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.
Not when on my bike, though I have been in Portland's version of bike traffic because so many people bike there, but that isn't the same as your car traffic.
And some posters say this isn't an "us vs them" forum. So you don't drive at all?
Last edited by nei; 02-09-2014 at 09:09 PM..
Reason: fixed quote
And some posters say this isn't an "us vs them" forum. So you don't drive at all?
I do drive, and have been stuck in traffic before, and well aware it is my fault I am in traffic. I also know I am not stuck in traffic when I am on my bike. I prefer my bike over driving, I get much more out of it.
This isn't an us vs. them forum, nor is this an us vs. them thread. Just stating the obvious, you don't sit in traffic when on a bike.
Well, the Amish volunteer to make that choice, BUT, they have someone else transport them to perform their skilled labor in urban areas.
Density levels and aggregation of people involves (generally) higher costs of everything associated with infrastructure support and in turn transportation. Transportation options of the greatest speed / access/ time value will still be used from cars to trains to bicycles to walking.
if you want to discuss the viability of how public funds are spent on transportation options - I get it. Otherwise we all can be 'stuck' in traffic no matter our mode of transport.
That might eliminate being 'stuck' in traffic - but they'd have to be self flying, because, you know people still want to text, talk, or look up something on their device of choice while driving.
You have this exactly wrong. Density leads of efficiencies. Infrastructure costs are generally by the linear foot. When people live closer together you get two things: far more returned in taxes/unit of land and far fewer expenditures in total infrastructure.
I'm not stuck in traffic, ever. I live in close proximity to where 90% of my daily life needs can be handled on foot or bike. The remaining 10% is easily time shifted to non-traffic hours.
Do I have a 1/4 acre lot? I do not. I made the choice to live in a row home, close in to everything that I want or need.
Modern cities, perhaps. "Subcenters" are nothing new - that's just a fancy name for neighborhood business district.
As cities have grown - yes, even before the advent of mechanized conveyances! - multiple neighborhood business districts have been established. I daresay many of neighborhood business districts formed when traffic jams consisted of horses and wagons, and evolved from the corner store to a full line of shops and services to attract the business of the people living in neighborhoods who did the majority of their everyday business on foot.
Availability of land and other factors also weigh in.
Modern cities, perhaps. "Subcenters" are nothing new - that's just a fancy name for neighborhood business district.
They are. Neighborhoods always had their own shopping areas, but employment, especially office employment tend to be much centralized in the first half of the 20th century. Edge city office districts were not really found much until the later 20th century. Traffic making centers less convenient sounds like a plausible reason (out of many) for decentralization.
I would think that as I worked through traffic on my bike commuting through work. I am sure it pissed people off seeing me pass them as they sat in their cars stuck in traffic.
Not quite as upset as the guy on the guy who was passing and cutting in as he flew over the car door that had been opened right before him and his bike tried to cut in yet again.........the bike didn't fare well either....darn the luck.
I expected better from Sci Am. At least they're not quite so agenda driven (most of the time). However,
physicists look at everything from a physics perspective. Trust me, I've been married to one for 33 1/2 years now!
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
They are. Neighborhoods always had their own shopping areas, but employment, especially office employment tend to be much centralized in the first half of the 20th century. Edge city office districts were not really found much until the later 20th century. Traffic making centers less convenient sounds like a plausible reason (out of many) for decentralization.
Agreed. I think traffic "issues", not necessarily jams, is what spurred employment to the suburbs in the 70s or so.
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.
people still want to text, talk, or look up something on their device of choice while driving.
