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 04-09-2014, 05:32 AM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,345,135 times
Reputation: 3562

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by i_love_autumn View Post
As an adult,I have always lived in a city too small[67,000 pop.]for mass transit,but I would have loved it for all the great reasons that you gave,and I totally agree with!

BTW, if you are able to read and relax on transit then obviously transit most certainly does not always mean everyone has to ride standing up and packed like sardines as in the photos posted in the beginning of this thread by BajanYankee,right?
That's exactly right. There are plenty of transit routes where trains and buses are comfortable enough to read. I read most of the time when I'm on the bus, assuming the ride is at least 20 minutes. The busy routes in NYC, Boston, Chicago, etc. are certainly a daily challenge for those that need to take the rush hour trains and buses, but every transit line is not packed every day all day, just like all highways aren't packed every day all day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-09-2014, 05:36 AM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,345,135 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
??? As opposed to the "neighborhoods and trees destroyed" for transit riders?
If a taking occurs the affected property owners are compensated in both cases.
There is no standing for a "neighborhood" nor those claiming "collective rights" to complain.
I always assume you're out taking a joy ride in a car with the breeze in your hair, but instead you're always devoting yourself to transit conversations. Maybe you're a closet transit lover??? You know, you should embrace it, it'll feel like a real weight off your shoulders!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 06:10 AM
 
2,825 posts, read 3,358,359 times
Reputation: 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
While some people here find it hard believe that some people actually enjoy "sprawl" and prefer to live in it, you're suffering for the opposite issue: there's are also people that actually enjoy being in dense, urban areas. There are also plenty of people that aren't that particular either way.
"Suffering"?
Problem with the people that "actually enjoy being in dense, urban areas" is that they feel a need to impose that on other people in order to achieve their density goals. I see nothing meritorious about increasing population density just for the sake of higher density.

Who really has the problem here?
It's the urbanists that constantly refer to anything that isn't located downtown as "sprawl" - a term intended to be negative and derogatory. Perhaps more than anything else sprawl reflects de-centralization and a desire to not be centralized.

Contrary to the urbanists' fairy-tale land, "sprawl" is natural, preferred, necessary, and often spurred by the very local government policies intended to reduce it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 06:15 AM
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
45,992 posts, read 42,080,368 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
That's exactly right. There are plenty of transit routes where trains and buses are comfortable enough to read. I read most of the time when I'm on the bus, assuming the ride is at least 20 minutes. The busy routes in NYC, Boston, Chicago, etc. are certainly a daily challenge for those that need to take the rush hour trains and buses, but every transit line is not packed every day all day, just like all highways aren't packed every day all day.
Except transit is disproportionately used in a few dense crowded cities and the busiest routes have a large share of passengers. So it's not quite the same comparison as it is highways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 06:43 AM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,679,432 times
Reputation: 1843
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
"Suffering"?
Problem with the people that "actually enjoy being in dense, urban areas" is that they feel a need to impose that on other people in order to achieve their density goals. I see nothing meritorious about increasing population density just for the sake of higher density.
Nobody is trying to impose density on anyone. This is a common theme of your posts-you're so convinced that density is forced on people against their will. Actually, neighborhoods and cities become more dense in response to higher demand for housing. This higher demand is spurred by population growth-an inevitability of human existence. Increased density is not come conspiracy, its a response to more people wanting to live in an area. It is a natural way of growth.

Quote:
Who really has the problem here?
It's the urbanists that constantly refer to anything that isn't located downtown as "sprawl" - a term intended to be negative and derogatory. Perhaps more than anything else sprawl reflects de-centralization and a desire to not be centralized.
No, sprawl refers to an excessive amount of land under a continuous urban footprint. And it doesn't have negative connotations. For example, New York, a very highly urbanized city, can be referred to as a "sprawling metropolis."

Quote:
Contrary to the urbanists' fairy-tale land, "sprawl" is natural, preferred, necessary, and often spurred by the very local government policies intended to reduce it.
Going to have to disagree here. "Sprawl" is the most popular method of growth, but as we've noticed there is an increasing number of people moving to cities and living there instead of the archetypical single-family picket fenced 2-story suburban home. Furthermore, sprawl can only continue up to a point-eventually, there will be too many cars on the road and not enough infrastructure to support them. Then cities and their metros will have two options: improve road infrastructure by tearing down areas that are already built up, or (gasp!) build transit to take people off the roads and densify low-density areas. And seeing how well the former option has worked in the past, I'm going to guess that cities will stick with the latter option.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 08:00 AM
 
1,998 posts, read 2,939,054 times
Reputation: 2150
I see far more policies to RESTRICT density than I see policies to promote it.

For example:

Low-Density Suburbs Are Not Free-Market Capitalism | New Republic

Quote:
Local zoning policies greatly distort housing markets across the country. A recent national survey of land regulations found that 84 percent of jurisdictions forbid the construction of housing units that are smaller than some standard set by the local zoning authority. The average jurisdiction with zoning power has a minimum lot size requirement of 0.4 acres, which is larger than most single-family homes. As a consequence, thousands of jurisdictions—mostly in the suburbs of big cities—effectively prohibit the construction of inexpensive or moderately dense housing, and many neighborhoods within big cities impose similar restrictions.
This is just one example. There are also height restrictions, minimum parking regulations and more used in cities and towns across the country.

The effect of these policies is that places are less dense than what consumers in a freer market would demand.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that urban-style development is the result of the free market while suburban-style development is the result of government mandates, but that has more truth to it than the reverse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,305 posts, read 26,308,417 times
Reputation: 11764
Quote:
Originally Posted by i_love_autumn View Post
BTW, if you are able to read and relax on transit then obviously transit most certainly does not always mean everyone has to ride standing up and packed like sardines as in the photos posted in the beginning of this thread by BajanYankee,right?
That's not what I said. I said that the image of someone stuck behind a wheel in bumper-to-bumper traffic is a stereotype. Apparently, people on here are not interested in dispelling all stereotypes but instead only the ones they don't like.

The facts show that low-density, sprawling cities usually have shorter commute times than more transit-oriented cities. Even sprawling Los Angeles and Houston have shorter commute times at the MSA level than Boston, San Francisco and Washington, DC. And car drivers, on average, spend less time commuting than transit riders. Based on those facts, we can't say that one transportation model is really superior to the other (at least as it relates to speed).

I doubt most Americans can even relate to the type of congestion that's really only present in a handful of American metros. In Metro Charlotte, 36.9% of commuters need more than 30 minutes to get to work. In Richmond, 33% need more than 30 minutes. The numbers are obviously much, much lower in smaller metros. In Greensboro, for example, 24.1% of commuters need more than 30 minutes to get to work. Since most Americans in the aggregate live in medium to smaller sized metros, the "we need transit now!" cries probably don't resonate with them.

The moral of the story is that if you live in a big, dense city/metro, the commute for the average commuter is long no matter what mode he or she is on. That's simply the price you pay for living in a place with a bunch of people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,585,537 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
That's not what I said. I said that the image of someone stuck behind a wheel in bumper-to-bumper traffic is a stereotype. Apparently, people on here are not interested in dispelling all stereotypes but instead only the ones they don't like.

The facts show that low-density, sprawling cities usually have shorter commute times than more transit-oriented cities. Even sprawling Los Angeles and Houston have shorter commute times at the MSA level than Boston, San Francisco and Washington, DC. And car drivers, on average, spend less time commuting than transit riders. Based on those facts, we can't say that one transportation model is really superior to the other (at least as it relates to speed).

I doubt most Americans can even relate to the type of congestion that's really only present in a handful of American metros. In Metro Charlotte, 36.9% of commuters need more than 30 minutes to get to work. In Richmond, 33% need more than 30 minutes. The numbers are obviously much, much lower in smaller metros. In Greensboro, for example, 24.1% of commuters need more than 30 minutes to get to work. Since most Americans in the aggregate live in medium to smaller sized metros, the "we need transit now!" cries probably don't resonate with them.

The moral of the story is that if you live in a big, dense city/metro, the commute for the average commuter is long no matter what mode he or she is on. That's simply the price you pay for living in a place with a bunch of people.
Maybe those smaller cities aren't the ones that need transit systems as much as those in bigger cities....though Charlotte has a young limited light rail system that they are expanding in the future. Greensboro is a fairly small metro so I wouldn't imagine people would have that long of a commute to deal with to begin with.

Most of us calling for more transit is typically talking about major metros that can handle rail systems. Smaller cities typically only need a bus system and maybe a streetcar system in their downtown and surrounding inner city neighborhoods at most.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 09:10 AM
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
45,992 posts, read 42,080,368 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Maybe those smaller cities aren't the ones that need transit systems as much as those in bigger cities....though Charlotte has a young limited light rail system that they are expanding in the future. Greensboro is a fairly small metro so I wouldn't imagine people would have that long of a commute to deal with to begin with.

Most of us calling for more transit is typically talking about major metros that can handle rail systems. Smaller cities typically only need a bus system and maybe a streetcar system in their downtown and surrounding inner city neighborhoods at most.
It's also density and centralization. By urban area population, Calgary has the same population as Charlotte. Charlotte has a weekday ridership of 83,000 / day; Calgary 548,000. However, Calgary's may be double-counting as many ride the bus to transfer to light rail. France has a number of cities smaller than either that have light rail or subway systems. Hard to find numbers for total transit ridership. I suspect the French cities don't suffer big congestion problems, but driving isn't that fast due to slowgoing roads, parking can have issues, and transit doesn't do badly time-wise. For Calgary, it has a large downtown for its size where parking costs are the second highest in North America after Manhattan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 09:13 AM
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
45,992 posts, read 42,080,368 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Since most Americans in the aggregate live in medium to smaller sized metros, the "we need transit now!" cries probably don't resonate with them.
At least if the arguement for transit is to reduce traffic congestion. Although, do most Americans live in medium or smaller sized metros? I think you're right, but I'm curious to see how many live in say, the 25 biggest metros.

Quote:
The moral of the story is that if you live in a big, dense city/metro, the commute for the average commuter is long no matter what mode he or she is on. That's simply the price you pay for living in a place with a bunch of people.
In many ways, I find a medium-sized, but dense (as long as there's also decent green space mixed in) and somewhat transit-oriented rather appealing, many of the negatives of density aren't as pronounced in a smaller city.
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