WORST road layout for a major city
BrianB4837
Most importantly, the lack of width of the highways. Here are the top reasons
NYs system is among the worst.
1. Inability to move through traffic past NYC - There is no easy route past NY
either North South, or East West (though geography makes the latter difficult)
2. Poor layout/implementation - While most of the shortcomings of the NYC area
system are due to poor implementation of highways, there are some minor design
flaws.
3. Poor roadway design - the highways in the city are poorly designed, with
sharp curves, small if any accel/decel lanes, left exits, and narrow lanes,
among other inefficiencies.
4. Parkways - NYC area has many parkways, which force trucks to use circuitous
routes, and local streets to get to their destinations.
5. Many crossings dont have direct links to highways. Brooklyn Bridge,
Williamsburg Bridge, Queensboro bridge, and many other bridges have no, or
incomplete highway connections.
6. More lanes please!!!! The typical NYC expressway is 6 lanes wide, not
nearly enough, should all be at LEAST 8.
Anyone else want to add their share of grievances?
Hi, I'm TV's Oscar The Grouch
perspective. Probably because of terrain problems, a lot of roads don't
really go anywhere. They keep building new subdivisions where there
aren't enough roads to handle them. You should see what the traffic is
like.
--
I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative!
----- http://members.iglou.com/bandit ------
Check out my blog blogga blog at http://bandit73.pitas.com
Eastward Bound
This is a dumb post. First off NYC is a historical city with much of
it built long before suburbia, the automobile and the superhighway.
If you love your car that much then by all means, move to Suburbia.
That would mean more room for people who prefer to live in NYC and
take public transit. If it weren't for the Subway, steel frame
buildings + elevators - NYC would not be the NYC that it is today. It
would never have gotten as dense as it is. NYC was built around
public transit rather then around the car.
Like I said, if you love your car that much that you absolutely MUST
drive it everywhere then you must move WEST, west of the Mississippi
River.
General rule of thumb. East Coast, Old. West Coast, New.
Angry Male
> it built long before suburbia, the automobile and the superhighway.
If you look at many old industrial cities - you'll see that back in
the day one didn't have to travel very far to get to where they needed
to go. Factories, stores and homes were all well within a short
distance from each other. They were planned and built long before car
was king. There was no need to commute in from the 'burbs unless you
were a farmer bringing your goods to market.
I'll agree with the original poster's comments about getting to/from
Long Island. Unless you want to pay through the nose to fly or ride
the Port Jeff or Orient Point ferries - there's really only one way in
and out - and that's through New York City. Not a smart design by
today's standards - but until the 1950's, Long Island (especially
Suffolk county) was considered the boonies.
Pat OConnell
> As an avid roadgeek New Yorker, I must nominate NYC area for a few reasons.
> Most importantly, the lack of width of the highways.
As others have said, NYC is very old, and wasn't designed for cars at all.
Austin TX has no excuse at all for not doing its highways right. It was
horrible in 1991 when I last drove in the town. Two north-south freeways
parallel to each other, neither with enough lanes. No east-west freeways.
I understand the town is getting new toll roads to relieve the congestion,
but I don't know if that will be enough to do the job.
--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
tropic...@tampabay.rr.com
Tampa - Unlike it's little brother St. Petersburg, Tampa's road system is in
shambles. Only NOW is the state been committing serious money to upgrading
the interstate and surface street system. For years South Florida has
gotten the cash...now Tampa bay gets the leftovers.
Tallahassee - Easily the WORST road design I'm ever seen. This is the only
city I've ever been in with overpasses to NOWHERE. Rather than make it's
"beltway", Capital Circle into a true 4 or 6 lane highway, much of it is
still 2 lane pot-strewn crap! The joke in Tally is that when they were
designing the road system, they tossed a bunch of monkeys in a room with
paper and crayons and the most nonsensical drawing is what they adopted for
the road system. And I know Tally is not considered a "major" city, but I
consider any state capital a major city.
Honorable Mention:
Kansas City - ONLY because I-29 has no discernable end point. That is just
INEXCUSABLE
"BrianB4837" <brian...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031219023407...@mb-m01.aol.com...
Nathan Perry
brian...@aol.com (BrianB4837) wrote:
> As an avid roadgeek New Yorker, I must nominate NYC area for a few reasons.
> Most importantly, the lack of width of the highways. Here are the top
> reasons
> NYs system is among the worst.
>
> 1. Inability to move through traffic past NYC - There is no easy route past
> NY
> either North South, or East West (though geography makes the latter
> difficult)
Fortunately, the transit system there works. There is admittedly still a
problem moving commercial traffic in, out and through, but at least
residents and commuters have a fair chance.
>
> 2. Poor layout/implementation - While most of the shortcomings of the NYC
> area
> system are due to poor implementation of highways, there are some minor
> design
> flaws.
Elaborate?
>
> 3. Poor roadway design - the highways in the city are poorly designed, with
> sharp curves, small if any accel/decel lanes, left exits, and narrow lanes,
> among other inefficiencies.
The design wasn't poor for its time, it's just outdated. Problem is, NYC
had its visionary period, transportation-wise, early last century, and
has not recently had the resources (or the man to make them available)
to continue this kind of progress in later years.
All the best of today's advances will similarly obsolesce in time.
>
> 4. Parkways - NYC area has many parkways, which force trucks to use
> circuitous
> routes, and local streets to get to their destinations.
This is because parkways were designed to get pleasure traffic off the
streets and leave commercial traffic on them. Through traffic does its
best to avoid the city, but the options are not many.
>
> 5. Many crossings dont have direct links to highways. Brooklyn Bridge,
> Williamsburg Bridge, Queensboro bridge, and many other bridges have no, or
> incomplete highway connections.
These bridges all predate the arterial highways you'd want them to
connect to. For their day, they did connect the major thoroughfares.
>
> 6. More lanes please!!!! The typical NYC expressway is 6 lanes wide, not
> nearly enough, should all be at LEAST 8.
Prohibitive ROW costs.
Nathan Perry
angry_wh...@eudoramail.com (Angry Male) wrote:
> If you look at many old industrial cities - you'll see that back in
> the day one didn't have to travel very far to get to where they needed
> to go. Factories, stores and homes were all well within a short
> distance from each other. They were planned and built long before car
> was king. There was no need to commute in from the 'burbs unless you
> were a farmer bringing your goods to market.
Before WWII, industries built developments for their workers adjacent to
the factories. These became the working class city neighborhoods of
today. Buffalo is basically a whole city full of these, and that's
probably true of most other cities nationwide.
>
> I'll agree with the original poster's comments about getting to/from
> Long Island. Unless you want to pay through the nose to fly or ride
> the Port Jeff or Orient Point ferries - there's really only one way in
> and out - and that's through New York City. Not a smart design by
> today's standards - but until the 1950's, Long Island (especially
> Suffolk county) was considered the boonies.
Long Island, simply stated, outgrew its accessibility. On the other
hand, anyone deciding to move there must understand to increased
difficulties of getting in and out. Persons with wanderlust should avoid
the island, while homebodies can do quite well there.
Jeff Kitsko
Pittsburgh - only three expressways make it into the CBD. Most lanes on an
expressway honor goes to I-279, but its a 3-2-3 combo with the center two as
HOV only lanes, separated from the main travel lanes. PA 28 is an
expressway almost to the city, but falls short (to be rectified). There are
no major bypass routes, unless you want to go out of your way and take the
Turnpike, I-79, or I-70. So, all traffic gets funneled through the CBD (for
now until the Southern Beltway is built, but it will go only as far as 43
and not I-76.
--
Jeff Kitsko
Pennsylvania Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/
Ohio Highways: http://www.ohhighways.com/
George Conklin
"Nathan Perry" <npe...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nperry-5D744B....@syrcnyrdrs-01-ge0.nyroc.rr.com...
> In article <20031219023407...@mb-m01.aol.com>,
> brian...@aol.com (BrianB4837) wrote:
>
> > As an avid roadgeek New Yorker, I must nominate NYC area for a few
reasons.
> > Most importantly, the lack of width of the highways. Here are the top
> > reasons
> > NYs system is among the worst.
> >
> > 1. Inability to move through traffic past NYC - There is no easy route
past
> > NY
> > either North South, or East West (though geography makes the latter
> > difficult)
>
> Fortunately, the transit system there works. There is admittedly still a
> problem moving commercial traffic in, out and through, but at least
> residents and commuters have a fair chance.
> >
Irrelevant comment. The issue was roads, not transit. And the transit
is not very good if you count speed. The great old IRT was nice 100 years
ago but it like riding a museum.
> > 2. Poor layout/implementation - While most of the shortcomings of the
NYC
> > area
> > system are due to poor implementation of highways, there are some minor
> > design
> > flaws.
>
> Elaborate?
> >
> > 3. Poor roadway design - the highways in the city are poorly designed,
with
> > sharp curves, small if any accel/decel lanes, left exits, and narrow
lanes,
> > among other inefficiencies.
>
> The design wasn't poor for its time, it's just outdated.
As is the transit system.
Problem is, NYC
> had its visionary period, transportation-wise, early last century, and
> has not recently had the resources (or the man to make them available)
> to continue this kind of progress in later years.
>
> All the best of today's advances will similarly obsolesce in time.
> >
The penalty of being first. NYC was a great port, but now being a port is
now so important anymore.
> > 4. Parkways - NYC area has many parkways, which force trucks to use
> > circuitous
> > routes, and local streets to get to their destinations.
>
> This is because parkways were designed to get pleasure traffic off the
> streets and leave commercial traffic on them. Through traffic does its
> best to avoid the city, but the options are not many.
> >
It is hard to avoid the city, but of course you can do it. Trying to get
a truck around NYC is a pain.
> > 5. Many crossings dont have direct links to highways. Brooklyn Bridge,
> > Williamsburg Bridge, Queensboro bridge, and many other bridges have no,
or
> > incomplete highway connections.
>
> These bridges all predate the arterial highways you'd want them to
> connect to. For their day, they did connect the major thoroughfares.
> >
That is no reason for the conditions to continue.
Pete from Boston
No. I'll do just the opposite.
NY is rife with duplicative routes, making alternates possible on just
about any trip.
The Manhattan street grid is for the most part logical and easily
grasped by outsiders. While the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens can be
confusing, they more or less adhere to looser grids of their own.
Staten Island is another matter, being essentially a suburb recently
developed.
One can enter and cross the city on a high speed through route coming
from most directions that geography allows.
Why am I so quick to defend the New York road system? Because I live
in Boston. And the frustration of driving in New York doesn't begin to
compare with that of Boston, where few through routes were ever
completed, the street pattern is for the most part random, and nearly
all corridors are served by only one decent route. Then there's the
appalling lack of complete interchanges and complementary one-way
streets -- par not to mention signs. Having spent good portions of my
life in both areas, I can't see any sane defense of NY being more
poorly laid out than Boston. Just spend a while driving here.
william lynch
tropic...@tampabay.rr.com at tropic...@tampabay.rr.com wrote on
12/19/03 8:42 AM:
> My two nominations
>
> Tampa - Unlike it's little brother St. Petersburg, Tampa's road system is in
> shambles. Only NOW is the state been committing serious money to upgrading
> the interstate and surface street system. For years South Florida has
> gotten the cash...now Tampa bay gets the leftovers.
>
> Tallahassee - Easily the WORST road design I'm ever seen. This is the only
> city I've ever been in with overpasses to NOWHERE. Rather than make it's
> "beltway", Capital Circle into a true 4 or 6 lane highway, much of it is
> still 2 lane pot-strewn crap! The joke in Tally is that when they were
> designing the road system, they tossed a bunch of monkeys in a room with
> paper and crayons and the most nonsensical drawing is what they adopted for
> the road system. And I know Tally is not considered a "major" city, but I
> consider any state capital a major city.
>
<big snippage>
Before you get flamed too much on your "I consider any state
capital a major city" comment, I think that you should research
some of the capitols around. Carson City and Juneau are the
two that come to mind first; Bismark, Pierre, Montpelier,
Helena and Lincoln should be examined, also.
Jay Maynard
>Before you get flamed too much on your "I consider any state
>capital a major city" comment, I think that you should research
>some of the capitols around. Carson City and Juneau are the
>two that come to mind first; Bismark, Pierre, Montpelier,
>Helena and Lincoln should be examined, also.
Hell, while we're at it, we should also examine the two that don't have
Interstates that aren't on your list: Jefferson City and Dover. (Juneau and
Pierre are the other two, for the folks who don't know; Carson City used to
be on that list (or maybe still should be for now: is I-515 there yet?).)
Chris Bessert
>
> Before you get flamed too much on your "I consider any state
> capital a major city" comment, I think that you should research
> some of the capitols around. Carson City and Juneau are the
> two that come to mind first; Bismark, Pierre, Montpelier,
> Helena and Lincoln should be examined, also.
Frankfort, Concord(!!), Augusta, Jefferson City, Santa Fe... others
which are small cities. Especially Concord!
Later,
Chris
--
Chris Bessert
Bess...@aol.com
http://www.michiganhighways.org
http://www.wisconsinhighways.org
http://www.ontariohighways.org
Jon Enslin
william lynch wrote:
Madison is also quite difficult unless you know it well. The lakes make
a grid system difficult and there are no numbered streets outside of six
on the east side...which don't even start at the Capitol Square.
The Beltline is nice, but again because of the lakes, it doesn't serve
everyone.
Contrast that to Milwaukee which is probably has one of the most logical
layout of any major city.
Jon
--
"It seems all you can do is step on our collective joy whenever Canada
achieves a milestone in sports." - rob
Craig Holl
> Contrast that to Milwaukee which is probably has one of the most
> logical layout of any major city.
Milwaukee County is very good, with nearly all the section lines serving as the
arterials. A few exceptions are: 1) western Franklin on the SW side of the
county, where the EW streets don't quite get to, and there aren't any NS
arterials. 2) A few places where the section line arterials get stopped because
of the angle streets. 3) Wauwatosa, where there is about three miles with only
one arterial.
The section line arterials do continue, for the most part, into the neighboring
suburbs. Unfortunately, Waukesha County is not trying to expand the grid system,
so we'll be stuck with cruddy arterials.
Now lets not even talk about the freeways...
--
Craig Holl
Mechanical Engineer; New Berlin, WI
www.midwestroads.com
*remove all numbers and caps to reply*
tropic...@tampabay.rr.com
warhead I consider a major city....
That's my personal criteria...importance..not population
"Chris Bessert" <Bess...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:brvq7r$1qrr$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
George Conklin
> In article <2bcc1fd3.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> angry_wh...@eudoramail.com (Angry Male) wrote:
>
> > If you look at many old industrial cities - you'll see that back in
> > the day one didn't have to travel very far to get to where they needed
> > to go. Factories, stores and homes were all well within a short
> > distance from each other. They were planned and built long before car
> > was king. There was no need to commute in from the 'burbs unless you
> > were a farmer bringing your goods to market.
>
> Before WWII, industries built developments for their workers adjacent to
> the factories. These became the working class city neighborhoods of
> today. Buffalo is basically a whole city full of these, and that's
> probably true of most other cities nationwide.
> >
With the coming of the street car, downtowns developed. They decimated
community shopping. People were supposed to travel downtown and AWAY from
the community for serious shopping.
You cannot have it both ways: pushing for centralized shopping downtown
and then stating people should shop locally.
Mark Roberts
|
| Before you get flamed too much on your "I consider any state
| capital a major city" comment, I think that you should research
| some of the capitols around. Carson City and Juneau are the
| two that come to mind first; Bismark, Pierre, Montpelier,
| Helena and Lincoln should be examined, also.
Apparently the Michelin US atlas has the same idea. Despite its
general excellence, it includes an inset map of Jefferson City,
Missouri, but not of Columbia, which is the largest city and
metropolitan area (for some value of "metropolitan") between Kansas
City and St Louis.
Just imagine if the California capital were still Benicia....
--
"Right here in Minnesota!"
"Bullwinkle, that's Florida!"
"Well, if they're gonna keep adding states all the time, they
can't expect me to keep up!" -- Rocky & Bullwinkle, episode 5, 1960
Mark Roberts
| Kansas City - ONLY because I-29 has no discernable end point. That is just
| INEXCUSABLE
If that's your criterion, I'd wonder what your restaurant reviews
would be like.
"This restaurant was awful *just* *because* the service exit wasn't
marked!"
Anyhow, Kansas City is a *very* easy city to move around in. The
boulevard system is a real plus and most boulevards are quite
attractive. About the worst things are the major freeway
interchanges on the Missouri side, which seemed to have a quite
demented design. The apotheosis of same, the Grandview Triangle,
just had extensive realignment work done (Ben Prusia's web site
documents some of it).
Amanda the F-ing GREAT!
> Most importantly, the lack of width of the highways. Here are the top reasons
> NYs system is among the worst.
European cities are WAY worse than American cities as far as roads go.
Many of them are a spaghetti mess of very narrow roads, which is
probably why biking is a popular alternative to cars in Amsterdam.
DanTheMan
> While the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens can be
> confusing, they more or less adhere to looser grids of their own.
Road, Drive, Avenue, Place, or Lane. Four-way intersections are few
and far between - one way streets abound. Just about every street has
a number of sections, and very few run continuously from one side of
Queens to the other without a few blocks missing. Don't even get me
started on Brooklyn - half a dozen sets of numbered streets which
don't connect. How about those numbers in the "Bay umpteenth St."
area? The numbers don't go in order: 14th Ave., Bay 7th St., Bay 8th
St., 15th Ave., Bay 10th St., Bay 11th St., 16th Ave., etc. Those
streets are all parallel, in order, from NW to SE.
> One can enter and cross the city on a high speed through route coming
> from most directions that geography allows.
The speed limits might be high, but you can't do 65 across the Cross
Bronx Expressway in bumper to bumper traffic. Last time I was there,
potholes restricted it to about 40 mph without the traffic. I-287 is a
nice bypass, but that's about all there is in the way of "high speed
through routes."
> Why am I so quick to defend the New York road system? Because I live
> in Boston.
I'll give you that - Boston is probably worse. The Big Dig helped -
but not enough.
Bob S
>
> <snip>
>
> Madison is also quite difficult unless you know it well. The lakes make
> a grid system difficult and there are no numbered streets outside of six
> on the east side...which don't even start at the Capitol Square.
>
> The Beltline is nice, but again because of the lakes, it doesn't serve
> everyone.
>
> Contrast that to Milwaukee which is probably has one of the most logical
> layout of any major city.
>
> Jon
Don't forget all the one-way streets also. There are actually eight
numbered streets on the east side. There are really only three ways
or combination thereof to efficiently get from the east side to the
west side or vice versa. The Beltline around the south side, Hwy
30/East Washington/Johnson/Gorham/University Ave through town or
around Lake Mendota on Packers/Northport/CTH M. So if anything
happens like a major crash, there are few good alternate routes.
The capacity on the Beltline is getting to the point where if someone
sneezes, traffic slows down and backs up. A north Beltline is needed.
Instead of a freeway, the county is pushing a 4-lane 45-mph arterial.
Bob S
BrianB4837
>but not enough.
>
Data may not totally indicate how awful NYs traffic problems are, but any NYer
knows how bad it really is. First of all, on NYC highways, there is no rush
hour direction. Generally, in both directions in the AM and the PM, you will
be sitting in traffic on most of the major commuting routes. Getting into the
city in the PM is just as difficult as it is in the AM.
In most of the other cities in the country, the traffic is near the "downtown
area", and then goes into the suburbs. In NYC, not only is there bad traffic
around Manhattan, and extending into the suburbs, but the boroughs themselves
are also traffic nightmares.
Daniel Westfall
Cities. My first thought is Greensboro, NC and Columbus, OH. Both IMHO
feel similar in size however Columbus is the winner as far as highway
system. Columbus features US 23 and US 33 to run you NW and SE. Then
there's I-71 and I-70. Both seem to serve well for points N, S, E, and
W. Then if the 2-di's are too congested there's I-270 and I-670. All
of these are generally 4-lane some are even 6 in some parts. I've never
had problems getting around thanks to what I feel is a good setup. Then
there's Greensboro. In my two years in this area I've felt there was a
desperate need for a loop similar to I-270. The only good route through
town to points west is I-40. This road was not stretched out to 8 lanes
(too many IMO) until the early '00's. I-40 should be 6-lanes with an
I-285 going around it. The loop is being built but it won't be finished
until the mid '10's. This should've been in place back in 1998 when
NC's economy was still booming in leaps and bounds. When the existing
projects are complete what's to say there's not the traffic to support
them?
Dino
"You'll shoot your eye out."
-The people vs. Ralphie
Eastward Bound
What are you talking about? I29 becomes highway 71. End of story.
TPH
rerouting onto the I-695 Beltway which it's never going to be able to handle.
To go west in Maryland from Baltimore you have to go down I-95 and take the
beltway to I-70. Reverse that for a western route coming into the city. Not
to mention that if you want to come from central PA you have to get off on 695
to get to 95 south. Same with northwestern maryland (I-795 into I-695 to get
to I-95.)
Most people think that the traffic problems are just in downtown and the inner
city, but if you get to the surrounding portions of the city, there's usually
several miles to I-95.
Jeff Leadbeater
weren't so many people that either walked or used the subway.
Jeff Leadbeater
I-395, I-83 and I-70 in a three-way interchange downtown by Camden Yards?
"TPH" <thart...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031220023802...@mb-m13.aol.com...
Stéphane Dumas
> Interstates that aren't on your list: Jefferson City and Dover. (Juneau
and
> Pierre are the other two, for the folks who don't know; Carson City used
to
> be on that list (or maybe still should be for now: is I-515 there yet?).)
For Carson City it's I-580. However in the case of Dover, now than DE-1
turnpike (future I-101?) is fully completed between I-95 and Dover, it could
be removed de facto from the list.
Stéphane Dumas
william lynch
steph...@NOSPAMvideotron.ca wrote on 12/20/03 7:20 AM:
I don't know where all of this "I-580" talk came from, but it
doesn't exist. Go here:
And, under "Reports & Publications" download "State Maintained
Highways Descriptions, Index and Maps". 50 cuts through E-W,
and 395 runs N-S. Those are the only highways in Carson City
proper (not the goofy annexation at Tahoe).
Oscar Voss
>
> in article 9LZEb.30866$7S3.4...@weber.videotron.net, Stéphane Dumas at
> steph...@NOSPAMvideotron.ca wrote on 12/20/03 7:20 AM:
> > For Carson City it's I-580. However in the case of Dover, now than DE-1
> > turnpike (future I-101?) is fully completed between I-95 and Dover, it could
> > be removed de facto from the list.
>
> I don't know where all of this "I-580" talk came from, but it
> doesn't exist. Go here:
>
> http://www.nevadadot.com/
It comes from, among other places, Andy Field's Nevada Highways site:
http://www.westcoastroads.com/nevada/i-580.html
as well as FHWA's website:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/table2.htm
FWIW, I just drove in October the completed portions of I-580 through
Reno, which are milemarked as I-580 even if still signed as US 395. But
the Interstate has not yet been completed to Carson City (they're still
working on new freeway segments).
--
Oscar Voss - ov...@erols.com - Arlington, Virginia
my Hot Springs and Highways pages: http://users.erols.com/ovoss/
william lynch
12/20/03 10:27 AM:
> william lynch wrote:
>>
>> in article 9LZEb.30866$7S3.4...@weber.videotron.net, Stéphane Dumas at
>> steph...@NOSPAMvideotron.ca wrote on 12/20/03 7:20 AM:
>
>>> For Carson City it's I-580. However in the case of Dover, now than DE-1
>>> turnpike (future I-101?) is fully completed between I-95 and Dover, it could
>>> be removed de facto from the list.
>>
>> I don't know where all of this "I-580" talk came from, but it
>> doesn't exist. Go here:
>>
>> http://www.nevadadot.com/
>
> It comes from, among other places, Andy Field's Nevada Highways site:
>
> http://www.westcoastroads.com/nevada/i-580.html
>
> as well as FHWA's website:
>
> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/table2.htm
>
> FWIW, I just drove in October the completed portions of I-580 through
> Reno, which are milemarked as I-580 even if still signed as US 395. But
> the Interstate has not yet been completed to Carson City (they're still
> working on new freeway segments).
OK, I misspoke. Slightly. It doesn't exist anywhere near
Carson City right now.
Andrew Tompkins
news:ClMEb.101350$b01.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
OK, so your saying any town that is unlucky enough to contain or sit next to:
Any military installation (regardless of size),
Any nuclear missile silo,
Any port facility,
Any airport with a hard surface runway of at least 5000 ft.,
Any rail yard,
Any crossings of major highways and/or railroads,
Any industrial base,
Any major river crossing,
and probably a few other categories.
This includes towns like Kenmare, ND (pop. 1081, probably no bigger than 100 blocks),
and numerous smaller towns within 20 miles that have no populations listed, which
sits near several missile silos and possibly a missile control facility.
--Andy
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Tompkins
Software Engineer
Beaverton, OR
http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways
--------------------------------------------------
william lynch
and...@comcast.net wrote on 12/20/03 2:42 PM:
I would skip the 'other categories', because I believe that your
current list includes more than 99.99% of the population.
Raymond Chuang
news:2bcc1fd3.03121...@posting.google.com...
> If you look at many old industrial cities - you'll see that back in
> the day one didn't have to travel very far to get to where they needed
> to go. Factories, stores and homes were all well within a short
> distance from each other. They were planned and built long before car
> was king. There was no need to commute in from the 'burbs unless you
> were a farmer bringing your goods to market.
Interestingly enough, it was the sheer overcrowding of London, England that
forced them to build the Underground subway system late in the 19th Century.
And even more interestingly enough, it was Underground extensions that built
up new suburbs in London!
--
Raymond Chuang
Sacramento, CA USA
Raymond Chuang
news:a57d66c7.03121...@posting.google.com...
> European cities are WAY worse than American cities as far as roads go.
> Many of them are a spaghetti mess of very narrow roads, which is
> probably why biking is a popular alternative to cars in Amsterdam.
Because of the sheer oldness of European cities (and the fact you can't move
and/or demolish historic old buildings), it's actually more convenient to
ride the excellent public transit systems in many of these cities.
Froggie
Under honorable mention: Virginia Beach, VA
A city of over 400K which, for most intents, only has one freeway...an east-west
route so congested that the nearby parallel arterial requires 8 lanes...
No north-south freeways....portions of the city that have only one way in or
out....badly time traffic lights on the arterials (though I've read that this
will be partially rectified soon)...overdevelopment....and an acute lack of
access management on all but two routes...
It is not uncommon during peak hours for one travelling Independence Blvd (VA
225) to spend 15+ minutes travelling the 3/4 mile or so from north of VA Beach
Blvd (US 58) to I-264. If you can do it in less than 10 minutes, it's a
light/quiet rush hour...
Froggie | Reporting from Liverpool, NY (but will be back in Virginia Beach
next weekend) | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/
william lynch
Chuang at rch...@goodbye.mindspring.com wrote on 12/21/03 6:38 AM:
Only on the northern half. The first southern tube extensions
are just now getting down there, due to the difficulties in
tunneling through the bedrock.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Under honorable mention: Virginia Beach, VA
>
> A city of over 400K which, for most intents, only has one freeway...an east-west
> route so congested that the nearby parallel arterial requires 8 lanes...
That wasn't the reason why US-58 was widened to 8 lanes. It formerly
had 2 mainline lanes each way and 2 service road lanes each way, and the
service roads were narrow surface-treated roads; and it was decided that
a conventional 8-lane arterial would make maximum use of the
right-of-way available, with more capacity and better ease of use. The
service roads had narrow outer separators and small slip ramps to the
main roadways, and it wasn't a good arrangement.
I-264 is an 8- to 10-lane freeway with an HOV lane each way. I-64 also
passes through a populated section of Virginia Beach.
> No north-south freeways....portions of the city that have only one way in or
> out....badly time traffic lights on the arterials (though I've read that this
> will be partially rectified soon)...overdevelopment....and an acute lack of
> access management on all but two routes...
Well, the fact that it is a coastal city that is hemmed in on 3 of 4
sides by geography, is a prime factor in that. The city has the
Atlantic Ocean on the east, Chesapeake Bay on the north, and on the
south Back Bay and Currituck Sound. The northern (most populated) part
of the city has internal waters in Little Creek, Lake Smith, Lynnhaven
Bay, and Broad Bay. There are plenty of wetlands in various parts of
the city.
All that makes it difficult to build new highways, from a cost
standpoint as well as from an environmental standpoint. Any north-south
new freeway in the mid section of the city would likely be infeasible,
and any coastal freeway along US-60 would likely be infeasible. So the
city has focused on expanding its arterial road system.
The Southeastern Expressway was proposed as an 8-lane freeway, running
from the Route 168 Bypass near Kempville Road, east-west about 5 miles
south of I-264, then curving around the east edge of Oceana NAS, and
ending at I-264 near Birdneck Road. Environmental and development
concerns led to the proposal being reduced to the Southeastern Parkway,
a 4- and 6-lane parkway, but the project is still stalled by
environmental and development concerns, mainly due to the concerns of
Virginia Beach elected officials. The project was the highest rated
regional project in an MPO study done several years ago that compared
traffic benefits to the cost of the project.
Virginia Beach had a referendum in 1999, concerning funding for the
light rail line proposed between downtown Norfolk and the Oceanfront,
along the very lightly used Norfolk-Southern freight rail line that
parallels US-58. The voters (actually only 11% turnout) said "no".
Norfolk is going forward on its section of the line out to Newtown Road,
and I think that Virginia Beach ought to revisit the issue, since I
think that this line would serve a valuable purpose. The rail
right-of-way is already there and it happens to be positioned where it
will serve a lot of neighborhoods and business complexes, with selective
grade separations (over 4 or 5 major road crossings) the trip time would
be about 25 minutes from end to end, and the $700 million cost was vying
for 50% federal transit funding back in 1999. Hampton Roads Transit is
negotiating to buy that right-of-way for its proposed light rail line,
although only the Norfolk section has been approved by its respective
city. Still, if the city's position changes that line has potential for
a light rail line that could also handle freight movements from about
midnight to 5:00 AM when the LRT is not running. A northern LRT
extension to the U.S. Naval Base was also under consideration.
Virginia Beach has quadrupled in population since it became a city in
1965, so a lot of people want to live there, and the above two major
transportation projects would help the city a lot, and would be mainly
funded by state and federal funding.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Sancho Panza
> Getting into the city in the PM is just as difficult as it is in the AM.
That is an understatement. After the Port Authority flips the middle tube of
the Lincoln Tunnel around 4:15 p.m. to all New Jersey bound, traffic on
Route 3 backs up for an hour to an hour and a half, largely because everyone
fears what might happen if they had to stack up the traffic in Manhattan.
The one saving grace is that after the efficacy of the morning Express Bus
Lane became immediately apparent, the Port Authority had to explain that it
could not operate a westbound Express Bus Lane in the evenings because of
the tremendous crush of eastbound traffic at that hour.
Mike Tantillo
> Most importantly, the lack of width of the highways. Here are the top reasons
> NYs system is among the worst.
>
> 1. Inability to move through traffic past NYC - There is no easy route past NY
> either North South, or East West (though geography makes the latter difficult)
>
> 2. Poor layout/implementation - While most of the shortcomings of the NYC area
> system are due to poor implementation of highways, there are some minor design
> flaws.
>
Remember, most of the roads are old....thats probably why....
> 3. Poor roadway design - the highways in the city are poorly designed, with
> sharp curves, small if any accel/decel lanes, left exits, and narrow lanes,
> among other inefficiencies.
See above.
>
> 4. Parkways - NYC area has many parkways, which force trucks to use circuitous
> routes, and local streets to get to their destinations.
I like parkways. I hate trucks. I find trucks to be very rude and
inconsiderate. When I switch into the left lane, I will switch when
the lane is clear. I will not cut someone off who is barrelling down
the lane trying to pass me. DO the trucks do this? No, they just cut
you off. Trucks also drive slow, forcing you to pass them, and when
you finally pass them, they speed up (ok, this doesn't always happen,
but it happens often enough). Trucks have really annoying spray from
their tires when it rains. Truckers make their rolling lane blocks at
construction zones, forcing cars who want to get to their exit before
the lane closure but after the truck-block to use the shoulder to get
around the truck. Trucks accelerate too slowly, and often can't keep
up with traffic in a traffic jam, meaning that a big gap opens up in
front which other cars dive into....so in otherwords, the truck and
all the people behind it lose out. Trucks emit terrible
pollution....I was almost overcome by fumes on the cross bronx once
when stuck in one of those long underpasses with idling, accelerating
trucks. Trucks also often drive recklessly...they ought to be held to
a higher standard since they are inherently more dangerous then cars,
since they weigh so much more. Trucks also block the view in front of
them, which makes driving behind them dangerous and not fun, and lots
of times, they make it difficult to pass them.
Traffic is bad enough in NY where I enjoy driving on the parkways
without the hassles of driving with the annoying trucks....I feel a
lot safer too on the parkways without the big-rigs.
>
> 5. Many crossings dont have direct links to highways. Brooklyn Bridge,
> Williamsburg Bridge, Queensboro bridge, and many other bridges have no, or
> incomplete highway connections.
These bridges are considered local streets, and are part of the local
street network. Bridges on the highway network are the toll bridges.
If you made the free bridges too easy to get to, no one would use the
toll bridges!
>
> 6. More lanes please!!!! The typical NYC expressway is 6 lanes wide, not
> nearly enough, should all be at LEAST 8.
>
Again, probably because of their age, and due to robert moses' abuse
of local communities, the NIMBY's are stronger then ever here....
Mike Tantillo
> In article <2bcc1fd3.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> angry_wh...@eudoramail.com (Angry Male) wrote:
>
> > the day one didn't have to travel very far to get to where they needed
> > to go. Factories, stores and homes were all well within a short
> > distance from each other. They were planned and built long before car
> > was king. There was no need to commute in from the 'burbs unless you
> > were a farmer bringing your goods to market.
>
> the factories. These became the working class city neighborhoods of
> today. Buffalo is basically a whole city full of these, and that's
> probably true of most other cities nationwide.
See but people don't necessarily want to live next to a factory these
days. People want to live farther away from the pressures of work.
> >
> > I'll agree with the original poster's comments about getting to/from
> > Long Island. Unless you want to pay through the nose to fly or ride
> > the Port Jeff or Orient Point ferries - there's really only one way in
> > and out - and that's through New York City. Not a smart design by
> > today's standards - but until the 1950's, Long Island (especially
> > Suffolk county) was considered the boonies.
>
> Long Island, simply stated, outgrew its accessibility. On the other
> hand, anyone deciding to move there must understand to increased
> difficulties of getting in and out. Persons with wanderlust should avoid
> the island, while homebodies can do quite well there.
most people get along fine, since we don't need to leave the island
for anything. The island is self-sufficient, plenty of stores,
employment, etc for the most part. But yes, people like me who like
to travel to the outside world should (and in my case eventually will)
avoid long island. Some people like the isolation though.
Mike Tantillo
> "Nathan Perry" <npe...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:nperry-A3A720....@syrcnyrdrs-01-ge0.nyroc.rr.com...
> > In article <2bcc1fd3.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> > angry_wh...@eudoramail.com (Angry Male) wrote:
> >
> > > If you look at many old industrial cities - you'll see that back in
> > > the day one didn't have to travel very far to get to where they needed
> > > to go. Factories, stores and homes were all well within a short
> > > distance from each other. They were planned and built long before car
> > > was king. There was no need to commute in from the 'burbs unless you
> > > were a farmer bringing your goods to market.
> >
> > Before WWII, industries built developments for their workers adjacent to
> > the factories. These became the working class city neighborhoods of
> > today. Buffalo is basically a whole city full of these, and that's
> > probably true of most other cities nationwide.
> > >
>
> community shopping. People were supposed to travel downtown and AWAY from
> the community for serious shopping.
>
> You cannot have it both ways: pushing for centralized shopping downtown
> and then stating people should shop locally.
unless everyone lives downtown which is what a lot of radical
environmentalists think should happen.
Exile on Market Street
To a historian of transport in all its variety, this is less surprising
than it may seem to some on this board.
Both population growth and (in some countries) cultural preferences have
contributed to a fairly steady expansion in area of large cities since
the 18th century. As new technologies made it possible to open up land
further away from the city for development, development has followed the
paths of the new modes of travel.
The phrase "streetcar suburb" entered the language via historian Sam
Bass Warner's landmark 1962 book on how metropolitan Boston developed in
the late 19th century on the back of its expanding streetcar network.
And as the residents of these new developments rode the cars to their
jobs and shopping downtown, the resulting gridlock caused by the
convergence of so many streetcars on compact downtown Boston led that
city to become the first in North America to open a subway. Many other
US cities experienced similar patterns of rail transit-driven expansion
and traffic in the late 1800s and early 1900s, though relatively few of
them sought the expensive congestion remedy of a subway (either
streetcar or rapid-transit variety).
All of those old Northeastern cities have development patterns of the
type found in New York to a greater or lesser degree, though none have
high-density development on the scale of Manhattan's. And the
disruption caused by the initial punching of expressways through the
urban fabric eventually led to a major backlash against freeway
construction in all of them--New York's highway network is as
"inadequate" as it is because most of it was completed well before the
backlash began in the mid- to late 1960s.
--
-----------Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia----------
Managing Editor, _Penn Current_ / smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
215.898.1423 / fax 215.898.1203 / http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
Got news? Got events? Got stories? Send 'em to cur...@pobox.upenn.edu
If you see this line, the opinions expressed are mine, not Penn's
"I keep telling my husband, 'How bad is that? [Tim] Russert's not
getting it two times a day.'"
--Comedian/talk-show co-host Ali Wentworth, on reassuring hubby
George Stephanopolous that her remark about their marriage ("Do you
know of many strained marriages that make love twice a day?") was not
---------------all that scandalous (_Philadelphia Inquirer_ 9/30/03)--
Mike Tantillo
> > In article <20031219023407...@mb-m01.aol.com>,
> > brian...@aol.com (BrianB4837) wrote:
> >
> > > As an avid roadgeek New Yorker, I must nominate NYC area for a few
> reasons.
> > > Most importantly, the lack of width of the highways. Here are the top
> > > reasons
> > > NYs system is among the worst.
> > >
> > > 1. Inability to move through traffic past NYC - There is no easy route
> past
> > > NY
> > > either North South, or East West (though geography makes the latter
> > > difficult)
> >
> > problem moving commercial traffic in, out and through, but at least
> > residents and commuters have a fair chance.
> > >
>
> Irrelevant comment. The issue was roads, not transit. And the transit
> is not very good if you count speed. The great old IRT was nice 100 years
> ago but it like riding a museum.
No, it is relevant.....transit = transportation, just like roads =
transportation. People in NY are used to using their transit system,
in fact, the proportion of NYers who use transit is higher then in any
other major US city.....put it this way, the roads would be A LOT
worse if it weren't for the transit. Very few people drive anywhere
in Manhattan, not only are the roads congested, but there won't be any
cheap place to park when you get there! Transit increases the
accessibility of the city, and makes a place like Manhattan
possible...no way you coul dhave that density with only roads and not
transit...well, you could, but only the richest of the rich would be
able to afford to get there.
>
>
> > > 2. Poor layout/implementation - While most of the shortcomings of the
> NYC
> > > area
> > > system are due to poor implementation of highways, there are some minor
> > > design
> > > flaws.
> >
> > Elaborate?
> > >
> > > 3. Poor roadway design - the highways in the city are poorly designed,
> with
> > > sharp curves, small if any accel/decel lanes, left exits, and narrow
> lanes,
> > > among other inefficiencies.
> >
> > The design wasn't poor for its time, it's just outdated.
>
>
> As is the transit system.
Outside of Manhattan, yes.....and if you could ADA access, then yes,
the entire system is outdated.
>
> Problem is, NYC
> > had its visionary period, transportation-wise, early last century, and
> > has not recently had the resources (or the man to make them available)
> > to continue this kind of progress in later years.
> >
> > All the best of today's advances will similarly obsolesce in time.
> > >
>
> The penalty of being first. NYC was a great port, but now being a port is
> now so important anymore.
>
> > > 4. Parkways - NYC area has many parkways, which force trucks to use
> > > circuitous
> > > routes, and local streets to get to their destinations.
> >
> > This is because parkways were designed to get pleasure traffic off the
> > streets and leave commercial traffic on them. Through traffic does its
> > best to avoid the city, but the options are not many.
> > >
>
> It is hard to avoid the city, but of course you can do it. Trying to get
> a truck around NYC is a pain.
>
>
> > > 5. Many crossings dont have direct links to highways. Brooklyn Bridge,
> > > Williamsburg Bridge, Queensboro bridge, and many other bridges have no,
> or
> > > incomplete highway connections.
> >
> > These bridges all predate the arterial highways you'd want them to
> > connect to. For their day, they did connect the major thoroughfares.
> > >
>
>
> That is no reason for the conditions to continue.
Yes, they should have been fixed when the express highways were built.
But because Robert Moses wasn't in charge of the free bridges, he
only made it easy to get to the toll facilities that his Triboro
bridge and tunnel authority ran. If Moses wanted to connect them, he
would have done it, since he was unstoppable. Today, its too
late....people will not tollerate an "unstoppable" road builder in the
city because of Moses' past abuses.
>
> > > 6. More lanes please!!!! The typical NYC expressway is 6 lanes wide,
> not
> > > nearly enough, should all be at LEAST 8.
> >
> > Prohibitive ROW costs.
Exile on Market Street
> Honorable Mention:
>
> Kansas City - ONLY because I-29 has no discernable end point. That is just
> INEXCUSABLE
That strikes me as more a signage oversight than a system design defect.
I don't know if the situation is the same today as it was in the 1970s,
but I believe the problem stems from the fact that the southern end of
I-29 is at the 29/35 junction north of the river, about 5 miles N of the
downtown freeway loop. Motorists in downtown KC need to know which road
leads to I-29 northbound while southbound motorists on I-29 simply
continue into the city on I-35, so you get I-29 markers northbound but
not southbound on the North Midtown (Paseo Bridge) Freeway.
Mike Tantillo
>
>
> NY is rife with duplicative routes, making alternates possible on just
> about any trip.
I agree with you on this. Where else will you find a city with 2
freeways paralleling each other as closely as the LIE and Northern
State? This essentially makes the 6-lane grievance a moot point, as
for all intents and purposes, the LIE corridor is at least 12 lanes
wide when you count the northern state.
Also, one other thing....NYC is great with signal timing, which means
one doesn't even need to use highways at rush hour when they are
jammed, since the arterials often move faster in the rush hour
direction due to signal timing. Try Union Turnpike instead of the
grand central at rush hour sometime.
>
> The Manhattan street grid is for the most part logical and easily
> grasped by outsiders. While the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens can be
> confusing, they more or less adhere to looser grids of their own.
> Staten Island is another matter, being essentially a suburb recently
> developed.
>
> One can enter and cross the city on a high speed through route coming
> from most directions that geography allows.
>
> Why am I so quick to defend the New York road system? Because I live
> in Boston. And the frustration of driving in New York doesn't begin to
> compare with that of Boston, where few through routes were ever
> completed, the street pattern is for the most part random, and nearly
> all corridors are served by only one decent route. Then there's the
> appalling lack of complete interchanges and complementary one-way
> streets -- par not to mention signs. Having spent good portions of my
> life in both areas, I can't see any sane defense of NY being more
> poorly laid out than Boston. Just spend a while driving here.
Mike Tantillo
Probably because people commute to the suburbs from the city, and vice
versa. Also, the inter-suburb commuters as well. While more Long
Islanders commute west then east, since the LIRR only serves people
commuting to the west decently, the eastbound traffic can be hellish
in the morning and westbound in the afternoon. Northern State, LIE
both jammed from Roslyn to the city line, and soutehrn state is bad
from Seaford Oyster Bay to Hempstead Lake.
Mike Tantillo
I oft wonder what generates all this traffic...as manhattan outbound
traffic at morning rush hour is very very rarely heavy....so its not
manhattan residents commuting to jobs in the 'burbs....
LIE heading inbound is bad too at evening rush hour.
Froggie
> inconsiderate.
Which is the opposite of my 30K a year mileage experience. On the whole, I find
truckers to be a lot more polite and considerate than other drivers...
> Trucks also often drive recklessly...they ought to be held to a higher
> standard since they are inherently more dangerous then cars, since
> they weigh so much more.
They ARE held to a higher standard. It's a bit more difficult to get a CDL than
it is to get a regular driver's license...
> Trucks also block the view in front of them, which makes driving
> behind them dangerous and not fun, and lots of times, they make it
> difficult to pass them.
The same could be said of many SUVs and pickup trucks...
Froggie | Reporting from Liverpool, NY | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/
Nathan Perry
mjtan...@yahoo.com (Mike Tantillo) wrote:
> Nathan Perry <npe...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<nperry-A3A720....@syrcnyrdrs-01-ge0.nyroc.rr.com>...
> > In article <2bcc1fd3.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> > angry_wh...@eudoramail.com (Angry Male) wrote:
> >
> > > If you look at many old industrial cities - you'll see that back in
> > > the day one didn't have to travel very far to get to where they needed
> > > to go. Factories, stores and homes were all well within a short
> > > distance from each other. They were planned and built long before car
> > > was king. There was no need to commute in from the 'burbs unless you
> > > were a farmer bringing your goods to market.
> >
> > Before WWII, industries built developments for their workers adjacent to
> > the factories. These became the working class city neighborhoods of
> > today. Buffalo is basically a whole city full of these, and that's
> > probably true of most other cities nationwide.
>
> See but people don't necessarily want to live next to a factory these
> days. People want to live farther away from the pressures of work.
I didn't mean they should have to. I was just pointing it out as a
reason for residences being close to industries.
> most people get along fine, since we don't need to leave the island
> for anything. The island is self-sufficient, plenty of stores,
> employment, etc for the most part. But yes, people like me who like
> to travel to the outside world should (and in my case eventually will)
> avoid long island. Some people like the isolation though.
Yes, I would also go nuts not being able to escape. As long as the
island is self-sufficient, fine. It's unrealistic, however, for people
to complain about its isolation and inaccessability, as much so as
moving to East Boston and complaining about noise from Logan's runways.
BrianB4837
>Islanders commute west then east, since the LIRR only serves people
>commuting to the west decently, the eastbound traffic can be hellish
>in the morning and westbound in the afternoon. Northern State, LIE
>both jammed from Roslyn to the city line, and soutehrn state is bad
>from Seaford Oyster Bay to Hempstead Lake.
>
>
>
>
>
>
This is a good point, one morning I was heading out east from Brooklyn, the
Belt through Brooklyn and Queens moved just fine, but then the Southern State
through Nassau was hellish all the way to the Seaford Oyster Bay.
George Conklin
"Mike Tantillo" <mjtan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e48ae109.03122...@posting.google.com...
> Nathan Perry <npe...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<nperry-A3A720....@syrcnyrdrs-01-ge0.nyroc.rr.com>...
> > In article <2bcc1fd3.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> > angry_wh...@eudoramail.com (Angry Male) wrote:
> >
> > > If you look at many old industrial cities - you'll see that back in
> > > the day one didn't have to travel very far to get to where they needed
> > > to go. Factories, stores and homes were all well within a short
> > > distance from each other. They were planned and built long before car
> > > was king. There was no need to commute in from the 'burbs unless you
> > > were a farmer bringing your goods to market.
> >
> > Before WWII, industries built developments for their workers adjacent to
> > the factories. These became the working class city neighborhoods of
> > today. Buffalo is basically a whole city full of these, and that's
> > probably true of most other cities nationwide.
>
> See but people don't necessarily want to live next to a factory these
> days. People want to live farther away from the pressures of work.
>
Fool...you don't know what is good for you. Workers, mere workers, must
live near the factory. Urban planners and the well-to-do will live on Nob
Hill, Mainline or wherever they want to, and demand workers pay a huge
subsidy to get them to and from work comfortably on trains.
George Conklin
You don't understand Smart Growth. Smart Growth wants to replace downtown
stores with people, and then place stores scattered all around the city,
presumably so you can walk to them. It is the opposite of downtown really:
scattered stores with concentrated people.
George Conklin
"Exile on Market Street" <smi...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:bs5n1e$cr40$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
Boston and New York are located on the ocean, limiting access. Why?
Because in the distant past ports were very important. After the steam era,
ports were not the basis for organization of cities and most in the South
never developed the way urban planners today want to have a city develop.
Trying to superimpose obsolete technology on modern cities is dysfunctional,
but then planners apply the thought patterns of art criticism to technology
and fail. So keep roads out of the old cities. Let development move to new
areas where society can be efficiently organized.
George Conklin
The issue here is roads, not blaming roads for all ills, real and
imagined. Commute times in NYC are longer than in other cities because of
transit.
George Conklin
news:<20031220014527...@mb-m21.aol.com>...
> > >I'll give you that - Boston is probably worse. The Big Dig helped -
> > >but not enough.
> > >
> >
> > Data may not totally indicate how awful NYs traffic problems are, but
any NYer
> > knows how bad it really is. First of all, on NYC highways, there is no
rush
> > hour direction. Generally, in both directions in the AM and the PM, you
will
> > be sitting in traffic on most of the major commuting routes. Getting
into the
> > city in the PM is just as difficult as it is in the AM.
> >
> > In most of the other cities in the country, the traffic is near the
"downtown
> > area", and then goes into the suburbs. In NYC, not only is there bad
traffic
> > around Manhattan, and extending into the suburbs, but the boroughs
themselves
> > are also traffic nightmares.
>
>
> Probably because people commute to the suburbs from the city, and vice
> versa.
85% of the commutes in NYC are from suburb to suburb.
Pete from Boston
> mass...@my-deja.com (Pete from Boston) wrote in message news:<b282e3e6.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> > <cut out lots of stuff>
> > While the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens can be
> > confusing, they more or less adhere to looser grids of their own.
> Road, Drive, Avenue, Place, or Lane. Four-way intersections are few
> and far between - one way streets abound. Just about every street has
> a number of sections, and very few run continuously from one side of
> Queens to the other without a few blocks missing. Don't even get me
> started on Brooklyn - half a dozen sets of numbered streets which
> don't connect. How about those numbers in the "Bay umpteenth St."
> area? The numbers don't go in order: 14th Ave., Bay 7th St., Bay 8th
> St., 15th Ave., Bay 10th St., Bay 11th St., 16th Ave., etc. Those
> streets are all parallel, in order, from NW to SE.
You're right, but layout was the issue in question, not nomenclature.
Sean
One crosstown highway with only 2 lanes for each direction, underpowered
exits and onramps and connected to New Jersey by signaled intersections.
I-676
One North-South highway under massive reconstruction without a direct
connection to either the PA turnpike (maybe rectified) or I-76
I-95
One <excuse> of an Northwest-Southeast highway, only two lanes in each
direction with dangerous sharp interchanges with I-676 and a really
dangerous junction at King of Prussia(the whole 202-422-76 mess) (And South
St a left lane exit/onramp non signaled SPUI)
I-76
South Jersey in general (Only North-South highways)
Route 1 (Roosevelt Blvd.) Anyone who has used this will understand
And as Jeff said no major bypass routes as these (476,295) are heavily used
by the residents.
But somehow our traffic never seems as bad as everwhere else.
Look for yourself...
http://www.traffic.com/Philadelphia/drivetime_1_3_2.html
"Jeff Kitsko" <webm...@tollspahighways.com> wrote in message
news:GUHEb.598566$Tr4.1564561@attbi_s03...
> "BrianB4837" <brian...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20031219023407...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >
> > Anyone else want to add their share of grievances?
>
> Pittsburgh - only three expressways make it into the CBD. Most lanes on
an
> expressway honor goes to I-279, but its a 3-2-3 combo with the center two
as
> HOV only lanes, separated from the main travel lanes. PA 28 is an
> expressway almost to the city, but falls short (to be rectified). There
are
> no major bypass routes, unless you want to go out of your way and take the
> Turnpike, I-79, or I-70. So, all traffic gets funneled through the CBD
(for
> now until the Southern Beltway is built, but it will go only as far as 43
> and not I-76.
>
> --
> Jeff Kitsko
> Pennsylvania Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/
> Ohio Highways: http://www.ohhighways.com/
>
>
TPH
>I-395, I-83 and I-70 in a three-way interchange downtown by Camden Yards?
Obviously, because even that was never planned. I-795 should serve the suburbs
near Northern Parkway---83 should go to 95 (maybe a Big Dig-esque project), 70
I don't see happening, seeing how I-170 is now a grassland, and 395 probably
will never go any further south of where it is.
Froggie
east-west
> > route so congested that the nearby parallel arterial requires 8 lanes...
>
> That wasn't the reason why US-58 was widened to 8 lanes. It formerly
> had 2 mainline lanes each way and 2 service road lanes each way, and the
> service roads were narrow surface-treated roads; and it was decided that
> a conventional 8-lane arterial would make maximum use of the
> right-of-way available, with more capacity and better ease of use. The
> service roads had narrow outer separators and small slip ramps to the
> main roadways, and it wasn't a good arrangement.
Poor choice of words in my previous post, perhaps....I'm aware of VA Beach
Blvd's former configuration, but one would have to be blind to not see that it's
proximity to I-264 lends its use as a reliever for 264. My point is that BOTH
routes are congested.
> I-264 is an 8- to 10-lane freeway with an HOV lane each way. I-64 also
> passes through a populated section of Virginia Beach.
I-64 only has one interchange within Virginia Beach, and except for feeding the
mess on Indian River Rd, it doesn't serve much function within VA Beach.
> > No north-south freeways....portions of the city that have only one way in or
> > out....badly time traffic lights on the arterials (though I've read that
this
> > will be partially rectified soon)...overdevelopment....and an acute lack of
> > access management on all but two routes...
>
> Well, the fact that it is a coastal city that is hemmed in on 3 of 4
> sides by geography, is a prime factor in that. The city has the
> Atlantic Ocean on the east, Chesapeake Bay on the north, and on the
> south Back Bay and Currituck Sound. The northern (most populated) part
> of the city has internal waters in Little Creek, Lake Smith, Lynnhaven
> Bay, and Broad Bay. There are plenty of wetlands in various parts of
> the city.
And that's *NO* reason why they couldn't have planned for a better grid...or at
least provided enough room for future interchanges at major intersections. In a
nutshell, they overdeveloped, without accounting for the mess that said
development (not to mention too many driveways and private accesses onto the
"arterials") would make of the road system.
> All that makes it difficult to build new highways, from a cost
> standpoint as well as from an environmental standpoint. Any north-south
> new freeway in the mid section of the city would likely be infeasible,
> and any coastal freeway along US-60 would likely be infeasible. So the
> city has focused on expanding its arterial road system.
What good is expanding the arterial road system if they don't incorporate some
access management in the process? What they did with the 8-lane part of VA
165/Princess Anne Rd is good, but that's by far the exception, not the rule.
Any north-south freeway AT THIS POINT is infeasible, but they could've planned
for such when they plotted Independence Blvd in the mid-60s...
> The Southeastern Expressway was proposed as an 8-lane freeway, running
> from the Route 168 Bypass near Kempville Road, east-west about 5 miles
> south of I-264, then curving around the east edge of Oceana NAS, and
> ending at I-264 near Birdneck Road. Environmental and development
> concerns led to the proposal being reduced to the Southeastern Parkway,
> a 4- and 6-lane parkway, but the project is still stalled by
> environmental and development concerns, mainly due to the concerns of
> Virginia Beach elected officials.
Moreso Cheseapeake officials than Virginia Beach officials...and moreso those
residents that worry what the road will do south of the "green line"...
> The project was the highest rated regional project in an MPO study done
> several years ago that compared traffic benefits to the cost of the project.
Ratings, as we see with today's situation, have no meaning if one doesn't follow
through...
> Virginia Beach had a referendum in 1999, concerning funding for the
> light rail line proposed between downtown Norfolk and the Oceanfront,
> along the very lightly used Norfolk-Southern freight rail line that
> parallels US-58. The voters (actually only 11% turnout) said "no".
> Norfolk is going forward on its section of the line out to Newtown Road,
> and I think that Virginia Beach ought to revisit the issue, since I
> think that this line would serve a valuable purpose. The rail
> right-of-way is already there and it happens to be positioned where it
> will serve a lot of neighborhoods and business complexes, with selective
> grade separations (over 4 or 5 major road crossings) the trip time would
> be about 25 minutes from end to end, and the $700 million cost was vying
> for 50% federal transit funding back in 1999. Hampton Roads Transit is
> negotiating to buy that right-of-way for its proposed light rail line,
> although only the Norfolk section has been approved by its respective
> city. Still, if the city's position changes that line has potential for
> a light rail line that could also handle freight movements from about
> midnight to 5:00 AM when the LRT is not running. A northern LRT
> extension to the U.S. Naval Base was also under consideration.
Virginia Beach is now considering purchasing its portion of the rail line, but
any potential use for LRT is still being hotly debated...
Froggie | Reporting from Liverpool, NY (but will be back in Virginia Beach on
Saturday) | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/
Mike Tantillo
> > I like parkways. I hate trucks. I find trucks to be very rude and
> > inconsiderate.
>
> Which is the opposite of my 30K a year mileage experience. On the whole, I find
> truckers to be a lot more polite and considerate than other drivers...
Perhaps we drive in different places? On uncrowded roadways, I find
truckers to be polite, but driving on I-81, the Jersey Turnpike, the
LIE, etc...they are rude as hell sometimes, and won't think twice
about simultaneously putting on their turn signal and moving into your
lane, forcing you to jam on your brakes, when they could have very
easily just let you pass and moved in behind you. If the trucks would
pass at high speeds like cars generally do, thus minimizing the time
they are in the passing lane, then the problem would be mitigated
somewhat, but in my experience, trucks generally pass at a snails
pace. I know out in the midwest, truckers are generally courteous,
but this thread was about NY.
In NY, when I do find myself on the expressways, I usually cruise the
left lane since it is truck free...but occasionally, a truck will feel
the need to illegally use the left lane to pass someone in the center
lane....again, I wouldn't have a problem if they would pass at the
same speed as everyone else in the left lane and get the heck back
over into their lanes as fast as possible so as not to block the cars'
path/view....cars who have exclusive rights to the left lane in
NY....but usually they linger in the left lane for longer then they
should....
I have no problem harassing these truckers out of the left lane which
they are not allowed to be in when I need to pass them, in fact I did
that just yesterday on the New England Thruway.
>
> > Trucks also often drive recklessly...they ought to be held to a higher
> > standard since they are inherently more dangerous then cars, since
> > they weigh so much more.
>
> They ARE held to a higher standard. It's a bit more difficult to get a CDL than
> it is to get a regular driver's license...
And then we have rules and regs preventing trucks for driving more
then 10 hours without rest. And then we pay them by the mile driven.
Therefore, the more the trucker speeds, the more he gets paid before
he has to quit for the day. In otherwords, we are encouraging them to
drive recklessly fast. One of the first things I would do if I were
supreme ruler of all things transportation would be to pay truckers by
the hour to encourage them to slow down a bit.....but for the
meantime, i'd hardly consider encouraging them to drive an 80,000
pound truck faster in order to make a few extra bucks "held to a
higher standard". Thats just my opinion though, and I do realize that
the vast majority of trucks drive safely, but there's always a few
that feel the need to tailgate someone at 80 MPH anyway....
>
> > Trucks also block the view in front of them, which makes driving
> > behind them dangerous and not fun, and lots of times, they make it
> > difficult to pass them.
>
> The same could be said of many SUVs and pickup trucks...
Yes, and I don't like them either, and will pass them or drop back
behind them as well. On quite a few occasions, I have witnessed
stopped traffic through the car in front of me, which gave me extra
stopping distance/warning of impending congestion, which I consider to
be an important safety issue. Not to mention that the one red light
camera ticket I recieved was becase a truck in front of me blocked my
view of the signal head....
Mike Tantillo
Every day in afternoon rush, southern state jams from 110 all the way
to Exit 18 (the hill by Hempstead Lake, as well as all the traffic
switching between the N/S routes in Nassau, as well as the 110
commuters is the cause).
Mike Tantillo
oops, left that out...good point. In places like Washington, DC, the
suburbs that people commute to are Arlington, Tyson's, etc...which are
generally closer to DC then the places where people live. In
otherwords, the suburb to suburb commuting directions still tend to be
in the direction of the major city. In NY, the employment centers in
the suburbs are not necessarily in the direction of the
city...therefore people commuting dcommute in all different
directions. Huntington, Melville, Hauppauge, Islandia, Islip, all of
those major employment centers would be a "reverse commute" for me.
This is good and bad. Imagine if all those suburb to suburb commuters
were going in one direction...jamming only half the road instead of
the entire road? At least with people commuting in both directions,
both sides of the road can be utilized.
However the flip side is that there is no such thing as a "reverse
commute".
Mike Tantillo
I'm not blaming roads for ills.....
And I still fail to see how transit makes commute times
longer.....ever try driving home from Manhattan during afternoon rush?
Compare that with commute times on the LIRR? Thats when the LIRR
runs its expresses.... True transit itself can be slow, but the
alternatives are slow, if not slower. Don't forget, after you drive
to Manhattan, you have to find a place to park. Even the outer
boroughs, parking is hellish. Even in the suburbs, someplaces have
really bad parking.....
Mike Tantillo
Agreed wholeheartedly. They could do some things to help improve
accessibility though, just like they can do things to mitigate
airplane noise..... But yes, just like East Boston will never be
tranquil and quiet, Long Island will never be "accessible" like other
suburbs are.
The only time I ever bitched and whined about Long Island's
accessibility was when the Mayor of NYC decided to shut all the
bridges down for "security" reasons....trapping all Long Islanders on
the island. The city might be a source of congestion for long
islanders trying to leave, but the city shouldn't have the right to
hold Long Islanders hostage like that.
Mike Tantillo
Scrolling up this thread, I see nothing about trains.....
I was trying to say that a residential area right next to an
industrial area is NOT a desireable place to live, for rich people OR
poor people. And in smaller cities that don't have commuter rail,
ROADS must be subsidized to get people to the factories that don't
live near them. Yes, that includes your very own "garden spot" of
Durham, NC. And they might be "mere workers", but they too are
people, just like the well to do, and as such, don't deserve to have
to live next to a stinking, unsightly factory. I'm all for mixed
land-use once in a while, but that mixed use is retail, office, and
housing....uses that are compatible with one another. Factorys should
not be mixed with residential areas in my opinion, because no one
would want to live there.
Mike Tantillo
No, I understand smart growth, you obviously don't. People AND stores
are concentrated. if stores were spread all over the city, would
people be able to walk to them?
Smart growth: mixed use developments with concentrations of people,
office space, and retail. Parking on the fringes, walkable
communities. I support the concept in theory (even though it will
never be as successful as the environmentalists want, as not everyone
wants to live in dense developments), however I realize that the "big
boxes" have a right to exist, and people who want to live in sprawling
suburbs or rural areas also have a right to, because this is America.
But some people want ot live in walkable communities, and I see no
reason why we can't build SOME of these for those who want them, while
retaining some current growth models for those who want that instead.
Froggie
find
> > truckers to be a lot more polite and considerate than other drivers...
>
> Perhaps we drive in different places?
I drive up and down the East Coast quite a bit....kinda hard to get to/from
Jersey or upstate New York otherwise...
> On uncrowded roadways, I find truckers to be polite, but driving on
> I-81, the Jersey Turnpike, the LIE, etc...they are rude as hell sometimes,
> and won't think twice about simultaneously putting on their turn signal
> and moving into your lane, forcing you to jam on your brakes, when they
> could have very easily just let you pass and moved in behind you.
As I mentioned before, I see this much much more often from regular drivers than
from truckers, even on busier routes (I-64...I-95...I-81...etc etc)
> If the trucks would pass at high speeds like cars generally do, thus
> minimizing the time they are in the passing lane, then the problem would
> be mitigated somewhat, but in my experience, trucks generally pass at a
> snails pace.
Don't blame the truckers for this. Most of them have speed regulators in their
engines...regulators that are company-mandated...
> In NY, when I do find myself on the expressways, I usually cruise the
> left lane since it is truck free...but occasionally, a truck will feel
> the need to illegally use the left lane to pass someone in the center
> lane....again, I wouldn't have a problem if they would pass at the
> same speed as everyone else in the left lane and get the heck back
> over into their lanes as fast as possible so as not to block the cars'
> path/view....cars who have exclusive rights to the left lane in
> NY....but usually they linger in the left lane for longer then they
> should....
Doesn't NY have a law where you should keep right except to pass?
I agree with trucks who use the left lane when they aren't supposed to...but
that ranks up there with what we in Minnesota call LLBs (Left Lane
Bandits)...folks who refuse to get out of the left lane, even if they're going
slower then regular traffic...
> And then we have rules and regs preventing trucks for driving more
> then 10 hours without rest. And then we pay them by the mile driven.
> Therefore, the more the trucker speeds, the more he gets paid before
> he has to quit for the day. In otherwords, we are encouraging them to
> drive recklessly fast.
Like I mentioned above, most have speed regulators installed. And it isn't so
much "us" encouraging them, unless you want to consider "us" as the end
consumer. The "just-in-time delivery" process that industry has started to
follow in recent years is partly the reason. Time is money not just to the
trucker, but to the companies that rely on them.
George Conklin
Stores have to be scattered so people CAN walk to them.
> Smart growth: mixed use developments with concentrations of people,
> office space, and retail. Parking on the fringes, walkable
> communities. I support the concept in theory (even though it will
> never be as successful as the environmentalists want, as not everyone
> wants to live in dense developments), however I realize that the "big
> boxes" have a right to exist, and people who want to live in sprawling
> suburbs or rural areas also have a right to, because this is America.
> But some people want ot live in walkable communities,
You speak to 1% of the market. Walkable to what? Not to your job for
sure...that is why we had trolley cars so people never walked if they could
avoid it. That is why NYC has subways, so people can avoid walking. Cities
were supposed to be good places to live because you had transit and did NOT
have to walk.
George Conklin
The old downtown factory had to leave because of cost and bad
transporation. When they left, the downtown lost its function.
arga...@my-deja.com
> And I still fail to see how transit makes commute times
> longer.....ever try driving home from Manhattan during afternoon rush?
> Compare that with commute times on the LIRR? Thats when the LIRR
> runs its expresses.... True transit itself can be slow, but the
> alternatives are slow, if not slower.
There are two main structural reasons transit tends to be slower,
except in very densely populated major cities with scarce off-street
parking and underdeveloped major road systems: dwell time and
interchange time. In my experience, transit can deliver true time
savings over roads only if it is convenient to large agglomerations of
users, it runs on its own dedicated right-of-way, and it is either
very frequent or operates to a published timetable.
Otherwise time is wasted waiting for the service to arrive, waiting
while it stops to let off and take on people, waiting to make changes,
and sometimes even waiting for a new driver to come on duty. In the
vast majority of urbanized areas, these parasitic losses of time are
much greater than the similar losses associated with roads, such as
the hunt for parking.
I would guess (not actually having seen any figures) that the rail
transit users are not the main reason N.Y.C. has such a lengthy
average commute, and that it is the car drivers and the bus-riding
serfs who drive up the averages.
Let me do a tabletop demonstration, using a commute I make regularly
(between my flat in Oxford and the Public Record Office in suburban
London):
TRANSIT AND OTHER GREEN MODES
Ten minutes to bike to Oxford rail station
Ten minutes waiting for train to pull up to platform
One hour Oxford to London Paddington
Ten minutes to transfer to Hammersmith and City Line
Ten minutes to reach Hammersmith Tube station
Ten minutes to transfer to District Line at Hammersmith
Ten minutes to Kew Tube station
Ten minutes to the P.R.O. on foot
TOTAL: Two hours and ten minutes from my front door to the security
desk at the P.R.O. (In real life, performance lags this estimate due
to delays associated with the rail and Tube systems. I usually leave
at 9.50 and arrive at 12.20.)
ROAD MODE (STRICTLY HYPOTHETICAL)
One hour forty-five minutes driving from front door to parking garage
at Gunnersbury
Ten minutes to catch District Line train at Gunnersbury Tube station
Three minutes to reach Kew Tube station
Ten minutes to reach the Public Record Office
TOTAL: Two hours and eight minutes from front door to P.R.O. security
desk. (This estimate of the driving time is based on the time buses
take to reach Heathrow from Oxford's central bus station--Gunnersbury
is on the M4 past Heathrow.)
As one can see, it takes a dense capital city with a difficult road
system competing with rail transit to bring the two modal alternatives
into rough parity, and rail doesn't really win on the strength of the
outbound journey--rather it does because the M4 is congested with
outbound traffic from London in the evenings, which makes rail much
more competitive for the return journey. In addition to rail transit,
there are coach alternatives, but those all take much longer.
I firmly believe are numerous situations where transit (particularly
rail-based transit) is preferable to roads for serving existing
patterns of development and travel demand. But as a general rule,
treating transit lines and freeways as substitutable goods leads to
underutilization of the transit alternative--which has significant
running costs--and benefits no-one except clientelist politicians. In
fact goldplated transit is one of the characteristic features of the
current incarnation of urban machine politics.
Mike Tantillo
> > > Which is the opposite of my 30K a year mileage experience. On the whole, I
> find
> > > truckers to be a lot more polite and considerate than other drivers...
> >
> > Perhaps we drive in different places?
>
> I drive up and down the East Coast quite a bit....kinda hard to get to/from
> Jersey or upstate New York otherwise...
>
> > On uncrowded roadways, I find truckers to be polite, but driving on
> > I-81, the Jersey Turnpike, the LIE, etc...they are rude as hell sometimes,
> > and won't think twice about simultaneously putting on their turn signal
> > and moving into your lane, forcing you to jam on your brakes, when they
> > could have very easily just let you pass and moved in behind you.
>
> As I mentioned before, I see this much much more often from regular drivers than
> from truckers, even on busier routes (I-64...I-95...I-81...etc etc)
>
> > If the trucks would pass at high speeds like cars generally do, thus
> > minimizing the time they are in the passing lane, then the problem would
> > be mitigated somewhat, but in my experience, trucks generally pass at a
> > snails pace.
>
> Don't blame the truckers for this. Most of them have speed regulators in their
> engines...regulators that are company-mandated...
Then they can wait until there is a gap in the left lane before
cutting in.....as opposed to cutting someone off and making them jam
on their brakes. If a driver just happens to not be paying attention
in that one second, a crash can easily occur. Kudos to the trucks who
signal in advance and then wait a second for someone to let them
in.....if a truck does that and I'm behind them, i'll usually not only
back off to make room, but i'll flash my headlights to indicate that
its clear.
My philosophy in life: ask me nicely, and i'm very likely to say yes,
even if it means some inconvenience to me. Ask me rudely or just do
without asking, and I probably won't be very happy if you
inconvenience me.
>
> > In NY, when I do find myself on the expressways, I usually cruise the
> > left lane since it is truck free...but occasionally, a truck will feel
> > the need to illegally use the left lane to pass someone in the center
> > lane....again, I wouldn't have a problem if they would pass at the
> > same speed as everyone else in the left lane and get the heck back
> > over into their lanes as fast as possible so as not to block the cars'
> > path/view....cars who have exclusive rights to the left lane in
> > NY....but usually they linger in the left lane for longer then they
> > should....
>
> Doesn't NY have a law where you should keep right except to pass?
I'm not sure actually. If it did, at least in downstate, it would be
irrelevant most of the time since all 3 lanes in either direction must
be utilized in order to maximize capacity. More often then not, all 3
lanes are moving at more or less the same speed.
Now, on some roads with exceptionally high truck traffic, such as the
Cross Bronx Expressway, at certain times of the day (like JUST after
rush hour when all the trucks all head for the GWB at once), the road
is just one long wall of trucks. Since trucks acclerate slower then
cars, the traffic flow tends to break down when its really heavy, the
trucks don't "keep up" with the guy in front as easily as cars can.
The result? The right and center lane, which are packed solid with
trucks are moving significantly slower then the left lane which has
only cars. Been there, done that, many times before. You'd have to
see it to believe it, but trust me, the other two lanes are wall to
wall solid trucks, stop and go, while the left lane gets by at a
fairly steady 15 - 20 MPH.
Back to the left lane bit...so in this case, all cars in the left lane
are passing continuously.
Now the above is an exception and not the norm...most other routes
don't have nearly that high a truck volume. But I tend to be one of
the faster drivers on the road, therefore I do a lot of passing and
get passed less frequently (but still often enough). Its usually
easier for me to use the left lane as the "default" lane when traffic
is somewhat heavy...this way i'm essentially continuously passing
people in the center lane. But if I see someone come up behind me, or
if someone indicates that they want to pass me (by tailgating or
flashing), i'll move into the center lane, slow down a bit and let
people pass. Then when left lane is clear, move back over and go into
continuous pass mode. Yes, I like the left lane, but I try to be as
respectful as possible of other peoples' right to pass me, so I don't
hog the left lane and I will move over. I usually drive urban
freeways at about 70 (65 on most NYC routes though), rural/suburban
ones that are well designed at about 75....but there's always someone
who insists on going 80, 85, or 90, and my philosophy is that if they
are crazy enough to want to drive the LIE at 90 MPH, I don't want them
behind me!
>
> I agree with trucks who use the left lane when they aren't supposed to...but
> that ranks up there with what we in Minnesota call LLBs (Left Lane
> Bandits)...folks who refuse to get out of the left lane, even if they're going
> slower then regular traffic...
Agreed. Honestly, NY drivers are aggressive enough where i'd say a
vast majority of drivers know that the left lane is a no-no unless you
are going at least 10 over the limit. I'd still say that a majority
of LLB's will move over if you flash your lights....politely. As in
don't flash repeatedly 15 times or beam your brights on them
continuously, just enough to get their attention and let them move
over. BUt yes, unfortunately, LLB's that won't move over are more
common then trucks in the left lane.
Incidentally, I reported a tractor trailer on Grand Central Parkway to
NYPD tonight. Half because I was po'ed that he was on the parkway,
and half for his own safety, as he was heading east towards Nassau
county, and once you get past the city line, you get towards those low
underpasses...and this truck probably would have had his trailer split
in two if he didn't get pulled over.
Here's an interesting thing: most NYers drive in the center lane as
the "default" lane. Way too many closely spaced exit and entrance
ramps in the right lane...so people treat the right lane like a really
long accel and decel lane, the center lane as the "slow" lane, and the
left lane as the "fast lane". So occasionally, i'll come up behind
someone with a poorly maintained car that can't top 40 MPH, and he's
in the center lane! Slow cars just don't use the slow lane!
>
> > And then we have rules and regs preventing trucks for driving more
> > then 10 hours without rest. And then we pay them by the mile driven.
> > Therefore, the more the trucker speeds, the more he gets paid before
> > he has to quit for the day. In otherwords, we are encouraging them to
> > drive recklessly fast.
>
> Like I mentioned above, most have speed regulators installed. And it isn't so
> much "us" encouraging them, unless you want to consider "us" as the end
> consumer. The "just-in-time delivery" process that industry has started to
> follow in recent years is partly the reason. Time is money not just to the
> trucker, but to the companies that rely on them.
When I said us, I was referring to government...I'm actually not sure
which agency is in charge of regulating trucks. In Europe, one of the
many EU rules that all member states had to adopt or have to adopt or
something like that is that truck drivers must get paid by the hour,
not by the distance driven. That way, there is no incentive to drive
excessively fast. You work an entire day, you get paid for an entire
day. No sense blaming the driver if he gets caught in congestion,
stopped for inspection, etc. I'm sure most drivers will drive at a
reasonable pace, but the pressure to squeeze in a few more miles
before the 10 hours expires won't be there anymore. And as for "just
in time"...they ought to put in a little cushion of time, just in case
the truck encounters congestion, etc. if they don't, they are only
cheating themselves when a truck gets held up by a huge accident and
the entire production process grinds to a halt...this is especially
true in congestion prone areas like NY
Mike Tantillo
George, you seem to be confusing long and short distance walking.
Generally speaking, people will be willing to walk 1/4 mile from place
to place without requiring transit or a car to make the trip. Many
people, such as myself are willing to walk further, but not much
further.
When Smart Growth advocates talk of walkable communities, they
generally talk of areas with a transit station at the center and
development in a 1/4 mile radius circle around the station entrance.
So when people say "walkable community", they are referring to small
areas. Small areas where it would be reasonable for people to take
mass transit to the area and walk to the specific destination within
the area. Areas where it would be reasonable to have one central
parking garage serving the entire area or several periferal parking
areas serving the area, instead of each store having its own area.
This way, the actual stores can be located close to one another.
Get this: in most "big box" developments today, people have to drive
to one store, park, shop, then get back into their car, drive,
sometimes a really long trip to go across the street, park at the next
stores lot, then shop, get in the car again, move it, etc. If one
tried to walk from store to store, first off, the distances would be
great since it would require traversing the parking lots of both
stores...not exactly pedestrian friendly. the main roads involved are
often not pedestrian friendly. And lastly, if someone parks at store
A, shops, then walks to store B, store A could have the car towed,
since the lot is store A's lot. With a central parking system, the
lot doesn't "belong" to any store, so stores' customers can park and
shop in multiple stores. he stores are closer together. The area in
front of the stores is pedestrian friendly.
Now long distance walking is another story. We don't expect people to
walk a mile from Penn Station to Central Park...thats why we have
subways and busses. Thats why most other places where people live far
away have large parking lots. Thats why in Smart Growth, the clusters
are only 1/4 mile radius. If you want to go to another part of the
area, you could walk...but you might be walking a while, and you might
be walking through parking areas on the fringes of the imaginary
circles. But you could easily take transit or drive to the next
cluster and then walk to your final destination. So Smart Growth is
designed to minimize travel within the clusters, but provisions for
travel between clusters must be accounted for with either roads or
transit. Roads would be good if there is only one single cluster.
But if you have multiple clusters and lots of trips between clusters,
then transit might be a better option.
As for NYC having subways so people can avoid walking....
A NYC block is 1/20 of a mile long. So 20 blocks is 1 mile, 10 blocks
is half a mile, 5 blocks is a quarter mile. Subway stations in the
dense part of midtown are about 5 blocks apart, usuually about 10 in
other parts of manhattan. Half mile spacing, means you never have to
walk more then a quarter mile along that particular corridor to get to
where you want to go. Now....if you are that lazy that you have to
take the subway one stop....~5 blocks....be my guest and waste those
$2 on the fare. But I think most people would walk short distances
and save the money. NYC is fairly walkable for a couple of
reasons....first, very large numbers of aggressive pedestrians can and
will assert their rights in the crosswalks. Pedestrians rule in
NY...you'll see a lone car with a green light and a herd of 100
pedestrians crossing against the light....guess who stops? thats
right, the car. NYC's no right on red law also makes pedestrian
travel easier and safer....no need to worry that that car on the cross
street is looking away from you and might make a turn on red without
seeing you. You'd be surprised how many NYers walk places. But
people aren't going to want to walk 50 blocks to get to their
destination...those are the people the subways cater to the most.
Mike Tantillo
Man, thats an awesome post...couldn't have said it better myself.
Here's a british example we talked about in one of my public transit
classes:
LHR to London.....Tube, or Heathrow Express?
Heathrow Express is a lot faster then the Tube (and also a lot more
costly!), but its not really worth the cost unless you just happen to
be heading to Paddington area. Why? Because to get to most places in
London...including "most of the places people want to go"
(Westminster, Tower Bridge area Oxford St., the list goes on and on
and on), you have to transfer to the tube in Paddington! Sometimes
even more then 1 tube line! if you happen to be heading anywhere
along the Piccadilly Line, the Tube is almost guaranteed to be faster,
and the Picadilly Line as a whole has a lot more stops (a larger
downtown distribution network) then the Heathrow Express! And you can
get to an awful lot more places with just one transfer then you can
via the Heathrow Express. So basically, the only reason I took the
Heathrow Express when I was in London last year was because our
Brit-Rail pass agent accidentally gave us a 4-day pass instead of a
2-day pass (only was charged for a 2-day), so the Heathrow Express was
"free".
Now hit the nail right on the head as far as why transit is slower.
But when you factor in the time required to find parking in a very
congested area and the agervation that comes along with it, those are
factors in favor of transit. Transit is not a substitute for roads.
Roads are not a substitute for transit. The two must go hand in hand.
But if you want to have big dense cities like NY, London, Chicago,
etc, you need to have transit to support it if it is going to be
remotely accessible to the outside world.
George Conklin
What you describe is not true of a city such as NYC, which is the transit
capital of the USA. You have come up with an ideal-type which does not
exist.
> Get this: in most "big box" developments today, people have to drive
> to one store, park, shop, then get back into their car, drive,
> sometimes a really long trip to go across the street, park at the next
> stores lot, then shop, get in the car again, move it, etc.
Of course. You cannot carry what you buy from store to store. You need
to put it away in the car first.
If one
> tried to walk from store to store, first off, the distances would be
> great since it would require traversing the parking lots of both
> stores...not exactly pedestrian friendly. the main roads involved are
> often not pedestrian friendly. And lastly, if someone parks at store
> A, shops, then walks to store B, store A could have the car towed,
> since the lot is store A's lot.
The number of times you would park at a store and not have to leave what
you purchased in the car is very small. You > Now long distance walking is
another story. We don't expect people to
> walk a mile from Penn Station to Central Park...thats why we have
> subways and busses. Thats why most other places where people live far
> away have large parking lots. Thats why in Smart Growth, the clusters
> are only 1/4 mile radius. If you want to go to another part of the
> area, you could walk...but you might be walking a while, and you might
> be walking through parking areas on the fringes of the imaginary
> circles. But you could easily take transit or drive to the next
> cluster and then walk to your final destination. So Smart Growth is
> designed to minimize travel within the clusters,
More theory. Restaurants in such clusters go out of business, because
you get tired of the same old food every week, and people cannot drive to
the restaurant and you can't drive to another one. The Czar of Restaurants
cannot save Smart Growth from boredom.
George Conklin
>
> > And I still fail to see how transit makes commute times
> > longer.....ever try driving home from Manhattan during afternoon rush?
> > Compare that with commute times on the LIRR? Thats when the LIRR
> > runs its expresses.... True transit itself can be slow, but the
> > alternatives are slow, if not slower.
>
> There are two main structural reasons transit tends to be slower,
> except in very densely populated major cities with scarce off-street
> parking and underdeveloped major road systems: dwell time and
> interchange time. In my experience, transit can deliver true time
> savings over roads only if it is convenient to large agglomerations of
> users, it runs on its own dedicated right-of-way, and it is either
> very frequent or operates to a published timetable.
>
> Otherwise time is wasted waiting for the service to arrive, waiting
> while it stops to let off and take on people, waiting to make changes,
> and sometimes even waiting for a new driver to come on duty. In the
> vast majority of urbanized areas, these parasitic losses of time are
> much greater than the similar losses associated with roads, such as
> the hunt for parking.
>
Density increases commute times. The correlate in the USA is +.5; more
density = more actual time.
George Conklin
> arga...@my-deja.com wrote in message
news:<485ebc3b.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > [Mr. Tantillo:]
> > > >
> >
Tranist is NOT GREEN. Transit buses use more fuel than cars and so does
transit rail. Amtrak is about the same as driving a car. Only
long-distance buses are green. Airplanes are only slightly worse than
driving your car.
arga...@my-deja.com
> Man, thats an awesome post...couldn't have said it better myself.
Thank you very much for the compliment. It is high praise.
> Here's a british example we talked about in one of my public transit
> classes:
>
> LHR to London.....Tube, or Heathrow Express?
>
> Heathrow Express is a lot faster then the Tube (and also a lot more
> costly!), but its not really worth the cost unless you just happen to
> be heading to Paddington area. Why? Because to get to most places in
> London...including "most of the places people want to go"
> (Westminster, Tower Bridge area Oxford St., the list goes on and on
> and on), you have to transfer to the tube in Paddington! Sometimes
> even more then 1 tube line! if you happen to be heading anywhere
> along the Piccadilly Line, the Tube is almost guaranteed to be faster,
> and the Piccadilly Line as a whole has a lot more stops (a larger
> downtown distribution network) then the Heathrow Express! And you can
> get to an awful lot more places with just one transfer then you can
> via the Heathrow Express. So basically, the only reason I took the
> Heathrow Express when I was in London last year was because our
> Brit-Rail pass agent accidentally gave us a 4-day pass instead of a
> 2-day pass (only was charged for a 2-day), so the Heathrow Express was
> "free".
These observations are all correct and the Heathrow Express, which
mile for mile is the most expensive railway in the world, is generally
regarded as overpriced even in Britain itself. However, its operators
have invested a fair amount of market research into eroding the Tube's
competitive advantage. Unlike the Piccadilly Line, for instance,
Heathrow Express trains have commodious luggage racks. And until the
September 11 attacks, it was possible for Heathrow Express passengers
flying on American airlines to check in for their flight at
Paddington--NOT Heathrow--which offers a further increment of
convenience not achievable with the Tube. (I think British Airways
and its code-sharers still offer Paddington check-in for non-U.S.
destinations, but the check-in windows American Airlines used to have
at Paddington have been empty for some time and are starting to look
derelict.)
And although the Piccadilly Line is more convenient for central London
destinations, few people want to step off a long-haul flight with all
their luggage and immediately launch into sightseeing in London;
generally they want to store the luggage somewhere, often in a hotel
where they have a reservation. Is it any surprise that Paddington now
has a Hilton hotel? Heathrow handles mostly long-distance flights
with a 30-kg luggage allowance rather than budget flights to the
European continent (like Luton and Stansted) for which the allowance
is 20 kg; I would imagine this fact figures quite prominently in
Heathrow Express' market research.
I suspect that Heathrow Express' success (such as it is) results not
from any travel time savings or other transportation-related benefits,
but from provision of the other amenities which are unavailable on the
Tube. At the moment the Express stands to receive a boost from Red
Ken's proposal to charge extra for Piccadilly Line journeys
terminating at Heathrow. (The airport parking concessionaires are
rubbing their hands in glee at a parallel proposal, calling for taxing
"kiss and ride" travel to the airport. Red Ken appears to think that
people taking their loved ones to the airport in order to avoid
exorbitant parking charges are causing congestion on the motorways
adjacent to Heathrow, even though the Terminal Five inquiry found that
the percentage of traffic actually attributable to the airport was
very small.)
> Now hit the nail right on the head as far as why transit is slower.
> But when you factor in the time required to find parking in a very
> congested area and the agervation that comes along with it, those are
> factors in favor of transit. Transit is not a substitute for roads.
> Roads are not a substitute for transit. The two must go hand in hand.
> But if you want to have big dense cities like NY, London, Chicago,
> etc, you need to have transit to support it if it is going to be
> remotely accessible to the outside world.
Transit also offers significant amenities, such as the ability to do
work other than driving while travelling between two points. I make
my run to the P.R.O. twice a week and the one hour on the train coming
and going is often my only chance for any pleasure reading while I am
in Britain.
Ultimately the roads versus transit argument is just one branch of the
wider debate over the economics of agglomeration. It costs more to
provide ANY type of transportation facility, whether roads, rail-based
transit, bus transit, elevators in buildings, etc. in an area the more
densely settled it is. This is because the environmental features
which are necessary to allow people to coexist peacefully (walls to
separate them when they want privacy and common areas for them to meet
when they want company, for example) have to be built with paid-for
labor and materials, and cannot simply be plucked out of the existing
setting.
Location theory takes it as its basic principle that rational actors
will pay the added costs of higher density only if it brings them
benefits, both private and social, which exceed those costs. We live
in an age where technological advances in both collective and private
transport have enabled residents of large cities to combine the
point-source benefits of access to large markets and cultural
facilities (opera, world-class art museums, etc.) with the
geographically more widely distributed benefits associated with cheap
land. The current state of technology and input costs is such that it
is no longer necessary for a city to have a densely populated core in
order to act like a city. Thus, to my eye at least, "roads versus
transit" tends to boil down to an argument over the extent to which
switching costs lock in the continued existence of dense urban cores.
Pete Jenior
"Hi, I'm TV's Oscar The Grouch" <ban...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:3fe2ab87...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> Northern Kentucky has a mighty wretched layout, and not just from my
> perspective. Probably because of terrain problems, a lot of roads don't
> really go anywhere. They keep building new subdivisions where there
> aren't enough roads to handle them. You should see what the traffic is
> like.
>
From my prospective it's not all that bad, but since you mentioned northern
Kentucky here are a few problems:
* Very few ways to go E-W - the only real options are right near the Ohio
River or 275.
* Lack of a bridge at the Anderson Ferry - this would relieve 71/75.
* SR 8 should have better connections to make it more viable as a through
route
-Pete
Pete Jenior
> Like I said, if you love your car that much that you absolutely MUST
> drive it everywhere then you must move WEST, west of the Mississippi
> River.
Or to the southeast.
-Pete
Mike Tantillo
I'll be first to agree that its RARE, but it DOES exist. Arlington,
Virginia...look at the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor...its almost exactly
the way I describe it.
In fact Washington, DC in general is a lot more like that then NY,
being that you can get to quite a few mixed-use developments straight
from Metrorail. Bethesda, Friendship Heights, Silver Spring all
loosely resemble what I described. Rosslyn, Ballston, Courthouse,
Clarendon, Virginia Square, Pentagon City, and Crystal city are laid
out in almost the exact same fashion I described.
Um, yes, you most certainly can drive. The environmentalists don't
WANT you to, but you can. Parking for the residents is on the
perifery...as is parking for the restraunt. Short walk from the
parking area. You could also take the big bad Metro too. There are
many restraunts in Arlington that obviously have no problem attracting
customers as they are very successful. Most of the customers appear
to be area workers, or people shopping in the area.
Mike Tantillo
When did I ever post that? I believe someone altered my post between
when I posted and you quoted...I won't point fingers, but i'm not
happy.
All transit isnt necessarily green. But its kinda tough to argue that
anything could pollute less then an ELECTRIC mode....
The main point of the transit is not to decrease emissions from the
transit vehicles, but to promote more compact development, which
reduces suburban sprawl. in LIMITED cases, this might actually work,
you hit the nail right on the head when you said it was idealistic and
most certainly doesn't always work.
I support more smart growth for THOSE WHO WANT to live in such a
place, want to shop in such a place, etc. And there are obviously
people who DO WANT to live in these type places since prices are so
high, indicating more demand then supply. And I think we should give
them some kind of tax break/subsidy since its promoting less suburban
sprawl. Not punishing the suburbanites, but giving incentives to the
"new urbanites". I DO realize that what the environmentalists want is
overly optimistic, and Smart Growth will NEVER REPLACE suburban
sprawl. But its something thats worth examining on a limited scale
for those who do want it.
Your very own Triangle region of NC is the opposite of Smart Growth
IMO. I call it dumb growth. You have a large proportion of jobs
concentrated in RTP, and people have to drive far to go shopping after
work and to commute, since there are very limited shopping and housing
options in Research Triangle Park. Seemed like a great concept when
it was first touted by planners, but if the traffic jams on I-40 are
any indication of the success, then i'm not at all impressed. At
least in suburban sprawl, the land uses are segregated, but there are
shopping, residential, commercial clusters all over, so one's house is
never too far from the shopping areas. Segregating the uses in a BIG
cluster was a very dumb idea IMO.
If you want to read a radical environmentalist point of view, check
out http://www.pecva.org/ The Piedmont Environmental Council. They
want to block all the major transportation projects in Northern VA and
Charlottesville. They want the University of Virginia to construct
3000 dorm style housing units (which are the LEAST desireable housing
options, albeit the most dense in terms of persons per square mile) to
house ALL students and FACULTY/Staff on grounds. THis would enable
university area apartment complexes to be used by local residents.
THey also want tons of smart growth, and expect that smart growth will
REPLACE Wal-Mart and allow MANUFACTURING to MOVE INTO the "big boxes"
in the sprawling areas of the county. THis is their growth plan for
charlottesville. Who is going to want to give up Wal-Mart is beyond
me....most everyone I know goes there. What local residents are going
to want to live right next to the university in apartments designed
for students? What faculty/staff/students want to live in dorms? The
trend has been away from dorms and towards apartments, at the request
of students and parents (the ones with the $$$$$), even though the
environmentalists cry and whine. You want to talk about idealistic
and radical, read that (i'm not sure if they have their "plans" for
charlottesville on the site, but if not, i'd be happy to snail-mail
you a copy of the flyer PECVA mailed out to all area residents...its
worth a good laugh if nothing else). But providing SOME smart growth
for SOME people who WANT to live and work in places like that is not a
bad idea IMO...some people actually like that and don't want to live
in sprawling suburbs with big houses on cul-de-sacs, I for one am one
of them. But there are some people that do like the suburban
atmosphere, and I respect that and believe we need to provide that for
them as well.
Mike Tantillo
George...maybe AVERAGE commute times increase, as AVERAGE density
increases. I'm glad you see the macroscopic point of view. The
microscopic point of view is a bit more complicated. commute times
are a function of how close one lives to their job....yes, density
plays a role, but one who lives 2 blocks away from their job in a city
commutes 5 minutes, whereas someone in a rural area who drives to a
shop in another rural area passing through no major city might have a
half hour commute. In those two examples, density is irrelevant.
Two examples: low density Research Triangle Park, NC. Most people's
commute times are high since there is NO HOUSING near RTP.
higher density cities: SOME people's commute times are long because
they choose to live in the suburbs and work in the city. But other
people who choose to live and work in the city have short commute
times. At least these people HAVE THE OPTION of a shorter commute if
they want it, unlike the people working in RTP.
Building high density developments will not take away the low density
developments and office parks that exist. So you will not lose job
options by building offices in high density areas....but options will
be gained. And accessibility can increase as some people can choose
to live close to where they work. I'm only saying we should provide
the option for those who want it. Remember, anyone can choose to live
and work where they want...so if you want to choose a combination that
has a high commute time, then fine...but others might want a smaller
commuter time, and will have the option more readily available in high
density areas.
RJ
> If you want to read a radical environmentalist point of view, check
> out http://www.pecva.org/ The Piedmont Environmental Council. They
> want to block all the major transportation projects in Northern VA and
> Charlottesville. They want the University of Virginia to construct
> 3000 dorm style housing units (which are the LEAST desireable housing
> options, albeit the most dense in terms of persons per square mile) to
> house ALL students and FACULTY/Staff on grounds.
That would be one way to get rid of all of the faculty who are good
enough to get jobs at other universities.
Hi, I'm TV's Oscar The Grouch
<gtg...@prism.gatech.eduFILTER> said:
>* Very few ways to go E-W - the only real options are right near the Ohio
>River or 275.
There's also the Al Schneider Bridge, but only if you want to go 15
miles out of town. There's no east-west non-freeway roads between Al
Schneider and the 11th or 12th Street bridge, a gap of about 15 miles.
>* Lack of a bridge at the Anderson Ferry - this would relieve 71/75.
Why not just use the ferry?
>* SR 8 should have better connections to make it more viable as a through
>route
They're always talking about rebuilding the I-471/KY 8 exit in Newport,
but there's no room to do it. It wasn't even complete until about 15
years ago. This has been a highly controversial section of I-471 ever
since it was in the planning stages.
For as long as I-275 has been open in Campbell County they've talked
about building an exit to KY 8, but I think the original design was
rejected because it was unsafe.
--
I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative!
----- http://members.iglou.com/bandit ------
Check out my blog blogga blog at http://bandit73.pitas.com
Hank Fung
Mark Roberts <mark...@comcast.net> wrote:
>william lynch <x@y.z> had written:
>|
>| Before you get flamed too much on your "I consider any state
>| capital a major city" comment, I think that you should research
>| some of the capitols around. Carson City and Juneau are the
>| two that come to mind first; Bismark, Pierre, Montpelier,
>| Helena and Lincoln should be examined, also.
>
>Apparently the Michelin US atlas has the same idea. Despite its
>general excellence, it includes an inset map of Jefferson City,
>Missouri, but not of Columbia, which is the largest city and
>metropolitan area (for some value of "metropolitan") between Kansas
>City and St Louis.
>
>Just imagine if the California capital were still Benicia....
You'd have the same conglomeration of government office buildings and
lobbyists which are in downtown Sacramento around Benicia and the
Vallejo area, making the Bay Area a "quad cities" powerhouse that
might still have held off Los Angeles. Sacramento would have been
reduced to a Bakersfield or Visalia-like burg.
I-5 would have likely have turned up the Pacheco Pass to serve what
would be the second, third, fourth, and fifth largest cities in
the state. 99 might have twisted up Brentwood and left out of
Davis, assuming that town actually still existed.
--
Hank Fung fun...@ocf.berkeley.edu
George Conklin
> "George Conklin" <georgec...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<XZkGb.211$e24...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > "Mike Tantillo" <mjtan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:e48ae109.0312...@posting.google.com...
> > > arga...@my-deja.com wrote in message
> > news:<485ebc3b.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > [Mr. Tantillo:]
> > > > > >
> > > > TRANSIT AND OTHER GREEN MODES
> > > >
> >
> > Tranist is NOT GREEN. Transit buses use more fuel than cars and so
does
> > transit rail. Amtrak is about the same as driving a car. Only
> > long-distance buses are green. Airplanes are only slightly worse than
> > driving your car.
>
> When did I ever post that? I believe someone altered my post between
> when I posted and you quoted...I won't point fingers, but i'm not
> happy.
>
I was responding to the transit is green comment.
> All transit isnt necessarily green. But its kinda tough to argue that
> anything could pollute less then an ELECTRIC mode....
>
Electric modes simply put the pollution in rural areas. Of course, some
argue that hydro causes no pollution, but little electricity overall comes
from hydro, and environmentalists will prevent more hydro from being built.
> The main point of the transit is not to decrease emissions from the
> transit vehicles, but to promote more compact development, which
> reduces suburban sprawl. in LIMITED cases, this might actually work,
> you hit the nail right on the head when you said it was idealistic and
> most certainly doesn't always work.
>
It was transit which made the DEconcentration of the city possible.
Chicago had most of its population within 3.2 miles of the center before
electric transit. That is a 1-hour walk, and the 1-hour rule seems to hold
today. That is how long people will travel to work in the USA, and maybe
even Europe too. Trolley cars made that expand to 12 miles. Thus transit
made the city LESS concentrted, and cities have therefore been
DEcencentrating since at least 1910. The automobile simply was a late comer
in this process.
> I support more smart growth for THOSE WHO WANT to live in such a
> place, want to shop in such a place, etc. And there are obviously
> people who DO WANT to live in these type places since prices are so
> high, indicating more demand then supply.
Once again 1% of the market is not a national trend.
And I think we should give
> them some kind of tax break/subsidy since its promoting less suburban
> sprawl.
Sprawl is made-up problem which does not exist. The end of the rural
way of life brought on the incessant demand of cities for basically free
food means that the entire population of the nation must live in cities, and
then near the two coasts. This is not sprawl; it is population
concentration in cities. So we have the two trends; less density within OLD
cities, and increased population concentrating overall.
Not punishing the suburbanites, but giving incentives to the
> "new urbanites". I DO realize that what the environmentalists want is
> overly optimistic, and Smart Growth will NEVER REPLACE suburban
> sprawl. But its something thats worth examining on a limited scale
> for those who do want it.
>
I deny that sprawl is a real process. It is a madeup problem to hide the
fact that rural areas have lost their vitality in order to support urban
life. FARMERS were sprawled. Urbanites are NOT.
> Your very own Triangle region of NC is the opposite of Smart Growth
> IMO. I call it dumb growth. You have a large proportion of jobs
> concentrated in RTP, and people have to drive far to go shopping after
> work and to commute, since there are very limited shopping and housing
> options in Research Triangle Park.
RTP could not be built today, and the wealth that came with RTP would be
in other parts of the country. Durham and Raleigh would simply be poor
former mill towns under Smart Growth.
Cary is right next to RTP and it is where most of the middle class went.
North Raleigh is too. So you understand little. Durham never encouraged
RTP workers to live here. I know. I live next to GE. I can explain why,
but you would not be interested.
Seemed like a great concept when
> it was first touted by planners, but if the traffic jams on I-40 are
> any indication of the success, then i'm not at all impressed. At
> least in suburban sprawl, the land uses are segregated, but there are
> shopping, residential, commercial clusters all over, so one's house is
> never too far from the shopping areas. Segregating the uses in a BIG
> cluster was a very dumb idea IMO.
>
Yes you would never have allowed RTP. The average commute here is 20
minutes.
> If you want to read a radical environmentalist point of view, check
> out http://www.pecva.org/ The Piedmont Environmental Council. They
> want to block all the major transportation projects in Northern VA and
> Charlottesville.
I understand the negative nature of the environmental movement.
They want the University of Virginia to construct
> 3000 dorm style housing units (which are the LEAST desireable housing
> options, albeit the most dense in terms of persons per square mile) to
> house ALL students and FACULTY/Staff on grounds.
Fascism.
George Conklin
> > > generally talk of areas with a transit station at the center and
> > > development in a 1/4 mile radius circle around the station entrance.
> > > So when people say "walkable community", they are referring to small
> > > areas. Small areas where it would be reasonable for people to take
> > > mass transit to the area and walk to the specific destination within
> > > the area. Areas where it would be reasonable to have one central
> > > parking garage serving the entire area or several periferal parking
> > > areas serving the area, instead of each store having its own area.
> > > This way, the actual stores can be located close to one another.
> > >
> >
> > What you describe is not true of a city such as NYC, which is the
transit
> > capital of the USA. You have come up with an ideal-type which does not
> > exist.
>
> I'll be first to agree that its RARE, but it DOES exist. Arlington,
> Virginia...look at the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor...its almost exactly
> the way I describe it.
>
Major cities did not develop as Smart Growth. It is a new unworkable
concept. It is based on myth, not economics.
> In fact Washington, DC in general is a lot more like that then NY,
DC is an example of a failed city.
George Conklin
There is tons of housing within the usual 20-minute commuting range.
You don't know what you are talking about. We still have mules and grazing
cattle within walking distance of RTP. None of this land has been built on
yet.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Mike Tantillo" <mjtan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If you want to read a radical environmentalist point of view, check
> > out http://www.pecva.org/ The Piedmont Environmental Council. They
> > want to block all the major transportation projects in Northern VA and
> > Charlottesville.
>
> I understand the negative nature of the environmental movement.
>
> > They want the University of Virginia to construct
> > 3000 dorm style housing units (which are the LEAST desireable housing
> > options, albeit the most dense in terms of persons per square mile) to
> > house ALL students and FACULTY/Staff on grounds.
>
> Fascism.
I wouldn't go that far, but the reason why the PECers want the above, is
so that they can keep all the new development far away from their horse
farms for the rich.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Mike Tantillo
> "George Conklin" <georgec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Mike Tantillo" <mjtan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If you want to read a radical environmentalist point of view, check
> > > out http://www.pecva.org/ The Piedmont Environmental Council. They
> > > want to block all the major transportation projects in Northern VA and
> > > Charlottesville.
> >
> > I understand the negative nature of the environmental movement.
> >
> > > They want the University of Virginia to construct
> > > 3000 dorm style housing units (which are the LEAST desireable housing
> > > options, albeit the most dense in terms of persons per square mile) to
> > > house ALL students and FACULTY/Staff on grounds.
> >
> > Fascism.
Well, being that PEC has no power to implement their radical views,
luckily it hasn't gotten to the point of fascism yet. But I agree it
certainly comes close...
>
> I wouldn't go that far, but the reason why the PECers want the above, is
> so that they can keep all the new development far away from their horse
> farms for the rich.
Yeah, well, UVA certainly has its share of rich, snobby students as
well, and they want nothing to do with the dorms if they can help it.
In fact, even the poor students don't want to live in cramped dorms if
they can help it. And I CERTAINLY can't see faculty living in
accomodations like that. PEC states that 85% of UVA faculty/staff
live more then a mile from campus. Of course they do! If I was 30
years old, I wouldn't want to live with partying UVA students either.
In the last year, the envoronmentalists won one, and lost one. One
new apartment complex was built as "infill" development, while one was
built on a farm. The people who live at the one on the former farm
like it better, as its more spread out and there are more facilities.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > "George Conklin" <georgec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > "Mike Tantillo" <mjtan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you want to read a radical environmentalist point of view, check
> > > > out http://www.pecva.org/ The Piedmont Environmental Council. They
> > > > want to block all the major transportation projects in Northern VA and
> > > > Charlottesville.
> > >
> > > I understand the negative nature of the environmental movement.
> > >
> > > > They want the University of Virginia to construct
> > > > 3000 dorm style housing units (which are the LEAST desireable housing
> > > > options, albeit the most dense in terms of persons per square mile) to
> > > > house ALL students and FACULTY/Staff on grounds.
> > >
> > > Fascism.
>
> Well, being that PEC has no power to implement their radical views,
> luckily it hasn't gotten to the point of fascism yet. But I agree it
> certainly comes close...
>
> > I wouldn't go that far, but the reason why the PECers want the above, is
> > so that they can keep all the new development far away from their horse
> > farms for the rich.
>
> Yeah, well, UVA certainly has its share of rich, snobby students as
> well, and they want nothing to do with the dorms if they can help it.
> In fact, even the poor students don't want to live in cramped dorms if
> they can help it.
Times have changed... in my day nearly all students lived in the dorms.
> And I CERTAINLY can't see faculty living in
> accomodations like that. PEC states that 85% of UVA faculty/staff
> live more then a mile from campus. Of course they do! If I was 30
> years old, I wouldn't want to live with partying UVA students either.
I'm flabbergasted that any organization would make a statement that all
faculty and staff should live on campus in dorm style housing units.
That is one of the most incredible statements that I've seen in a long
time.
> In the last year, the envoronmentalists won one, and lost one. One
> new apartment complex was built as "infill" development, while one was
> built on a farm. The people who live at the one on the former farm
> like it better, as its more spread out and there are more facilities.
I'm an environmentalist in a practical sense... I look at it as similar
to keeping your person and house in order... take regular showers, wear
clean clothes, keep your house clean, keep your yard well maintained,
keep your car clean, keep your workplace clean and orderly, etc... and
you don't have to be a "neat freak" about it. It is in your best
interest to do the above, and likewise it is in our collective best
interest to keep the environment clean, our neighborhoods, our
waterways, our air, our land, protect wildlife, wetlands, etc... and
with the size of population, perfection is not possible, but effective
standards can be set and striven for.
It's a shame that some folks are environmentalists in a political
sense... that they wrap it in their own political agenda and try to use
it as a lever for their own selfish gain.
George Conklin
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3FEB05EB...@attbi.com...
Horse farms for the rich are what Smart Growth is all about in general.
Just look north of Baltimore on I-83 up to the PA border. Someone just
posted that KY has preserved horse farms too near cities, but thought that
was a good idea too.
George Conklin
Nelson County, VA is within easy driving distance of UVA, and is so rural
that it used to have only one flashing traffic control light on Route 29.
George Conklin
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3FEB9EAA...@attbi.com...
I am not surprised, since this has long been the unannounced goal of all
Smart Growth and New Urbanism proponents. They want everyone to walk to
work, no matter where. Thus the faculty would have to live in dorms too for
that to happen. Some used to do this, as dorm monitors. At Syracuse
University a former neighbor of ours grew up in the library. His father was
the janitor, and he lived in an apartment in the basement.
> > In the last year, the envoronmentalists won one, and lost one. One
> > new apartment complex was built as "infill" development, while one was
> > built on a farm. The people who live at the one on the former farm
> > like it better, as its more spread out and there are more facilities.
>
> I'm an environmentalist in a practical sense... I look at it as similar
> to keeping your person and house in order... take regular showers, wear
> clean clothes, keep your house clean, keep your yard well maintained,
> keep your car clean, keep your workplace clean and orderly, etc... and
> you don't have to be a "neat freak" about it. It is in your best
> interest to do the above, and likewise it is in our collective best
> interest to keep the environment clean, our neighborhoods, our
> waterways, our air, our land, protect wildlife, wetlands, etc... and
> with the size of population, perfection is not possible, but effective
> standards can be set and striven for.
>
> It's a shame that some folks are environmentalists in a political
> sense... that they wrap it in their own political agenda and try to use
> it as a lever for their own selfish gain.
>
> --
> Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
> Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
> Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Using the environment as a political lever is what politics is all about.
In the old days you used to have to put your white sheet on to preach
segregation. Now you can do it for the animals.
Mark Roberts
| Mark Roberts <mark...@comcast.net> wrote:
| >
| >Just imagine if the California capital were still Benicia....
|
| You'd have the same conglomeration of government office buildings and
| lobbyists which are in downtown Sacramento around Benicia and the
| Vallejo area, making the Bay Area a "quad cities" powerhouse that
| might still have held off Los Angeles. Sacramento would have been
| reduced to a Bakersfield or Visalia-like burg.
Well, that wasn't *quite* where I was intending to go with that
remark, but that's an interesting what-if scenario nonetheless. I
think Sacramento might have done better than that, though, for its
railroad connections and slightly (notice I said "slightly")
moderated climate than anything else.
| I-5 would have likely have turned up the Pacheco Pass to serve what
| would be the second, third, fourth, and fifth largest cities in
| the state. 99 might have twisted up Brentwood and left out of
| Davis, assuming that town actually still existed.
Where would the ag school have gone?
--
"Right here in Minnesota!"
"Bullwinkle, that's Florida!"
"Well, if they're gonna keep adding states all the time, they
can't expect me to keep up!" -- Rocky & Bullwinkle, episode 5, 1960
Mike Tantillo
Indeed they have....there was a CNN special on this not too long ago
(within the past few months). Students look at things like type of
housing accomodations, quality of rec facilities, meal plans, etc.
when choosing colleges these days. They want to be happy. Parents,
the ones shelling out the big bucks to send their kids to college want
their kids to be happy as well, and in fact are becomming ever more
active in college educations. Therefore, colleges, in order to
attract students, have to cater to the wishes of the students and
build bigger housing accomodations, rec centers, computer networks,
etc. Build it and they will come, and apparently, this is very true
in the college recruiting industry these days. And the colleges
certainly have the $$$$ to do it.....look at how much they charge
these days.
At UVA, there is very little on campus housing....so naturally, a lot
of students live off campus in apartments with more ammenities then in
on-campus housing. Much of the on-campus housing is suite/apartment
style, and the only dorms on campus are for first-year
students.....who need a dorm-environment the most, when they are
trying to make friends, etc.
> >
> > > And I CERTAINLY can't see faculty living in
> > > accomodations like that. PEC states that 85% of UVA faculty/staff
> > > live more then a mile from campus. Of course they do! If I was 30
> > > years old, I wouldn't want to live with partying UVA students either.
> >
> > I'm flabbergasted that any organization would make a statement that all
> > faculty and staff should live on campus in dorm style housing units.
> > That is one of the most incredible statements that I've seen in a long
> > time.
> >
>
Same here Scott, same here. It gave me a good laugh, and still does,
since I know very very very very very few people would be in favor of
such a setup. As I said in another post on I-74 in NC....I support
saving the environment as much as possible so long as I don't have to
radically change my lifestyle. This, is certainly a radical change of
many peoples' lifestyles if I ever saw one.
>
> I am not surprised, since this has long been the unannounced goal of all
> Smart Growth and New Urbanism proponents. They want everyone to walk to
> work, no matter where. Thus the faculty would have to live in dorms too for
> that to happen. Some used to do this, as dorm monitors. At Syracuse
> University a former neighbor of ours grew up in the library. His father was
> the janitor, and he lived in an apartment in the basement.
I like walking to work. But it wouldn't be the same if I had to live
with everyone else associated with UVA, such that they could walk to
work as well. Plus, I can't see many faculty/staff anxious to live
with students....their waking hours, demands for quiet, etc. are very
different. This proposal was clearly over the line if I ever saw one.
>
>
> > > In the last year, the envoronmentalists won one, and lost one. One
> > > new apartment complex was built as "infill" development, while one was
> > > built on a farm. The people who live at the one on the former farm
> > > like it better, as its more spread out and there are more facilities.
> >
> > I'm an environmentalist in a practical sense... I look at it as similar
> > to keeping your person and house in order... take regular showers, wear
> > clean clothes, keep your house clean, keep your yard well maintained,
> > keep your car clean, keep your workplace clean and orderly, etc... and
> > you don't have to be a "neat freak" about it. It is in your best
> > interest to do the above, and likewise it is in our collective best
> > interest to keep the environment clean, our neighborhoods, our
> > waterways, our air, our land, protect wildlife, wetlands, etc... and
> > with the size of population, perfection is not possible, but effective
> > standards can be set and striven for.
> >
> > It's a shame that some folks are environmentalists in a political
> > sense... that they wrap it in their own political agenda and try to use
> > it as a lever for their own selfish gain.
> >
> > --
> > Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
> > Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
> > Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
>
>
> Using the environment as a political lever is what politics is all about.
> In the old days you used to have to put your white sheet on to preach
> segregation. Now you can do it for the animals.
People will use ANYTHING for their political gain these days.
william lynch
mark...@comcast.net wrote on 12/26/03 3:02 PM:
> Hank Fung <fun...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> had written:
> | Mark Roberts <mark...@comcast.net> wrote:
> | >
> | >Just imagine if the California capital were still Benicia....
> |
> | You'd have the same conglomeration of government office buildings and
> | lobbyists which are in downtown Sacramento around Benicia and the
> | Vallejo area, making the Bay Area a "quad cities" powerhouse that
> | might still have held off Los Angeles. Sacramento would have been
> | reduced to a Bakersfield or Visalia-like burg.
>
> Well, that wasn't *quite* where I was intending to go with that
> remark, but that's an interesting what-if scenario nonetheless. I
> think Sacramento might have done better than that, though, for its
> railroad connections and slightly (notice I said "slightly")
> moderated climate than anything else.
>
>
> | I-5 would have likely have turned up the Pacheco Pass to serve what
> | would be the second, third, fourth, and fifth largest cities in
> | the state. 99 might have twisted up Brentwood and left out of
> | Davis, assuming that town actually still existed.
>
> Where would the ag school have gone?
>
Sacramento would still have been the gateway to the gold country,
and Davis would still have been the last railstop before the flood
plain. The only real changes would have sent I-80 down the 680/280
corridor, and the Bay Bridge would have been I-180 or something.
And CA-4 would have been built earlier, with some 3di designation.