Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: public transport | |
Author: Andrew(Canada) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 17:27:54 12/08/04 Wed In reply to: Andrew(Canada) 's message, "light-rail" on 15:29:47 12/08/04 Wed public transport of course isn't the solution on its own, and i think that's what a lot of governments dont realise. Cities and neighbourhoods need to be designed to be pedestrian oriented(no cars allowed on streets, compact street design, high density housing), so that everything you need is within walking distance (supermarket, school, office, shops, etc.) If you had cities designed like this, people would only use public transport to get between neighbourhoods and cities because everything is already so close to themselves, and maybe for the elderly or the lazy, there can be light rail going along the major arteries of the neighbourhood, for those times when a 10 min walk might be too much for them. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Problem is that a lot of people want to live in low-density car-oriented suburbs | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:33:04 12/08/04 Wed I should know, I am an urban planner and intensification in the Toronto area has never worked. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: well, hopefully things will change... | |
|
Author: Andrew(Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:38:48 12/08/04 Wed well, i have a feeling those who were born in the 1940s-1970s were conditioned to believe that suburbs were the next big thing, but i think a lot of younger people like myself, at least from what i can tell, dont want to make the same mistakes (in terms of the environment) that our parents did...thats why i like Victoria, at least the part i live in, because everything is within a 10 minute walk besides my school and work, so i only take transit on those occasions where im going to either work or school, except in the summer, i tend to ride my bike then. but ive noticed, in Vancouver especially, a few developments within the city that our pedestrian oriented, and it seems the waiting list to get into those is quite high... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Victoria is a beautiful city - I was there when I was in the Navy | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:32:48 12/08/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I see your point | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:38:44 12/08/04 Wed Too many people use cars for short-distance local trips, when they could walk or cycle. I believe that cars are good for long-distance and by-pass trips. I was appalled that a woman who lives near me drives her kids to school when it rains or it is cold and their school is only two blocks away - a ten minute walk! They could easily put on sweaters and jackets, or raincoats and rubber boots and enjoy splashing through puddles on their way to school. The are denied this pleasure by this over-use of the car. If we cut out all these local trips by auto, we could cut down on congestion and pollution and makes our streets safer. However, I still believe that the automobile is best for long-distance trips. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Designer cities | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:42:00 12/08/04 Wed The idea that one can design places to live based on such things as you suggest is a very good one, but in Britain we have a problem with that: all the towns are already there and have been for some time. In fact, they have been there for many centuries before there was any transport except by foot of by horse. Then trains and trams and omnibuses and eventually cars came along, and we had to spend a fortune on adapting our cities to cope with them - one of the reasons why London is so ugly is that we tried to do this in the 1930s by knocking most of it down. Come over to Regents Street and just look what the buggers have done to it. Now we are trying to superimpose a pedestrian-based system onto a car-based system which was superimposed onto a pedestrian-based system, and the whole thing is just a mess. I cite two examples which might prove my point. Firstly, Milton Keynes and Telford were designed after the War in the car-age, with cars specifically in mind. They are a nightmare: the ugliest places in Britain and the least convenient when you get out of your car, full of roundabouts, dual carriageways, wind-swept shopping precincts and something hideous which is apparently called "the grid system". It's worse than America. Hell, they're worse even than New Zealand. Secondly, there is Cheltenham, which the Lib Dem council recently decided to pedestrianise. Not only was it bad enough for cars in the first place, on account of it having been constructed in the 1750s, but now it is a nightmare. The traffic diversions, one-way streets, flyovers, tunnels and all the rest of it which were necessitated by banning cars from the town centre cost millions and have pretty much doubled the journey time into work for most people. There is also a mysterious creature called "Park and Ride"... I'm not entirely sure what this is, but I am informed that it required the bulldozing of several acres of ancient deciduous forest just outside the town. This leads me to think that having towns which are good for cars and towns which are good for people are mutually exclusive. One can't have both. Oh, and Jim, and American friend of mine once told me a story (I don't know if it's true, but I pray not!) about the time when he moved into his new suburban house and invited the next-door neighbours round for dinner. At the appointed time (I don't know when they eat over there but I guess about 8 o'clock) my friend went out onto the porch to welcome his neighbours. He saw them come out of their house and wave. They got into their car. They drove down the drive, onto the street, up his drive, and got out, and said, "Howdy, thanks for inviting us, pardner," or words to this effect. Sometimes, people scare me. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Low Density | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:46:32 12/09/04 Thu Ed, the point you made at the end there is exactly why we should stay away from building low-density suburbs. All they do is encourage car dependency which in turn leads to increased air pollution, higher obesity rates (due to less walking) and a poorer quality environment. To me, Los Angeles serves as an example of how not to build a city. The dependency on cars and too much low-density leads to a very bad place in an environmental and social sense. In my opinion, we should be doing everything we can to encourage higher densities and more public transport. This means no major road building projects (especially motorways) and many large public transport projects. I support the idea of charging motorists to enter the CBD as is the case in London. I would like to see a return to the day of trams. In the good old days there were hundreds of trams travelling all over Sydney. They were all removed up to the 1960s with the increase in the use of cars. One modern light rail line has returned. I prefer light rail to buses due to less pollution and faster loading times, although buses are obviously a lot better than cars. The NSW Government seems intent on turning Sydney into another Los Angeles, having constructed a series of new motorways throughout the city and crippling the railways, although Melbourne retains a relatively good tram system. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I believe in a balance of new expressways and new public transit | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:17:29 12/09/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Bringing back light rail would be great for poor old Sydney | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:24:05 12/16/04 Thu Sydney people used to laugh at Melbourne's trams for being so old-fashioned. I rather suspect no one does that anymore. Certainly not anyone who has actually used them. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Sydney | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:43:38 12/17/04 Fri There is actually one small light rail line that was constructed in Sydney in the late 1990s, I think. I doesn't really go anywhere though, only a few kilometres from Central Station to Lilyfield in the inner-west. In my opinion light rail should be brought back to reduce the number of buses (it would be useful as it doesn't create pollution and has faster loading times). Light rail would be useful in the CBD and perhaps also other business centres such as North Sydney, Chatswood and Parramatta. It would also be useful where there are no or poor rail services such as in the Eastern suburbs. The last tram line to close down was in the 1960s from Central to La Perouse, why they don't bring this line back is beyond me. Unless the government is willing to build a heavy rail line, the entire eastern suburbs except perhaps Edgecliff where there is already heavy rail could do with light rail. Having to share lanes in the road with cars is increadibly annoying. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: light and heavy rail in car-mad Sydney | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:22:22 12/17/04 Fri The greater part of that light rail line from central through Pyrmont to Lilyfield was a disused freight line. Thankfully it was put to good use rather than ripped up. The huge mass of outer western suburbs could do with more heavy rail spurs with light rail feeder networks to get people to them. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: You're too harsh, Ed. | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:00:13 12/16/04 Thu My experience of travelling overseas is that I usually come back to Britain and am shocked at how petite, neat, clean and orderly it all looks. Of course then someone will gob on the street in front of me while dropping a McDonalds carton full of fries and ketchup all over the place and I will wake up, but I don't share your assessment that Britain looks ugly and untidy in comparison with most foreign destinations - perhaps living in Italy is having a distorting affect on your view? And as for Regent Street being in a terrible state - come on! I'd rather it had been left in its original Regency form, but it still looks like it was built in that era, and although it could be better maintained, it's one of the most attractive shopping streets anywhere.... In the US they base whole residential districts on Regent Street and charge millions of dollars for the privilege of living there. Self-criticism is all very fine and British etc., but it has to be realistic and kept in context! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |