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 01-07-2015, 08:06 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 84,101,109 times
Reputation: 18054

Advertisements

Perhaps more accurate would be to add the miles totally traveled. By jet ;train; tax and mass transit etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-07-2015, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,771,048 times
Reputation: 1616
Here's all the states plotted out in average VMT vs weighted density. New York State is densest, followed by DC. The big outliers are Wyoming with a VMT of 16,948 and Alaska with a VMT of just 6719 despite the low density.

I wonder how come Alaska is so low, maybe the winter weather discourages driving? Cheyenne gets 60 inches of snow vs 75 for Anchorage, although Cheyenne is about 15F warmer in the winter (about 25F vs 40F daily highs). Both pretty wintery but maybe snow doesn't stick around as much in WY.


Or maybe WY just gets a lot of traffic (cars and trucks) driving through the state?

Last edited by memph; 01-07-2015 at 08:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 09:05 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,083 posts, read 102,815,223 times
Reputation: 33147
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post


Or maybe WY just gets a lot of traffic (cars and trucks) driving through the state?
That's a good point. I-80, "the nation's highway" goes through southern Wyoming. It's the best way to cross the Rockies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 09:10 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
45,992 posts, read 42,120,818 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
I wonder how come Alaska is so low, maybe the winter weather discourages driving?
Those living in Alaskan small towns don't have much to drive to. It's a town and then nothing. Alaska has relatively walk to work % too.

Quote:
Or maybe WY just gets a lot of traffic (cars and trucks) driving through the state?
It's from household survey data, so presumably traffic passing through shouldn't have an effect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 09:15 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
45,992 posts, read 42,120,818 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
The top 10 densest and top 10 lowest VMT lists are almost the same. Only difference is California and Maryland which make top 10 densest (#3 and #10 respectively) but not 10 lowest VMT, and Alaska and Washington which don't make the top 10 densest.
I'm guessing California is hurt by having two very large metros, leading to some longer distance commutes, if not by median by average.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 10:56 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,725,753 times
Reputation: 2538
I stopped reading when I got to this sentence:

"increasing density by 1,000 housing units per square mile—a titanic leap"

There are 640 acres in a square mile. That's less than 2 units per acre.

Going from 6 - 8 units (in a suburban district) or 20-22 units (in a more urban district) in a square mile isn't a titanic leap, it's barely a blip that would be noticed.

So. . .premise flawed, moving on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2015, 07:10 AM
 
2,826 posts, read 3,361,420 times
Reputation: 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
I stopped reading when I got to this sentence:

"increasing density by 1,000 housing units per square mile—a titanic leap"

There are 640 acres in a square mile. That's less than 2 units per acre.
two more per acre


Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
Going from 6 - 8 units (in a suburban district) or 20-22 units (in a more urban district) in a square mile isn't a titanic leap, it's barely a blip that would be noticed.

So. . .premise flawed, moving on.
It's a huge difference from a buyer's perspective. Just because you prefer hamster-style living density does not mean the author's premise is flawed.

If a traditional lot size was quarter acre, 6 "units" already reduces that to 0.17 acres per lot. 8 "units" per acre gets it down to 0.125 acres per lot assuming that more wasn't lost due to the need for additional roads. That's only 5444 sf for a lot. For folks that want space between neighbors, that's already too many houses per acre. You can hear people talking next door at those densities. Another problem you run into is that you'll probably have to have more roads to accommodate the more houses. More roads eats up space that would have perhaps been better spent on having larger lots to begin with from the perspective of the buyers, the developer, and the local government.

If the author's data supports the hypothesis then the data does not support your claim that the hypothesis is flawed. If there is some additional study that illustrates that some "units/area" is the magic threshold then it would be useful in eliminating a lot of pie-in-the-sky very expensive urban planning transportation solutions as being unreasonable for the area up front.

Last edited by IC_deLight; 01-08-2015 at 07:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2015, 07:32 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 42,120,818 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
I stopped reading when I got to this sentence:

"increasing density by 1,000 housing units per square mile—a titanic leap"
I do agree their conclusion doesn't follow from their data. There's a rather steep decline going to the last two categories (the lower categories are either rural or large lot suburbia). Yes it takes more than 1000 units/ acre to make a big difference, but that just means large changes in density numbers are required for large changes in VMT. Really, this should be a log factor

This is also a correlation not a causation. The article's tone seems to thinking in terms of if "a neighborhood is densified the VMT miles would be expected to decrease", it's rather hard to separate a neighborhood density with geographical factors .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2015, 08:52 AM
 
410 posts, read 390,937 times
Reputation: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
I stopped reading when I got to this sentence:

"increasing density by 1,000 housing units per square mile—a titanic leap"

There are 640 acres in a square mile. That's less than 2 units per acre.

Going from 6 - 8 units (in a suburban district) or 20-22 units (in a more urban district) in a square mile isn't a titanic leap, it's barely a blip that would be noticed.

So. . .premise flawed, moving on.
"increasing density by 1,000 housing units per square mile—a titanic leap"
This is an overstatement.


"Two-way streets are more pedestrian friendly because traffic is moving more slowly”
This is a false premise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2015, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,083 posts, read 102,815,223 times
Reputation: 33147
Well, there aren't many people total in Wyo or N Dak, so we probably don't need to worry about how much they're driving. They're just a blip on the radar screen.
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