Worst City Planning

[Tarkus 6,932]

@hamsterTK:  Good points, definitely.  I probably went a little overboard there.  I actually used to be in favor of New Urbanism amazingly (probably about 5-6 years ago), but various things I noticed about its application (should I say, misapplication) gradually began to unnerve me.  (I also thought the use of the term "smart planning" as a synonym for NU was a little egotistical . . .)  Yes, I do understand that some people prefer to live in cities and NU communities, and others (like myself) are fond of well-planned, low density small town suburbia.  (Well-planned, is of course, a very subjective term, as is "Worst City Planning".) 

The one thing that has always bothered me about the planning profession is that the planners, in many ways, at least around here, seem to do whatever they please.  I really do think that planners are really only doing a good job if they are at least seriously considering what the community around them wants. 

I have tended to bash Portland quite a bit in the past (probably just because I can use it as an example since I know it so well), but I still think there's definitely a lot of redeeming qualities to the area, and I think the Pearl District revival worked very well and fits with what the community wanted.  (And for the record, it is quite high in density.)

I don't, however, like the way in which Metro and other planning agencies "inflicted" their sick, twisted form of New Urbanism on the suburbs (particularly the westside).  And a lot of people are complaining about it, and the people who are moving into some of these new high-density developments are in a way, being forced into it in order to move into or stay in the area. 

And because of all these high-density residences selling/renting for such exorbitant prices, it's doubled the property values (and thus, the property taxes) of people living in existing lower density homes over the past 5 years.  (They're basically starting to forcing people who already lived in the region out or into higher density, albeit indirectly.)  As far as I can tell, it's not about "smart planning" in this case, but rather, cramming more residential tax base in.  I'll stop there . . . if I went any further it could get ugly . . .

-Tarkus

[EAST #87 1]

Seymour Indiana by far, with I-65, US 50, and US 31 all meeting together, US 50 is a 4 lane highway with 2 clauged railroad tracks crossing over it. Traffic on 50 is so congested, because its the only road straight through Seymour, meaning that all the other streets dont go straight through. Like SR 11, It splits in 3 spots, once on 5th street, Broadway, and 50, then it goes south.

[Socorocks 7]

As heated as I must admit I became when reading Tarkus' initial thoughts on NU and ULD, I concede some points to him... for instance, well-planned, well-connected (cul-de-sacs destroy cities), mixed-use, ped-friendly neighborhoods on the lower end of the density spectrum are more than possible if done well and done considering autos on at least an equal level of accessibility importance with people. 

     The one thing, though, that still greatly irks me about low-density is that its proponents expect to have the amenities of the city with the wide-open spaces of the country. It's like expecting to have the sunny, hot, beachy summers of Southern California and the icy, beautiful winters of the Northeast... it's simply unnatural and to try to bridge those things would be perverse and fake - exactly what most low-density, auto-oriented developments are throughout this country. As Americans we are used to having it all, all of the time. But I think more and more people are beginning to see that that is unsustainable and unrealistic.

[hamsterTK 93]

Like socoroks, I have to say I cant disagree with much of what your saying.

Now I stick with my belief that  higher density development in some form or another can be a step forward from low density

Sometimes though I think that some sorts of things have to happen on their own and be the will of the people, and that developers cant just shove something down people's throats and expect it to take off.Things can be encouraged, but not pushed.

I like cities that cater to everyone and I hate both local officials and whiney citizens who believe otherwise. I think building more transit where it is needed is a good idea as is building more roads, but I think these are only part of how a city can better itself. I think in the US especially there is nothing more important than keeping up public schools. I think a good school makes a good neighborhood in the minds of normal people with kids and if normal people will start moving back into an area thats had a tough time well thats one of the best things that can happen.

(cul-de-sacs destroy cities)quote>

couldnt agree more.

[dalmatianfan2020 1]

I want to nominate Oklahoma City! I hate it's transportation system. Everything is on a grid. Even the freeways are on a grid. It gets very boring, and no flexibility. Dallas' 'grid' is nice. The streets are gridded (I hope that's a word) but there is interest. In Uptown the streets are on a diagonal grid, along w/ eastern downtown. Then the Park Cities are on a strict grid. Then, from the Galleria northward the streets are on a rough grid. The skeleton of a grid is still there, but the streets curve etc. Next on my list are the freeways. Unlike most places, we do not build feeder roads, thus killing development. IH-35 for example is still rural, even downtown, despite being the main artery from downtown to Guthrie. IH-35 to Norman however, has feeder roads and is bustling with activity. Next, are the main arteries, 10th, 23rd, 36th, etc. They are so narrow, with no turning lanes or a median. I am just now starting to drive and I hate driving on them. I swear when I'm passing someone I am just a few inches away from them on either side. We are so close that the car shakes when we people pass us going the other direction. Also, traffic has to stop every few seconds to let someone turn. Then, even if we wanted to expand them, we can't. All of the right of ways have been maximized, even though the roads are only four lanes. Next, we don't have a transit system, and no space to add one. So, we're trapped driving our cars. I love Oklahoma.

[capitol1 1]

I think memphis's downtown is really off.Its right beside the river and theirs nothing on the other side of the river. Although the city doesnt have much of a dowtown its still pretty silly being that the downtown is pretty much at the edge of the city.

EDIT:Also i think Edmonton albertas traffic layout is really dumb, or their drivers are way to impatient. Last time i went threw edmonton it took an hour and a half. The problem with the city is that all the major highways that come through the city are way to far in to the city. So if your going threw you also have to deal with the local traffic. Which comes to the reason why it took me an hour and a half to get across 15 kilometres of road. First edmonton is a major trucking/transport city and theirs lots and lots of trucks going on these highways with these local vehicles. On the last visit their was 4 car accidents in the span of an hour and a half. All of which consisted of a semi truck and a local vehicle.What edmonton needs to do is build an entirely new highway going all the way around the city kind of like winnipeg did. Although i think their already doing this. On last visit though it seemed like that highway wasnt far enough uotside of the city to avoid an overload of local and passing through traffic.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: capitol1 I think memphis's downtown is really off.Its right beside the river and theirs nothing on the other side of the river. Although the city doesnt have much of a dowtown its still pretty silly being that the downtown is pretty much at the edge of the city.

EDIT:Also i think Edmonton albertas traffic layout is really dumb, or their drivers are way to impatient. Last time i went threw edmonton it took an hour and a half. The problem with the city is that all the major highways that come through the city are way to far in to the city. So if your going threw you also have to deal with the local traffic. Which comes to the reason why it took me an hour and a half to get across 15 kilometres of road. First edmonton is a major trucking/transport city and theirs lots and lots of trucks going on these highways with these local vehicles. On the last visit their was 4 car accidents in the span of an hour and a half. All of which consisted of a semi truck and a local vehicle.What edmonton needs to do is build an entirely new highway going all the way around the city kind of like winnipeg did. Although i think their already doing this. On last visit though it seemed like that highway wasnt far enough uotside of the city to avoid an overload of local and passing through traffic.quote>

Edmonton's in the process of doing that, with Anthony Henday. You can get from the Yellowhead to Calgary Trail in about 25 minutes now, if you hit the few lights that are there just right.

[admiral_kirk 0]

I welcome u all to lisbon Portugal

[Metropolii 0]

Originally posted by: dalmatianfan2020 I want to nominate Oklahoma City! I hate it's transportation system. Everything is on a grid. Even the freeways are on a grid. It gets very boring, and no flexibility. Dallas' 'grid' is nice. The streets are gridded (I hope that's a word) but there is interest. In Uptown the streets are on a diagonal grid, along w/ eastern downtown. Then the Park Cities are on a strict grid. Then, from the Galleria northward the streets are on a rough grid. The skeleton of a grid is still there, but the streets curve etc. Next on my list are the freeways. Unlike most places, we do not build feeder roads, thus killing development. IH-35 for example is still rural, even downtown, despite being the main artery from downtown to Guthrie. IH-35 to Norman however, has feeder roads and is bustling with activity. Next, are the main arteries, 10th, 23rd, 36th, etc. They are so narrow, with no turning lanes or a median. I am just now starting to drive and I hate driving on them. I swear when I'm passing someone I am just a few inches away from them on either side. We are so close that the car shakes when we people pass us going the other direction. Also, traffic has to stop every few seconds to let someone turn. Then, even if we wanted to expand them, we can't. All of the right of ways have been maximized, even though the roads are only four lanes. Next, we don't have a transit system, and no space to add one. So, we're trapped driving our cars. I love Oklahoma.quote>

Actually, we are building a light rail system. Wanna see the renderings for the stations that I'm privy to?

[FreewayofFlight 41]

I would like to nominate the town I live in, Myrtle Beach, SC. The city pretty much has only three ways in and out. U.S. 501 West, and U.S. 17 (North and South of the Beach). Traffic on U.S. 501 is a complete disaster especially during the summer when hoards of tourists fill in to the city if nearly 150,000 plus people in the 'metro area'. Myrtle Beach is very small compared to cities like Miami and Savannah, but the real problem is 501, especially in the event of a hurricane evacuation. Relief to Myrtle Beach is slow and coming, S.C. 22 and 31 have helped divert some traffic off of 501 and 17 and the proposed Interstate 73 would considerably lessen the traffic on the higway. Also, the condos and reseort hotels up and down the beach promote traffic on the two-laned Ocean Blvd. and Business 17 and blocks the view of the beach from two blocks away.

[DFire870 2]

Austin, Texas, is horrible when it comes to how they designed the freeways, which to be blunt is not at all. Everything else about the city and surrounding area I love, but the freeway system is (rather, used to be) non-existent. Until this past November, the only freeway that went completely through the Austin area was I-35. There are other freeways, but before November the freeways would end as avenues in the worst spots. Take MoPac for example. It lies on the west side of Austin, and the proper name is Loop 1. However, it isn't even a loop! The southern part of the freeway ends as an avenue, and the northern part used to end in the same way. When November came, an extension to Loop 1 to connect it with SH 45 was opened, as well as 130. Slowly but surely, the freeway system is starting to look like one you would find in a large city.

Part of the problem with the system is that the city developers/planners did not plan ahead, and during the dot-com boom of the 90's, Austin and its suburbs grew.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

Low density does not really help traffic if you still have the same total amount of people.  Being farther away from your destination means you're going to be on the road for a longer amount of time.  One way of reducing traffic is to make the trips shorter. 

Also, cities can be relatively dense while still having single family homes and open backyards.  If space is well managed, it can easily happen.

Off the top of my head, front yards can be smaller.  This makes the street feel more intimate, and this space is generally considered to be public anyway.  This leaves more room for a bigger backyard.

Mass transit can reduce the need of parking spaces, and that space can be added to backyards as well.  Also, if it's good enough, the house's parking can just be in front of the house on the street, leaving more space for backyards.

Stores can have a floor or two of apartments on top, which increases the density while preserving the openness of the house areas.  It also helps to make the commercial area more bustling, which people generally like.

Then if you look at a new suburb, there's just a lot of empty space, huge road medians, large landscaped areas, etc.  A lot of them don't serve any purpose to humans.  If the medians were made smaller, and the general extra space was removed and added to back yards or to community parks, then things would be denser, but there would still be open space, but the open space would be well used.  It would be a more effective use of space.

[paperboy15 4]

Originally posted by: Tarkus

I don't, however, like the way in which Metro and other planning agencies "inflicted" their sick, twisted form of New Urbanism on the suburbs (particularly the westside).  And a lot of people are complaining about it, and the people who are moving into some of these new high-density developments are in a way, being forced into it in order to move into or stay in the area.  

-Tarkusquote>

 

Well...that's where I live. My only complaint is the complex I live in is a joke when it comes to parking. Sad because it is brand new...oh well...

[nofunk 1,933]

Originally posted by: Jasoncw Low density does not really help traffic if you still have the same total amount of people.  Being farther away from your destination means you're going to be on the road for a longer amount of time.  One way of reducing traffic is to make the trips shorter. 

Also, cities can be relatively dense while still having single family homes and open backyards.  If space is well managed, it can easily happen.

Off the top of my head, front yards can be smaller.  This makes the street feel more intimate, and this space is generally considered to be public anyway.  This leaves more room for a bigger backyard.

Mass transit can reduce the need of parking spaces, and that space can be added to backyards as well.  Also, if it's good enough, the house's parking can just be in front of the house on the street, leaving more space for backyards.

Stores can have a floor or two of apartments on top, which increases the density while preserving the openness of the house areas.  It also helps to make the commercial area more bustling, which people generally like.

Then if you look at a new suburb, there's just a lot of empty space, huge road medians, large landscaped areas, etc.  A lot of them don't serve any purpose to humans.  If the medians were made smaller, and the general extra space was removed and added to back yards or to community parks, then things would be denser, but there would still be open space, but the open space would be well used.  It would be a more effective use of space.quote>

 

New Urbanism!!

[Catcher_of_Cats 0]

Is this a thread based on poor urban design done by the planning department or shoddy work done by transportation engineers? In most cities these are two separate departments which normally fight amongst themselves on what goes where and who's view is the correct one. If you start to include decisions forced by other jurisdictions that have a finger in the pie then you can find yourself in a tough spot and in a situation where the "planning department" has lost control over development. The cities, mostly in North America, have to continually deal with this.

[Shingure 56]

The bets nominee by far. Philadelphia Pennslyvannia. Philadelphia has 5 reasons.

1. The bridges leading into downtown are 2 lanes. In a city of 1 million and more you have to have at the least 4 lanes on a bridge.

2. The streets in Old City and Society hill. In some places the streets are about 2 feet in width if youer lucky. I found a street that was more of an alley. Which leads me to number three.

3. The road system. The main roads are outside of the city or run around the outside. That doesnt do any good. I have found that many of the roads are also one way streets . And Market Street. The main artery of Downtown happens to be at one point a 2 way street. And at each street the street becomes a one way road. I find that strange.

4. The way how Urbanization affected the city. The city is declining in population but the hosuing is the pits. House after house after house after house built into each other. What even makes it worse is that it looks like the first apartment buildings you get in Simcity on the chicago tileset. Yuk!.

5 The vague and un reliable transit system. There is only 2 metro routes in the city. The rest are trolley and buses. The busescan take 30 minutes to an hour and a half to show up.

[IDS2 3,346]

Mitchell South Dakota. 'Nuff said.

[cammo2003 20]

Originally posted by: Wilfried Webber Suburbs can be pretty annoying.

I'm currently living in an older type of European suburb (in Szczecin, Poland) which was begun around 90 years ago and mostly extended in the 1930s (the city was German until 1945) and then later from the 1970s on again until now.

The suburb is situated in the south-west of the city and surrounded by avenues (dual carriageways) on the east and north. This should be enough, actually.

It has a rather classic street network structure (mostly like a grid, though not exactly, I call this therefore "semi-gridded") and a rather low population density.

Most houses are single-family homes, with some being two-family or row houses. However, a small part of it is medium-density with six-storey housing blocks.

There is also a light industrial (actually, I wouldn't even call it industrial - it's rather dirty commercial services ) area on the inside of the suburb (!) and a huge shopping mall on the other side of the northern avenue (This is, however, NOT the reason for the traffic problems I'm going to describe!).

We've got some small shop or office here and there in almost every street. This might be uncommon in the US and many other suburbs in the world but in Poland there is almost no suburb where you couldn't walk for shopping (So being forced to drive to a mall in order to buy the most basic things is also NOT the reason for traffic problems, as this problem doesn't really exist over here.).

And nevertheless, you get stuck in traffic when trying to leave this suburb during the morning rush hour because any connection to the outside (i.e.the surrounding avenues) has a far to low capacity. One lane is just not enough.

Oh yes... You might think there's no mass transit... Of course, there is! There are four bus lines and one tram line, and they're pretty busy, too!

THE REAL POINT IS that there's exactly ONE intersection which everyone, both drivers and mass transit users, have to get through. There is no way round this intersection. They are now converting it to a roundabout which will surely make things better. However, the actual problem [of being forced to get through it] will remain untouched.

Now, THAT'S what I call a bad planning. They had so much time to find a solution to this problem, or to build an additional road so there would be at least a second way out of the suburb. They didn't.

The missing road becomes even more obvious if you know that once you got out of the suburb, there is almost no congestion. I almost never have to wait long at stoplights or roundabouts on my 6.9 km (4.3 miles) long way downtown...quote>

Sydney's bad.

Very bad. The rail system is in shambles, the road network is hopeless.

American style city + European style road network + inadequate PT for european network = horror of all horrors.

The Cross City Tunnel (and associated road changes) didn't help things, in fact, they turned Sydney's CBD into a gridlocked place.

Oh, did I mention the confusing start and sudden stop of bus lanes, the confusing 12-lane motorway with centre exits and an insane number of one way roads?

Oh, well I did now.

It's not as bad as NY, but it's shocking given that we have just 4.4 million people living here!

Now, the worst planning disaster in Australia would be the Gold Coast. No freeways within the city (the only one BYPASSES it, and it's home to HALF A MILLION PEOPLE), bugger all Public Transport, and most of the development's in a narrow strip. Traffic there is almost as bad as it is here... and we have 4 million more people!!!

[olguatci 0]

Check these out ladies and gentlemen !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GEBZE/KOCAEL?

Simcity should have these kind of residental blocks

God helps people who lives in these boxes of concretes

[Micah 16]

Originally posted by: olguatci Check these out ladies and gentlemen !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GEBZE/KOCAEL?

Simcity should have these kind of residental blocks

God helps people who lives in these boxes of concretes

quote>

 

I'm not sure if that town was ever meant to be planned. What country is this from? I'm guessing somewhere in South America or...?

[kalyanakrishna 0]

Well, Not sure if anyone voted for Bangalore. I think Bangalore can top everything else, especially with the amount of money they make and bake (also known as bribe).

[DFire870 2]

Originally posted by: DFire870 Austin, Texas, is horrible when it comes to how they designed the freeways, which to be blunt is not at all. Everything else about the city and surrounding area I love, but the freeway system is (rather, used to be) non-existent. Until this past November, the only freeway that went completely through the Austin area was I-35. There are other freeways, but before November the freeways would end as avenues in the worst spots. Take MoPac for example. It lies on the west side of Austin, and the proper name is Loop 1. However, it isn't even a loop! The southern part of the freeway ends as an avenue, and the northern part used to end in the same way. When November came, an extension to Loop 1 to connect it with SH 45 was opened, as well as 130. Slowly but surely, the freeway system is starting to look like one you would find in a large city.

Part of the problem with the system is that the city developers/planners did not plan ahead, and during the dot-com boom of the 90's, Austin and its suburbs grew.quote>

Since posting this message, I have found out that the city planners in Austin in the 80's DID have good city planning. It's evident by this map. As you can see, there was a great freeway system in the planning stages, with 2 loops. Clearly the planners knew Austin was going to grow. But in the early 90's the city council was taken over by environmentalists, and most of the freeways were canceled in 1994. Funny thing is, a few years later Austin grew exponentially because of the high-tech industry, and it's still growing. A few of those planned freeways are now being constructed, but it's taking longer because the city has sprawled.

[jrock 2]

I remember when mopac was just finished. It was a pleasant drive in the country. The development to the west of the loop was trying to stay "out of the loop". Now its just a west side highway- the outer loop is going to be built I heard recently.

[DFire870 2]

Yeah, the eastern portion of the outer loop is being built right now, but it's in a different configuration. It's farther east from the urban areas, and is comprised of SH 130 and SH 45. Most of those will be tollways.

In fact, MoPac actually connects to I-35 now by way of SH 45. Oh, and 183 south of I-35 is being converted into a freeway now.

[Odainsaker 2,134]

Austin has had a funky history with TxDOT, with no better example than the outmoded stretch of I-35 that passes through the downtown area.  Constructed in the 1960s with both an upper deck and below ground trench, this highway's design does not accomodate today's vehicles and traffic levels (those who have navigated down the narrowing curving entrances with all its blind-spots into the high-speed lower trench know this).  It really is one of the most congested and dangerous stretches of road in Texas.  At one point, the city council asked TxDOT to present in model form all its collective plans for that stretch of downtown highway, comprehensively showing all the current and projected projects the highway agency wanted to pursue.  No single, overall guiding plan had been compliled like this, and this was going to be TxDOT's baby, their collected single vision.  What was rolled in into the chambers was a monstrosity:  yet another deck deck above the current one, with giant flyover ramps to reach it.  These flyover ramps would accessed from Congress Avenue, extend from Congress Avenue to rise to the new third upper deck following the east-west street grid, and then turn midair above the highway to connect to down the I-35 upper deck's north-sorth lanes.  That half of the downtown core would need to be demolished to make way for all these flyoever ramps was not seen as a problem, nor were the highway planners pahsed by the appearance of megastructure so out of scale with the city, that it looked like a dozen interchanges laid end to end for a stretch of 10 miles.  This was scheme was dismissed by the city council.  I wish I still had the photos of the model to show, for the width of this mega highway with all its tentacle onramps was as large as the downtown central business district.

The irony is the current plan is to remove I-35's upper deck, make all through traffic stay in the trench, and restore the original grid.  I-35 has been an urbanist disaster for central Austin, its function being to move traffic through rather than to downtown, all at the expense of destroying the city grid and cutting off East Austin from the city proper.  While the downtown areas maintains its dynamism on the westside of I-35's concrete wall, the eastside has been both physically and metaphoriaclly cutoff from the dynamism of the CBD and crashed into inner city poverty.  Amusingly, when the city was first laid out, it was Congress Avenue with its bridge that was planned as the primary link south between the new political capital Austin and the historic center San Antonio, making a grand avenue leading from the historic cultural capital 110 miles south all the way to the steps of the grand Capitol building.  I-35 has bypassed that vision.  Austin's South Congress Avenue is lined by porn and prostitution shops (a great duality with the politcians up the road), while Old Austin Highway in San Antonio is forgetten and underused.  Today, the plan now is for a new corridor further east to completely bypass I-35, so that the heavy freight truck traffic passing from Mexico heading north to the U.S. midwest can be routed out of the congested cities.  Maybe we'll be lucky and the commuter rail link between Austin and San Antonio will finally go forward, but at a projected $600 million+ for a single line to stretch the 110+ miles, I doubt it.  Austin's light rail is underway, but San Antonio's politics and poor economy has likely locked it out of the expensive light rail option for the next decade or so.  On a side note, Austin is one of the few cities that actually plans to narrow its downtown grid streets, having accepted the recognized relationship between mitigated vehicular traffic and increased pedestrian life as paramount in its downtown vitality (downtown developers now insist on this for the successfulness of their projects).

But what can we say of the rest of Austin's highway plans?  It is a growing city, such that occupancy rates for homes and downtown apartments were at 99%, making a skyrocketing housing market with waiting lists for suburban home sales, while in around downtown the university campus, the apartment rates and room shortages are ridiculous.  However, the suburban growth is ultimately going to undermine the city, leading it to the trap of suburban congestion that has consumed most other sunbelt cities.  Little San Antonio has 3 loop rings of traffic, at one time one of the most extensive early classic systems in the nation, and even one of the nation's first and premier "smart highway" electronic highway management and control systems, and yet the roads are still awful.  Houston is worse, and I never need to the see the Transco Tower again, for I stared at it for hours while caught in standstill highway jams at rush hour.  I am no longer convinced there is such a thing as good highway and suburban planning, for it is all based on a fallacy.

Consider what Tarkus wrote above:

And yes, low-density suburbia may cause traffic problems and pollution.  But that's only if the roads are poorly laid out.  Theoretically, if you have less people living in an area, you should have less traffic and less pollution.quote>

The fallacy comes because we do not have less people, but instead we have dispersed them over a broader area.  Those people will still have to make a similar number of commuter trips, only now with the destinations also more dispersed, and without other options the trips must be by car, cover longer distances and cover a longer stretch of road.  What Tarkus's theory leaves out is that if we continue to look at the same small area with less people, there are indeed less trips made by the fewer people within the area, but now there are more trips made by people outside the focus area who are merely moving through or around that area, or perhaps even to destinations into and out of that area.  People are more likely to be physically on the road, increasing the traffic.  Highway and suburban planning tries to mitigate all this by channelling it together into point-to-point arterials and loops, but that just makes takes all the traffic and concentrates it back into congestion and gridlock.  You cannot plan around this, for the very dispersion that is the basis of suburbia creates the problem, making it self-defeating, and in the long-run of higher gas prices and consumed resources (forget oil, think water and the gold rush to grab water rights), ultimately unsustainable.  Yes, we have dispersed everything to try to reduce gridlock, and then due to the traffic create by the disperson, we have rechannelled it all back into congestion.  Absurd and doomed to failure, and infrastructurally more expansive and wasteful than traditional urban planning.  Don't forget pollution...it is still the same amount, if not more, but now dispersed over and dispoiling a far broader area.

Austin, as a still very small but growing city, would do best to avoid this route.  Afterall, the city has never been known or admired for it suburbs or its highways, but for its still vital central city life and urban outlook, its pristine Hill Country landscape, and Barton Springs.  In central Austin, I can walk or use the bus to get most anything I quickly need, while in suburban San Antonio out along northwest Loop 1604, you must have a car and you must drive, so much so that we don't even bother making sidewalks along many routes.  A haircut shouldn't require a half-hour individual car trip.  So, what is the worst city planning?  For its self-defeating irony, I nominate the stereotypical American highway suburb.

Opps, soapbox speech, sorry.

[skyliner22 16]

This is the Bay Bridge Toll Booth!

East Shore Freeway, approach to the Bay Bridge Toll Plaza

Toll Booth

Downtown SF

19th Ave, toward Golden Gate Bridge

This is the setup of Downtown SF. It is rather bad planning. You got one way streets crossing Market Street which is congested with cars, busses, trolleys, and people. And the SOMA streets like 3rd, 4th, 1st, 2nd are so congested at evening rush hour.  At Essex street, cars crawl to enter the bay  bridge by one  lane on ramp. 

Van Ness and 19th Ave, are also really congested as they are highways 101, and 1 respectively.

The Bay Bridge Toll Plaza going into San Francisco is the worst congested area as you can see in the top pictures. Especially now with the new FasTrak lanes (automated devices that deduct from your credit card so you dont have to pay the toll) and the people without them drive down the FasTrak lanes and then try to merge to the regular paying booth. Traffic in the Bay Area is pretty bad lately. Soon might pass up LA!

[Frankie_Grove 33]

G

Originally posted by: skyliner22

quote>

 

[HuskerDude 12]

You'd have a be pretty in love with your car to drive in San Francisco. The PT there is extensive and affordable (monthly metro pass is still only $40, as I recall) and the city itself is small enough that biking and walking are entirely workable alternatives. When I lived there, I think the only time I used my car was to pick stuff up from Ikea to furnish my apartment.

[skyliner22 16]

Well to the people who stay in the city yes but, most of the commuters are from way far out regions way past BART limits, even as far as Davis so this is why there are so many cars. Its not really city dwellers but those living in the suburbs using a prime main line, the Bay Bridge; into the city

[Socorocks 7]

Davis? Wow, that's a drive.

Don't BART stations have garages that commuters from further out can leave there cars there and get on the train the rest of the way into the city?