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 02-11-2014, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Monmouth County, NJ & Staten Island, NY
407 posts, read 408,145 times
Reputation: 661

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Had our cities focused on renovating themselves and expanding rail in the 50s rather than expanding outward and destroying urban fabrics of the inner cities it would have been much more feasible.

Unfortunately we did the opposite of that and are left with sprawling suburbs surrounding our cities making it much harder to provide adequate transit to everywhere when most suburban areas lack the density and connection to anything to make transit work, thus forcing us to live with being an auto-centric society.

On the other hand, transit can provide a benefit for cities that did protect their urban fabric and rail can be used in a commuter fashion for those that do work in employment centers that have high workforces.


Also having to drive to get to a commuter station isn't a faux solution if it gets you off the limited number of highways and roadways leading into a downtown, that is a real solution for light density suburbs, and in many cases, it is the only alternative solution.
Right, so we would have developed more like this rather than this? Absolutely no thanks. There's no way I'd want to live in that kind of on-top-of-each-other community, the advantages of having more property and not having to ride public transportation to get around more than outweigh any minor inconveniences of driving places. There's a demand in the US for the former type of development as well of course, and those people are having their desires satisfied now by all of the infill development going on...but thankfully the majority of people would rather make their home in a place like the latter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-11-2014, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,560,873 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Yes, I know you said highways are more divisive. I'm disagreeing. Maybe you're too young to have heard that expression "wrong side of the tracks".

Wrong Side of the Tracks | Idiom Origins

It's obvious by looking at the light rail in Denver that the system takes up a lot of land. Plus there are the stations intermittently along the route.

I couldn't find any numbers but I found this:
HS2 is a blueprint to ruin land and lives - Telegraph
I have heard that saying, it was before highways cut through our cities, now highways are more destructive than a train line will ever be.

Also, the expression "wrong side of the tracks" usually refers to industrial rail lines where those trains can literally cut areas in two by how long the trains can be. Passenger trains and light rail trains isn't the same thing, rarely does the saying "wrong side of the tracks" mean passenger rail tracks.

So your proof that rail takes up more land than surface streets is because it looks like it takes up a lot of land in Denver? Did you also notice how many more surface streets Denver has than light rail lines? Basically you are believing in a myth, and a poor myth at that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 08:50 AM
 
Location: Monmouth County, NJ & Staten Island, NY
407 posts, read 408,145 times
Reputation: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I doubt you would want to drive in those Asian cities that have those over crowded trains.

Toyko has the worst traffic in the world, and I don't imagine finding parking when you get to where you are going is easy either.
Your picture link is dead.

I would rather sit in traffic in Tokyo than ride one of those absurd trains where they push people into the car.

And I wouldn't ever want to spend any considerable time in a crowded dense Asian metro anyway, nor would I ever have to nor do I really care how people who live there manage to do it.

I'll stick to my low density American car culture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 08:50 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,560,873 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
That's a kind of screwball comparison. In Pittsburgh, the light rail is minimal. In the Denver area, it's more extensive, but nowhere near as extensive as the road system.

How's this? Per foot of length, rail takes up as much if not more space than a road. Railroads have all this right of way, etc. I just checked a Louisville map. One track of rail + ROW is wider than a city street, and our streets are wide.

Don't argue with people who understand how to manipulate statistics!
Are these tracks you saw for house size trains??

Ah yes, I see your myth, you are including +ROW. So you are talking about industrial rail, not passenger rail. Denver Light Rail doesn't have ROW. So what you are trying to say is a myth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 09:00 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 26 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,020 posts, read 102,689,903 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I have heard that saying, it was before highways cut through our cities, now highways are more destructive than a train line will ever be.

Also, the expression "wrong side of the tracks" usually refers to industrial rail lines where those trains can literally cut areas in two by how long the trains can be. Passenger trains and light rail trains isn't the same thing, rarely does the saying "wrong side of the tracks" mean passenger rail tracks.

So your proof that rail takes up more land than surface streets is because it looks like it takes up a lot of land in Denver? Did you also notice how many more surface streets Denver has than light rail lines? Basically you are believing in a myth, and a poor myth at that.
Apparently you didn't read my link about the origin of "the wrong side of the tracks". Since you didn't open that link, I'll enlighten you.

"To live on the wrong side of the tracks means to live on the less socially desirable part of town. In the 1800′s, train tracks often divided a town into rich and poor sections. The rich people lived on the side of the track where the smoke from the trains did blow and the poor lived on the wrong side of the tracks where the smoke did blow and was also considered the dangerous" (that's where it cuts off).

Now MY hometown had tracks on the east side, by the river, and on the west side, before the land went uphill again. So I guess we all lived on the wrong side of the tracks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Are these tracks you saw for house size trains??

Ah yes, I see your myth, you are including +ROW. So you are talking about industrial rail, not passenger rail. Denver Light Rail doesn't have ROW. So what you are trying to say is a myth.
Actually, that is where the commuter train (ghost train) from Denver to Boulder/Longmont was going to run. But it's not gonna happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 09:04 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,560,873 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepRightPassLeft View Post
Right, so we would have developed more like this rather than this? Absolutely no thanks. There's no way I'd want to live in that kind of on-top-of-each-other community, the advantages of having more property and not having to ride public transportation to get around more than outweigh any minor inconveniences of driving places. There's a demand in the US for the former type of development as well of course, and those people are having their desires satisfied now by all of the infill development going on...but thankfully the majority of people would rather make their home in a place like the latter.
Why wouldn't we develop both? Not all of London looks like your first picture, if you want something less urban and more front yard, I don't see why you couldn't have that. What does that have to do with providing adequate transit and building denser centers to maximize the use of transit?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,560,873 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepRightPassLeft View Post
Your picture link is dead.

I would rather sit in traffic in Tokyo than ride one of those absurd trains where they push people into the car.

And I wouldn't ever want to spend any considerable time in a crowded dense Asian metro anyway, nor would I ever have to nor do I really care how people who live there manage to do it.

I'll stick to my low density American car culture.
Actually from the sounds of your posts, you would not wish to do either sit in Tokyo traffic or ride over crowded trains, and I don't blame you, I wouldn't want to do either one.

Also, the US is a very big country, I don't see why we can't have high density cities with adequate transit options and low density suburbs that don't continuously consume rural and farm land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 09:08 AM
 
410 posts, read 390,121 times
Reputation: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Actually I said something about highways, highways divide cities more than anything else. Rail tracks do not divide cities the same way highways do. Running a highway through a neighborhood kills the neighborhood.
The rail lines running through Toronto appear to take up more physical space than the highway does. What's your definition of "divide"?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,560,873 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Apparently you didn't read my link about the origin of "the wrong side of the tracks". Since you didn't open that link, I'll enlighten you.

"To live on the wrong side of the tracks means to live on the less socially desirable part of town. In the 1800′s, train tracks often divided a town into rich and poor sections. The rich people lived on the side of the track where the smoke from the trains did blow and the poor lived on the wrong side of the tracks where the smoke did blow and was also considered the dangerous" (that's where it cuts off).

Now MY hometown had tracks on the east side, by the river, and on the west side, before the land went uphill again. So I guess we all lived on the wrong side of the tracks.



Actually, that is where the commuter train (ghost train) from Denver to Boulder/Longmont was going to run. But it's not gonna happen.
I didn't need to read your link, I know what "wrong side of the tracks means" and trust me they were not talking about commuter rail tracks....you do know there is a difference between industrial trains and commuter trains, right? You seem to always mix the two up when you post, so I am starting to think you think they are the same thing.

https://www.google.com/maps?q=Portla...281.84,,0,2.77
So tell me, in this street view, which side would you consider the wrong side of the tracks? And what kind of "barrier" do you think these tracks create?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,560,873 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by impala096 View Post
The rail lines running through Toronto appear to take up more physical space than the highway does. What's your definition of "divide"?
That is called a central terminal station, so yes there are going to be points where more land at that spot is consumed do that trains can load and unload, but if you follow those tracks out in either direction they eventually become much smaller and consume much less land than highways do.

I am not saying we shouldn't have highways, I am saying we should have adequate alternative forms of transportation so that we don't need to expand the highways.

Seeing you choose to use Toronto, you can also see the city doesn't need to have that many highway miles through downtown, nor do they need massive multi lane highways because they have adequate transit options in the city to reduce the demand for highways. Something many American cities have failed at over the past 100 years as we have expanded out highway systems rather than our rail systems.
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