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)
 
Old 02-06-2013, 06:54 PM
 
Location: Derby, Western Australia
3,091 posts, read 3,539,912 times
Reputation: 2158

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
This is an urban planning forum, and that is what I meant by car-free planning. I believe banning or restricting cars represents a tremendous step backward for humanity, but that's beside the point. The point is that what I like to call the "anti-car cult" (as insulting as it might sound) completely neglects rural areas in their opinions on automobiles. A car-free Alliance, Nebraska is at least as ludicrous as a mass transit-free NYC.
I think most people who advocate public transport in larger cities are pragmatic enough to understand that smaller cities and towns will generally be far more dependent on private transport to get around, I can't understand why anyone would suggest banning cars in a town of 10,000 people.

It's not an 'anti-car cult' as you term it, most people are interested in the most easy and efficient way of getting around, naturally the larger and more dense an urban area gets the more public transport has a role to play. It's not a simple case of being pro- or anti-car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2013, 07:28 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,006 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by sulkiercupid View Post
I think most people who advocate public transport in larger cities are pragmatic enough to understand that smaller cities and towns will generally be far more dependent on private transport to get around, I can't understand why anyone would suggest banning cars in a town of 10,000 people.

It's not an 'anti-car cult' as you term it, most people are interested in the most easy and efficient way of getting around, naturally the larger and more dense an urban area gets the more public transport has a role to play. It's not a simple case of being pro- or anti-car.
You wouldn't believe the ideas some people have on here!

Corollary: Don't ever attempt to speak for anyone but yourself on this forum. Life's easier that way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 10:03 PM
 
10,630 posts, read 23,419,189 times
Reputation: 6702
Who in the world is suggesting banning cars?! That hasn't been the point of the discussion at all.

I think the reason people aren't discussing small towns or rural areas is because most of us realize that it's tougher to live without a car in a rural area, or at least that the balance in most cases clearly tips to car ownership as freedom. If you live in a dense urban area, however, it's very possible that the freedom/restriction balance can tip the other direction. I kind of doubt there are many people who happily live in Alliance, Nebraska without a car by choice.

That said, there's no reason why car-share options can't also work very well in some small towns or smaller cities, especially ones that retain a compact, walkable core. When we lived in a smaller city (population 13,000) I was able to walk to work in about 5 minutes. Easiest commute I've ever had! We did own a car, but we didn't need to use it for many of our errands. My husband used it for work, and it was nice to have for country drives on the weekend. And looking at the small town (1800 residents, I think) where my husband's relatives live, it would be tough to live without a car, but again, totally compact and most people in town can, should they wish, walk to the basics -- grocery store, pharmacy, bank, barber, library, and some cafes/restaurants. Obviously the people living in the more rural areas of the country are realistically going to drive (or bike, I suppose; those back roads are beautiful and quiet!) to get into town or do much of anything off their property, but that is, I think, such an obvious point that it goes without saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2013, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Ubique
4,148 posts, read 3,161,184 times
Reputation: 2634
Why car-driving and cycling be mutually exclusive? In urban areas, there are various modes of transportation, walking, subways, ferries, cycling, buses, driving. There is an application for each of them.

I commute by bicycle to work, use subways as backup, take the ferry to Staten Island, take the tram to Roosevelt Island, walk to midtown, take the bus across town, take the train to New Haven, take Acela to Washington DC, drive to some locations in the City, suburbs or weekend getaways, rent cars more passengers, etc etc etc. Many people in the city do this. We just use the best tool for a job; including driving cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2013, 11:25 AM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,194,850 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry10 View Post
Why car-driving and cycling be mutually exclusive? In urban areas, there are various modes of transportation, walking, subways, ferries, cycling, buses, driving. There is an application for each of them.

I commute by bicycle to work, use subways as backup, take the ferry to Staten Island, take the tram to Roosevelt Island, walk to midtown, take the bus across town, take the train to New Haven, take Acela to Washington DC, drive to some locations in the City, suburbs or weekend getaways, rent cars more passengers, etc etc etc. Many people in the city do this. We just use the best tool for a job; including driving cars.
Bingo, we have a winner! The most "freedom" and the least "restriction" is having many options!
Set your life up so you have options. Depending on ANY one option 100% will bite you in the as$.

I have a rather wealthy friend with three new cars/trucks in his three car garage in his McMansion suburb.
He has a minor health/vision issue at the moment and he has less freedom than many people suffering from serious poverty.

I've had two good friends get DUIs in the last 5 years. Ironically both are lawyers and both lost their drivers licence for over a year. Neither had bikes, nor bus passes, but it was amazing to see how quick they adapted and how their transportation options changed even after they got their DL back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2013, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,699 posts, read 23,668,169 times
Reputation: 35449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry10 View Post
Why car-driving and cycling be mutually exclusive? In urban areas, there are various modes of transportation, walking, subways, ferries, cycling, buses, driving. There is an application for each of them.

I commute by bicycle to work, use subways as backup, take the ferry to Staten Island, take the tram to Roosevelt Island, walk to midtown, take the bus across town, take the train to New Haven, take Acela to Washington DC, drive to some locations in the City, suburbs or weekend getaways, rent cars more passengers, etc etc etc. Many people in the city do this. We just use the best tool for a job; including driving cars.
I agree with this. But unfortunately, here in Portland some very sort sighted urban planners felt if they built large apartment buildings in very crowded areas with no parking accomadations and bike storage facilities people would abandon cars for bikes. Of course this was stupid and they are now paying the price with people moving in with bikes and cars and no place to put their cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2013, 03:43 PM
 
2,145 posts, read 1,589,068 times
Reputation: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
I agree with this. But unfortunately, here in Portland some very sort sighted urban planners felt if they built large apartment buildings in very crowded areas with no parking accomadations and bike storage facilities people would abandon cars for bikes. Of course this was stupid and they are now paying the price with people moving in with bikes and cars and no place to put their cars.
the answer is this fold-up electric car from the 20s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dENBYI3j3eE
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2013, 03:57 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
I agree with this. But unfortunately, here in Portland some very sort sighted urban planners felt if they built large apartment buildings in very crowded areas with no parking accomadations and bike storage facilities people would abandon cars for bikes. Of course this was stupid and they are now paying the price with people moving in with bikes and cars and no place to put their cars.
Street parking is all used up?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2013, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,699 posts, read 23,668,169 times
Reputation: 35449
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Street parking is all used up?
For the most part, yes. In many of these neighborhoods because they were very old to begin with and did not have much street parking. Besides being already crowded due to apartments built after WWII in between houses that did have garages, there are commercial establishments as well.

The builders tried to sneak in their recent large apartment structures in one neighborhood but were stopped when they were discovered. They had already torn down two houses that had been used as shops when the neighborhood association filed an injunction to stop them. There have been town meetings and law suits to stop them but unfortunately other neighborhoods have not fared so well because the builders have learned to lie about their intentions. They have become very sneaky.

For example in my old neighborhood, a building contractor purchased two 105 year old houses that had been converted into offices many years ago. He promised the tenants and the realtor he would keep everything intact. The minute the deed was signed, he kicked the tenants out of the buildings and hired a wrecker to tear the buildings down to make way for a new 77 unit building consisting of apartments and a few retail shops with only a few parking spaces for the shops. There is not enough room in the neighborhood for everyone to have a car for all these potential renters.

One of the houses was demolished immediately. When the neighborhood association discovered what was going on, it publicized it. The realtor was horrified. He was able to find another buyer for the second house who was able to purchase it from the first one and it was saved buy the new buyer who paid the cost to it off the property.

These new apartment buildings are literally being snuck in all over the city. When they are all built, there parking on the streets will be practically non existent. People will have to pay for it. There are already plans to put some kind of system in place. I have posted this story on other threads dealing with this issue. I believe that in the future Portland will be the poster child for how not to do urban planning.

There will be many more problems like severe overcrowding and parking will be a part of it but I feel I have hijacked the thread so I will stop now. Apologies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2013, 06:24 PM
 
10,630 posts, read 23,419,189 times
Reputation: 6702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
I agree with this. But unfortunately, here in Portland some very sort sighted urban planners felt if they built large apartment buildings in very crowded areas with no parking accomadations and bike storage facilities people would abandon cars for bikes. Of course this was stupid and they are now paying the price with people moving in with bikes and cars and no place to put their cars.
I don't see the problem. Well, I see the problem for people who want parking, but they should have had the common sense to have rented or purchased where they could get a parking space. I don't think it's the city's job to mandate common sense, at least not when the lack of common sense isn't hurting anyone.
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