Discussion:
U.S. urban planning priorities out of whack (San Francisco Chronicle)
(too old to reply)
1100GS_rider
2008-11-01 22:42:34 UTC
Permalink
http://www.ng2000.com/fw.php?tp=urban-planning
This is not analysis; it's just an anti-automobile diatribe.
drydem
2008-11-02 12:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1100GS_rider
http://www.ng2000.com/fw.php?tp=urban-planning
This is not analysis; it's just an anti-automobile diatribe.
agreed.

U.S. urban planning priorities out of whack
Arrol Gellner.
San Francisco Chronicle
Saturday Oct 25 2008
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/25/HOEU1389RE.DTL&feed=rss.homeandgarden

This editorial argues that the USA has too many roads
(4 Million miles, 61,000 square miles) too many
motor vehicles (240 million motor vehicles), and
too much free parking. The author argues that
planning around the use of the motor vehicle has
created a vicious cycle of suburban sprawl.
George Conklin
2008-11-03 01:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1100GS_rider
http://www.ng2000.com/fw.php?tp=urban-planning
This is not analysis; it's just an anti-automobile diatribe.
agreed.

U.S. urban planning priorities out of whack
Arrol Gellner.
San Francisco Chronicle
Saturday Oct 25 2008
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/25/HOEU1389RE.DTL&a
mp;feed=rss.homeandgarden

This editorial argues that the USA has too many roads
(4 Million miles, 61,000 square miles) too many
motor vehicles (240 million motor vehicles), and
too much free parking. The author argues that
planning around the use of the motor vehicle has
created a vicious cycle of suburban sprawl.

Which is a lie, but what the heck, planners have never liked cars because
they cannot control people like they are taught is necessary. Our
population continues to CONCENTRATE in few places, which is the opposite of
sprawl, but of course elementary demograpy is forbidden to planners.
e***@gmail.com
2008-12-27 18:48:27 UTC
Permalink
Have you considered that in common US cities the cars use
approximately 40-50% of all our surface area including roads,
freeways, parking lots, garages, driveways, etc. If we eliminated that
area, theoretically we could potentially be 50% closer to our
destination to start off with and make alternative forms of
transportation more effective.

The cities of the future do not use human operated transportation
because it is inherently inefficient. In fact it is THE MOST
INEFFICIENT ACTIVITY OUR SPECIES DOES AS A CIVILIZATION. Think about
it... When we drive we have to be completely focused on our driving,
otherwise it will cause accidents, resulting in injury, death,
expensive car repairs... this is all without mentioning the secondary
effects of driving which include stress, time, in many cases 2 hours a
day, cost of insurance, cost of the car, cost of repairs.

I am convinced that public transportation is the best way to solve
this and among the tranist options PRTs (Personal Rapid Transit) can
solve all of these problems while giving you the privacy of your own
transit car. I have encountered this website where people can learn
more about PRTs.
e***@gmail.com
2008-12-27 18:51:47 UTC
Permalink
sorry....


http://prtstrategies.com
George Conklin
2008-12-27 20:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@gmail.com
Have you considered that in common US cities the cars use
approximately 40-50% of all our surface area including roads,
freeways, parking lots, garages, driveways, etc. If we eliminated that
area, theoretically we could potentially be 50% closer to our
destination to start off with and make alternative forms of
transportation more effective.
The well-planned city with wide streets and so forth and so on uses LESS
space than a car-dependent suburban development, according to ACCESS.
George Conklin
2008-12-27 20:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by e***@gmail.com
Have you considered that in common US cities the cars use
approximately 40-50% of all our surface area including roads,
freeways, parking lots, garages, driveways, etc. If we eliminated that
area, theoretically we could potentially be 50% closer to our
destination to start off with and make alternative forms of
transportation more effective.
The well-planned city with wide streets and so forth and so on uses LESS
space than a car-dependent suburban development, according to ACCESS.
Correction: the suburban area uses less space. I've got the article
somewhere in my storage boxes.
Loading...