U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-07-2010, 11:41 PM
 
7 posts, read 3,393 times
Reputation: 11

Advertisements

Like hot water, electricity and television, the automobile is not going anywhere and urban planning needs to reflect that, Public transportation needs to be cut and let the private sector take over in areas where it can be self supporting and put all that saved funding in improving roads and making city's more car friendly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-08-2010, 09:04 AM
 
Location: Albany, NY
724 posts, read 488,829 times
Reputation: 277
We've already made our cities WAYYYY too car friendly. Cities are not meant to function that way and as a result, our cities look like we lost World War II, while Europe's are full of life. Public transportation needs to be increased, vastly. Basically, I pay for your highways, even though I virtually never use them. It's only fair that other means of transportation (i.e. less destructive ones) be adequately provided as well. Not everyone wants to isolate themselves inside a dangerous metal tube and that choice should be provided. Of course cars are not going away, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be tamed when they are in areas in which people live. I still don't understand the desire for the world to only cater to machines over human beings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2010, 01:21 PM
 
7 posts, read 3,393 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaykibs View Post
We've already made our cities WAYYYY too car friendly. Cities are not meant to function that way and as a result, our cities look like we lost World War II, while Europe's are full of life. Public transportation needs to be increased, vastly. Basically, I pay for your highways, even though I virtually never use them. It's only fair that other means of transportation (i.e. less destructive ones) be adequately provided as well. Not everyone wants to isolate themselves inside a dangerous metal tube and that choice should be provided. Of course cars are not going away, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be tamed when they are in areas in which people live. I still don't understand the desire for the world to only cater to machines over human beings.
The city's look like we lost WW2 because given the choice the vast majority of people did not want to live in the city and with the advent of the automobile and the suburb they had a viable option and fled them. The fact is you use roads all the time, every time you buy a product it was brought in by a road....

Last edited by HereInMaine; 12-08-2010 at 01:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2010, 02:14 PM
 
8,281 posts, read 13,243,357 times
Reputation: 3908
And the roads are there because they are paid for by the taxpayers. Similarly, the suburbs are there because of government programs designed to encourage suburban growth: taxpayer-funded roads and highways, taxpayer-backed loans, taxpayer-funded infrastructure programs. Meanwhile, central cities were allowed to decay, and "urban renewal" projects were focused primarily on kicking people out of central cities, demolishing downtowns, and building highways through nonwhite neighborhoods that made it easier for suburbanites to get to work and flee the central city at 5 PM--all on the taxpayer's dime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2010, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
44,672 posts, read 35,441,745 times
Reputation: 14297
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereInMaine View Post
Like hot water, electricity and television, the automobile is not going anywhere and urban planning needs to reflect that, Public transportation needs to be cut and let the private sector take over in areas where it can be self supporting and put all that saved funding in improving roads and making city's more car friendly.
And how does one make a city more car friendly without making it a worse place to live? Would the residents even want it? It would make it easier for outsiders to get to the city, assuming they could find a place to park but won't help the people who live there. A highway going through their neighborhood would wreck the character of the neighborhood, fill it with noise, pollution, traffic, split it in two and generally make it harder to get around unless one gets around. The proposed Lower Manhattan Expressway is one example of this.

In an old dense city, there isn't really enough space to store and handle all the cars going through it. Retrofitting it for a car would involve destroying some of the buildings and there reason to go there as a destination. I remember seeing a webpage showing photos of Hartford before and after it was made more car-friendly. Half the buildings were destroyed for parking garages until the urban core was much less interesting to visit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2010, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Albany, NY
724 posts, read 488,829 times
Reputation: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereInMaine View Post
The city's look like we lost WW2 because given the choice the vast majority of people did not want to live in the city and with the advent of the automobile and the suburb they had a viable option and fled them. The fact is you use roads all the time, every time you buy a product it was brought in by a road....
You can make it seem as it was all about consumer choice, or you can actually delve into the history of this. There were many factors influencing this, and most of them originated in government policy. FHA loans, the GI bill, zoning regulations, urban renewal, etc. Obviously there was a component of anti-city sentiment that originated in our experience with industrial cities, but to say that was the reason our cities are in their current condition is to ignore most of the contributing factors. Here is a link that outlines the governmental factors quite well:

Why Sprawl is a Conservative Issue

Additionally, to argue for MORE concessions to the automobile not only ignores the fact that the undesirable industrial elements of the American city are no longer a problem but it actually creates a new set of problems to make cities undesirable. There is a way to make cities great again, and that involves building on the lack of polluting industry and doing things to make it easier for pedestrians and public transit. (And, if need be, less easy for drivers.)

Also, I realize that everything I buy is delivered on a truck. That's not something I agree with either. Trucks should only be used for local deliveries, trains and ships for long hauls. This is another outgrowth of deliberate government policy. The interstate highway system was what made our current shipping arrangements possible and desirable. The highway system is free for their use, and paid for by you and I. Railroads are owned and maintained by the shipping companies themselves.

As far as personal transportation goes, though, I have not been on a highway in months. I haven't driven even a rental car in months. And if I'm expected to help pay for your highways, you should be expected to help pay for my transit. It's really that simple.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2010, 09:45 AM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,483 posts, read 9,627,769 times
Reputation: 2239
"the automobile is not going anywhere"

Does the engine turn over when you try to start it? We are going to need more details if you want us to help fix your problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2010, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Holly Neighborhood, AUSTINtx
3,314 posts, read 4,758,258 times
Reputation: 1856
I don't think that is the goal but the middle ground is where a lot of planners are looking. Going from a two car to a one car family in a city with the appropriate infrastructure is a step in the right direction. That suburbanites spend 24% of their income on transportation is a problem:

(The Next Real Estate Boom - Patrick C. Doherty and Christopher B. Leinberger)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2010, 02:27 PM
 
11,706 posts, read 9,790,087 times
Reputation: 9483
Quote:
Originally Posted by verybadgnome View Post
I don't think that is the goal but the middle ground is where a lot of planners are looking. Going from a two car to a one car family in a city with the appropriate infrastructure is a step in the right direction. That suburbanites spend 24% of their income on transportation is a problem:

(The Next Real Estate Boom - Patrick C. Doherty and Christopher B. Leinberger)
Great article. Thanks for posting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2010, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati
3,333 posts, read 5,415,768 times
Reputation: 2048
...then you should take it to a mechanic
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top