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 03-06-2014, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,573,101 times
Reputation: 7830

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
For a counter point that has not been brought up, look at what the Interstate system did to all the small towns that are bypassed. The benefits far outweigh the costs, but the costs are most severe in very close proximity. It's no different than trains. Trains are obnoxiously loud up close as anyone who has ever lived near heavy rail knows. They really have to be underground which is insanely costly. The total cost of the U-LINK extension (mostly subway) in Seattle is in excess of $600 million per mile. Since it's light rail, which isn't that loud, it's questionable. But it's going through affluent neighborhoods so they're spending obscene amounts of money to do a subway rather than elevated. Where the poors live they just use elevated/at-grade since that's much cheaper.
The U-Link is a tunnel because it would have probably been impossible to run light rail up and over a fully developed Capital Hill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2014, 01:38 PM
 
2,825 posts, read 3,356,710 times
Reputation: 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Of course it isn't some arbitrary collection of streets, that is the point of your home being your home. It is something specific to you, and the neighborhood you live in is something that is specific to you, but it is often times pretty easy to identify what is a neighborhood because neighborhoods are usually built around the same time.

I have no idea why you keep dancing around this, there is nothing wrong with agreeing with other people from time to time, you don't have to disagree for the sake of disagreeing about everything.
You are drawing a line around "home" that includes property not belonging to you. We differ greatly there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eddyline
Like I said, I have no need to argue with someone that does not understand the concept of community. I understand that many people can not see beyond their own needs.
There is no argument. The roads aren't yours (nor mine) and neither are all the other properties you want to exert control over. Apparently you "need" something that isn't yours to have or control to start off with. I'm not the selfish one trying to preserve an instant in time for all eternity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2014, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,573,101 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
You are drawing a line around "home" that includes property not belonging to you. We differ greatly there.
I don't know what "line" you are talking about that you think I am drawing. I really don't think we are talking about the same thing. Do you not know your surroundings to your home?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2014, 01:42 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,865,412 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post


While I've taken the line you're talking about, I don't have enough experience to speak to its history. However, it doesn't change the fact that highways and rail lines are two separate things, and it's a matter of scale. The amount of buildings that need to be ripped up in a dense urban area are more significant with highways. Also, my experience has been that in dense urban areas, rail is more useful and integrated with the local communities because it's a mode of transportation that increases QOL by adding more accessibility for the communities it passes through. Highways could be argued to be a benefit to some extent (local business access, access for going out of town, etc.), but less so in dense urban areas where cars don't dominate.

Not really. One bad Assumption I read on these boards is that the highway only serves people living in the burbs and helps them get downtown. Not true.

If you have a large enough city then people also need to be able to move quickly around it for work and for pleasure. The expressways are filled at rush hour but not just with people heading downtown to the CBD but to places all over the city and both in and out of it. You could live in Oak Park but work on the near north side. You could live on the north side but need to get somewhere on the near south side. Rail isn't as useful as you would think because unless both your destination and home are near it, then you have to resort to the very slow bus to get to the station.

Right now I am taking a class on the North side of town. I used rail to get to it, but can use the expressways to drive to it. When I use rail I gain a faster trip than by car in the mourning on the week day but loss out at other times because I can drive faster. The only reason why I do it is because the cost is low and the train isn't too slow because I don't have to transfer and I can get a ride to the station so no need to wait on the bus. However on the weekend I also need to go and on that day I drive because there is no traffic. If I were forced to use public transit only, I would be forced to always take the slower and less flexible method of travel. I also sometimes work in the burbs and with my car I can get to work where there is no train(or just a commuter train) and poor bus service.

Likewise I know a person who lives in the west burbs and works in the near south side. She could use rail to get to work, but the EL station she needs to use to get to work isn't in an safe location crime wise. Having the highway is to her a blessing.

Highways too add more accessibility to the communities they go through. Areas of the City that are far from an Highway are not easy or welcoming to drive to and sometimes don't have much in the way of useful transit either. There is no EL service to Beverly on the Southside just Metra trains that are a tad more expensive and run less often and are not well tied into the rest of the system.

Also although I do save money by using rail. I also get some hassles like being exposed to very cold weather, having to stand because there may be no seat available when I come home, the smell of BM in the car due to some person, crazy people, loud people on the phone, people listing to the radio and singing as well as beggars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2014, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,573,101 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post

Highways too add more accessibility to the communities they go through. Areas of the City that are far from an Highway are not easy or welcoming to drive to and sometimes don't have much in the way of useful transit either. There is no EL service to Beverly on the Southside just Metra trains that are a tad more expensive and run less often and are not well tied into the rest of the system.
That depends on if there is off ramps in those communities, if the highway just cuts through and doesn't have an access point in that community, then it serves no benefit to that community.

Southside Chicago has definitely been screwed over when it comes to rail access. The city destroyed too many old neighborhoods and commercial areas in the Southside and did very little to provide adequate rail access to the Southside.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2014, 02:08 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,197,946 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
You are drawing a line around "home" that includes property not belonging to you. We differ greatly there.


There is no argument. The roads aren't yours (nor mine) and neither are all the other properties you want to exert control over. Apparently you "need" something that isn't yours to have or control to start off with. I'm not the selfish one trying to preserve an instant in time for all eternity.
Your reading comprehension is as poor as your logic.
Where did I say I wanted to exert control over a road?
Where did I say I wanted to preserve an instant in time?
Do you understand the difference between a logical arguement and a rant?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2014, 02:15 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,865,412 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
That depends on if there is off ramps in those communities, if the highway just cuts through and doesn't have an access point in that community, then it serves no benefit to that community.

Southside Chicago has definitely been screwed over when it comes to rail access. The city destroyed too many old neighborhoods and commercial areas in the Southside and did very little to provide adequate rail access to the Southside.

Most places in town near an expressway have on ramps that are not far away. Maybe like a 10 min. drive on the street to the next one and there still are plenty of Commercial areas on the south side esp. near the Dan Ryan. It however shifted them out of the Neighborhoods. The problem with rail access is you have to tear down a lot to build a new line or extend one. If an highway is available putting the rail line in it kills two birds with one stone. Other parts of town didn't really get much new rail access either, it was just that about 70-80% of the El(esp. the parts not on the expressway) were built long before the 1950ies.

Also what drove the construction of the early EL was a bit different than now. The EL was built to compete against horse and carriage and latter Electric Street Cars and so the routes are not built to serve the widest possible area. It also was built to drive development near the tracks back them and increase land values sometime way out the burbs. The CTA really rationalized it in the 50ies when it took over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2014, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,342,346 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Not really. One bad Assumption I read on these boards is that the highway only serves people living in the burbs and helps them get downtown. Not true.

If you have a large enough city then people also need to be able to move quickly around it for work and for pleasure. The expressways are filled at rush hour but not just with people heading downtown to the CBD but to places all over the city and both in and out of it. You could live in Oak Park but work on the near north side. You could live on the north side but need to get somewhere on the near south side. Rail isn't as useful as you would think because unless both your destination and home are near it, then you have to resort to the very slow bus to get to the station.

Right now I am taking a class on the North side of town. I used rail to get to it, but can use the expressways to drive to it. When I use rail I gain a faster trip than by car in the mourning on the week day but loss out at other times because I can drive faster. The only reason why I do it is because the cost is low and the train isn't too slow because I don't have to transfer and I can get a ride to the station so no need to wait on the bus. However on the weekend I also need to go and on that day I drive because there is no traffic. If I were forced to use public transit only, I would be forced to always take the slower and less flexible method of travel. I also sometimes work in the burbs and with my car I can get to work where there is no train(or just a commuter train) and poor bus service.

Likewise I know a person who lives in the west burbs and works in the near south side. She could use rail to get to work, but the EL station she needs to use to get to work isn't in an safe location crime wise. Having the highway is to her a blessing.

Highways too add more accessibility to the communities they go through. Areas of the City that are far from an Highway are not easy or welcoming to drive to and sometimes don't have much in the way of useful transit either. There is no EL service to Beverly on the Southside just Metra trains that are a tad more expensive and run less often and are not well tied into the rest of the system.

Also although I do save money by using rail. I also get some hassles like being exposed to very cold weather, having to stand because there may be no seat available when I come home, the smell of BM in the car due to some person, crazy people, loud people on the phone, people listing to the radio and singing as well as beggars.
You're missing the key part of my statement:

Quote:
Highways could be argued to be a benefit to some extent (local business access, access for going out of town, etc.), but less so in dense urban areas where cars don't dominate.
Highways are a benefit mostly to drivers, and to some extent, bus riders (but local bus routes more often times use local roads). A highway ripping through a densely populated neighborhood where driving isn't the primary mode of transportation is much more damaging than a benefit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2014, 02:28 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,865,412 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
You're missing the key part of my statement:



Highways are a benefit mostly to drivers, and to some extent, bus riders (but local bus routes more often times use local roads). A highway ripping through a densely populated neighborhood where driving isn't the primary mode of transportation is much more damaging than a benefit.
There are not many places like that. There are places where Transit use is high but outside of Manhattan there is no place where transit use is primary. It just is too slow, limited and inflexible to meet 100% of peoples needs 100% of the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2014, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,896 posts, read 7,668,317 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
There are not many places like that..
Yes, and there are a lot fewer of those places today than there were in the past, because we've spent our transportation dollars so heavily on road construction, over the last half-century.

Quote:
There are places where Transit use is high but outside of Manhattan there is no
place where transit use is primary. It just is too slow, limited and inflexible
to meet 100% of peoples needs 100% of the time
No transportation system meets 100% of people's needs, 100% of the time!
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