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 04-02-2013, 09:04 AM
 
642 posts, read 960,541 times
Reputation: 505

Advertisements

I agree with most of the OP, but I think it's going to be a really hard sale trying to convince people that their cities are broken or in need of being 'fixed.'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2013, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,101,497 times
Reputation: 3979
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I didn't see anywhere where he suggested cutting transportation. "Road diets" are usually for roads where having a high volume of thorough traffic is a negative, such as a mostly residential side street, or a pedestrian oriented commercial center. For example, while Huntington Village, Long Island is a bit of a traffic bottleneck for through traffic, it matters little for cars driving there, you're searching for a place to park and then walking. Having fast moving traffic would make it an unpleasant place to walk around.
I thought I was going crazy because I didn't see anything about cutting transportation either.

I disagree that BRT and Rapid Buses are not also key parts of the transportation solution. For the vast majority of United States cities, Light Rail is overkill and unnecessary - most cannot even come close to capacity, much less overfilling the LRT.

http://lametthesource.files.wordpres...pped.jpg?w=584

Taking a look at this Alternatives Analysis for the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor, you can see that BRT is significantly less expensive compared to LRT. $1.8-2.3 Billion vs. $250-500 Million

BRT can be a great piece of the transportation puzzle for cities whose density does not come close to supporting LRT. San Bernardino and the Inland Empire is working on a very expansive BRT system, which I think is perfect for its medium-density, centerless sprawl.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 11:04 AM
 
3,940 posts, read 4,034,893 times
Reputation: 4348
I think bus rapid transit is good in theory, but people will ride light-rail without all the social low-income connotations, but in 2013 in the US in cities that don't have subway/light rail mass transit, busses are for really poor people only full stop. BRT is going to have a hard time combatting that image.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,101,497 times
Reputation: 3979
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOverdog View Post
I think bus rapid transit is good in theory, but people will ride light-rail without all the social low-income connotations, but in 2013 in the US in cities that don't have subway/light rail mass transit, busses are for really poor people only full stop. BRT is going to have a hard time combatting that image.
The Orange Line in Los Angeles has had no problem at all attracting riders. I would wager a guess it has higher ridership than 75% of LRT lines in the United States. It's probably not the best example to use of successful BRT, mainly because it is too successful and experiences overcrowding.

I think when done right (grade-separated, on-platform / off-bus fares, LRT-style stations) most people don't care whether it is rolling on rubber or steel. The issue is that in the United States, "bus rapid transit" is severely bastardized and really can hardly be considered BRT.

Additionally, the Rapid Bus model which Los Angeles pioneered in the United States, is a model that every major city should look into undertaking. These run at-grade in mixed traffic but have limited stops typically spaced similarly to how LRT would be, have signal priority (tough, because only Los Angeles has complete signal synchronization) among other features that separate it from local buses. Of course this isn't the final solution, but can be a huge piece of the puzzle and has encouraged more "choice" riders to take the bus in Los Angeles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 11:45 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,727 posts, read 9,836,437 times
Reputation: 9840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
It will be expensive and take generations, but the following is a pretty decent roadmap:

1. Infill infill infill: the core cities must be revitalized.
2. Transit. And by transit I mean high capacity transit.
3. Brownfield redevelopment of former industrial sites
4. Suburban retrofits. Tear down the dying malls
5. Smart greenfield development.
If government meddling, taxes, regulations and restrictions were eliminated, would these practices and goals be viable?
Or are they dependent upon overt and covert subsidy and taxation?

Would the private sector cooperatively work toward a better future?

Or would things tend to chaos and collapse?

A short view into "getting back on track" - - -
http://www.city-data.com/forum/26042042-post57.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 05:35 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,880,155 times
Reputation: 18049
I don't see much to fix its just anther shift of freefom fro what they fleed to not by choice. Peopel didn't move to cities by choice it was a econmic decsion based o transport ans energy com ncentration.WWII was the big shift where mnay actully saqw outside wrold for first time and econmics situation changed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 05:55 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,800 posts, read 17,703,198 times
Reputation: 9029
First someones gotta break them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 06:02 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
45,983 posts, read 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3 View Post
First someones gotta break them.
Plenty of broken ones around. Dead downtowns, centers of poverty and crime. Throughout the north and "rust belt". Not what the OP had in mind, of course and not going to list them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2013, 12:39 AM
 
Location: classified
1,680 posts, read 3,182,800 times
Reputation: 1521
Another solution would be to reintroduce segregated bike lanes in addition to increasing and expanding mass transit. Cities such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam have actually made the city centers more livable by adding bike infrastructure (including segregated bike paths complete with their own right of way and traffic signals) and as a result traffic congestion has decreased. In Copenhagen already 36% of all residents commute to work or school by bicycle.









Cycling in the Netherlands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cycling in Denmark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2013, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,101,497 times
Reputation: 3979
Quote:
Originally Posted by diablo234 View Post
Another solution would be to reintroduce segregated bike lanes in addition to increasing and expanding mass transit. Cities such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam have actually made the city centers more livable by adding bike infrastructure (including segregated bike paths complete with their own right of way and traffic signals) and as a result traffic congestion has decreased. In Copenhagen already 36% of all residents commute to work or school by bicycle.









Cycling in the Netherlands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cycling in Denmark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Looks great - but good luck getting Americans to give up their sacred traffic lanes. One or two here and there is possible, but sweeping changes will be hard to make.
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