Worst City Planning

[montrouge 2]

Paris is also a bad planned city for the building.

in particular beetween 1950's and 1970's a lots of ugly high-rises was built.

[packerfan386 3]

The Beltline (U.S. 12, 14, 18) in Madison,WI is getting really bad, one can not even get from one exit to the next in under 10 minutes, during rush hour. Also Northport drive and Packers Avenue, in Madison,  are some of the worst in the state I've seen during rush hour(outside of Milwaukee). And don't even get me started on Clairemont Avenue (U.S. 12) in Eau Claire,  Wisconsin.

[FavreKev04 13]

I'm going to say BOSTON. Yes I caped it, I want to yell it out as loud as I want. Its not the cities fault, its an old city and alot of the streets are tiny because they were ment for carages. The city also has way to many oneways. I live near Boston so I know. Me and my dad exadently went down a one way road and almost got into a crash(thank god their was no cars around). Plus the big dig project messed everything up. I know its not done, but it hard to get on and off the tunnel. Me and my dad after seeing a Dane Cook special at the fleet center we had to drive thorugh the whole city looking for a way back on to 93.

[+Guest]

The worst places I have been too would have to be Boston and Vancouver. Just horrible road works...

[Socorocks 7]

I couldn't agree with winkosmosis and hamsterTK more. It is utterly and completely sad to me that so many of you, purported "city enthusiasts", would consider a city poorly planned based solely on its traffic problems. All cities have traffic; that's part of what makes them cities. They're dense. And, to those of you who say that D.C. is poorly planned because it isn't a spaghetti bowl like so many other Tidewater cities is just so ignorantly American. D.C. is a marvel of European planning. The city's use of public space is miles beyond that of many other American cities. The reason why that is so problematic is because it is in an American region that is so car-obsessed that it's human-scale infrastructure, more than adequate were the use of cars still at a reasonable frequency, is overloaded. The problem is not the city itsself, but the hundreds of thousands of people that bring their cars into it.

[sonar1313 1]

Central DC isn't poorly planned. Its suburbs are. Northern Virginia is a sprawling waste of space, filled with silly experiments, all the latest planning fads from the '70s onward, and an ugly, messy conglomeration of giant generic roads with no rhyme or reason to their direction. The whole place is a giant, generic, sprawling blob with no identity whatsoever and no distinction between the place names that make up the area. Falls Church is Fairfax is Vienna is Herndon is McLean is Reston.

[Micah 16]

Please, bring the tones down. I see no reason to bash other countries or make unnecessary generalizations.

[Socorocks 7]

I wouldn't bash someone else's country. I live in Southern California - I know nonplanning, believe me.

[Tarkus 6,932]

Well, "bad planning" is a very subjective term.  Different people are going to have different ideas about the subject.  Personally, I believe bad traffic is a sign of bad planning in most situations.  But, of course, I'm a roadgeek . . . I pay a lot of attention to traffic. 

Sometimes, it's just bad traffic because there's just so much of it.  There's other forms of bad planning as well, in my opinion . . . there's almost always going to be some part of any locale that's going to be less well-planned in relation to other areas. 

I'm also partial toward ultra low-density, so I actually believe that high density is bad planning in many situations . . . call me crazy.  So for me, traffic congestion epitomizes bad planning.   I also detest New Urbanism in general (especially how it has been implemented in a lot of situations).  But it's just my opinion, and you're more than welcome to disagree.

-Tarkus

[Socorocks 7]

Ultra-low density is obsolete. Ultra-low density applies to farmland. What would the world be like if everything was ULD? There would be not a lick of open space anywhere on land. We could have tract homes and 12-lane freeways in Siberia, and on Easter Island, and in the Sahara, and Antarctica. Apparently that would be excellent planning to Tarkus.

[ilikehotdogsalot 308]

That's the circular road around the Arc De Triumph in Paris. It's very busy

[Will_Colorado 0]

Anybody ever been to Charlotte, NC?

Outside of the main downtown.  There are not 2 matching major arterials that are on a grid.  Real pain in the arse to try to get around in.

[hamsterTK 93]

to me crime and social problems epitomize bad planning....

[_MostlyHarmless 17]

Originally posted by: Tarkus

I'm also partial toward ultra low-density, so I actually believe that high density is bad planning in many situations . . . call me crazy.  So for me, traffic congestion epitomizes bad planning.   I also detest New Urbanism in general (especially how it has been implemented in a lot of situations).  But it's just my opinion, and you're more than welcome to disagree.

-Tarkusquote>

I am working towards a Masters degree in Urban Plannning and the common theme seems to be the total opposite.  High density planning is much more efficient than low density sprawl.  The new wave of planning is Smart Growth, look it up.  It focuses on multi-modal transportation (especially transit), mixed use buildings (commercial on bottom, residential on top, for example), high density, preserving open spaces, etc etc. 

[DOXXP29 5]

Sonar 1313 and Socorocks, your points about D.C. are well taken and pretty much true. Originally, D.C was well planned. Even the hated circles made sense. What happened to cause the problems was the result of planners who came along later and took a good thing and messed it up. That combined with the amputated highways that were never built caused a pretty well designed city to have horrendous traffic problems. (Go to www.roadstothefuture.com to see what the DC highway network was supposed to be before politics took over) The Northern Virginia suburbs were just seriously overdeveloped starting in the '80's with no regard given to future transpotation issues. Developer greed and accommodating politicians contributed to the poorly planned mess that affects the entire area and seriously impacts upon D.C. itself.

[Tarkus 6,932]

I have heard of smart growth and I am quite familiar with it . . . there's a lot of it around where I'm from.  I can see the point of it, but the efficiency seems to be achieved by (from what I've seen) cramming more people into less land area with the intent that they use mass transit. 

And from what I've also seen, while it may look good on paper, it doesn't always work in practice.  I know a lot of people look at Portland, OR as a shining example of planning . . . in some places it is.  In other places, it has failed miserably.  Look at the Cascades development that was planned near the airport.  They built a whole bunch of infrastructure into it, gave it its own light rail stop, redid an interchange on Airport Way and everything.  But nothing was ever built there, and the last I heard, Ikea was buying the land to build a superstore.  There's been a couple instances like that, where they tried to plan New Urbanist developments in far flung locations across the light rail line simply to increase ridership . . . and it didn't work out. 

Don't get me wrong . . . I think the light rail line was a good idea, and I used to ride it frequently. (Speaking of Washington, DC, I think the Metro is probably the only truly effective way to get around.)  But the Blue Line of the MAX doesn't really follow a logical path on the west side, and it has too many stops because they tried to cater to the arbitrarily located New Urbanist developments that never really took off (and the whims of Metro, the regional planning board).  As a result, it takes forever to go any place.  (The average speed of the line is 18mph, with a top speed in some places of 55mph.)

And because the New Urbanist developments and the transit are located in such odd places, what happens?  The people in the New Urbanist developments drive their cars . . . and cramming a whole bunch of people into a small area then equates to cramming a whole bunch of cars into a small area.  That creates traffic congestion. 

As far as I'm concerned, while I admire that the planning field is looking at options, I do think that "smart growth" is going to be viewed in the same light in another 30 years as so-called "sprawl" is today.  It will be particularly noticeable since the world's population is expected to start declining sometime, and with the continued growth of wireless technology (apparently, wireless power outlets are in the works), I think by the end of this century, instead of urbanization, we may be looking at deurbanization.  It sounds crazy now, but you never know what will happen in another 50-100 years.  I could totally be way off the mark, too.

And of course, if you have more space between residences, as in a low density arrangement, you will, by default, have more open space automatically.  Plus, high density usually equals high property values, so the idea of "affordable" housing, is, as far as I'm concerned, a myth.  I think that giving people "breathing room" is a good thing.

Sorry for the long post . . . I just wanted to perhaps explain my seemingly crazy and contrarian views of urban planning, as they probably were a source of confusion (and probably amusement).  And of course, this is just my opinion, so feel free to disagree. (I'm sure many of you will .)

-Tarkus

[Mulefisk 15]

Originally posted by: Tarkus

Words

-Tarkusquote>

You're right on some points. However, I think the main reason as to why New Urbanism and smart growth rarely works, is because projects that follow new urbanist ideals, are usually constructed in much the same way as common sprawling housing projects, just with a new wrapping. New urbanists often claim that you can just plan a city, and it will automatically have the same feel as any other American small-town. However, if the city is to feel like a city, it needs to have people that both live and work there.

The case with mose New Urbanist projects is that people only live there, and commute into the nearby downtown to work. My point is, that if projects like these are to work, they either have to have a huge ammount of office-space, or they need to be built close to an already existing city. If not, it's just gonna be another generic, dead, and sprawling apartment-complex.

Basically, what i'm trying to say is that New Urbanism is a great idea, but the way it's being used by developers will eventually be its death.

[Socorocks 7]

I apologize for my sharp and personal tone, it just is very alarming to see that there are people who would rather see the further decline of the city and the rise of suburbia - to an even greater extent that it has already harmed America - in a world where there will be more and more people and less and less planet left each day.

Speaking of population rates, what study has ever said that the Earth's population will decline any time in the seeable future?

And, Mulefisk, one of the biggest reasons why NU projects have failed is because the vast majority of municipal policymakers are ambivalent if not hostile to them, and under most current zoning codes, many NU projects are actually illegal because they "liberally" mix uses in a way that hasn't been seen in decades.

[intensivecarebear 0]

There are far too many crappy urban planning examples around. Sadly I agree with almost everyone. But I'd definately say LA is up there on the list. And I agree with Socorocks. Overall the hostile attitudes that many Americans have towards cities is so ingrained in our culture and its really sad. It needs to change. But its not just hostility towards living in cities, its the idea of being less car dependent that scares people.

[hamsterTK 93]

. and cramming a whole bunch of people into a small area then equates to cramming a whole bunch of cars into a small area.  That creates traffic congestion.  quote>

Where I and many others live is a sprawling low density area. But its attached to a limited road system. In the end, you are still cramming a bunch of cars into a small area. And would it be feasible to just make the roads wider? not always. Traffic happens when you have a significant amount of people in an area period.

Those developers and planners in portland screwed up when they built those TOD's in a way where in the end they were still autocentric. But it doesnt mean the whole idea of denser

Plus, high density usually equals high property values, so the idea of "affordable" housing, is, as far as I'm concerned, a myth. quote>

thats because in most places high density developments are only built when there is significant demand. demand often means higher property values especially in an established gentrifying hood.. So high rises=expensive. I agree, its sort of hard to make a profitable middle class high density development in this country. but it can be done

Overall the hostile attitudes that many Americans have towards cities is so ingrained in our culture and its really sad. It needs to change. But its not just hostility towards living in cities, its the idea of being less car dependent that scares people.quote>

I dont think anything quite scares people away from urban areas more than the percieved dangerousness and the crappy public schools they contain. People move to the suburbs so they feel safe and their kids can go to a good school.

[Camaron 1]

Originally posted by: ilikehotdogsalot

That's the circular road around the Arc De Triumph in Paris. It's very busy quote>

 

I remember been shocked on how open that roundabout was the first time I saw it. Another time a relative of mine was on a bus going through Paris, when going round a corner the bus collided with a parked car. Surprisingly the bus driver just continued driving like it happened all the time.

[Tarkus 6,932]

@Mulefisk:  Glad to see someone here agrees.  Have to love that condensed version of my post!

@hamsterTK:  Well, when you a have a limited road system with high density, you end up with even bigger congestion as opposed to ultra-low density.  I'm not sure if widening the roads is so much the solution as is building more roads.  I think I-205 in Portland really needs to be extended to become a ring road, through the west side and up to Vancouver.

@Socorocks:  It's understandable if you are alarmed.  Well, as far as the population statistics I've seen are, the world population is supposedly going to keep increasing up to about 2050, when it will approach 9 billion.  That's where a lot of the population studies stop.  But speculation for the period after that seems to point to 9 billion being a peak, and the population declining thereafter.

The US population is aging, as are the populations of several other well-developed nations, like Japan.  Eventually, the death rate will exceed the birth rate (it already has in Japan) and the population will start to decline.  Most of the population growth is expected to be in "Third World" countries, and if you look at the disease/life expectancy statistics for them (like the AIDS statistics for Africa), these new residents of the planet don't stand a good chance of living very long. Of course, if we successfully mitigate population growth there as well (birth control), the same thing will be happening--a decline in population, but likely, an increase in living standards.

Personally, I think we will start declining before 2050 . . . I'm fairly certain that will be what happens with the US at least.

And as far as why New Urbanist developments are failing . . . in Portland, the regional planning board, Metro, is extremely pro-NU, and the region is cited as a mecca for "smart planners".  But, yet, while a couple developments have succeeded, many have failed (Cascades quite miserably).  I think Mulefisk really hit the nail on the head.

I should also point out that the people moving into these NU developments around here tend to be quite affluent.  Look at the sale prices--they're extremely high.

As far as why people are afraid of giving up their cars . . . it tends to severely limit one's independence and geographical mobility.  Mass transit decides where you go, and when you go. 

-Tarkus

[SamJam 9]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK Curbs are important for drainage. And traffic calming makes people more prone to find a parking lot and walk. When you have a mall style situation thats better for business.quote>

Indeed, and this is the way many cities are designed. Narrow streets, broad sidewalks, excessive lights/stopping... they all contribute to a people-friendly environment. Some cities are adopting entirely vehicle-free areas in the CBD, creating pedestrian malls on old streets.

I notice a lot of negative posts here regarding Washington, USA, although many people may not realize that the original intent of the road layout was to confuse enemies that tried to occupy the city. The roads were arranged as both escape and attack routes. A few centuries later they're a little annoying to navigate, yes. But more freeway coverage would become an eyesore and wouldn't solve any traffic issues.

Most cities manage to control traffic better when they're layed out on a grid. This works because there are several more options for traveling, whereas a "webbed" layout leaves many commuters with only one option that won't take them in the wrong direction. For those who complain about traffic in grid cities like Toronto or Vancouver, or even central New York City, you must understand that more people equals more traffic... that's just a mathematical fact. No amount of highway coverage, public transit, biking, or walking is going to solve it.

Toronto's subway system has relatively little coverage, but the city has evolved and grown up around the stations which existed before the spiking poulation. Yonge Street in particular now has several "hubs" of activity around the stations, and many people now live and work in the same areas. Less people use public transit in Toronto (and many other Ontario cities) because there isn't enough government funding to override the high cost, which the riders ultimately pay for. More subway lines won't help if people hate the high cost of using it. Some cities have free public transit and, not surprisingly, don't have many traffic problems. Savannah, USA, comes to mind. I passed through there a couple of years ago and I was very impressed by the peaceful navigation.

Ironically the 'burbs are as bad or worse than the CBDs, presumably because there isn't any mixed zoning like there is downtown. Massive subdivisions with houses as far as the eye can see means people have no choice but to drive to work and to other destinations, just like shopping malls and outdoor store complexes create traffic chaos because nobody lives there. You can't cross the street and take an elevator up and down like you do in a CBD, you need to take a car inbound and outbound.

More freeways won't solve much. They don't get used the way they are intended to be used, which is high-speed and long-distance travel. When the first freeways were built (in the US at least) they were meant to quickly move traffic out of a city in case of attack during a war, not to move it around within the city. Freeways with exits every km or mile or so will always carry heavier traffic because they include long and short-distance commutes. Building freeways around cities, rather than through them, also promotes urban sprawl. The US is littered with these types of "bypasses" that only add travel time and mileage to a trip, and also encourage new building contractors to go to easily-accessible land farther away from the central city.

Then again, you could argue that freeways are supposed to be busy. If they weren't, there wouldn't be much point in spending the money to build them.

I guess to judge whether a city truly has a traffic problem, you need to measure it against the population. If the place has 10 or 15 million people, there ain't a thing you're gonna do to dent it.

Maybe in SimCity we should have a "Work From Home" ordinance...

[Socorocks 7]

Expounding on SamJam's point, for NU developments to work, they have to cater to the transit network, and Tarkus is right, it's a waste for transit networks to cater to them, as SamJam's example of Toronto shows. Ideally transit networks are laid out to maximize coverage and efficiency, and urban developments ought to spring up around them. Portland's issue, while I am not wholly familiar with it, seems to be that the city tried to push spurs of their light rail or whathaveyou to where developers chose to build their projects - but I think the only thing this shows is that you can't let developers control reurbanization. 

And, agreed, people shouldn't give up their cars entirely. But one should not have to own and drive a car in order to be a fully-functioning member of society. The problem with more roads, ULD, etc. is that it lets cars control our lives. Most developments, especially of the ignominious surburban variety, are designed with cars in mind first, and the people that will be using them are further on down the list. In my city, when a proposal is presented, the first thing the people ask is not,
 "How will this benefit my community or neighborhood?", 
or, "What sort of impact will this have on the way I live?", 
but rather they scream, "Not enought parking!" 
"Generates too much traffic!" 
"Where will my SUVs go?!"

My point is that people need not relinquish their cars, but need to stop being so ridiculously excessive with them. Sure, their invention benenfitted society in innumerable ways. But our subsequent, out of control addiction to them was ruinous to too many once-splendid American cities. Why is it necessary that I drive several miles for a quart of milk or to return a video? Why does the vast, vast, seething majority of workers have to drive to their jobs? Why can't, say, and equal third walk, an equal third drive, and another equal third use transit? 

Why do we let cars run our lives and 8-lane automotive sewers bisect and destroy our communities?

Because too many people believe in ULD.


So I leave you with the simple request, Tarkus, that you describe to us just how the ideal ULD community would look to you.

[DOXXP29 5]

Agree totally about the dependence and usage of cars, Socorocks, and SamJam and Tarkus bring up some excellent points as well. Again using the Washington, D.C. area as an example, allow me to point out a problem we have that no amount of city planning can really conquer. A few years back, a study was done after the results of the last census had been interpreted. In the D.C. area, somewhere around HALF of the population live in places that are more or less OPPOSITE to where they work. Of these people, well over half chose where they live knowing this. So every day at rush hour, we have huge numbers of Maryland commuters driving to Virginia and Virginia commuters driving to D.C.! The majority of the commuters use the beltway, but there are still a significant number who actually choose to drive through D.C. to get to the other side which contributes to an already overloaded city traffic situation. This has lessened slightly in the past couple of years, but the decrease is mostly due to people who work in D.C. itself moving into D.C. to avoid the terrible commute. (Gentrification, an improved real estate market and several other factors come into play here as well, obviously, but that's another post.) A number of commuters do use the Metro system, but many opt not to use it for numerous reasons. Overcrowding is a big one, including lack of room to sit if you don't get on the train at one of the first stops. At peak times, it's not uncommon to have to wait for two or three trains to pass through before there is enough room to board. Another major factor is that it's virtually impossible to use the trains alone to get from one suburban location to another. Generally,people will drive to a train station early hoping that there are still a few overpriced parking spaces available. In Virginia, especially at the Vienna station and the next few down the line, commuters will arrive at the parking lot an hour or more before they have to board the train in order to be sure of getting a place to park. If there are no parking spaces...oh well! They either have to wait and pray for a spot (unlikely) or go ahead and drive to work. If they get on the train and the delays aren't too bad, they're in good shape until they get to the end of the line. Since the suburban stations are pretty much isolated from everything else, our commuter must now figure out how to get to work from the station. The bus is a possibility if, in fact, there is a bus line that runs close to the job. Or he can always catch a cab, which will run into money. He also must keep in mind that while there will probably be a cab available at the station, coming home at night may be a nightmare, especially if he lives in P.G.County in Maryland, where waits of over an hour are not uncommon if the cab shows up at all. Tallying up the cost, the time and the headaches, most commuters choose to drive even though the driving commute is the worst in the nation. (According to AAA, I believe, we beat Houston for first place this year.) Tarkus states above that the Metro is the most effective way of getting around. This is true IF you happen to be lucky enough to live and work near a Metro stop. But still, given all of the problems involved with commuting in the D.C area, people continue to live in places that are nowhere near where they work. There are myriad reasons given as to why they choose to live where they do and endure 90 minute to 3 hour commutes, but for whatever reason, it seems to be worth it to them. This combined with the further expansion of the D.C area suburbs (Fredericksburg is now considered a commuting suburb which is a 40 mile ride on I-95 alone just to get to the beltway) as well as workers coming into the D.C area from West Virginia, western Maryland, the eastern shore and southern Pennsylvania and the inadequate transportation system, planning and design add to the nightmare of traffic problems. (Sorry about the long post and any difficulty reading this. I'm using Opera which, unfortunately, doesn't allow for paragraphs)

[Micah 16]

Agree totally about the dependence and usage of cars, Socorocks, and SamJam and Tarkus bring up some excellent points as well. Again using the Washington, D.C. area as an example, allow me to point out a problem we have that no amount of city planning can really conquer. A few years back, a study was done after the results of the last census had been interpreted. In the D.C. area, somewhere around HALF of the population live in places that are more or less OPPOSITE to where they work. Of these people, well over half chose where they live knowing this. So every day at rush hour, we have huge numbers of Maryland commuters driving to Virginia and Virginia commuters driving to D.C.! The majority of the commuters use the beltway, but there are still a significant number who actually choose to drive through D.C. to get to the other side which contributes to an already overloaded city traffic situation. This has lessened slightly in the past couple of years, but the decrease is mostly due to people who work in D.C. itself moving into D.C. to avoid the terrible commute. (Gentrification, an improved real estate market and several other factors come into play here as well, obviously, but that's another post.) A number of commuters do use the Metro system, but many opt not to use it for numerous reasons. Overcrowding is a big one, including lack of room to sit if you don't get on the train at one of the first stops. At peak times, it's not uncommon to have to wait for two or three trains to pass through before there is enough room to board. Another major factor is that it's virtually impossible to use the trains alone to get from one suburban location to another. Generally,people will drive to a train station early hoping that there are still a few overpriced parking spaces available. In Virginia, especially at the Vienna station and the next few down the line, commuters will arrive at the parking lot an hour or more before they have to board the train in order to be sure of getting a place to park. If there are no parking spaces...oh well! They either have to wait and pray for a spot (unlikely) or go ahead and drive to work. If they get on the train and the delays aren't too bad, they're in good shape until they get to the end of the line. Since the suburban stations are pretty much isolated from everything else, our commuter must now figure out how to get to work from the station. The bus is a possibility if, in fact, there is a bus line that runs close to the job. Or he can always catch a cab, which will run into money. He also must keep in mind that while there will probably be a cab available at the station, coming home at night may be a nightmare, especially if he lives in P.G.County in Maryland, where waits of over an hour are not uncommon if the cab shows up at all. Tallying up the cost, the time and the headaches, most commuters choose to drive even though the driving commute is the worst in the nation. (According to AAA, I believe, we beat Houston for first place this year.) Tarkus states above that the Metro is the most effective way of getting around. This is true IF you happen to be lucky enough to live and work near a Metro stop. But still, given all of the problems involved with commuting in the D.C area, people continue to live in places that are nowhere near where they work. There are myriad reasons given as to why they choose to live where they do and endure 90 minute to 3 hour commutes, but for whatever reason, it seems to be worth it to them. This combined with the further expansion of the D.C area suburbs (Fredericksburg is now considered a commuting suburb which is a 40 mile ride on I-95 alone just to get to the beltway) as well as workers coming into the D.C area from West Virginia, western Maryland, the eastern shore and southern Pennsylvania and the inadequate transportation system, planning and design add to the nightmare of traffic problems. (Sorry about the long post and any difficulty reading this. I'm using Opera which, unfortunately, doesn't allow for paragraphs) quote>

You have very valid points about DC because I was there for only a week and the traffic was horrible. However, I have noticed one key factor that so many people have left out. And that factor is tourism. It's not just the people in and around the DC area who use those subways, cabs, etc. , but it is also the tourist who come from all around the world to see the capital. It wouldn't surprise me if all of DC's traffic problems went away if there were not tourism there. Probably half of the people using the subways are tourist.

[DOXXP29 5]

Marc, using the "T-Word" around any D.C resident may cause the person to go postal and start annihilating everyone and everything in sight, so it's probably a sense of inbred self-preservation that I forgot to mention it! : ) You're absolutely right, though. Between the tour buses, the clueless out of town drivers and subway riders, the massive amount of pedestrians and the strange vehicles, like converted WWII amphibious vehicles converted into tour rides (I'm not making this up...they're called "Ducks" and there were around 30 or so at last count), going anywhere around the mall, especially during spring and summer, is a nightmare. Considering that the tourists start leaving the tourist traps around the same time rush hour starts is like throwing gasoline on a fire that's already burning out of control. D.C. spends massive amounts of money to get tourists to come to D.C. and doesn't care about anything other than the fact that they spend their out of state dollars when they're here. D.C gets it's money first from the federal government with tourism coming in a close second.

[ILL Tonkso 1,236]

Mass Transit can be VERY effective if it has the capacity, with 6 million people using Londons underground, railways, trams, elevated rail, waterbusses and busses every day, an average commute can be around 30 minutes. And this is in a city twice the area of New York for comparison. Its all about using whats available, the Waterbusses are a great example here, the Thames is there so why not use it? The Fast Waterboats also run seperate from the slower tourist boats to try and divide them, allthough regarding the Underground, tourists tend to slow things down on the escalators (they often dont know about the 'stand to the right' rule). Regarding the Elevated Rail (known as the Docklands Light Rail), few tourists seem to know of its existance considering its importance to the East London community, same as the Trams for South London. The standard rail network, which is FAR more expansive than the Underground is often forgotten by Tourists but EXTREMELY busy with Commuters, with something like 12 stations with over 16 platforms this is certainly reflected in the infastructure. Tourists often regard London as a planning nightmare because of its complex net of streets and roads, but ask any Londoner if they drive into Central London and they will probably say no. You cant walk down a road in London and not see a bus, you cant not fail to be near some form of rail station and the thames, its full of commuter ferries beavering up and down all day. London is a Mass Transit City, forget the figures on the London Underground because thats only a 3rd of the rail.

Basicly what im saying is, roads dont make a city.

[storms991 0]

anything wit a grid... if ny didnt have mass transit it would be at a complete standstill... .but.. it is always at a complete standstill... so if it didnt have mass transit.. you would in some way tear the universe with traffic and the world would be obliterated...

[poops2u 2]

Hey,

Do any of you have a pick of those 4-foot curbs? I'd like to see what you're all talking about, because I don't think there's something like that near me.

-P2U