Worst City Planning

[Estanton22 0]

Buffalo, NY maybe isn't the worst, but it should definitly get a nod of the head.

Both Frederick Law Olmsted and Joseph Ellicott worked to plan the park and road systems in the city, but much has be done to ruin thier visions.

The convention center, which it small for the size of the city, majorly disrupted the traffic pattern and left a major blockage in Ellicott's design. Now that there is a major drive to renew our cities, Buffalo wants to restore the traffic plan and build a decently sized convention center. Buffalo also thought that allowing a giant Indian casino to be built in a largely impoverished city would spark a major city revivial... surprising this has yet to be realized. There is some progress, but based mainly on State aid and tax abatements.

There is a highway running the entire lenght of the lake shore, cutting off access to the lake from most parts of the city.

And the New York Intersate sort of makes a terminous in Buffalo with a giant highway mess that continually backs-up at the toll booths.

Not to mention the submerged ground highway that makes splits in a Y with one fork turning at roughly 90 degree angle while the other a gentel 60.

And there's more... basically the highway systems blows and the original famous city designs have been left with gaping holes.

[torontotransit 2]

The Toronto waterfront LOL. The eastern potion is all abandoned industrial buildings. THanfully its going to be demolished and rebuilt. The only question is when considering TO doesnt have any money...ever...LOL

[piccboi824 1]

These post are ridiculous! One of the first posts which was like a few years ago talked about Miami and it was so racist and misinformed. As a resident of Miami who has grown up there and is witnessing the turbulent rise and fall that is our city, I do have to admit that we cannot plan ANYTHING and suffer from hindsight. But, I must say that Miami is not one giant ghetto (every city has what black folks like me call the 'hood') and more and more people speak english now. We aren't a third world country, we are a gamma class global city for the rich and elite. Some people need to stop watching Miami Vice and CSI Miami( it's not even filmed there, that's Long Beach people, the only thing from Miami is the helicopter shot of the Brickell skyline). The only area that I would not drive through at all would be the northwest side in Liberty City,Allapattah,Brownsville, and down 27th Avenue (Unity Blvd.).

Though it is obvious that I am fond of my city, it does have its flaws. The city was developed overnight. We had so much real estate boom in the 20's, we hit bust way before the rest of the country didi in the Great Depression. Nothing was planned. We have only one east-west expressway that does not extend to the western neighborhoods of Doral, West Kendall,and the Redlands where these thorough fares are needed. Our Metrorail was built at the same time as the Baltimore subway (they have identical train cars because they shared an order) when the federal government, who funds the nation's transit systems evrywhere, didn't have sufficient funds. So they never had the capital to fully complete the system to extend to the airport, to the southern communities of Cutler Ridge and Homestead, to the northern black communities and Pro Player-Dolphin stadium, and to West Kendall. Now with even more budget cuts everywhere across the state, their Orange Line plan is being delayed even more.

Downtown is another poorly planned area. There is no high end retail or shopping destinations(places that are worth a special trip downtown like the shops on Chicago's Magnificent Mile). Downtown attractions are limited and don't cater to a wide variety of people, and the parks and highway overpasses are overrun with bums. They build freakin' 76 story condos everyday that no one ever moves in to because no one can afford to live in them when a 1 bed/1 bath starts in the 500,000's. And people who could afford still won't move there because there is absolutely nothing to do after 6:00pm when downtown shuts down. The Beach,Coconut Grove, Key Biscayne,Brickell, ad Midtown are much more desirable and active areas to live.

Well I didn't intend to ramble on about Miami, but that gguy got me so POed that I had to say something. I think Houston is kind of disorganized, but even planned cities like Philadelphia and DC can seem that way, because the times that they were planned in were completely different. I mean could L'Enfant really plan for an Interstate in 1797 when they didn't even have national roads let alone trains and automobiles, like give me a break. Besides why would you want som loud ugly congested Spaghetti junction in the middle of our nation's capital. DC is perfect just the way it is, it doesn't need a 6-lane highway and skyscrapers to be a planned city. That's why the Washington Metro has the second highest ridership in the United States after the NYC subway.

[vze3ckty 0]

Originally posted by: piccboi824 DC is perfect just the way it is, it doesn't need a 6-lane highway and skyscrapers to be a planned city. That's why the Washington Metro has the second highest ridership in the United States after the NYC subway.quote>

I disagree what you said about Washington doesn't need a highway and skyscrapers to be a planned city. Why would you say something like that. Washington needs a skyscraper and a highway to make city more planned city. WHY because its a shame that Washington  D.C with the population of 588,292 and still doesn't have a skyscraper in the city and its the national capital.

1. Washington skyline is has a lot of short low density buildings that are not tall as the Monument and thats a turn off.

2. I-95 should go through the city like every other major city in the eastern seaboard. Except having the highway bypass or go around the city and thats a turn-off including cities like Portland and and my capital of Massachusetts Boston.

3. There are lack of Highways in some major cities around the world like for an example Boston and Washington D.C., Vancouver,Toronto,Tokyo,Seattle and Baltimore ( At least the city has I-95 but still doesn't have a connection with I-81. Big time TURN-OFF!!!!)

Then if those cities do these things then they would have a better city planning.

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.quote>

Why would you want cars banned from city centers. ARE YOU CRAZY OR JUST ACTING LIKE A NIMBY!!! Do you know the public transportation would be filled with so many people that you would have squeeze your way in on a bus and even on a train. Do you know the current highway that go through cities in America would be demolish and the delivery and truck business would be a disaster. How about you came to visit or move into a city center and you had to move your stuff on without using a car/truck would you like it. If it wasn't for cars, downtown areas would never have a sustained traffic volume and congestion. I rather have Major highway going through a city rather than going around it like a beltway.  

[Corner 0]

Plenty of cities in Europe ban cars from the city center - or at least strictly limit them. London springs to mind, with its congestion charging zone, and few people would claim that London wasn't a thriving, vibrant metropolis. Many Londoners don't even have a car and commute to work by public transport. Cycling's becoming more and more popular too, even in the purpetual drizzle. Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Budapest are all Major European cities that can function, to a point, without the motorcar and all are vibrant places.

In fact the most boring, wretched and ugliest city in Europe is without a doubt Warsaw - and surprise surpise, it's a city designed around 6 lane highways, shopping malls and crap public transport. (I live in Poland FYI)

PS. I say good riddence to the truck industry too. Bloody ridiculous idea. Trains can easily haul most goods over the country and are perfect for moving commodoties like furniture, electrical good and raw materials. In fact, it's nothing new - that's just how it was done 100 years ago. What about food? Well, they did that by train in the past too. Hence: Chicago. The fact that so much rail infrastructure is neglected is another example of Western Lunacy. Maybe the shopping malls should've been build near railway lines - then you could haul commuters and goods for relative peanuts.

Sorry, but cars designed around cities and determined to stay that way are doomed. Even LA is expanding it's metro and urbanising it's souless interior into something vaguely resembling a downtown.

[I9113N 4]

Originally posted by: Corner

The fact that so much rail infrastructure is neglected is another example of Western Lunacy. Maybe the shopping malls should've been build near railway lines - then you could haul commuters and goods for relative peanuts..quote>

There is quite a bit of rail infrastructure in the U.S. The reason(s) why there isn't as much rail in the U.S. as there is in Europe and other places is mostly because of the automobile: It came at the right time, and was cheap, and so was gas. It was faster and easier than rail, and relatively cheaper, too. Ever since its introduction, America has fallen in love with cars, and I highly doubt we'll ever give them up. To Americans, a car is not only a means of transport, but also a status symbol. Also, many trains do not follow people's schedules, or go places people would want to go. For instance, if I wanted to go to the nearest mall by train, (the mall is about fifteen miles north of me) I would first have to travel 30 miles south to the nearest train, take that train to Chicago, then take the train from Chicago to Kenosha! If the state were to put a rail line going from my town to the mall, they would have to be insane. No one would use it, since we all have cars, and we can go where we want, when we want. Finally, america's population is just to damn spread out to have a rail system like Europe's.

Ian

Edit: Western Lunacy?

[biggreen007 0]

Im going to have to say Memphis, TN. The Downtown is built on the Mississippi River across the river from downtown is farms...there is nothing..im serrious..nothing. not even a house visible for miles. across the river is not Tennessee it is Arkansas (the 3 poriest state)....and the Land of basically nothing. And You would think that maybe someone would be smart enough to realize that if they build homes across the river. The homes would have a view of Downtown Memphis. Things have been the same across the river since 1819 when Memphis was founded. Thats what..? 180 sumthin years ago. I can almost guarantee things wont change for 100 sumthin more years. Memphis- The worst planned out City I have every seen...but also a place i call home.....

[sakarr 1]

i wouldnt say thats bad planning for memphis. but its certainly horrible planning from the cities across the river and the state of arkansas haha

[pauljs75 0]

I'd put in Chicago, but not quite the city itself or some of the older satellite cities. (Metra and CTA/Pace aren't quite the best, but they make up for a lot of the highway system crap.) Rather the problem is more with the associated region view surrounding Chicago. A lot of stuff built up during the late 1980s and most of the 1990s in the 'burbs wasn't well thought out as it could have been. (Way too much residential development put in for the existing infrastructure.) I also suspect a problem with blaggy-style graft hiding in the IDOT system, so we should have much much better roads and highways for the money being put in. (Things like construction zones put up for months, but no actual work done util the last week of the project and stuff like that.) And the roads are kind of crap-tastic in some places. (If you look at the IL side of the interstates and state roads vs. the WI side, with the same traffic levels - the WI side is better. And they have the same weather, less gas tax, and NO tolls that I'm aware of. So what is going on?)

But from all the other posts I'm sure people from just about anywhere can find faults with how cities are managed and planned.

[saltandsauce 0]

i would have to say, Glasgow

Glasgow in all it's wisdom built the M8 motorway which slices up the city (there was also supposed to be another motorway but the city ran out of money the M74)

but the motorway is the least of it's problems, all the employment was on the west side of the Clyde river with shipyards, steelworks, docks, factories everything and it pretty much closed in the 70s it demolished the 19th C. housing in the gorbals (which was originally middle class housing and then "made down") and dumped the people in schemes like Posselpark which mad no shops, factories or even schools until 10 years later, the people were then literally stuck in those schemes and couldn't have a chance of finding work. and then built rubbish 60s slums to replace the 19th C. slums in Govan

[astondb9 7]

y iur

Originally posted by: MayorCain 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).quote>

 

Woah A fellow West Sussex person..   Thats rare..

And yeah, that bus lane was such a waste of money, a ordinary bus lane would of worked fine, but instead they put in a special concrete lane to slow traffic even further..

[Mother of Invention 23]

Knoxville,Tn

They built 640 and it ended up being way to short almost as soon as it ended :-P

[zwr100 2]

RE: Washington DC  The mass transit there is great.  Park your car and hour outside the city and you'll see the mass transit is better than any eastern city.  Manhattan is good, by NYC as a whole is...meh.

Rural towns are the worst.  The local politicians think development is a good thing so they do whatever they can to encourage growth/development.  Unfortunately, the growth usually requires bigger schools, more civic services and other capacity that is more costly than the growth was rewarding.  The town continues to grow and needs to replace the brand new facilities before the pain is dry.  Small town growth is far worse than big city problems imo.

[DocRorlach 25]

Having read all of this thread, my nomination of the maximum amount of stupidity in terms of city planning has to go to the bureaucrats of Amsterdam, Holland, for the sheer waste of public funds on the socalled North-South Underground Line. No only is the inner city built on water right next to the sea, but now it is even doubtful if all the engineering in the world can ever save the massive blunders committed thus far

The "budget" went from 430 million to more than five times the original estimate, and thos stats do not even show the stupendous increases it has received these past two years. (translation: Bottomless Pit)

[Terring 6,473]

The worst city planning has Athens, with many roads in so bad condition that create car accidents

[io_bg 249]

In my country (Bulgaria) the roads are even worse!

I'd say Bourgas. It's got population about 190 000 people. A lot of houses in the city centre were demolished and there were built blocks of flats on their places. And the roads haven't changed much. The only mass transit are buses but they're not enough. I bet most of the other Eastern Europe cities have the same problem.

[earwax_man 18]

In Cork city, there is only a few bus routes that can be up to an hour late; no trams or anything; roads are way too small; and graffiti EVERYWHERE

[RedImperator 16]

Frankly, virtually every city in the United States has been a victim of terrible planning since the end of the Second World War. We spent fifty years sprawling out into suburbs scaled for cars instead of people while we bulldozed entire city neighborhoods to accommodate highways, and let the best railroad system in the world disintegrate along the way. And none of it is the least bit sustainable--most of it is going to have to be abandoned before the middle of this century, once global oil production goes into terminal decline.

[aiumkastarkius 0]

Philadelphia definitely has some city planning problems:

1. No easy way to get in to town from NJ

2. Tiny roads in center city complicate things (relics from colonial era)

3.the freaking Skuykill expressway(I-76)

4. I-295 - The closest thing we have to a beltway. It's a parking lot during rush hour.

5. SEPTA / PATCO - Septa is a horrible system. It's got strikes all the time, and the trains are nasty. PATCO just isn't as large as it needs to be.

6. Suburbanization - The metro covers four states: PA for at least 50 miles out, all the way to the shore in NJ, Wilmington, and part of Maryland.

7. Crime causes a lot of backups

[ABCD12345 1]

Nothing can compare to Manila and its neigbouring cities. It's the worlds worst planned City..

[Horus_Kol 118]

Adelaide is a mess - we had a perfectly serviceable bus/shuttle service around our CBD, but the transport people killed the route and spent a wodge of money on extending the tramline to replace it.

Now we have a huge development out in the south (about 25-30km from the CBD), but no mass transit solution as yet (because, instead, they want to connect the tramline to the already serviceable rail line to the north west where there is no land for development). The commute from the new estates in the south will be horrible (practically all of the jobs in the city are in the CBD - except for those in shops which service the suburbs) - there are only two main arterial routes, and they are only separate routes for about half the distance (if that).

We have things like a tram line which bridges over a main rail station, but the tram stop is 10 minutes walk away from the station (and down a badly lit side-road) - when they could have built the tramstop on the bridge, with a stairway down to the rail platform.

It doesn't even stop at transit (roads and transit are not the only thing in planning) - it takes almost forever to get planning permission in for any project, and there is next to no centralised planning. Case in point - the 'Adelaide City Council' controls the small acreage of the CDB and surrounding parklands - they have long opposed any development to replace the aging buildings and grandstand next to where we host a massive national championship supercar race, and also where we host a major international cycling event. Instead, they have forced the use of a 'temporary' facility that takes just over 5 months to build, and just over 5 months to strike... meaning we now have a rather awful looking mess for 11 months of the year gracing our parklands instead of a year-round state of the art facility.

About the only thing Adelaide planners have right is that facades of historic buildings (colonial and federation era, mostly) must be maintained - meaning that our high-rises grow from the inside of these facades, offering a great mix of old and new.

As for grids - I don't see anything wrong with grids as such - Adelaide and Melbourne are heavily gridded, and this isn't a cause of major issues at all. If somewhere like NYC is suffering gridlock, it is because of the greater density of population living and commuting into the city, and not the grid itself.

[diamonddog_74 32]

Originally posted by vze3ckty:

... Washington needs a skyscraper and a highway to make city more planned city. WHY because its a shame that Washington  D.C with the population of 588,292 and still doesn't have a skyscraper in the city and its the national capital.quote>

So, you want DC to have a highway cutting through it and a skyscraper just because they don't have them? DC is a government center, not a business and trade center like New York or Chicago, where skyscrapers facilitate packing more business in the limited space of a downtown area. Perhaps the height restriction could be eased a bit, but the Heights of Buildings Act of 1910 does allow for some pretty good heights within DC if it's interpreted literally. So, they could have a bit higher density if they wanted to.

Why would you want cars banned from city centers. ARE YOU CRAZY OR JUST ACTING LIKE A NIMBY!!! Do you know the public transportation would be filled with so many people that you would have squeeze your way in on a bus and even on a train. Do you know the current highway that go through cities in America would be demolish and the delivery and truck business would be a disaster. How about you came to visit or move into a city center and you had to move your stuff on without using a car/truck would you like it.quote>

To vz3ckty and all who have responded to my comment about banning cars from city centers: I didn't say trucks. Obviously, trucks still need to get in and out to bring in freight delivery. Cars are private personal transportation vehicles, they're not the same as trucks.

I really don't understand your last sentence:

If it wasn't for cars, downtown areas would never have a sustained traffic volume and congestion. I rather have Major highway going through a city rather than going around it like a beltway.quote>

I suppose you mean that if it weren't for cars, then trains and other forms of public transportation would be overcrowded.

Well, here's the thing in case you didn't know, American cities used to have excellent public transportation systems before the car became commonplace. It was the least expensive way to get in and out, and around town. Funding and maintenance of public transportation systems in American cities suffered greatly because of the car (people moved out to the suburbs designed for cars). So what you have now is a shadow of what used to be. So that's why it seems that public transportation couldn't keep up with demand now.

Now, what if we started funding expansion of these systems better? Don't you think they'd be better prepared to handle demand when gas prices go back up? We already experienced a taste our unpreparedness a few months ago when gas prices were above $5/gallon in some places. The new administration's stimulus package seems to address this issue.

Another thing, did you know that Chicago used to have a system of rail freight delivery tunnels under streets downtown? It's an interesting idea that could be revisited to help decongest surface streets. Some double-decker downtown streets in Chicago also alleviate decongestion because the lower deck was designated originally for freight (Wacker Drive).

I'm 35 yo. and I've never owned a car. Yeah, believe it! I've always relied on public transportation. I like to walk and I like riding buses and trains, and not have to spend my own money on the gas, maintenance, and insurance costs of a car. I also don't have to worry about parking it, and paying tickets if I mistakenly park somewhere I'm not supposed to. I'd rather spend my money on other things I need. Why would I want to spend all that money every year to get to and from work? Besides, cars spend most of their time parked at either your home or your work, so how is that cost effective? I'd rather have more parks than parking lots.

I do have a driver's license and occasionally I like to rent a car to go somewhere that public transportation may not take me. But, basically, I think cars lost their charm early in the 20th century when they became beasts of burden instead of pleasure craft.

Originally posted by: I9113N:

If the state were to put a rail line going from my town to the mall, they would have to be insane. No one would use it, since we all have cars, and we can go where we want, when we want. Finally, america's population is just to damn spread out to have a rail system like Europe's.quote>

And what is the price you pay for this independence? What is the price you will pay when gas goes up? And it will go up, that is a fact. You'll wish that rail line existed. How do you know no one would use it? Have you asked your neighbors? I'm sure there are people in your town who would rather like that convenience.

[Duke87 1,070]

The flaw with the argument that high gas prices are going to make car travel less viable in the future is that in the future cars may not run on gas. Or will at least be more efficient with it.

As it is, cars are a lot more fuel efficient than they were even just 10 or 15 years ago. To the point where now in many cases the balance has been tipped and travel by car actually consumes less energy per passenger mile than travel by the local rail or bus system. Trains and buses are big and heavy. They're not very "green" unless they're carrying enough people to offset that... which in many cases they're not, out towards the end of the line and/or during off-peak hours when they could be running near empty with only a few people in them.

Which actually brings up the point that you can complain about crowded trains being uncomfortable, but the more crowded they are, the greener they are.

A typical IRT-division NYC subway car weighs about 70,000 pounds and has a passenger capacity of about 185 people (standing and siting). According to the data sheets, the assumed weight when full of passengers is 100,000 pounds. Meaning passengers account for only 30% of the weight when the train is packed full.

Moving 185 people per train car at 100,000 pounds  is 541 pounds per passenger.

By comparison, a good modern car will weigh maybe 1500 pounds. With just one 160 pound person in it, that's 1660 pounds per passenger.

Do a little mah and this means that that train car needs to have about 40-45 people in it to have an equivalent total weight to passenger ratio. Which isn't exactly indicative of overall energy efficiency since depending on the type of driving (city versus highway) and how often the train is stopping, that will vary since it's really the stopping and starting that kills your efficiency... but it does give you an idea.

But now, what of there are four people in the car? 535 pounds per person.

Now that's interesting, no? A car full of people is going to be somewhat on par in efficiency with a train full of people. The problem is getting a car full of people. In America, the overall average number of people in a car is 1.05.

The other thing to consider, though, is that public transportation isn't viable in many places. Unless you have a large enough area at a certain population density, it's not going to work.

Try linking various parts of Wyoming with a rail network. Not happening. For people who live in more rural and isolated areas, cars are the only real transportation option unless you want to ride a horse.

[diamonddog_74 32]

Originally posted by: Duke87 The flaw with the argument that high gas prices are going to make car travel less viable in the future is that in the future cars may not run on gas. Or will at least be more efficient with it.quote>

Duke, I see your point, however, this future won't happen very soon. Look at how vigorously the American auto industry continues to fight proposed fuel efficiency standards. They say it would kill them. It's such a silly argument because, wouldn't the design, development and manufacture of these more efficient cars create jobs and consumer demand for them? And the government is actually willing to help them, to boot!

It's funny too, because they offer more fuel efficient cars elsewhere in the world, but they refuse to do so here because they can get away with it. Also they make up the excuse that Americans don't want fuel efficient cars because generally that means "small," and Americans like big cars.

Anyway, gas is only part of the cost. I did list other associated costs of owning a car. Add that to your rent or mortgage, your personal needs (food, hygiene), and utilities. When I add them up, a car is always a luxury to me, not a necessity.

The other thing to consider, though, is that public transportation isn't viable in many places. Unless you have a large enough area at a certain population density, it's not going to work.

Try linking various parts of Wyoming with a rail network. Not happening. For people who live in more rural and isolated areas, cars are the only real transportation option unless you want to ride a horse.quote>

OK, but we're not talking about rural areas here, we're talking about cities. The topic is "Worst City Planning."

My main point is that (keeping to the topic) cities that rely too much on cars to get around are not well planned. A city dweller shouldn't have to provide his/her own personal transportation to get to and from work. There should be inexpensive and efficient public transportation available for that. We also shouldn't have to use a car to get groceries or go shopping because those conveniences should be at walking distance from home or work.

Bad planning example: Florida. Considering how much they rely on retired older people to keep buying homes there, it's incredibly bad that they make them drive everywhere. Older, retired people who are on a fixed income shouldn't have to worry about gas, car insurance, car maintenance, and parking. They should be able to just walk down the street to get groceries, or shop at a boutique, and enjoy a public space nearby. They shouldn't have to get on an irritating freeway to go the mall to buy knickers.

I worry about these things since my parents bought a house in Fla. for when they retire.

[esouths 0]

Orlando, Florida. My hometown.

Ghetto's right outside of gated communities.

Trashy buildings right next to nice upper class ones.

Totally random buildings in the metro area. Downtown is nice tho I guess.

No good public transportation but Lynx which has sparse bus stops.

Really bad drainage system. Floods during heavy storms.

[sneakeypete 16]

diamonddog, its great that you can get along just fine without a car, however most people cannot, because the majority live in suburbs/outside of cities.

While it would be ideally efficient if everyone lived in giant densely packed communities where everything was close, it probably wouldn't be ideal in other ways. a lot of people don't like living in apartments, some do. Maybe society can change over the next few hundred years, but somehow i doubt it. There is always, always going to be a large use for cars, like it or not. I mean, heck, ever tried taking a bunch of small kids anywhere on a bus?

As far as emissions standards hurting the auto companies? Not developing cars that are cheap and efficient will hurt the American Auto companies ever more, now that consumers are much more concerned about cost. If GM/Ford can't make something that consumers want, Toyota probably will. If they delay, they'll just miss the boat.

Duke87

Nice calculations there. However, you stopped before you'd finished. You need to take into account not just how much weight needs to be moved, but how the energy used to move it is generated. Friction also plays a pretty big part, though i won't go into that here

The subway car, runs on electricity, which is generated at, usually, a coal plant (Here in Australia at least). Some coal plants are approaching efficiencies of over 40% these days: eg, 40% of the energy in the fuel you put in is produced as electricity. Not very good you might think, however, car engines are much worse, coming in at around 30% for some of the latest production engines with all of the modern tricks.

Of course, its a little bit more complex than just that, you need to take into account friction and air resistance, and the loss in transmission of the power to the subway. But to put it basically, for a subway car and a road car with an equal weight per passenger, the subway car is still more likely to be using less fuel energy.

[technicallydead 1]

Well, for me, it is Cebu City in the Philippines that is the most disastrous city in the world. Did you know that Cebu City was not ever planned? Yes, the City of Cebu was never officially planned. There is no perfect road in Cebu City. No freeways and Highways. No train station or subway. The worst of all is that bus stations in Cebu City have their routes going to other municipalities and cities, not through the city! Only jeepneys and taxis are available (and these jeepneys and taxis are hell, the drivers are HARD HEADED, they seem not to follow any traffic rule). The largest roads in Cebu City are toughly 10 lane roads (5 for each side). There are only four 10 lane roads in a 3 million inhabited Cebu City. You need to be ready two hours before you go to your destination or else you'll be late. By the way, even the pedestrians are having hard to walk due to the fact that the sidewalks of the roads are occupied by illegal vendors and even buildings! The South Road Properties, is the only part of the city that is well designed. Each of its roads are 4 lane. Unfortunately, its at the side most part of the city, near its border. SRP is not even occupied until now! The only nice transportation hub of the city is its port or pier. It occupies roughly 10 hectares! And there are still ship traffics!

One of the 10 lane roads in Cebu City, exactly 6 o'clock in the morning

" width="800" height="600" />

a Five lane road (wondering why there's a shadow? Its because there is 40 storey building beside it.)

and the nasty motor cyclists and jeepneys

[Paramore22 3]

I have to say Redmond, Oregon has some pretty bad city planning. Like our downtown area is really struggling because a lot of new businesses start up downtown then go out of business just as fast. To make things worse, the city built a multi million dollar re-route that goes around downtown so now there is hardly any traffic going through downtown at all. That doesn't help the so-called "Downtown Redmond Restoration" project.

[jandeczentar 0]

I'd nominate London, UK for a bad planning award. Most of the roads in the city centre are based on a design from the seventeenth century when London was rebuilt after the great fire of 1666. These in turn were based on the old medieval design for the roads that dated back centuries. They were inadequate at the time (Samuel Pepys records getting stuck in what we now know as a traffic jam in 1665) and they're inadequate now. If someone had given some thought to this problem a little sooner, congestion charging might have been unnecessary.

In addition, the roads in the outskirts are not much better. In the 1950's plans existed for 4 motorway ringroads in and around London along with numerous radial motorways taking traffic to and from the city. In succeeding decades these plans were scaled back by spiraling costs and nimby-ism until they were eventually abandoned completely. London now has only one motorway ringroad, the M25, completed in 1986. It reached it's specified traffic capacity almost the moment it opened and planners have been desperately playing catch-up ever since.

And then there is the underground. Yes, it's the largest network of it's kind in the world but during the rush hour it is full to bursting point and much of it is in dire need of an upgrade in capacity.

Just think, in 2012 London hosts the Olympics and an extra million people will be using the city's already creaking infrastructure. If I were you I would stay away from London for that fortnight.

[Nick9099 2]

My hometown of Winnipeg, Manitoba has very poor ideas about planning. The intersection of Rte 95, Rte 42 and Rte 62, locally known as confusion corner, while not bad from a congestion point of view, would be extremely confusing to out-of-towners. I even get confused by it and I lived here all my life.

In Winnipeg 30 or 40 cars will sit waiting at a red with no one going in the other direction. In addition, while most cties divert traffic off main roads onto local streets and then into malls, Winnipeg builds intersections just for the purpose of geting from the main routes into the malls.

LA is sill worse though.