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 03-24-2014, 07:38 PM
 
12,303 posts, read 15,205,734 times
Reputation: 8109

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Right. It's as obvious as telling someone who's having trouble dating, "stop being single."
Sure, marry the first one who comes along?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-24-2014, 09:49 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
45,989 posts, read 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
As an example, the Loop elevated in Chicago carries an estimated 50,000 passengers on a two-track mainline. The nearby Eisenhower Expressway carries about four times that, but takes twelve lanes ( four each way plus shoulders) and is congested most of that time. Not that we should shut down the Eisenhower and convert to rail, of course. But can you imagine if the expressway didn't have a rail line down the middle and most of its passengers drove on the already congested highway?
Wikipedia claims 75,000 weekday riders.The busiest section of the Chicago L is the red line, within the loop and the closer in parts of the north side. Blue line might also be busier than the loop elevated.

None of the Chicago subways are operating at maximum capacity. The four-track Lexington Avenue line in Manhattan carries 1.3 million passengers daily, I don't think even the largest expressway comes close to that volume of traffic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2014, 09:53 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,569,036 times
Reputation: 4048
Maybe there's another possible scenario--instead of letting cities and regions accrete basically at random, without any center or organization, perhaps there could be some kind of organized structure to our cities, in order to better figure out how residential, commercial and industrial parts of the city can interrelate more efficiently and logically? Such a field of study could figure out ways for people to get between these structured points more efficiently and effectively. It should have a name, like "Municipal Organization" or "Civic Design" or some easy-to-remember two-word phrase to describe how we could engage in more logical planning of our urban regions. Anyone got any ideas?

Last edited by wburg; 03-24-2014 at 10:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2014, 10:03 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
45,989 posts, read 41,998,698 times
Reputation: 14810
Of course mass transit ridership could be much higher if destinations were planned or zoned to concentrate near areas of good transit. Building new rail lines without much density, commercial or residential is rather useless. Unless new development is planned along them [as is common in some Canadian cities].

But if that's not the case, it's not surprising most people won't find transit that convenient, and not use it. And most existing development is not like I describe, development does not tend to concentrated around low ridership transit corridors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,975 posts, read 4,082,457 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Right. It's as obvious as telling someone who's having trouble dating, "stop being single."
Do you have an arguement that actually addresses the role of time valuation in determining mass transit usage? The psychology and sociology behind dating is well beyond the scope of this thread...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 11:40 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,975 posts, read 4,082,457 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Of course mass transit ridership could be much higher if destinations were planned or zoned to concentrate near areas of good transit. Building new rail lines without much density, commercial or residential is rather useless. Unless new development is planned along them [as is common in some Canadian cities].

But if that's not the case, it's not surprising most people won't find transit that convenient, and not use it. And most existing development is not like I describe, development does not tend to concentrated around low ridership transit corridors.
You wouldn't have to master plan anything--just stop subsidizing roads and utility infrastructure.

The further you drive, the more you pay on road usage fees and tolls. (Fuel taxes haven't kept up with road maintenance and construction, and don't take into account that we are driving more fuel efficient vehicles than 20-30 years ago--using less gas, but still wear-and-tear on the highways).
The further the electric wire and water pipes have to go out, the more you pay per unit.
The further the garbage truck has to drive to get to your house, the more you pay.
(Emergency services, however, SHOULD be subsidized--a form of insurance)

Developers must pay to expand utilities into new developments, and mass transit improvements in under-served areas that are dense and have existing traffic issues (BIG issue here in South Florida!). Of course, they can factor this into the prices of the homes they sell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 11:49 AM
 
Location: Chicago
38,690 posts, read 89,233,190 times
Reputation: 29451
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992 View Post
Do you have an arguement that actually addresses the role of time valuation in determining mass transit usage?
Yes, and I have already made them here. Feel free to review my other posts in this thread at your leisure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992 View Post
The psychology and sociology behind dating is well beyond the scope of this thread...
My post made no attempt to address the psychology or sociology behind dating. It was an illustration, by way of comparison, of the absurd simplicity of "live closer to work" as an answer to long commute times that ignores the complex decision-making process that goes into determining where to live.

Last edited by Drover; 03-25-2014 at 12:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 01:31 PM
bu2
 
10,049 posts, read 6,448,118 times
Reputation: 4172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
Yes, and I have already made them here. Feel free to review my other posts in this thread at your leisure.

My post made no attempt to address the psychology or sociology behind dating. It was an illustration, by way of comparison, of the absurd simplicity of "live closer to work" as an answer to long commute times that ignores the complex decision-making process that goes into determining where to live.
It also ignores the reality that Americans are changing jobs more and more frequently and that moving is expensive (edit-I see that you already made that comment).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 02:02 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,569,036 times
Reputation: 4048
If you assumed that "live closer to work" is the entire argument, that's the first mistake. I mentioned the line within the context of the undesirability of long commutes, also taking into consideration popular issues like the economics of commuting and our effect on the environment. In terms of living in a more "green" manner, there is no single way to reduce your carbon footprint more than living closer to work--so if you are interested in reducing your carbon footprint (and I'm aware that not everyone is) it should be a factor people consider.

The other assumption people are making here is that each of us is an individual with absolutely zero control over the world around us--we just have to deal with the reality of cars and long commutes, because we're just a powerless atom in a huge system. But part of the whole idea of this "urban planning" concept is the idea that we can make more rational decisions about how we design our cities, to facilitate use by different modes, shorten commutes, and promote conservation by design, rather than by enforcement. Of course, this also gets blown out of proportion by those who fear an all-powerful police state, but I'm just as uncomfortable with fascism as I'm sure the rest of you are, so please take my word for it that I have no interest in forcing all of you into Soviet-style concrete apartment blocks.

The analogy to dating is worthwhile to explore. If you have an interest in no longer being single, but don't want to lift a finger to change your situation, you are unlikely to. But if you do want to make a change, you can do various things. You can find ways to make yourself more attractive (exercise, hygiene, clothing, dancing lessons) that might require some expenditure of money and effort on your part. You might reassess your standards and expectations of what you are looking for in a partner (looks, weight, education, income) to see if your standards are unrealistic. You might change your location to a place where singles are more likely to gather, in order to provide more opportunities to meet someone. If you just want to sit at home in front of the tube eating Cheetos, Mr/Miss Right is unlikely to drop into your lap--and the expectation that if they don't, the world is just an unfair and evil place, isn't very realistic. And, if you're just fine with being single, that's fine too. Just don't put down others for wanting something better.

Similarly, if you hate the idea of spending excessive amounts of time in a car, hate commuting, or are concerned about the effects your own behavior has on the environment, you can find ways to lower your carbon footprint that might require some expenditure of money and effort (like higher-efficiency cars, or a bicycle, or taking transit.) Or you might change your expectations about what you require in a home (like big yards, lots of parking, seeing/hearing neighbors, noise from traffic etc.) to reflect your other priorities. Or you might move to a place that is more walkable/bikeable and has better transit, to give you more potential job choices that can be reached by those other modes and thus open up other opportunities. And if you don't mind a long commute, that's fine too. Just don't put down others for wanting something better.

This reflects my own experience. 20 or so years ago I lived in a suburb and had a five-mile commute (on a bike, I didn't have a license or want one.) It was not very pleasant. Then I got a job in a nearby city that meant instead of a five-mile bike commute, I had a two-hour bus commute. That was even less pleasant. But I got the opportunity to move into that city, into a neighborhood near one of the job sites I worked at, and right on a light-rail line that took me to the other job site. Rent was about the same. I fell in love with the neighborhood, but fortunately there are an enormous amount of jobs within a few miles, so even a few years later when I got a job that required a car, my commute was only 5-10 minutes on surface streets. And when I stopped needing a car for work, I stopped driving to work.

It's also kind of applicable to dating. In that old suburb, girls weren't very receptive to a guy who didn't have a car. But one side benefit of the new neighborhood was that a lot of girls there didn't drive cars either, and liked guys who rode bikes. Plus, instead of being isolated in a suburban neighborhood except when I hiked to the local mall, I was in a more populated area with many more opportunities for social interaction with those girls who liked bikes, which resulted in a lot more successful dating opportunities. Eventually I married one of 'em, and we're still in the same neighborhood--and neither of us drive to work! In fact, walking home from work with my wife through my beautiful neighborhood is one of my favorite pastimes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2014, 02:13 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,861,397 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Wikipedia claims 75,000 weekday riders.The busiest section of the Chicago L is the red line, within the loop and the closer in parts of the north side. Blue line might also be busier than the loop elevated.

None of the Chicago subways are operating at maximum capacity. The four-track Lexington Avenue line in Manhattan carries 1.3 million passengers daily, I don't think even the largest expressway comes close to that volume of traffic.
The EL mostly serves the city itself and there are some duplicate commuter routes into the burbs. Oak park and Evanston for instance have both El and Commuter train access.

Most of the people who would be driving in rush would not be heading downtown. They may be heading through it but not heading to it Could you imagine that many people on the expressways. Yikes!

http://www.transitchicago.com/assets...012-Annual.pdf

Not sure how to translate boarding into rides,but the EL had about 730,000 boarding per day total, the bus 935,000 and Metra 305,000. That is a lot of people off the highways and streets. No the EL as a whole is far from capacity but then again the Cities population had been dropping since the 50ies.

Last edited by chirack; 03-25-2014 at 02:30 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