How interstates gutted American cities article

[Brandon]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Which is why planners never make it there. 

/Told to me by an urban planner who happens to be a very close relative.  I've got a few engineer, architect, and lawyer ones in there as well.
//I'll be here till Thursday.
///Try the shrimp.

[kalvado]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Which is why planners never make it there. 

/Told to me by an urban planner who happens to be a very close relative.  I've got a few engineer, architect, and lawyer ones in there as well.
//I'll be here till Thursday.
///Try the shrimp.

This is second best one, right next to what do they say in NASA instead of "it's not rocket science!" ?

[SP Cook]

Meanwhile, if the rest of the world started living like the US, we would absolute run out of everything.

You should think God that previous generations, the ones that followed wise policies that moved your forebearers from serfdom to whatever status you have today, had the wisdom to feel differently.

That pretty much sums up what should be the motto of environmentalism.  "Let's pull the ladder up behind us".  Both in terms of those less well off in the first world, and, a million times more sadly, those who do not yet live in it.  All the while not actually doing anything PERSONALLY to live up to the pseudo-religious and junk science that all of this ho-ha is based on.

Fact is, given the moral courage to follow objective science based reason and understanding the special position of mankind in God's universe, the earth, after we are long gone, will have 100 of times more people living on it than today, all living lives that are as advanced from what we lived than ours are to those of the generations like Mathus and other junk scientists that saw mankind as a problem. 

And there will still probably be people saying the same things then, still seeing resources as limited and mankind as a problem.  They will be wrong too.

[vdeane]

Where are you going to get these additional resources?  There's only one Earth.

Energy, incidentally enough, is actually the easiest challenge to solve.  Just put up a bunch of solar panels in places like Death Valley and the Sahara.  Raw materials we might be able to supplement with asteroids, but it's quite expensive.  Oil we don't need; even plastic can be made from hemp (and hemp-based plastic is biodegradable).

The challenge is food.  While we're able to produce a lot more food today than 50 years ago, the food we eat today is also a lot less healthy and nutritious than it was 50 years ago.  I don't believe that's a coincidence; in fact, it's something we should fear.  Also, just look at all the deforestation that's occurring in places like the Amazon to grow crops.  That is NOT sustainable.

And where will everyone live?  Third world cities are HUGE and built at a density that makes NYC look like a rural area.  They have traffic jams so bad that it takes DAYS for them to clear.  Where are we going to put all those people?

Special position in the universe?  I don't consider humanity to be more deserving of life or resources than any other life form on Earth or elsewhere.

What would you do, SP Cook?  Turn the entirety of Earth's surface into suburbs and farm land?  That doesn't sound like a place I'd like to live.  The fact of the matter is, the world today is dependent on a large underclass of people living in extreme poverty.  That's not just at all, but since the population is so large, there's no easy way to solve it.  Like I said, I believe everyone is ENTITLED by right of being human to a middle class lifestyle... but it won't work with current population levels.  What's the other choice, invade the first alien species humanity finds to steal their resources?  That's evil (and unfortunately, probably exactly what will happen the moment humans figure out interstellar travel).

[DTComposer]

the earth, after we are long gone, will have 100 of times more people living on it than today

Without getting too deep in this argument, I'm just curious about your math:

The earth has about 33 billion acres of land (not including Antarctica, but including land that is currently considered uninhabitable and/or un-arable). If the current world population is 7.4 billion, and you're stating several hundred times that number is sustainable, then let's just use 100x and say 740 billion people. Rounding, that's about 22 people per acre.

A typical American suburb seems to have a density of around 3,000 people per square mile (examples like Mesa, AZ; Hayward, CA; Plano, TX). This works out to 4.6875 people per acre.

So for 740 billion people, we'd be looking at almost five times the density of a typical American suburb - somewhere between the density of Boston and San Francisco - on every acre on the planet - before taking into account land that is simply not usable due to climate and/or topography, and land needed for agriculture.

I'm doing all of this math in light of your preference for suburban-style living. You speak of "pulling the ladder up behind us" but support the concept that we should (and will) have a planet where people will have no choice but to live in the type of densities you find displeasing - and they won't have the freedom all us currently enjoy to pick between high, mid, or low-density living, because there simply won't be the land to have that freedom. That kinda comes across (to me, anyhow) as "I will live how I want to live, and I'm unconcerned if future generations have the same choices or freedoms I have."

I'm not trying to challenge your beliefs, or argue for one type of living over the other - it was just that you've tried to give measured, reasoned responses in support of your side of this discussion, and that particular comment seemed a little hyperbolic.

[kalvado]

the earth, after we are long gone, will have 100 of times more people living on it than today

Without getting too deep in this argument, I'm just curious about your math:

The earth has about 33 billion acres of land (not including Antarctica, but including land that is currently considered uninhabitable and/or un-arable). If the current world population is 7.4 billion, and you're stating several hundred times that number is sustainable, then let's just use 100x and say 740 billion people. Rounding, that's about 22 people per acre.

Maybe I am wrong - but I read the message in a different way: 100x7.4 billion over next generations. Which is to say, current population for  another 5-7 thousand years... Which may be realistic.
As far as I remember, estimate is that about 70 billion of humans lived on planet Earth since homo sapiens emerged as a species  - so more than 10% are currently alive. Getting another factor of 10 doesn't look impossible

[kkt]

There are resources besides food that are at risk.

I like there to be wilderness.  I like there to be places where there are truly dark skies at night.  I like there to be places where species can live even if they cannot share suburbs, cropland, or clearcut areas with humans.

It's questionable whether all those things can continue within the US with our present population, let alone large increases.  However, the present human population could easily be accommodated along with all those things if the population density was more like it was in the 1950s instead of the low density far flung suburbs that have come up since then.

[kalvado]

There are resources besides food that are at risk.

I like there to be wilderness.  I like there to be places where there are truly dark skies at night.  I like there to be places where species can live even if they cannot share suburbs, cropland, or clearcut areas with humans.

It's questionable whether all those things can continue within the US with our present population, let alone large increases.  However, the present human population could easily be accommodated along with all those things if the population density was more like it was in the 1950s instead of the low density far flung suburbs that have come up since then.

Believe it or not, but suburbs are only a small part of human footprint. Suburb population density, as someone already mentioned, is about 4 people per acre. That is , if you think about it, one family home per one acre parcel. At the same time, there is approximately 1 acre of arable land per person - they say "one acre feeds one person".
So if you compact everyone to Manhattan density, you win at most 20% of footprint.

[silverback1065]

There are resources besides food that are at risk.

I like there to be wilderness.  I like there to be places where there are truly dark skies at night.  I like there to be places where species can live even if they cannot share suburbs, cropland, or clearcut areas with humans.

It's questionable whether all those things can continue within the US with our present population, let alone large increases.  However, the present human population could easily be accommodated along with all those things if the population density was more like it was in the 1950s instead of the low density far flung suburbs that have come up since then.

We need forests also to prevent desertification

[hbelkins]

Special position in the universe?  I don't consider humanity to be more deserving of life or resources than any other life form on Earth or elsewhere.

I know nothing about your spiritual beliefs, or even if you have any at all, but this statement is 100 percent contradictory to the Judeo-Christian belief system. I think Genesis 1:26 is the definitive answer that refutes your opinion expressed above.

[silverback1065]

Special position in the universe?  I don't consider humanity to be more deserving of life or resources than any other life form on Earth or elsewhere.

I know nothing about your spiritual beliefs, or even if you have any at all, but this statement is 100 percent contradictory to the Judeo-Christian belief system. I think Genesis 1:26 is the definitive answer that refutes your opinion expressed above.

let's leave arbitrary self professed beliefs out of this discussion please, we will only argue and I'm not interested in hearing us argue about that, this is a road discussion board not a religion board.

[silverback1065]

Now to get back on subject, an interesting way to end blight is to simply tear down all the abandoned buildings, many cities are doing this, like Detroit.  Cities like portland and seattle are using infill to add to the city and not allow sprawl to happen (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713668/growth-and-sprawl).  These are all interesting ways to alleviate the recourse problem.  But portland especially has a growing rent problem, with prices skyrocketing.  http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/the-real-roots-of-portlands-housing-crisis/482988/

another changing thing in cities is the elimination of parking requirements, parking lots are now becoming taboo in dense areas. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Now to get back on subject, an interesting way to end blight is to simply tear down all the abandoned buildings, many cities are doing this, like Detroit.  Cities like portland and seattle are using infill to add to the city and not allow sprawl to happen (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713668/growth-and-sprawl).  These are all interesting ways to alleviate the recourse problem.  But portland especially has a growing rent problem, with prices skyrocketing.  http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/the-real-roots-of-portlands-housing-crisis/482988/

But that's been the policy of Detroit for decades now and it hasn't worked.  It doesn't help that they aren't solving the root of the problem; an out of control crime rate, decayed city infrastructure, massive poverty and historic corruption from city hall.  Not to mention...well demographics; Portland is almost 80% white while Detroit is almost 90% minority.  There is much deeper problems in Detroit that were routed in bias have been there well over half a century that were ignored.  SOOOOOOOOooooo....without really getting into social economics too much I'll just say that what work for a upper class city like Portland might not work for a lower class city like Detroit.  Calling the Interstates the root of the decay of a city like Detroit is missing the mark completely, it was going to happen regardless.

[silverback1065]

Now to get back on subject, an interesting way to end blight is to simply tear down all the abandoned buildings, many cities are doing this, like Detroit.  Cities like portland and seattle are using infill to add to the city and not allow sprawl to happen (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713668/growth-and-sprawl).  These are all interesting ways to alleviate the recourse problem.  But portland especially has a growing rent problem, with prices skyrocketing.  http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/the-real-roots-of-portlands-housing-crisis/482988/

But that's been the policy of Detroit for decades now and it hasn't worked.  It doesn't help that they aren't solving the root of the problem; an out of control crime rate, decayed city infrastructure, massive poverty and historic corruption from city hall.  Not to mention...well demographics; Portland is almost 80% white while Detroit is almost 90% minority.  There is much deeper problems in Detroit that were routed in bias have been there well over half a century that were ignored.  SOOOOOOOOooooo....without really getting into social economics too much I'll just say that what work for a upper class city like Portland might not work for a lower class city like Detroit.  Calling the Interstates the root of the decay of a city like Detroit is missing the mark completely, it was going to happen regardless.

i believe the idea behind demolishing buildings is more of a crime deterrent, you remove abandoned buildings to not allow illegal operations to occur inside, also it can be a safety issue.  Not sure what you're implying on the race comments you made, please clarify, because it sounds racist to me...

[kalvado]

Now to get back on subject, an interesting way to end blight is to simply tear down all the abandoned buildings, many cities are doing this, like Detroit.  Cities like portland and seattle are using infill to add to the city and not allow sprawl to happen (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713668/growth-and-sprawl).  These are all interesting ways to alleviate the recourse problem.  But portland especially has a growing rent problem, with prices skyrocketing.  http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/the-real-roots-of-portlands-housing-crisis/482988/

another changing thing in cities is the elimination of parking requirements, parking lots are now becoming taboo in dense areas.

Skyrocketing rent prices are sort of expected, I believe not "true" urban area avoids that. SF newspapers have a lot of horror stories...
And the root cause, I would say, is a simple fact that greenfield development is cheaper than brownfield. Pre-existing infrastructure can be an asset, when it comes to using existing roads and pipes for new buildings - as well as a liability, as 120-150 year old pipes tend to fail catastrophically, and old street alignment proves to be less than efficient.
I suspect, old cities would have to be mostly abandoned at some point, as full infrastructure rebuild would be required. Probably a few more decades at least, though..

[silverback1065]

Now to get back on subject, an interesting way to end blight is to simply tear down all the abandoned buildings, many cities are doing this, like Detroit.  Cities like portland and seattle are using infill to add to the city and not allow sprawl to happen (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713668/growth-and-sprawl).  These are all interesting ways to alleviate the recourse problem.  But portland especially has a growing rent problem, with prices skyrocketing.  http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/the-real-roots-of-portlands-housing-crisis/482988/

another changing thing in cities is the elimination of parking requirements, parking lots are now becoming taboo in dense areas.

Skyrocketing rent prices are sort of expected, I believe not "true" urban area avoids that. SF newspapers have a lot of horror stories...
And the root cause, I would say, is a simple fact that greenfield development is cheaper than brownfield. Pre-existing infrastructure can be an asset, when it comes to using existing roads and pipes for new buildings - as well as a liability, as 120-150 year old pipes tend to fail catastrophically, and old street alignment proves to be less than efficient.
I suspect, old cities would have to be mostly abandoned at some point, as full infrastructure rebuild would be required. Probably a few more decades at least, though..

I doubt they'll need to be completely abandoned, but everything underground (pipes) is in desperate need to be replaced.  In older areas of the city, the city literally has no idea whats underground or where it goes!  I've talked to city officials that have found wooden pipes still in use in areas, hell there are still brick pipes in use in many cities, it's shocking how old a lot of the stuff is in cities.  In my opinion, all of our underground infrastructure is the most in need to be replaced over everything else.  I also agree with your rent point.

[Max Rockatansky]

Now to get back on subject, an interesting way to end blight is to simply tear down all the abandoned buildings, many cities are doing this, like Detroit.  Cities like portland and seattle are using infill to add to the city and not allow sprawl to happen (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713668/growth-and-sprawl).  These are all interesting ways to alleviate the recourse problem.  But portland especially has a growing rent problem, with prices skyrocketing.  http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/the-real-roots-of-portlands-housing-crisis/482988/

But that's been the policy of Detroit for decades now and it hasn't worked.  It doesn't help that they aren't solving the root of the problem; an out of control crime rate, decayed city infrastructure, massive poverty and historic corruption from city hall.  Not to mention...well demographics; Portland is almost 80% white while Detroit is almost 90% minority.  There is much deeper problems in Detroit that were routed in bias have been there well over half a century that were ignored.  SOOOOOOOOooooo....without really getting into social economics too much I'll just say that what work for a upper class city like Portland might not work for a lower class city like Detroit.  Calling the Interstates the root of the decay of a city like Detroit is missing the mark completely, it was going to happen regardless.

i believe the idea behind demolishing buildings is more of a crime deterrent, you remove abandoned buildings to not allow illegal operations to occur inside, also it can be a safety issue.  Not sure what you're implying on the race comments you made, please clarify, because it sounds racist to me...

Actually I was inferring that a lot of racism by the white populace against minorities played a large roll in Detroit's downfall and urban sprawl....in fact it's undeniable it did.  Basically the lead up to the 67 riots just the spark that lit the powder keg of what they called "white flight" in Detroit.  My Grand Father was a police officer in the city of Detroit and believe me the police department had a huge bias against the black neighborhoods and so did the city.  The current state of affairs in the city is just the culmination of everything that led up to the city starting to rip itself apart in the 1960s...  Nobody in the Michigan state government has bothered to care about what was happening in Detroit until very recently when the city went bankrupt.

And how has tearing down buildings worked so far in Detroit in the last 25 years?...it hasn't.   Basically you just end up with more vacant and overgrown lots with more blight.  Nobody is building new neighborhoods in the cities, they just become barren wastelands that resemble ghost towns and worse war zones.  There is too much abandonment in the city simply to bulldoze it all away and solve all the unaddressed problems.  I think that something like that was the butt of satire in the Robocop movies with the whole "Delta City" plan.  Did you know there is over 40,000 street lights out in Detroit and the average police response time is close to an hour?...not to mention about 40% poverty?  I have yet to see any plans of substance meant to improve the current infrastructure or the lives of the current residents, all I've seen is more of these bull dozing plans.  Hell I there was some brief talk of de-incorporating Detroit into several smaller cities but it was never really explored.

Thought this article might be of interest to you in regards to Detroit and abandoned homes:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/special-reports/2015/05/14/detroit-abandoned-homes-volume-terrifying/27237787/

[silverback1065]

Now to get back on subject, an interesting way to end blight is to simply tear down all the abandoned buildings, many cities are doing this, like Detroit.  Cities like portland and seattle are using infill to add to the city and not allow sprawl to happen (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713668/growth-and-sprawl).  These are all interesting ways to alleviate the recourse problem.  But portland especially has a growing rent problem, with prices skyrocketing.  http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/the-real-roots-of-portlands-housing-crisis/482988/

But that's been the policy of Detroit for decades now and it hasn't worked.  It doesn't help that they aren't solving the root of the problem; an out of control crime rate, decayed city infrastructure, massive poverty and historic corruption from city hall.  Not to mention...well demographics; Portland is almost 80% white while Detroit is almost 90% minority.  There is much deeper problems in Detroit that were routed in bias have been there well over half a century that were ignored.  SOOOOOOOOooooo....without really getting into social economics too much I'll just say that what work for a upper class city like Portland might not work for a lower class city like Detroit.  Calling the Interstates the root of the decay of a city like Detroit is missing the mark completely, it was going to happen regardless.

i believe the idea behind demolishing buildings is more of a crime deterrent, you remove abandoned buildings to not allow illegal operations to occur inside, also it can be a safety issue.  Not sure what you're implying on the race comments you made, please clarify, because it sounds racist to me...

Actually I was inferring that a lot of racism by the white populace against minorities played a large roll in Detroit's downfall and urban sprawl....in fact it's undeniable it did.  Basically the lead up to the 67 riots just the spark that lit the powder keg of what they called "white flight" in Detroit.  My Grand Father was a police officer in the city of Detroit and believe me the police department had a huge bias against the black neighborhoods and so did the city.  The current state of affairs in the city is just the culmination of everything that led up to the city starting to rip itself apart in the 1960s...  Nobody in the Michigan state government has bothered to care about what was happening in Detroit until very recently when the city went bankrupt.

And how has tearing down buildings worked so far in Detroit in the last 25 years?...it hasn't.   Basically you just end up with more vacant and overgrown lots with more blight.  Nobody is building new neighborhoods in the cities, they just become barren wastelands that resemble ghost towns and worse war zones.  There is too much abandonment in the city simply to bulldoze it all away and solve all the unaddressed problems.  I think that something like that was the butt of satire in the Robocop movies with the whole "Delta City" plan.  Did you know there is over 40,000 street lights out in Detroit and the average police response time is close to an hour?...not to mention about 40% poverty?  I have yet to see any plans of substance meant to improve the current infrastructure or the lives of the current residents, all I've seen is more of these bull dozing plans.  Hell I there was some brief talk of de-incorporating Detroit into several smaller cities but it was never really explored.

Thought this article might be of interest to you in regards to Detroit and abandoned homes:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/special-reports/2015/05/14/detroit-abandoned-homes-volume-terrifying/27237787/

Thanks for the clarification, I understand now

[Max Rockatansky]

Now to get back on subject, an interesting way to end blight is to simply tear down all the abandoned buildings, many cities are doing this, like Detroit.  Cities like portland and seattle are using infill to add to the city and not allow sprawl to happen (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713668/growth-and-sprawl).  These are all interesting ways to alleviate the recourse problem.  But portland especially has a growing rent problem, with prices skyrocketing.  http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/the-real-roots-of-portlands-housing-crisis/482988/

But that's been the policy of Detroit for decades now and it hasn't worked.  It doesn't help that they aren't solving the root of the problem; an out of control crime rate, decayed city infrastructure, massive poverty and historic corruption from city hall.  Not to mention...well demographics; Portland is almost 80% white while Detroit is almost 90% minority.  There is much deeper problems in Detroit that were routed in bias have been there well over half a century that were ignored.  SOOOOOOOOooooo....without really getting into social economics too much I'll just say that what work for a upper class city like Portland might not work for a lower class city like Detroit.  Calling the Interstates the root of the decay of a city like Detroit is missing the mark completely, it was going to happen regardless.

i believe the idea behind demolishing buildings is more of a crime deterrent, you remove abandoned buildings to not allow illegal operations to occur inside, also it can be a safety issue.  Not sure what you're implying on the race comments you made, please clarify, because it sounds racist to me...

Actually I was inferring that a lot of racism by the white populace against minorities played a large roll in Detroit's downfall and urban sprawl....in fact it's undeniable it did.  Basically the lead up to the 67 riots just the spark that lit the powder keg of what they called "white flight" in Detroit.  My Grand Father was a police officer in the city of Detroit and believe me the police department had a huge bias against the black neighborhoods and so did the city.  The current state of affairs in the city is just the culmination of everything that led up to the city starting to rip itself apart in the 1960s...  Nobody in the Michigan state government has bothered to care about what was happening in Detroit until very recently when the city went bankrupt.

And how has tearing down buildings worked so far in Detroit in the last 25 years?...it hasn't.   Basically you just end up with more vacant and overgrown lots with more blight.  Nobody is building new neighborhoods in the cities, they just become barren wastelands that resemble ghost towns and worse war zones.  There is too much abandonment in the city simply to bulldoze it all away and solve all the unaddressed problems.  I think that something like that was the butt of satire in the Robocop movies with the whole "Delta City" plan.  Did you know there is over 40,000 street lights out in Detroit and the average police response time is close to an hour?...not to mention about 40% poverty?  I have yet to see any plans of substance meant to improve the current infrastructure or the lives of the current residents, all I've seen is more of these bull dozing plans.  Hell I there was some brief talk of de-incorporating Detroit into several smaller cities but it was never really explored.

Thought this article might be of interest to you in regards to Detroit and abandoned homes:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/special-reports/2015/05/14/detroit-abandoned-homes-volume-terrifying/27237787/

Thanks for the clarification, I understand now

Speaking of Detroit, I'm only 9 minutes into this video but this was a hell of a gem from 1961:

It's amazing how much 55 years can really do to a city.  It's so strange to see so much optimism and life in the city.  I vaguely remember crowds in downtown in the late 70s and early 80s.  The one that always stuck in my mind was the Hudson's Store on Woodward and Gratiot since my parents loved to camp out there during the Thanksgiving Parade every year.  So many of these buildings are either in ruins or just plain gone nowadays.  I actually have some really nice photos from Michigan Central Depot of the window installation that has taken place on the top floors, there is even a video of a train pulling in.

But for what it's worth I think that the decline of blue collar cities was inevitable one way or another.  Post-WWII there was a huge shift in American culture from producer to consumer which has only increased over time.  People had money and didn't want to live in older cities like Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland or Pittsburg....and has time went on didn't want to work in factories.  Cities around the country were already building freeways and the Interstate system was just an expansion on that idea, Detroit was one of them.  The problem you ran into with older cities is that they were built around a small unplanned urban core that was outdated by the Industrial Revolution and Automotive age.  Newer cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix grew up mostly in post War society which in turns reflects their success.  Basically they are white collar, spread out, in warm climates and have a huge degree of urban (caught this was a bad phrase from reading earlier posts) planning which all contributed to them taking over as the new places people are moving. 

Incidentally it's funny we're discussing bulldozing large sections of urban blight.  As silly as the movies got Robocop actually had a lot of in-jokes that only people from Detroit would get.  I can't believe that I actually found the Delta City presentation from Robocop 2. 

[MisterSG1]

What annoys me about some of the comments I get regarding issues like this is the idea that designers, planners, and others involved are almost always doing things to hurt the public.  Yes, in the past this has occurred and can even happen now, but I and so many of us in this field aren't in it to ruin and destroy, we serve the public, and I take that seriously.  We design things for cities to solve problems, yes, sometimes solutions don't always fix all problems, but this idea of "they don't know what they're talking about... This is ruining everything!" really pisses me off because these people rarely have any ideas themselves.  (this is obviously not a blanket statement! Sometimes the public has a great idea, just convey it, which doesn't happen often!)

The one basic idea that you can't deny, and I have found it very unusual in that you have seemed to flip-flop on the whole thing since this thread started, is that there is definitely an agenda to discourage car use. Case in point, when Star Wars opened up, the theatre showed this piece of propaganda before the movie started, needless to say, I left and demanded a refund and I got it, and have never went to that theatre again:

Listen to it, "We're investing in transit to get cars off the road", sure transit is great if you are fortunate to live and work within easy usage of the transit system, but if you had to go across the entire GTA by transit, even in the worst of traffic, would take significantly longer. I mean a 40 minute drive becoming a 3 hour transit run. Green politics aside, even if they made cars run on say salt water and there was no emissions of any kind, in that it was basically as clean as a bicycle, there would still be the issue of congestion.

What I understand about congestion is something I've researched over the years, I do have plenty of solutions and ideas for this, but as this is a general board, if you want me to talk about many of the GTA solutions, I'll be gladly to discuss them.

As for what I was saying about a cold neighborhood, I was referring to CityPlace in Toronto:





It's not a neighborhood per se like other parts of downtown (and also why many people like downtown in the first place), it is literally just buildings. I didn't bring it up, but I drove a Phoenixer while I was driving for Uber to that neighborhood and he literally said the same thing about it just being buildings.

Also, the mixed use development in these buildings may try to develop a community, but do you know what kind of stores lie at the bottom of these buildings.....the EXACT same kind of stores you find in your typical suburban strip mall or power center, there's even a big box grocery store at the bottom of one of these buildings. This is why I described it as "urban suburbia", there are no mom and pops to be found here my friend, just your usual multinational chains at the bottom that are in the endless strip malls that suburbia gets a lot of criticism about. I'm surprised Walmart hasn't tried to open a store at the bottom of such a tower.

There's also something of interest as well, a lot of these new condo neighborhoods are incidentally right next to freeways, in fact you'd probably find more density in those condo neighborhoods than in a lot of the old city of Toronto. For instance, this (in)famous photo of the complete Highway 401 shutdown in 2008 was obviously taken from a condo high rise in Downtown North York:



And boy, just 8 years later on, there are a LOT more buildings in this area now, mind you this area also parallels the Sheppard Subway, but convenience to both rapid transit and a freeway allows for a desirable area for high rise condos. The high rise condo neighborhood that parallels Lake Shore is not close to any real rapid transit, nor is the new condo neighborhood off of Highway 427:



And let's not mention, although outside of the City of Toronto, the so called Mississauga "downtown", again it's just a condo neighborhood but there are some office buildings here, only 3 or 4 mid rises, part of the appeal is the convenient access from Highway 403.

[kalvado]

The one basic idea that you can't deny, and I have found it very unusual in that you have seemed to flip-flop on the whole thing since this thread started, is that there is definitely an agenda to discourage car use. Case in point, when Star Wars opened up, the theatre showed this piece of propaganda before the movie started, needless to say, I left and demanded a refund and I got it, and have never went to that theatre again:

There is just one point that makes sense: energy use for commute. Which is high for cars. Which is not really low for public transportation as well (significantly lower for rail though), especially when you take into account less than completely jammed operation outside rush hour, and mostly empty return trips. But one thing public transportation (rather system workable with public transportation) does - it reduces average commute distance with high density development neat subway route. Exactly what you're talking about.
Everything else is pretty much business as usual:  bullshit from professional politicians and low educated public buying it.
Ultimate low commute layout is a dorm for workers just above production floor; second best - condos right outside safety perimeter around the factory. Those don't take into account complex commute structure - e.g. family members not working at the same factory (office building). Nor it takes into account a need  for mobile workforce, not being bound to a single factory.

Now other unfortunate truth is that earth is running out of resources, and 20 miles commute in a car is a luxury we cannot afford in a long run. Unless there is a fundamental change in our capabilities - like fusion reactors coming online. Solar, in my opinion, is another bandaid..

Another thing is cost: I am willing, like most people, to get into a debt of $20-30-40k and associated monthly payments to have a car parked by my window. Assuming I can get said car RIGHT AWAY.  Getting in a same financial arrangements to get subway running by the time I retire? Well, maybe... Same with fares - we love to complain about a need to pay 2-3 cents per mile in taxes, but the fact that NYC MTA is most sound transit system with almost 50% expenses covered by fares often escapes public attention. In fact, there was a huge outctry about fare increase by woopnig 10%.

Bottom line? I am not optimistic about the future. Just me.

[paulthemapguy]

The one basic idea that you can't deny, and I have found it very unusual in that you have seemed to flip-flop on the whole thing since this thread started, is that there is definitely an agenda to discourage car use. Case in point, when Star Wars opened up, the theatre showed this piece of propaganda before the movie started, needless to say, I left and demanded a refund and I got it, and have never went to that theatre again:

Listen to it, "We're investing in transit to get cars off the road", sure transit is great if you are fortunate to live and work within easy usage of the transit system, but if you had to go across the entire GTA by transit, even in the worst of traffic, would take significantly longer. I mean a 40 minute drive becoming a 3 hour transit run.

If this were true, transit wouldn't exist in cities and regions where automobile transportation also exists.  No matter which way a government tries to "push" people, the public is perfectly able to choose which methods of transportation to utilize given what's available to them.  That's the reason why, for example, I took the Metra train into Chicago from Aurora, Illinois, because the expressway connection (I-290) is grossly inadequate.  In Toronto, the 401 is the busiest highway in North America, with 16 lanes in some places, and yet it's still jammed up every day.  This indicates a stark deficiency in Toronto's methods in transportation infrastructure investment.  There are forms of passenger rail and other modes of transit that aren't your urban subways and elevated rail that make stops every 1/2 mile.  What Toronto probably needs is a strong network of regional rail transit lines- from the city into the surrounding suburbs, especially parallel to the Lake Ontario shoreline.

Green politics aside, even if they made cars run on say salt water and there was no emissions of any kind, in that it was basically as clean as a bicycle, there would still be the issue of congestion.

That's what I'm saying.  I agree, we need to solve problems for humanity, but if we just made one train, that's a bunch of wasted emissions from idling cars we're taking care of right there.  If a transportation agency is blocking all solutions involving trains and buses that aren't "green" enough, that's a little short-sighted, I think.  Moving auto passengers to a bus or train helps reduce pollution in itself, by helping to mitigate congestion.  What's that?  You want to be greener?  Well, help people get to their destinations more efficiently and THAT HELPS REDUCE POLLUTION TOO.  I see your point there.

What I understand about congestion is something I've researched over the years, I do have plenty of solutions and ideas for this, but as this is a general board, if you want me to talk about many of the GTA solutions, I'll be gladly to discuss them.

As for what I was saying about a cold neighborhood, I was referring to CityPlace in Toronto:





It's not a neighborhood per se like other parts of downtown (and also why many people like downtown in the first place), it is literally just buildings. I didn't bring it up, but I drove a Phoenixer while I was driving for Uber to that neighborhood and he literally said the same thing about it just being buildings.

Also, the mixed use development in these buildings may try to develop a community, but do you know what kind of stores lie at the bottom of these buildings.....the EXACT same kind of stores you find in your typical suburban strip mall or power center, there's even a big box grocery store at the bottom of one of these buildings. This is why I described it as "urban suburbia", there are no mom and pops to be found here my friend, just your usual multinational chains at the bottom that are in the endless strip malls that suburbia gets a lot of criticism about. I'm surprised Walmart hasn't tried to open a store at the bottom of such a tower.

There's also something of interest as well, a lot of these new condo neighborhoods are incidentally right next to freeways, in fact you'd probably find more density in those condo neighborhoods than in a lot of the old city of Toronto. For instance, this (in)famous photo of the complete Highway 401 shutdown in 2008 was obviously taken from a condo high rise in Downtown North York:



And boy, just 8 years later on, there are a LOT more buildings in this area now, mind you this area also parallels the Sheppard Subway, but convenience to both rapid transit and a freeway allows for a desirable area for high rise condos. The high rise condo neighborhood that parallels Lake Shore is not close to any real rapid transit, nor is the new condo neighborhood off of Highway 427: {image}

And let's not mention, although outside of the City of Toronto, the so called Mississauga "downtown", again it's just a condo neighborhood but there are some office buildings here, only 3 or 4 mid rises, part of the appeal is the convenient access from Highway 403.
{images}

Mixed-use developments are awesome.  They greatly reduce or eliminate trips generated from home-to-business.  But this occurs whether or not the businesses that take up residence are chains or mom-and-pop establishments.  Also, residential demand is largely based on general access to transportation networks that will connect them to their job.  The success of a residential development will be based on its proximity to any transportation, whether it's road, rail, or ferry.  If Toronto is heavily road-based, then most of the development will be occurring along roads.  This does nothing to prove that roadway development is more conducive to residential growth compared to transit development.  Come to Chicago...the biggest, densest suburban residential developments occur right next to the train stations along radial lines connecting to the city.  Dense, high-profile residential development also occurs along the Interstates, but there is no tendency for highway-influenced residential development to dominate the railway-influenced variety; people just want SOME way to get to where they work and play.  Lots of people in transit-enabled cities like New York and Chicago live without cars--it can sound pretty far-fetched to someone from Toronto, or from the boonies, in my case. 

[silverback1065]

the reason why mom and pop stores never occur in a lot of mixed use facilities is due to the fact that big box stores exist at all.  whether anyone likes it or not, items are cheaper at big box stores, and until that changes, and it won't, mom and pop can't compete.  And i never flip flopped on the issue as with every issue, it is nuanced.  Like I have said before, I want every major city to have multiple choices of transport.  As much as I love roads, I believe we do need to have less cars on the road.  And no I am not for forcing it through legislation, again it's everyone's right to choose which way they think is best, but having choices is necessary for this to happen.  Cars should always be an option, just not the ONLY option.

[Pete from Boston]

The one basic idea that you can't deny, and I have found it very unusual in that you have seemed to flip-flop on the whole thing since this thread started, is that there is definitely an agenda to discourage car use. Case in point, when Star Wars opened up, the theatre showed this piece of propaganda before the movie started, needless to say, I left and demanded a refund and I got it, and have never went to that theatre again:

Listen to it, "We're investing in transit to get cars off the road", sure transit is great if you are fortunate to live and work within easy usage of the transit system, but if you had to go across the entire GTA by transit, even in the worst of traffic, would take significantly longer. I mean a 40 minute drive becoming a 3 hour transit run. Green politics aside, even if they made cars run on say salt water and there was no emissions of any kind, in that it was basically as clean as a bicycle, there would still be the issue of congestion.

You walked out of a movie and boycotted a theater because they sold time to advertising that could be interpreted as not accommodating directly to your interests?  Isn't that a little... extreme?

[Duke87]

Energy, incidentally enough, is actually the easiest challenge to solve.  Just put up a bunch of solar panels in places like Death Valley and the Sahara.  Raw materials we might be able to supplement with asteroids, but it's quite expensive.

Iiiiit's not nearly as simple as you make it sound. As great as it is to put solar generation in places with lots of sunlight, there remain two non-trivial problems:
1) Transmitting that electricity from where it is generated to where it is used
2) Having sufficient electricity storage capacity to account for the fact that the profile of when the electricity is generated and when it is used will not match.

Item number 1, in addition to being a costly endeavor, is also a political issue. Under this sort of scenario, countries like Libya, Algeria, etc. would effectively own Europe because Europe would be dependent on them for their electricity.

Item number 2 is the even bigger problem because the technology necessary to store the amount of electricity that would be required in a reasonable amount of space does not exist, and while it may exist at some point in the distant future it's not exactly around the corner.

There is no silver bullet for this - electricity is currently generated from a diverse variety of sources, and will continue to be generated from a diverse variety of sources even in a world where fossil fuels have been phased out.

There is just one point that makes sense: energy use for commute. Which is high for cars. Which is not really low for public transportation as well (significantly lower for rail though), especially when you take into account less than completely jammed operation outside rush hour, and mostly empty return trips. But one thing public transportation (rather system workable with public transportation) does - it reduces average commute distance with high density development neat subway route.

There is a very good point here, though, that efficiency in transportation can be achieved not only by making our vehicles use less energy to travel the same distance, but also by planning our built environment so as to reduce the necessary distance for routine trips. Greater density is one way of going about this but another is to hack away at the postwar sprawl staples of cul-de-sacs everywhere and single use zoning.

No neighborhood should ever have any dead end streets unless either:
A) they are stub ends awaiting future extension as the neighborhood grows
B) they are dictated by geography, such as a street dead ending at the edge of a body of water or near a hill that is too steep for a car to traverse.
C) The resulting lack of street connectivity is compensated for by other functional benefits, e.g. a street dead ending at the edge of a freeway or expressway in order to maintain controlled access.

The reason why is simple: dead end streets require people who live on them to take a circuitous route to get anywhere that isn't in the one direction the street goes. A better connected grid reduces travel distances, and by virtue of doing so makes walking or biking more practical. It also reduces congestion on arterials by allowing local traffic to pass through neighborhoods.


As for single use zoning, this is a problem because when you live in a place where everywhere within a couple miles of you is legally only allowed to contain houses, you need to travel extra distance to get anywhere that isn't someone else's house. Rather than just building a subdivision full of houses, put a grocery store in there so the people who live there can go shopping without having to travel too far. Zone for mixed use.

Incidentally, this even worked as an effective congestion reduction strategy in SimCity. A couple commercial or industrial tiles scattered around your residential zones and sometimes Sims would complete their trips without ever even using the road because they'd find the zone they needed right next door.