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.
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.
No place? Or just no place in the US? Assuming you mean the latter, large sections of the outer boroughs of NYC, driving isn't the primary mode for travel, either, not just Manhattan. It's hard to measure, though you can make a rough estimate by % driving to work (city-wide average is 29%) and car ownership levels. You can find sections of Boston close in, as well as San Francisco where the same is true. And I'd be surprised if driving is the primary mode travel for Chicago in/around the Loop and the closer in parts of the North Side.
But one issue with poor access for drivers in non-auto oriented places is that people with poorer transit access have trouble visiting (commuter rail is the usual solution to this). Of course, you can go in the other direction: the lack of good transit in outer parts of the city / metro make access hard for non-drivers. The NYC metro can feel a bit cumbersome: some of it is a pain to drive in, while others are a pain not to drive in.
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.
That's not true. There aren't a lot of places like that in the US, but many cities have dense, walkable neighborhoods. Even if the primary mode is the car, a highway would be a detriment in a lit of places. Of course, there are a lot of factors that would determine its impact, but highways don't impact dense neighborhoods in the same way rapid transit rail does.
No place? Or just no place in the US? Assuming you mean the latter, large sections of the outer boroughs of NYC, driving isn't the primary mode for travel, either, not just Manhattan. It's hard to measure, though you can make a rough estimate by % driving to work (city-wide average is 29%) and car ownership levels. You can find sections of Boston close in, as well as San Francisco where the same is true. And I'd be surprised if driving is the primary mode travel for Chicago in/around the Loop and the closer in parts of the North Side.
But one issue with poor access for drivers in non-auto oriented places is that people with poorer transit access have trouble visiting (commuter rail is the usual solution to this). Of course, you can go in the other direction: the lack of good transit in outer parts of the city / metro make access hard for non-drivers. The NYC metro can feel a bit cumbersome: some of it is a pain to drive in, while others are a pain not to drive in.
There is not place in the entire world that is 100% primary transit use, not even Manhattan. I think you are speaking in absolutes when that isn't what you mean. Do the majority of people in Manhattan rely on transit and walking, yes, but there are people who drive as a primary mode of transportation in Manhattan, so it isn't an absolute.
There is not place in the entire world that is 100% primary transit use, not even Manhattan. I think you are speaking in absolutes when that isn't what you mean. Do the majority of people in Manhattan rely on transit and walking, yes, but there are people who drive as a primary mode of transportation in Manhattan, so it isn't an absolute.
I wasn't speaking in absolutes, not sure why you thinking I am. I'm referring to a place where driving is a minority transportation mode or as Chirack said transit is the primary mode.
Where you once had a set of homes down the street from shopping, business, and entertainment that you could probably walk to, you now have a super-slab in the middle of the same area that you cannot walk across. If there is a pedestrain bridge, it is at least a mile or two from everyone's homes. People who never had a car because they didn't need one, now are seperated from those businesses they used to frequent and must buy transportation just to survive..
Because they no longer have access to these community services and shopping and schools, the perceived value of the land goes down and so does the value of the neighbors collective property. With decreased value comes slums and crime.
I don't quite understand how it works. Outside of destroying the houses they are built on, why do interstates divide communities so deeply? It's not like there aren't streets and sidewalks that are still there on overpasses and underpasses; anyone who wants to cross can (in theory) cross the interstate without actually setting foot on the interstate itself. So why do they isolate so deeply, and devastate communities that are on the "wrong side" of them?
I think there are a few factors:
1) Highways encourage travelling large distances in a short amount of time (because of high-speed driving). As a follow-on effect, businesses don't need to be located near their customers in order to be accessible. And residents don't need to be near their workplace in order to access it. As businesses and residences spread out, highway access becomes an issue. If you live somewhere with no on-ramp, then you are distanced from these employment and commerce centers.
2) The physical footprint of the highway can destroy homes previously built in a location, but can also prevent construction in the area on or near the highway. Most highways have medians and shoulder space. Where they pass through population centers, they are typically either above or below street level. In either case, they (usually) prevent construction of structures in the area of the highway itself--without the highway you could walk or drive through an uninterrupted series of buildings; with the highway, you walk or drive past a 100+ ft. deadzone where there are no buildings fronting the roadway that passes over or under the freeway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
There is not place in the entire world that is 100% primary transit use, not even Manhattan. I think you are speaking in absolutes when that isn't what you mean. Do the majority of people in Manhattan rely on transit and walking, yes, but there are people who drive as a primary mode of transportation in Manhattan, so it isn't an absolute.
You are moving the goalposts. Before you were talking about places where transit use was the primary mode of transportation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blktoptrvl
They litterally divide a community.
Where you once had a set of homes down the street from shopping, business, and entertainment that you could probably walk to, you now have a super-slab in the middle of the same area that you cannot walk across. If there is a pedestrain bridge, it is at least a mile or two from everyone's homes. People who never had a car because they didn't need one, now are seperated from those businesses they used to frequent and must buy transportation just to survive..
Because they no longer have access to these community services and shopping and schools, the perceived value of the land goes down and so does the value of the neighbors collective property. With decreased value comes slums and crime.
Here's a pic of the street my dad grew up on. Except that now the street is divided by interstate 240 and a noise wall. Use your imagination how this impacts living here.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
I wasn't speaking in absolutes, not sure why you thinking I am. I'm referring to a place where driving is a minority transportation mode or as Chirack said transit is the primary mode.
That was totally my error, I didn't realize I clicked on your post and not Chirack, so that post was directed towards him, not you.
You are moving the goalposts. Before you were talking about places where transit use was the primary mode of transportation.
Not moving the goalposts, just commenting on someone who was using absolutes, which there is no where that uses transit 100%. My statements have all stayed the same.
Here's a pic of the street my dad grew up on. Except that now the street is divided by interstate 240 and a noise wall. Use your imagination how this impacts living here.
This looks like many neighborhoods in North Denver with the older homes and the I-70 or US 6 soundwall.
Ironically for I-70 they could have built it 1 to 3 miles further north and been in a very industrial/warehouse area, missing 90% of the residential areas.
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.
