Roads/Parking lots are taking up too much room (Dallas, market, population)

[Chango]

Originally Posted by cisco kid

500 million people in Europe, for one.


And 56% of Americans prefer to live in walkable communities, if they were available. But it's not a realistic option for most. Even though the demand for them is very high, walkable mixed use communities are few and far in between. Which makes them very expensive and probably unaffordable for most who would like to live in them.


Study: Americans prefer walkable communities - MSN Real Estate

Originally Posted by nei

Me, at least in good weather. Assuming I count as being in my right mind.

Also depends on the trip. For shorter distances, especially an extra 5-10 minutes of time doesn't matter, bicycle and / foot is superior. If parking is limited, cars can be inferior to all 3. As if parking lots taking up lots of room don't exist, the car loses its advantage. Irrelevant in many places, of course.

I'm not saying don't ever walk or ride a bike; both are fun activities. But a 12 mile bike ride to and from work every day is a serious pain (I know, I've done it before) and you can forget about walking it.

When it comes down to true transportation (get from point A to point B as quickly and efficiently as possible) an automobile cannot be beat. That's why just about everyone in the USA owns at least two of 'em.

Not to mention the fact that I can just up and leave whenever I want and to wherever I want... even drive across the entire country if the mood strikes me. Can't do that without a car!

[memph]

If you have a good road network and little traffic, and poor public transit, cars definitely can provide more flexibility, but there are situations when cars can potentially be slower. Other than the issue of finding parking for short distances, you also have situations of heavy traffic in dense cities where bikes can beat cars, as shown by this video of a transit/bike/car race from Brooklyn to Manhattan:
Streetfilms | Bike vs. Car vs. Transit

Also to get from my parents' suburb to downtown Toronto, it's more convenient to take commuter rail. There's an express train from the local station that does the 18 mile trip in 19 minutes, and the commuter rail isn't even electrified (there are plans for that) which would make it even faster. Even with light traffic it would be difficult to beat that time, and of course during rush-hour, the traffic would be heavy and the trip could easily take 1 hour. I think a lot of suburbanites, not just in Toronto but other cities, take commuter rail to work because it's more convenient than driving.

The Toronto also has a pretty big problem on summer weekends (especially long weekends) with people returning from their summer homes all at the same time. It's quite nightmarish and you're basically guaranteed to be in a standstill for hours, although I'm not sure if things would be much better with rail.

I do agree that for travelling between rural areas, it's difficult to get more convenient than cars, but for travel within inner cities and to downtowns (from anywhere), I think it can be done.

[Phyxius]

Originally Posted by Chango

I'm not saying don't ever walk or ride a bike; both are fun activities. But a 12 mile bike ride to and from work every day is a serious pain (I know, I've done it before) and you can forget about walking it.

When it comes down to true transportation (get from point A to point B as quickly and efficiently as possible) an automobile cannot be beat. That's why just about everyone in the USA owns at least two of 'em.

Not to mention the fact that I can just up and leave whenever I want and to wherever I want... even drive across the entire country if the mood strikes me. Can't do that without a car!

That depends on where you live. If you live or have to reach a location designed for cars and lacks an efficient public transit system, cars would be the better choice. A car does no good under heavy traffic and then there some drivers who disregard the safety of others. Why would anyone ride a bike for 12 miles to work?


No is going to ride a bike or walk across the country unless they're doing some type of promotion for a cause.

[nei]

Originally Posted by Phyxius

Why would anyone ride a bike for 12 miles to work?

It's pleasant. I regularly do 8-9 miles. The road isn't that fast moving anyway, so the extra time isn't too bad. Once in a while, the road jams and it's faster to bike.

[Phyxius]

Originally Posted by nybbler

In neither case is the extra capacity causing the additional traffic. What's happening is that there's existing demand for the service, demand which is not being fulfilled. When you open a new highway or lane and it's full immediately, the volume is mostly coming from alternate routes.

That's exactly why adding more lanes don't work. It attracts drivers from other routes. Just because road widens doesn't mean the same people that normally use the road is going to all of a sudden spread out and traffic will flow suddenly.

Instead of wanting new lanes, drivers should efficiently make use of the lane they have like slower traffic keeping to the right, or drivers having enough space to merge or change lanes rather than forcing themselves into tight spaces causing everyone else to slam their brakes.

Traffic jams are caused by bad habits of drivers and destinations in locations only accessible by vehicle. Additional lanes can't change bad drivers.

Transits carry more people, most cars stuck in traffic is carrying one person.

[Phyxius]

Originally Posted by nei

It's pleasant. I regularly do 8-9 miles. The road isn't that fast moving anyway, so the extra time isn't too bad. Once in a while, the road jams and it's faster to bike.

I understand why people prefer to ride their bikes. I just think 12 miles is too long. If some people can go that long, more power to them.

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

Originally Posted by Phyxius

I understand why people prefer to ride their bikes. I just think 12 miles is too long. If some people can go that long, more power to them.

For me it really depends on hills. I'd rather do 12 flat than the uphill 3 I've got to do coming home from work.

[nei]

Originally Posted by Chango

When it comes down to true transportation (get from point A to point B as quickly and efficiently as possible) an automobile cannot be beat. That's why just about everyone in the USA owns at least two of 'em.

No, I think it's that most people live spread out with jobs and shopping scattered. One car families would be common relative 2 car families if more American cities and suburbs were laid in a way that didn't require them for convenient day-to-day transportation.

[wburg]

Why do people talking about transportation say "efficient" when they mean "convenient"?

[wburg]

Originally Posted by nei

The same is true of transit, if transit dominates the mode share. In the early 1900s, NYC subway builders thought that building more lines would alleviate passenger congestion. Instead they find that the trains were as crowded as before, the ridership just increased.

The difference though with highways is highways become slower with high volume; transit except in the most extreme cases does not (though streetcars will eventually jam on city streets; one of the reasons they were removed from Manhattan), just becomes more uncomfortable.

The other difference is the kind of development that results from the creation of rail transit vs. roads. Creating more transit options stimulates demand for walkable neighborhoods; creating automobile roads stimulates demand for neighborhoods with lots of parking. The difference is that development patterns that work for rail also work well for walking and biking.

And yes, lots of people in their right mind are dropping their cars for walking and biking, if they have access to the right kind of neighborhood. Places with high residential density and high employment density have more job options within a smaller geographic area.