| General > General Technical Chat |
| some USA states replaces trafic lights with flags |
| << < (3/12) > >> |
| SilverSolder:
A real issue in the US (some states, at least) is that it is only relatively recently that pedestrians have the right of way in pedestrian crossings (without lights). Drivers are simply not used to that, and you often see cars bombing through crossings when they should have stopped... thankfully, pedestrians are wise enough not to walk out unless they see the cars are stopping, but still.... |
| james_s:
--- Quote from: SilverSolder on September 13, 2022, 12:36:32 pm --- A real issue in the US (some states, at least) is that it is only relatively recently that pedestrians have the right of way in pedestrian crossings (without lights). Drivers are simply not used to that, and you often see cars bombing through crossings when they should have stopped... thankfully, pedestrians are wise enough not to walk out unless they see the cars are stopping, but still.... --- End quote --- Do you happen to know which states? To my knowledge pedestrians have always had the right of way, although that doesn't mean some idiot drivers are going to be paying attention and actually yield to them. |
| james_s:
--- Quote from: tom66 on September 13, 2022, 09:34:13 am ---It's just the problem with car centric planning: It isn't *bad* to use a car when needed, but it's bad to design a city in such a way that it's bloody hard to use anything *but* a car. NotJustBikes has some fantastic videos on this. And it's the older European cities that got this right: London, Amsterdam, Prague, Berlin... They still have car infrastructure, but most people use buses/bikes/trains/scooters in those cities. If London had only cars and buses, you can bet that it would be even more of a gridlocked mess. Most American towns experienced huge post WWII growth spurts, with the middle class booming and demanding a huge detached house with two car driveway on a sprawling surburban estate. These towns don't usually have massive traffic issues (except maybe downtown), because there just isn't the space for the traffic. But they do have insane infrastructure requirements per person. Just compare the density of e.g. suburban Dallas to suburban London (anything within the M25 but outside of Zone 3 is 'suburban' for London, mostly houses with small shopping and business districts scattered about) and you will see the difference. It's going to bankrupt many US cities eventually, because the growth will stop, and there will be not enough tax income to pay for the huge 6 lane 'stroads' everywhere. --- End quote --- I don't think that will be a problem. With property taxes what they are and rising constantly with land values and the number of people already here it should be no problem to pay for the roads. The problem is that growth keeps occurring even when there is not really space for it. They keep trying to cram more and more houses into the suburbs and it's turning things into a mess. I really wish the population density would drop to about what it was in the 1980s. I love the suburban single family home environment and loathe high density cities. I recognize the need for them but a city like New York or London is about the last place in the civilized world I'd want to live. |
| RJSV:
(tom66 posted a few posts back). Thanks, tom66, for mentioning the non-inclusive nature of the automobile industry, generally, towards those who can't drive, or can't afford (the insurance and maintainance). Actually, I've been watching, with rising apprehension, how the whole 'Google...SIGN-IN' required thing, for everything from doctor's appointments to buying donuts, (OK, I exaggerated that last one). So, as I watched BART commuter train expansion, nearby, I felt it was time, 2009, to give up my car. I hated driving, so walking a lot anyway, and with an expensive and 'unknown' maintainance break-down, it was time. So, I donated the car, and been reliant on Taxis, some, but mostly transit. That whole market forces thing is just too compelling, and like I stated, now that same source dynamic is occuring with on-line required, now. OK, now, but can we get some 'REAL' competition...or No ? |
| tom66:
--- Quote from: james_s on September 13, 2022, 07:53:10 pm ---I don't think that will be a problem. With property taxes what they are and rising constantly with land values and the number of people already here it should be no problem to pay for the roads. The problem is that growth keeps occurring even when there is not really space for it. They keep trying to cram more and more houses into the suburbs and it's turning things into a mess. I really wish the population density would drop to about what it was in the 1980s. I love the suburban single family home environment and loathe high density cities. I recognize the need for them but a city like New York or London is about the last place in the civilized world I'd want to live. --- End quote --- I do like a big home, but there's no reason it needs to be built like suburbia. I bought a house recently, which is 10 minutes walk from a few convenience stores, takeaways and about 15 from the actual centre of town walking, less than 5 on a bike. It's a detached house, it has a large garden and driveway, and for a British home it's pretty decently sized (not American size, but those are uncommon here anyway.) It's like this because it was built in the 30's and the environment evolved around it, rather than it being planned as part of a massive estate. The problem is that you see so many estates where it's literally just identikit house one after another after another. And then nothing but huge Wal-Marts with parking for 1,000 cars to serve them. The whole environment is actually hostile to walking. Many of these surburban neighbourhoods have no cut-throughs, to allow for quick travel, you have to walk around the roads. (This is usually because a fear of alleyways is that they will attract crime, but statistically there's very little evidence for this. And there's no reason the paths have to be small -- they can be large green spaces with footpaths with good visibility.) And even once you leave, you likely walk straight onto a four-lane dual carriageway type road with a 45+ mph speed "limit". Those roads are just unpleasant to walk along. They're loud, polluted, cars kick up stones and other crap, and kinda scary if the footpath is small. Cycling is also often, at best, accommodated by a small painted bike lane, which offers barely any protection to the cyclist compared to cycling in the lane. These areas are built to be dependent upon the car; if you don't have a car, you pretty much can't live there. The stroads that link them split up neighbourhoods, and limit pedestrian traffic. Compare, for instance, Toronto's central single-family homes: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@43.678284,-79.3879489,3a,75y,94.49h,93.64t/data= to a modern-ish Colorado single family home sprawl: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@40.0486078,-105.2522135,3a,60y,2.97h,86.25t/data= They look more or less the same from the street, but go to the map, and see that in the Toronto case, the houses are built adjacent useful infrastructure; there's light rail (x2), a nearby town centre, a park to walk the dog... Whereas in Colorado, there's... nothing. Well, not unless you get in your car. That's the problem with suburbia more than anything else. If you have the density, it's self-funding. Think about all of the tax revenue those businesses bring in. The commuter traffic using trains reduces the infrastructure demand on roads. The parks make people feel better about where they live and pollution will be less because people aren't driving everywhere. But it's actually illegal to build places like that area in Toronto in many cities, because zoning laws mean that an area is "just housing" or "just commercial". |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |