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.
In Europe they had lots of older cities built before public transit and so transforming them to something the car can use was difficult.
Note for Helenski, a higher % of population growth was post-1900 or even post-1930 than Chicago [comparing metropolitan areas]. Something else was a factor.
Note for Helenski, a higher % of population growth was post-1900 or even post-1930 than Chicago [comparing metropolitan areas]. Something else was a factor.
Growth is different than having an city built for the car or not. You can pack more population in any area, but that won't by itself make people use transit. There has to be an advantage. If you have small narrow streets the car can not get up to it's potential. If you lack expressway thought the city likewise. If you need to rip up buildings that are hundreds of years old or displace people by the thousands getting public support to build the road is going to be hard. Those things will favor transit.
Unless this office is really off hours, wouldn't still be mass transit accessible. Chicago transit still runs off peak and in the evenings.
It runs less of it and the distance you would have to walk to get to your train or bus would increase as well as the wait time between trains. Only 2 rail lines run 24/7 and Metra stops running at around 11PM or 12AM on most lines and only some busses run all night. Offices away from the CBD would be effected even worse.
Growth is different than having an city built for the car or not. You can pack more population in any area, but that won't by itself make people use transit. There has to be an advantage. If you have small narrow streets the car can not get up to it's potential. If you lack expressway thought the city likewise. If you need to rip up buildings that are hundreds of years old or displace people by the thousands getting public support to build the road is going to be hard. Those things will favor transit.
It's liable to cause more road congestion and less parking availabilty. Why do NYC commercial areas typically lack parking? There's no space to put it, and densities are high enough people can walk or take transit, which has a higher coverage density for expressways. Transit frequency and coverage will also be higher. Chicago had to tear down parts of the old city for expressways, it could have, like Helenski, chose not to.
It's liable to cause more road congestion and less parking availabilty. Transit frequency and coverage will also be higher.
Transit coverage and frequency are at the mercy of an 3rd party. Road congestion, yes but the bus will be stuck in it as well. Parking availability will depend on if parking is provided for or not. Also if it had not torn down those buildings: The EL system wouldn't serve the city past 63rd street, O'Hare airport and the northwest part of the city past logan square as well as been able to reach Midway(a portion of the Orange line uses the Stevenson expressway).
NNJ was built around trains and streetcars; the streetcars are gone, but buses still run the same routes.
85% of households in Portland have at least one car.
Because it turns out that gridding train lines to a < 3 mile grid is not feasible given the population.
2 miles. It's 1.1 miles to the nearest bus stop which has a route leading to the grocery store.
Because the population wouldn't support a grocery store every mile.
And a number of those trains are gone as well, Jersey City Rail Depot being a big one that is gone. The PATH should have been what replaced a number of those rail lines with a more extensive system. The buses for the most part are really good in NNJ in the more urban areas, but it is much easier to have a car to do the most basic things.
I never said people in Portland don't own cars, I said they use transit. I owned a car while living in Portland and I walked, biked, and took transit more than I drove. I only really drove my car for fun when going to meet up with people in different neighborhoods.
So it sounds like it would be up to you to live closer to that nearest train station if you wish to make transit more usable in your commute, this is common for anyone living in a suburb that wishes to commute by train. That is called a choice in life, choosing where one lives based on the distance from things that are needed.
1.1 miles to the nearest bus stop? You really live in an auto-centric area. Which explains why you think transit only works in high density areas because you live in an area that is basically void of real transit options.
I assume if the population you live in can't even support small grocery stores, then it must be very light density, maybe 1,000psm at most.
You obviously just looked at those two pages of pictures very superficially. I especially liked the ones from "Occupy Chambersburg", what a funny thought. There are a lot of little shops and stuff around the square. Plus, keep in mind that these towns are quite small. Bloomsburg is 12,767 in a county of 66,887 (Columbia). That is not much bigger than it was when my parents lived there in 1967. Chambersburg, a historic Civil War town that was burned by the Confederates on their way to Gettysburg, has a population of 18,546, in a county (Franklin) of 149,618. Also keep in mind that they are far more exemplary of what a "town square" really is, being very old places.
Actually I looked at both of them on Google Maps, very cute towns, but they were essentially fountains in the middle of a road in each downtown. I would hope they were surrounded with shops, they are in the downtown area after all. But not sure why having a fountain/statue in the middle of the road would somehow be better or more of a town square than Pioneer Courthouse Square which is designed for people to use and is also surrounded by shops.
Don't get me wrong, I thought those two examples looked really cute small town feeling, but had they been surrounded by a square for people rather than roads for cars, that would have been more of what I would consider a town square.
They do call Pioneer Courthouse Square Portland's living room for a reason.
Yeap. Public transit is mostly safe, but anyone who has ridden it long enough likely has had a few scares. Plus issues like waiting in dangerous neighborhoods or walking at night by oneself don't help.
And yet again the 35,000 deaths a year in a car are overlooked. Why is that?
And yet again the 35,000 deaths a year in a car are overlooked. Why is that?
Cause there are far fewer sexual assaults and robberies or pick pocketing happening to people inside of cars and please people do get killed by transit accidents too.
Honestly transit is more costly than the car. The car just needs a road, the car itself is paid for privately. The bus system needs roads and drivers and buses all of which come out of public funds. Likewise rail.
The car is faster and more flexible than public transit in most situations.
An company that has parking or has parking nearby(even downtown Chicago has parking within walking distance of offices) can set it's hours however it pleases. An company dependent on transit is crippled to only being able to work when transit is available. So private forces favor the car. An store with parking can attract customers much from much further away than one that lacks it.
Public forces favor the car to some degree but realize that public transit has some use. I hate to say this but the moment the model T rolled off the assembly line the street car was doomed. The same roads that once held street cars and horses could accommodate the car and unlike the street car the car runs non stop to it's destination.
In Europe they had lots of older cities built before public transit and so transforming them to something the car can use was difficult. The streets of cities like Chicago were built wide enough to accommodate both horses and carts as well as have an street car run down the center. They were built grid like from the start and so on. Where as older cities are often less grid like, often narrower streets(Boston) and so on. Some places like New York and San Francisco public transit can dominate due to choke holds like bridges other places less so.
While everyone has their preferences here, both roads and transit are more effective and efficient when properly funded. You do realize that people in Europe aren't restricted from staying late at the office because they need to catch the last express bus to the suburbs, right?
Cars are faster, yes, in many cases. Cars and roads are cheaper? I don't know about that. How much money has been pumped into roads and driving in this country (consider how much the middle class has spent directly out of their pockets, and not just taxes)? Much much more than transit in the US. Which is why people don't take transit as much; no one wants to ride a bus to connect to another bus for 45 mins when they could drive much more quickly. However, it's not like that everywhere...and it may not be like that here forever.
Btw - Provide some proof how it would be all around cheaper if everyone drove vs everyone took transit (including taxes, out of pocket expenses, etc). Then tell me which poor countries have a high rate of car ownership in an auto centric society.
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.
