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 08-11-2016, 05:40 AM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,330,919 times
Reputation: 3562

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
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.
What about the high end of the spectrum, aka Manhattan? There are enormous amenities, abundant transportation options (e.g. driving, subway, bus, taxi, uber, bike share, etc.), and lots of residential. While you could say that Manhattan has congestion, the amount of congestion for how much of everything is pretty healthy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-11-2016, 10:22 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
45,988 posts, read 41,959,650 times
Reputation: 14805
Eh. Driving isn't a good fit for Manhattan; though nothing stopping someone from driving in and parking; paying either a high time or money cost. Worse in the lower third of the island. I don't thin it's a bad situation; better IMO than San Francisco with more manageable but not great driving but slower transit.

NYC (well most of it) is a place where the transit is great but driving horrible; outside of the region the reverse is often true. Makes it a bit awkward for those going from one to the other. Couple friends from high school went to Vermont for the weekend; they rented a car.

Cities like Paris or London have a similar driving / transit situation to NYC but better access to the surroundings; though rural transit there is still mediocre though not non-existent

Last edited by nei; 08-11-2016 at 10:33 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2016, 11:02 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,002 posts, read 102,581,357 times
Reputation: 33059
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.
Car ownership is a private thing. Much as many urbanists talk about subsidies to car owners, those are also available for buses, e.g. gas subsidies, roads (which many urbanists seem to feel are unnecessary for buses). However, automobile owners do not get their purchases subsidized, even if they take out a loan b/c the interest on a car loan is not tax deductible. While fares make up only a portion of a bus' operating expenses, with taxes providing the rest, the owner has no one subsidizing his/her expenses. False analogy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2016, 11:20 AM
 
769 posts, read 628,375 times
Reputation: 1475
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.
No, it only pisses us off when you pass us, then get up to a whopping 15 mph, while using ALL 3 ft that you are "legally" allowed, meaning just enough so that we can't safely pass you at 30 mph, but instead have to drive behind you until we can switch lanes ...

then, watch you run red lights, as you magically turn from a "bicyclists are like cars and need to share the road" and transform into a "cyclist not a car, so I can run red lights"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2016, 12:16 PM
 
6,635 posts, read 4,597,244 times
Reputation: 13350
Quote:
Originally Posted by 191185 View Post
No, it only pisses us off when you pass us, then get up to a whopping 15 mph, while using ALL 3 ft that you are "legally" allowed, meaning just enough so that we can't safely pass you at 30 mph, but instead have to drive behind you until we can switch lanes ...

then, watch you run red lights, as you magically turn from a "bicyclists are like cars and need to share the road" and transform into a "cyclist not a car, so I can run red lights"
Yep. I live in a neighborhood where the main road immediately outside it has bike lanes on both sides. I was THRILLED when the road was redone assuming (foolishly as it happens) that dedicated bike lanes would make things better and safer for both cars and bikes. Nope. The cyclists groups who use the road like to ride 2-3 abreast taking up the bike lane and half of the car lane as well. It's only 1 lane in either direction with medians in the center so there's no way to pass these azzhats. From what I've experienced, yes there are drivers who endanger cyclist with their failure to share the roads, but there are an equal number of cyclists who feel they don't have to follow the rules or share at all.

They also like to blow through intersections on red without regard to whether there are pedestrians in the crosswalks. I told my husband recently that when he gets a call that I've been hit he should assume it's by a bicycle and not a car.

Bottom line: Some people are just jerks.

Last edited by UNC4Me; 08-11-2016 at 12:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2016, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,975 posts, read 4,079,995 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by 191185 View Post
No, it only pisses us off when you pass us, then get up to a whopping 15 mph, while using ALL 3 ft that you are "legally" allowed, meaning just enough so that we can't safely pass you at 30 mph, but instead have to drive behind you until we can switch lanes ...

then, watch you run red lights, as you magically turn from a "bicyclists are like cars and need to share the road" and transform into a "cyclist not a car, so I can run red lights"
In some (most?) states bicyclists are actually allowed to take the entire lane if it's not safe for cars to pass within the lane--not just 3 feet. Solution: tell the City and DOT you want those bicyclists to be in bike lanes and paths instead of shared lanes with cars. The benefit is mutual! NYC has actually seen car traffic travel FASTER after they put in bike lanes. If they could find the space in MANHATTAN, any city can.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2016, 12:51 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,793 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
What about the high end of the spectrum, aka Manhattan? There are enormous amenities, abundant transportation options (e.g. driving, subway, bus, taxi, uber, bike share, etc.), and lots of residential. While you could say that Manhattan has congestion, the amount of congestion for how much of everything is pretty healthy.
My response to that is that, at the high end of the density spectrum, you need to move a lot of people and that means high-volume options; many low-volume options are no longer viable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2016, 12:57 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,793 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
False analogy.
I read your post and, respectfully, what I said is not incorrect. A car is a private thing on a public piece of infrastructure and what is the heart of "traffic" is the utilization of infrastructure. So, whether it is a bus or car, an under-utilized thing is an under-utilized thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2016, 01:14 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
45,988 posts, read 41,959,650 times
Reputation: 14805
If the road is congested; it's an underutilization of existing infrastructure. I'd it isn't; doesn't make any difference. The road is already built
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2016, 02:28 PM
 
6,635 posts, read 4,597,244 times
Reputation: 13350
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992 View Post
In some (most?) states bicyclists are actually allowed to take the entire lane if it's not safe for cars to pass within the lane--not just 3 feet. Solution: tell the City and DOT you want those bicyclists to be in bike lanes and paths instead of shared lanes with cars. The benefit is mutual! NYC has actually seen car traffic travel FASTER after they put in bike lanes. If they could find the space in MANHATTAN, any city can.

Not always. I wish that were the case, but adding bike lanes has done nothing to alleviate the problems with cyclists taking up car lanes where I live. They just use the bike lane and half the car lanes since their preferred method of travel appears to be 2-3 abreast. And these are cycling clubs made up of cycling enthusiasts and proponents that know better, but sadly just don't care.
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