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.
You can't even provide adequate transit to points in the city much less "the burbs". There is a connection between suburbs and higher population suburbs (aka "cities"). The connection is called a "road". Sometimes I have to use them to travel from the less populated suburb to the more populated suburb/city. I prefer to use them to leave the more populated suburb/city to travel to the less populated suburb.
"urban fabric" again?
Rail is a pipe dream promoted by delusional urbanists in most places. The rail tends to cost more than claimed and gets underutilized by those who could use it. Finally the rail fails to serve virtually everyone else.
It's a faux solution because the anti-car zealots can't admit that the transit doesn't solve the "car dependence" so often decried as justification for rail and other transit modes. Under the analogies given the "solution" only creates more "dependencies".
The other problem is that the urbanists try to use this as justification for further limiting highways and roadways in order to force dependence upon rail and other modes of transit and to eliminate modes of travel offering independence such as the car.
"Urban fabric" is literary language. I agree, it's meaningless.
Our cities, as in US cities, the country I and I assume you live in, therefore "our."
Urban fabric means urban fabric....not sure what confuses you with that statement.
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.
Quote:
You can't even provide adequate transit to points in the city much less "the burbs". There is a connection between suburbs and higher population suburbs (aka "cities"). The connection is called a "road". Sometimes I have to use them to travel from the less populated suburb to the more populated suburb/city. I prefer to use them to leave the more populated suburb/city to travel to the less populated suburb.
"urban fabric" again?
Rail is a pipe dream promoted by delusional urbanists in most places. The rail tends to cost more than claimed and gets underutilized by those who could use it. Finally the rail fails to serve virtually everyone else.
It's a faux solution because the anti-car zealots can't admit that the transit doesn't solve the "car dependence" so often decried as justification for rail and other transit modes. Under the analogies given the "solution" only creates more "dependencies".
The other problem is that the urbanists try to use this as justification for further limiting highways and roadways in order to force dependence upon rail and other modes of transit and to eliminate modes of travel offering independence such as the car.
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.
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.
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.
How does providing alternative forms of transportation create more dependency? That makes no sense whatsoever.
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.
"Urban fabric" is literary language. I agree, it's meaningless.
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.
Now imagine each one of those people is driving their own car. . .
I'd rather sit in a traffic jam around all those people with my heated & air conditioned leather seats, 8 speaker sound system, climate control and panoramic sunroof than to ever have to spend a minute on a platform from hell like that.
Except I get to enjoy all those comforts every day on my 84 mile round trip commute and at worst I sit in stop and go traffic for maybe 5-10 minutes total each day.
To be fair, Pittsburgh's old "cow paths converted to streets" as my father called them, are kind of charming. Charmingly unsafe in the winter, but you can't do anything about the hills. Most of the main roads are on top of, or at the bottom of, a ridge, to keep them reasonably flat. There's no way they could put that city on a grid.
Who said anything about highways? Rail systems take up far more land than surface streets. And rail certainly divides up a city. Ever heard the expression "other side of the tracks"?
Well that is what I said, the east coast was not built on the grid, the midwest and west coast typically is built on the grid, I prefer the grid over cow path roads.
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.
Actually a rail system does not take up more than than surface streets. Where did you hear that myth? Name one city where the rail system takes up far more land than surface streets?
I'd rather sit in a traffic jam around all those people with my heated & air conditioned leather seats, 8 speaker sound system, climate control and panoramic sunroof than to ever have to spend a minute on a platform from hell like that.
Except I get to enjoy all those comforts every day on my 84 mile round trip commute and at worst I sit in stop and go traffic for maybe 5-10 minutes total each day.
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.
Rail systems take up far more land than surface streets.
c'mon now. A two-track right of way is no wider than a city street and more often than not actually narrower. Streets and roads in Pittsburgh are 13.3% of the total land area of the city. In Denver it's 12.6%
Light rail in Denver, even with the rail yards, takes up less than 1% of the land area of the city (I'm counting the entire rail system even though parts of it aren't even in the City of Denver). With a chunk of the Pittsburgh light rail being underground it has even less of a footprint.
That's right - you made a choice to live and be in traffic. That's on you, not on anyone else.
That's cute you think it's purely a personal choice to live and be in traffic.
Fact is, homes are often cheaper in areas where public transit isn't the primary mode of transport. I pay roughly 1k/mo excluding utilities for my comfortable 2br apartment that's nominally served by Metro. It's within my budget.
Had I opted to live in a Metro-Accessible area, the average rent is 1500/mo excluding utilities for a 1br.
For the sake of argument, I'll also say that there is a metro station around 3 miles out from me. New Carrollton Station if you're curious. My office is reasonably close enough to the nearest station that I walk from the work to the station and vice versa. Therefore, my daily calculation is as follows if I opt for metro:
If I drive to the station:
Round Trip from New Carrollton to Court House Metro: 10.40
Daily Parking: 4.50
Total Daily Cost: 14.90
Monthly Cost: $298.00
If I take a bus:
Round trip: 12.60
Monthly Cost: $252.00
Driving to work is usually 16.5 miles each way. I have a car that takes mid-grade fuel. I usually have to fill up every 10 days, and it takes around 42 dollars. Therefore, my daily cost is somewhere around 4.20, depending on gas prices. Therefore, monthly gas cost is somewhere around 84.00.
My job subsidizes parking, so I only pay 70/mo for the privilege.
Oil Changes are free courtesy of my dealership.
I feel it's not fair to include things like Car Insurance, because as a car owner I would pay those regardless of whether I take metro.
All in all, I pay less by driving than I would if I opted for Public Transportation, plus I have the added convenience of being able to show up to work early or leave late without relying on arbitrary timetables. Also, while sometimes driving will take up to an hour, it can also be as short as 30 minutes. With Metro, it's guaranteed an hour every time.
Hubby has a fuel-efficient car that takes regular, so if I use his car the savings are greater!
So for me, at least, the car just makes more sense.
Well that is what I said, the east coast was not built on the grid, the midwest and west coast typically is built on the grid, I prefer the grid over cow path roads.
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.
Actually a rail system does not take up more than than surface streets. Where did you hear that myth? Name one city where the rail system takes up far more land than surface streets?
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".
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.
c'mon now. A two-track right of way is no wider than a city street and more often than not actually narrower. Streets and roads in Pittsburgh are 13.3% of the total land area of the city. In Denver it's 12.6%
Light rail in Denver, even with the rail yards, takes up less than 1% of the land area of the city (I'm counting the entire rail system even though parts of it aren't even in the City of Denver). With a chunk of the Pittsburgh light rail being underground it has even less of a footprint.
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!
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.
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.
