Worst City Planning

[screamingman12 30]

Socorocks you'd be supprized how fast a typical 4,000 or 5,000 space (I'm being very generous here) parking garage fills up. Believe me, I have ridden the BART and the DC metro (parking slightly better). They both have large commuter parking lots/garages, but they can get packed in short amounts of time.

[Socorocks 7]

I'm sure I would be surprised. Considering that mass transit in the Greater LA Area is miserable. I'm really a transit virgin. And the only times I've ever used public transit, the number of which I can count on both hands, have been so that I simply walked from hotels to transit stops.

[HuskerDude 12]

There's also CalTrain (from the south) and Amtrak Capitol Corridor for folks up towards (and beyond) Sacramento. You have to get on BART in Richmond if you do CC, but there are a ton of trains at the Richmond station, especially during commute. If you do drive, FastTrak is an absolute necessity. Plus is saves you a buck on tolls.

[ForceInfinity 0]

Originally posted by: willvette Northern Nevada Spaghetti Bowl, Reno intersection of US-395 and I-80quote>

 

I agree about the Spaghetti bowl, but it goes a little bit beyond that in my opinion.  The Glendale/Mill ramp complex just south of the bowl causes problems in both directions.  The southbound side because there's barely 100 yards for Glendale to merge and Mill to get off.  Northbound side becuase you got I-80 East traffic fighting with Glendale merge traffic for the same space.  

Then you get a major slow down a bit further north becuase of the sharp uphill slope leading into the northern valleys.

Lets not get into the fact that Pyramid Highway is a major cluster considering it has nowhere near the capacity to handle the Spanish Springs traffice, etc.  The whole Reno Sparks area needs help IMO.

[ForceInfinity 0]

While everyone is on the subject of San Francisco and surburban sprawl, I'll start by saying I don't completely understand what went into planning that city's transportation system. About the only thing they did a really good job of was with the mass transit, but god help you if you wanted to go from San Jose to Santa Rosa. The crazy thing is their freeway system as never in my life have I've seen so many stub freeways (Highway 1, Central Freeway, I-280 deadending just short of I-80 near the bay bridge, etc).

Second point, lets tone down the rhetoric and back off on the low density sprawl a bit. The reason you have low density sprawl has nothing to do with someone breaking the attachment to the car and more to do with the simple fact that people do *not* want to live in the big city. Given the quality of schools in the core city, crime, etc vs the suburbs, people just don't want to raise their families in the core city. I've been told that my mother couldn't find a decent school in Dayton Ohio once and ended up moving to a suburb called Huber Heights where they had decent schools. Now that I'm older, I can tell you that I'd have no desire to live in any downtown area.

[SaltandVinegar 1]

Boston, Massachusetts. Many of their roads are based on cow trails. They didn't plan ahead on the highway and were forced to spend billions on the big dig, burying their freeway underground. Traffic used to stop for ever on the freeway, until the big dig.

[SaltandVinegar 1]

 

Originally posted by: Duke87

Are you kidding? Highways in a city is NOT a good thing and a gridded pattern is the best. I've noticed  a lot of people on this forum claiming that grids are bad and highways going through a city are good. Have you folks never read any urban geography literature?? As a geographer it's pretty disturbing that people interested in urban development theory are so misinformed.quote>

Grids are easy. In Utah, we pretty much invented the grid system. Don't need a map at all. Just need a coordinates (the roads) and you know where to go. Freeways need to be placed off to the side of the city or you get problems like what happened to Boston, which is costing them alot of money.

[Deathamphetimine 2]

You're right. Everybody wants there own land and a house to go on it. With that, you get sub-urbia. Central Florida is no stranger to hap-hazard planning and a severe lack of forethought. Spotty development accompanied with no public support for mass transit OR new highways has created a planning nightmare. Three major urban centers with no commuter rail, patchy bus service, and only one continuous East-West interstate create a traffic mess. And don't forget about the Million or so tourists. Houston takes the cake on lack of planning, but the I-4 corridor is only getting worse.

[bartonn 0]

In a sense of planning, Alberta's kinda a mess. The city I live in was only expected to be 72 000 this year, but instead is 79 000. Poor mass transit and other transit infrastructure was neglected over the years. Calgary's terrible with road construction. This one road swerves of in another direction only to connect to the main road again on a bridge. What's the point of that? Plus the density in some areas is attrocious. Ever see a 20 story office tower in the middle of nowhere?

[josefmayor 8]

In Hillsborough County (Tampa, FL) the non city areas are probably the worst planned areas. If you look at google Earth along Dale Mabry HWY north of Bearss Ave/Ehrlich Rd. There are almost no roads that connect to the Interstate, US 41 or anywhere towards the East.

Which means if you live in the North West you have to travel quite south before you reach a east/west road to get to the interstate or to US 41.

[MayorCain 2]

I think my home town of Crawley has a few traffic problems too.

For one thing, the pop. is about 120,000, which is a large town by British standards.

Thing is, Crawley was built after the 2nd World War to house alot of London refugees after the blitz, and with that in mind, there isnt a whole lot of space to park your car outside your house in the older areas, as cars were a luxury in those days.

Another thing is that Crawley has about 10ish main roads (4 lane roads, or 2 in each direction).

Crawley has 12 districts, so thats pretty much 1 main road for one district.

Taking maths into account, and averages, each district has 10,000 people. One main road per district. Thats alot of cars.

Im guessing 3,000 cars per district travel through each main road for both rush hours (7-9am, and 15-18 pm).

Another thing is: Crawley is trying to integrate mass transit now, because of the go green stance of our governement.

So, they take a lane off a few of these main roads so that they are bus lanes. No one uses the buses because they are ridiculously expensive.

So, you have 3,000 cars for one lane, on 5 of the main roads. Not to mention the fact that everyone either works at the airport, or in the town centre (which is very Cramped as most new towns are).

[HuskerDude 12]

Originally posted by: ForceInfinity While everyone is on the subject of San Francisco and surburban sprawl, I'll start by saying I don't completely understand what went into planning that city's transportation system. About the only thing they did a really good job of was with the mass transit, but god help you if you wanted to go from San Jose to Santa Rosa. The crazy thing is their freeway system as never in my life have I've seen so many stub freeways (Highway 1, Central Freeway, I-280 deadending just short of I-80 near the bay bridge, etc). quote>

The thing is, San Francisco has an unfortunate habit of losing elevated freeways to earthquakes.  Well, some people would call it unfortunate, I'm not one of them.    We've knocked down the 101 and Embarcadero elevated freeways after they were damaged in quakes rather than spending a lot of money to retrofit them, and I feel the city is better off for it.  They're reworking the eastbound Bay Bridge approach (as I'm sure anyone who has been here lately has noticed) so it should get a lot easier soon.  As far as the 280 goes, I think it was set up that way intentionally, to allow people to leave the city to the south without getting caught up in the 101 mess downtown.  Now that SOMA is such an important area, and still growing, it's gotta be nice for folks who are driving down the peninsula. 

Aside from that, I don't know that much "planning" went into the city's transportation infrastructure.  At least as far as cars go.  It's a pre-car city, a lot of it was laid out in the 1800s.  Between that and the fact that the people of San Francisco voted repeatedly to keep freeways out of the city proper as much as possible (hence the hwy 1/19th ave issue), the layout etc... starts to make a lot more sense.  Before the 50s, the Muni (back when it really was the "Municipal Railroad") was far more extensive, ran all over the city, but that was unfortunately phased out to make more room for ugly stinky cars.

The other major factor in the city's transit planning is, as always in the US, money.  There should absolutely be a MUNI metro line out to the Richmond, and one down through the Mission and Potrero, and the subway should already run up through Chinatown, but the money just isn't (and hasn't been) there.  For too long, transportation funding in this country went almost exclusively to cars and freeways, which is why our mass-transit infrastructure is so woefully inadequate now that people are figuring out that every individual commuter in their own little smog box isn't really a viable option.

But anyway, off the soapbox.  Just a little info on San Francisco transit.  I'm looking forward to the E line opening along the Embarcadero, the heritage and PCC cars are just too cool.

[tabanam 0]

My home town of Kapolei on Oahu, is probably the worst planned city ever. Home to about I'd say over 150,000 people probably more if you count the 'region'. About 20 years ago it was planned to be the 'Second City' with lots of jobs and to relocate gov't services in order to relieve pressure in Honolulu, but that hasn't happened, only suburban sprawl as far as the eye can see , a few mid-rise office buildings, and the rest strip malls and people still have to commute to downtown because of the non-existent jobs which congests the already congested H-1 freeway even more. The main thoroughfare through Kapolei is regularly congested and it gets much much worse during rush hour. Hopefully if the LRT gets built it'll relieve some congestion. I know more people = more traffic, but its ridiculous when traffic is backed up into mall parking lots.

OF course there is going to be another Wal-Mart, Target, another Costco, other big-box retailers, another mega-mall 'ala' Ala Moana not to mention more 'master-planned' communities cutting into the hillside putting more pressure on Hawaii's limited resources. So I'd say in about 7-10 years maybe less it'll be one big over-developed mess.

heh but at least the sun shines all year long and the trees are green.

/rant over

[Odainsaker 2,134]

Hehe, gosh, I still miss visiting Pearlridge in Oahu's Aiea every week. I know I know, another mega-mall, second in size in the state only to Ala Moana, which itself was the nation's largest mall when it opened. But c'mon, Pearlridge has the monorail! Forget the hulking Gallerias in Houston or Dallas, they don't have anything that can compare to the coolness of a mall whose separate halves are connected by an overhead monorail, nor did they have Daiei (Japanese grocery stores are just so different from those in the States). I'll never get the '80s jingle out of my head..."Pearlridge is shopping like it should be..." Gosh, I've so lost da kine local accent.

Of course, it is a tragedy that all of the old fields of sugarcane and pineapples that I remember are now suburbs. The Singapore-ization of the small island continues.

After living in the paradise of Oahu, Texas just doesn't cut it...never seen so much globules of oil and tar in the surf as here along the Gulf Coast, let alone the horrors of hot and cold seasonal weather magnified by either humidity or drought! Fortunately, Hawaii decades ago was the earliest state to incorporate environmental protection into its urban and regional planning guidelines, although growth pressures will always be there and change is inevitable. Don't let the economy fool you...Hawaii truly is paradise, and there is a reason we poke fun at the Mainland!

[Matthew0227 1]

   Quebec city in Canada is bad. Every rush hour it is clogged like hell.

[spacenuteskimo 0]

     I have to agree with a few points here...

     Edmonton's road network wasn't well planned at all.  Downtown, and some of the surrounding neighbourhoods is planned alright, but it gets worse the further out you go...  Highway 2 coming from the south is always a nightmare.  The road turns from Highway 2 to Gateway Boulevard, and it narrows the closer you get to downtown.  Then you have to take a turn left (or right if you can't make it) and somehow get on to Groat Road which turns into St. Albert Trail, which turns into Mark Messier Trail, which turns into St. Albert Road and then back into Highway 2 northwest of the city.  Look it up on Google Earth and you'll see what I mean...

     As well in Edmonton, the intersection at Calgary Trail and 23rd Avenue needs an overhaul.  It NEVER has no traffic and if you get thorugh in less than five minutes, you're really lucky!  I'm probably not complaining about much, but in a city of only 700,000...

     Calgary's system is a bit better.  The Deerfoot Trail, although always kind of crowded, doesn't really have any major stops.  But, 16th Ave can be a nightmare (especially by Peter's Drive In, where the lineup can stretch for blocks) and often it's much faster to take the sidestreets.

     Matthew

[dumb chimp 0]

who are we to judge what city was built poorly I undestand if you were 30 or 40 and had reasonable complaints such as being late for an interview I bet most of us could do a better job (just because we play some game dosn't make us proffesionals) anyways so I just don't know but if I had to complain I would go with LA.

this response was not ment to make anyone angry I just wanted to get this side exposed

[phunkachunka 0]

My home town is pretty poor. Sydney Australia

If ever a city has been thrown up without much planning it's Sydney.

Mass transit is a shambles, buses and train systems are crappy.

Highways/Motorways/Freeways aren't adequate at all.

One of the best designed cities IMHO is Canberra.

[montrouge 2]

When I see this.

No doubt, the planning of Paris is not so good

[Matthew0227 1]

Paris is quite well planed for a city, but you know for a city with a metro area of nearly 14m I gest traffic there must be traffic

[rollenkingston 0]

Apparently, I've never been but I heard that Detroit is just really badly planned. Apparently, again, this isn't any first hand experience, the core of the city is just one big slum.

[The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz 27]

Cumbernauld, Scotland is built like a nuclear bunker. It was built in the 60's a lot of the town centre is in the concrete brutalist style, the main shopping precinct is built on multiple levels of concrete walkways supported by unstable looking spindly supports. Apparently, universities in the area take town planning students to the town to see "How not to town plan".

[Shingure 56]

Well Paris is one of those cities that has been around since the Romans. And when they redeveloped it . In the downtown area in like the 1800's Im guessing that cars werent in mind. But Paris in terms of having low rise buildings...That's poorly planned....They have a reason thought to negate that

1) Underground is like swiss cheese. Build something too heavy or too tall and the ground would collapse inwards.

2) Eiffel Tower is too precious to be shown up by some big bulky skyscaper.

There is one thing I cant understand.

If downtown Paris has so many tunnels ( As in the old passage ways ) Then how did they build the subway???

[montrouge 2]

Unlike the apparence those high-rises buildings (exept the brown) are not for the lower class and are located in inner Paris

A closer view

[MPTC 0]

St. Paul Minnesota by far

[Socorocks 7]

Pictures don't tell us much as to why you feel a city is poorly planned - and that goes for this entire thread. Every place has a special circumstance that is the reason why things are the way they are, so when you post pictures of traffic and say that that means a place is poorly planned, you really haven't made an argument at all. Big cities are crowded. That's how they are. For traffic to be a breeze all of the time in a big city you'd have to demolish most of the city to accomodate that. Just because traffic is unpleasant doesn't mean that a place is unpleasant to live in. Imagine the streets of New York or Paris or Chicago or London or Tokyo, empty. They'd make for great driving, but what kind of large city could call itself important when its streets are devoid of life?

[crazyyaya 4]

you can see why older cities like paris or other european countries could have bad city planning, the cities are hundreds of years old, established before the times of automobiles and other modern transportations, eurpoean countries have had to change radically over the last century and you can't expect every street to be well planned.

[dtrcity 0]

I nominate Rotherham, nr Sheffield. All paved off and they wonder why the best shops there is woolworths :roll:

[RobledoRessainance 36]

I doubt that cities in the US could be as badly planned as other really chaotic cities in the world like Manila, Bangkok, Lima, Mumbai, Mexico, Lagos, etc etc. The government would rather do something to improve sewage system, electricty and squatter settlements than designing a good transit system.

Look:

Lagos, Nigeria

Dhaka, Bangladesh

El Alto-La Paz, Bolivia

[pgwrules 0]

Belive it or Not I say the city of New York

Hear me out

I live in North Westchester and i absolutly LOVE New York City, filled with life, al ways moving.

but once you leave the bright lights and the dense urbanisim that is Manhattan, IT SUCKS. Robert Moses should never have been hired to redo the city. Thanks to him, there are two extremly ugly elevated highways that extend down the east and west sides of it. Also thanks to him, we have hundreds of rotten old apartments scatted around the city, and had development of the inner city stalled to a halt since the late 70's and the oil crush. Had he not been stopped in his tracks by the citizens of New York, he just might have gotten his way with the MME ( mid-manhattan expressway) and the LME (lower Manhattan expressway) and cut the city in three seperate parts like so many other American cities.

Then you get outside the city, and theres nothing but highways, suburbs, macdonalds, factories, warehouses, and mcMansions. The best alternative to that is Metro north except that all the parking lots for them are not only monitored but a parking permit costs up to 800 dollars a month. So basically, New Yorks impoverished have no place to live on the streets

and people wonder why New York has so many gangsters, prostitutes, and homless