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 04-02-2014, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,326,260 times
Reputation: 3562

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Cause there are far fewer sexual assaults and robberies or pick pocketing happening to people inside of cars and please people do get killed by transit accidents too.
It's a matter of scale. Show me numbers that state that transit deaths even scrape the surface of car-related deaths.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2014, 08:26 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,856,291 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
While everyone has their preferences here, both roads and transit are more effective and efficient when properly funded. You do realize that people in Europe aren't restricted from staying late at the office because they need to catch the last express bus to the suburbs, right?

Cars are faster, yes, in many cases. Cars and roads are cheaper? I don't know about that. How much money has been pumped into roads and driving in this country (consider how much the middle class has spent directly out of their pockets, and not just taxes)? Much much more than transit in the US. Which is why people don't take transit as much; no one wants to ride a bus to connect to another bus for 45 mins when they could drive much more quickly. However, it's not like that everywhere...and it may not be like that here forever.

Btw - Provide some proof how it would be all around cheaper if everyone drove vs everyone took transit (including taxes, out of pocket expenses, etc). Then tell me which poor countries have a high rate of car ownership in an auto centric society.
The same amount that would have been pumped into roads. Busses don't levitate down the street and both cars, trucks and busses need roads. The middle class has spent their own money not the government. It sure as heck would be cheaper for the tax payer but there would be other costs associated with increased traffic and the need to make more trips. The reason why it would be cheaper is simple no busses and no bus drivers to pay. No trains to buy and no track to maintain.

Unless that bus and all the busses you need to get from your place to where you work run 24/7 you are restricted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 08:30 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,856,291 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
It's a matter of scale. Show me numbers that state that transit deaths even scrape the surface of car-related deaths.
It says something about how limited, unpleasant and problematic public transit is and forever will be if people would rather drive than take the bus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 08:31 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,980 posts, read 102,527,356 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Actually I looked at both of them on Google Maps, very cute towns, but they were essentially fountains in the middle of a road in each downtown. I would hope they were surrounded with shops, they are in the downtown area after all. But not sure why having a fountain/statue in the middle of the road would somehow be better or more of a town square than Pioneer Courthouse Square which is designed for people to use and is also surrounded by shops.

Don't get me wrong, I thought those two examples looked really cute small town feeling, but had they been surrounded by a square for people rather than roads for cars, that would have been more of what I would consider a town square.

They do call Pioneer Courthouse Square Portland's living room for a reason.


You still don't get it. Those towns are old. Chambersburg was established in 1730, long before the automobile. It was laid out in 1764. It's hardly an "auto-centric" place.
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bloomsburg was founded in 1802.
Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portland didn't even get its start until 1843.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 09:01 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,499,569 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
It says something about how limited, unpleasant and problematic public transit is and forever will be if people would rather drive than take the bus.
Not everyone feels the same way about public transit as you do, and opinions can change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 09:05 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,499,569 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
You still don't get it. Those towns are old. Chambersburg was established in 1730, long before the automobile. It was laid out in 1764. It's hardly an "auto-centric" place.
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bloomsburg was founded in 1802.
Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portland didn't even get its start until 1843.
I am sure they weren't auto-centric when they were first created, no one is arguing that fact, but today they are nothing more than fountains and statues in the middle of the road in downtown with cars driving around them instead of people walking around them.

Pioneer Courthouse Square wasn't even built until the 80s yet it is a much more pedestrian focused town square than the two examples you gave. Would you want a town square occupied by cars or pedestrians?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 09:09 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,856,291 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Not everyone feels the same way about public transit as you do, and opinions can change.
I say this as someone who supports public transit and someone who on occasion uses it. People don't want to be crammed into smelly electric trains or busses that crawl at snail's pace if driving is an option. Unless there is no parking or expensive parking public transit losses. Unless there is god awful traffic that would take me an hour either way and there will be an seat on the train again transit will lose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 09:15 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,499,569 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
I say this as someone who supports public transit and someone who on occasion uses it. People don't want to be crammed into smelly electric trains or busses that crawl at snail's pace if driving is an option. Unless there is no parking or expensive parking public transit losses. Unless there is god awful traffic that would take me an hour either way but there won't be an seat on the train again transit will lose.
I have been to Chicago many times, I wouldn't call the speed they move at snail's pace. Heck, the light rail train where I live takes the exact same amount of time as it does to drive if you don't hit any traffic and didn't need to park when you got to downtown Jersey City.

Oh and if one has to cram into a train car, that means a lot of people commute that way. That is like saying no one goes downtown because it is too crowded and busy.

Transit wins when the trains are full of people riding them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 09:25 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,856,291 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I have been to Chicago many times, I wouldn't call the speed they move at snail's pace. Heck, the light rail train where I live takes the exact same amount of time as it does to drive if you don't hit any traffic and didn't need to park when you got to downtown Jersey City.

Oh and if one has to cram into a train car, that means a lot of people commute that way. That is like saying no one goes downtown because it is too crowded and busy.

Transit wins when the trains are full of people riding them.
Compared to an car, yeap. Lots of people commute downtown that way, else not nearly as much. In the case of the EL only as fast or faster in rush hour otherwise not. Here is an BRT project that IMHO will be an good idea, but still look at the speed difference:

http://chi.streetsblog.org/2013/11/2...rapid-transit/

18.3 for the car and only 8.7 with the bus currently. Even with the BRT projected speed of the car is 16.57 or 17.4 and the bus 15.9. So slower even before you throw in wait times for the bus and transfer times and crawls on other busses. The EL's top speed is 55MPH at best and often less than that. While cars on the expressway often exceed the 55mph limit going up to 60-70mph outside of rush.

Last edited by chirack; 04-02-2014 at 09:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2014, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,499,569 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Compared to an car, yeap. Lots of people commute downtown that way, else not nearly as much. In the case of the EL only as fast or faster in rush hour otherwise not. Here is an BRT project that IMHO will be an good idea, but still look at the speed difference:

CTA Releases Environmental Assessment for Ashland Bus Rapid Transit | Streetsblog Chicago

18.3 for the car and only 8.7 with the bus currently. Even with the BRT projected speed of the car is 16.57 or 17.4 and the bus 15.9. So slower even before you throw in wait times for the bus and transfer times and crawls on other busses. The EL's top speed is 55MPH at best and often less than that. While cars on the expressway often exceed the 55mph limit going up to 60-70mph outside of rush.
So does this mean no one rides the El outside of rush hour because cars are faster? Also if you commute to work downtown, chances are most people commute during rush hour.
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