daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Highways & Autobahns

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 23rd, 2009, 12:47 AM   #3981
ttownfeen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: William T. Sherman's stomping grounds
Posts: 454
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
MODOT wants to make a Diverging Diamond Intersection along I-44.
Looks fascinating!
ttownfeen no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 23rd, 2009, 06:35 AM   #3982
hoosier
Registered User
 
hoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,446
Likes (Received): 58

Quote:
Originally Posted by ufonut View Post
Stimulus money is allocated all over not just for transportation projects. There are personal agendas you better believe it. For example a senator X from Indiana can easily include a proposal to benefit a certain industry which happens to be heavily based in his native state. It has less to do with efficient and effective spending to boost the economy but more to do with securing his re-election.

The stimulus package is full of pork barrel spending and even Indiana is getting in on the action
Wrong on all counts. Conservative republicans like to bitch about pork barrel spending but can't provide any examples of it. And pork is such a subjective label- in many cases spending that is labeled as pork is actually quite a useful spending of funds if one cares to actually do research and learn about where the money is going.

And your evidence for pork is a ******* HYPOTHETICAL!!! Either provide evidence that Senator so-and-so from Indiana inserted a provision for a special project benefiting their home state or shut up. And god forbid a politician do something to curry favor among their voters. After all, they are elected to serve the interests of their constituents.

If there is any "pork" for Indiana- I have yet to see it, and I follow state news very carefully.
__________________
R.I.P. Moke- my best bud
hoosier no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 07:32 AM   #3983
Buddy Holly
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Prishtina, RKS.
Posts: 6,133
Likes (Received): 120

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Why are there so many cars in LA's backyards? Don't they go to the junkyard? I sometimes think that the number of cars per capita is so high because of all these unused cars.
It looks like they're parked to me.
Buddy Holly no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 10:59 PM   #3984
phattonez
Bleed Dodger Blue
 
phattonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 1,773
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Why are there so many cars in LA's backyards? Don't they go to the junkyard? I sometimes think that the number of cars per capita is so high because of all these unused cars.
I'm not so sure that they're unused. You have to remember that LA is extremely overcrowded because of stupid zoning laws. Those are probably the cars of the many people that live in those homes.

We need to get rid of these zoning laws to get some much needed development in those areas. Will it increase traffic? Of course.

What would you recommend for LA, Chris?
__________________
“Violence is not necessary to destroy a civilization. Each civilization dies from
indifference toward the unique values which created it.” - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

"A wicked man puts up a bold front, but an upright man gives thought to his ways." - Proverbs 21: 29
phattonez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 11:09 PM   #3985
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,573
Likes (Received): 19366

Quote:
Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
What would you recommend for LA, Chris?
I've looked at LA extensively. It has a truly large freeway network, yet it ranks among the bottom of American cities concerning freeway lane mileage per 1,000 inhabitants, the main reason why there is so much congestion. For population density, freeways are spaced rather far apart. There is no such thing as a freeway-heaven in Los Angeles, it's mostly a stereotype brought by the media. In fact, I don't think LA is much different than other metropolises in the United States.

In my opinion, doubledecking is too expensive for most parts of LA, public transportation has a limited potential and new freeway alignments are out of the question due to the lack of right-of-ways.

I think LA should build more local/express lanes, a setup of 4 through and 2 -3 local lanes per direction would be better, traffic jams at exits will not hit the other traffic as much as happens now. People now slow down if there's a line of waiting cars on the exit or right lane, slowing up all the other lanes unnecessary. When you divide the exiting traffic with through traffic, it would at least improve the flow of the express lanes.

There is no such thing as a cheap solution to LA's mobility problems.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 11:17 PM   #3986
phattonez
Bleed Dodger Blue
 
phattonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 1,773
Likes (Received): 38

I like the idea of express lanes, but what would you think of an idea of the city allowing more density thereby enticing private companies to increase transportation capacity via a variety of methods? No government waste, increased density, and a healthier city.

With the way taxes are in California and LA, I don't know if this city can survive with more spending and higher taxes. I don't want it to become Cincinnati.
__________________
“Violence is not necessary to destroy a civilization. Each civilization dies from
indifference toward the unique values which created it.” - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

"A wicked man puts up a bold front, but an upright man gives thought to his ways." - Proverbs 21: 29
phattonez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 11:33 PM   #3987
ufonut
Atlantyda
 
ufonut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,015
Likes (Received): 1732

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier View Post
And your evidence for pork is a ******* HYPOTHETICAL!!! Either provide evidence that Senator so-and-so from Indiana inserted a provision for a special project benefiting their home state or shut up. And god forbid a politician do something to curry favor among their voters. After all, they are elected to serve the interests of their constituents.

If there is any "pork" for Indiana- I have yet to see it, and I follow state news very carefully.
Took me 2 seconds...

Obama vows close scrutiny of stimulus spending but president declines to comment on $2.5M proposed for Carmel water park.

In a news conference with 16 reporters from across the country, including The Indianapolis Star, the president declined to comment specifically about a proposed $2.5 million water slide and wave pool that the mayor of Carmel, Ind., has included on his wish list of ready-to-go projects.
.......................................

No food on the table, laid off or working 2 jobs but hey - at least clipping coupons in Indiana can save you enough in a month to take a ride on a water slide. I'm sure former employees of Delco or other parts suppliers are simply thrilled.
__________________
Global Trekker
ufonut no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 11:43 PM   #3988
J N Winkler
Road enthusiast
 
J N Winkler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oxford
Posts: 265
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
I like the idea of express lanes, but what would you think of an idea of the city allowing more density thereby enticing private companies to increase transportation capacity via a variety of methods? No government waste, increased density, and a healthier city.
The general rule of thumb is that no charging regime will capture all the benefits associated with transport networks and therefore transport services will be underprovided if left entirely to private companies.

In California, transport has always been underprovided, whether left to private or public initiative. The railroads (all privately owned) failed to build a dense network--indeed, their market abuses spurred the Progressive movement in the early twentieth century. California started planning freeways early and by 1950 had more mileage of freeway than any of the Northeastern states, but freeways have never been planned to the densities and capacities required to accommodate a doubling of population every 20 years.

Quote:
With the way taxes are in California and LA, I don't know if this city can survive with more spending and higher taxes. I don't want it to become Cincinnati.
What's wrong with Cincinnati?

Taxes in Los Angeles and in California generally are actually quite low, if you moved to California before 1950 and have managed to escape the clutches of Mello-Roos. Proposition 13 entrenched welcome-stranger taxation.

If you want to live in a place which has low taxes and good public services, move to Kansas.
J N Winkler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 11:52 PM   #3989
phattonez
Bleed Dodger Blue
 
phattonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 1,773
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by J N Winkler View Post
The general rule of thumb is that no charging regime will capture all the benefits associated with transport networks and therefore transport services will be underprovided if left entirely to private companies.
That's in the eye of the beholder. A lower capacity means that people will be forced to live closer to work, unless of course density is capped and then people will be forced to either suffer with long commute times or to find another job.

Quote:
In California, transport has always been underprovided, whether left to private or public initiative. The railroads (all privately owned) failed to build a dense network--indeed, their market abuses spurred the Progressive movement in the early twentieth century. California started planning freeways early and by 1950 had more mileage of freeway than any of the Northeastern states, but freeways have never been planned to the densities and capacities required to accommodate a doubling of population every 20 years.
The railroad system worked great until the freeway network began to take shape. What was wrong with it?

Quote:
What's wrong with Cincinnati?
Let's just say that it's not a city on the rise.

Quote:
Taxes in Los Angeles and in California generally are actually quite low, if you moved to California before 1950 and have managed to escape the clutches of Mello-Roos. Proposition 13 entrenched welcome-stranger taxation.
Taxes aren't that great for corporations, people who are new to the state, etc. And we are consistently strangled with a budget mess: the state spends far too much.

Quote:
If you want to live in a place which has low taxes and good public services, move to Kansas.
I'd rather fix my city.
__________________
“Violence is not necessary to destroy a civilization. Each civilization dies from
indifference toward the unique values which created it.” - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

"A wicked man puts up a bold front, but an upright man gives thought to his ways." - Proverbs 21: 29
phattonez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 11:56 PM   #3990
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,573
Likes (Received): 19366

LA's future lies in the Inland Empire or north of the San Gabriel Mountains, everything else is just completely urbanized already at a pretty decent density for a suburban environment. The Inland Empire already proves that the solution of building a way out of housing unaffordability is not really good for mobility, high-ed jobs remain in the OC or LA County, hence everybody has to commute ridiculous distances. The problem is Greater Los Angeles grows just so fast, no infrastructure can reach the same pace. 20 years ago, nobody would've heard of Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga or Moreno Valley, but they're now among the largest cities in the metropolitan area. But no jobs...
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 11:58 PM   #3991
phattonez
Bleed Dodger Blue
 
phattonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 1,773
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
LA's future lies in the Inland Empire or north of the San Gabriel Mountains, everything else is just completely urbanized already at a pretty decent density for a suburban environment. The Inland Empire already proves that the solution of building a way out of housing unaffordability is not really good for mobility, high-ed jobs remain in the OC or LA County, hence everybody has to commute ridiculous distances. The problem is Greater Los Angeles grows just so fast, no infrastructure can reach the same pace. 20 years ago, nobody would've heard of Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga or Moreno Valley, but they're now among the largest cities in the metropolitan area. But no jobs...
There has been development, but the major problem has been affordable housing requirements which just make housing more expensive, zoning laws, and minimum parking requirements. If you remove those 3 impediments I think you would see LA turn into more of a city in the classical sense.

If you do that, transportation capacity will be improved because there will be a huge incentive for private investment.
__________________
“Violence is not necessary to destroy a civilization. Each civilization dies from
indifference toward the unique values which created it.” - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

"A wicked man puts up a bold front, but an upright man gives thought to his ways." - Proverbs 21: 29
phattonez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 12:28 AM   #3992
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,573
Likes (Received): 19366

I don't think making LA more denser is gonna improve transportation.

Let's make a fictional story; right now, you have a neighborhood that has 5000 inhabitants per square mile, and all land area has been build. There is no room for infrastructural expansion. Then, you replace that 5000 inh/sq. mi. neighborhood with a 8000 inh/sq. mile neighborhood. However, the density increases, but there's still no room for additional infrastructural improvement. Say that you build a subway to that densified neighborhood. Really nice, but it never serves all the transportation need of that new neighborhood. Hence, you are gonna have a higher personal transportation demand than before, exacerbating the existing problems, especially on a large scale.

Denser neighborhoods are nice for a urbanist point of view, you know, a better social and urbanism cohesion, but I don't think it's a solution to traffic problems.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 12:34 AM   #3993
phattonez
Bleed Dodger Blue
 
phattonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 1,773
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Denser neighborhoods are nice for a urbanist point of view, you know, a better social and urbanism cohesion, but I don't think it's a solution to traffic problems.
Well what is the main issue with traffic? It worsens travel times. I'm sure you know that the average travel time is 30 minutes. That should always be our goal with transportation: making sure that people do not have to exceed that travel time. Right now, because of artificially low density, people have excessively long travel times. This pushes people far away from their jobs and limits them to only one mode of transportation: driving. Driving is fast, but it's not exactly the greatest form of transportation in terms of capacity. Walking would be the best, followed by biking. With higher density, you can have more people using these methods to get to work (if they so choose).

Even if everyone kept the same patterns they have now, traffic will still be decreased along with travel times as people don't have to travel as far.

But right now, people don't even have the option. I'm not for greenbelts or things like that which force people to live somewhere they don't want to. We need people to have the choice to live how they want. Zoning laws and greenbelts are just two extremes of the same problem.
__________________
“Violence is not necessary to destroy a civilization. Each civilization dies from
indifference toward the unique values which created it.” - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

"A wicked man puts up a bold front, but an upright man gives thought to his ways." - Proverbs 21: 29
phattonez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 12:57 AM   #3994
J N Winkler
Road enthusiast
 
J N Winkler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oxford
Posts: 265
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
That's in the eye of the beholder. A lower capacity means that people will be forced to live closer to work, unless of course density is capped and then people will be forced to either suffer with long commute times or to find another job.
It is not in the eye of the beholder: it is simple economics. The problem of how to allocate consumer's surplus has been a key issue in transport economics since the 1840's at least. The key issue here is that a transport improvement may provide net utility to its users (i.e., consumer's surplus) but not in a way which allows a private transport provider to make a profit or even to cover its costs. In such cases the improvement or undertaking has to be operated at a loss, typically within the public sector. While is is true that some transport undertakings are profitable, the simple fact is that total reliance on private provision will result in some forms of transport, which provide social utility, not being provided at all.

Lower transport capacity does not necessarily mean people have to live closer to work. They can choose to commute for longer distances, longer periods of time, over less direct routes, etc., or their employers may decide it is more efficient to go out to where their employees live. Large employers often achieve this by dispersing their job sites.

Quote:
The railroad system worked great until the freeway network began to take shape. What was wrong with it?
Lack of network density, extortionate fares, streetcar sprawl, less-than-carload lots. And this was before the coming of the automobile, which brought mode transfer issues to the fore.

Quote:
Let's just say that it's not a city on the rise.
If you don't like Cincinnati, fine; I'm not going to argue the toss with you. However, it has a much better handle on its traffic problems than Los Angeles, simply because it does not need to accommodate rapid population growth.

Quote:
Taxes aren't that great for corporations, people who are new to the state, etc. And we are consistently strangled with a budget mess: the state spends far too much.
Yes, this is why I mentioned welcome-stranger taxation and Mello-Roos. The real source of California's budgetary difficulties is its failure to live within its means. If taxes rose to the extent required to cover general government spending and the capital improvements needed for basic livability, this might put a brake on population growth, since Californians would then be much closer to paying the true costs of the California lifestyle. A stop to runaway population growth would also favor the political conditions required to equalize taxes between newcomers and longtime residents.

Quote:
I'd rather fix my city.
And if it turns out to be unfixable?
J N Winkler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 12:58 AM   #3995
ufonut
Atlantyda
 
ufonut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,015
Likes (Received): 1732

405 is probably the most congested freeway in LA. What I would suggest for LA would be a different traffic management system. Instead of wasting 2 lanes on carpool why not divide traffic into local and express like they do in Canada ? Let cars and trucks traveling north and south across the state use the express lanes and locals commuting to/from work use local lanes. Imagine the flow of intra and interstate traffic without any bottlenecks (cars constantly merging from every freeway access point and exiting at every exit).

Example

Green - express / blue - local (take a look at the amount of 18 wheelers on both and spot the difference)

__________________
Global Trekker
ufonut no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 01:14 AM   #3996
phattonez
Bleed Dodger Blue
 
phattonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 1,773
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by J N Winkler View Post
It is not in the eye of the beholder: it is simple economics. The problem of how to allocate consumer's surplus has been a key issue in transport economics since the 1840's at least. The key issue here is that a transport improvement may provide net utility to its users (i.e., consumer's surplus) but not in a way which allows a private transport provider to make a profit or even to cover its costs. In such cases the improvement or undertaking has to be operated at a loss, typically within the public sector. While is is true that some transport undertakings are profitable, the simple fact is that total reliance on private provision will result in some forms of transport, which provide social utility, not being provided at all.
That line of thinking ignores the cost that you put into a system. It's like saying that I can build a road in Idyllwild (an exurb of Los Angeles). It can cost $100 million and may cut down on commute times. From your analysis, it is a good thing because look at that benefit. However, we must remember that that money means we are missing out on something else that we could have gotten with that money, possibly something more valuable. That's why profit is used to measure if something is worthwhile.

Quote:
Lower transport capacity does not necessarily mean people have to live closer to work. They can choose to commute for longer distances, longer periods of time, over less direct routes, etc., or their employers may decide it is more efficient to go out to where their employees live. Large employers often achieve this by dispersing their job sites.
I'm not arguing for lower transport capacity. I'm arguing for higher density and letting private companies take over any new transportation systems. And I really don't think that you'll find people who will commute 3 hours each way to work. Sure, you'll find a few, but you can't depend on most people doing it. Make the city more affordable and I guarantee that you will see many people move there. This can only be achieved through higher density.

Quote:
Lack of network density, extortionate fares, streetcar sprawl, less-than-carload lots. And this was before the coming of the automobile, which brought mode transfer issues to the fore.
Extortionate fares? Maybe that was the real cost of transportation. Living far away is expensive and we don't realize the cost. You're caught up in the fantasy that government has provided us that living far away cheaply is a right. It's not, it's expensive, and we don't realize it with the government subsidies on roads.

Quote:
If you don't like Cincinnati, fine; I'm not going to argue the toss with you. However, it has a much better handle on its traffic problems than Los Angeles, simply because it does not need to accommodate rapid population growth.
Which means that Los Angeles is a healthier city. Little traffic, that's great, but the city is dying. Which is more important?

Quote:
Yes, this is why I mentioned welcome-stranger taxation and Mello-Roos. The real source of California's budgetary difficulties is its failure to live within its means. If taxes rose to the extent required to cover general government spending and the capital improvements needed for basic livability, this might put a brake on population growth, since Californians would then be much closer to paying the true costs of the California lifestyle. A stop to runaway population growth would also favor the political conditions required to equalize taxes between newcomers and longtime residents.
Why not just cut taxes and let people decide how they want to live?

Quote:
And if it turns out to be unfixable?
Los Angeles has a large population. It's not going to die anytime soon.
__________________
“Violence is not necessary to destroy a civilization. Each civilization dies from
indifference toward the unique values which created it.” - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

"A wicked man puts up a bold front, but an upright man gives thought to his ways." - Proverbs 21: 29
phattonez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 01:15 AM   #3997
phattonez
Bleed Dodger Blue
 
phattonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 1,773
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by ufonut View Post
405 is probably the most congested freeway in LA. What I would suggest for LA would be a different traffic management system. Instead of wasting 2 lanes on carpool why not divide traffic into local and express like they do in Canada ? Let cars and trucks traveling north and south across the state use the express lanes and locals commuting to/from work use local lanes. Imagine the flow of intra and interstate traffic without any bottlenecks (cars constantly merging from every freeway access point and exiting at every exit).
This would work a lot better for the freeway, but the freeway now is fully extended so anything like that would have to take away from capacity (unless you shrink the lanes again which is why the 405 was so prone to accidents).
__________________
“Violence is not necessary to destroy a civilization. Each civilization dies from
indifference toward the unique values which created it.” - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

"A wicked man puts up a bold front, but an upright man gives thought to his ways." - Proverbs 21: 29
phattonez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 02:44 AM   #3998
J N Winkler
Road enthusiast
 
J N Winkler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oxford
Posts: 265
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
That line of thinking ignores the cost that you put into a system. It's like saying that I can build a road in Idyllwild (an exurb of Los Angeles). It can cost $100 million and may cut down on commute times. From your analysis, it is a good thing because look at that benefit. However, we must remember that that money means we are missing out on something else that we could have gotten with that money, possibly something more valuable. That's why profit is used to measure if something is worthwhile.
Uh, no. Cost-benefit is a more or less explicit rentability calculation. Profit is just a special kind of surplus which accumulates in private hands, and is not necessarily a reliable measure of whether something is worth doing.

Quote:
I'm not arguing for lower transport capacity. I'm arguing for higher density and letting private companies take over any new transportation systems. And I really don't think that you'll find people who will commute 3 hours each way to work. Sure, you'll find a few, but you can't depend on most people doing it. Make the city more affordable and I guarantee that you will see many people move there. This can only be achieved through higher density.
You are pushing private provision as a solution to quality-of-service problems with the existing infrastructure. But what incentive is there for the private companies to solve the quality-of-service problems? The current usage patterns tell them that their potential customer base is willing to accept a great deal of misery.

Quote:
Extortionate fares? Maybe that was the real cost of transportation. Living far away is expensive and we don't realize the cost. You're caught up in the fantasy that government has provided us that living far away cheaply is a right. It's not, it's expensive, and we don't realize it with the government subsidies on roads.
This paragraph is wrong on so many levels. The fares reflected exploitation of a route monopoly rather than the true cost of operation. The railroads were private companies operating under their own charters, and so could not have been part of an anachronistic government fantasy that living far away was some kind of right. Roads are not subsidized--in the US they are at least 90% paid for by their users (much of the remainder coming from property taxes, which support local roads used for neighborhood access).

Quote:
Why not just cut taxes and let people decide how they want to live?
What do you do when slums develop?

California is extraordinarily tatty compared to other states which have experienced a slow, steady increase in population and wealth. Even if I bought your contention that taxes are too high in California--which I do not--the general dilapidation of public facilities and public services would by itself suggest that the taxes (and subventions from private sources) are not anywhere near what is required to cover the investment needs.

Quote:
Los Angeles has a large population. It's not going to die anytime soon.
Los Angeles and Cincinnati are actually very close together in terms of per capita income. LA ranks 30th among US metropolitan areas, Cincinnati ranks 35th, and the income amounts are within $1000 of each other (LA $37,306, Cinncinnati $36,530).
J N Winkler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 04:05 AM   #3999
mgk920
Nonhyphenated-American
 
mgk920's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Appleton, WI USA
Posts: 2,583
Likes (Received): 68

ON 401 has that local/express setup because THERE is essentially where the Ontario Transport Ministry decided to build the paralleling Eglinton Avenue freeway. Had the Eglinton been built as it was planned, ON 401 would only have had to have been 8 lanes wide.

I have railed against the local zoning laws, as they are now constituted, in many forvms - laws that pretty much make non-sprawl style development *ILLEGAL* in most of the USA. You cannot legally build more dense in most of the Los Angeles 'basin', yet people keep moving in (the city is a *HUGE* immigrant magnet, much like in the classic late 19th/early 20th century Manhattan). The only logical result, and we are seeing it in Los Angeles and elsewhere, is the black market - many of those single-family houses in Los Angeles (the numbered streets part of the city, especially) are being *ILLEGALLY* shared by as many as four or five families. Sooner or later, something will have to give and my bet is that zoning will eventually be relaxed to allow for higher legal unit density, if it is not to break down completely.

I do like one aspect of Ontario provincial law, though - municipalities cannot regulate unit density in their residential zones. And yes, the newer developing parts of the province's cities, even the single-family subdivisions, are very dense and very compact (check them out on Google-Earth) as there is no need for developers there to sprawl out in order to create the number of units that the local markets are demanding.

Mike

Last edited by mgk920; March 24th, 2009 at 04:11 AM.
mgk920 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2009, 06:27 AM   #4000
phattonez
Bleed Dodger Blue
 
phattonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 1,773
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by J N Winkler View Post
Uh, no. Cost-benefit is a more or less explicit rentability calculation. Profit is just a special kind of surplus which accumulates in private hands, and is not necessarily a reliable measure of whether something is worth doing.
If it's really worth doing, then a private company will want to do it because people will pay for it.

If there isn't a profit, then the negatives outweigh the positives. Sure, travel times will decrease, but people will spread further out and use more energy.

Quote:
You are pushing private provision as a solution to quality-of-service problems with the existing infrastructure. But what incentive is there for the private companies to solve the quality-of-service problems? The current usage patterns tell them that their potential customer base is willing to accept a great deal of misery.
We have an underlying problem that people are living above their means in terms of transportation because of the subsidy. That is a drain on an economy.

Quote:
This paragraph is wrong on so many levels. The fares reflected exploitation of a route monopoly rather than the true cost of operation. The railroads were private companies operating under their own charters, and so could not have been part of an anachronistic government fantasy that living far away was some kind of right. Roads are not subsidized--in the US they are at least 90% paid for by their users (much of the remainder coming from property taxes, which support local roads used for neighborhood access).
90% still means subsides, and it also excludes parking.

Quote:
What do you do when slums develop?

California is extraordinarily tatty compared to other states which have experienced a slow, steady increase in population and wealth. Even if I bought your contention that taxes are too high in California--which I do not--the general dilapidation of public facilities and public services would by itself suggest that the taxes (and subventions from private sources) are not anywhere near what is required to cover the investment needs.
Or maybe we're just spending too much. Why do you exclude that possibility?

Quote:
Los Angeles and Cincinnati are actually very close together in terms of per capita income. LA ranks 30th among US metropolitan areas, Cincinnati ranks 35th, and the income amounts are within $1000 of each other (LA $37,306, Cinncinnati $36,530).
Yet Los Angeles is growing. Per capita income is not enough to tell you the health of a city.
__________________
“Violence is not necessary to destroy a civilization. Each civilization dies from
indifference toward the unique values which created it.” - Nicolás Gómez Dávila

"A wicked man puts up a bold front, but an upright man gives thought to his ways." - Proverbs 21: 29
phattonez no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
america, california, highway, highways, interstate, los angeles, united states, urban

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium