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.
Also, I don't always need gloves (which one of you tried to turn into a discussion about gloves v mittens no less) to drive the car, but I make sure I have a pair either in my pocket on on the seat of the car. Ditto a hat. Why? In case I get stuck somewhere and have to walk. In case it snows again before I come home, always a possibility with Colorado's changeable weather. It has NOTHING to do with taking these items on public transit, or whether mittens are better than gloves. (They're not; they're clumsier for driving.) In general, women do not go around in boots all day like guys sometimes do.
I think you missed with what I was trying to say. My point was it was weird to me that having gloves (and hat, while I use a hood) was only a just in case thing rather than a given for winter, won't you need them once you get out of your car? Mittens aren't better than gloves for driving, they're better once you get out of the car. I don't wear either while driving, but I always have either in my jacket pocket once I leave the car, I'd have to purposefully take them out not to have them.
^^I think it's the difference in the weather in MA vs the weather in CO. CO is sunny and often feels warmer than it really is, if you're just out for a few minutes, say, walking across the parking lot to your office. You keep this stuff in your car, just in case. Also, a nice day can go bad really fast here. You drive to work in the bright sunshine, and it's snowing like heck when you leave.
Re: dress shoes, etc, if you're just going to walk a short distance, again, into the office or into a restaurant from a parking lot or the street right in front, you wear the shoes and leave the boots in the car, again, in case you need them for some reason, e.g. car won't start and you have to walk to get help, etc.
So I'm sure this has been said, but most cities don't have a good mass transit system. For example, St Louis has a metrolink train system, but it's very limited to a few key stops downtown. There are a lot of people whose office isn't nearby a subway stop. Then most other decent size cities only have a bus system which is limited, and time wise it's horrible. The key to people's commutes is time. In Chicago I take the Metra suburban rail as it can get me to downtown Chicago from Mount Prospect, 18 miles away, in 30 minutes on a rush hour express train. Driving would easily take over an hour, and parking is outrageous in downtown Chicago.
Then due to the amount of people in the area it makes public transportation feasible as traffic is horrible, and there is a lot of people still living in the city center. In commuter cities like St Louis or Cincinnati people don't live in the city center, they all live in the suburbs. Therefore the city can't support a public transportation system outside of a small bus system as it doesn't require the funding to run a massive rail network. Rail networks aren't cheap, but they are the most efficient to moving a lot of people quickly. If you have a huge user base, you can do it, but it's rare outside of very large cities/areas like Chicago, NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, and DC.
This has been my contention throughout this thread. Transit has advantages if you live in some of the very large, very dense urban areas but that's not where most Americans live.
To make transit a feasible alternative, even just for commuting for work, in most places you have to work in the CBD or along a major bus/rail line. You have to live within walking distance of a bus or rail stop. You have to work the same hours as the buses or rail run.
To make going car-less work, you've got to live somewhere where you not only can commute but that has all the necessities and amenities within walking distance or with reasonable access to bus/rail. Most American metros, even large ones, simply don't have that. I think that you also have to not have young children who need to be taken to/picked up from day care/after school programs or even older children who go to places like doctors offices or orthodontists or private music lessons, etc.
This has been my contention throughout this thread. Transit has advantages if you live in some of the very large, very dense urban areas but that's not where most Americans live.
To make transit a feasible alternative, even just for commuting for work, in most places you have to work in the CBD or along a major bus/rail line. You have to live within walking distance of a bus or rail stop. You have to work the same hours as the buses or rail run.
To make going car-less work, you've got to live somewhere where you not only can commute but that has all the necessities and amenities within walking distance or with reasonable access to bus/rail. Most American metros, even large ones, simply don't have that. I think that you also have to not have young children who need to be taken to/picked up from day care/after school programs or even older children who go to places like doctors offices or orthodontists or private music lessons, etc.
You don't need to live somewhere very large or very dense to make transit work. Portland is doing pretty god and it is not a large or dense city. It takes good planning. (and a good systems of transfers and frequency to make the transit trip easier).
But let's differentiate. You do not need to make every trip transit accessible. You can plan your cities to be organized into neighborhoods with town squares and main streets. That is what used to be common practice. Main street can have all of your key amenities located in it, in walking distance of most people. And each city can support multiple main streets/town centers.
For most trips, most people only travel in a 2-3 mile radius. This is a radius that is completely doable with "Active" transportation like walking and biking. We don't need to make people 100% car-less, but we do need to make it easier for people to use the right tool for the job of getting around. And not only have one option.
Most places in the US could make small changes so people are not so car dependent, especially since most of the population lives in metro areas.
This has been my contention throughout this thread. Transit has advantages if you live in some of the very large, very dense urban areas but that's not where most Americans live.
To make transit a feasible alternative, even just for commuting for work, in most places you have to work in the CBD or along a major bus/rail line. You have to live within walking distance of a bus or rail stop. You have to work the same hours as the buses or rail run.
To make going car-less work, you've got to live somewhere where you not only can commute but that has all the necessities and amenities within walking distance or with reasonable access to bus/rail. Most American metros, even large ones, simply don't have that. I think that you also have to not have young children who need to be taken to/picked up from day care/after school programs or even older children who go to places like doctors offices or orthodontists or private music lessons, etc.
All that needs to be done is housing to be roughly 3,000psm or more, safe walking and biking routes around stations (biking allows people to commute much further to a transit stop as well as making it easier for people to bike that live closer to work.) Also, as long as trains run at 10-20 minutes from 4am-1am, should be enough to handle most people's work schedules.
Also another thing to consider, both parents are not needed when picking kids up or taking them to school, even having one family member commute via alternative transportation would be enough to have 1/4 of all commuters to use alternative forms of transportation which reduces traffic and makes commuting by work much easier to do because there are less cars on the road.
While most American metros are not above 3,000psm, there are a number of cities that are, which then suburban areas can be handled between a mix of park and rides, and TOD districts around each station.
You don't need to live somewhere very large or very dense to make transit work. Portland is doing pretty god and it is not a large or dense city. It takes good planning. (and a good systems of transfers and frequency to make the transit trip easier).
But let's differentiate. You do not need to make every trip transit accessible. You can plan your cities to be organized into neighborhoods with town squares and main streets. That is what used to be common practice. Main street can have all of your key amenities located in it, in walking distance of most people. And each city can support multiple main streets/town centers.
For most trips, most people only travel in a 2-3 mile radius. This is a radius that is completely doable with "Active" transportation like walking and biking. We don't need to make people 100% car-less, but we do need to make it easier for people to use the right tool for the job of getting around. And not only have one option.
Most places in the US could make small changes so people are not so car dependent, especially since most of the population lives in metro areas.
Really, how do you suggest doing such? They're all up and running now. Aren't any new ones being started that I know of.
All that needs to be done is housing to be roughly 3,000psm or more, safe walking and biking routes around stations (biking allows people to commute much further to a transit stop as well as making it easier for people to bike that live closer to work.) Also, as long as trains run at 10-20 minutes from 4am-1am, should be enough to handle most people's work schedules.
3000psm is not nearly dense enough. There's tons of suburbs in Northern New Jersey with that kind of density, and it isn't really practical to live without a car in most of them. The places where it is practical tend to be more like 10,000ppm and above.
I live in such a suburb. The nearest train station is 3 miles away. It's a LONG walk, I've done it. Not a bad bike ride... if it weren't for the 400+ foot elevation change. But hey, only 2 miles to the grocery store, or a 1.1 mile walk and a 20 minute bus ride..
The only place I've seen true "town squares" is in eastern Pennsylvania, a different breed of cat altogether than W. PA.
What are some differences?
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.
