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.
Well the only sensible way I see of measuring capacity is how many cars move through a certain point on the highway in a given amount of time. So that would come down to how much time it takes to reach the car in front of you at peak capacity. I don't think this changes very significantly if the traffic is moving at a constant speed whether the speed is 70mph or 30mph.
Well as I said, the number of cars moving past a certain point is (number of cars) x (average speed of cars). So if you have y number of cars moving at 60 mph and 2y cars moving at 30 mph, the capacity or number of cars moving past a certain point is the same.
The continuity equation tells us that the time derivative of this number equals the change in density of cars (as in number of cars per some unit length of highway). So if the number of cars passing through a point in the highway increases, than the traffic density decreases. Which is, kinda obvious.
Well as I said, the number of cars moving past a certain point is (number of cars) x (average speed of cars). So if you have y number of cars moving at 60 mph and 2y cars moving at 30 mph, the capacity or number of cars moving past a certain point is the same.
The continuity equation tells us that the time derivative of this number equals the change in density of cars (as in number of cars per some unit length of highway). So if the number of cars passing through a point in the highway increases, than the traffic density decreases. Which is, kinda obvious.
It makes sense but it's not especially useful because the number of cars that can safely exist on a mile of highway decreases with speed, and I would say that it decreases roughly at the same rate as speed increases so that the capacity is about the same if cars are moving at a certain speed, regardless of what that speed may be.
I had no idea the smell of manure had anything to do with traffic! You learn so much here on CD!
If that's what you got out of that post, then you missed the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
So people who move to the outskirst of a major city (or town, what's a major town?) should drive to the city to meet all their needs? That will help traffic a lot!
No, they shouldn't move out there in the first place.
I really don't know why you brought up manure to begin with. It has nothing to do with traffic.
I am not one of those who believes that people "should" live in a specific setting. Perhaps you can explain what's wrong with living in a suburb.
I suggest you go back and read that post again. I'll be more than happy to go in depth since manure is all you got out of that post. The last statement was more of conclusion to the point.
People move further away from the city. They most likely live in a rural area with farms...hence where manure comes from the animals. Sooner or later, more people desperate for a new home are going to follow suit. After enough people show up, it's going to get more congested. Then officials have no alternative but to improve the roads and redevelop an area that was rural creating sprawl. Despite that, they are still going to travel to the city or nearby for work adding more capacity to the roads.
My point is that instead of creating a new area, stay in the existing area and utilize it rather than spreading out. Most people that live further out demand things in their rural area changing the landscape for the worst.
Suburbs -
poorly designed,
cul de sacs forcing more traffic on the main roads, long blocks,
Spaces not used efficiently with horrible uses of land
cookie-cutter subdivisions,
not pedestrian friendly,
automobile dependent,
everything spaced out.
All of that creates traffic. I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with living in the suburbs but most of them aren't planned well, short-sighted, and developed so badly. They create more problems and traffic is one of them. The people that live in them aren't even aware of the problems that exist because they have their heads in the clouds. I want to add that not all suburbs are like this but most of the are.
This is exactly why some neighborhoods in the cities are bad. We all abandon them for the suburbs and want to build new rather than use what's available and let the old thing deteriorate. If people want to live outward into new homes that were once woods near farms, go right ahead but they shouldn't expect infrastructures and utilities to follow them and accept their new environment for what it is and not what they wanted to be. I'm not going to live next to an airport, then complain about the noise from the airplanes on the runways. To sum this all up, You move further out in new subdivision, you contribute to increase in traffic.
Doesn't matter, you don't put a new one in the middle of two existing one, more specifically if the two towns are nearby. Multiple centers wouldn't exist if population never move outward.
Yes, it does matter. It's a complicated issue and you're basing your discussion on a simple model.
[regarding the bolded text, people live where they want to live]
Now I'm going to relate this back to the topic. Cities have lost populations but as a result, people move outward, then travel closer to the city on a weekday adding on to traffic.
Not always. You're assuming a suburb/exurb-to-urban core commute which is based on the outdated model you are using. And, people wouldn't need to travel to the urban core if to address the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyxius
Another thing that brings traffic is people that choose to move outward tend to demand things that they left behind.
...we build what they left behind (offices/commercial development, industry, cultural centers, public spaces, etc.) where they live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyxius
Of course, developers see this as money making opportunity as well as local officials and allow things to be build with little to no planning involved.......
I see no problem with the green and you will need to explain the red.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyxius
If people are going to move on the outskirts of a major city or town, they shouldn't complain about not having stores, or the smell of manure. They knew exactly what the area look like when they move there.
What does this mean and what does this have to do with traffic?
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.
