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 03-15-2011, 01:04 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,109,839 times
Reputation: 3117

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad View Post
C. Its obsolete in design and requires not just maintenance but reconstruction (west side highway in NYC)
See also Seattle viaduct (hwy 99)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-15-2011, 01:44 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,572,548 times
Reputation: 4048
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC6ZLV View Post
There is no demand for routes other than up and down Sunrise. RT interfaces with Roseville Transit at the county line. Regardless, the lack of a good transportation corridor isn't going to make public transportation any better in that area.
Citrus Heights' low population density makes feeder-street transit lines almost unusable to most of the population, and that won't change until there is some kind of fixed-rail transit to promote infill and dense development--car-centric neighborhoods never "densify" on their own because of the necessity to make space for the automobile.

Roseville Transit is a pathetic joke that makes Sac RT look positively comprehensive.

The last sentence doesn't make any sense to me--the lack of good public transit isn't going to make public transit any better?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 03:42 PM
 
Location: Sacramento, Placerville
2,488 posts, read 5,125,876 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Citrus Heights' low population density makes feeder-street transit lines almost unusable to most of the population, and that won't change until there is some kind of fixed-rail transit to promote infill and dense development--car-centric neighborhoods never "densify" on their own because of the necessity to make space for the automobile.

Roseville Transit is a pathetic joke that makes Sac RT look positively comprehensive.

The last sentence doesn't make any sense to me--the lack of good public transit isn't going to make public transit any better?
The population density of what part of Citrus Heights? The city as a whole doesn't have a high population density. The area along Sunrise has a much higher density. There are a lot of apartments and condos on each side of Sunrise. I don't think high population densities are a prerequisite for public transportation. People aren't going to use it simply because it is there. It has to be much faster and convenient than driving. Anyway, I'm not talking about the density of Citrus Heights or Carmichael. I'm talking about getting people that have to commute through the area from one side to the other without having an impact on the neighborhoods in the middle.

I agree on the problems with Roseville Transit. It would be much better to have a metropolitan transit agency to cover the four immediate counties.

The last sentence makes perfect sense. There is no way to go north and south through Citrus Heights with any efficiency using any mode of transportation. Buses are subject to the slow flow of traffic on Sunrise. Light rail wouldn't be an improvement unless there was a dedicated right-of-way, which is expensive. A limited-access expressway could improve the flow of transportation through the area and improve the situation tremendously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 06:22 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,572,548 times
Reputation: 4048
The apartments along Sunrise are still pretty low-density because they all have parking lots, it was only weirdo freaks like me who didn't have a car back then and I'm sure little has changed.

Population density isn't necessarily essential, but having enough people close enough to easily walk transit lines is essential--if transit lines are too far to walk easily, people won't walk there. If it's close enough to be convenient, people are more likely to use it--but nobody will use a transit system that isn't there. It doesn't have to be faster and more convenient than driving, but it does have to be relatively convenient--and it helps if it is also relatively cheaper. Even Sac RT's expensive $100 per month monthly passes cost less than driving the cheapest beater of a car.

Also, neighborhoods where it is easy to walk to transit lines tend to be neighborhoods where it is easy to walk other places, or ride bikes. Neighborhoods designed for autos tend to discourage other modes of transportation.

As to traveling through Citrus Heights: I assume by "efficient" you mean "fast." Again, roads at maximum efficiency are crowded roads, not empty ones where you can fly down at high speeds. A limited-access expressway would require a dedicated right-of-way that would be larger and more expensive than dedicated ROW for light rail or streetcar, and would be pretty devastating to the neighborhoods adjacent to it. For an example, look at what Highway 160 did to Del Paso Boulevard in the 1960s--it turned a crowded and traffic-heavy but busy downtown district into a bunch of burnt-out storefronts, because once people started taking 160 they had no reason to stop at the stores of North Sacramento. Or look at the residential neighborhoods between 29th and 30th Street or W and X Street or 2nd and 3rd Street in downtown Sacramento--the ones plowed under to make way for highways, and also contributed to the central city's economic collapse, by making cities easy to bypass while demolishing their built environment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Sacramento, Placerville
2,488 posts, read 5,125,876 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
The apartments along Sunrise are still pretty low-density because they all have parking lots, it was only weirdo freaks like me who didn't have a car back then and I'm sure little has changed.

Population density isn't necessarily essential, but having enough people close enough to easily walk transit lines is essential--if transit lines are too far to walk easily, people won't walk there. If it's close enough to be convenient, people are more likely to use it--but nobody will use a transit system that isn't there. It doesn't have to be faster and more convenient than driving, but it does have to be relatively convenient--and it helps if it is also relatively cheaper. Even Sac RT's expensive $100 per month monthly passes cost less than driving the cheapest beater of a car.

Also, neighborhoods where it is easy to walk to transit lines tend to be neighborhoods where it is easy to walk other places, or ride bikes. Neighborhoods designed for autos tend to discourage other modes of transportation.

As to traveling through Citrus Heights: I assume by "efficient" you mean "fast." Again, roads at maximum efficiency are crowded roads, not empty ones where you can fly down at high speeds. A limited-access expressway would require a dedicated right-of-way that would be larger and more expensive than dedicated ROW for light rail or streetcar, and would be pretty devastating to the neighborhoods adjacent to it. For an example, look at what Highway 160 did to Del Paso Boulevard in the 1960s--it turned a crowded and traffic-heavy but busy downtown district into a bunch of burnt-out storefronts, because once people started taking 160 they had no reason to stop at the stores of North Sacramento. Or look at the residential neighborhoods between 29th and 30th Street or W and X Street or 2nd and 3rd Street in downtown Sacramento--the ones plowed under to make way for highways, and also contributed to the central city's economic collapse, by making cities easy to bypass while demolishing their built environment.
Sitting in a car, bus, or rail on a crowded road for three times the amount of time it would take me to make the same commute on a well-designed transportation corridor. Limited access expressways don't require wider streets. They are accomplished by limiting the amount of driveways along the street and timing lights at major intersections so traffic can move. There are tens of thousands of examples of them throughout the country and something that has been done minimally in the Sacramento region.

Are you trying to suggest it would have been a better decision to keep US-40 on Del Paso Blvd for the sake of a few businesses and have everyone driving east-west across the country do so on city streets? That would create the same problem we are discussing in Citrus Heights. Furthermore, the problems in that neighborhood have a lot more to do with everything else than having a main highway routed through it.

And as far as highways going around downtowns, the highways were built so people could get from one place to another without having to spend an extra hour getting through downtown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 08:25 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,572,548 times
Reputation: 4048
Given my druthers, I would have kept US-40 on Del Paso Blvd and have more people going east-west on passenger trains: competition from government-subsidized public highways is what killed the private passenger rail industry.

What "everything else" are you referring to on Del Paso Boulevard? The boulevard (and the separate city of North Sacramento) was thriving until 160 moved the traffic (and many of their customers) away--it also facilitated sprawl, allowing people to more easily move out to Carmichael and Citrus Heights. This era was the beginning of suburbs as a disposable consumer item, intended to be deliberately discarded when the new expressway allowed a brand-new development to be opened a few miles farther out, always with the promise that traffic would never get bad again, and this new development would always be a "home in the country" (at least until the lots finished selling, followed by a new development and increased traffic.)

Highways were built so people could get from one place to another more quickly, but their end result was allowing places to be entirely disconnected from each other and growth to spread in an essentially unplanned fashion (but, because it was based entirely on government-funded roads, not in a free-market fashion), resulting in economic devastation for the neighborhoods that were bypassed, and ever-metastasizing suburbs on nearby farmland. Expanding highways doesn't ease or speed traffic in the long term, because it starts up another cycle of sprawl, resulting in increased traffic, which makes the highways "efficient" again (that is to say, crowded.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Sacramento, Placerville
2,488 posts, read 5,125,876 times
Reputation: 2177
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Given my druthers, I would have kept US-40 on Del Paso Blvd and have more people going east-west on passenger trains: competition from government-subsidized public highways is what killed the private passenger rail industry.

What "everything else" are you referring to on Del Paso Boulevard? The boulevard (and the separate city of North Sacramento) was thriving until 160 moved the traffic (and many of their customers) away--it also facilitated sprawl, allowing people to more easily move out to Carmichael and Citrus Heights. This era was the beginning of suburbs as a disposable consumer item, intended to be deliberately discarded when the new expressway allowed a brand-new development to be opened a few miles farther out, always with the promise that traffic would never get bad again, and this new development would always be a "home in the country" (at least until the lots finished selling, followed by a new development and increased traffic.)

Highways were built so people could get from one place to another more quickly, but their end result was allowing places to be entirely disconnected from each other and growth to spread in an essentially unplanned fashion (but, because it was based entirely on government-funded roads, not in a free-market fashion), resulting in economic devastation for the neighborhoods that were bypassed, and ever-metastasizing suburbs on nearby farmland. Expanding highways doesn't ease or speed traffic in the long term, because it starts up another cycle of sprawl, resulting in increased traffic, which makes the highways "efficient" again (that is to say, crowded.)
I'd like to see better passenger rail too. I don't think that is what killed Del Paso Blvd. There are too many similar neighborhoods that have continued to do fine after freeways were built around them. Others that declined when no freeway was involved. And a few that went through the process of decline and gentrification. Del Paso Blvd had businesses that were part of the neighborhood and not dependent on people driving through. The area has a lot of potential and I know a lot of people who actually like the neighborhood but aren't going to live there due to the problems with low-quality people, slumlords, and the city entirely ignoring the area.

The areas to the east were well-developed by 1960. While house hunting I've looked at a lot of houses in Carmichael. Most of them were built in the 40s and 50s. There are older houses in Fair Oaks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 09:39 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
1,954 posts, read 4,508,395 times
Reputation: 1817
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
All that will do is increase the corporate move out fot eh city because of the worng infrastucture being in palce. Once city dominated purely because of the lack of transportation and energy avialble in more rual areas. People move tot eh cities not because they necesssaily want to but because that is where the jobs where. Now that has changed. If you loo at chinese cities now that industry has grown they have gone forn most biscycles everywhere to automabiles. I saw a show on this showing the same city ctreet i the 80's and now and few bicycles were seen. China is now the largest auto market the world.Often bisysle use is more a quaetio of affordabilty to many and lack of infrastrcuture to handle the numbers or parking really.Thsoe are adnvantages of cities not advantages meaning more public transportation needs at high tax cost.

1. China is actually encouraging urbanism and building large scale mass transit projects. China has the most cars because it has the most people and it's becoming more wealthy.

China encourages mass urban migration

Transportation: China's new urban plan -- buy a car, but don't use it -- 02/09/2011 -- www.eenews.net

2. Young and educated talent is attracted to urban amenities and livable cities, not glorified office park downtowns. This is not the 1950's. Here is a good example.

Michigan CEO: Soul-Crushing Sprawl Killing Business | Rust Wire


Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad View Post
if you are going by the cost to build back in 1920 or whatever
That does not make sense. The present worth of the 1920's money is what really has to be considered when making a legit economic comparison.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 12:35 AM
 
Location: Sacramento, Placerville
2,488 posts, read 5,125,876 times
Reputation: 2177
It is hard to make a comparison between China and our cities. China has a huge population which is migrating to the cities because it is much more pleasant working in a sweatshop sewing tshirts for 50 a day than wading through boggy rice fields slapping mosquitoes all day to make just enough to eat. The Chinese government is aware of this and they have seen the impact on the cities. They have been swamped with people. It is easier to build suburbs, which are nothing like our suburbs, than to make accommodations for everyone who wanders into town from the countryside.

Detroit is an extreme example of urban America and not a really fair comparison to any other city. Detroit has had a continuous white flight while the neighborhoods in Detroit got worse. The end result is an endless cycle of people trying to get away from social problems to the point they keep moving further away. I'm sure a lot of people would love to live Detroit's old neighborhoods if those neighborhoods didn't have the problems which motivated people to move out of them in the first place. Take a look at pictures of Detroit on the internet. Even through the decay you can see the neighborhoods must have been amazing in the past. I would love to wander around some of the older parts of Downtown Detroit just to take pictures of some of the architecture. Unfortunately it isn't safe to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
26,379 posts, read 42,337,048 times
Reputation: 7840
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
See also Seattle viaduct (hwy 99)
New Haven, CT is planning to remove an old expressway that separates its downtown from its Medical District. The highway will be replced by urban boulevards and they are looking to fill in the newly vacated land with new buildings. Should be interesting. Fort Washington Way in Cincinatti is another. Jay
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 33, 34, 35 - Top