Oh, Montana, Montana, Montana. Why do you need more roundabouts?

[jakeroot]

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.

What does Rwanda have to do with roundabouts in Montana?

Roundabouts? We're talking about housing.

[kalvado]

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....

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[kalvado]

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.

[jakeroot]

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".

[kalvado]

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.

[andy3175]

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.

[kalvado]

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...

[andy3175]

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.

[jakeroot]

I for one don't want anything more to do with the discussion. We were just kind of going in circles anyway.

[Rothman]

PUN!

[Plutonic Panda]

What does Rwanda have to do with roundabouts in Montana?

Haha. I've requested this be moved to another thread.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

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.

[english si]

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

[english si]

So 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?

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.

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

I 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

Many European cities such as London and Paris have horrid traffic.

- you aren't even listening to yourself!

Anyway to the topic...

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.

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

So 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?

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.

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

I 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

Many European cities such as London and Paris have horrid traffic.

- you aren't even listening to yourself!

Anyway to the topic...

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.

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.

[Billy F 1988]

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.

[MikieTimT]

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.

[Billy F 1988]

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.

[SSR_317]

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.