Thread

1. whatever1 · 1791108278 · focus · HN ↗

   If you want security the concept of the mega city needs to be abandoned.

   In a decentralized country you don’t care about terrorism attacks, nuclear bombs, coups, revolutions, drones and what not.

   1. torginus · 1791114625 · focus · HN ↗

      Not just for security - generally speaking if you have high speed rail infrastructure connected to a good and fast public transport grid, there's genuinely no reason to build a huge city.

      High density housing is very slow to traverse and getting from point A to B in a big city might take more time than getting on a train that takes you to another city 200km away in 30 min. In a traffic jam, you'll be lucky to do 5km in the same time.

      1. t0mpr1c3 · 1791116861 · focus · HN ↗

         You have it backwards. Passenger railways only make sense when they connect large population centers. Public transport networks outside of urban areas barely exist.

         1. torginus · 1791149246 · focus · HN ↗

            I don't. High speed rail is everywhere in Europe and connects cities with a populations of a few hundred k to maybe a low million.

            These mid sized cities are usually along the rail lines, like beads on a string.

            Whereas these megacities are built densely and usually have radial transport networks which require insane levels of urban planning and are difficult to navigate in the best of cases.

            1. jltsiren · 1791158488 · focus · HN ↗

               Public transit requires density even when the cities are small. If the population is too evenly distributed, there are no routes with enough traffic to justify good transit service. People will then choose to drive if they can. And if transit connections to railway stations are not good enough, there is not enough demand for high-speed rail, because most people will choose to drive to the next city.

               1. ButlerianJihad · 1791159196 · focus · HN ↗

                  “Choose to drive”? What an elitist perspective we have.

                  Populations either have personal vehicles or they don’t. For many of my neighbors, “choosing to drive” is an absurd economic proposition. This choice involves paying for the car, the gas, the maintenance, and the insurance, at the very least. Maintaining your privilege, avoiding tickets and accidents, all a delicate urban ballet.

                  Cars are often assets that will save and even help you earn money, but it is a very interesting thing when the upper classes are incentivized to give up vehicle ownership, or eschew driving. When cars are not saving money & time, they become liabilities, and a millstone around your neck. Some people feel relieved to get rid of them.

                  Many people love cars and love driving, but car culture was foisted on the unwilling public by the military-industrial complex. You drive cars and have highways because of war. Now your soccer mom drives a toddler munching tank to her jobs. Think about it.

                  For many people, choosing to be Taylor Swift would be easier than “choosing to drive”. It’s either public transit, or bike/walk/stay home.

                  1. jltsiren · 1791161843 · focus · HN ↗

                     Public transit is mostly about the middle 80%. If it's useful for them, they are willing to pay to keep it that way one way or another. If it's not, they won't pay, and the service will be bad for those who have no other options.

                     Helsinki just completed a 10 km light rail line that cost ~€400 million, including some major bridges. That's maybe €10k per current and future resident in the areas connected by it to the city center. Spending that much for an option to have good public transit only makes sense if most of those people are going to use the line.

                     1. [deleted] · 1791165094 · focus · HN ↗

                        [deleted]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.