save a little time and space and just do it all in one post?

 

Page 3 of 11
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group