What's up, AARoads roadgeeks! It's Billy again! It's been a while. Been doing some moving around and other personal things. Anyways, on with the subject at hand.
So, if anyone on this site lives in Missoula, Montana or has visited the city from elsewhere, you will notice that Orange Street is getting a new roundabout. Yeah. No surprise there. The location of it is at Interstate 90 and Orange Street, exit 104, the original brianchild of US 93 Business and pre-Reserve Street US 93 days.
As you can pretty much tell, I am as pure blooded Montanan as you will ever find and I am not a fan of roundabouts. There is also one at South Avenue and 38th Street in the new Fort Missoula park area just west of the main center of town. Again, not a fan of that roundabout either.
I'm just not a fan of roundabouts at all. Period. But that's what we're getting on Orange Street. I guess in Missoula engineering's mindset, they think roundabouts are better than lights. Don't know about that. We'll see how this goes.
So what is it that you don't like about roundabouts? I'll admit, they're not a perfect fit for every location. But they work great in rural areas. And Suburban areas. Not so much urban areas. Though the mini roundabout, as seen in the UK and some cities in the US, seems to be a good fit for low-volume urban streets.
As for the Orange Street Roundabout at hand here, I think the Orange Street Corridor would normally be too dense for roundabouts to work. But, because this roundabout would be at the very edge of the urban area, and the legs would involve a freeway off-ramp (good fit for a roundabout because of the random arrival time of cars), I think this one will be a success. Might be better for pedestrians too. That crosswalk at 3rd/5th looks kind of dangerous.
I think a roundabout will work great on Orange Street - I've used that interchange many times in my life, and it seems very well suited for that configuration.
MDT is starting to get fairly roundabout happy - there are a whole bunch on the west side of Billings too on Secondary 532.
From the Missoulian, here's a pic of the Orange Street roundabout:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com%2Fmissoulian.com%2Fcontent%2Ftncms%2Fassets%2Fv3%2Feditorial%2F3%2F41%2F3413e3d9-f40d-5b9c-934e-1ac0ea6f3f5e%2F591b5bae548b3.image.jpg&hash=fcee5eb0b09239dadf369407f0d779c26f842759)
Damn, that's quick! Wasn't even a few days ago and it's near completion already.
I won't be surprised if Van Buren Street and I-90 (exit 105) is next on the MDT's hot list of traffic circling.
I don't mind roundabouts some of the time. But what drives me nuts in Wisconsin are these series of them. Like 4 or 5 in a row all within a 1/2 mile of one another. I also dislike them on roads with 55 MPH speed limits. Always have to keep slowing down on a road that is meant for speed. I do think they went a bid overboard with them on Shilo Dr. on the west side of Billings.
Quote from: dvferyance on July 14, 2017, 02:49:14 PM
I don't mind roundabouts some of the time. But what drives me nuts in Wisconsin are these series of them. Like 4 or 5 in a row all within a 1/2 mile of one another. I also dislike them on roads with 55 MPH speed limits. Always have to keep slowing down on a road that is meant for speed. I do think they went a bit overboard with them on Shilo Dr. on the west side of Billings.
Single-lane roundabouts along high-speed arterial roads have proven very effective at cutting down collisions. They're typically built in a series due to an expected growth of traffic. They may not be necessary right now, but they may be in the future. It's cheaper and faster to build them all at once rather than one at a time.
I like well-designed signals as much as the next guy, particularly when the left turns are permissive. But someone blowing through a red light at 55 or higher, hitting a crossing vehicle, would almost certainly result in a fatal collision. The
potential for a serious collision is much higher at signals with high-speed approaches.
Here in Madison, there are roundabouts, but it appears the DOT has not been obnoxious about where they place them (4-5 within a 1/2 mile segment does seem a little excessive, but does it greatly slow down traffic flow?).
As much as the flashing yellow arrow annoys me, I guess I can cut MDT just teensy bit a slack. I do ere with corco that the Orange Street circle is suitable, especially considering 3rd and 5th streets not looking the best at present, but I think it will help the foot traffic a bit, the trick is though, that vehicles yield left in circles as apposed to stop signs. I don't understand why people stop in the circle. Yield does not mean stop. Now if there were stop signs in the circles at Higgins and Beckwith, South Avenue circle by the new Fort Missoula complex, and Orange, that I can understand why.
I'm not so sure how you can reduce the chance of accidents at Orange and I-90 because in winter, it can get brutal, and traffic circles are not a semi trucker's best friend.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on July 18, 2017, 07:47:32 PM
I'm not so sure how you can reduce the chance of accidents at Orange and I-90 because in winter, it can get brutal, and traffic circles are not a semi trucker's best friend.
The roundabout, as all roundabouts are, is designed to handle truck/trailers and their wide turning radii. I don't think snow should make it more dangerous. Montanans are used to it, right? Roundabouts and winter weather actually sound like a good combo to me. Both require low speeds. Better than sliding through a red light.
Yeah, I don't really get the hate towards roundabouts. They sure are a better way to improve an intersection than adding a light, and they allow the dreaded four way stop to be converted to a higher-capacity intersection.
Quote from: compdude787 on July 19, 2017, 10:50:45 PM
Yeah, I don't really get the hate towards roundabouts. They sure are a better way to improve an intersection than adding a light, and they allow the dreaded four way stop to be converted to a higher-capacity intersection.
But they are not suitable for everywhere. Sometimes they work sometimes they don't.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 02, 2017, 06:13:40 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on July 19, 2017, 10:50:45 PM
Yeah, I don't really get the hate towards roundabouts. They sure are a better way to improve an intersection than adding a light, and they allow the dreaded four way stop to be converted to a higher-capacity intersection.
But they are not suitable for everywhere. Sometimes they work sometimes they don't.
The multi-lane roundabouts tend to be the problematic ones (if the crash-prone roundabouts thread is to be believed). The single-lane ones tend to work quite well.
As for
where they're placed, I suppose you have a much better idea of where they belong than the state does, right? :-D
Quote from: compdude787 on July 19, 2017, 10:50:45 PM
Yeah, I don't really get the hate towards roundabouts. They sure are a better way to improve an intersection than adding a light, and they allow the dreaded four way stop to be converted to a higher-capacity intersection.
Not sure why you think I'm "hating" on the roundabouts, which I'm not. I just happen to be somewhat a 90's Montana purist. I mean, I guess some roundabouts make sense around Missoula, but there are some that leave me asking why.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on August 02, 2017, 08:47:36 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on July 19, 2017, 10:50:45 PM
Yeah, I don't really get the hate towards roundabouts. They sure are a better way to improve an intersection than adding a light, and they allow the dreaded four way stop to be converted to a higher-capacity intersection.
Not sure why you think I'm "hating" on the roundabouts, which I'm not. I just happen to be somewhat a 90's Montana purist. I mean, I guess some roundabouts make sense around Missoula, but there are some that leave me asking why.
Because you seem to be rather close-minded about roundabouts:
QuoteAs you can pretty much tell, I am as pure blooded Montanan as you will ever find and I am not a fan of roundabouts. There is also one at South Avenue and 38th Street in the new Fort Missoula park area just west of the main center of town. Again, not a fan of that roundabout either.
I'm just not a fan of roundabouts at all. Period. But that's what we're getting on Orange Street. I guess in Missoula engineering's mindset, they think roundabouts are better than lights. Don't know about that. We'll see how this goes.
Roundabouts are generally safe alternatives to four-way stops or signal lights. This is almost surely the reason they were built, as they promote what can be considered traffic calming. I might ask what evidence you have that lights are better than roundabouts. Do they lead to fewer accidents than roundabouts? Because studies tend to suggest the opposite, and I'm sure Missoula took this into account.
Judgmentalmaps has highlighted the long corridor of roundabouts in Billings along Shiloh Road.
Quote from: mrsman on February 22, 2018, 10:46:50 PM
Judgmentalmaps has highlighted the long corridor of roundabouts in Billings along Shiloh Road.
Nice link...
Quote from: aboges26 on February 25, 2018, 03:11:27 PM
Quote from: mrsman on February 22, 2018, 10:46:50 PM
Judgmentalmaps has highlighted the long corridor of roundabouts in Billings along Shiloh Road.
Nice link...
http://judgmentalmaps.com/post/171135871025/billings
Quote from: Quillz on September 05, 2017, 01:33:39 AM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on August 02, 2017, 08:47:36 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on July 19, 2017, 10:50:45 PM
Yeah, I don't really get the hate towards roundabouts. They sure are a better way to improve an intersection than adding a light, and they allow the dreaded four way stop to be converted to a higher-capacity intersection.
Not sure why you think I'm "hating" on the roundabouts, which I'm not. I just happen to be somewhat a 90's Montana purist. I mean, I guess some roundabouts make sense around Missoula, but there are some that leave me asking why.
Because you seem to be rather close-minded about roundabouts:
QuoteAs you can pretty much tell, I am as pure blooded Montanan as you will ever find and I am not a fan of roundabouts. There is also one at South Avenue and 38th Street in the new Fort Missoula park area just west of the main center of town. Again, not a fan of that roundabout either.
I'm just not a fan of roundabouts at all. Period. But that's what we're getting on Orange Street. I guess in Missoula engineering's mindset, they think roundabouts are better than lights. Don't know about that. We'll see how this goes.
Roundabouts are generally safe alternatives to four-way stops or signal lights. This is almost surely the reason they were built, as they promote what can be considered traffic calming. I might ask what evidence you have that lights are better than roundabouts. Do they lead to fewer accidents than roundabouts? Because studies tend to suggest the opposite, and I'm sure Missoula took this into account.
Maybe I'm closed-minded but I think I know why I feel that way. I don't think it has anything to do with the design or placement of them, it's mainly people who don't get where you need to be in certain spots. And some have mowed through roundabouts. Van Buren Street is slated for one either late spring or mid-summer, which I think could mitigate people's fears of coming off Van Buren from the interstate to go on to Broadway either direction. Again, I think I feel closed-minded mainly because of how people don't quite get what to do once one is in place and I think there's a lot of confusion at times for out of state or out of county drivers that come in to Missoula.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on April 05, 2018, 08:26:35 PM
Again, I think I feel closed-minded mainly because of how people don't quite get what to do once one is in place and I think there's a lot of confusion at times for out of state or out of county drivers that come in to Missoula.
This is why I keep saying it's a PEBKAC problem. There is nothing wrong with roundabouts. There is something wrong with drivers who don't know how to properly navigate them.
The solution is to educate people. Building more roundabouts will ultimately help with this endeavor since the more unavoidable they become, the more people will be forced to figure it out rather than shutting their brains off and saying "I don't like it".
I doubt I'll be shutting my brain off thinking I don't like them. I mean, I deal with the roundabouts frequently and can go through them with relative ease. I'm starting to live with the reality that there will probably be more roundabouts coming in Missoula, including the one on Van Buren Street just off the interstate.
Which makes me think one other thing: does South Avenue and Bancroft Street need one, because it's just one crash away from getting a roundabout.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2017, 03:09:37 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on July 18, 2017, 07:47:32 PM
I'm not so sure how you can reduce the chance of accidents at Orange and I-90 because in winter, it can get brutal, and traffic circles are not a semi trucker's best friend.
The roundabout, as all roundabouts are, is designed to handle truck/trailers and their wide turning radii. I don't think snow should make it more dangerous. Montanans are used to it, right? Roundabouts and winter weather actually sound like a good combo to me. Both require low speeds. Better than sliding through a red light.
Cars are becoming more safe as it is and, IIRC, some roundabouts have experienced a higher collision rate though usually lower fatal collision rates. I don't like roundabouts because no matter what you have to slow down to usually well below the speed limit to navigate through them and at least with traditional intersections you have a chance of hitting the green light and not having to slow down. If safety is of the uttermost importance, than grade separation is always king.
But what gets me about it is that I don't understand why urban or walkability advocates(which based off of your posts makes me think you're one or lean more towards urban areas transit... which is fine I'm not hating here just making a point) like roundabouts. They are not necessarily safer for bikers or especially pedestrians and in fact can be more dangerous than traditional 4 way stops or intersections. I don't think the verdict is fully out but the results I've seen so far have been a mixed bag. Roundabouts seem to be primarily tailored to cars and any interaction between cars and pedestrians requires the driver to yield usually which the driver also has to be looking for oncoming traffic which can cause distractions. Sometimes I think a lot of urbanists here in the states just like roundabouts because Europe has a lot them and whatever Europe does is just cool so we should do it. I will admit, I do like some of the roundabout in Norway that are elevated with bike lanes separated though I think flyovers would accomplish that better and keep vehicles traveling at speed while doing so.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 10, 2018, 05:47:36 AM
But what gets me about it is that I don't understand why urban or walkability advocates(which based off of your posts makes me think you're one or lean more towards urban areas transit... which is fine I'm not hating here just making a point) like roundabouts. They are not necessarily safer for bikers or especially pedestrians and in fact can be more dangerous than traditional 4 way stops or intersections. I don't think the verdict is fully out but the results I've seen so far have been a mixed bag. Roundabouts seem to be primarily tailored to cars and any interaction between cars and pedestrians requires the driver to yield usually which the driver also has to be looking for oncoming traffic which can cause distractions.
I'm kind of an urbanist. I grew up in the suburbs, and I liked it just fine. I'm just not a fan of seeing areas that used to be wood or farmland being destroyed to build homes. The Pacific Northwest has a very fragile ecosystem, and I really would rather see developed areas developed more, rather than focusing our efforts on undeveloped land.
As for roundabouts, I think a true urbanist prefers uncontrolled intersections with raised pavement (flat crossing area for pedestrians). Roundabouts are a happy medium, since they force traffic
that's paying attention to slow down and assess whether it's safe, but they don't always get traffic to yield to pedestrians (since drivers are focused on yielding to cars). A raised crosswalk could improve the situation, but those are rare and mostly unstudied, I'd imagine. Roundabouts aren't too great for cyclists either. The Netherlands has built some rather impressive roundabouts that feature parallel protected cycle paths, but they're a ROW nightmare.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 10, 2018, 05:47:36 AM
Sometimes I think a lot of urbanists here in the states just like roundabouts because Europe has a lot them and whatever Europe does is just cool so we should do it. I will admit, I do like some of the roundabout in Norway that are elevated with bike lanes separated though I think flyovers would accomplish that better and keep vehicles traveling at speed while doing so.
The obsession with European practice is due to Europe's better safety record. Most countries in Europe have fewer pedestrian and driver deaths per capita than the US. They also have more experience in working with urban environments. As the US grows, our urban areas become denser (even in cities where that's not the goal, unlike Seattle), so, as with any situation, you look for guidance from those with more experience than your own.
Farmland and forest have to be destroyed for homes and businesses. Just because you don't like to see low density homes and sprawled out suburbs shouldn't neglect the fact others have a right to live in the type of environment they want.
As for Europe, Europe has a much lesser driving culture in the U.S. and I'd be willing to guess less people drive in the whole continent, but I'm unsure of that. Without verifying, I'm almost certain there is no country in Europe that drives more than the U.S. Even if looked at from miles driven perspective, you still have the fact there are so many people driving here there is more chance for things to happen. If the U.S. had the same road designs as Europe minus the lack of capacity, I'd stick my neck out and be willing to guess traffic fatalities would be around the same.
That said, I'm warming up to roundabout, but I still don't think they're that pedestrian friendly and the stats are on the fence about it. I would support raised intersections in some section and I'd say they would help a little, but then you still have the issue of drivers looking for other drivers more so than they would be focusing on pedestrians, naturally. Now grade separated crosswalks would be the way to go, imo, but then you have the cost issue.
Me personally, I support an entirely grade separated transit system across nearly every front with few exceptions, so anything grade separated gets an A+ from me.
It seems to me that roundabouts are horrible for peds, for the reasons mentioned above. You are so focused on yielding to cars, that you overlook peds. Not safe.
One approach that might work is for some type of signalization like a pelican crossing for each ped crossing. When peds are present, the cars will stop with a red light, at other times they drive through the crosswalk and then yield when they reach the roundabout. But to do this, the ped crossing probably has to be some significant distance away from the roundabout, which will force peds to walk greater distances.
Warning: completely off-topic...
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2018, 06:40:50 PM
Farmland and forest have to be destroyed for homes and businesses. Just because you don't like to see low density homes and sprawled out suburbs shouldn't neglect the fact others have a right to live in the type of environment they want.
I don't want to live in a suburban environment. Why are you taking that choice away from me?
That's a rhetorical question, of course. Don't forget that there's two sides to the equation: those who like urban living, and those who like suburban/rural living. No side is definitively bigger than the other, so it's unfair to make land policy choices that only favor one side.
With that said, denser urban planning has become a popular method of combating rising housing costs in cities that are highly desirable, such as Seattle, San Francisco, or Vancouver. Increasing the number of dwellings per capita mathematically reduces the demand for housing across the board. Urban developments are usually favored when this becomes necessary because they don't require an area be turned upside down to support things like water, sewage, or electricity. There's also the general mindset of local inhabitants. In the Pacific Northwest, people like for undeveloped land to remain that way. It's just our way of thinking. People in places like Texas, evidently, don't think this way.
The problem that cities like Seattle are facing is that there isn't enough homes for everyone that's moving here. That drives up housing costs due to high demand, which in turn forces people out of the city and into the suburbs. In turn, that drives up suburban housing costs, making the situation shitty for everyone involved.
A better solution, whether you like it or not, is to provide lots of urban housing (for those who don't really give a shit about having a yard), reducing the demand for housing across the board, making it easier for suburbanites to spend less on their homes, and more on their kids, schools, etc. See how this can benefit everyone?
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 07:15:28 PM
Warning: completely off-topic...
Jake, just wondering... You identify yourself as an Urban Design Student. Is this what they are teaching you on college?
Quote from: kalvado on April 13, 2018, 07:39:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 07:15:28 PM
Warning: completely off-topic...
Jake, just wondering... You identify yourself as an Urban Design Student. Is this what they are teaching you on college?
No, I don't start at UW until June. I dropped out of community college three years ago, and have worked low wage jobs since then. I face the challenge of housing costs like so many in the Seattle area, so I'm intrigued by available solutions.
FWIW, urban design is different from urban planning. Urban design focuses more on public/shared spaces, whereas the latter is more focused on the overall picture.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 07:15:28 PM
Warning: completely off-topic...
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2018, 06:40:50 PM
Farmland and forest have to be destroyed for homes and businesses. Just because you don't like to see low density homes and sprawled out suburbs shouldn't neglect the fact others have a right to live in the type of environment they want.
I don't want to live in a suburban environment. Why are you taking that choice away from me?
That's a rhetorical question, of course. Don't forget that there's two sides to the equation: those who like urban living, and those who like suburban/rural living. No side is definitively bigger than the other, so it's unfair to make land policy choices that only favor one side.
With that said, denser urban planning has become a popular method of combating rising housing costs in cities that are highly desirable, such as Seattle, San Francisco, or Vancouver. Increasing the number of dwellings per capita mathematically reduces the demand for housing across the board. Urban developments are usually favored when this becomes necessary because they don't require an area be turned upside down to support things like water, sewage, or electricity. There's also the general mindset of local inhabitants. In the Pacific Northwest, people like for undeveloped land to remain that way. It's just our way of thinking. People in places like Texas, evidently, don't think this way.
The problem that cities like Seattle are facing is that there isn't enough homes for everyone that's moving here. That drives up housing costs due to high demand, which in turn forces people out of the city and into the suburbs. In turn, that drives up suburban housing costs, making the situation shitty for everyone involved.
A better solution, whether you like it or not, is to provide lots of urban housing (for those who don't really give a shit about having a yard), reducing the demand for housing across the board, making it easier for suburbanites to spend less on their homes, and more on their kids, schools, etc. See how this can benefit everyone?
I'm not taking that choice away from you. You still have it. It's called downtown Seattle and tons of other city centers around it and every city has a core like that. What you are saying is taking away living options from others or making it more limited.
It is much cheaper with more square footage to buy a house in suburbia than it is urban lofts or condos in urban areas. Often times you can get double the sf in the burbs for what you'd pay in the cities and that comes with yards and ease of car access with plentiful and free parking almost everywhere.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2018, 09:41:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 07:15:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2018, 06:40:50 PM
Farmland and forest have to be destroyed for homes and businesses. Just because you don't like to see low density homes and sprawled out suburbs shouldn't neglect the fact others have a right to live in the type of environment they want.
[clipped]
I'm not taking that choice away from you. You still have it. It's called downtown Seattle and tons of other city centers around it and every city has a core like that. What you are saying is taking away living options from others or making it more limited.
It is much cheaper with more square footage to buy a house in suburbia than it is urban lofts or condos in urban areas. Often times you can get double the sf in the burbs for what you'd pay in the cities and that comes with yards and ease of car access with plentiful and free parking almost everywhere.
You
completely missed my point, man. Did you even read what I wrote? I'm plenty well aware of the situation. It's becoming very expensive to live in cities because of a lack of housing. Building more urban housing, to reduce the strain on the suburban road network
and reduce overall environmental impact, reduces the demand for homes
across the board. Right now, people are being priced out of Seattle and into the suburbs, where they're competing with people who want to live in the suburbs. See how everyone loses?
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 09:55:19 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2018, 09:41:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 07:15:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2018, 06:40:50 PM
Farmland and forest have to be destroyed for homes and businesses. Just because you don't like to see low density homes and sprawled out suburbs shouldn't neglect the fact others have a right to live in the type of environment they want.
[clipped]
I'm not taking that choice away from you. You still have it. It's called downtown Seattle and tons of other city centers around it and every city has a core like that. What you are saying is taking away living options from others or making it more limited.
It is much cheaper with more square footage to buy a house in suburbia than it is urban lofts or condos in urban areas. Often times you can get double the sf in the burbs for what you'd pay in the cities and that comes with yards and ease of car access with plentiful and free parking almost everywhere.
You completely missed my point, man. Did you even read what I wrote? I'm plenty well aware of the situation. It's becoming very expensive to live in cities because of a lack of housing. Building more urban housing, to reduce the strain on the suburban road network and reduce overall environmental impact, reduces the demand for homes across the board. Right now, people are being priced out of Seattle and into the suburbs, where they're competing with people who want to live in the suburbs. See how everyone loses?
Building more urban housing never works. Look how much housing is in NYC? Look how expensive it is. Same thing with a lot of European cities. Look at how expensive London is. LA keeps getting more and more urban housing and prices are going up. Dense housing isn't a cure all. Now Seattle's situation is different due to geographical constraints as you pointed out, but there still needs to be suburban housing stock and even if tons of more urban housing stock is added, prices will still likely go up regardless.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 10:43:53 AMLook at how expensive London is.
London is expensive precisely due to a lack of urban housing - demand is not met by supply at all. But more suburban housing doesn't fix that - London's tried building more suburban housing, in new towns outside the city, but (again) demand outstrips supply. Milton Keynes (50 miles from London) and the area around it has added about 250k people in the last 25 years and is not the only place - just the biggest and most US-style suburban. A 3 bed nothing-special house in that part of the world will usually cost you £400k ($570k) and if you get over 1200sqft for that, they explicitly state it as that is massive (average new build 3-bed house in the UK is just under 950sqft). And this is in the sprawling new town designed to give suburban living to lots of people...
It's the same across most of the SE - there's a few places that are both not very nice places to live, and too far from London, where house prices are cheaper, but it's really not great.
It's the same thing in every city. More and more housing is built and it gets more and more expensive. So what's the solution, flood the market with housing so developers make less money? You really think they'll do that? Or do you propose the government force developers to certain prices?
The solution has already worked itself out. Suburban housing provides way more square footage and benefits and at half the price of urban housing. I should also note that the differences in suburban standards and development between the U.S. and Europe are gargantuan.
Going back on topic - I lived for several years in a city where everything was traffic signals, and for most of the rest of my life in places where almost everything is roundabouts. I think they are different, but I don't think one is inherently easier than the other for vunerable users - it depends on other factors.
As a pedestrian -
Traffic signals are often rather restrictive and increase driver expectation that you cross at explicit crossings and not elsewhere (there were fences to enforce this at some city centre junctions when I first moved there, but they were removed to make shopping streets less hostile to pedestrians). As such there's lots more stopping and waiting and walking out of your way to cross at the crossing. If crossing mid-block and there's some sort of median, one can cross halfway easily and reliably between waves of traffic.
Roundabouts mean drivers are more attentive at junctions, and crossing traffic coming from the junction doesn't mean that you have to look three directions to see if there's a car that shouldn't be there - you only have to look one direction and it is not very far off straight on, plus cars aren't travelling fast on it. But crossing between junctions is often harder as traffic is spread out and gaps are rarer.
As a cyclist -
Traffic lights = stopping = annoying. However you can bypass the stopped cars, and can negotiate a junction while no cars are there if you enter it from the front. Often the sensors don't register you so you might end up waiting ages for lights to trigger.
Roundabouts = more interface with traffic. However a confident cyclist can negotiate a roundabout fairly easily, and the mix of slower speeds and not having to do a racing start when the lights go green mean that less confident cyclists might also find it easier.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 03:27:59 PMMore and more housing is built and it gets more and more expensive.
That's not how markets work! In a free marker, just enough housing is built to maximise revenue for developers - too much and (as you pointed out) the market is flooded and prices drop, too little and while margins are huge per unit, the number of units isn't good.
London's regulated market doesn't allow house building to build lots - the problem is too low supply more than it being urban, rather than suburban, housing. The key reason why, say, new developments in Barking Reach have an urban feel (same goes with developments in the suburbs where they can get away with it) isn't that urban housing fetches more, but that apartments can not only meet minimum dwelling and affordable housing quotas, can fit more into the space, and most importantly the potential customer base is much higher for a two bed apartment than a three bed house that's out of most people's price range.
QuoteThe solution has already worked itself out. Suburban housing provides way more square footage and benefits and at half the price of urban housing.
NOT in the UK: you can't use London as an example of expensive urban housing and brush away that things are very different here.
You can't say urban housing in the UK is overpriced compared to suburban housing when new house prices in a large new estate on the fringes of suburban Milton Keynes are no different in price than a similar-sized new property in a trendy part of central Birmingham, walking distance (or tram, or high-frequency metro-esque train) from the city centre of Britain's second/third biggest city - either way you will be paying £450k for 3 bedrooms and both will be of a very similar size: whether well-connected urban, or poorly-connected suburban. OK, you'll get a small garden with a suburban MK house that you won't with a Brummy town house, but suburban housing is no more the solution than urban housing here.
Incidentally and trying to get back on topic - MK is, due to being suburban in nature, a roundabout infested place (it's literally famous for having lots of them), despite it's clear US influences (a grid, wide roads, the feeling of sprawl and space). UK urban areas, on the other hand, tend to lean towards traffic lights. I don't think of roundabouts as 'European' and traffic lights 'American' - I view roundabouts as suburban and traffic lights urban.
Quote from: english si on April 14, 2018, 04:12:46 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 03:27:59 PMMore and more housing is built and it gets more and more expensive.
That's not how markets work! In a free marker, just enough housing is built to maximise revenue for developers - too much and (as you pointed out) the market is flooded and prices drop, too little and while margins are huge per unit, the number of units isn't good.
London's regulated market doesn't allow house building to build lots - the problem is too low supply more than it being urban, rather than suburban, housing. The key reason why, say, new developments in Barking Reach have an urban feel (same goes with developments in the suburbs where they can get away with it) isn't that urban housing fetches more, but that apartments can not only meet minimum dwelling and affordable housing quotas, can fit more into the space, and most importantly the potential customer base is much higher for a two bed apartment than a three bed house that's out of most people's price range.
QuoteThe solution has already worked itself out. Suburban housing provides way more square footage and benefits and at half the price of urban housing.
NOT in the UK: you can't use London as an example of expensive urban housing and brush away that things are very different here.
You can't say urban housing in the UK is overpriced compared to suburban housing when new house prices in a large new estate on the fringes of suburban Milton Keynes are no different in price than a similar-sized new property in a trendy part of central Birmingham, walking distance (or tram, or high-frequency metro-esque train) from the city centre of Britain's second/third biggest city - either way you will be paying £450k for 3 bedrooms and both will be of a very similar size: whether well-connected urban, or poorly-connected suburban. OK, you'll get a small garden with a suburban MK house that you won't with a Brummy town house, but suburban housing is no more the solution than urban housing here.
Incidentally and trying to get back on topic - MK is, due to being suburban in nature, a roundabout infested place (it's literally famous for having lots of them), despite it's clear US influences (a grid, wide roads, the feeling of sprawl and space). UK urban areas, on the other hand, tend to lean towards traffic lights. I don't think of roundabouts as 'European' and traffic lights 'American' - I view roundabouts as suburban and traffic lights urban.
I was using London as an example of how expensive cities are in general, I believe that was pretty obvious, but not to compare their sprawl to ours which is not an apples to apples comparison. I will not refer to London anymore as I don't know anything about that place other than it is extremely expensive to live.
Every first world city I know of is very expensive. You aren't going to get developers to flood the market. The free market is already working. Have you seen how many units are being built in U.S. cities now? Tons of them are U/C in L.A. When this round is done, prices will still go up even though more housing stock has been added. You think developers will build more to charge less?
I stand by my comment about urbanist here wanting roundabouts because they associate them with Europe and whatever Europe does is cool. But I think you either misread or perhaps I didn't convey myself correctly because I wasn't trying to compare urban Euro housing stock to suburban USA housing stock.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 08:14:35 PM
Quote from: kalvado on April 13, 2018, 07:39:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 07:15:28 PM
Warning: completely off-topic...
Jake, just wondering... You identify yourself as an Urban Design Student. Is this what they are teaching you on college?
No, I don't start at UW until June. I dropped out of community college three years ago, and have worked low wage jobs since then. I face the challenge of housing costs like so many in the Seattle area, so I'm intrigued by available solutions.
FWIW, urban design is different from urban planning. Urban design focuses more on public/shared spaces, whereas the latter is more focused on the overall picture.
First of all, best of luck with the college!
Second - well, lets pretend we're in an urban planning class, discussing the matter.
Your opening statement is that building more housing in city core would ease pricing across the board - and your opponents go on to say that it doesn't work that way.
So lets see.. What are the factors determining housing prices? You're basically appealing to supply and demand ratio, saying there is a significant demand for prices lower than those on a market which should be met. But what determines supply side of things?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 04:34:33 PM
Tons of them are U/C in L.A.
Even if this was intended as a pun, it took quite a while for me to realize you meant upper class.
Quote from: 1 on April 14, 2018, 04:57:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 04:34:33 PM
Tons of them are U/C in L.A.
Even if this was intended as a pun, it took quite a while for me to realize you meant upper class.
I think most are like that, but yes, that is a point worth mentioning, most of the new housing stock is higher end. I don't know what can be done about that and if it keeps selling they will keep building. It seems that is the only kind that make it work. But this is starting to get way off topic now. I contributed to it anyways. We should start a new thread about this?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 05:00:34 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 14, 2018, 04:57:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 04:34:33 PM
Tons of them are U/C in L.A.
Even if this was intended as a pun, it took quite a while for me to realize you meant upper class.
I think most are like that, but yes, that is a point worth mentioning, most of the new housing stock is higher end. I don't know what can be done about that and if it keeps selling they will keep building. It seems that is the only kind that make it work. But this is starting to get way off topic now. I contributed to it anyways. We should start a new thread about this?
My point was that it was hard to understand what you meant, not an agreement or disagreement of what you were saying.
EDIT: Did you mean "under construction" instead of "upper class"?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 05:00:34 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 14, 2018, 04:57:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 04:34:33 PM
Tons of them are U/C in L.A.
Even if this was intended as a pun, it took quite a while for me to realize you meant upper class.
I think most are like that, but yes, that is a point worth mentioning, most of the new housing stock is higher end. I don't know what can be done about that and if it keeps selling they will keep building. It seems that is the only kind that make it work. But this is starting to get way off topic now. I contributed to it anyways. We should start a new thread about this?
I think it is pretty clear why that is the case..
And we can definitely ask mods to separate the discussion into a separate thread as it goes way off subject - but in a fairly interesting direction.
Quote from: kalvado on April 14, 2018, 04:55:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 08:14:35 PM
Quote from: kalvado on April 13, 2018, 07:39:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2018, 07:15:28 PM
Warning: completely off-topic...
Jake, just wondering... You identify yourself as an Urban Design Student. Is this what they are teaching you on college?
No, I don't start at UW until June. I dropped out of community college three years ago, and have worked low wage jobs since then. I face the challenge of housing costs like so many in the Seattle area, so I'm intrigued by available solutions.
FWIW, urban design is different from urban planning. Urban design focuses more on public/shared spaces, whereas the latter is more focused on the overall picture.
First of all, best of luck with the college!
Second - well, lets pretend we're in an urban planning class, discussing the matter.
Your opening statement is that building more housing in city core would ease pricing across the board - and your opponents go on to say that it doesn't work that way.
So lets see.. What are the factors determining housing prices? You're basically appealing to supply and demand ratio, saying there is a significant demand for prices lower than those on a market which should be met. But what determines supply side of things?
Thank you! It seems like a major that's right up my alley. I hope to learn a lot.
Housing prices are determined by many factors, but the decision to
buy is the most important point. If the market is flooded with lots of housing, the choice of where and when to buy is made by the buyer. In a market where demand is high but supply is low, many are forced to accept that 'this' or 'that' place will have to work. There's a lot of compromising, and the developer generally wins because people are desperate for anywhere to live. When there's lots of supply, demand drops, giving buyers more leeway in location, price, etc.
Just having lots of housing does not make a situation better. Detroit is still a dump, despite painfully cheap housing, because there's little in the way of available work. San Francisco, Seattle, Vancouver, London, NYC, and others have lots of work opportunity because they are all hubs for various companies and organisations. If the housing was there, people would fill it. But in these cities, the housing stock isn't there, and what is there is either painfully expensive (because developers know that people are desperate and will pay it), or ridiculously far away from employment hubs.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 03:27:59 PM
It's the same thing in every city. More and more housing is built and it gets more and more expensive. So what's the solution, flood the market with housing so developers make less money? You really think they'll do that? Or do you propose the government force developers to certain prices?
The government is actually an issue here. Zoning laws usually limit the density of an area. It's why you can't build a giant skyscraper in some village. Cities like Vancouver have wildly different zoning laws from many other North American cities, which has resulted in "Vancouverism", aka lots of skyscrapers with mixed use development on the bottom floors. However, in Vancouver (for many reasons), immigrants from the far east, who are exceptionally wealthy, are buying up much of the housing supply, which is increasing demand and therefore the price of housing. Lots with tear-down housing on it sell for millions (CAD). It's all due to lack of housing, which inflates the price of land and the houses on them: https://goo.gl/JYzTcY.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2018, 05:37:46 PM
Housing prices are determined by many factors, but the decision to buy is the most important point. If the market is flooded with lots of housing, the choice of where and when to buy is made by the buyer. In a market where demand is high but supply is low, many are forced to accept that 'this' or 'that' place will have to work. There's a lot of compromising, and the developer generally wins because people are desperate for anywhere to live. When there's lots of supply, demand drops, giving buyers more leeway in location, price, etc.
I am more thinking in terms of developer being limited by the costs of both actual construction and land.
Land supply is very finite - especially for a city, and more so for geographically constrained city.
Cost of construction is tricky, with labor being more pricey in megalopolis areas, and construction hitting a few price increasing steps as floor count goes up - and increased floor count is a requirement for a dense area.
So, thinking from that direction - do you think more construction can reduce cost?
Quote from: kalvado on April 14, 2018, 06:03:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2018, 05:37:46 PM
Housing prices are determined by many factors, but the decision to buy is the most important point. If the market is flooded with lots of housing, the choice of where and when to buy is made by the buyer. In a market where demand is high but supply is low, many are forced to accept that 'this' or 'that' place will have to work. There's a lot of compromising, and the developer generally wins because people are desperate for anywhere to live. When there's lots of supply, demand drops, giving buyers more leeway in location, price, etc.
I am more thinking in terms of developer being limited by the costs of both actual construction and land.
Land supply is very finite - especially for a city, and more so for geographically constrained city.
Cost of construction is tricky, with labor being more pricey in megalopolis areas, and construction hitting a few price increasing steps as floor count goes up - and increased floor count is a requirement for a dense area.
So, thinking from that direction - do you think more construction can reduce cost?
Too much construction can strain local resources required to build these projects, sure. But no one's looking to build forty skyscrapers a month. The goal is just to start moving in a direction where developers are more interested in high density development. A developer might see his building delayed due to constrained resources, but steady (not quick) construction can absorb these prices. It's not like the price of steel is tripling overnight because three more buildings were approved for South Lake Union.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2018, 07:15:07 PM
Quote from: kalvado on April 14, 2018, 06:03:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2018, 05:37:46 PM
Housing prices are determined by many factors, but the decision to buy is the most important point. If the market is flooded with lots of housing, the choice of where and when to buy is made by the buyer. In a market where demand is high but supply is low, many are forced to accept that 'this' or 'that' place will have to work. There's a lot of compromising, and the developer generally wins because people are desperate for anywhere to live. When there's lots of supply, demand drops, giving buyers more leeway in location, price, etc.
I am more thinking in terms of developer being limited by the costs of both actual construction and land.
Land supply is very finite - especially for a city, and more so for geographically constrained city.
Cost of construction is tricky, with labor being more pricey in megalopolis areas, and construction hitting a few price increasing steps as floor count goes up - and increased floor count is a requirement for a dense area.
So, thinking from that direction - do you think more construction can reduce cost?
Too much construction can strain local resources required to build these projects, sure. But no one's looking to build forty skyscrapers a month. The goal is just to start moving in a direction where developers are more interested in high density development. A developer might see his building delayed due to constrained resources, but steady (not quick) construction can absorb these prices. It's not like the price of steel is tripling overnight because three more buildings were approved for South Lake Union.
It is not about local resources per se.
Average construction cost nationwide is on the order of $125 per sq. foot, up to $200 in well-to-do areas, and reaching $1000 for high-rize in Manhattan. I couldn't find the numbers for Seattle, but I assume it is on the upper end of spectrum: Seattle high minimum wage makes you need to pay more to contractors as well. Carpenters, electricians, plumbers painters etc..
Once you start shrinking rooms, I suspect price would go up as well. All that before land cost and permits and..
So it comes to the developer would be able to recover costs - via sale or rent - and if not, there will be no supply you want.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 04:34:33 PMWhen this round is done, prices will still go up even though more housing stock has been added. You think developers will build more to charge less?
You seem to think developers will build more to charge less when you tout suburban as the solution to high house prices...
They won't flood the suburban market either - that's London/SE England's problem (both urban and suburban - and rural too), and it's exacerbated by planning restricting them to not even build as many as they would usually like (which in turn means that they want to push for maximising profit so the housing is dense and urban in style).
My county town approved something like 2,000 suburban houses to be build over 5 years in green-field development linking to a new link road and a new station - in what was one of the most developer-friendly planning moves in the SE for a generation. It's been nearly 10 years and only about 500 of those houses have been built as the developers don't want to flood the market. Meanwhile the urban developments, by the same developers, in the same town shot up, despite prices per unit not being any more expensive, because the market was already saturated, and 500 new houses/apartments there replacing freight sidings/warehousing were built in 5 years.
QuoteI stand by my comment about urbanist here wanting roundabouts because they associate them with Europe and whatever Europe does is cool.
But they aren't really European urban features - they are European suburban features - so why would urbanists like them?
QuoteBut I think you either misread or perhaps I didn't convey myself correctly because I wasn't trying to compare urban Euro housing stock to suburban USA housing stock.
No, I read you perfectly - you see urban as a boogeyman, you think suburban is the solution. You sort to compare the situation in London with US situations, citing it as an example of expensive because urban, which I then explained is expensive because SE England.
My points were simple:
- suburban housing is not necessarily massively cheaper and is still subject to the same economic forces (the market, regulatory restrictions on the market) as urban housing.
- that roundabouts are more suburban features in Europe and thus it seems strange that urbanists would be going for them because that's what Europe does.
Quote from: english si on April 15, 2018, 04:56:30 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 04:34:33 PMWhen this round is done, prices will still go up even though more housing stock has been added. You think developers will build more to charge less?
You seem to think developers will build more to charge less when you tout suburban as the solution to high house prices...
They won't flood the suburban market either
Problem is that reasonable quality newly built housing is not going to aim at low market segment. There is a lifecycle for any structure, as it goes from new-and-shiny to demolition-ready. It only makes sense that amortization has to be paid off within certain period - meaning higher cost of residence for that many years after construction/renovation.
Now with significant growth in constrained area, there is likely more growth in population that in amount of available older structures; moreover - I can expect still good buildings to be removed to give way for new projects.
The way market should handle this is migration of low-income population out of the area, drop in workforce supply and increased wages in low-qualified sector; what actually happens is that big cities keep growing depleting everything else. Malignant tumor type of behavio
ur...
I can speak for what is happening, currently, where I live. I am in Parker, CO, which is a suburb approximately 20 miles south of downtown Denver. There is a lot of construction downtown, with many high-rise urban lofts going in. However, you may have heard about how Denver is one of the cities with among the highest rental increases. Supply is certainly less than demand, and the city is just now beginning to tackle the lack of low-income housing available. In addition to this, many historically minority neighborhoods are being gentrified quickly (as in other cities).
As I mentioned before, I'm in the suburbs. I can (barely) afford to live here. I have a 2-bedroom, 2-bathroom apartment in a new complex, and I'm paying a lot, but I'd be paying a lot more for the equivalent apartment downtown.
In essence, unless we start building towers upon towers (with 100+ stories) of lofts in every center city, there will never be enough supply to keep costs low. But even if we to build multiple megatowers, there still will be a good number of people who prefer suburban homes, where they get more bang for their buck, and get to have a yard with a white picket fence on a cul-de-sac.
My point was this, new supply in cities has not brought down prices. Want proof? Look at how much housing stock has been added in U.S. cities and in nearly every case, the cost of rent just keeps going up. Then you want developers to build more so they can charge less? That just is not going to happen. It is cheaper in the suburbs because it is cheaper to build single or double story houses and the pros that come with them outweigh the pros of living in an urban environment. I think I read somewhere like 80 percent of all new home buyers in 2016 chose suburbia. I'm sure school do amount to it, but there is something to be said about having your own yard, more privacy, ease of access to your car(free private parking for multiple vehicles), not as busy, darker nights(less light pollution usually), more green space and trees, wider roads, more open skies(not like a rat running in between buildings), I mean I can go on and on and on.
What city that is desirable and not on the decline has seen new building stock that has lowered the cost of apartments? Don't name me some city in Rwanda or Mexico. Another poster seemed to imply that developers will eventually get around to building enough housing stock to lower the price which I'm going to straight up disagree with. Only government could force that and they have no business doing so. Not to mention most new urban housing stock does seem to be upscale, something else the government could stop and I disagree with them doing so. I think the market will eventually solve that. Make it easy to live in the suburbs with transit access in their city centres and make it easy to drive to downtown areas and give could transit options making it easy for people to live in urban areas without a car, I bet America most people will still opt for the burbs and even more for their cars. I know I will always prefer my car even though I do use transit and my bike.
What does Rwanda have to do with roundabouts in Montana?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2018, 11:17:05 PM
My point was this, new supply in cities has not brought down prices. Want proof? Look at how much housing stock has been added in U.S. cities and in nearly every case, the cost of rent just keeps going up. Then you want developers to build more so they can charge less? That just is not going to happen. It is cheaper in the suburbs because it is cheaper to build single or double story houses and the pros that come with them outweigh the pros of living in an urban environment. I think I read somewhere like 80 percent of all new home buyers in 2016 chose suburbia. I'm sure school do amount to it, but there is something to be said about having your own yard, more privacy, ease of access to your car(free private parking for multiple vehicles), not as busy, darker nights(less light pollution usually), more green space and trees, wider roads, more open skies(not like a rat running in between buildings), I mean I can go on and on and on.
What city that is desirable and not on the decline has seen new building stock that has lowered the cost of apartments? Don't name me some city in Rwanda or Mexico. Another poster seemed to imply that developers will eventually get around to building enough housing stock to lower the price which I'm going to straight up disagree with. Only government could force that and they have no business doing so. Not to mention most new urban housing stock does seem to be upscale, something else the government could stop and I disagree with them doing so. I think the market will eventually solve that. Make it easy to live in the suburbs with transit access in their city centres and make it easy to drive to downtown areas and give could transit options making it easy for people to live in urban areas without a car, I bet America most people will still opt for the burbs and even more for their cars. I know I will always prefer my car even though I do use transit and my bike.
Judging by modern traffic levels, whatever we've been doing hasn't been working. So I don't see why more of the same (suburban housing, freeways, etc) should be the entire gameplan.
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2018, 12:47:51 AM
What does Rwanda have to do with roundabouts in Montana?
Roundabouts? We're talking about housing.
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2018, 12:47:51 AM
What does Rwanda have to do with roundabouts in Montana?
Thread drifted to another topic. I know for a fact that never happened before - but yet it happened again.
We need mods to split off the thread....
Quote from: jakeroot on April 18, 2018, 02:54:15 AM
Judging by modern traffic levels, whatever we've been doing hasn't been working. So I don't see why more of the same (suburban housing, freeways, etc) should be the entire gameplan.
And what we have been doing is growing supercities - letting mid-size cities, such as rust belt, to decay. It is not about NYC vs Tarrytown, this is about top 20 MSAs vs rest of the country.
Quote from: kalvado on April 18, 2018, 07:28:43 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 18, 2018, 02:54:15 AM
Judging by modern traffic levels, whatever we've been doing hasn't been working. So I don't see why more of the same (suburban housing, freeways, etc) should be the entire gameplan.
And what we have been doing is growing supercities - letting mid-size cities, such as rust belt, to decay. It is not about NYC vs Tarrytown, this is about top 20 MSAs vs rest of the country.
Free market capitalism, yo. Just gotta learn to work with it.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 18, 2018, 11:11:58 AM
Quote from: kalvado on April 18, 2018, 07:28:43 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 18, 2018, 02:54:15 AM
Judging by modern traffic levels, whatever we've been doing hasn't been working. So I don't see why more of the same (suburban housing, freeways, etc) should be the entire gameplan.
And what we have been doing is growing supercities - letting mid-size cities, such as rust belt, to decay. It is not about NYC vs Tarrytown, this is about top 20 MSAs vs rest of the country.
Free market capitalism, yo. Just gotta learn to work with it.
Sure - but you may end up with things converging not where you want them to be - and that is what often happens once you are past chapter I of that textbook. If you ever studied mathematical analysis, function minimum may occur within the given range - or at the edge of a given range. And once you put strict limits in, that is more likely to happen. Something along the lines of Irish potato thing..
And then there is non-market force added which screws things even further - like NYCHA..
True market resolution would happen when minimum wage jobs would go unfilled because people cannot afford living in the area at that wage. But non-market force is applied, and feedback loop doesn't go into effect. So much for free market.
Quote from: kalvado on April 18, 2018, 12:28:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 18, 2018, 11:11:58 AM
Quote from: kalvado on April 18, 2018, 07:28:43 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 18, 2018, 02:54:15 AM
Judging by modern traffic levels, whatever we've been doing hasn't been working. So I don't see why more of the same (suburban housing, freeways, etc) should be the entire gameplan.
And what we have been doing is growing supercities - letting mid-size cities, such as rust belt, to decay. It is not about NYC vs Tarrytown, this is about top 20 MSAs vs rest of the country.
Free market capitalism, yo. Just gotta learn to work with it.
Sure - but you may end up with things converging not where you want them to be - and that is what often happens once you are past chapter I of that textbook. If you ever studied mathematical analysis, function minimum may occur within the given range - or at the edge of a given range. And once you put strict limits in, that is more likely to happen. Something along the lines of Irish potato thing..
And then there is non-market force added which screws things even further - like NYCHA..
True market resolution would happen when minimum wage jobs would go unfilled because people cannot afford living in the area at that wage. But non-market force is applied, and feedback loop doesn't go into effect. So much for free market.
I see. On one hand, I appear to be in favor of letting the market run itself. But on the other, I appear to be in favor of government intrusion.
I am not a true free-market libertarian (don't worry mods, this is on topic). I feel it is necessary for the government to play a small-ish but vital role in how society is shaped, with that role becoming more apparent as the free market tears itself apart (so to speak). Developers are doing this by building thousands of acres of suburban housing tracts out in the middle of nowhere, creating traffic bottlenecks, requiring heavy investment in the public utilities infrastructure in areas previously inhabited by...cows, requiring more money for new schools and shopping areas (who wants to drive two hours to the mall?). People obviously like a house, a lawn, a big car for their kids, etc. I have no problem with that stuff. But we're not looking at the bigger picture. Where do these people work? How do they get to work? Can the kids walk anywhere? Are there parks? How far is the airport? There's a lot of questions that become very apparent after people buy their homes, but questions that inevitably shape their lives after that point. People really need to take into account these things before buying. Of course, they can't really because of this thing called a "budget". But if we worked to create policies that reduced land prices and inflation, the market would actually be a bit "freer".
Quote from: jakeroot on April 18, 2018, 05:19:00 PM
I am not a true free-market libertarian (don't worry mods, this is on topic). I feel it is necessary for the government to play a small-ish but vital role in how society is shaped, with that role becoming more apparent as the free market tears itself apart (so to speak). Developers are doing this by building thousands of acres of suburban housing tracts out in the middle of nowhere, creating traffic bottlenecks, requiring heavy investment in the public utilities infrastructure in areas previously inhabited by...cows, requiring more money for new schools and shopping areas (who wants to drive two hours to the mall?). People obviously like a house, a lawn, a big car for their kids, etc. I have no problem with that stuff. But we're not looking at the bigger picture. Where do these people work? How do they get to work? Can the kids walk anywhere? Are there parks? How far is the airport? There's a lot of questions that become very apparent after people buy their homes, but questions that inevitably shape their lives after that point. People really need to take into account these things before buying. Of course, they can't really because of this thing called a "budget". But if we worked to create policies that reduced land prices and inflation, the market would actually be a bit "freer".
You are asking good questions - but there are equally good questions for a dense city.
Hi all,
So far I am fine with the discussion but would appreciate it if we could move back toward roundabouts in Montana. For those who wish to continue to discuss development patterns, I suggest that be moved to Off-Topic.
Thanks.
Quote from: andy3175 on April 18, 2018, 09:26:23 PM
Hi all,
So far I am fine with the discussion but would appreciate it if we could move back toward roundabouts in Montana. For those who wish to continue to discuss development patterns, I suggest that be moved to Off-Topic.
Thanks.
Can you split off the thread and move part of it? I think forum allows that...
Quote from: kalvado on April 18, 2018, 09:54:30 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on April 18, 2018, 09:26:23 PM
Hi all,
So far I am fine with the discussion but would appreciate it if we could move back toward roundabouts in Montana. For those who wish to continue to discuss development patterns, I suggest that be moved to Off-Topic.
Thanks.
Can you split off the thread and move part of it? I think forum allows that...
Yes. I am a little reluctant to do that because it was a gradual shift from one discussion to another. I can't say exactly when the thread shifted to this new discussion of density and urban planning. Instead, I would encourage creation of a new post on the Off Topic board. You are more than welcome to copy relevant information from here, start a new post, and notify folks here of the new location of the continuing discussion.
I for one don't want anything more to do with the discussion. We were just kind of going in circles anyway.
PUN!
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2018, 12:47:51 AM
What does Rwanda have to do with roundabouts in Montana?
Haha. I've requested this be moved to another thread.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 18, 2018, 02:54:15 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2018, 11:17:05 PM
My point was this, new supply in cities has not brought down prices. Want proof? Look at how much housing stock has been added in U.S. cities and in nearly every case, the cost of rent just keeps going up. Then you want developers to build more so they can charge less? That just is not going to happen. It is cheaper in the suburbs because it is cheaper to build single or double story houses and the pros that come with them outweigh the pros of living in an urban environment. I think I read somewhere like 80 percent of all new home buyers in 2016 chose suburbia. I'm sure school do amount to it, but there is something to be said about having your own yard, more privacy, ease of access to your car(free private parking for multiple vehicles), not as busy, darker nights(less light pollution usually), more green space and trees, wider roads, more open skies(not like a rat running in between buildings), I mean I can go on and on and on.
What city that is desirable and not on the decline has seen new building stock that has lowered the cost of apartments? Don't name me some city in Rwanda or Mexico. Another poster seemed to imply that developers will eventually get around to building enough housing stock to lower the price which I'm going to straight up disagree with. Only government could force that and they have no business doing so. Not to mention most new urban housing stock does seem to be upscale, something else the government could stop and I disagree with them doing so. I think the market will eventually solve that. Make it easy to live in the suburbs with transit access in their city centres and make it easy to drive to downtown areas and give could transit options making it easy for people to live in urban areas without a car, I bet America most people will still opt for the burbs and even more for their cars. I know I will always prefer my car even though I do use transit and my bike.
Judging by modern traffic levels, whatever we've been doing hasn't been working. So I don't see why more of the same (suburban housing, freeways, etc) should be the entire gameplan.
Quote from: Rothman on April 18, 2018, 12:47:51 AM
What does Rwanda have to do with roundabouts in Montana?
Roundabouts? We're talking about housing.
Well, in that sense, traffic congestion isn't exclusive to the U.S. I've seen lists that rank the U.S. as the most congested country, but there are several factors that need to be considered and its hard to really formulate an accurate explanation as to why that is. It certainly isn't just because we sprawl out with suburban homes. Many European cities such as London and Paris have horrid traffic. Though they sprawl out, their suburbs are nothing like our suburbs. But even with congestion pricing and what not, they still suffer from horrid traffic conditions.
I never said that new freeways and endless suburbs should be the continued game plan. I have said it should still continue and it will regardless. What I am saying is stop whining about it and obstructing it which makes people lives worse by delaying or completely stopping critical infrastructure projects(I-710 tunnel) that will improve travel times regardless of a widely believed and flawed philosophy like induced demand. Instead work with it and fix its problems like better connecting neighborhoods with park caps and better bridges, finding ways to reduce fine particulates, create faster and more efficient traffic flow, and last but NOT least creating more alternatives to driving without impacting the ease of driving. Let people decide for themselves. Transit lines to city centres in suburbs are a good way to do this as park n ride. You can't expect mass transit stations always in close proximity such as NYC being in Plano or Irvine.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 20, 2018, 12:59:56 AMMany European cities such as London and Paris have horrid traffic. Though they sprawl out, their suburbs are nothing like our suburbs. But even with congestion pricing and what not, they still suffer from horrid traffic conditions.
London has the road network of a third world city - to find cities as big but with less-good roads, you need to go to the Indian subcontinent, or sub-saharan Africa. But even those cities tend to have far more 6-lane+ surface roads.
There's even been conspiracy theories that TfL have been deliberately making the traffic signal timings terrible to create congestion and encourage people away from using cars - certainly they aren't great, but it's more to do with the network not really working with green waves due to layout and above all being far too big and complex to ever fix at a macro level. There's few roundabouts (and them mostly on the fringes) for space reasons. London's road congestion is because London's roads suck - and it's the same in the wider South East, even in rural parts - crappy roads for the traffic using them.
There are places in the SE where they have much less congestion than elsewhere - the new towns planned and built fresh after the automobile came about and so have better road systems: which are full of roundabouts.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2018, 11:17:05 PMWhat city that is desirable and not on the decline has seen new building stock that has lowered the cost of apartments? Don't name me some city in Rwanda or Mexico.
Tokyo probably has (certainly they haven't shot up like most other developed world cities with demand) - and not the wider urban area, but the city proper: there's a small surplus of housing stock even as they added nearly a million more people in a decade (https://jamesjgleeson.wordpress.com/2018/02/19/how-tokyo-built-its-way-to-abundant-housing/). The FT shows that its keeping price growth down (and inflation rates/monetary policies tie into the increase), rather than increasing dramatically like, say, London or San Fran (https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60).
QuoteAnother poster seemed to imply that developers will eventually get around to building enough housing stock to lower the price which I'm going to straight up disagree with.
That wasn't me was it? Certainly I didn't mean to imply it - I felt that
you were implying that it would happen in the suburbs, but not the cities, and disagreed with you about this false dichotomy between urban and suburban and that it wouldn't happen in either as they are subject to the same forces.
Quote from: english si on April 20, 2018, 09:11:40 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 20, 2018, 12:59:56 AMMany European cities such as London and Paris have horrid traffic. Though they sprawl out, their suburbs are nothing like our suburbs. But even with congestion pricing and what not, they still suffer from horrid traffic conditions.
London has the road network of a third world city - to find cities as big but with less-good roads, you need to go to the Indian subcontinent, or sub-saharan Africa. But even those cities tend to have far more 6-lane+ surface roads.
There's even been conspiracy theories that TfL have been deliberately making the traffic signal timings terrible to create congestion and encourage people away from using cars - certainly they aren't great, but it's more to do with the network not really working with green waves due to layout and above all being far too big and complex to ever fix at a macro level. There's few roundabouts (and them mostly on the fringes) for space reasons. London's road congestion is because London's roads suck - and it's the same in the wider South East, even in rural parts - crappy roads for the traffic using them.
There are places in the SE where they have much less congestion than elsewhere - the new towns planned and built fresh after the automobile came about and so have better road systems: which are full of roundabouts.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2018, 11:17:05 PMWhat city that is desirable and not on the decline has seen new building stock that has lowered the cost of apartments? Don't name me some city in Rwanda or Mexico.
Tokyo probably has (certainly they haven't shot up like most other developed world cities with demand) - and not the wider urban area, but the city proper: there's a small surplus of housing stock even as they added nearly a million more people in a decade (https://jamesjgleeson.wordpress.com/2018/02/19/how-tokyo-built-its-way-to-abundant-housing/). The FT shows that its keeping price growth down (and inflation rates/monetary policies tie into the increase), rather than increasing dramatically like, say, London or San Fran (https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60).
QuoteAnother poster seemed to imply that developers will eventually get around to building enough housing stock to lower the price which I'm going to straight up disagree with.
That wasn't me was it? Certainly I didn't mean to imply it - I felt that you were implying that it would happen in the suburbs, but not the cities, and disagreed with you about this false dichotomy between urban and suburban and that it wouldn't happen in either as they are subject to the same forces.
So one city comes to mind? I also thought Japan was loosing population, no? I can't remember exactly.
Well, as I said, I don't know much about London other than three things, they have horrid traffic, housing costs are through the roof(idk about general cost of living), and their suburbs are way different than here based from pictures I've seen. I'm sure we can agree on that.
Yes, I thought that was either you or Jakeroot, I can't remember though and honestly too lazy rn to go back and look. My point about suburban housing is it is significantly cheaper to build than urban housing is.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 20, 2018, 03:07:35 PMSo one city comes to mind? I also thought Japan was loosing population, no? I can't remember exactly.
If you won't even read me saying that the city added nearly a million, let alone read the links, what's the point in discussing anything with you?
QuoteWell, as I said, I don't know much about London other than three things, they have horrid traffic, housing costs are through the roof(idk about general cost of living), and their suburbs are way different than here based from pictures I've seen.
So why do you keep using it as an example? You speak about it out of ignorance, and view it as irrelevant anyway. You even say
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 04:34:33 PMI will not refer to London anymore as I don't know anything about that place other than it is extremely expensive to live.
(good to see you've learnt two things about London this week) and then six days later say
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 20, 2018, 12:59:56 AMMany European cities such as London and Paris have horrid traffic.
- you aren't even listening to yourself!
Anyway to the topic...
Quote from: jakeroot on August 02, 2017, 06:24:49 PMThe multi-lane roundabouts tend to be the problematic ones (if the crash-prone roundabouts thread is to be believed). The single-lane ones tend to work quite well.
Because there's less room for error at single-lane roundabouts - there's no choices to make.
The biggest issue with multi-lane roundabouts in the US is because some quack has got most US jurisdictions building roundabouts in a way that adds conflicts and danger on the basis that US drivers are apparently not smart enough to cope with being observant.
Quote from: english si on April 20, 2018, 06:56:38 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 20, 2018, 03:07:35 PMSo one city comes to mind? I also thought Japan was loosing population, no? I can't remember exactly.
If you won't even read me saying that the city added nearly a million, let alone read the links, what's the point in discussing anything with you?
QuoteWell, as I said, I don't know much about London other than three things, they have horrid traffic, housing costs are through the roof(idk about general cost of living), and their suburbs are way different than here based from pictures I've seen.
So why do you keep using it as an example? You speak about it out of ignorance, and view it as irrelevant anyway. You even say
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 14, 2018, 04:34:33 PMI will not refer to London anymore as I don't know anything about that place other than it is extremely expensive to live.
(good to see you've learnt two things about London this week) and then six days later say Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 20, 2018, 12:59:56 AMMany European cities such as London and Paris have horrid traffic.
- you aren't even listening to yourself!
Anyway to the topic...
Quote from: jakeroot on August 02, 2017, 06:24:49 PMThe multi-lane roundabouts tend to be the problematic ones (if the crash-prone roundabouts thread is to be believed). The single-lane ones tend to work quite well.
Because there's less room for error at single-lane roundabouts - there's no choices to make.
The biggest issue with multi-lane roundabouts in the US is because some quack has got most US jurisdictions building roundabouts in a way that adds conflicts and danger on the basis that US drivers are apparently not smart enough to cope with being observant.
There is no reason to further argue with you then because we keep going in circles. I've already explained myself to a lot of the questions you asked me just now.
I'm going to circle back to the origin of the topic.
So, in Missoula, there is a cross intersection with a hovering 4-way red beacon and 4-way stops. I'm speaking of the intersection of Bancroft Street and South Avenue. Do you think this area needs a roundabout? Yes or no? If yes, please state why it needs one. No more of this back and forth with bad traffic patterns in other cities or how people are half-observant, non-observant, whatever.
I'm beginning to break away from the original idea of not being too open to roundabouts in Montana and trying to be more observant which is why I ask this question so that in the event of another one going up, hint hint, Van Buren, it'd be easier for me to understand why it's needed there.
Arkansas is starting to get more and more of these. They are somewhat annoying in their frequency in some places, such as 3 within a mile in somewhat rural areas. They are downright confusing if they are multilane, with some of the exits being single lane and exit only and others not. The inner lane isn't very useful in most cases either.
For a while, the Van Buren Street exit in Missoula had been closed off. It does appear as if passenger traffic can get to the partially done roundabout, but would have to deal with temporary signals and whatnot. Truck traffic is off limits until the roundabout is done. It's a single lane. I guess you won't have to worry about trying to go left onto Broadway Street since all you would need to do is swing around in the circle to make the left hander. I'll have to see how this works when the roundabout is done.
Quote from: dvferyance on July 14, 2017, 02:49:14 PM
I don't mind roundabouts some of the time. But what drives me nuts in Wisconsin are these series of them. Like 4 or 5 in a row all within a 1/2 mile of one another. I also dislike them on roads with 55 MPH speed limits. Always have to keep slowing down on a road that is meant for speed. I do think they went a bid overboard with them on Shilo Dr. on the west side of Billings.
Be thankful you don't live in or near Carmel, IN. They have well over a hundred of these circular intersections with MANY more under construction or planned. You can literally get dizzy driving on what should be on a straight road! Not to mention the uneven tire wear from almost always turning left.