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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-07-2014, 01:08 PM
 
2,825 posts, read 3,359,123 times
Reputation: 3031

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Much like cars rely on government mandates, buildings being required to have a number of parking spots, highway funding, etc. The key is to create a balance to best promote options of transportation.
The article (and you) admit the option to take transit already exists.

The article wasn't about exercising an existing option to take transit. The article promoted imposing economic harm and engaging in overt discrimination to force people to take transit. The key wasn't "balance" nor promoting options. The article was about discrimination, economic harm, and eliminating options to "promote" transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-07-2014, 01:18 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,199,128 times
Reputation: 3351
Given that our urban highway systems are at or beyond capacity and growth of many urban areas is expanding, it is a good thing that planners are "promoting" transit. It is called wisely allocating limited resources, it is what I expect of our elected leaders. For the last five decades highways into the cities were "promoted" and that has not worked out that well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2014, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,308 posts, read 26,314,799 times
Reputation: 11771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
Given that our urban highway systems are at or beyond capacity and growth of many urban areas is expanding, it is a good thing that planners are "promoting" transit. It is called wisely allocating limited resources, it is what I expect of our elected leaders. For the last five decades highways into the cities were "promoted" and that has not worked out that well.
In what sense has it not worked out that well?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2014, 01:40 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,199,128 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
In what sense has it not worked out that well?
Highways built with design speeds of 75 mph are daily zero to 5 mph parking lots for one.
Established, historic neighborhoods bulldozed so commuters from the suburbs could get downtown quicker.
One way commutes of an hour or longer in many growing cities.
A huge amount of capital invested in an inefficient transportation system based on very limited resources.
In many cities as much as 35 to 40% of the land area is devoted to autos.

I could go on (and on) but in hindsight, I doubt the transportation decisions of the last half century will be viewed as good for our cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2014, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,590,013 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
If you have the luxury of not having to be somewhere, then that's fine. But if you don't, then transit may not be what you're looking for.
But when everyone needs to be somewhere at the same time, that causes traffic, which causes delays, which then defeats the purpose of driving to get somewhere faster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2014, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,590,013 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
No one suggested that people did not ride transit.

However, as much as you claim to not be "anti-car" it is clear that indeed you are.
Terminology such as "car dependent" is tossed around like a handicap, yet you seem okay to be "transit dependent" and to promote "transit dependency" which is what the article suggests using the government to impose on the populace.

If there is a comparison between "car dependent" and "transit dependent" then "transit dependent" certainly seems far worse - particularly since your article promotes using government to force transit dependency on a population.
That is a false assumption, I am not anti-car, I am pro-transportation options. All modes of transportation is government dependent. Highways and paved roads didn't just magically happen.

You are right, car dependent and transit dependent are very similar and can both be limiting in their own way, which is why I am all for building infrastructure for transportation options.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2014, 03:41 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,867,636 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
But when everyone needs to be somewhere at the same time, that causes traffic, which causes delays, which then defeats the purpose of driving to get somewhere faster.
However those delays also effect the bus(unless it has it's own right of way). It can also delay a train as you may need to wait for more than one to pass to get on or for the crowd to board/unboard. All systems can suffer from delay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2014, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,308 posts, read 26,314,799 times
Reputation: 11771
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
But when everyone needs to be somewhere at the same time, that causes traffic, which causes delays, which then defeats the purpose of driving to get somewhere faster.
Commuters in Dallas, Atlanta, San Jose, Denver and Miami have shorter commutes, on average, than commuters in Boston, Washington, DC and San Francisco.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2014, 05:21 PM
 
2,825 posts, read 3,359,123 times
Reputation: 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
But when everyone needs to be somewhere at the same time, that causes traffic, which causes delays, which then defeats the purpose of driving to get somewhere faster.
Then a policy of trying to centralize workplaces will only guarantee more congestion and traffic because more people have to use the same routes to get to the same places.

Distributing workplaces is not a guarantee that there won't be congestion and traffic but it is the solution for which there is a chance of spreading traffic better across an entire network. I do not support the proposition that "planners" have any right or authority to dictate where workplaces will be. Natural growth is likely to be distributed and reactive to "network problems". Centralization is likely to occur only if forced using governmental mandates/discrimination. Government mandates inevitably wind up being bad ideas especially since it won't have to take care of the "network problems".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2014, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,590,013 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
However those delays also effect the bus(unless it has it's own right of way). It can also delay a train as you may need to wait for more than one to pass to get on or for the crowd to board/unboard. All systems can suffer from delay.
Yes, that is the downside to buses, trains usually can handle a much larger capacity so you should typically be able to get on that one or enough frequency that another train is only a minute or two behind.

My commute in and out of work is the same every day with transit, it would never be the same with driving.
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