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 02-13-2014, 09:54 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,573,101 times
Reputation: 7830

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Have you visited there? They're nice looking houses for sure, though the all brick of most of them is a bit plain. Inside a courtyard apartment building:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=compe...2,,0,8.77&z=15

Not going win any looks awards, but it's functional.
A great urban planning thing about that link, if you look at the placement of these apartment buildings, they all seem to be surrounding the rail station with more single unit housing outside of that. Also at the rail station, there are a ton of bikes which is a sign that people ride their bikes to these rail stations and then take the train to where they need to go....though personally I could never lock my bike up at a rail station like that and leave it all day, but then again I spent a lot of money custom building my bike.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-02-2016, 10:14 AM
 
177 posts, read 145,029 times
Reputation: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
Solutions to traffic problems begin with our own personal choices.
That's some real zen **** right there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2016, 09:25 AM
 
2,366 posts, read 2,131,958 times
Reputation: 1752
Increasing density does not solve traffic problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2016, 08:39 PM
 
Location: Florida
5,281 posts, read 3,037,333 times
Reputation: 9625
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I would think that as I worked through traffic on my bike commuting through work. I am sure it pissed people off seeing me pass them as they sat in their cars stuck in traffic.
Do they smile when you are out there and it is pouring rain?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2016, 10:44 AM
 
3,947 posts, read 4,053,063 times
Reputation: 4427
Quote:
Increasing density does not solve traffic problems.
Of course it does - it makes alternate methods to driving viable. If that doesn't count as solving a traffic problem, then your set of solutions is too narrow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2016, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,975 posts, read 4,086,507 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineman View Post
Do they smile when you are out there and it is pouring rain?
It's likely the traffic congestion is even worse then it's raining. I doubt anyone is really smiling in that situation...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2016, 01:26 PM
 
2,825 posts, read 3,357,519 times
Reputation: 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOverdog View Post
Of course it does - it makes alternate methods to driving viable. If that doesn't count as solving a traffic problem, then your set of solutions is too narrow.
So in other words, just like the poster said, increasing density does not solve traffic problems.

Increasing density increases the congestion.
Making "alternate methods to driving viable" doesn't solve a problem.

In fact it sounds more like the marketing pitch a developer used locally when it proclaimed it supported "walkability" by eliminating all parking. Local anti-car urbanophiles applauded this as if because someone said it it must be so. Did it change the distance to work? No. Does it mean fewer cars? Only for the people foolish enough to purchase in that building - they will still require transportation to work. Making alternatives "viable" is laughable - more like making sure they have no choice but to find some other alternative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2016, 03:00 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,008,379 times
Reputation: 1349
Let's all start from the basic truth that congestion isn't, in and of itself, a disease. It is a symptom. It is the result of something else. That something else tends to be (a) a strong economy and, (b) under-priced highway access. The former means more workers commuting, which means more people transiting by all modes. The latter means driving, often solo, is a cheap option for the end user at the time of use, which pushes up that mode share.

As such, "solving" congestion may not be economically efficient. It's trying to keep a pendulum from finding equilibrium.

Then again, people vote from their feelings, so economic efficiency is not the goal of many anti-congestion projects.

Now, reaching certain densities does open up alternatives as viable options. A low-density suburban area, for instance, cannot support frequent, rapid transit; the tax base and the user base just aren't there. But, as densities increase, new modes become viable, which allows us to increase the carrying capacity (people per hour per direction) of our networks. So, when we reach the minimum density to make a mode viable, we achieve some headroom before we max out that mode. Strictly speaking, if we're truly trying to reduce congestion (or the appearance thereof), once we implement a higher capacity mode, we could run more vehicles than is necessary for demand.

Hypocritically, we see nearly empty buses and cry out about government waste, but rarely do I hear those same people complain about solo drivers even though both are examples of under-utilization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2016, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,343,644 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Let's all start from the basic truth that congestion isn't, in and of itself, a disease. It is a symptom. It is the result of something else. That something else tends to be (a) a strong economy and, (b) under-priced highway access. The former means more workers commuting, which means more people transiting by all modes. The latter means driving, often solo, is a cheap option for the end user at the time of use, which pushes up that mode share.

As such, "solving" congestion may not be economically efficient. It's trying to keep a pendulum from finding equilibrium.

Then again, people vote from their feelings, so economic efficiency is not the goal of many anti-congestion projects.

Now, reaching certain densities does open up alternatives as viable options. A low-density suburban area, for instance, cannot support frequent, rapid transit; the tax base and the user base just aren't there. But, as densities increase, new modes become viable, which allows us to increase the carrying capacity (people per hour per direction) of our networks. So, when we reach the minimum density to make a mode viable, we achieve some headroom before we max out that mode. Strictly speaking, if we're truly trying to reduce congestion (or the appearance thereof), once we implement a higher capacity mode, we could run more vehicles than is necessary for demand.

Hypocritically, we see nearly empty buses and cry out about government waste, but rarely do I hear those same people complain about solo drivers even though both are examples of under-utilization.
Thank you for resetting the angle of the discussion. In short, is it fair to say that increased density grants engineers and planners more potential solutions to traffic congestion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2016, 02:01 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,008,379 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
Thank you for resetting the angle of the discussion. In short, is it fair to say that increased density grants engineers and planners more potential solutions to traffic congestion?
There is a sweet spot that maximizes the number of viable alternatives. Each mode is best suited to a range of densities, and is an increasingly poor fit as we approach and go outside the limits of those ranges; very low or very high densities match with few options.
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