I had forgotten all about this suggestion box! In another thread, I recently suggested that the AARoads Forum would greatly benefit from an Urban Plannning/Design board in the "Non-Road Boards" section of the website. Topics related to urban planning and design, such as suburban sprawl, New Urbanism, walkability, bicycle infrastructure, urban density, mixed-use, and urbanized landscapes come up so often that I feel they warrant their own board here. Discussions of roads, automobile infrastructure, and mass transit (all of which are discussed at great length on this forum) intersect with issues of urban planning and design so frequently that urban planning/design topics are practically unavoidable in deep, meaningful discussions. However, when the discussion moves toward the ways in which people inhabit cities and the built environment, it can become so heated that it sometimes derails an otherwise focused topic. That is one reason why I think an Urban Planning/Design board would be a great addition to this site, so discussions that veer too far from the specifics of transportation infrastructure can be moved to a section where they can be freely discussed with the necessary levels of passion and debate. Of course, in keeping with the prevailing norms of this forum, these discussions should remain civil, and talk of political issues should be limited to the topic at hand. So, I think this would be a very productive feature here, and it may even help attract roadgeeks to the urban design community, and attract urbanism enthusiasts to the roadgeek community, due to their heavy intersectionality.
I am obviously for this proposed new board.
I think we have enough users that are interested in this topic to support this extra board.
I didn't know I needed this until you brought it up recently. I've always wanted to talk about these kinds of topics on this forum.
I'm unsure that splitting off urban planning/design issues from roads/other infrastructure issues would be useful. The two sets of issues often interact, especially from the standpoint of rural/suburban residents who need to travel into or through cities at least on occasion. Putting urban planning/design into its own board would not help address those interactions.
Some specificity about what kind of discussions belong in the proposed new board, that don't fit in to existing boards, would help.
As for attracting urbanism enthusiasts, if the new board is hidden from guests like Mass Transit and Fictional are, that will make it less of a draw. But if it isn't hidden, we run the risk of drawing urbanism enthusiasts who have little or no interest in roads and are just looking for another urban design forum, rather than people interested in roads who are also interested in related urban design issues.
I agree with Oscar's sentiments. Unless there are strict parameters, I see a high risk of the new board turning into a disaster that keeps the moderators even busier.
Although I see planning as relevant to the core discussion here -- roads -- the last thing we need is a forum that attracts a group of "enthusiasts" whose interests do not align with the main purpose of AARoads. It can be easily envisioned that such a group would use their board to galvanize their own principles and drown out opposing views.
So, I am all for urbanist discussions as they pertain to roads, but creating an echo chamber for "enthusiasts" would do more harm than good to this forum.
Quote from: oscar on February 28, 2019, 04:11:08 AM
I'm unsure that splitting off urban planning/design issues from roads/other infrastructure issues would be useful. The two sets of issues often interact, especially from the standpoint of rural/suburban residents who need to travel into or through cities at least on occasion. Putting urban planning/design into its own board would not help address those interactions.
It would mainly be a place for discussions that are more focused on urban planning/design issues that extend beyond roads, rather than discussions about roads themselves.
Quote
Some specificity about what kind of discussions belong in the proposed new board, that don't fit in to existing boards, would help.
These discussions certainly overlap with what is already discussed in the existing boards, but there are plenty of topics where we go from "this is just about roads" to "this is about the broader design of cities, districts, and urbanized places." Here's a quick example that I learned about relatively recently:
https://vimeo.com/314058356
This kind of design intervention--yes, it's very much about roads, but it's also about architecture, pedestrian and bicycle interaction, and the harmony of how built structures fit together in the urban environment. THIS is urban design, and many projects like this, at varying scales, are likely of interest to people who enjoy learning about transportation infrastructure and the built environment.
Quote
As for attracting urbanism enthusiasts, if the new board is hidden from guests like Mass Transit and Fictional are, that will make it less of a draw. But if it isn't hidden, we run the risk of drawing urbanism enthusiasts who have little or no interest in roads and are just looking for another urban design forum, rather than people interested in roads who are also interested in related urban design issues.
Perhaps it should remain hidden from guests. Guests who develop enough of an interest in the AARoads Forum often eventually learn about the hidden boards anyway, such as any time someone says "Take it to Fictional Highways!" But I also bring this up because, in my experience of browsing the Internet, which I must admit can never be 100% complete, I have found a LACK of message boards that appeal to ENTHUSIASTS about urbanism/urban design; rather, the boards I've found on planning/urban design topics tend to appeal more to those who work in the industry and are seeking practical career advice. I would very much like to see a place for discussion of proposed projects, theoretical ideas, and critiques of existing parts of the built environment--the kind of stuff for enthusiasts--the kind of discussion that most people here engage in about roads.
Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2019, 08:29:34 AM
I agree with Oscar's sentiments. Unless there are strict parameters, I see a high risk of the new board turning into a disaster that keeps the moderators even busier.
Although I see planning as relevant to the core discussion here -- roads -- the last thing we need is a forum that attracts a group of "enthusiasts" whose interests do not align with the main purpose of AARoads. It can be easily envisioned that such a group would use their board to galvanize their own principles and drown out opposing views.
So, I am all for urbanist discussions as they pertain to roads, but creating an echo chamber for "enthusiasts" would do more harm than good to this forum.
If you observe discussions among planners and New Urbanists, you will find so much debate that it can hardly be considered an "echo chamber."
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 28, 2019, 09:57:10 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2019, 08:29:34 AM
I agree with Oscar's sentiments. Unless there are strict parameters, I see a high risk of the new board turning into a disaster that keeps the moderators even busier.
Although I see planning as relevant to the core discussion here -- roads -- the last thing we need is a forum that attracts a group of "enthusiasts" whose interests do not align with the main purpose of AARoads. It can be easily envisioned that such a group would use their board to galvanize their own principles and drown out opposing views.
So, I am all for urbanist discussions as they pertain to roads, but creating an echo chamber for "enthusiasts" would do more harm than good to this forum.
If you observe discussions among planners and New Urbanists, you will find so much debate that it can hardly be considered an "echo chamber."
You said there is a lack of online forums for such, so I don't know where these intense debates occur. They certainly did not in my university's regional planning department where the mantras of the likes of "cars and single family homes = bad; transit = good" were to be accepted rather than considered.
Given my experience with that and the Young Professionals in Transportation (YPT) organization in DC -- another place where I have seen the echo chamber actually take form, I don't agree with your optimistic view.
There is a mass transit board, which is quite broad extension of the main topic. Urban planning seems to be on the same page.
I, for one, more interested in roads as part of an infrastructure - not as as a strip of pavement decorated with cool paintings on sheet metal. Urban planning, again, is part of the same infrastructure puzzle as mass transportation and roads.
As for attracting more people and more moderator load - it is often solved by appointing new board moderators. Nothing new here.
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 28, 2019, 09:55:17 AM
Perhaps it should remain hidden from guests. Guests who develop enough of an interest in the AARoads Forum often eventually learn about the hidden boards anyway, such as any time someone says "Take it to Fictional Highways!" But I also bring this up because, in my experience of browsing the Internet, which I must admit can never be 100% complete, I have found a LACK of message boards that appeal to ENTHUSIASTS about urbanism/urban design; rather, the boards I've found on planning/urban design topics tend to appeal more to those who work in the industry and are seeking practical career advice. I would very much like to see a place for discussion of proposed projects, theoretical ideas, and critiques of existing parts of the built environment--the kind of stuff for enthusiasts--the kind of discussion that most people here engage in about roads.
The lack of other discussion boards surprises me, but also heightens my concerns. If AARoads hosts the only enthusiasts' discussion group on urban design, we might attract large numbers of people who want such a group but have no interest in roads. That would increase AARoads' administrative overhead, including but not limited to any hosting expenses not covered by advertising (mainly on the non-forum parts of AARoads, but guests see ads when they use the forum until they register), while detracting from AARoads' core mission.
I think it best for the AARoads forum to keep its focus on road enthusiasts (including. secondarily, their related interests in mass transit, etc.), and let the urban design enthusiasts create their own forum elsewhere.
Roads does not mean cars only. Bicycles use roads, and pedestrians usually walk along roads (on the side, obviously) unless there is a dedicated trail. I would say that one should be created, although I would ask jakeroot first.
Quote from: oscar on February 28, 2019, 11:36:59 AM
The lack of other discussion boards surprises me, but also heightens my concerns. If AARoads hosts the only enthusiasts' discussion group on urban design, we might attract large numbers of people who want such a group but have no interest in roads. That would increase AARoads' administrative overhead, including but not limited to any hosting expenses not covered by advertising (mainly on the non-forum parts of AARoads, but guests see ads when they use the forum until they register), while detracting from AARoads' core mission.
But, if it was hidden from non-users, that wouldn't be of any concern. Anyone that would use this proposed board would have already had to register for AARoads, which is ostensibly a road-focused forum.
For everyone else, keep in mind that urban design is as much about the people using a space, as it is about the movement through a space. And really, don't many of our true interests lie in a subcategory of movement: roads? Urban design & urban planning exploits that oft-forgotten movement category: walking!
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2019, 01:07:34 PM
But, if it was hidden from non-users, that wouldn't be of any concern. Anyone that would use this proposed board would have already had to register for AARoads, which is ostensibly a road-focused forum.
We hide Fictional Highways, yet somehow wound up with some people who seem to do nothing here but post in Fictional. Same could happen with a new urban design board.
Personally, I don't think this new board will be as problematic as some suggest wrt moderation. Hiding it like Fictional Highways or Mass Transit isn't a bad idea, though.
Nor do I understand the opposition to it–it seems like a failure of imagination to think that there is insufficient non-road related topics regarding urban planning. And even if that were the case (which I doubt), this would become a place to discuss these topics with the primary focus on the related issues, not the roads.
For the record, I would absolutely volunteer to moderate this board.
Quote from: oscar on February 28, 2019, 01:39:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2019, 01:07:34 PM
But, if it was hidden from non-users, that wouldn't be of any concern. Anyone that would use this proposed board would have already had to register for AARoads, which is ostensibly a road-focused forum.
We hide Fictional Highways, yet somehow wound up with some people who seem to do nothing here but post in Fictional. Same could happen with a new urban design board.
But are we really surprised they found it? A roads forum with a board where you can share your own ideas? What a concept!
There is no way that anyone is going to navigate to a forum with the word "roads" in the URL, expecting a major part of the site to be about the discussion of urban planning & design. Even if it wasn't hidden, we're talking about a few people at most. That could be its Achilles heel, but there seems to be enough users on the forum already who may enjoy its discussion, which is the primary goal here.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 28, 2019, 01:44:00 PM
Nor do I understand the opposition to it–it seems like a failure of imagination to think that there is insufficient non-road related topics regarding urban planning. And even if that were the case (which I doubt), this would become a place to discuss these topics with the primary focus on the related issues, not the roads.
Of course, transportation is an integral part of urban planning & design. Pretty much every discussion about urban planning involves movement. I'm working with a local city in my area to redevelop a shopping center into a mixed-use innovation district, and we have to spend an enormous amount of time discussing how people move through the shopping center, whether its on foot, bike, scooter, in a bus or car, on a trolley, etc. It's a huge part of the process.
Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2019, 10:04:56 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 28, 2019, 09:57:10 AM
If you observe discussions among planners and New Urbanists, you will find so much debate that it can hardly be considered an "echo chamber."
You said there is a lack of online forums for such, so I don't know where these intense debates occur. They certainly did not in my university's regional planning department where the mantras of the likes of "cars and single family homes = bad; transit = good" were to be accepted rather than considered.
These debates occur in books, journal articles, news articles, conferences, and lectures. Here is one of my favorite examples of some high-level, theoretical debate regarding urbanism. It's a debate between two well known and prominent figures in architecture and urban design: Andres Duany and Rem Koolhaas. This is a very long series of videos, but if you can find the time to watch them and listen to their arguments, you can gain insight into how divided the design community really is over these challenging issues, and how many different ideas there are and have been on the subject.
The video was divided into segments of approximately 10 minutes, so here we go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlPZNrzY_t8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFNDuGrCw_E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r43pm3Pzec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doZLFELhj4k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbHMv7ypM1g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF5qGKBCPtE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_7oBcMRrqc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngzQVRZql_4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6PPUOqQV7c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIfMd5WDd6c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV4Eg5FE_P0
Personally, I find this fascinating, but I realize it won't interest everyone. A similar, more recent discussion occurred between Andres Duany (one of the founders of the New Urbanist movement) and Charles Waldheim (one of the leading figures in the Landscape Urbanist movement), at one of the conferences of the Congress for the New Urbanism. The video exists SOMEWHERE, but I haven't been able to find it in a long time. If you want a further idea of where these two groups agree and disagree, you could pick up the book
Landscape Urbanism and its Discontents, edited by Andres Duany and Emily Talen.
To give another perspective on how much debate there is on urban planning, Jane Jacobs challenged the whole field when she wrote
The Death and Life of Great American Cities in 1961, and her book has continued to spark debate ever since. And if you want an easy reader that challenges the practices of urban planning in the latter half of the 20th Century, pick up
Suburban Nation by Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck.
Finally, just browse the articles on Planetizen.com. It isn't just people agreeing with each other; there's a whole range of differing opinions. But that website is more of a news source for planning and urban design, not a discussion board, although the articles have comment sections.
All this should show how planning and urban design try to learn from their mistakes, yet how difficult it is to reach agreement on the best ways to move forward.
I like the idea. It's closely related to roads.
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 28, 2019, 03:04:27 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2019, 10:04:56 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 28, 2019, 09:57:10 AM
If you observe discussions among planners and New Urbanists, you will find so much debate that it can hardly be considered an "echo chamber."
You said there is a lack of online forums for such, so I don't know where these intense debates occur. They certainly did not in my university's regional planning department where the mantras of the likes of "cars and single family homes = bad; transit = good" were to be accepted rather than considered.
These debates occur in books, journal articles, news articles, conferences, and lectures. Here is one of my favorite examples of some high-level, theoretical debate regarding urbanism. It's a debate between two well known and prominent figures in architecture and urban design: Andres Duany and Rem Koolhaas. This is a very long series of videos, but if you can find the time to watch them and listen to their arguments, you can gain insight into how divided the design community really is over these challenging issues, and how many different ideas there are and have been on the subject.
The video was divided into segments of approximately 10 minutes, so here we go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlPZNrzY_t8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFNDuGrCw_E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r43pm3Pzec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doZLFELhj4k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbHMv7ypM1g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF5qGKBCPtE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_7oBcMRrqc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngzQVRZql_4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6PPUOqQV7c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIfMd5WDd6c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV4Eg5FE_P0
Personally, I find this fascinating, but I realize it won't interest everyone. A similar, more recent discussion occurred between Andres Duany (one of the founders of the New Urbanist movement) and Charles Waldheim (one of the leading figures in the Landscape Urbanist movement), at one of the conferences of the Congress for the New Urbanism. The video exists SOMEWHERE, but I haven't been able to find it in a long time. If you want a further idea of where these two groups agree and disagree, you could pick up the book Landscape Urbanism and its Discontents, edited by Andres Duany and Emily Talen.
To give another perspective on how much debate there is on urban planning, Jane Jacobs challenged the whole field when she wrote The Death and Life of Great American Cities in 1961, and her book has continued to spark debate ever since. And if you want an easy reader that challenges the practices of urban planning in the latter half of the 20th Century, pick up Suburban Nation by Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck.
Finally, just browse the articles on Planetizen.com. It isn't just people agreeing with each other; there's a whole range of differing opinions. But that website is more of a news source for planning and urban design, not a discussion board, although the articles have comment sections.
All this should show how planning and urban design try to learn from their mistakes, yet how difficult it is to reach agreement on the best ways to move forward.
Looks like there are a variety of other forums where this discussion already takes place.
Devoting a whole board to such discussions seems like overkill to me. A thread would seem to suffice.
(I actually have read some of Duany's stuff and own Jane Jacob's work...which is now over 50 years old, as you point out.)
Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2019, 03:23:43 PM
Devoting a whole board to such discussions seems like overkill to me. A thread would seem to suffice.
I don't think you could reasonably cram the entire discussion of urban planning & urban design into a single thread, but maybe that might work to prove it as a viable topic worthy of its own board? That's how the "Traffic Control" board was formed, IIRC.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 28, 2019, 03:12:21 PM
I like the idea. It's closely related to roads.
Indeed! Roads are a huge part of the urban design process. I am constantly designing roads in my proposals. As part of my current project, I have had to redesign a major intersection. Though I have not yet drawn any of the traffic lights or signs, I am proposing a half signal: traffic on the road with the raised crossing would have a stop sign, but the main road has a signal. This is because of a trolley that I have not yet modelled.
With a thread or board devoted to this topic, I could post about this intersection to get some feedback from other users. Only thing stopping me thus far has been the overall feeling that most users here don't care about this stuff, but I might be wrong, judging by the existence of this thread.
(https://i.imgur.com/xbJSfjD.png)
I'm in support of this existing in parallel with transit and will raise it.
I'm generally inclined to favor an urban planning and design board. I reckon the possibilities of attracting participants who have no interest in roads or who are looking to start planning-related fights on the road-related boards to be fairly minimal, in line with the existing Transit and Fictional Highways boards. It is true that in misc.transport.road days, many fights began with crossposts from misc.transport.urban-transit and alt.planning.urban, but all of those Usenet groups were unmoderated and there is no mechanism for crossposting on this forum.
I like this idea, as long as it doesn't end up attracting a bunch of people who hate cars.
Quote from: vdeane on February 28, 2019, 07:47:57 PM
I like this idea, as long as it doesn't end up attracting a bunch of people who hate cars.
Agreed. I frequent streetsblog and ggwash as a reader because I am interested in issues involving streets and changes to speed architecture. if a street I'm familiar with now has bike Lanes or bus lanes that's interesting. I dislike the anti-car politics of those sites but they are often the only source of information about redesign for the cities that I've lived in: Los Angeles New York and Washington
it would be nice to incorporate some of that discussion here.
Nexus 5X
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2019, 04:02:43 PM
Indeed! Roads are a huge part of the urban design process. I am constantly designing roads in my proposals. As part of my current project, I have had to redesign a major intersection. Though I have not yet drawn any of the traffic lights or signs, I am proposing a half signal: traffic on the road with the raised crossing would have a stop sign, but the main road has a signal. This is because of a trolley that I have not yet modelled.
With a thread or board devoted to this topic, I could post about this intersection to get some feedback from other users. Only thing stopping me thus far has been the overall feeling that most users here don't care about this stuff, but I might be wrong, judging by the existence of this thread.
I'm really curious to see how this design works with the trolley and the stop sign/traffic signal configuration you describe. I look forward to seeing more!
Quote from: vdeane on February 28, 2019, 07:47:57 PM
I like this idea, as long as it doesn't end up attracting a bunch of people who hate cars.
That's great of you to mention it, because I hate the anti-car people too. Outside the densest cities, people usually still need a car to get to at least
some places, and although I think reducing car dependency is a good thing, it's very elitist when the people in dense cities look down upon those in less dense areas who need to travel by car. Part of my goal in urban planning is to figure out how to manage auto traffic while also making cities more pedestrian, bike, and transit-friendly. Hopefully auto traffic won't interfere with any of those things. But roads and highways are still important, because many people use them to get to places they otherwise couldn't reach by just walking, biking, and transit. Those anti-car people should just eff off from this forum, because roads are what this forum is all about.
I am personally fascinated with urban planning and design, and my interest and knowledge regarding it is always growing - as a matter of fact, if I recall correctly, I think that my Senior Paper (12th Grade, 2017) was even on the subject of urban planning. I would be in support of a board on this forum related to those topics, if it is at all possible and feasible, and that there would not be too many negative effects as a result of it. I agree that we must try to maintain the centrality of roads to the discussion on this forum, but as noted upthread, the addition of this sub-forum would probably not have a significant negative effect on that. I would be really excited to see this, and I feel that it could transform my insight on urban design even more. As mentioned, urban planning is often interconnected with roads and transportation, so it isn't really a topic that is too wildly unrelated. I could agree that it may be best for this board to be hidden from guests, if implemented. I feel like this could be a great addition, and I am excited to see where it goes.
Quote from: oscar on February 28, 2019, 01:39:25 PM
We hide Fictional Highways, yet somehow wound up with some people who seem to do nothing here but post in Fictional. Same could happen with a new urban design board.
While this has happened in some cases (most notably with FritzOwl), I don't think it is quite the same thing - that being because Fictional Highways is still a topic directly related to roads, and that it definitely would have been an interest in some aspect of roads (in this case, fictional roads) that probably brought them to the forum in the first place. I definitely think it would be a good idea to hide this theoretical Urban Planning/Design board, but I don't feel that we would see a very similar phenomenon as that within the Fictional Highways sub-forum.
Quote from: vdeane on February 28, 2019, 07:47:57 PM
I like this idea, as long as it doesn't end up attracting a bunch of people who hate cars.
And therein lies the rub. That is a parallel concern to what Oscar and I have mentioned.
I see a decent amount of potential that the new board just becomes an anti-road / pro-road shouting match.
^ As if we don't already have some of that as it is. We've seen it with some of the more...bullish...freeway proponents on this forum, including a few existing users who can't understand that there are options besides freeways in urban areas. That said, I'd prefer to avoid mud-slinging shouting matches around here (especially given the Beltway-sprjus4 fireworks of late).
Regarding the mention of a "lack of urbanist discussion boards", I'm a bit surprised that was mentioned. Not only is there Planitizen, but SkyscraperPage and SkyscraperCity could also arguably be considered such, and those two are forum-based much like AARoads here is.
Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2019, 08:29:34 AM
I agree with Oscar's sentiments. Unless there are strict parameters, I see a high risk of the new board turning into a disaster that keeps the moderators even busier.
Or they could, you know, let people discuss things as they want and let the chips fall where they may.
I have no opinion on the proposal, as I have no desire to live in an urban area or somewhere that discourages the use of personal automobile travel to get to Point B from Point A, and wouldn't be reading or participating. Don't think I've ever taken a peek at the transit board here, as I'm not a transit user -- and again, don't want to live somewhere that you can't or don't use a car to get around.
That's certainly an interesting opinion from someone that doesn't have one. :D
Quote from: MantyMadTown on March 01, 2019, 01:14:59 AM
Part of my goal in urban planning is to figure out how to manage auto traffic while also making cities more pedestrian, bike, and transit-friendly. Hopefully auto traffic won't interfere with any of those things.
Now, there's a noble goal!
Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2019, 12:34:32 PM
That's certainly an interesting opinion from someone that doesn't have one. :D
I think he was expressing an opinion about moderation, rather than the proposed board.
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 28, 2019, 09:31:39 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2019, 04:02:43 PM
Indeed! Roads are a huge part of the urban design process. I am constantly designing roads in my proposals. As part of my current project, I have had to redesign a major intersection. Though I have not yet drawn any of the traffic lights or signs, I am proposing a half signal: traffic on the road with the raised crossing would have a stop sign, but the main road has a signal. This is because of a trolley that I have not yet modelled.
With a thread or board devoted to this topic, I could post about this intersection to get some feedback from other users. Only thing stopping me thus far has been the overall feeling that most users here don't care about this stuff, but I might be wrong, judging by the existence of this thread.
I'm really curious to see how this design works with the trolley and the stop sign/traffic signal configuration you describe. I look forward to seeing more!
"Half signals" seem to work well in Seattle, odd as it may look to drivers (who think people are running a red light). But it's a hell of a lot cheaper than a full signal!
I should have the whole model done with a couple days, and I'll report back. Maybe in that new "Urban planning" thread started by
Roadgeekteen.
Quote from: kphoger on March 01, 2019, 01:41:01 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on March 01, 2019, 01:14:59 AM
Part of my goal in urban planning is to figure out how to manage auto traffic while also making cities more pedestrian, bike, and transit-friendly. Hopefully auto traffic won't interfere with any of those things.
Now, there's a noble goal!
Yeah, no kidding! It's been the goal of planners for decades now to find some way to fuse everything. I'm not going to say its impossible, nor whether there's places that have "figured it out", but it's a...yeah, "noble goal" sums it up.
Quote from: froggie on March 01, 2019, 08:18:38 AM
Regarding the mention of a "lack of urbanist discussion boards", I'm a bit surprised that was mentioned. Not only is there Planitizen, but SkyscraperPage and SkyscraperCity could also arguably be considered such, and those two are forum-based much like AARoads here is.
In all honesty, I must say, thank you for introducing me to SkyscraperCity! AARoads Forum appears to have a worthy competitor. :D
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 01, 2019, 04:19:34 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 01, 2019, 08:18:38 AM
Regarding the mention of a "lack of urbanist discussion boards", I'm a bit surprised that was mentioned. Not only is there Planitizen, but SkyscraperPage and SkyscraperCity could also arguably be considered such, and those two are forum-based much like AARoads here is.
In all honesty, I must say, thank you for introducing me to SkyscraperCity! AARoads Forum appears to have a worthy competitor. :D
#1 rule for roadgeeks visiting skyscrapercity: Be careful what you call a highway.
You have been warned.
I'm intrigued. What definition do they go by that would find ours offensive?
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 01, 2019, 05:20:57 PM
I'm intrigued. What definition do they go by that would find ours offensive?
I'm assuming he's referring to highway = freeway.
That's what it means in my local area among the general public.
While there are people there who do share useful information verbally and try to respond constructively to written queries, the Highways & Autobahns board on SkyscraperCity is very photo-focused. Most of the in-depth discussion occurs on other boards, many of which are country-specific. The last time I visited it for any significant length of time, it was to use wget to download all the pages for the China thread so I could extract the images for separate viewing in a photo browser. (I was seeking to orient myself since I was at the time writing downloaders for public resource trading platforms in several Chinese provinces, which I have since used to extract about 2,000 pattern-accurate sign drawings for Chinese expressways and trunk roads.)
Quote from: 1 on March 01, 2019, 05:30:31 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 01, 2019, 05:20:57 PM
I'm intrigued. What definition do they go by that would find ours offensive?
I'm assuming he's referring to highway = freeway.
That's what it means in my local area among the general public.
I refuse to use "highway". I use freeway or expressway.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 01, 2019, 12:30:19 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 28, 2019, 08:29:34 AM
I agree with Oscar's sentiments. Unless there are strict parameters, I see a high risk of the new board turning into a disaster that keeps the moderators even busier.
Or they could, you know, let people discuss things as they want and let the chips fall where they may.
I have no opinion on the proposal, as I have no desire to live in an urban area or somewhere that discourages the use of personal automobile travel to get to Point B from Point A, and wouldn't be reading or participating. Don't think I've ever taken a peek at the transit board here, as I'm not a transit user -- and again, don't want to live somewhere that you can't or don't use a car to get around.
I think I'm in my personal sweet spot in terms of this. In Dover, I can walk to most places I need to go (including work), but have to drive to where I want to go. However, there are a small number of alternatives, should I need them.
Not go to off topic, but it's things like this that bother me about articles like, "How Uber/Lyft is ruining car ownership." Are you going to tell some guy in southern Delaware/the middle of West Virginia/some other rural area, where everything is far apart, that instead of getting into their own personal car outside their door that they should instead call Uber/Lyft and wait 30 minutes for the nearest car to show up? A lot of these articles make the erroneous assumption that nearly everybody lives in a big city and has this seemingly endless infrastructure available to them, and it really bothers me.
Quote from: ipeters61 on March 03, 2019, 02:01:15 PM
Not go to off topic, but it's things like this that bother me about articles like, "How Uber/Lyft is ruining car ownership." Are you going to tell some guy in southern Delaware/the middle of West Virginia/some other rural area, where everything is far apart, that instead of getting into their own personal car outside their door that they should instead call Uber/Lyft and wait 30 minutes for the nearest car to show up? A lot of these articles make the erroneous assumption that nearly everybody lives in a big city and has this seemingly endless infrastructure available to them, and it really bothers me.
Same. I think the people who write these articles are pretty out of touch with the rest of America. Even though the majority of Americans live in cities of some kind (though that figure also includes suburbs and small towns that are still classified as "cities"), most places outside the center of large cities don't have the proper infrastructure in place to get people to where they're going without a car.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on March 01, 2019, 01:14:59 AMThose anti-car people should just eff off from this forum, because roads are what this forum is all about.
Was with you until here. Roads != cars.
Roads are there for more than just cars - pedestrians, cyclists, buses, trucks, etc. And there's more to roads than the vehicles that use them - history, numbering, signage, engineering, etc.
Anti-road people (normally based in a dislike of cars), however...
Quote from: ipeters61 on March 03, 2019, 02:01:15 PMNot go to off topic, but it's things like this that bother me about articles like, "How Uber/Lyft is ruining car ownership." Are you going to tell some guy in southern Delaware/the middle of West Virginia/some other rural area, where everything is far apart, that instead of getting into their own personal car outside their door that they should instead call Uber/Lyft and wait 30 minutes for the nearest car to show up? A lot of these articles make the erroneous assumption that nearly everybody lives in a big city and has this seemingly endless infrastructure available to them, and it really bothers me.
Agreed - arguably rural/semi-rural/suburban planning is more interesting than urban planning, because the challenges are more complex and difficult.
Plus few seem to talk about it, so it's more fresh and interesting, rather than stuff you might have heard before.
Quote from: english si on March 03, 2019, 04:01:27 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on March 01, 2019, 01:14:59 AMThose anti-car people should just eff off from this forum, because roads are what this forum is all about.
Was with you until here. Roads != cars.
Roads are there for more than just cars - pedestrians, cyclists, buses, trucks, etc. And there's more to roads than the vehicles that use them - history, numbering, signage, engineering, etc.
Anti-road people (normally based in a dislike of cars), however...
I agree with you. There's so much more to roads than just cars. And there's a lot that I appreciate about them besides just their use by cars. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that they should only be used for auto traffic, so I'm sorry for coming off that way.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on March 03, 2019, 04:10:54 PMDon't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that they should only be used for auto traffic, so I'm sorry for coming off that way.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say you said that or hold that view. What I disagree with is that anti-car people should eff-off because this is a roads forum.
Anti-car people should be welcome, as long as they like roads.
Looks like our request got granted! :biggrin:
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 03, 2019, 09:35:59 PM
Looks like our request got granted! :biggrin:
Obviously, I'm happy to see this!
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 04, 2019, 12:28:10 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 03, 2019, 09:35:59 PM
Looks like our request got granted! :biggrin:
Obviously, I'm happy to see this!
I am as well. Great thanks to the moderators and administrators who have put this together and made it happen. This is a great addition to the forum, and I am very excited! :nod:
Quote from: froggie on March 01, 2019, 08:18:38 AM
^ As if we don't already have some of that as it is. We've seen it with some of the more...bullish...freeway proponents on this forum, including a few existing users who can't understand that there are options besides freeways in urban areas. That said, I'd prefer to avoid mud-slinging shouting matches around here (especially given the Beltway-sprjus4 fireworks of late).
Regarding the mention of a "lack of urbanist discussion boards", I'm a bit surprised that was mentioned. Not only is there Planitizen, but SkyscraperPage and SkyscraperCity could also arguably be considered such, and those two are forum-based much like AARoads here is.
And on a smaller geographic scale, urbanohio.com.