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, 09:26 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 25 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,017 posts, read 102,674,652 times
Reputation: 33083

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
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?
Oh, please enlighten me!

Your interpretation of "wrong side of the tracks" shows you don't know what it means. You are aware that in many places freight trains and passenger trains share the same tracks? (Apparently not) People refer to the RTD system as "light rail" here b/c that is mostly what was built. However, "commuter rail" is more appropriate b/c the passenger rail from Denver to Boulder/Longmont was going to use the BNSF tracks. I've also taken the Metra in Chicago and believe me, that system takes up a good bit of land, particularly when combined with the stations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-11-2014, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,554,726 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Oh, please enlighten me!

Your interpretation of "wrong side of the tracks" shows you don't know what it means. You are aware that in many places freight trains and passenger trains share the same tracks? (Apparently not) People refer to the RTD system as "light rail" here b/c that is mostly what was built. However, "commuter rail" is more appropriate b/c the passenger rail from Denver to Boulder/Longmont was going to use the BNSF tracks. I've also taken the Metra in Chicago and believe me, that system takes up a good bit of land, particularly when combined with the stations.
If they share the same tracks, that is because they are freight rail tracks primarily, passenger trains rent the use of those tracks.

"Wrong side of the tracks" means freight rail tracks.

Metra DOES NOT consume more space than the highways system in the Chicago metro, even when you combine it with stations. So you are still believing a myth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 09:50 AM
 
3,492 posts, read 4,963,043 times
Reputation: 5383
Creating more businesses downtown by removing the parking means even more people would be forced to use the rail to get there. Having more medium sized centers spread throughout the area would reduce the distance required. I would use public transit if we had good public transit, but unfortunately few people agree on what would constitute good public transit. If I have to waste time waiting for a bus, or be breathed on by sick people, and then deal with contracting the cold myself, that cost to me is significantly higher than just taking my car. If there isn't sufficient parking, I just don't go.

I agree that sitting in traffic is often the result of being the traffic, but that's why I did research on where to live to find a place with a more than adequate road structure so I wouldn't be stuck sitting in traffic when I used my car.

My house in the suburbs cost 230k. Similar houses downtown run 400 to 600k. For the difference in taxes, insurance, and interest, I can easily afford my car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 10:16 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,718,594 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurtsman View Post
Creating more businesses downtown by removing the parking means even more people would be forced to use the rail to get there. Having more medium sized centers spread throughout the area would reduce the distance required. I would use public transit if we had good public transit, but unfortunately few people agree on what would constitute good public transit. If I have to waste time waiting for a bus, or be breathed on by sick people, and then deal with contracting the cold myself, that cost to me is significantly higher than just taking my car. If there isn't sufficient parking, I just don't go.

I agree that sitting in traffic is often the result of being the traffic, but that's why I did research on where to live to find a place with a more than adequate road structure so I wouldn't be stuck sitting in traffic when I used my car.

My house in the suburbs cost 230k. Similar houses downtown run 400 to 600k. For the difference in taxes, insurance, and interest, I can easily afford my car.
so you're not stuck in traffic? why so defensive? this is about people who ARE fighting traffic day-in and day-out
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 10:23 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 25 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,017 posts, read 102,674,652 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
If they share the same tracks, that is because they are freight rail tracks primarily, passenger trains rent the use of those tracks.

"Wrong side of the tracks" means freight rail tracks.

Metra DOES NOT consume more space than the highways system in the Chicago metro, even when you combine it with stations. So you are still believing a myth.
WSDOT - Freight - Rail - Types of Passenger Rail
**Amtrak Cascades Intercity Passenger Rail is sponsored by ticket-buying passengers, the states of Washington and Oregon, and Amtrak. Amtrak Cascades operate on the same railroad tracks as freight trains, makes a limited number of stops, and connects central cities between Vancouver, British Columbia and Eugene, Oregon.**
In your own beloved Portland!

https://www.metroplanning.org/news-events/article/5436
**Today, the networks of the nation’s six largest freight rail companies cover nearly 95,000 miles. This is less than half of what the networks had been in 1970, but they are hauling 137 percent more freight – this discord is resulting in congested roads and rails, longer shipping times, and overall inefficiencies. In cities across the country, commuter service, Amtrak and other freight interests share the same rail corridors, creating a bottleneck that makes it difficult to move traffic through certain locations. In the Chicago region, Amtrak and Metra operate on borrowed infrastructure, using tracks that are owned by private freight companies. Approximately 60 percent of Amtrak train routes are operated on these tracks, with freight train interference ranking as the largest cause of delays. Likewise, almost 18 percent of all Metra delays are caused by freight interference, impeding the ability of Metra to add additional service, especially for reverse commuters. **
(Chicago)

Rail transportation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I honestly never heard of separate lines for passenger and freight service in traditional railroads. They've always shared track.

https://www.google.com/search?q=did+...ient=firefox-a (Click on first link, sorry, I couldn't get it to copy.) **In the United States, freight railroads provide the foundation for most passenger rail. Around 70 percent of the miles traveled by Amtrak trains are on tracks owned by freight railroads, and dozens of commuter railroads operate, or plan to operate, at least partially on freight-owned corridors. In addition,most of the higher speed and intercity passenger rail projects under development nationwide plan to use freight-owned facilities.**

Back when I was a kid, and the individual railroads ran the passenger service, it was basically the same.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 02-11-2014 at 10:38 AM.. Reason: Add some stuff
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 10:29 AM
 
2,825 posts, read 3,354,562 times
Reputation: 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Our cities, as in US cities, the country I and I assume you live in, therefore "our."
Well you don't represent my interests or anyone but your own.

Quote:
Urban fabric means urban fabric....not sure what confuses you with that statement.
Meaningless dribble. At least when responding to Katiana you admitted:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
"Urban fabric" is literary language. I agree, it's meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Urban Fabric has a real meaning.

"The physical aspect of urbanism, emphasizing building types, thoroughfares, open space, frontages, and streetscapes but excluding environmental, functional, economic and sociocultural aspects"

It doesn't mean specifically urban, suburban, exurban, and rural are also considered to be a part of what urban fabric means.
In other words as you use the term it has absolutely nothing to do with environment, function, economic, or other practical/utilitarian things and therefore the "destruction" you refer to either didn't occur or had zero impact. Your "urban fabric" is nothing but subjective aesthetic preferences - a very elitist position. "Urban fabric" is meaningless.

Quote:
And destroyed as in Urban Renewal where we took a bulldozer to old neighborhoods and urban areas rather than renovate and reuse the structures, which has been a key moment that hurt many of our cities.
Well in Detroit they are mowing them down because everyone fled. In other places they tear down old buildings and build new ones. In still other places they tear them down for parking lots. They do these things for ECONOMIC reasons and that is the reason your "urban fabric" nonsense can't handle reality. Your definition expressly excludes function or economics from consideration and is therefore directed at the useless and frivolous.

Quote:
I am not talking about present day, we use to provide adequate transit in cities before tearing out most of those lines of transit. Now almost every American city is far behind where it should be with transit, thus is why you think they can't provide adequate transit because that infrastructure that once was there is all gone.
"We" did not. Moreover, you might consider that your drive to pack people into living quarters like hamsters so that you can justify transit that doesn't work is again an elitist position. Businesses learned a long time ago that "downtown" is not the place for people to live or conduct business for most people. The jobs aren't downtown either - at least not for the vast majority of folks working in the private sector. Distribution of job centers away from downtown is a good thing.

Quote:
Rail isn't about serving virtually everyone, if you are looking for perfect success where everyone rides rail, then you will always find failure, which is the wrong way to look at public transportation. The key is to service the most amount of people by providing it to central locations and dense areas. In the suburbs, park and rides are key for those downtown commuters.
Elitist again. You are interested in taxing everyone but not serving everyone. I have no problem with providing reasonable public transit - but multi-billion dollar rail that serves an extreme minority is silly. You are also trying to push densification in order to push rail. These are clearly not naturally occurring and you are simply trying to use them to bootstrap each other when neither would stand on their own.

Quote:
Who is "anti-car?" If you are talking to me, then no, I am not anti-car. Providing park and rides reduces the amount one drives, it reduces the demand for parking in business centers, and allows more room for business because the need for parking is reduced without reducing the amount of people going to those business centers.
Of course you are. You have promulgated denying access to cars in order to open up areas to pedestrians. You have cast anything other than downtown as undesirable "sprawl" from which you would like to cut off transportation with - at least if the transportation is car. You show your disdain whenever you refer to places other than downtown as "car dependent". "Park and ride" does not reduce the amount one drives. I for one have no interest in adding another annoyance to the regular daily business of taking kids to school, going to the grocery store, or getting to and from work. All you promote is the elimination of independence and the creation of a dependency on "public transit".

Quote:
How does providing alternative forms of transportation create more dependency? That makes no sense whatsoever.
To the extent there is a "choice" (let's be clear that you have promoted giving no choice), in order to exercise the "choice" one must introduce the dependency on transit. The route, pickup, delivery, availability, etc. are now under the control of someone else. In addition, you have to pay for leaving your car in a place where vandals and thieves have open season.

Quote:
Highways consume more land than rail does, and there comes a point where you can't expand highways any more than they already are. Transit is to provide an alternative to driving to reduce the need to expand highways, especially where it is impossible to expand a highway. No one is trying to eliminate the car, that isn't what "alternative" means. The more people that use alternative forms of transportation, the less amount of cars there are on the road creating that traffic.
...Your "centralization" and "densification" schemes serve only to exacerbate any problem and transit has plenty of problems on its own. Obvious alternatives to your scheme are to distribute businesses and residences around geographically (i.e, what you consider "sprawl"). I for one would avoid downtown like the plague. Not only is it inconvenient for virtually everybody - consumer dollars could go much further if they didn't have to get wasted on expensive downtown rent, property tax, and parking fees. Plus not everyone finds congestion appealing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,554,726 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
WSDOT - Freight - Rail - Types of Passenger Rail
**Amtrak Cascades Intercity Passenger Rail is sponsored by ticket-buying passengers, the states of Washington and Oregon, and Amtrak. Amtrak Cascades operate on the same railroad tracks as freight trains, makes a limited number of stops, and connects central cities between Vancouver, British Columbia and Eugene, Oregon.**
In your own beloved Portland!

https://www.metroplanning.org/news-events/article/5436
**Today, the networks of the nation’s six largest freight rail companies cover nearly 95,000 miles. This is less than half of what the networks had been in 1970, but they are hauling 137 percent more freight – this discord is resulting in congested roads and rails, longer shipping times, and overall inefficiencies. In cities across the country, commuter service, Amtrak and other freight interests share the same rail corridors, creating a bottleneck that makes it difficult to move traffic through certain locations. In the Chicago region, Amtrak and Metra operate on borrowed infrastructure, using tracks that are owned by private freight companies. Approximately 60 percent of Amtrak train routes are operated on these tracks, with freight train interference ranking as the largest cause of delays. Likewise, almost 18 percent of all Metra delays are caused by freight interference, impeding the ability of Metra to add additional service, especially for reverse commuters. **
(Chicago)

Rail transportation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I honestly never heard of separate lines for passenger and freight service in traditional railroads. They've always shared track.
They share the same tracks because we have a poor rail system in this country. If we had an adequate system, commuter trains would have their own separate rail lines. In much of the US, it is freight rail that actually owns the tracks, therefore trains have to give the right of way to freight trains.


You are mixing freight rail, commuter trains, long distance trains, and light rail into the same thing when that is far from the truth. If you wish to have a conversation about city rail systems, you have to stick to one or two types of rail instead of jumping around from type to type.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 10:42 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 25 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,017 posts, read 102,674,652 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
They share the same tracks because we have a poor rail system in this country. If we had an adequate system, commuter trains would have their own separate rail lines. In much of the US, it is freight rail that actually owns the tracks, therefore trains have to give the right of way to freight trains.


You are mixing freight rail, commuter trains, long distance trains, and light rail into the same thing when that is far from the truth. If you wish to have a conversation about city rail systems, you have to stick to one or two types of rail instead of jumping around from type to type.
I am not "far from the truth"! In fact, I am being very truthful. You're the one who thinks that we have several parallel tracks (no pun intended) of rail. The only separate tracking system is light rail, and not all commuter rail is light rail. That you don't want to believe it doesn't invalidate what I stated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 10:44 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 25 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,017 posts, read 102,674,652 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
In other words as you use the term it has absolutely nothing to do with environment, function, economic, or other practical/utilitarian things and therefore the "destruction" you refer to either didn't occur or had zero impact. Your "urban fabric" is nothing but subjective aesthetic preferences - a very elitist position. "Urban fabric" is meaningless.
It has nothing to do with fabric, either! It's just a cutesy phrase. Tell me, urbanlife, what kind of fabric is "urban fabric". Is it cotton, polyester, or maybe hemp?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,554,726 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Well you don't represent my interests or anyone but your own.

Meaningless dribble. At least when responding to Katiana you admitted:

In other words as you use the term it has absolutely nothing to do with environment, function, economic, or other practical/utilitarian things and therefore the "destruction" you refer to either didn't occur or had zero impact. Your "urban fabric" is nothing but subjective aesthetic preferences - a very elitist position. "Urban fabric" is meaningless.

Well in Detroit they are mowing them down because everyone fled. In other places they tear down old buildings and build new ones. In still other places they tear them down for parking lots. They do these things for ECONOMIC reasons and that is the reason your "urban fabric" nonsense can't handle reality. Your definition expressly excludes function or economics from consideration and is therefore directed at the useless and frivolous.
I never said I did, but if you do live in the US, then it is safe to say "our cities" when referring to cities in the same country we live in. That is just a simple fact, no interests of any kind.

Lets see if I can make the destruction of the urban fabric make sense to you, if you live in a house, and I take a bulldozer and knock over your house, do you still live inside that house? NO, that is what destruction of urban fabric means. If you take several blocks in a city and knock it all down in hopes that something will happen, that is a destruction of the urban fabric.

They are tearing down buildings in Detroit because they started by destroying the urban fabric of the downtown when people did still live within the city. Then they invested in highways instead of rail, making it easier for people to move further away and made it harder for transit to ever be viable. What you are seeing in Detroit is the effect of destroying the urban fabric of a city.


Quote:
"We" did not. Moreover, you might consider that your drive to pack people into living quarters like hamsters so that you can justify transit that doesn't work is again an elitist position. Businesses learned a long time ago that "downtown" is not the place for people to live or conduct business for most people. The jobs aren't downtown either - at least not for the vast majority of folks working in the private sector. Distribution of job centers away from downtown is a good thing.
Elitist position? Seriously? Then you are an anti-city elitist.

The way American cities are today is directly related to the removal of rail and not investing in public transit while expanding the highway system in this country. Thus is why many places don't have the majority of employment in the downtown, also you don't have to "pack people in" to have a healthy transit system in a city and region.

Quote:
Elitist again. You are interested in taxing everyone but not serving everyone. I have no problem with providing reasonable public transit - but multi-billion dollar rail that serves an extreme minority is silly. You are also trying to push densification in order to push rail. These are clearly not naturally occurring and you are simply trying to use them to bootstrap each other when neither would stand on their own.
Elitist again? Really? You expect me to take you seriously when you throw around "elitist" just because I disagree with you? You are an elitist for not giving random people rides in your car.

Do you not pay taxes now? I am sure there are roads in your city you never use, therefore it isn't serving everyone in your definition.

Are you referring to a specific multi-billion dollar rail project or are you talking hypothetically? Because if a multi-billion dollar rail project only affected an extreme minority, then I too would be against that wasteful spending.

Being in support of dense developments around rail stops isn't the same thing as trying to force everyone to live in a dense city. You don't have to live where it is dense....not that hard to comprehend.

Quote:
Of course you are. You have promulgated denying access to cars in order to open up areas to pedestrians. You have cast anything other than downtown as undesirable "sprawl" from which you would like to cut off transportation with - at least if the transportation is car. You show your disdain whenever you refer to places other than downtown as "car dependent". "Park and ride" does not reduce the amount one drives. I for one have no interest in adding another annoyance to the regular daily business of taking kids to school, going to the grocery store, or getting to and from work. All you promote is the elimination of independence and the creation of a dependency on "public transit".

To the extent there is a "choice" (let's be clear that you have promoted giving no choice), in order to exercise the "choice" one must introduce the dependency on transit. The route, pickup, delivery, availability, etc. are now under the control of someone else. In addition, you have to pay for leaving your car in a place where vandals and thieves have open season.

...Your "centralization" and "densification" schemes serve only to exacerbate any problem and transit has plenty of problems on its own. Obvious alternatives to your scheme are to distribute businesses and residences around geographically (i.e, what you consider "sprawl"). I for one would avoid downtown like the plague. Not only is it inconvenient for virtually everybody - consumer dollars could go much further if they didn't have to get wasted on expensive downtown rent, property tax, and parking fees. Plus not everyone finds congestion appealing.
False again, you assume I am anti-car because I am pro-rail, one doesn't have to be anti-car to be in support of rail, it is just silly to think anyone would be all of one or the other.

You can't drive your car in my living room, does that mean I am denying you access to cars? I have never once said we should close all the city roads in a city to prevent cars from driving on them. I have never once said there shouldn't be any parking in a city to prevent people from driving. You are again assuming, and you are again wrong.

No one is preventing you from using your car to do you commuting and grocery shopping and picking your kids up from soccer or whatever. I use my car to go grocery shopping because it is much more convenient. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But lets say where the grocery store is place, it is easy for one to take a personal cart and walk a block or two to shop at the grocery store, why deny a person the chance to do that due to low density zoning? Why can't the kids practice at the soccer field within the neighborhood that makes it easy to walk to? Why does one have to drive to work if the walk to the train only takes a few minutes and comes every 5-15 minutes? These are all called "alternative options" and none of them are wrong, just like it isn't wrong for you to drive to every single thing you want to drive to, but for every person that walks, bikes, or rides transit is another person not driving in their car which means one less person in your commute in your car.

With that said, again you have assumed and again are false, I am all for choices, my previous paragraph goes into detail about that.

No one is forcing YOU to go downtown, I don't care if you go downtown if you don't want to. I am not saying ALL jobs need to be downtown, you can have more than one central location. You can have suburban companies that you drive to, but if you can only drive to get to those jobs, then there isn't any choices other than the car, which is what it seems like you are in support of, thus making you an elitists. (see how I did that, I assumed you are only pro-car and that you believe cars are the only way people should commute. I am sure you do not think like that, so why do you assume I think that transit is the only way people should commute?)
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