I'm Australian, and the photo clearly showing that you can park a car and get two cars past one another tells me that these "narrow streets" are substantially wider than all the normal streets in my vicinity.
I suspect this is more of a stroad (and planning) problem than an actual narrow street problem.
Clearly an "issue" which would be very obvious when prospective tenants view the buildings, so they should have all foreseen the issue and considered alternative transportation methods (or places to live) before moving in.
It is pretty funny that developers are being allowed to literally build half of a street, though.
Japan has car-supporting streets narrower than this and the residents have not much complaints, they just put one-way road signs and use smaller cars or bikes and everything just fits. Residents should've gotten a smaller car before moving in when they saw the size of the road.
Bizarre planning laws are requiring developers to build "absurd" half-width streets in Western Sydney, with local councils and the state government blaming each other for allowing it.
But the laws allowing developers to build public roads around new housing projects have failed to account for situations where neighbouring landowners do not want to sell.
In one street in the suburb of Tallawong, hundreds of people living in four six-storey apartment complexes have been squeezing two-way traffic down a one-lane road for more than three years.
Warren Kirby, the Member for Riverstone, said poorly constructed government planning controls were allowing developers to build unsatisfactory communities in Sydney's west.
Vineet Gambhir, who moved into his apartment off Ayla Street eight months ago, said trying to navigate oncoming traffic in peak hour had not been a good experience.
Adam Leto, chief executive of the Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue, has called for better planning laws as the region rapidly expands.
The original article contains 745 words, the summary contains 156 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Fun fact about the original Sim City: the lead developer said that they wanted to model real cities in the game, but "we quickly realized there were way too many parking lots in the real world and that our game was going to be really boring if it was proportional in terms of parking lots."
There was a similar issue with Cities Skylines. When they tried to put a realistic amount of parking lot space for modern US cities in, the simulation would have the cities quickly decay and collapse. It was just too much room and distance required to support the parking area. It cost too much and the travel times were too high due to the expanded city distances.
They took out the real parking and made cute little lots instead so the game would stay viable.
Of course, our real city leadership most ignores this warning and says "let's add more parking and lanes for those ever larger vehicles!" My city's downtown is about 30% dedicated to off street parking and there's moves afoot to increase the number of they can knock down a few more buildings to make space.
Oh, and we declared a parking garage an official city historical site. That one's a little on the nose.
The images on the steam page make it look graphically similar to something like rct2 and I love that. Definitely gonna have to wishlist and check it out in the future.
Are they also protesting the frieght trains that are often heavier and noisier? Or just the trains that let "poor people" get around?
Every rail in an urban area near me has signs saying not to block the track. Every crossing on a busy road has lights and crossing bars. Every low traffic crossing has warning signs and a STOP before crossing.
These signs are for drivers, drivers are trained to recognize them and they resemble all the other road signs drivers are expected to follow.
If your area is using similar signage then this is 100% on negligent drivers. If they replace that rail with a road are drivers just going to run the red or gridlock the intersection like they currently treat the rail crossing?
I wasn't aware of any complaints about the trains for years prior to the passenger rail company joining in; it was only when trains carrying people entered the picture that the protesting began claiming that these trains are unsafe and unwanted, but the arguments I've seen on signs etc. aren't related to passenger rail specifically. Perhaps the passenger rail stoked fears that the rail traffic would expand further.
Every railroad crossing is clearly marked, with multiple redundant flashing signals and moving barriers that get directly in the driver LOS. I've seen drivers push through the barriers to squeeze just ahead of or behind a moving train a handful of times in the past five years, but that's about the same number of blatant red light runners I've seen in the same.
The more I see shit like this, the more I believe gas-guzzler NIMBYs deserve to be beaten in the mouth with a brick honestly. I'm literally medically unable to drive. If I seize up behind the wheel, which is a likelihood because my seizures have been getting worse lately, I might cause a whole-assed pileup knowing my luck; so the only way I get to travel other than spending exorbitant amounts of money on Ubers and Lyfts (which keeps me quite frequently homebound) is planes and trains. And the nearest train stations are like. 75 and 100 miles away.
Specifically because of NIMBYs kvetching about "oh wah, the noise, oh wah, it might hit my car, oh wah, not in MY backyard!" Nah fuck that I got a brick for your window if you're getting in the way of public transit.
It wouldn't. Nor would it be unsafe. These property value fuckers are not just obnoxious but also really stupid.
There's a neighborhood in my city right next to a light rail station. Literally, some of the houses are less than 20m from the platform. But when the station was being built the neighborhood association specifically campaigned against having any access to the station from the neighborhood. There's a huge concrete wall blocking it off now. So if the people living in the houses literally directly next to the station wanted to get to the station they'd have to walk (or realistically, drive) over 2km across a highway, along a major road and through busy parking lots. And then, after getting to the station, they'd have to cross back under the highway to get to the actual train platform, because it's built on their side of the highway despite being impossible to get to from that side.
@henfredemars@buckykat Nope. Both homebuyers and apartment developers are willing to pay a premium for high quality transit access, especially rail. Unless the rail service is really inconvenient and unreliable, it would substantially raise their precious property values, should they want to sell and move further out in the exurbs because they’re afraid of people who aren’t encased in SUVs.
@henfredemars@buckykat@PedestrianError exactly. 100% would raise property values. Wherever you go, if other things are roughly equal, closer to the train station is more 💰 💵 💴
Big oil and big auto have people convinced that it isn't true, same with new apartments. Decades and billions of dollars to convince Americans that density is for poor people (even though its the dense places where property values skyrocket) and cars are the only acceptable transit because you don't want to share space with a poor, do you?
Fuck Cars
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.