Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you even live here? I am getting the idea that you do not and do not realize how small this city is and how close so many of the amenities are to people's homes. When you can drive from one side of the valley to the other in less than 30 minutes a light rail solution just sounds absurd. Instead of wasting that money on something the city does not need, that will cost a fortune forever, use it on education.
He lives in Washington, hence much of the cluelessness. The rest is inexplicable.
San Francisco: 17,179 - 4,335,391 metro
Los Angeles: 8,092 - 12,828,837 metro
Seattle: 7,361 - 3,439,809 metro
Oakland: 7,003 - 4,335,391 metro
San Jose: 5,256 - 4,335,391 metro
Sacramento: 4,859 - 2,149,127 metro
Portland: 4,288 - 2,226,009 metro
Las Vegas: 4,222 - 1,951,269 metro
San Diego: 4,002 - 3,095,313 metro
Every city you mention is bigger, most are substantially bigger. They are also all on or close to the Pacific. Let's compare it to other inland cities in the west.
Denver 3874 - 2,543,482 metro
Phoenix 3071 - 4,192,887 metro
Salt Lake City 1688 - 1,124,197 metro
Tucson 2793 - 980,263 metro
Dallas 3697 - 6,477,315 metro
Oklahoma City 833 - 1,252,987 metro
El Paso 2491 - 800,647 metro
Albuquerque 3010 - 907,755 metro
So yes, you are correct, compared to cities that are on the Pacific Ocean that are twice its size it is not a dense city. When compared to inland cities, closer to its population in states that are not on the Pacific it is the most dense. Las Vegas density #'s also do not take into consideration the almost 100,000 hotel rooms that are within a couple of miles of each other.
Huh? Is this a joke? Las Vegas is one of the most sprawled out cities in the world. It is not densely built in any way.
Here is Las Vegas' population density(people per square mile) compared to other west coast cities:
San Francisco: 17,179
Los Angeles: 8,092
Seattle: 7,361
Oakland: 7,003
San Jose: 5,256
Sacramento: 4,859
Portland: 4,288
Las Vegas: 4,222
San Diego: 4,002
All of these cities have their own commuter rail. Las Vegas is much more car dependent than any of them.
It is both very low density and almost completely continuous.
that is what screws transport up. There are no urban centers of higher density separated by 5 or 10 miles.
And no it is not more car dependent. It is less so. It does not have the dimensions of a Portland or a San Diego. You simply can't live in Vegas and be more than 35 miles from someone else who lives in Las Vegas.
I live to the NW corner of town. Yet there is no where in the basin I can't be in 45 minutes.
Originally Posted by bigdave01 Huh? Is this a joke? Las Vegas is one of the most sprawled out cities in the world. It is not densely built in any way.
Here is Las Vegas' population density(people per square mile) compared to other west coast cities:
San Francisco: 17,179 Los Angeles: 8,092 Seattle: 7,361 Oakland: 7,003 San Jose: 5,256 Sacramento: 4,859 Portland: 4,288 Las Vegas: 4,222 San Diego: 4,002
All of these cities have their own commuter rail.Las Vegas is much more car dependent than any of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B
olecapt[/b];21233544]It is both very low density and almost completely continuous.
that is what screws transport up. There are no urban centers of higher density separated by 5 or 10 miles.
And no it is not more car dependent. It is less so. It does not have the dimensions of a Portland or a San Diego. You simply can't live in Vegas and be more than 35 miles from someone else who lives in Las Vegas.
I live to the NW corner of town. Yet there is no where in the basin I can't be in 45 minutes.
Try that in San Diego or San Francisco.
I'm with Bigdave on this one. Las Vegas IS more car dependent than a good majority of the cities on that list, not less so. Specifically Seattle (where I now live), San Francisco, Portland and San Diego. Not necessarily the other sprawling cities built with many, many gated communities and walled-off suburbs, so I don't know that I'd inlcude LA in that.
What makes a city "less" car dependent is when that city is "most" walkable. I'm not talking about small exceptions here in LV like The District in Henderson, which is built with bike and pedestrian paths and with the goal of walking everywhere and "work-live-play" as the theme of the community that includes a trolley and homes built loft-style above retail and restaurants. That place is an exception and unique within the city. The city of Las Vegas itself was not built this way. The District does boast a pretty good Walk Score. In fact, GOOD and VARIED transportation is a defining factor in what makes a city less car dependent. In San Francisco it's the trolley system, in Chicago the EL.
In Seattle, besides bus, we have Sounder commuter rail, Link light rail and the Washington ferry system. It's the ability to live "without" a car easily (which a huge majority do) and get to work, school, university, the store and home in a timely, convenient manor that might even just rival driving on the freeway. That means a local government and citizens that vote these ideas in, and are willing to pay for it. I just don't think LV is there yet. Our mayor in Seattle is very "anti" car. He doesn't do much to fix the existing roads but focuses mainly on building more bike paths. It's almost a detriment owning a car here. Parkings a biotch and costs a lot. LV is the opposite; free and easy and abundant parking galore, wide open streets, many lanes, no potholes and a freeway you can fly on (man do I miss that freeway). I had a daily 100 mile commute in LV between my uni, the kids schools, work and our house. I gassed up 2-3 times a week (10 times a month). In Seattle I only fill up one time a month. I can walk everywhere (or use any transit).
What I DO agree with Olecapt about is that this type of transit probably won't happen in LV. There IS a lack of density, and a lack of many, many smaller outlying towns just 5-10 minutes apart that need to be connected. The basin is only roughly 600 sq.miles in area. Sure you could say that towns like Mesquite, Pahrump, Laughlin, and even on up to St. George would be more convenient to reach if light rail reached that far, but would it be worth it financially? Would enough people ride it? WITHIN the city, LV freeways are almost quicker and more convenient. Let's not forget cost. WA may be a no-tax state like NV, but Seattle is uber-liberal and we tax everything else to death. We just had a 60 dollar hike in car tags to help suppliment transportation costs. I don't know that LV would be too keen on the cost of maintaining this system.
It's too bad the monorail couldn't be repurposed and tweaked so that it added stops at UNLV, McCarran etc..........This is the current list of most walkable cities (read: less car dependent)
I'm with Bigdave on this one. Las Vegas IS more car dependent than a good majority of the cities on that list, not less so. Specifically Seattle (where I now live), San Francisco, Portland and San Diego. Not necessarily the other sprawling cities built with many, many gated communities and walled-off suburbs, so I don't know that I'd inlcude LA in that.
Always fun to look things up. LA has more car free households than Seattle or Portland or San Diego.
and all are piddling weak compared to the east coast.
And note this is using cities rather than MSAs. Seattle for instance is a massive MSA with all sorts of long long commutes...and miserable traffic.
Quote:
What makes a city "less" car dependent is when that city is "most" walkable. I'm not talking about small exceptions here in LV like The District in Henderson, which is built with bike and pedestrian paths and with the goal of walking everywhere and "work-live-play" as the theme of the community that includes a trolley and homes built loft-style above retail and restaurants. That place is an exception and unique within the city. The city of Las Vegas itself was not built this way. The District does boast a pretty good Walk Score. In fact, GOOD and VARIED transportation is a defining factor in what makes a city less car dependent. In San Francisco it's the trolley system, in Chicago the EL.
And again what you are calling cities are in fact neighborhoods in vastly bigger cities with huge commutes and terrible traffic. LV is vastly better than any of your set. Sure living and working in core SF is nice and you don't need a car. But that is analogous to The District. SF is actually a super city of 10 million or more if you include the real commuting range. And that big city needs cars.
Quote:
In Seattle, besides bus, we have Sounder commuter rail, Link light rail and the Washington ferry system. It's the ability to live "without" a car easily (which a huge majority do) and get to work, school, university, the store and home in a timely, convenient manor that might even just rival driving on the freeway. That means a local government and citizens that vote these ideas in, and are willing to pay for it. I just don't think LV is there yet. Our mayor in Seattle is very "anti" car. He doesn't do much to fix the existing roads but focuses mainly on building more bike paths. It's almost a detriment owning a car here. Parkings a biotch and costs a lot. LV is the opposite; free and easy and abundant parking galore, wide open streets, many lanes, no potholes and a freeway you can fly on (man do I miss that freeway). I had a daily 100 mile commute in LV between my uni, the kids schools, work and our house. I gassed up 2-3 times a week (10 times a month). In Seattle I only fill up one time a month. I can walk everywhere (or use any transit).
And you could actually do better in Green Valley near the district. But your situation is not representative of the Seattle area which has huge commutes and very bad traffic.
Quote:
What I DO agree with Olecapt about is that this type of transit probably won't happen in LV. There IS a lack of density, and a lack of many, many smaller outlying towns just 5-10 minutes apart that need to be connected. The basin is only roughly 600 sq.miles in area. Sure you could say that towns like Mesquite, Pahrump, Laughlin, and even on up to St. George would be more convenient to reach if light rail reached that far, but would it be worth it financially? Would enough people ride it? WITHIN the city, LV freeways are almost quicker and more convenient. Let's not forget cost. WA may be a no-tax state like NV, but Seattle is uber-liberal and we tax everything else to death. We just had a 60 dollar hike in car tags to help suppliment transportation costs. I don't know that LV would be too keen on the cost of maintaining this system.
It's too bad the monorail couldn't be repurposed and tweaked so that it added stops at UNLV, McCarran etc..........This is the current list of most walkable cities (read: less car dependent)
The monorail to be successful had to go down the middle of LV Blvd...buried where it is even with airport access I am not sure it would have worked.
It is a classical failure of courage. No one was willing to jump on the concept and feature it. And there was important local resistance...the cab companies for instance who would just about get wiped out by a workable monorail.
But it still would have been a tourist thing with very low local impact. Strip workers don't go up and down LV Blvd...they come in from east and west and leave that way.
Although this may all be true right now, and yes the demand is low in 2011, as an auto-dependent city, Las Vegas will suffer very heavily in the coming decade as gas prices skyrocket even if it seems like they will remain stable. The monorail was a failure yes. But lets get real; a system that moves people from one casino to another just a stones throw away? But a system that moves people from one end of the valley to the other, is powered by electricity (which has always been cheaper than any other type of energy), and is faster than car. Then a system that connects people to the exurbs like St George and Pahrump. That makes sense. Let time pass and in a few years when gas isnt as affordable then come back and see if rail transit makes more sense.
Although this may all be true right now, and yes the demand is low in 2011, as an auto-dependent city, Las Vegas will suffer very heavily in the coming decade as gas prices skyrocket even if it seems like they will remain stable. The monorail was a failure yes. But lets get real; a system that moves people from one casino to another just a stones throw away? But a system that moves people from one end of the valley to the other, is powered by electricity (which has always been cheaper than any other type of energy), and is faster than car. Then a system that connects people to the exurbs like St George and Pahrump. That makes sense. Let time pass and in a few years when gas isnt as affordable then come back and see if rail transit makes more sense.
Although this may all be true right now, and yes the demand is low in 2011, as an auto-dependent city, Las Vegas will suffer very heavily in the coming decade as gas prices skyrocket even if it seems like they will remain stable. The monorail was a failure yes. But lets get real; a system that moves people from one casino to another just a stones throw away? But a system that moves people from one end of the valley to the other, is powered by electricity (which has always been cheaper than any other type of energy), and is faster than car. Then a system that connects people to the exurbs like St George and Pahrump. That makes sense. Let time pass and in a few years when gas isnt as affordable then come back and see if rail transit makes more sense.
As I have said before your understanding of the Valley geography and demographics is very poor.
There simply are no useful suburbs from which to commute. and there is no particular need. Moving inward is very simply and cost effective.
Best hope might be some express busses. And I don't believe what they have tried so far has been a big success.
Then a system that connects people to the exurbs like St George and Pahrump.
oHHHHKAY....That takes care of 12 people a day.....now we still have ONE person that wants to go to Searchlight and anotherone that wants to go to Baker so we should put in another line for them....
oHHHHKAY....THAT TAKES CARE OF 12 PEOPLE A DAY....
Hey, stop trying to crush Frisbee's dream of building me a train route from Aliante to Boca Park. So what if I'm the only passenger? WHY ARE YOU SO OPPOSED TO PROGRESS?!!!
[/sarcasm]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
