HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 5:25 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
What an idiotically wrong take. By this logic you can't enter buildings if you drive a car because they don't fit through doors.
I think extreme views such as more transit being beneficial only the rich and only being hurtful to the poor is the problem when we start to see transit as some sort of ideal or ultimate goal, or the complete opposite to driving, requiring a huge investment, representing a big cultural shift. Transit advocates are as guilty of such extreme views as much as anti-transit advocates.

Again, growing up in a car-oriented environment, I have not seen cars conflicting with higher transit ridership or vice versa. It is almost a harmonious relationship. Even lazy, half-hearted effort is enough to achieve high transit ridership in a car-oriented environment. On the other hand, I have see lack of transit ridership interfering severely with new high-rise office development due to the cost of accommodating so many parked cars, too many parking lots and garages. It is the pedestrian-oriented environment is the true opposite to car-oriented environment. Transit-oriented development is just a middle ground, a small first step toward walkability, arguably closer to the car than it is to walking.

I think that is part of the problem of the polarization of USA, seeing Republicans and Democrats as two different extremes, one as polar opposite to the other, when in reality they are more like two sides of the same coin. Likewise, cars and transit just two sides of the same coin as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 5:28 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by montréaliste View Post
Heck, even bikeshare, like carshare is a really cheap, convenient alternative to owning a bike. I would never let my bike out of view for very long. My son has a bixi (Montreal bikeshare membership that he often uses instead of his car when in the city. I mean, the annual membership cost is cheaper than a tuneup on my bike.

Carshare is definitely a potential option for a lot of people who use public transit and don’t need a car on a daily basis. My next door neighbours who also used carshare to go on two week vacation.
I used ReachNow and Car2go a lot before they pulled out of North America. Those services were convenient because they could be used for 1-way trips, since you could park the cars anywhere within the service area. It was more of a novelty though, because Uber provides the same amount of mobility without the hassle of parking. On the other hand, I canceled my ZipCar membership because I used it so infrequently, and one of the major reasons I didn't use it was because of having to return the car to the same place. Also the pricing model isn't really good for 100+ mile road trips, which is typically what I use cars for now.

Last edited by iheartthed; May 16, 2022 at 5:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 5:42 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
The point is you always lose out on mobility when you take transit. Even in the most transit friendly cities. You only have access to a fraction of the city.
If that is your point then you're simply, provably wrong. You do not always lose out on mobility when using transit in a city designed around transit. There are many cases when, even in car friendly cities, your parking space in a huge parking lot or garage requires you to walk further to get to your destination like a shopping mall or office complex than if there were a transit stop right in front of it which there always would be if it was a major destination in a transit friendly city. And even in car-friendly cities, congestion can seriously limit a person's ability to move around in a car but not in a dedicated transit right of way like a metro, commuter rail line, or bus lane. With a metro, the train doesn't really move any slower when its full. The dwell time might be a couple seconds longer per stop, but you're never sitting for ages in a queue.

And even in residential areas, the walk is rarely further to your closest transit stop compared to walking across a large parking lot. And all this neglects the fact that there are many people who can't drive whether in a car-centric city or not. People who are too young, too elderly, or have certain disabilities such as visual impairment can't drive. Not to mention people who can't afford the cost burden. So it's just emphatically false that cars "always" provide greater mobility than transit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
And most people who have the means emphatically do NOT want to live in a city where they are forced to take transit everywhere. You're living in a fantasy world.
I'm living in a fantasy world because I made the factually correct statement that transit is more efficient than car? I didn't make any claim about what anyone prefers which is separate from efficiency. It would be like saying that a Honda Civic isn't really more efficient than a Bentley because a lot of people would rather own a Bentley. Although in this case it isn't necessarily even true that people would rather live in a car-centric city than a transit-oriented city. I mean, people seem to be perfectly willing to pay just as much or more to live in places like NYC, Paris, and London compared to LA or Houston.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 5:53 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Are cars ever "economical"? Depends on the definition of "economical", I guess. Cars are a huge money sink, but they've just become part of the cost of living in the U.S. due to lack of alternatives for much of the population.

I think in a "good" city, cars aren't really that convenient.
Agreed on both. I don't want a car in my tweener city, and I can't imagine trying to use one in a top city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 5:54 PM
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 5,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
If I know parking is going to be an issue I'll take transit if there happens to be a station nearby. Uber is even better than transit in that case. But taking uber is still using a private vehicle, with all the advantages that come with it.
And that’s the thing. Uber, Lyft, taxis, etc. Instead of having tons of people bring their personal vehicles into a crowded urban setting, they can use transit to get to a station within the vicinity of their destination and either walk, take another type of transit, use a bike or scooter, or utilize a car sharing service.

The cars that are a part of these services don’t really need much parking dedicated to them (as the drivers are always on the move to retrieve passengers). They still serve a purpose in getting people around a city, giving them that extra mobility you suggested.

However, again, each mode of transportation should have roughly equal distribution according to their sustainability and other factors. It’s not sustainable to have all suburbanites bring their cars to the urban core. Rather, many can still drive in, but if they don’t want to deal with wasting time circling around to park their cars on the street, spending money on paid surface parking or garages, or don’t want to deal with crappy traffic, then a good number of those people can park and ride a commuter train, reach a central station, and have access to the city through all of the modes I mentioned earlier.
__________________
Working towards making American cities walkable again!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 6:12 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
Why do you need a heated steering wheel and heated seats in Houston? I would think cooled, ventilated seats would be preferred.
Heated seats work wonders with back aches...plus all that will be really helpful in the Bay Area where it's only 60 there compared to 90 here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 6:16 PM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
I'm living in a fantasy world because I made the factually correct statement that transit is more efficient than car? I didn't make any claim about what anyone prefers which is separate from efficiency. It would be like saying that a Honda Civic isn't really more efficient than a Bentley because a lot of people would rather own a Bentley. Although in this case it isn't necessarily even true that people would rather live in a car-centric city than a transit-oriented city. I mean, people seem to be perfectly willing to pay just as much or more to live in places like NYC, Paris, and London compared to LA or Houston.
But of course you already know that the wealthiest residents of NYC, Paris, and London are driven around in private vehicles, proving my point that in transit-oriented cities, only the rich get to enjoy the personal mobility and freedom of movement that everyone gets to enjoy in a more egalitarian city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 6:18 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
I love mass transit when I am traveling but doubt I can dealing with it on a daily basis.
i'm the exact opposite.

driving is great when i'm on vacation road tripping to places where there aren't 8 billion other jackasses out gridlocking the streets of the city, but if i had to rely on a car on a daily basis, i'd lose my damn mind.

we own a car. it is certainly a very useful tool at times. but thank pizza god that i don't have to actually use it very often.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 6:20 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
But of course you already know that the wealthiest residents of NYC, Paris, and London are driven around in private vehicles, proving my point that in transit-oriented cities, only the rich get to enjoy the personal mobility and freedom of movement that everyone gets to enjoy in a more egalitarian city.
Higher income households in these cities generally take transit, bike and walk. Yes, some use private and/or for-hire vehicles too, but most mobility, at all income ranges, is something other than private auto.

Really the main difference between a transit-oriented city and a non-transit oriented city is non-poor, choice ridership. Someplace like Mexico City probably has higher non-auto share than someplace like Hamburg, but Hamburg is really more transit-oriented.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 6:30 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
i'm the exact opposite.

driving is great when i'm on vacation road tripping to places where there aren't 8 billion other jackasses out gridlocking the streets of the city, but if i had to rely on a car on a daily basis, i'd lose my damn mind.

we own a car. it is certainly a very useful tool at times. but thank pizza god that i don't have to actually use it very often.
If I lived in Chicago, I would use CTA to go into town to do something fun or on the weekend but for the everyday grind of going to work, I'd have to drive. It's often shorter, less drama and you have your personal space. When I am in the Bay Area, I plan on driving to work but taking BART or VTA to get in to SF or SJ simply because it's a pain in the ass to park and theft is bad there plus you don't save a lot of time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 6:32 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
It's often shorter
not at rush hour.

it took me 30 minutes to drive 3 measly miles the other day!

it was a wondeful reminder of how glad i am that i don't have to deal with that shit on a daily basis.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 6:48 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
But of course you already know that the wealthiest residents of NYC, Paris, and London are driven around in private vehicles, proving my point that in transit-oriented cities, only the rich get to enjoy the personal mobility and freedom of movement that everyone gets to enjoy in a more egalitarian city.
There are also plenty of multi-millionaires that regularly use public transit in NYC. And, of course, there are plenty of poor people that commute solely by private automobile in L.A.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 6:50 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
But of course you already know that the wealthiest residents of NYC, Paris, and London are driven around in private vehicles, proving my point that in transit-oriented cities, only the rich get to enjoy the personal mobility and freedom of movement that everyone gets to enjoy in a more egalitarian city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Higher income households in these cities generally take transit, bike and walk. Yes, some use private and/or for-hire vehicles too, but most mobility, at all income ranges, is something other than private auto.

Really the main difference between a transit-oriented city and a non-transit oriented city is non-poor, choice ridership. Someplace like Mexico City probably has higher non-auto share than someplace like Hamburg, but Hamburg is really more transit-oriented.
Yes it's completely untrue that rich people exclusively use private cars in transit oriented cities. Many rich people are too busy to spend their lives sitting in traffic. For instance, commuter rail tends to have very high numbers of more affluent users.

But the rich people who do use cars aren't necessarily doing so for the sake of "greater mobility". That's just an unfounded assumption. It can just as easily be attributed to security (whether real or perceived), privacy, luxury, and/or prestige which I'm sure are all very nice things but they're neither "efficiency" nor "mobility".
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 6:54 PM
homebucket homebucket is online now
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Higher income households in these cities generally take transit, bike and walk. Yes, some use private and/or for-hire vehicles too, but most mobility, at all income ranges, is something other than private auto.

Really the main difference between a transit-oriented city and a non-transit oriented city is non-poor, choice ridership. Someplace like Mexico City probably has higher non-auto share than someplace like Hamburg, but Hamburg is really more transit-oriented.
Right. In transit oriented cities, the public transit usage rate is consistent across income. We do see bus usage skewed towards lower income, while rail usage skews towards higher income, but overall, it's untrue that the wealthy only commute by private vehicle. Likewise, we also know that while the level of education among rail riders is greater than that of bus riders, transit riders overall are more likely to be educated than the general population, which also isn't too surprising since urban areas are associated with higher levels of educational attainment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 6:56 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,527
At least in Toronto, driving remains almost always the faster option even in the peak of rush hour, with a handful of exceptions. The only time transit is faster for a round trip is more or less travelling exactly at each peak rush hour right into downtown. Otherwise, if one of the two trips is made outside of rush hour, or the trip is made elsewhere in the city, even at rush hour, it's faster to drive.

So yea -most rich people drive. Many rich people also live in locations which are best served by car infrastructure - The wealthy areas north of Downtown Toronto have fast arterial road connections to the core which avoid the congested freeway network and create much faster trips than transit.

Cars are no doubt insanely expensive on their lifecycle costs, especially if you buy a larger, nicer vehicle. But they also create immense value as they are vastly faster and more comfortable forms of transportation for the vast majority of situations, even globally where public transit is far better than it is in North America. Their only biggest disadvantage is that you are required to focus on driving vs. being able to do other tasks when travelling.

purchasing a car, even when you live in a fairly urban neighborhood in Canada / the US, is one of the single largest quality of life items you can buy, and I'm not going to debate that. It can suck to operate them in certain unique situations and in the peak of rush hour right downtown, but generally they allow just such an insane degree of additional mobility for someone it's not funny.

What does suck about most north american planning is that because cars are generally so efficient, infrastructure has been designed so that you basically need a car to do anything. That isn't the right approach either, as it's not always desirable to have the absolute most efficient method for everything. There is a lot of value in a certian level of walkability for neighbourhoods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 7:01 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
Right. In transit oriented cities, the public transit usage rate is consistent across income. We do see bus usage skewed towards lower income, while rail usage skews towards higher income, but overall, it's untrue that the wealthy only commute by private vehicle. Likewise, we also know that while the level of education among rail riders is greater than that of bus riders, transit riders overall are more likely to be educated than the general population, which also isn't too surprising since urban areas are associated with higher levels of educational attainment.
Because land is more expensive next to rail. The rich people live next to rail lines. Poorer people use the bus more because they tend to live in areas not served well by rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 7:06 PM
homebucket homebucket is online now
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
There are also plenty of multi-millionaires that regularly use public transit in NYC. And, of course, there are plenty of poor people that commute solely by private automobile in L.A.
Klay Thompson bikes to Chase Center, and Hunter Pence was also known for riding his scooter to the ballpark, which of course makes perfect sense. Look at all that traffic behind him!



https://www.reddit.com/r/SFGiants/co...h_break_today/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 7:15 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
Klay Thompson bikes to Chase Center, and Hunter Pence was also known for riding his scooter to the ballpark, which of course makes perfect sense. Look at all that traffic behind him!

https://www.reddit.com/r/SFGiants/co...h_break_today/
When I was going to Charlotte a lot for work I'd see Cam Newton riding his segway back and forth between his apartment and Bank of America stadium.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 7:33 PM
Klippenstein's Avatar
Klippenstein Klippenstein is offline
Rust Belt Motherland
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
Their only biggest disadvantage is that you are required to focus on driving vs. being able to do other tasks when traveling.
This! My stress level has decreased and quality of life has increased greatly since I intentionally decided to stop driving and instead take public transit. Sometimes my commute can be 50-100% longer, but I can use that time to do work, respond to messages or whatever else I feel like. I don’t feel like I lose any time. In fact, recovering from the stressfulness of driving often effected my quality of life so much that anything I tried to do after my commute would be effected by it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted May 16, 2022, 7:38 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
At least in Toronto, driving remains almost always the faster option even in the peak of rush hour, with a handful of exceptions. The only time transit is faster for a round trip is more or less travelling exactly at each peak rush hour right into downtown. Otherwise, if one of the two trips is made outside of rush hour, or the trip is made elsewhere in the city, even at rush hour, it's faster to drive.

So yea -most rich people drive. Many rich people also live in locations which are best served by car infrastructure - The wealthy areas north of Downtown Toronto have fast arterial road connections to the core which avoid the congested freeway network and create much faster trips than transit.

Cars are no doubt insanely expensive on their lifecycle costs, especially if you buy a larger, nicer vehicle. But they also create immense value as they are vastly faster and more comfortable forms of transportation for the vast majority of situations, even globally where public transit is far better than it is in North America. Their only biggest disadvantage is that you are required to focus on driving vs. being able to do other tasks when travelling.

purchasing a car, even when you live in a fairly urban neighborhood in Canada / the US, is one of the single largest quality of life items you can buy, and I'm not going to debate that. It can suck to operate them in certain unique situations and in the peak of rush hour right downtown, but generally they allow just such an insane degree of additional mobility for someone it's not funny.

What does suck about most north american planning is that because cars are generally so efficient, infrastructure has been designed so that you basically need a car to do anything. That isn't the right approach either, as it's not always desirable to have the absolute most efficient method for everything. There is a lot of value in a certian level of walkability for neighbourhoods.
I mostly agree with everything except for the bolded part. I wouldn't actually call Toronto a transit city at this point, More of a hybrid car-transit city as large parts of the metro area is suburbia dominated by wide stroads and seas of parking while the suburban rail is lines are far apart and mostly infrequent outside of peak. The bus service is still decent in the suburbs, but buses aren't really great for longer distances.

However, the choice to promote cars and their infrastructure wasn't about their "efficiency" but rather about normative cultural value judgements.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:45 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.