RPK79

Just need to institute more crippling poverty and that will weed out those nasty cars.

Roody

Wow, a lot of city haters here. Well, things people hate about cities include the heavy traffic and the air pollution. With those problems taken care of, cities would be much nicer places to visit and live in.

enigmaT120

Sorry, but I just can't stand all the people. I'm really grateful for big cities though, as it leaves room someplace else for me to be. Sort of like interstate freeways that I don't use.

Machka 

Yep, that's it for me too ... all the people.

I go out at lunch to walk around, look in shop windows, try to find a place to sit quietly and read my book ... and there are hoards of people doing the same thing. It isn't an air pollution or motorised traffic thing ... it's that there are long lines of people standing at the checkout counters, there are crowds in the mall (open air market place/courtyard/plaza area located in the middle of a city) I have to push my way through, and all the benches are taken. And many of those people are talking and making noise. Everywhere you look, there's more people.

It's also the lack of nature. You get into some of these larger cities, and there's no wildlife, hardly any birds singing, very few trees and plants ... and what little nature they've decided to allow into the city is a well-controlled verge along a boulevard or squashed into a small park.



An ideal living situation would be to live in a small town of under 5000 people, surrounded by nature, near a larger centre of between about 50,000 and 100,000. With good bus/train service into the larger centre. And a network of lovely, quiet country roads around for cycling, including a decent direct route between the larger centre and small town so that we could cycle there to run errands on occasion if we wanted.

Machka 

And incidentally, if you're going to "shift more commuters out of single-occupancy vehicles", you've got to dramatically improve public transportation. You've got to give people comfortably viable options. Public transportation needs to transport people everywhere they want to go in the same or less time, for the same or less cost, with the same or greater convenience, than they currently experience driving their single-occupancy vehicle.

Until that happens, people are not going to be inclined to give up their single-occupancy vehicles.

It's not a 'stick' vs 'carrot' thing ... it's an infrastructure thing.


And if you want to be part of this change ... get an engineering degree and start looking into transportation and infrastructure options, and/or get involved in your local politics (be part of transportation community groups, get a job in the infrastructure department of your local council, etc.)

Roody

These points were well covered in the article. It seems that neither the carrot nor the stick will work alone. We need both to turn this ship around. So far the stick approach has not even been tried in some countries, including the United States. The carrot approach is being tried more and more, but it's not working well--except in New York, which has built-in disincentives for driving.

The engineers we already have know ways to solve these problems. The difficult part is to put the engineering solutions into practice. I agree that getting more involved in local politics is very important. Trying to get the issue raised on a state and national level is also good. I think it also helps to "be the change". Practice living without a car to the extent that you can, demonstrating that carfree living in the city is feasible and enjoyable.

dynodonn 

City municipalities by themselves won't make driving unappealing, the success of the automobile will do that on it's own. Many cities have run out of usable space for increasing motor vehicle infrastructure making for overcrowded roadways, plus the added expense cost in longer commute times, which in turn makes driving a personal automobile unappealing, and leading the way for other means of travel to become more viable alternatives.

Roody

Yeah, that's what the article says is happening in New York. Overused auto infrastructure, population density, and expensive real estate are the sticks. Good transit, wide sidewalks, and new bike lanes are the carrots. Now you have large and increasing share of travel by bike, bus and walking.

But I don't think the same conditions exist in most American cities. We don't have any sticks in my city, for example. The wide streets were designed for cars, population density is low, and land values are low enough to allow cheap or "free" parking. A lot of carrots have been added, such as sidewalks, improved transit, and now new bike lanes are going in. But still almost everybody is driving. There just aren't many reasons not to drive, as far as most people are concerned.

Dahon.Steve

This is happening all over the nation.

Cities are looking for revenue generators and gridlock does not bring money. These pedestrian centers have become a hot bed of commerce and they are in demand. Look to see more of them in the future. It's the economic benefit that is making this happen and not for anything else.

dynodonn 

Parking, traffic density are two main keys in deciding the usage rate of the personal automobile. Our regional mass transit has a bus stop near my workplace, years ago it was practicably vacant every time I watched it make a stop. Recently, our local university did away with a large number of parking spaces to build more student residential housing, today the bus line is close to full capacity on a daily basis.

Roody

The opposite has happened here. An insurance company did a beautiful job transforming an old power plant into their headquarters. But part of the deal was that the city helped them finance an adjacent parking garage for employees right on our scenic downtown riverfront. IMO, the city should have made them put the parking lot on a cheap vacant property a mile or two away. Then, with the money saved, the city could have helped to finance a shuttle service from the parking lot to the headquarters.

A more radical plan would have been to build no parking structure. Then the city could have used those funds to help the employees get to work with bus or bike. Even more radically, the city could have renovated some of the beautiful but dilapidated homes near downtown, then rented and sold them to employees, who would then be within easy walking distance to the new headquarters.

Unfortunately, the first (and only) idea that occurs to everybody is to throw money into ugly parking facilities that are right next to the destination. Nobody stops to think that there are better ways to get people to work than having them drive one person to a car, then having the car just sit idly in an expensive building all day.

The carrots always go to the cars, and the sticks always go to everybody else.

FenderTL5

Hear here!

dynodonn 

Money talks......if you city is strapped for cash, it's amazing what lengths city officials will go to attract new businesses, the larger the business, the greater the length.

Roody

Yes, but AFAIK the city didn't even try to negotiate a different solution. They just automatically went along with the old thinking, "of course they must have adjacent parking, and of course it must be almost free to the people who park there."

The parking structure contributed to traffic congestion, spoiled the riverfront scenery, and cheapened an amazing renovation project. They call this "comfort and convenience"!

Machka 

Did you go to the community consultations and express a different point of view? Did you come up with a plan for a better idea?

Roody

No.

Machka 

You do have that opportunity, don't you? I spent a few years working in local government over here, and you've got to have community consultations for everything. For some projects, the community consultation part goes on for months. For one particular project the community consultation went on for years. They were getting close to settling things when I left.

But if you're going to be heard at the community consultations, you've got to have something backing your comments ... alternate ideas, studies of how this project might affect wildlife/safety/future development, etc. etc.

The community consultations are also interesting because you have a chance to listen to other people's points of view ... different perspectives. So what might seem like a really silly idea to you turns out to be a great idea to a whole lot of other people.

All this is weighed up by the city/local council etc. and if an idea is generally not liked they usually won't go ahead with it. But if a good alternate solution is presented, they'll consider that.

Roody

Thanks for the info. As I've mentioned here a number of times, I often do go to planning meetings and charrettes, but didn't make it to any on this issue, if there were any.

MEversbergII

Might have mentioned here before that my local town's "Redevelopment project" involved building a parking garage. It hasn't been built yet, nor has anything been sighted. I'm not 100% sure what it is supposed to be used for, though. Basically, it will be sitting in what is now an empty lot (I think). Nobody who is in a condition to pay for parking has any real business with anything near by. Nor is there a parking shortage really anywhere in town. In fact, on the other side of the plaza from where they will be building this is a large parking lot from back in more successful days that I have -never- seen full. It sure as hell isn't to alleviate the traffic backup issues with the base gates, as the base taxi has stopped services for over a year now and at no point is a gate guard going to have an easier time checking CAC's for everyone on a bus.

Hope I can find someone who knows what the hell all that's for.

M.

Roody

Could it be related to government corruption and/or a "jobs program"?

gerv 

I agree with you. Unfortunately, I'm not that great at attending planning meetings. And the few that I did attend seemed like a complete waste of time.

IMO, you are better off putting your energy into a group that will eventually have some sway. So if you push your agenda the the Des Moines Carfree Society (an imaginary group...), and if you can prove both numbers and considerable energy... you will be noticed.

In Des Moines, we have one group that has the numbers that will make planners and other officials take notice. I don't always agree with the group, but I believe it's the best bet for new ideas.

Just saying...

MEversbergII

It might be...though we're bumpkinville so I don't know what kind of corruption I can expect. If we had some kind of rail being built here to connect up to the DC/Baltimore area hubs it would make sense - but that is never going to happen.

M.

bragi

This argument shouldn't even be happening. (No, I don't mean this thread...) There should be no fear about the stick. Take a look at the cities in North America that are thriving. Most of them are sort of large, coastal, pretty crowded, with many very walkable areas, strong neighborhoods, good transit, and a decent cultural climate. You could argue that these places tend to be very expensive, but there's a reason for that: people want to live in places like this, and are willing to pay a premium to do so. The simple fact is that a lot of people are eager to live in places not dominated by cars and the soulless infrastructure that they necessitate. If I were running a struggling city, or any city for that matter, I would take note.

Roody

Do many of these thriving cities have the "natural disincentives" for driving that the article mentioned about New York? Things like expensive real estate (which makes parking and new road construction cost more), geographical constraints like mountains and water features, narrow old streets, and so forth?

I think you're right about struggling cities needing to take note of the things--including sticks--that might help them to thrive, I think that cities are taking note, although it's often just lip service. The city planners here are always throwing around the New Urbanism terms, and they even invited Richard Florida up to give them some ideas. But then they go and do something destructive like the parking structure on the river that I mentioned earlier.

MEversbergII

My limited experience in cities has left me wondering how anyone affords to do anything or have anything. Rent is high, food is expensive, utilities aren't cheap. Can't figure out how anyone has anything left. Maybe I'm just lowly paid.

M.