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 02-06-2014, 10:57 AM
 
Location: SW Missouri
15,847 posts, read 30,349,542 times
Reputation: 22356

Advertisements

Ok, maybe I am just not getting the point or something. How does turning/driving patterns in the snow have anything to do with "public spaces"? What are they trying to say, that the "greened in" portions of these pictures should be public spaces? What are you going to do, put a park bench at the intersection so we can "enjoy" watching the cars go by? What is the point, please? If the writer of this article is implying that these areas should be green areas, that's fine, but that is additional upkeep and WATER to maintain them, which is not very sound thinking, especially when much of our country is in a 500 year drought.

Maybe people who have too much time on their hands need to volunteer to do something important, like work at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen. ya think?

20yrsinBranson
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2014, 11:04 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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
more space for pedestrians
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 11:49 AM
 
409 posts, read 388,763 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
But buses dont ever make that turn to begin with so not sure whay that matters
I tried to highlight the fact that most SUV drivers would struggle to complete that right turn. While buses may not make a right turn at the intersection, I'm positive SUV drivers do. Most SUV drivers would be unable to complete the right hand turn without jumping the curb or having to back up in the middle of the intersection. A significant segment of the driving population in Philly drive SUV's. Shouldn't the intersections in Philly be designed with SUV turning radius' in mind?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,066,811 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
more space for pedestrians
Kind of reminds me of that blog where they talked about how much space various modes of transportation used in Boston. The clear winner was the light rail. They used that as an argument that lanes should be closed for the greater good and the sidewalks expanded. The only problem was the clear loser in terms of capacity for a given area wasn't cars. It was pedestrians. So he just argued that there shouldn't be any sidewalks and pedestrians should just be forced over a block and their sidewalks taken for the more efficient use of cars.

I disagree with his argument, by the way, but that was his argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,328,925 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by impala096 View Post
I tried to highlight the fact that most SUV drivers would struggle to complete that right turn. While buses may not make a right turn at the intersection, I'm positive SUV drivers do. Most SUV drivers would be unable to complete the right hand turn without jumping the curb or having to back up in the middle of the intersection. A significant segment of the driving population in Philly drive SUV's. Shouldn't the intersections in Philly be designed with SUV turning radius' in mind?
But nowhere does the author say "we want to take the exact green outline and fill it in with concrete and call it a day". The idea here is a conceptual look at potentially unused street space. He mentions that they would like to use planters and paint to try out some of these extensions (like in NYC), and in the comments he mentions they could make changes based on success/failure. I'm not sure why it has to be seen as such a threatening concept.

There are plenty of places that would allow for bump-outs and pedestrian islands without stopping SUV drivers from navigating the city. So then the more productive conversation falls on how far do you extend and where? Perhaps if SUVs can't make the turn, the extension is shortened...or on certain blocks there isn't one. Still seems like a value-add consideration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,328,925 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson View Post
Ok, maybe I am just not getting the point or something. How does turning/driving patterns in the snow have anything to do with "public spaces"? What are they trying to say, that the "greened in" portions of these pictures should be public spaces? What are you going to do, put a park bench at the intersection so we can "enjoy" watching the cars go by? What is the point, please? If the writer of this article is implying that these areas should be green areas, that's fine, but that is additional upkeep and WATER to maintain them, which is not very sound thinking, especially when much of our country is in a 500 year drought.

Maybe people who have too much time on their hands need to volunteer to do something important, like work at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen. ya think?

20yrsinBranson
Or they could volunteer their time to make neighborhood suggestions that they feel would make their communities a better place...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 12:45 PM
 
409 posts, read 388,763 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
But nowhere does the author say "we want to take the exact green outline and fill it in with concrete and call it a day". The idea here is a conceptual look at potentially unused street space. He mentions that they would like to use planters and paint to try out some of these extensions (like in NYC), and in the comments he mentions they could make changes based on success/failure. I'm not sure why it has to be seen as such a threatening concept.

There are plenty of places that would allow for bump-outs and pedestrian islands without stopping SUV drivers from navigating the city. So then the more productive conversation falls on how far do you extend and where? Perhaps if SUVs can't make the turn, the extension is shortened...or on certain blocks there isn't one. Still seems like a value-add consideration.
Ideally, the author would have posted pictures that had truly unused street space. The author posted some poor examples where tire tracks are very clearly visible through the snow where the pavement is being utilized (IE. the pavement is needed to provide an adequate turning radius). If the author remove the bad examples, it would make their point more powerful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 12:46 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,816,131 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by impala096 View Post
I'm focusing on this picture in particular:


Looking on street view, there's no sign that indicated drivers on Carpenter Street are banned from making a right turn onto Passyunk Avenue. Judging by the tire tracks through the snow, drivers do use this pavement to complete a right hand turn at this intersection (legally i might add).

The turning radius that would be provided isn't adequate. Drivers (including passenger cars, trucks, and SUV's) would struggle completing a right turn without driving over the shaded green area.
That one's utterly ridiculous; it's clear there has in fact been quite heavy traffic through the entire green area. The reason there's more snow there is probably because it was not well-plowed or salted.

The triangle of Washington, 8th, and E. Passyunk he complains about also has heavy traffic through it. Some of the later pictures, the triangular areas are almost completely clear of snow. This isn't about snow formations revealing what cars don't use, this is about this guy wanting to promote his own redesign for Passyunk Avenue. As a diagonal street through a rectilinear, it does leave a lot of a awkward areas, but I think most of them are too small and too badly placed to meaningfully "add to public space", though a traffic island might be more aesthetically pleasing than pavement.

BTW in fact, both SEPTA buses and delivery vehicles DO use these streets. Those businesses don't have a super-secret freight subway underneath them for deliveries. These large-turning-radius vehicles may not have been out there much during the snowstorm, but they are there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,328,925 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by impala096 View Post
Ideally, the author would have posted pictures that had truly unused street space. The author posted some poor examples where tire tracks are very clearly visible through the snow where the pavement is being utilized (IE. the pavement is needed to provide an adequate turning radius). If the author remove the bad examples, it would make their point more powerful.
I agree; it seems like an amateur guy from the neighborhood, and he does seem a bit aggressive on what he thinks should be done. The good thing is that the community would be able to vote/weigh in on what actually gets done, so that would temper his ambitions. Also, I'm assuming any actual changes would need to go through a process where someone evaluates if enough room exists to make proper turns for authorized vehicle types/sizes.

I'm not sure if you've spent time in that neighborhood, but there are a few strange areas where there's a heck of a lot of pavement to cross to get to the next block. Particularly around Passyunk Ave because of the more complicated intersections. Passyunk Square is such a great little gathering place that it's seemingly become a focal point of the neighborhood where people want to live close to it (from what I can tell). It would be great to have more of those types of spaces where traffic doesn't regularly drive.

Also, while there were some tracks showing people turning, that doesn't mean that all that space is needed. People tend to drive on whatever is drive-able and is the shortest possible route. That was somewhat clear when a good sized triangle of snow existed between those going straight and those turning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 02:26 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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Kind of reminds me of that blog where they talked about how much space various modes of transportation used in Boston. The clear winner was the light rail. They used that as an argument that lanes should be closed for the greater good and the sidewalks expanded. The only problem was the clear loser in terms of capacity for a given area wasn't cars. It was pedestrians. So he just argued that there shouldn't be any sidewalks and pedestrians should just be forced over a block and their sidewalks taken for the more efficient use of cars.

I disagree with his argument, by the way, but that was his argument.
How do you get that figure? I guess if capacity = volume x speed then sidewalks would lose due to low speed. Bike lane might do better. Of course that's absurd, since you can't have light rail without pedestrians. Unless your rail is all park and rides, but Boston's light rail only has a few park and ride stations.

In any case, if you're sole interest is maximizing capacity for a road, I guess narrow sidewalks would be the ideal. The point of widening a sidewalk would be to have an increase in public space. And if you're in a Manhattan-like place, to make it more comfortable to walk and less overcrowding.
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