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.
Seriously? So you're going to make regulations block by block? Wait for the developers, RE people, etc to show up at a council meeting with pitchforks! Talk about confusing. Rentals change frequently. What's true today may not be true tomorrow.
on AJNOE's point on lane reductions, they were converted to dedicated bikes, actually adding seperators this summer to further separate the bike lanes and block cars and trucks (UPS FedEx) from parking there. My understanding is the study showed no change in congestion but did show slowed speeds, reduced speeds and fewer accidents for cars, pedestrians and bikes
Also on S Philly I believe everything South of South and east of Board requires a zoning variance for new curb cuts, new zoning outlawed most new curb cuts for garages. West of Broad is a different story G-Ho is littered with them and parking has become worse there
parking is bad in general in S Philly though I have a car that I use foir work and generally only when leaving the city
Also forgot, the study also showed that traffic did not get worse with the change to the bike lane and reduction from two to one lane with an additional parking lane, believe traffic counts stayed nearly the same
Also I can attest that zoning can change by the parcel and block and even within a block here in Philly
The new zoning code also removed parking minimums and above ground parking without an exemption in certain zones (main transit proximity and closer in to the core and extended, all require exemptions now (Which do get granted often it seems)
their maps are cleaner looking, but it's easier to see car density stays almost flat at high densities by my scale
This post really highlights the value and limitations of vehicles/sq. mile and vehicles/capita. As the post points out, car density seems to step up with resident density, but the driving factor [pun not intended] of car ownership seems to be income.
It would be interesting to see how VMT compares to resident density, alternative mode availability, and income. This would be important if a planner was concerned more with intensity of use of cars than with outright numbers of cars, as is coming to be the case in California's built-out and financially-constrained metros.
This post really highlights the value and limitations of vehicles/sq. mile and vehicles/capita. As the post points out, car density seems to step up with resident density, but the driving factor [pun not intended] of car ownership seems to be income.
It would be interesting to see how VMT compares to resident density, alternative mode availability, and income. This would be important if a planner was concerned more with intensity of use of cars than with outright numbers of cars, as is coming to be the case in California's built-out and financially-constrained metros.
good point, I know many states require odometer inputs for registrations, in theory linked back to zip it could be used to determine VMT or some proxy
I also agree that income is a driver here
the census/data would have the data to do a income to car analysis one would think
This post really highlights the value and limitations of vehicles/sq. mile and vehicles/capita. As the post points out, car density seems to step up with resident density, but the driving factor [pun not intended] of car ownership seems to be income.
Did you see my maps on vehicles per capita and per square miles. The relationship with density appears clear, but it's also obvious that income is a secondary factor.
Quote:
It would be interesting to see how VMT compares to resident density, alternative mode availability, and income. This would be important if a planner was concerned more with intensity of use of cars than with outright numbers of cars, as is coming to be the case in California's built-out and financially-constrained metros.
The outright number of cars is relevant to how much land is used for residential parking, and just how crowded the streets could be with cars. Car ownership levels also give an idea of the carless.
the census/data would have the data to do a income to car analysis one would think
I'm considering adding income to my charts. I'm unsure what's the measure: median household income is the usual, but that partly reflects household income. There's median earnings, but that excludes unemployed (including those by choice). Per capita can skewed easily by the richest.
The outright number of cars is relevant to how much land is used for residential parking, and just how crowded the streets could be with cars. Car ownership levels also give an idea of the carless.
I did see your maps and was very impressed. But the post seems to suggest that cars/cap. changes more with income than density.
I don't deny the relevancy of total number of cars. You've seen enough of my posts to know where I stand on car infrastructure.
But, given how difficult it seems to be to discourage car ownership, I'm led to wonder the magnitude on VMT of various interventions by cities and transit agencies. At a lot of our council meetings, when new developments come up concerned residents use cars and traffic as if those are interchangeable, as if the new cars that come with that development equates 1:1 with increased gridlock. But if that's not the case, if local contexts--walkability, availability of good transportation alternatives--can decrease VMT/cap and hold VMT flat overall, then the introduction of new cars shouldn't be a threatening bogeyman.
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.
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.
