[Glen]

90% of all trips in the New York City urban area are on the MTA New York City bus and subway, and the MTA bus, which all serve New York City proper only. And New York City proper has 4 times the population density as Los Angeles proper. So your claim that centralization is the key to the high transit ridership of the New York City area is ridiculous.

What you omitted was what portion of 90% also included trips on other systems. Certainly a large portion of riders on the LIRR, SEPTA, NJT, PATH, AMTRACK and MNRR will have part of their journey on the MTA system. No matter how you spin it, cost effective, high utilization networks require density one at least one side the equation. For the same reasons neurons have one axon but large dendritic arbours.

 

[W. K. Lis]

People will continue to drive because of our cheap gasoline. However, it will not last. When the price starts to really go up, after the recession, the price of gasoline will go up and driving your own car, to get bread or a lottery ticket, will go from expensive to very, very expensive.

From www.steelguru.com is a report that Chinese imports of Saudi oil would have increased 19% by the end of 2010. Increase the demand, the higher the price.

Latest report from [B][U]www.steelguru.com[/U][/B] says

China Knowledge quoted according to statistics released by the General Administration of Customs of China, China crude oil imports hit a record high of 23.3 million tonnes or 5.7 million barrels per day in September up from the 20.9 million tons recorded in August or 17.2 million tons in the same period of last year.

In the first nine months of this year, the country imported 181.2 million tons of crude oil, 24.1% more than in the same period of last year.

Who says we don't have to worry about running out of oil.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

As someone who is in the business in perpetuating sprawl, all I can say is that I can't wait until we wake up from this nightmare and realize that Urban Compact form is the only way to go. The American/Canadian dream won't be viable for much longer in most large urban centres.

In the meantime, it's too bad we can't force people out of their cars because I would so be all over that if it meant for the greater good of our cities.

 

[doady]

What you omitted was what portion of 90% also included trips on other systems. Certainly a large portion of riders on the LIRR, SEPTA, NJT, PATH, AMTRACK and MNRR will have part of their journey on the MTA system. No matter how you spin it, cost effective, high utilization networks require density one at least one side the equation. For the same reasons neurons have one axon but large dendritic arbours.

Even if we assume that every single one of these transit riders from these suburban system transfer to NYC Transit, it would account for less than 12% of NYC Transit ridership. Of course, I thought that the main benefit of centralization is that these sort of transfers would become unnecessary... you know, 'centralization' meaning 'one place' and all...

The real question is, what percentage of these suburban NYC transit riders actually walk, cycle, or take the bus from their home to the nearest train station? The ridership of Mississauga Transit is competitive with these suburban NYC transit systems, but it doesn't have a single park-and-ride lot.

Speaking of suburban NYC transit, it is being reported that the MTA Long Island Bus is in danger of being cancelled completely. So much for centralization, eh?

 

[howl]

As someone who is in the business in perpetuating sprawl, all I can say is that I can't wait until we wake up from this nightmare and realize that Urban Compact form is the only way to go. The American/Canadian dream won't be viable for much longer in most large urban centres.

In the meantime, it's too bad we can't force people out of their cars because I would so be all over that if it meant for the greater good of our cities.

While I agree compact urban form is the best way to go I don't think the suburban from will ever disappear entirely. As oil gets more expensive alternate fuel vehicles, including purely electric vehicles, will become more competitive. 20 years from now I predict the suburban arteries will be just as congested as they are now, but with electric/hydrogen powered vehicles.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Im probably delusional in my belief for the human race, but I think there's hope yet for suburbia. People are slowly becoming more in tune with what's good for themselves and the environment, and I think we'll see that, with the help of a very smart government, things could actually change around quite fast. The suburbs could even return to a semi-rural state as working from home becomes more popular, and rapid growth in the North American cities that all have sprawl give us opportunities to build over the suburban form.

But it just depends on what people collectively decide to do with the world we're in now. I'd advise everyone to make a good choice, think about the world under that choices, be vocal about it, and tell others to do the same.

EDIT: In the sense that subdivisions will be demolished and either ploughed into farmland or turned into mid-rise buildings, probably not. But the things that are characteristic of suburbia, car culture, isolation from others, big box stores, etc, definitely could be turned completely around.

 

[lafard]

^ the fact that they're building houses facing towards the main roads again, or at least onto frontage roads, is itself a huge change of attitude and allows the organic development of urbanity on suburban arteries. If the zoning is allowed. Even Toronto's "Avenues" plan is based on the arteries that have houses fronting the main roads that can be redeveloped, and a great deal of retail and services in the older suburbs occur in converted houses on forward lots. Reversed lots are the tool of the devil.

 

[howl]

There is another third option for new development, beyond infill and endless sprawl. The third option is new towns.

In Ancient Greece, when a city reached a certain size it would gather a group of citizen and send them out to start a new colony. This meant that Greek cities were limited in size, and rather than expanding endlessly they would sprout new cities further up the coast.

To do this in today's context you would need to define a 'hard' settlement limit for existing communities that could not be changed; define a greenbelt width of a certain distance (probably 2km to 10km) around that line where no new urban development could occur; and then define rules for picking new town locations such as access to a water supply, location for a small sewage plant, preservation of greenspaces, access to transportation; and rules for how to lay out the town such as a minimum density, a maximum size etc. Once the location for a new town or village was established a hard settlement limit and greenbelt around it would be enforced. What you would end up with is a series of towns and villages dotting the countryside surrounding by active agricultural or natural areas. Each of these towns and villages would be internally walkable and transportation between towns and villages could be by bus, train or car as was practical.

 

[spider]

Howl,
Your plan has been tried, it failed miserably. It was called Communism.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

While I agree compact urban form is the best way to go I don't think the suburban from will ever disappear entirely. As oil gets more expensive alternate fuel vehicles, including purely electric vehicles, will become more competitive. 20 years from now I predict the suburban arteries will be just as congested as they are now, but with electric/hydrogen powered vehicles.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. People don't want to be forced out of their private vehicles. Oh well, here's hoping the congestion charge comes to Toronto sooner than later!

 

[The Mad Navigator]

Howl,
Your plan has been tried, it failed miserably. It was called Communism.

Been tried, eh? Care to give examples?

Also, how is this Communism? If anything, it's good planning practice.

 

[Second_in_pie]

There is another third option for new development, beyond infill and endless sprawl. The third option is new towns.

In Ancient Greece, when a city reached a certain size it would gather a group of citizen and send them out to start a new colony. This meant that Greek cities were limited in size, and rather than expanding endlessly they would sprout new cities further up the coast.

To do this in today's context you would need to define a 'hard' settlement limit for existing communities that could not be changed; define a greenbelt width of a certain distance (probably 2km to 10km) around that line where no new urban development could occur; and then define rules for picking new town locations such as access to a water supply, location for a small sewage plant, preservation of greenspaces, access to transportation; and rules for how to lay out the town such as a minimum density, a maximum size etc. Once the location for a new town or village was established a hard settlement limit and greenbelt around it would be enforced. What you would end up with is a series of towns and villages dotting the countryside surrounding by active agricultural or natural areas. Each of these towns and villages would be internally walkable and transportation between towns and villages could be by bus, train or car as was practical.

To dictate growth, this is a very good plan. Having defined urban areas is something that needs to happen. But you still need to fix the suburban problem. That stops new suburbanization, but doesn't fix the suburbs we have now. Ontario could probably do a bit of both with the growth that we've got, but we need infill in suburban areas.

Better planning in general is definitely needed though. I'd love to see such a plan implemented for new town growth in Ontario (and the world in general,) but it doesn't solve the issues that suburbia currently create, and would leave millions currently in the GTA still using cars to get everywhere, shopping at big box stores, and living in low density areas.

 

[doady]

Smaller urban areas tend to be less dense and less transit-dependent than larger urban areas. So even if forcing people to move to new and smaller urban areas, prohibiting all growth in large urban areas was actually possible, it would still be no reason to do so, unless you want to waste more land, and increase energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. If one think that population are too dispersed then why advocated for even more dispersion?

Been tried, eh? Care to give examples?

Also, how is this Communism? If anything, it's good planning practice.

It's not communism. The Soviets may have tried to implement (and failed) what Howl proposes, but they got the idea from Walter Christaller's "Central Place Theory." Christaller was a Nazi. So this idea actually comes from Nazism.

 

[howl]

It's not communism. The Soviets may have tried to implement (and failed) what Howl proposes, but they got the idea from Walter Christaller's "Central Place Theory." Christaller was a Nazi. So this idea actually comes from Nazism.

It's neither communism or nazism. It's how ALL communites grew before the automobile and linear transit lines allowed people to live further from the agora/piazza/market-square than they could walk.

It is an alternative to the Megacity option. It assumes that in the future people will not need to meet in person to conduct business or for entertainment as often as they do now. Once human interaction over the internet becomes universal there will be no need for big megacities.

 

[jn_12]

EDIT: In the sense that subdivisions will be demolished and either ploughed into farmland or turned into mid-rise buildings, probably not. But the things that are characteristic of suburbia, car culture, isolation from others, big box stores, etc, definitely could be turned completely around.

I actually disagree with you here. Density is always improved upon as land values dictate the need for it. There are countless examples going back hundreds and (probably thousands) of years of sparce housing on the fringes of cities being developed once it is engulfed by a city's growth and usually even that first wave is razed at some point in favour of even more density. It'll take a long time before places like Brampton reach this point just because of its distance from a significantly dense area, but I think history would suggest that plots of land containing a single house within proximity of an urban core won't exist like that forever.