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.
Lived near the Goodge Street station. Didn't have a car--used the Tube and walked everywhere.
I rest my case then. You actually can have a tremendous vibrant thriving city that has multitude of options to travel that provides access and mobility for all.
Only you can't do that and build a city that is auto-dependent. The two things simply do not co-exist - anywhere.
Honestly folks, there's nothing unique about Austin that says we can't do it here EXCEPT our policies. That's it. That's the only thing standing in the way of become a great city someday that provides solid transportation options and vibrant mixed use urban neighborhoods everywhere.
There's no trick, it isn't magic, it's a 3,000 year old formula successfully used on just about every continent in the world.
I'm not going to get into a debate with you about what you obviously implied.
Because it is so more convenient to argue against what you interpreted, vice what was actually said:
Quote:
Much of present-day new urbanism is statist.
If you'd actually read the article instead of dismissing it out of hand because it came from outside your echo chamber, you'd find much to agree with.
And OBTW - I also lived in a city with a robust public transit system - Stuttgart. For two years, I didn't own a car - monthly public transit pass, bicycle, and rented a car when I needed one on the weekend. But in living that way, I fully recognize the differences that made that work in Stuttgart and work against it in Austin. There are enormous differences in land use, density, societal expectations, governmental constructs and tax structure that will never be duplicated here - even if the city spends itself into financial ruin.
The part you rail lusters miss is, it's not about the train.
You don't get it. It was a tremendous hassle to have to do everything by Tube and walking. An unbelievable hassle. And when I returned several years later and had a car I was astonished at how much more quickly I could go around and do things with my own transportation.
Edit: Also, to say nothing of the unbelievable chaos that was caused by bombs threats and left packages during the IRA bombing campaign.
Because it is so more convenient to argue against what you interpreted, vice what was actually said:
If you'd actually read the article instead of dismissing it out of hand because it came from outside your echo chamber, you'd find much to agree with.
And OBTW - I also lived in a city with a robust public transit system - Stuttgart. For two years, I didn't own a car - monthly public transit pass, bicycle, and rented a car when I needed one on the weekend. But in living that way, I fully recognize the differences that made that work in Stuttgart and work against it in Austin. There are enormous differences in land use, density, societal expectations, governmental constructs and tax structure that will never be duplicated here - even if the city spends itself into financial ruin.
The part you rail lusters miss is, it's not about the train.
What on earth makes you think I'm a train guy only? OMG - have you read a single thing I've posted here?
I'm a land-use guy first and foremost. But we need both pieces, good land use and good transit for it to work. The option is to be Sprawlanta. No thanks.
Last edited by Debsi; 08-23-2014 at 02:41 PM..
Reason: Personal attack
1. I love how you started with "yeah Steve, - great idea - Jarrett Walker kinda solution." And then immediately confronted with Jarrett Walker pointing out exactly why it's a terrible idea you pivot to the complete red herring of "urbanists are statists!!!!" Need I point out that Jarrett Walker is very very much an urbanist?
2. I'm an urbanist because I'm a conservative. Urbanism offers far more freedoms and is a far more efficient way for governments to function as they don't have to subsidize lifestyles of the few and far between. Suburbanism and sprawl is also 100% prescribed and the result of a top down regulatory scheme that assumes that state knows better than 1000's of people making 1000's of independent decisions working out to be an intelligent network (you know, the way we always built cities and towns and all the truly great cities and towns were built this way).
No doubt there are regulatory schemes that need to be unraveled BUT the suggestion that folks would otherwise flock to cities and/or high density housing is silly. Plenty of folks want nothing to do with the city.
Referring to everything that isn't urban as "sub-urban" is an urban-centric viewpoint and frankly offensive. Many folks want nothing to do with living in the city or "urban living" and prefer a place that's better-than-urban from their position. The places you deride as "sub-urban" are in fact sup-urban (i.e., superior to urban) as far as I'm concerned.
Your cause and effect is a little off as well. Being conservative doesn't make you an urbanist. If anything, those promoting "urbanism" tend to be left-leaning. Austin is hardly a bastion of conservatism. The people voting for these programs make themselves politically irrelevant over time because programs they want everyone else to pay for soon causes the property taxes to rise such that they can't live there any more. Then they cry about the price of their communitarian programs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht
3. But i'm not a complete unthinking libertarian who thinks that massive automobile subsidies are just fine, but TRANSIT is evil. There are a few ways that governments can do great things - and making sure we have a multi-modal system to move goods and peoples arounds so that they can get to the business of making us all profit is one of them.
Feel free to explain how "automobiles" are subsidized.
What can be more statist, more elitist, than putting all of your future mobility investments in a fixed, unmoving guideway? To reap the direct benefits, you must live, work, and recreate in a given corridor - that has so much investment, it will never change. More neat lines, more coercion.
Heaven forbid that individuals have choices. They might choose wrong.
I disagree with you about a lot of things, but you are 100% dead on.
The great thing is that each city (or state) can decide what it wants to be. There will be plenty of cities that take the new urbanist route and people who want that will flock to those cities.
I hope the voters keep shutting down rail.
I want the freedom to go where I want on my schedule. Public transport will never provide that.
I have ridden public transport all over the world and the best thing is when you rent a car which lets you go where everyone else is not.
Absolutely false. Capacity is a function of the distances between units. As speed and separation distance increase (exponentially with speed), capacity drops.
But that is negligible (as is braking/speeding up, lane changing, etc.) because it's pretty hard to overcome an enforced 20-carlength separation.
Until it's every single one, there's not a car manufacturer in the world that will risk a fatal accident that can clearly be shown to be because of an unsafe braking algorithm mixed with human-controlled vehicles. And even after every car is driverless (which will happen eventually), there is no way to overcome that pesky little thing called reality. The reality is that even with instantaneous reaction time, it still takes 230-240 feet to stop the average auto traveling 70 mph, under ideal conditions (higher speeds have yet higher stopping distances, and they increase exponentially as a function of speed). With stop offset and safety margin included (which will happen because the feds will require it and the manufacturers are risk-averse), it approaches 300 feet. So, 70 mph = 20 car lengths enforced separation. That's physics and reality. You're talking about "proofs of concept".
I didn't make that point, but it's still salient because the original poster talked about "staging" driverless vehicles near areas of potential demand. How many square miles around those "areas of potential demand" do you suppose will have to become parking lots/garages? How much traffic will be *leaving* the activity centers to go somewhere to stage?
Sure thing. A commuter rail system operating at 15 minute headways using 8 car trains with a standee load of about 260 can transport the equivalent of nearly 5 highway lanes during peak times. The math is straightforward - 4 (times per hour) X 8 cars X 260 = 8,832 passengers per hour. A highway lane like those on I-35 at peak volumes can transport about 1,872 passengers per hour, if we assume the average US auto occupancy rate of 1.2 per vehicle. 8,832/1,872 = 4.7 lane equivalents of capacity. Have any idea what it would cost to build an additional 8 to 10 lanes onto I-35? I'll save you more brain-deadening math - it's a *lot* more.
I35 is a corridor with constrained space. Even then the cost of expanding it is probably something like 6 million per lane mile. As I understand it the rail proposal is 1-1.5 billion for 9 miles. Significantly more expensive.
Roads typically cost about 2 million per lane mile in corridors that dont have anything tricky.
Finally variable rate tolls are the *only* way to reduce congestion. increase the toll until the speed limit reaches whatever speed you want.
they cause 1) ride sharing 2) change in peoples driving times 3) telecommuting
You don't get it. It was a tremendous hassle to have to do everything by Tube and walking. An unbelievable hassle. And when I returned several years later and had a car I was astonished at how much more quickly I could go around and do things with my own transportation.
Edit: Also, to say nothing of the unbelievable chaos that was caused by bombs threats and left packages during the IRA bombing campaign.
exactly, Ive used public transit in hong kong, singapore, london, paris, tokyo (and elsewhere in japan), los angeles, new york, san francisco, DC etc etc. It isnt terrible and does work. Yet, there are many frustrating things about it.
having to walk long distances in extreme heat, rain or freezing cold
Having to sprint like crazy to make a train
Having too much sh*t to drag around
Not being able to carry a gun or emergency supplies
Trying to have one adult manage 3 children on multiple transfers
etc etc
I agree that trains provide options for people that want to live that way. Moving to a city with robust transit is another option as well.
I35 is a corridor with constrained space. Even then the cost of expanding it is probably something like 6 million per lane mile.
Try anywhere from $8.2 million (from TTI) to $16.2 million (TxDOT).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin97
As I understand it the rail proposal is 1-1.5 billion for 9 miles. Significantly more expensive.
The lane mile calculation I'm guessing you did in your head needs to be doubled, for one lane in either direction. In that case, what you're buying is the ability to transport about 1,900 people per hour in each direction. I don't know what the Urban Rail proposal looks like in terms of capacity, but it's probably fairly comparable to the single lane of highway capacity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin97
Roads typically cost about 2 million per lane mile in corridors that dont have anything tricky.
No, sorry. I wish that were true. A survey of highway projects completed in the last ten years showed that even "suburban" lanes miles cost an average of $8.6 million. Besides, I-35 is not a corridor that "don't have anything tricky".
Here's the data:
183A Extension $3,500,000
TX SH 121 $4,439,655
SH 45 SE $5,202,703
183A $5,803,448
US 59 $8,444,444
US 290 - Cypress TX $14,712,121
North Tarrant Expressway $18,518,519
Those are all projects that were done in the past. Generally, construction costs rise over time, so it's very likely that the price is now at least a little higher. So, no more $2 million/lane mile highways. Hasn't been that little for decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin97
Finally variable rate tolls are the *only* way to reduce congestion. increase the toll until the speed limit reaches whatever speed you want.
they cause 1) ride sharing 2) change in peoples driving times 3) telecommuting
Plus tolls are very inexpensive to implement.
I love this idea, and I'd like to see it implemented more extensively in Austin. I have to tell you, though, that after over a decade of technological innovation, telecommuting is a flop. It makes up less than 5% of the "commuters" on average in a given city. In recent years, large employers have started to change their minds about telecommuting - Best Buy, Target, Hewlett Packard and Yahoo have all in the recent past required their employees to come into an office somewhere. The value of face to face communication and interaction has risen, not dropped, in response to telecommuting technology improvements.
I notice that you didn't address any of my assertions about driverless cars vis a vis capacity. Care to debate how driverless cars will enhance capacity when there will be an enforced 20 car length distance to the front and rear of any given vehicle at 70 mph? I also answered your question about rail capacity; the least you could do is acknowledge that I seem to know a little about what I'm doing.
Last edited by jb9152; 08-23-2014 at 01:34 PM..
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.
