281–290 of 344 posts
Mr Calthorpe is playing simcity in Real Life, ENVY!
If our species is to survive this century we have to get out of our cars. There is no way to sustainably build billions of electric cars- we need to consider that our existing ICE fleet needs to simply be retired and not replaced. Cars are one of the ultimate symbols of the consumption that needs to end if we are to address climate change. Between the asphalt and concrete needed to build infrastructure for them to th…
Any solution which requires people to give up convenience in the name of saving the environment is dead on arrival. This is human nature, we have never before managed to conserve our way out of a problem, we innovate our way out of it or we will die trying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't imagine how bad public transport must be to increase your commute time by an order of magnitude . I use public transport precisely because I value my time - it takes longer(around x1.5) than using a car, but that time is relaxing, can be used to read a book, listen to a podcast or just order your thoughts. Time spent in a car is stressful and requires your focus and attention. I'm not sure what kind of popula…
It depends on local details. In most large cities public transit assumes you live in the suburbs and work downtown. Jobs are moving to the suburbs, to get to them means a ride downtown, and then a ride back out. I know of people with a 4 mile commute who drive (why they don't bike is a good question) because they bus ride would be 3 hours each way.
I don't feel buses are nearly as productive because of traffic. There are some nifty routes around Chicago where buses are allowed to drive the shoulder in traffic jams, and hence, do better than cars on travel time, but the north-south suburban expressway doesn't have that arrangement.
At UrbanFootprint, we provide data and tools for urban planners to assess and compare the impacts of land use and transportation decisions. A basic use case is a city updating its General Plan, which would start with a forecast of how much population growth is anticipated / needs to be accommodated. A planner then needs to assess where new residents will live, work, shop, and play. Perhaps even more essential, how are people going to travel between all of these activities? Will the new growth be auto-dependent, transit-focused, walkable? Is any of the existing or planned development in hazard areas such as flood of wildfire? What are the energy and water use impacts of the plans?
We’re using Python and Postgres/PostGIS on the backend to answer these questions and a React SPA to serve it up and make it interactive in a browser. It's a lot of fun getting our hands dirty with data describing the physical world in which we live in now, in addition to modeling the future of cities.
If this type of work interests you please get in touch - email me at hn@urbanfootprint.com. I'm always interested in hearing from folks who want to use technology to improve cities.
I’d argue that cities will shrink over time. It’s going to become easier for people to live in rural areas. I don’t think there is some magic formula to manage the inevitable congestion (not just traffic). Edit: It’d also be interesting to see the environmental impact of mega cities. And what about cities like Portland where they have put in a lot effort to plan around growth? Is it working?
It's not happening though. My parents live in a beautiful part of the rural UK and have super-fast fibre to the premises internet, next day Amazon prime available, online food shopping from 4 or so supermarkets locally, etc. Basically everything you'd think you'd need to live away from the city, but still the area is depopulating rapidly. Younger people don't want a life of car dependancy and social isolation.
Take a look at a typical suburb. Where do you even walk? Sometimes the complexes wind and wind a mile or two before you hit the exit of the suburb, a 45 mph road with no sidewalks. Then it's another 2-3 miles until you hit the strip mall, then 500yds of parking lot before you hit the door of the apple bees. There's not even any greenery to enjoy, all the woods have been clear cut for housing or agriculture; living at low density like that scars the environment for miles. I'd take dial up and packages available in 40 days to ensure I'm at a safe arms length from suburban bleakness.
I'm not sure these articles are good for my mental health. I live in Utah Valley, which has the worst air quality in the United States. I'm on the train right now as I type this, it takes twice as long for me to get to work this way but i'm trying to increase train usage. People here are just so invested in making their hour long commutes with their gigantic trucks. Trucks are ridiculously expensive even before you f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not happening though. My parents live in a beautiful part of the rural UK and have super-fast fibre to the premises internet, next day Amazon prime available, online food shopping from 4 or so supermarkets locally, etc. Basically everything you'd think you'd need to live away from the city, but still the area is depopulating rapidly. Younger people don't want a life of car dependancy and social isolation.
I think there's a chance that remote working might really take off. From a cost-saving perspective it makes so much sense - we already went from offices -> open plan, if we go from open plan -> remote being the new norm, suddenly there will be jobs everywhere , and that will change everything
Cars are not the cause of the issue with cities, cars are symptom of bad zoning and regulation which more times than not prevents owners of property from doing what they want. when every new building requires effectively bring special interest groups, politicians, regulatory boards, and unions, their due is it a surprise cities are not getting better. they are serving a politically connected elite, not the people who…
In cites like Los Angeles, cars are part of a feedback loop which makes them both symptom and cause. Los Angeles is low-density partly because it spends lots of land on roads and parking lots. It needs lots of roads and parking lots because everyone drives. And everyone drives because the city is low density.
I live in Los Angeles; The Mecca for the automobile. Back in the early 20th century, the city was trying really hard to invest in public transportation through the use of electric street cars. Unfortunately, car manufacturers were able to weasel their way into the pockets of the city planners and put a stop to that. We have a problem in Los Angeles. And that problem is that it's almost impossible to live close to whe…
Today I have a nice government job at a fixed location (military) but still need my car. A couple times a month I get called in at strange hours (3am) and my boss doesn't want to hear "the buses aren't running yet".