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 03-14-2014, 05:11 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
45,990 posts, read 41,989,613 times
Reputation: 14810

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Natural decline rate, you mean. Western countries have negative natural growth rates for the most part. They have immigration driving population growth. Without that, they'd mostly be in decline, the US included.
I was referring to the change from 1950 to 1990, which had a period (baby boom) where natural growth was rather high.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-14-2014, 05:21 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
45,990 posts, read 41,989,613 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Interesting blog entry that ties in a bit to the article I posted in the OP.

Why do we care about mode share? | City Notes
Some good points, others not as much:

Quote:
Why not have widely-disseminated statistics about the percentage of people in every metropolitan region who can walk to a transit stop?
Might be a good statistic, but it doesn't say much of what transit there is, and how useful it is.

Quote:
Or make a bigger deal about the number of people who can reach some given percentage of metro area jobs via transit in a reasonable time frame?
That could be better, though without transit frequency it could be an issue. And if you're interested in how much use transit gets, and what types are successful at getting high transit use, then mode share is the most sensible measure.

Quote:
If New York City, with one of the most comprehensive transit systems in the world, can only get 50% of its commuters on buses and trains, then surely most of the distinction between it and, say, Asian cities with much higher transit mode shares isnít the quality of their systems (although they may be of higher quality), but the increased misery of driving in ever-denser places.
Or New York City's transit isn't as comprehensive as the author think it is; it's subpar for non-radial commutes, most transit systems are hard on non-downtown commutes, but some do better job than NYC's

But Alon Levy made all the criticisms I could make and them:

Why do we care about mode share? | City Notes

see both posts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 05:36 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
45,990 posts, read 41,989,613 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Why do you find stupid about it? I think the author sums up my sentiments towards urbanism quite concisely.
I was referring not to the author but those he was arguing against.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 06:29 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,681,041 times
Reputation: 26671
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Some good points, others not as much:



Might be a good statistic, but it doesn't say much of what transit there is, and how useful it is.



That could be better, though without transit frequency it could be an issue. And if you're interested in how much use transit gets, and what types are successful at getting high transit use, then mode share is the most sensible measure.



Or New York City's transit isn't as comprehensive as the author think it is; it's subpar for non-radial commutes, most transit systems are hard on non-downtown commutes, but some do better job than NYC's

But Alon Levy made all the criticisms I could make and them:

Why do we care about mode share? | City Notes

see both posts
Walkscore's new scores for transit and biking are pretty good for this actually. I do think that "usefulness" is quite overlooked.

If the only bus within a few blocks for your place doesn't go where you need, you won't use it. I have one bus within a block that has a good route, but only runs once ever 30 minutes. It is one of those things, that if it ran more, more people would use it. But since it is a pretty quiet route, it isn't up for frequency improvements. On the up note, there is a bus route that is quite similar, 2 blocks away on a similar 30 minute schedule. And another, around 3 blocks away, that does parallel it a bit that runs often and late, so I can take the limited bus a block away on the way, and if I am out late downtown, take the other bus home.

That probably the other transit problem, it isn't easy to figure out all of the ways you can get to your destination, if you miss your intended bus. There needs to be a smarter map.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 10:08 PM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,333,167 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
That wasn't what I was referring to. It was mentioned that 40% of the US population was rural in 1950. Since the rural population is much lower today, that suggests that some of the postwar suburban growth was from rural to suburbia rather than from city or existing suburb to new suburbs, as I would have assumed. But that couldn't have been true for Boston, Massachusetts was urban in 1950 (and maybe 1910) as it is today; urbanization was complete by the early 20th century. Very little of Boston's postwar suburban growth could have been from rural to suburbia. Same is probably true for New York City and a number of other Northeastern metros, at least coastal ones.

Missouri, on the other hand, has had a similar population and growth in the 20th century as Massachusetts, but it became less rural as throughout the 20th century, so it had more newer suburbs as it urbanized (urban in the sense of not rural).
You are assuming that all of the growth of Boston's suburbs came from Massachusetts. I would disagree. The rapid urbanization/suburbanization of many rural areas in the north and west came from other states. In NE, a lot of people from rural Maine and New Hampshire moved south into the Boston area, settling in both Boston and what are today Boston suburbs but would have probably been much more separate cities like Revere, Lowell, etc. that had their own industries 60 years ago.

Furthermore, a lot of rural white southerners, particularly from Appalachia, moved north to PA, western NY, Ohio, Michigan, etc, so other metros also experienced influxes of newcomers from out of state. We know that during the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl forced many Midwestern farmers off their land. Many just moved "into town" but many more moved to the Pacific Coast, especially California. Since a lot of these people ended up as agricultural workers, they probably settled in/around what were then California's small cities and market towns.

The 1950s and 1960s were the last decades of "the Great Migration" which was the movement of rural blacks out of the South into the North and West from about WW I into the 1970s. Blacks did almost always settle in cities rather than in small towns once they left the South, but their movement into these new areas significantly contributed to the increasing pace of urbanization in the post-WW II era.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 10:10 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee Ex-ex-ex-urbs
358 posts, read 415,893 times
Reputation: 725
I had to use mass transit the last seven years and it was a drag. I finally bought a decent car last fall and it has been heaven again.

The bottom line is I don't like having to share my commute with a lot of noisy, obnoxious, loud, impersonal, chattering, stinking, loud, tedious, noisy, did I say loud?, people.

I'm so much more relaxed and positive when I get to work now it's wonderful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2014, 08:42 AM
 
Location: The Northeast - hoping one day the Northwest!
1,107 posts, read 1,130,047 times
Reputation: 1003
For myself, it's all about where you live. Some areas might have good public transportation (ie: NYC, Boston, Chicago) however some cities the public transportation is severely lacking. The town I grew up in Western Massachusetts basically didn't have any public transportation. Where I lived, to get to the closest bus you would have to walk 5 miles just one way. Even then the last route ended at 7:45pm. Not a good option at all.

In Boston even though they have the subway aka T, is it not 24 hours and late at night a friend of mine who lives in Boston told me it can be sketchy past midnight.

I now live outside Tampa, Fl and the buses in Tampa have two main routes that runs every 15 mins. However, most routes run every 1/2 hr or every hour. The routes though are horrible. There are a few major streets here that don't have buses. When I lived in Tampa - I was in an area that didn't have a bus. The closest one was about a 2 mile walk. Not bad, but that route doesn't go where I needed to go. For a while I was without a car. Everything started going wrong w/ my old one and it wasn't worth to fix it.

My husband every morning would drop me off at the bus stop where I needed to go to which was a 5 mile walk. That bus would actually drop me off right outside my work. At my work there were 4 bus lines. They all went close to the area where I lived... so when I left work - whatever bus I got on, I would text my husband and let him know if I was on the 1, 5, 6 or 18 since we had meeting spots. Luckily I got free bus since I was a student at the University of South Florida, but this whole process we had was beyond annoying. It took so much time out of our day.

We tried w/ me dropping him off, but since I had too much going on at wok and getting OT - he would be stuck at work waiting for me to pick him up. At the time no buses went to his work he would have to walk 2-3 miles to get to the bus, take it for a few miles and then walk 2 miles home. Not worth it.

Where we live now in a town north of Tampa... we actually live right on the bus route. However, because it's a town - the schedule is severely lacking. The buses run every 2 hours. I've seen a bus 2 times since we have moved here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2014, 12:34 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
45,990 posts, read 41,989,613 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
It didn't have to be that way--and many Depression era public housing experiments explored ways to build more communally oriented/higher-density but still comfortable neighborhoods, but they were put down as "collectivization" and otherwise Communist-inspired. The suburban pattern is based on low density--and mass transit works worst in low density. Which is why people who live in low-density suburbs generally don't use it, it is ill-suited to that housing form.
There are several tower-in-the park apartment complexes in Manhattan built by a labor unions. A few of the buildings are named for actual socialists, and some more by labor leaders [all the people the buildings are named after are Jewish]. One complex did a loan insured by the federal housing adminstration.

Cooperative Village - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2014, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,975 posts, read 4,081,823 times
Reputation: 1208
A thought experiment: Imagine if we didn't have any urban expressways and major thoroughfares, but we had instead winding local roads that take you 1-2 miles in the wrong direction before getting anywhere. But we did have trains that take you directly to employment and entertainment centers. I bet in that case people would take the trains. This hypothetical and woefully inadequate road system is the equivalent level of service of mass transit in most American cities. In the end, it all depends on the built environment and the quality of service.

I don't know how much I buy the personal time arguements seeing as most of us are all constantly connected to work during personal time anyways. Now if "personal time" is sitting in front of a TV, it's probably valued less than if it's, say, attending your son's soccer practice. Depends on the context and where each *individual* is in their life--nobody ever said *everybody* has the extra time to take the bus or train. Actually, the most effective way to get home from work earlier is to live closer to work! If personal time were such an issue, why all the suburbs and exurbs that are a 1 hour+ drive away from work? The fact is there ARE people willing to spend over an hour each way commuting, REGARDLESS of the mode of the commute.

Finally, in a heavily congested city, there are psychological and sociological issues that go along with being stuck in traffic every day, that's why we get road rage and many accidents caused by aggressive driving trying to "make up" lost time. When you feel you have no choice but to drive aggressively and speed in traffic to get where you need to be on time, to the point that you blast the horn when someone delays 2 seconds to turn left, it has become a significant societal issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2014, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,252,873 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992 View Post
I don't know how much I buy the personal time arguements seeing as most of us are all constantly connected to work during personal time anyways. Now if "personal time" is sitting in front of a TV, it's probably valued less than if it's, say, attending your son's soccer practice.
"Personal time" isn't always about "things you want to do." Daycare, for example, is very expensive, and "late fees" can be as high as $5 per minute. If driving actually takes less time to get to your child's daycare, how many people are going to fiddle around on public transportation simply because they like it so much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992 View Post
Actually, the most effective way to get home from work earlier is to live closer to work! If personal time were such an issue, why all the suburbs and exurbs that are a 1 hour+ drive away from work?
You act as if that thought has never occurred in the minds of most people. Like you're going to tell someone, "Hey, you know what would make your commute shorter? Live closer to your job." At that point, they whip at their checkbook, and advise you to become a consultant on how to shorten people's commutes. Within a year, you'd have a New York Times Best Seller titled "How to Shorten Your Commute: Simply Live Closer to Work."

In the article I posted in the OP, the author talks about some guy living in Maine who says people who don't ride transit are "selfish." When the author points out that the guy didn't even ride transit himself, the guy says "Well, that's only because I have a good job here and my wife is happy at her job, and her family is here." The author made the following point:

Quote:
Okay, so he's absolved from any responsibility because he's close to a well paying job and his wife. He has a valid personal reason for living far from a large city. Other people are just being selfish. Other people should modify their lifestyles for the good of society. They should either accept a worse job close to home so they don't have to commute as far, or accept crowded living conditions closer to their work. This guy "compromises a great deal" to satisfy his own lifestyle choices, but other people who take on the responsibility of maintaining their own home, getting up in the dark to get to work, and so on, well, that's just not the same thing. Wonder why his wife can't "compromise a great deal" and move into "dense, mixed use settlement" for the good of society?
What makes him any different from someone who lives in a far away exurb for "valid personal reasons?"

Last edited by BajanYankee; 03-21-2014 at 12:31 PM..
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
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