Worst City Planning

[Hamish 1,370]

If you look at any city from new zealand, no planing for the future, eg. Mass transport. Went into them. And now we need it more than ever.

[un1 41]

I think all towns that are from the past not present are NOT well designed in there downtown districts. When two cities merge it makes a worst problems!!! Take two cities that have 50,000 (Port Arthur, Fort William) and merge them together (Thunder Bay). You get one street that goes across town that is named Algoma St. than Memorial Ave. then May St. and then Syndicate St.. Talk about confusing and Memorial Ave. connects the two towns and it has rush hour problems. There are even plans to take Memorial Ave and Fort William Rd. (Water St. also Simpson St. and Cumberland Rd. don't forget Hodder Ave., Copenhagen Rd....) and turning them into large 4 lanes (5 on Memorial) one way roads it would work alot but until then I think of dividing Memorial Ave. to a freeway!

[yellowguy88 1]

Sorry guys but the worst planned city has to be Dublin, Ireland, in the 50's they thought trains and public transport were on the way out and ripped up most of the railway lines around the city, there is no subway and there is one motorway the M50 that circles the city, built around 25years ago but they built IT way too small (getting the nickname "the biggest parking lot in europe") then in 2006 they made a plan to widen the M50 but its still going to be too small by the time they finish the upgrade they'll have to start all over again, The only public transport in most area's is the bus and if ur lucky the DART(Train line the runs from the bottom of the city to the top) or LUAS (two tram lines that service a small part of the city) Dublin is the LA of europe a 'car' city with huge suburban growth, dublin's size is almost the same as LA but with a third of the population, the EU has told the Irish government they need to bring the urban sprawl under control but the Irish government have taken no step yet to do this.. but sadly unlike LA the didn't make the roads big enough.

[yellowguy88 1]

Oh watch this video taken in from early morning on a major junction

[hamsterTK 93]

honestly all cities have their problems and there is a difference between bad planning and no planning, the latter being a more common source for problems that directly relate to a city's built enviroment.

realistically I think LA is the worst in the US because suburban thinking doesn't really work for a megacity of 13 million.

As southern california is built out density must increase, and the market is there for dense development, but both the transport infrastructure and mindless local politicians will not allow it to happen easily and in the future I think it will look like sao paulo...that is a total clusterf*ck of epic proportions.

[Mgyeldell1 0]

I would have to say Atlanta. I dont know why the planners think that 2 lane roads will hold the same amount of traffic as a four lane road. traffic might of been better if they would of built the east downtown interstate through the city then the traffic on the streets would not be as bad. And the traffic patterns confuse me so much.  Like with there being bad traffic north of 575 and No traffic between that and Northside Parkway then horredous traffic from there to i-20. And fromthe southside from Mcdonugh to I-675 and then when the highway splits there is no traffic untill forest parkway and then its horredous all the way to downtown. Then they closed a major interchange at one of the worst bottlenecks in the world Now traffic is even worse. MARTA is okay I loe MARTA if there was more then three line and the procter creek spur then marta would be even better. 

I have ten ways to fix Atlanta

10. Build the Northern Arc North of the Metro through 75,575,400,Peachtree Industrial,Buford Highway and 85

9. Speed up the Beltline project by two years

8. Build "The Gulch Multimodial Station" off of Five Points and Create the Commuter Rails to Clayton/Hampton/Atlanta Motor Speedway, Conyers/Social Cirlce, Gwinnett/Winder, Gwinnett/Gainesville, Cobb/Cartersville, Cobb/Cherokee/Ball Ground, Cobb/Douglass/Douglassville

7. Extending the West line Heavy Rail to Adamsville. And Adding the West Line BRT to fulton Industrial

6. Extending the North Line from North Springs thru Alpharetta to southern forsyth county

5. Extending the East Line to Lithonia,Stonecrest Mall

4. Creating two LRT lines and one BRT one From East Point Through Hapeville to The Justice Center. Second in Cobb County  From MARTA North Avenue Station to Georgia Tech through Cumberland/Vinings to Town Center Mall in Kennesaw, and the BRT From Kennsington MARTA Station to Stone Mountain the City.

3. Widening the Many Major two lane roads in DeKalb county to 4 and 6 lane roads like those in the suburbs

2.  Extending Langford Pkwy East thru the City to I-20 Between Panola and Mall Pkwy

1. Consolidating all of Bus Systems in the City and the bus sytems in the five major counties

I know some of these are a little radical but it can help make atlanta a lot better

[WaiSech 0]

Originally posted by: yellowguy88 Oh watch this video taken in from early morning on a major junction

quote>

My brother took that video : ) He lives over there and so did I for about 2 months. Luckly, I could get home by train, so traffic jams didn't bother me. Except on the weekends, when I was working and the trains didn't go for some reason...so I had to take a bus and it took me 1-1,5 hours to get home from the city centre. It was horrible...

[asd195 1]

My home town johns creek about 5 minutes from ATL is bad but atl is worse with 75/85 or downtown connector beacuse its 8 lanes each way at one part and never it smaller then 6 all the way

[Death54 3]

I say Atlanta. I've been there a couple times, and the traffic is horrible. It can take 2 hours to get from downtown to the Gwinnett county suburbs. It's a huge mass of suburbs, with some of them reaching into Alabama. The downtown feels somewhat "dead." The only saving grace is the MARTA, which is actually pretty convenient and quick for getting to and from the airport. Also the street names are confusing, with about 15 Peachtree Streets .

[mancoolman 3]

I say kitchener-Waterloo Ontario Canada i lived here when i was younger and now im back and i still don't know how to get anywhere its ridiculous there are condraditing one way streets (ontario st. goes south, north of Charles and notrh, on the south side if you know what i mean) Some areas use the same kind of name like in one area is named after the fox, so there is foxhunt and foxhunt cres. and than redfox and than 2 blocks over there is redeer. It also has no public transportation (except for buses) which leads to constant traffic on the Conestoga parkway and there is really only one straight street and you know its straight only because it's the only road that has one intersection with each street it crosses in stead of two or three. Google map it and you will understand.

[imhurt66 0]

Definantly the Washington D.C. and Baltimore metro area. D.C. has no highway going through the city making all commuters that wish to go into the city need to around it, which adds to the traffic going into Maryland and Virginia. I-270 is a mess in the morning and the afternoon as the SHA(state highway admisintrastion) is not increasing the number of lanes going up to Frederick Maryland which is where a large amount of D.C. workers live. Also Frederick joins up with I-70 which connects to Hagerstown, another bedroom community. The surrounding counties of Blatimore are poorly planned suburbs and the highways are a mess there.

[Alexzero77 3]

Originally posted by: ilikehotdogsalot I'd say Miami is the worst planned. The metrorail doesn't go anywhere and it's basically pointless because nobody uses them. There's a bunch of dirty ghettos and Miami is the least safe city in the United States, and it has a large cuban community, so basically nobody here speaks english The narrow streets in downtown get congested like you wouldn't beleive, oh and the highway, don't get me started!

I live in the only planned city in South Florida quote>

Are you *****ting me? The more dangerous city in the U.S.? Orlando is worse than Miami according to Morgan Quitno, but not as bad as Miami BEACH. As for the transportation, the city as a whole, it has been going through monster development. It'll take time, but once more progress is shown, things will look better.

I would say Washington D.C.'s planning is dreadful. All government administrations are scattered everywhere, too many low-density blocks, and the U.S. Capital is right behind true poverty.

[hamsterTK 93]

I would say Washington D.C.'s planning is dreadful. All government administrations are scattered everywhere, too many low-density blocks, and the U.S. Capital is right behind true poverty.quote>

nah

1. I wouldn't diss the city that conceived Metro...2. east DC is gentrifying like crazy 3. mid-rise density can be better than a few towers spread out

I

[Hahayoudied 3]

There is a law in Washington D.C. that states that buildings in Washington D.C. can't be built higher than the Congress building; except for the Washington monument......

[Mebert 5]

DC is bad. Pierre L'Enfant was a complete moron, unless that myth about making the city so complicated invading armies couldn't find their way around is true.

Newark gets an honorable mention, because, well ... it's Newark.

[Rockstone 0]

Georgia, trying to go through traffic was horrible!

[diamonddog_74 32]

It's interesting that most negative comments have to do with lack of roadways for cars. For example, all the gripes about DC. Imhurt66 wants a highway through the city. That would be really terrible. DC was planned before the automobile. Therefore, it is the automobile that needs to adapt to it, not the other way around. Same goes for any other major city that precedes the car by 100 years. The automobile has done more damage to cities than any other invention. Can someone here really, truly tell me what the benefit of the car is in a city?

I think cars should be banned from city centers, all they do is pollute and make people angry at each other. With the price of gasoline going up the way it is, perhaps we won't have to ban them, they'll just disappear slowly. I say good riddance. The automobile is the worst mistake we've made as a modern civilization. Bring on some highly efficient, clean and affordable public transport system. Cities are for people.

[Mebert 5]

I wouldn't say ban it, but I like Bloomberg's plan of making most of Manhattan a toll road. There are reasons to use cars, and some people need to use them. However, mass transit is more effective and should be used to a greater extent.

[sedimenjerry 1]

i completely agree with saying atlanta is the worst.

bad planning for transportation on road and mass transit

one major airport and bad water planning

(drought issues)

[diamonddog_74 32]

Mebert, the only people who need cars to get to the city are those who live in the burbs, and why? Because suburbs are a product of the automobile, therefore they were not planned with good mass transit access in mind. People were duped into thinking they could get themselves to work faster with a car. Well, when everyone is getting on the freeway to get to work causing traffic jams, they end up taking longer and having to make up for it by leaving home earlier. That's unpaid time that people waste just to get to work. It's highly inefficient. Ban cars, they've destroyed city life enough. It's time to take it back. Cities are for people.

[Mebert 5]

Hey, I don't own a car, and I don't much like motorists, but banning cars is a bit extreme. What about delivery men, or people who need a car for their job. What about people who have to move quickly to arbitrary points within the city. A tax on driving is enough to keep the people who frivolously drive out of the city, and take the subway.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: diamonddog_74 Mebert, the only people who need cars to get to the city are those who live in the burbs, and why? Because suburbs are a product of the automobile, therefore they were not planned with good mass transit access in mind. People were duped into thinking they could get themselves to work faster with a car. Well, when everyone is getting on the freeway to get to work causing traffic jams, they end up taking longer and having to make up for it by leaving home earlier. That's unpaid time that people waste just to get to work. It's highly inefficient. Ban cars, they've destroyed city life enough. It's time to take it back. Cities are for people.quote>

I'm going to have to disagree. There are perfectly good reasons why someone would want to take a car into a city besides being from the suburbs and not having good mass transit access. Like:

1) Having a significant amount of "cargo" with you. If you have a couple heavy boxes of files that you're taking into the office with you when you're going to work, it's impractical to attempt to carry all that on a train or bus. You need your car where you can throw it in the trunk. Still, that means you need a car. No excuse for having an Escalade or some other monstrosity like that.

2) Having a significant number of passengers with you. A train ticket from Stamford to Grand Central costs a bit shy of $10 (one way). Parking in Manhattan for a day might be about $30-40.  Let's for sake of argument say it's $35. Now, let's say that driving involves $17 worth of gas. And thrown the formerly proposed $8 congestion fee on there for good measure. That adds up to $60. Well, with $10 train tickets, three people round trip also comes out to $60.... meaning that if you have a group of four or five people, it's cheaper to drive. But if it's just you or just you and one other person, then you really have no excuse (except if reason 1 applies).

Originally posted by: Mebert DC is bad. Pierre L'Enfant was a complete moron, unless that myth about making the city so complicated invading armies couldn't find their way around is true.quote>

Well, the idea of hybridizing a typical American grid with traditional European avenues meeting at squares and circles is an interesting one, the trouble is it's rather poorly executed. Blocks in the "grid" don't always line up perfectly. Often you have to make a bit of an S curve to the left or right to continue what really should just be straight (Like M Street here). That, and over the years the grid has degraded as pieces of streets have been demapped to allow for construction of buildings which wouldn't fit in just one city block (like C Street here). Also, not evenly spacing the blocks was a bad idea.

And then you have the issue that the plan was rather unambitious compared with New York's. Outside of downtown and the closely surrounding areas, the plan does not exist and you enter random mishmosh mode with the street layout. This is only a couple miles away from the White House. Ouch. What a mess, eh?

New York, the planned grid goes all the way to 155th Street... and even beyond there, it holds neat form up to about 180th Street... after which the terrain really doesn't permit it to hold neatly.

Even in the outer boroughs outside of the planned grid, though, mishmosh syndrome is mostly avoided (although it still largely prevails in Lower Manhattan), and you have local mini-grids. Like

[doorknob60 11]

Originally posted by: Mikey.bruin742@verizon.net Out of all the cities I've been to all across the country I have to say my home city, Seattle, is disasterous in thhe planning. I love this city, but not the traffic and roads, lol. Firstly Seattle is built above the old city (seattle underground) putting it in a complicated position. Roads are tangled everywhere and its very easy to get stuck somewhere you don't want to be. Seattle is almost always in the "top 10 cities with the worst traffic".  Seattle is an amazing city with alot of stuff to do...but its going to take you awhile to get there.../q]

I've been to Seattle a few times, and I don't think the traffic is too bad, it's pretty well designed compared to other places, like Washington DC.

[urban12 0]

I do not think Houston is planned wll, but I think I hate Boston more.

[tepodon 29]

Tokyo, or at least the roads, the city is not built for road traffic. The trains are amazing, but sometimes you want to drive, and the city just isnt built for it. The city just spread out in all direction with absolutely no planning. Large roads and highways just run out from the city in every which way, and the areas between the major roads are just a mess. Also Tokyo is apparently the only major city in the world where the highways get narrower as it gets closer to the center of the city. The downtown highways are a mess, a relic from the 64 olympics!

[irdesi 0]

Traffic in Boston has gotten so much better since the building of the CA/T. The old viaduct CA was by far the worst concept ever proposed for the City of Boston. Still, the financial district can be a real ***** to navigate. The city is the way it is, and I wouldn't call the whole feel bad planning because it simply was not designed for the automobile (the city is remarkably easy to navigate on foot, especially if you are a true Bostonian who knows how to jaywalk). The thing is though, streets might unexpectedly become ped malls, forcing you to take a little side street back to the next parallel street (there are a couple), forcing a 10 minute loop to get back to where you were and try to find another way around. Or a two way might turn to a one way, a oneway might split into two oneways going opposite directions, a oneway might split into two oneways running parallel but then diverge to different areas without any signage telling you where they go...ugh...

Mass transit has fabulous coverage, but it is 100% radial. The city needs at least 3 routes around the circumference, one in the urban core, another in the vicinity of I-95, and perhaps another using existing freight rail lines around I-495.

[irdesi 0]

I would also add that no other city in America can compare with Boston for suburban traffic. There are two things that Boston, and the rest of Massachusetts, have never had. Those are, roads wider than two lanes, and turn lanes. Keep in mind that Massachusetts overall is comparatively dense, with absolutely no unincorporated land in the state. My town is about 20 miles out from Boston with 25,000 people. Keep in mind that because Massachusetts is old, each town has less area than in other cities' suburbs. We have 1 four lane road, and that is a partially limited-access highway serving all of the north-central and northwestern part of the state. No other road in the town is 4 lane. <5% of our major intersections have turn lanes, none have dedicated lanes for right turns. We have 8 intersections equipped with traffic signals. The next town over didn't have one until 4 years ago...

[sedimenjerry 1]

irdesi- sounds like conyers, ga

[asn208 0]

Are you freaking serious, a max pop with only 115,000 you have no skill.

[simsmart 1]

I would say Moster. You hear of the river seperating two different groups. In the bosnian war, the two sides of the river were at war!