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 01-20-2014, 11:41 AM
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 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
I suspect this has a lot to do with the rail cars needing to be in certain places. It complicates things considerably to deadhead out to a yard, decouple, make some runs, then deadhead back to the yard to pick up the cars again when they're needed.
weekends at least railroads could decouple cars. Still, the LIRR runs rather long cars (8+) on weekends. For some weekend runs, the trains close to fill up as it gets close to the city. But it would be nicer for service if the trains could be shortened but run more frequently. Staffing costs probably prevent this, but MTA commuter railroads are overstaffed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-20-2014, 01:31 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,842,524 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Agreed. I work 16-24 hours a week. So my car is parked at work 18-27 hrs/wk. Factor in maybe 4-6 hrs a week for shopping, eating out, other activities where it is parked on "valuable land", e.g. land in commercial areas. High end, 33 hrs a week. That is 20% (rounded up) of the time. The other 80% it is parked in my garage, which is below the master bedroom in my house.
Of course, that commercial land won't be so valuable if you couldn't park there. My car is generally either parked in my own garage, or at the train station; the land at the train station is ONLY valuable because you can park for the train station there. Other similarly-situated properties were abandoned and/or derelict up until recently when a state-subsidized program built some apartments there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 10:10 AM
bu2
 
10,049 posts, read 6,448,118 times
Reputation: 4172
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
I too question this. I recently made my own thread on, "What's with this new urban trend?" asking the very same question you're asking here.

Never really got to the bottom of it or a real solid answer. I honestly believe it's just the caliber of people that are attracted to this site that prefer that sort of thing. Make no mistake, most of this country is in a migration back to the cities and areas of higher density, but a lot of those areas receiving increased population are in the sunbelt which are not famous for density or walkability.

I can say that the newest generation of young people is not so focused on owning an automobile, living in the suburbs, and making long commutes to work every day. It's a generational thing, a change of life, a change of norms in this country that is encouraging people to drive less and live closer, conserve, save, and contract.

I'm not sure what is so enticing about the density of New York City where all the streets are teeming with people, you'd be hard pressed to find a spot in the city where you can enjoy peace and quiet. There's something to be desired about living in the suburbs, a small town, out in the country, or just a more spaced out neighborhood right by the city. Space, peace, land of your own, a car, less noise, less stress, less busy. I don't know, perhaps that way of thinking and the people who clamor for that kind of life is shrinking.

You can say it, but it doesn't make it true. Younger people have never wanted to live in the suburbs or make long commutes to work. Its an age thing, not generational. The biggest reason transit systems lose riders is that people get the money to buy a car. Any desire by young people not to have a car is very regional and limited.

I don't see any "contracting" and "saving." The opposite is occurring. People are a little more conservation minded, but that's not a generational thing either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,686,954 times
Reputation: 26671
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
You can say it, but it doesn't make it true. Younger people have never wanted to live in the suburbs or make long commutes to work. Its an age thing, not generational. The biggest reason transit systems lose riders is that people get the money to buy a car. Any desire by young people not to have a car is very regional and limited.

I don't see any "contracting" and "saving." The opposite is occurring. People are a little more conservation minded, but that's not a generational thing either.
Here is where you are wrong, the "younger generation," as they get older, are still not bothering to get cars. I have a few friends, some with really high incomes, and others with decent to good incomes, who choose not to drive at all. Some don't even have licenses. Others only do car sharing occasionally.

People just care a lot less, even as their lifestyles change (getting older, having kids etc). But we are not building housing/neighborhoods with this in mind.

People are choosing not to drive for a myriad of reasons, we should develop accordingly. Developing for people with out cars isn't sacrificial to those who do. If you have a car, then you don't really want to live somewhere without deeded parking, it is a pretty self-selecting audience.

Put it this way, I have a car, a newer one, and I choose to take the bus a couple times a week! Even though I could easily drive. I also choose to ride my bike too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 12:50 PM
 
1,356 posts, read 1,636,686 times
Reputation: 1035
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post

And so for education being necessary for a great city, sure that's true. However, those interested in talking about schools you'll more likely find in the education forum.
This thread is also asking why only two aspects urban planning are worshipped on this forum. The issue of education just doesn't solely belong in the education forum because the issue of urban education(and keeping families in cities) is also important to cities and pretty important from a planning viewpoint. Here's an example from something that happened around 15 years ago: the city I lived in never integrated their schools(it's a very complex issue that can be alleviated through several policies such as housing and zoning, you know, an urban planning thing). So what the city did was rezoned some neighborhoods so that a school wasn't just majority minority and poor. What ended up happening was that the parents in the affluent white areas moved out or sent their children to private school. School integration and improvement a very complex social issue and it's unique to cities. The issue spans decades and is the legacy of several policies prior past. I imagine the aversion to the issue has to do with many posters not being knowledgeable about the issue and not fitting the demographic that would be interested in urban schools. There's more to urban planning than light rails and "vibrancy"(ie Starbucks and Whole Foods) which caters to the transient yuppie crowd. There's a lot of intersectionality when it comes to these things.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
So you think all of the millions of people who choose to live in big, dense, walkable cities like NYC, San Francisco, Chicago, etc are just bizarre freaks? You realize that while certainly most people in those cities are liberal, there are still plenty of Republicans, libertarians, etc in those cities, numbering in the millions? So there goes your theory that you have to be liberal to like cities.
You're really that unable to understand people with different life preferences than you, huh?
He didn't call anyone freaks in his post; he just explained why this board tends to have tunnel vision about certain topics. and Europe(that's the center of the universe).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 12:56 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 23 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,016 posts, read 102,634,943 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
This thread is also asking why only two aspects urban planning are worshipped on this forum. The issue of education just doesn't solely belong in the education forum because the issue of urban education(and keeping families in cities) is also important to cities and pretty important from a planning viewpoint. Here's an example from something that happened around 15 years ago: the city I lived in never integrated their schools(it's a very complex issue that can be alleviated through several policies such as housing and zoning, you know, an urban planning thing). So what the city did was rezoned some neighborhoods so that a school wasn't just majority minority and poor. What ended up happening was that the parents in the affluent white areas moved out or sent their children to private school. School integration and improvement a very complex social issue and it's unique to cities. The issue spans decades and is the legacy of several policies prior past. I imagine the aversion to the issue has to do with many posters not being knowledgeable about the issue and not fitting the demographic that would be interested in urban schools. There's more to urban planning than light rails and "vibrancy"(ie Starbucks and Whole Foods) which caters to the transient yuppie crowd. There's a lot of intersectionality when it comes to these things.




He didn't call anyone freaks in his post; he just explained why this board tends to have tunnel vision about certain topics. and Europe(that's the center of the universe).
You said it better than I could have, and G*d knows I've tried, Octa! Thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,686,954 times
Reputation: 26671
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan View Post
Really? Where do you get this 85% figure? I work 56 hours a week which is 33% of the time in a given week. Factoring in trips to stores and other events my vehicle may be parked on valuable land up to 50% of the time. The other 50% of the time it is parked at home and both my current house and prior condo had parking underneath the home which is quite common in the northeast. Parking underneath the home does not take up any additional valuable land.

Here is one example from a street I used to live on.
https://www.google.com/maps/preview#...jqIw!2e0&fid=5

You don't think of the land in pour home as "valuable" land. What I mean here, even a person who uses their car a ton, the car is idle most of the time in a parking spot. So of the 168 hours in a given week, I am going to use myself here, my car is "active" 9 hours a week, give or take an hour. It spends 80-100 hours a week parked at my home. At work I pay for parking, downtown, so there goes another 50 hours a week in the city lot, and then about 3-20 hours out and about at retailers or whatever in a typical week.

So my car is in use about 5-6% of the available hours in a week. I imagine most people are pretty similar. Even people with huge commutes probably only use their car 15% of the available hours in a week. (Assuming a 2 hour commute, and 1 hour per day on weekend of driving)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,436 posts, read 11,937,287 times
Reputation: 10542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
Here's an example from something that happened around 15 years ago: the city I lived in never integrated their schools(it's a very complex issue that can be alleviated through several policies such as housing and zoning, you know, an urban planning thing). So what the city did was rezoned some neighborhoods so that a school wasn't just majority minority and poor. What ended up happening was that the parents in the affluent white areas moved out or sent their children to private school. School integration and improvement a very complex social issue and it's unique to cities. The issue spans decades and is the legacy of several policies prior past. I imagine the aversion to the issue has to do with many posters not being knowledgeable about the issue and not fitting the demographic that would be interested in urban schools.
That's some of it. But I think part of the reason too is it forces people to confront the following unpleasant truths.

1. There are still huge gaps in test scores between whites and blacks (and to a lesser extent Latinos) in the U.S. Indeed, the data I have seen suggests that it's not, as people have said, mostly about class rather than race, with upper-middle-class black students generally speaking scoring similarly to the poorest whites. Mind you, the data I have seen regarding this all comes from questionable sources (Charles Murray and the like) but I have never seen data from the other side refuting this either, so I have no reason to believe it's untrue.

2. The average white parent might not talk like a racist anymore, but they still act like one. So if their school rises from 10% black to 40% black, they'll claim they're pulling their kids out because test scores are down, or because there are more fights in school. But the end result is still the vast majority of schools remain highly segregated, and in very few cases can a substantial number of black students be sent to a top-tier public school without the school dropping significantly in desirability.

3. In many of the cases where there is some diversity in the school system, you still end up with de-facto segregation in the classroom if not in the school itself. Many NYC elementary schools on paper have a fairly diverse student body, but have "enrichment" or "honors" classes which are almost entirely white and Asian, with the mainstream classes mostly black and Latino.

4. Given the above data points, it seems nearly impossible, in America in the present, to have both integrated classrooms and retention of most middle-class white parents in the public school system. You can use enrichment programs, or magnet schools, to concentrate the white families with the highest "minority tolerance" in areas where they feel comfortable. Or you can admit that we can't desegregate neighborhood schools, and draw feeder patterns on neighborhood lines, even if that results in 90% white and 90% black schools. But ultimately I think that's all you can do, unless someone has a magic bullet to change American culture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 02:13 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 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
This thread is also asking why only two aspects urban planning are worshipped on this forum.
No it did not. This thread asked why those two aspects are discussed in the city vs city forum not this one. The thread got moved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2014, 02:33 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 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
This thread is also asking why only two aspects urban planning are worshipped on this forum. The issue of education just doesn't solely belong in the education forum because the issue of urban education(and keeping families in cities) is also important to cities and pretty important from a planning viewpoint. Here's an example from something that happened around 15 years ago: the city I lived in never integrated their schools(it's a very complex issue that can be alleviated through several policies such as housing and zoning, you know, an urban planning thing). So what the city did was rezoned some neighborhoods so that a school wasn't just majority minority and poor. What ended up happening was that the parents in the affluent white areas moved out or sent their children to private school. School integration and improvement a very complex social issue and it's unique to cities. The issue spans decades and is the legacy of several policies prior past. I imagine the aversion to the issue has to do with many posters not being knowledgeable about the issue and not fitting the demographic that would be interested in urban schools. There's more to urban planning than light rails and "vibrancy"(ie Starbucks and Whole Foods) which caters to the transient yuppie crowd. There's a lot of intersectionality when it comes to these things.
That result is an unsurprising and likely triggered some suburban flight. If I were writting a how-to on how cities need to keep families, I'd post more on schools, but again I'm not. I'm not sure why you'd expect posters to discuss how cities should set neighborhood school boundaries, though it's been discussed in the past a bit. I've seen it a bit in local forums, though and dealing with a system of citywide schools vs zoned schools.

Quote:
He didn't call anyone freaks in his post; he just explained why this board tends to have tunnel vision about certain topics. and Europe(that's the center of the universe).
He more or less called posters tastes freaky. If one is interested pedestrian friendly cities with good transit, Europe is a good area to look, with better examples than the US. I'd like to hear more about cities from around the world, I don't have a specific interest in reading constantly about the US. Often the patterns of American cities are treated here as universal norms for cities. They're not. For example, the school problems in cities is not something common to cities, it's an American only pattern.
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
Similar Threads
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