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 08-06-2014, 01:03 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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I thought miu's point was more that there is diversity in the burbs.
I don't remember he mentioned that. And again, my objection was using a "privileged place".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2014, 01:06 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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The bolded is my experience, too. Engineering is the exception, minorities (should read non-asian minorities, typo in the headline) do avoid engineering. However, liberal arts and the "pure" sciences tend to attract disportionate white students. In college, I remember blacks tend to go for the practical degrees, business-ish degrees, or very applied degrees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 01:19 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,985 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
The bolded is my experience, too. Engineering is the exception, minorities (should read non-asian minorities, typo in the headline) do avoid engineering. However, liberal arts and the "pure" sciences tend to attract disportionate white students. In college, I remember blacks tend to go for the practical degrees, business-ish degrees, or very applied degrees.
All those decades ago in the U of Illinois physics department when DH was a student, it was whites and Asians. My nursing class was whites and a few blacks at the U of Pgh. My daughter's PT class at CU was mostly white and female. I recall one Hispanic female. The other daughter's public health class was pretty much all white, also CU.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 01:31 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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Here's what semiurbanite says about the city (vs the burbs): exposure to new things, different people, and much less time spent driving. He doesn't say what "new things", what he means by "different people", and he has no idea how much or how little time anyone anywhere spends driving.
I read that conversation last week, couldn't chime in then. Semiurbanite said a number of careless things and exagerrated, but I'm rather certain the average Boston (and including adjacent cities such as Cambridge and Somerville, the latter where semiurbanite lives) drives less than the average suburbanite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I don't think it's entirely true that people who live in the city don't bother driving.
List of U.S. cities with most households without a car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Boston doesn't even make the list.
First, the wikipedia link is incomplete. Boston should be on the list, it would be around #5. According to the census, 36.3% of Boston households have no car. That actually understates Boston's car ownership, as many households may have only one car but multiple adults, so sometimes adults (and teenagers) can't drive if traveling separately. Only 21% of Boston households have at least two cars. Going through the numbers, there's about 433 cars per 100 adults (18 and over). The majority of workers living in Boston don't drive to work. That's a lot less driving right there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Well, yeah, many people buy cars with no intention of ever driving them or of rarely driving them! (Sarc) Why would anyone do that? There is plenty of traffic in Boston. It's disingenuous to blame it all on the suburbanites.
Why? It's not an absurd scenario to me. The car could be for trips out of town, and/or occasional big, bulky shopping trips. On average, I use my car once to twice a week. In particular, to visit someone where access would be hard in the not-so-urban surroundings without a car. Boston would be easier without a car. The main mileage creator on my car is long-distance trips not local driving. Someone with that driving style isn't adding much to local traffic day to day. Definitely long-distance trips at little to local traffic: they're occasional and you just drive off to the closest highway.

There's two separate issues here:

1) Whether people own cars use them all the time
2) Whether the traffic in Boston is mostly from suburbanites

In that discussion, AJNOEA only addressed the first issue, responding back with issue #2 to his posts was a non-sequitir. As for issue #2: in most city neighborhoods, outsiders aren't driving in to visit all the time. Most neighborhoods serve local resident needs. Some suburbanites probably drive to visit them, but the bulk of the traffic must be from local residents. There's no reason for suburbanites to visit them frequently, unless they have friends of family there. Downtown and a few big commercial areas might be an exception, though many of the vehicles are commerical. At one extreme, in most Manhattan neighborhoods, I think the majority traffic is from drivers elsewhere. Not necesarily suburbanites; as much from drivers from elsewhere. Don't think that's true in non-downtown areas of other cities, or other parts of New York City. However, in Boston, the majority might be from suburbanites. The city is a small portion of the metro population, and an even smaller percentage of the drivers. And transit to Boston may be more difficult. Plus, some of the highway traffic is just passing through Boston as the expressways go through the city center.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 01:41 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,985 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
I did wonder about Boston not being on that list. Hardly shocking that Denver isn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 01:46 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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I did wonder about Boston not being on that list. Hardly shocking that Denver isn't.
I realized the mistake. #8 is Seattle, that number is too high for Seattle, it should be Boston. The difference from the number I posted is the wiki link is 2000 census data. Boston's lower car ownership today is probably from fewer families and more young singles in the city more than a trend to carless-ness (which was never unusual in Boston, the carless types would have already been carless).

Denver doesn't belong on the list, only 12% of households have no car. I don't think I've been in a large city with that high car ownership, though Portland isn't that different despite its reputation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 01:57 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,985 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I realized the mistake. #8 is Seattle, that number is too high for Seattle, it should be Boston. The difference from the number I posted is the wiki link is 2000 census data. Boston's lower car ownership today is probably from fewer families and more young singles in the city more than a trend to carless-ness (which was never unusual in Boston, the carless types would have already been carless).

Denver doesn't belong on the list, only 12% of households have no car. I don't think I've been in a large city with that high car ownership, though Portland isn't that different despite its reputation.
Maybe it's because it can snow 10 months of the year here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
14,651 posts, read 9,700,897 times
Reputation: 12194
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
It looks like a lot of the focus here is on getting people to move to urban areas instead of suburban areas. Why?
Socialism.

Before you laugh, let me explain. Urban living has all the ingredients of socialism. It is the incubator. Riding buses, bicycles, walking, saving fuel. Living in cramped quarters in the name of making more room available for others. Rural/suburban living is anathema to those folks. It means driving alone, wasting natural resources. Emitting CO2 (what do exhale again?), You get the point. Bear in mind that many of those who advocate urban living themselves aren't living there and most likely own a beach house too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 02:47 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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
First, the wikipedia link is incomplete. Boston should be on the list, it would be around #5. According to the census, 36.3% of Boston households have no car. That actually understates Boston's car ownership, as many households may have only one car but multiple adults, so sometimes adults (and teenagers) can't drive if traveling separately. Only 21% of Boston households have at least two cars. Going through the numbers, there's about 433 cars per 100 adults (18 and over). The majority of workers living in Boston don't drive to work. That's a lot less driving right there.
Thinking about this further, Boston's car ownership levels are maybe about half of typical suburban levels, but its density is around five times higher (varies strongly by neighborhood). So the amount of cars per area is higher despite fewer cars per capita. How much traffic per area? Depends how much less the typical Boston car is driven relative to a suburban one. If you assume long-distance driving doesn't count, perhaps half of the usual. So one-quarter of the driving, but it's denser. That's still higher than my situation, but roughly 37% of Boston workers drive to work, almost as high as cars per adult, so a substantial fraction of cars are used day to day. Regardless, any plausible assumption results in at least as much traffic per area in Boston as a place where everyone drives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I guess I misread what semiurbanite said. I thought he was implying kids were safer in the city b/c there is less traffic. Actually he said they were safer b/c they weren't in cars. However, there are plenty of car-pedestrian accidents, especially among kids, which was my point.

CDC - Pedestrian Safety Factsheet - Motor Vehicle Safety - Injury Center
** Pedestrians are 1.5 times more likely than passenger vehicle occupants to be killed in a car crash on each trip.2**
However, semiurbanite was referring to teenagers, who do have a much higher motor vehicle death rate than the average driver. A teenager would be safer walking. Looking at New York City, which is yes an outlier but useful here because few teens drive, the motor vehicle fatality rate is barely higher than the general population rate. Not true elsewhere


Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths in Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2009
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 02:47 PM
 
5,076 posts, read 8,501,505 times
Reputation: 4632
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Sounds like you need to expand the highway if there is any commerce between the two areas.
"Commerce between the two areas" - they're both bedroom communities, the smaller of which has a population in the 2500 range. The commerce is likely limited to gas stations and perhaps some residential services like plumbers and gardeners. The highway is used to get people from their remote bedroom community into the job centers, most of which aren't nearby.


Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Says who? ... maybe the city needs to give up territory instead of claiming a particular territory and refusing to provide services throughout the territory - because that's what you are promoting. It's not clear what "infrastructure" the city would have been providing to any of these areas. Does the city provide water, gas, electric? No? Please explain what "infrastructure" the city would have provided. Not everyone relies on "city" infrastructure nor city utilities.
This is part of the problem. The affected area spans about a half dozen cities, and the highway is a state road. It's not within the jurisdiction of any one city to "fix" the traffic problems, so all they can do individually is whatever they can to not make the problem worse. Though ultimately they're at the whim of all of the other communities that use the same overcrowded and underimproved highway. I'm not aware that the other infrastructure items are much of a problem, aside from some school overcrowding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
They are taxpayers too and they have a right to live where they want. They owe you nothing. Meanwhile your "city" enjoys taxing the individuals (or their employers) without providing services. What's your complaint?
That's debatable. The growth boundary law does in effect tell people where they can and cannot live, along with myriad other zoning and building regulations. Paying taxes doesn't give anyone the right to live where they want, AFAIK. Not sure where you got that from. My city has little to do with this, except that county wide transportation initiatives and funding are voted on by people living in those remote areas of the SE county as well. Part of the issue is providing either roads or public transit to these remote areas is very costly, so they end up sucking up a disproportionate amount of funding to service a relatively small population - if they're to be serviced at all. I'm fine if they decide to rip up the highway and put in 30 miles of dirt roads.


Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Cities aren't the only entities that install and maintain roads. I don't buy any of your arguments. The example above of "tens of thousands of homes" suggests some local government has a captive tax base where the government is receiving large dollars in property taxes without providing commensurate services.
As illustrated by the example I gave. The city itself can't fix this problem, they can only slow the deterioration by limiting growth in areas under their jurisdiction. Theses "tens of thousands of homes" are a drop in the bucket, relatively speaking since the county as a whole has about 900,000 housing units. They're low density and scattered 25+ miles from the actual urban areas/job centers. Houses there cost about half what the do in closer in areas, so the property tax base is even smaller relative to the overall population.

Back to the original point of this thread - why discourage this type of development in favor of more urban development? In my opinion, it's a burden on the rest of the metro area to support these kinds of communities. Continuing to build them just sucks up resources that could be used to provide services in areas of greater population, instead of wasting them on the relatively few people that choose their cheap houses and 2 hour commutes.
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