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 01-08-2015, 12:21 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,999 posts, read 102,581,357 times
Reputation: 33059

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Admittedly it does look like the main residential areas of the city are up near Juneau International Airport, which is a 15-20 minute drive from Downtown, and not really walkable to downtown or accessible by transit. Still, it looks like virtually no one lives any further away than this, which makes it very strange for a small-size city within the United States.
To what are you comparing it? It has 30,000 people! Roughly the size of Williamsport, PA. (Chosen b/c you live in PA.) There's a joke about there only being 3 ways to get to Juneau: by birth canal, boat or airplane. It's isolated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-08-2015, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,419 posts, read 11,923,391 times
Reputation: 10536
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
To what are you comparing it? It has 30,000 people! Roughly the size of Williamsport, PA. (Chosen b/c you live in PA.) There's a joke about there only being 3 ways to get to Juneau: by birth canal, boat or airplane. It's isolated.
True enough. But my broader point about Alaska is due to its huge size and rough topography, there's nowhere much to sprawl to. No metros except Anchorage and maybe Fairbanks are big enough to have real suburbs, and in both cases, the vast majority of residential areas are located very close by compared to national standards. With the exception of maybe the Mat-Su Valley's relationship to anchorage, you're just not going to see people from outlying areas regularly driving longish distances to "the city,"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2015, 12:58 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,999 posts, read 102,581,357 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
True enough. But my broader point about Alaska is due to its huge size and rough topography, there's nowhere much to sprawl to. No metros except Anchorage and maybe Fairbanks are big enough to have real suburbs, and in both cases, the vast majority of residential areas are located very close by compared to national standards. With the exception of maybe the Mat-Su Valley's relationship to anchorage, you're just not going to see people from outlying areas regularly driving longish distances to "the city,"
You seem to have strayed from the topic of "Juneau is very urban", which you deduced by computer imaging.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2015, 01:12 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
45,988 posts, read 41,959,650 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
You seem to have strayed from the topic of "Juneau is very urban", which you deduced by computer imaging.
Streetview and computer images are often a good indicator if you look at it thoroughly enough, IME. The broad point is more on topic from the thread than "Juneau is very urban".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2015, 03:06 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,715,010 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
You seem to have strayed from the topic of "Juneau is very urban", which you deduced by computer imaging.
I looked at those images. Juneau is urban - very urban. Urban has nothing to do with size of the city - it has to do with the spacial arrangement of the streets and buildings. In Juneau the buildings front the street. There are not blank walls. The streets by and large appear to be narrow and quite pedestrian friendly. It has a very good interconnected grid. The parking lots that exist appear to be quite small or in the back of the buildings.

The car is made subservient. This is a place built for people and cars are accommodated.

That is what it means to be urban - has nothing to do with population, or even density (the density looks to be only about 1,000ppsm) or height of the buildings. Most of this downtown area looks to be about 2 stories, yet quite urban is character.

Urbanism isn't about the size of your metro, there are lots of enormous cities that are almost entirely suburban in form.

It isn't about density - there are very dense places that are not urban at all.

It isn't about height - towers in the park are not urban.

It's about the form that the city takes. Based on the pictures - it's quite easy to deduce quickly that Juneau, at least that section of it is quite urban.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2015, 03:20 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
45,988 posts, read 41,959,650 times
Reputation: 14805
I think there's an old thread on what your definition of urban is. Please continue the conversation there rather than hijack this thread. Here's one such thread:

What does "Urban" mean? (An attempt at an explanation)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2015, 07:44 PM
 
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
15,504 posts, read 17,732,432 times
Reputation: 30796
I bet if you add quadbike (4-wheeler)/snowmobile miles, Alaska slips in the rankings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2015, 08:18 PM
 
605 posts, read 467,187 times
Reputation: 1093
In Southeastern Alaska and in Bush Alaska; airplanes, boats, snowmobiles, and ATV's are much more useful for traveling so if those were included in the rankings as opposed to cars/trucks only, you would see a much higher VMT rank than what is being shown here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 07:19 AM
 
12,299 posts, read 15,194,052 times
Reputation: 8108
Quote:
Originally Posted by impala096 View Post
Interesting data looking at VMT per capita by state

10 States with the lowest VMT per capita:
Alaska - 6,719
New York - 6,767
Hawaii - 7,331
Nevada - 7,809
Rhode Island - 7,867
Pennsylvania - 7,889
Illinois - 8,238
Massachusetts - 8,293
New Jersey - 8,299
Washington - 8,482


Table 5-3: Highway Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT): 2005, 2010 | Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Five of them have decent rail transit, much less need to drive, at least for commuting. Alaska has a lot of off-gridders as well as snowmobiles. Hawaii is so small you just can't drive very far. Rhode Island also quite small. But Nevada and Washington State seem to be outliers. Conspicuous by absence: DC, technically not a State, is lower than all of them. Some of the best transit in the country, plus shorter distances

Last edited by pvande55; 01-10-2015 at 07:35 AM.. Reason: Add DC note
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,761,439 times
Reputation: 1616
Nevada has decently dense cities surrounded by quasi nothingness, and cities are smaller than the cities in states with higher weighted densities (NJ, MA, CA, IL) but higher VMT values. Nevada residents probably don't use transit as much as in MA or IL but if they drive it's probably going to be just a few miles, or at the very most 20 miles each way to commute (and typically less than 10 miles each way).

If you live in Vegas, 90%+ of the metro area is within a 20 mile drive, increase that to 30 miles and maybe you get a few more exurbs within range, but mostly just desert. Increase that to 40 or 50 miles and pretty much all there is to drive to is more desert. Maybe there will be some canyons, mountains, etc but that's typically going to be a once a week destination at most, not somewhere you go on a regular basis for work or shopping.

Meanwhile crossing Chicagoland is over 100 miles from NW Indiana to the northern most suburbs so it's not hard to see why many Chicago suburbanites might drive 30-50 miles if they work in the suburbs (which unlike downtown are poorly served by transit).

And ultimately, even in the states that have "good transit", it's not used that much, maybe 10% use it to commute, and probably an even smaller percent for shopping and such, so it won't put that much of a dent in VMT imo, except NYC where transit use and rate of car free households are well above any other 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