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 January 12th, 2009, 11:47 AM   #1
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,571
Likes (Received): 19362

Population growth: how to handle that?

Some regions experience significant population growth. those are mostly located in the United States and southwestern Europe.

The big question is, how to handle that kind of population growth infrastructural?

The approaches to adress this problem are different over the world;

from doing nothing: New York, Netherlands, Belgium, Los Angeles

To mass investments: Houston, Atlanta, Madrid, Lisbon

In my opinion, the solution should not only be found on the infrastructural side, but maybe even more in the spatial planning side. We also see differences there; from multi-center agglomeration like Atlanta with what seems like no spatial restrictions at all to developments within tight restriction like the Netherlands.

In the long term, neither public transportation nor highways seems to be able to solve transportation problems in the long term. Look at Los Angeles or Randstad for freeways that are extremely congested, to the excessively expensive public transit of New York and Tokyo.

The eye also wants something, concrete rivers like Houston or rusty elevated subway lines are ruining neighborhoods, causing decay and flight to other areas.

The best solution, in my opinion, is light restrictive zoning, so no Atlanta/Philadelphia-model suburbs nor unaffordable housing like in London or the Netherlands, combined with 5 or 6 job centers that are connected by both moderatly wide freeways (preferrably 8 lanes max) and subway/lightrail connections. That way, traffic flows are better spread out and transit becomes more cost-effective due to higher ridership outside rushhours and in both directions.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 12th, 2009, 12:50 PM   #2
ren0312
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 186
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Some regions experience significant population growth. those are mostly located in the United States and southwestern Europe.

The big question is, how to handle that kind of population growth infrastructural?

The approaches to adress this problem are different over the world;

from doing nothing: New York, Netherlands, Belgium, Los Angeles

To mass investments: Houston, Atlanta, Madrid, Lisbon

In my opinion, the solution should not only be found on the infrastructural side, but maybe even more in the spatial planning side. We also see differences there; from multi-center agglomeration like Atlanta with what seems like no spatial restrictions at all to developments within tight restriction like the Netherlands.

In the long term, neither public transportation nor highways seems to be able to solve transportation problems in the long term. Look at Los Angeles or Randstad for freeways that are extremely congested, to the excessively expensive public transit of New York and Tokyo.

The eye also wants something, concrete rivers like Houston or rusty elevated subway lines are ruining neighborhoods, causing decay and flight to other areas.

The best solution, in my opinion, is light restrictive zoning, so no Atlanta/Philadelphia-model suburbs nor unaffordable housing like in London or the Netherlands, combined with 5 or 6 job centers that are connected by both moderatly wide freeways (preferrably 8 lanes max) and subway/lightrail connections. That way, traffic flows are better spread out and transit becomes more cost-effective due to higher ridership outside rushhours and in both directions.
To be frank I think the US needs to stop growing, it may have a low population density but half of it is either semidesert, desert, or Alaska, so its current population sounds about right, there is no need for it approach Western European population density levels, the same goes for Australia, which considering its climate is more suitable for a population of 10 million, rather than 20+ million.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climat...in_percent.cgi
ren0312 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 12:57 PM   #3
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,571
Likes (Received): 19362

If we look at the U.S. state of Georgia for instance.

Population:

1950: 3.4 million
1960: 3.9 million
1970: 4.6 million
1980: 5.5 million
1990: 6.5 million
2000: 8.2 million
2008: 9.7 million

Texas ain't much better:

1950: 7.7 million
1960: 9.6 million
1970: 11.2 million
1980: 14.2 million
1990: 17.0 million
2000: 20.6 million
2008: 24.3 million

Where does it end?
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 01:04 PM   #4
ren0312
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 186
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
If we look at the U.S. state of Georgia for instance.

Population:

1950: 3.4 million
1960: 3.9 million
1970: 4.6 million
1980: 5.5 million
1990: 6.5 million
2000: 8.2 million
2008: 9.7 million

Texas ain't much better:

1950: 7.7 million
1960: 9.6 million
1970: 11.2 million
1980: 14.2 million
1990: 17.0 million
2000: 20.6 million
2008: 24.3 million

Where does it end?
Texas and much of the SouthWest (the most arid region in the US, therefore the region that is the least capable of supporting further popualtion growth) are actually growing at levels at are close to that of poorer countries, mostly due to legal and illegal immigration, as well as high Latino birth rates.
ren0312 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 01:08 PM   #5
DJZG
...rodjen na Balkanu...
 
DJZG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Zagreb, HR
Posts: 764
Likes (Received): 10

hmm... USA already has some kind of infrastructure so even if it isn't enough it still is something...
what about India population growth or Pakistan?
__________________
SimCity4 Contest
DJZG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 01:09 PM   #6
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,571
Likes (Received): 19362

Houston grows with 100,000 people every YEAR. I mean, you can keep widening roads, but it's gonna end sometime...
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 01:34 PM   #7
DJZG
...rodjen na Balkanu...
 
DJZG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Zagreb, HR
Posts: 764
Likes (Received): 10

accordingly... Delhi area in India gained 500 000 people in 2001.
it is easier to build infrastructure in countries that have normal or high income... but undeveloped countries will face much more serious problems in traffic as they don't follow that growth with constructing road network...
seems that traffic problem is a worldwide problem and only difference is amount of money they spend on their networks...

maybe someday there will be flying cars... that would solve a lot of congestions...
__________________
SimCity4 Contest
DJZG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 01:34 PM   #8
isaidso
the new republic
 
isaidso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The United Provinces of America
Posts: 29,742
Likes (Received): 10966

In southern Ontario, massive population growth is threatening to blanket the entire region in one giant swath of urban sprawl 150 km long and 100 km wide. This area is also home to some of the most fertile farmland in the nation. Once it's gone, we can't replace it.

The solution here has been a drastic change in our development plans. The Greater Golden Horeshoe, of which Toronto is the epicentre, currently has a population over 8 million people and an area half the size of the Netherlands. This metropolitan region attracts 100,000 new immigrants each and every year. A huge green belt has been established to protect what farmland and greenery remains. All new growth is now to be concentrated on already developed areas which will result in increasing density, and more efficient and economical use of land.

The developers obviously hated it, but Toronto is already seeing the benefits of this new growth plan. About 20 nodes have been flagged that represent areas which will act as regional mini downtowns. Toronto, Scarborough, Etobicoke, North York, Mississauga, Oshawa, Brampton, Pickering, Vaughn, Richmond Hill, Markham, Hamilton, Milton, Barrie, were some of the major ones mentioned.

The Golden Horseshoe will develop into an area with about 20 downtowns, and one major one centred in Toronto. Employment and density will be clustered in these nodes, while virgin land will be protected.
__________________
World's 1st Baseball Game: June 4th, 1838, Beachville, Ontario, Canada
North America's Oldest Pro Football Teams: Toronto Argonauts (1873) and Hamilton Tiger Cats (1869)

I started my first photo thread documenting a recent trip to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Have a peek: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=724898
isaidso está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 01:38 PM   #9
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,571
Likes (Received): 19362

the problem with tight restrictions is that normal family-sized houses become increasingly unaffordable. Though I would welcome somewhat more restrictions in North America, it shouldn't be like the United Kingdom or the Netherlands. But even in Europe, there are huge differences. For the price of a rowhouse in the Netherlands, you can build yourself a nice detached home just across the border in Germany. Many Dutch people do that, some communities have a Dutch majority along the Dutch-German border.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 01:45 PM   #10
isaidso
the new republic
 
isaidso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The United Provinces of America
Posts: 29,742
Likes (Received): 10966

It's inevitable that the typical Canadian dream home will become more elusive to people in southern Ontario, but we're also seeing a skyrocketing interest in downtown living. Toronto has become the condo tower capital of America. The downtown population is exploding. Toronto builds more condos than anywhere on the continent. It was calculated that a new condo is sold every 4 minutes in Toronto.

Like everything, there is a trade off. If Canadians crave that idyllic house with with 5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, a triple garage, and a pool out back, that's still very affordable. It will just be unaffordable in a few spots here and there: Toronto and Vancouver.
__________________
World's 1st Baseball Game: June 4th, 1838, Beachville, Ontario, Canada
North America's Oldest Pro Football Teams: Toronto Argonauts (1873) and Hamilton Tiger Cats (1869)

I started my first photo thread documenting a recent trip to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Have a peek: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=724898

Last edited by isaidso; January 12th, 2009 at 01:54 PM.
isaidso está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 01:55 PM   #11
ren0312
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 186
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
It's inevitable that the typical Canadian dream home will become more elusive to people in southern Ontario, but we're also seeing a skyrocketing interest in downtown living. Toronto has become the condo tower capital of America. The downtown population is exploding. Toronto builds more condos than anywhere on the continent. It was calculated that a new condo is sold every 4 minutes in Toronto.
Most people seem to like the open spaces that suburbs offer over a Hong Kong like layout for a cuty, hence the popularity of suburbs in the first place, densely packed cities may be the most efficient layout, but they may not be the most pleasant.
ren0312 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 01:57 PM   #12
ren0312
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 186
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
It's inevitable that the typical Canadian dream home will become more elusive to people in southern Ontario, but we're also seeing a skyrocketing interest in downtown living. Toronto has become the condo tower capital of America. The downtown population is exploding. Toronto builds more condos than anywhere on the continent. It was calculated that a new condo is sold every 4 minutes in Toronto.

Like everything, there is a trade off. If Canadians crave that idyllic house with with 5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, a triple garage, and a pool out back, that's still very affordable. It will just be unaffordable in a few spots here and there: Toronto and Vancouver.
Or you could limit your population (that means cutting immigration to replacement rate levels) in order so that every Canadian who can afford to own that idylic house can own one without sacrificing vital agricultural land.
ren0312 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 02:11 PM   #13
isaidso
the new republic
 
isaidso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The United Provinces of America
Posts: 29,742
Likes (Received): 10966

Canada, like most western nations, is facing a demographic time bomb in the not too distant future. A low birth rate has meant that almost all population growth in Canada today comes from immigration. As the birth rate continues to fall, Canada needs the level of immigration in has now to ensure de-population doesn't occur and that enough people of working age exist to support an aging population which is quickly reaching an age where they will no longer work.

Canada is also one of the few nations where a significantly larger population would be beneficial to the country. We have the largest coastline in the world and occupy the 2nd largest land mass. It's a tremendous financial strain on a population of only 33 million to maintain roads, rail, the power grid, shipping, and defense.

Most nations have too many people, Canada would be more efficient and better able to reach its potential with a substantially larger population. There is no population explosion problem in Canada, but an issue of managing the growth we have. New comers should be encouraged to move to areas beyond the big 3: Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal.

We're starting to see this happen as immigrants start to discover and settle in places like Calgary, Winnipeg, Halifax, and the even our north. People will still gravitate to southern Ontario, but it will no longer be at the expense of farm land. If they can't afford that dream home here, it will always be possible in most of the rest of the country. Besides, there's been a huge resurgence of interest in living downtown. Many people are craving the convenience and excitement of downtown living.

No large city can remain cheap forever. Toronto is still a bargain compared to Los Angeles.
__________________
World's 1st Baseball Game: June 4th, 1838, Beachville, Ontario, Canada
North America's Oldest Pro Football Teams: Toronto Argonauts (1873) and Hamilton Tiger Cats (1869)

I started my first photo thread documenting a recent trip to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Have a peek: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=724898

Last edited by isaidso; January 12th, 2009 at 02:17 PM.
isaidso está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 02:20 PM   #14
ren0312
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 186
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
Canada, like most western nations, is facing a demographic time bomb in the not too distant future. A low birth rate has meant that almost all population growth in Canada today comes from immigration. As the birth rate continues to fall, Canada needs the level of immigration in has now to ensure de-population doesn't occur and that enough people of working age exist to support an aging population which is quickly reaching an age where they will no longer work.

Canada is also one of the few nations where a larger population would be beneficial to the country. We have the largest coastline in the world and occupy the 2nd largest land mass. It's a tremendous financial strain on a population of only 33 million to maintain roads, rail, the power grid, shipping, and defense.

Most nations have too many people, Canada would be more efficient and better able to reach its potential with a substantially larger population. There is no population explosion problem in Canada, but an issue of managing the growth we have. New comers should be encouraged to move to areas beyond the big 3: Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal.

We're starting to see this happen as immigrants start to discover and settle in places like Calgary, Winnipeg, Halifax, and the even our north. People will still gravitate to southern Ontario, but it will no longer be at the expense of farm land. If they can't afford that dream home here, it will always be possible in most of the rest of the country. Besides, there's been a huge resurgence of interest in living downtown. Many people are craving the convenience and excitement of downtown living.

No large city can remain cheap forever.
Convincing Quebec to take in more immigrants will be hard since the Francophones are worried that more non French speaking immigrants coming in will mean that French will lose its status as the dominant language in Quebec, and the language issue has also been a matter of contention between Anglophone and Francophone Canada.
ren0312 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 08:03 PM   #15
Chrissib
Margela Schurkel
 
Chrissib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Den Haag
Posts: 1,739
Likes (Received): 13186

LoL we in germany would like to have problems like that. Population is shrinking at 100,000 persons a year, although we have a positive migration balance of 50,000 in 2007. Severe is the situation in rural areas in eastern germany. Take Eisenhüttenstadt, Brandenburg for example. It's one of the fastest shrinking cities in Germany and has halved since 1990. Birth rate is just at 1.37 children per woman compared to USA with 2.1 or Israel with 2.8. Very soon, when the population will shrink faster the Autobahn-network will be to big for us. Big migration waves are impossible to us as we don't have the melting pot tradition like the USA. There is no experience how large-scale migration will have effects on ethnically homogenic countries like Germany.

We also hadn't had a migration wave in this decade, like Spain, Italy or the UK. The positive thing although is tht we don't have an eploding unemployment rate like Spain.

Germany could feed over 100 million people so we have space for 18 million people here, but they aren't born. What does the US and Israel right, and what do we wrong?
Chrissib está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 08:08 PM   #16
Chrissib
Margela Schurkel
 
Chrissib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Den Haag
Posts: 1,739
Likes (Received): 13186

A question:

What are the major foreign nationalities in Canada and where do the migrants come from now?
Chrissib está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 08:11 PM   #17
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,571
Likes (Received): 19362

Actually I think some parts of the Autobahn network is still not constructed for the current population and transportation of Germany. But even in the 10 million people metropolis of the Ruhr area, congestion is far less of a problem than in western Netherlands.
ChrisZwolle está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 08:58 PM   #18
Xusein
 
Xusein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 26,172
Likes (Received): 10380

The problem with the US when it comes to population growth is that it's very uneven. Yes, the booming states of the South (and West) are important, but at the same time, a large part of the nation in the Northeast and Midwest faces stagnant or declining population growth, from rural areas to entire metros. Places like Texas and Georgia are far from the norm.

The problems with infrastructure is the total opposite around here. While cities like Houston, Atlanta, and Phoenix are ticking time bombs because the services can't keep up with population growth, there's plenty of it here...a lot of the cities here were once bigger at one point and have the infrastructure of their peak populations.

I'm currently in Buffalo, NY which has grown only around 10% (or less) since 1950. I'd say that the highway network is more than adequate.
Xusein no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 09:09 PM   #19
Chrissib
Margela Schurkel
 
Chrissib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Den Haag
Posts: 1,739
Likes (Received): 13186

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
Actually I think some parts of the Autobahn network is still not constructed for the current population and transportation of Germany. But even in the 10 million people metropolis of the Ruhr area, congestion is far less of a problem than in western Netherlands.
I think that this is mainly because the Ruhr-metropolis has a stagnant population. It has more or less the same population as 30 years ago. Randstad still grows with 0.4% a year.
Chrissib está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2009, 09:20 PM   #20
Chrissib
Margela Schurkel
 
Chrissib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Den Haag
Posts: 1,739
Likes (Received): 13186

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xusein View Post
The problem with the US when it comes to population growth is that it's very uneven. Yes, the booming states of the South (and West) are important, but at the same time, a large part of the nation in the Northeast and Midwest faces stagnant or declining population growth, from rural areas to entire metros. Places like Texas and Georgia are far from the norm.

The problems with infrastructure is the total opposite around here. While cities like Houston, Atlanta, and Phoenix are ticking time bombs because the services can't keep up with population growth, there's plenty of it here...a lot of the cities here were once bigger at one point and have the infrastructure of their peak populations.

I'm currently in Buffalo, NY which has grown only around 10% (or less) since 1950. I'd say that the highway network is more than adequate.
The north east of the US needs a good family policy to raise birth rates. birt rate is the lowest there in the USA:


Total fertility rate 2005 statewise:

Chrissib está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote


Reply

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 10:12 PM.


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