We haven't been able to confirm that a world similar to Earth exists yet. That said, assuming that we do that gives us some other problems to solve to move their safely and humanity will have to do so on a deadline when shit gets real with global warming. The logistics in moving humanity to another world is something we aren't close to solving yet, let alone setting up. It takes billions of dollars, years of research and extreme training to send a few astronauts to the moon - it's going to take enormous resources to successfully send entire nations to another world safely. There's the matter about establishing colonies on worlds, too. We don't have a set of large space stations to live in temporarily, either. From the information I've heard and seen about astronauts living in space station's it's a hard place to do so, now add to that millions of people. It's not a pretty sight. Humanity's space programs aren't anywhere near ready enough for this.
The effort required to travel to another planet in a sufficiently robust way would dwarf any grand terraforming projects required to rein in global warming. I doubt we'll ever find another planet more suited for human life than even a trashed out earth. And really, if it's interstellar than even considering it is completely unrealistic.
@acsis We didn't stop using large airships because the Hindenberg went down. The US was the first nation to field helium Zeppelins (we were the only nation with enough helium). However, of the five rigid airships we fielded, three crashed, and a fourth came apart in midair due to wind.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
@acsis We didn't stop using large airships because the Hindenberg went down. The US was the first nation to field helium Zeppelins (we were the only nation with enough helium). However, of the five rigid airships we fielded, three crashed, and a fourth came apart in midair due to wind.
I think the idea you want is more of a fused grid. Like I said, the roads are still hierarchical, but the hierarchy is loosened a bit. You still have a bunch of cul-de-sacs, but some if them dump out directly to the arterial a, rather than looping through to the collectors.
Nah, I'm talking about old city design. Look at anything built before, I don't know, like the 90s at least. Mostly straight roads, almost no cul-de-sacs. People take the larger roads when going longer distances or the like but the ability to move in and out of the smaller streets at all sorts of points makes the area much less prone to traffic and much easier to navigate on foot and by bike and makes it easier to service with public transport.
You want to loosen and avoid the hierarchy as much as possible. Look around at older neighbourhoods on Google maps or something and they are easy to spot because of it. The biggest thing you notice is that basically every road that would reasonably connect to a major roads does.
Newer style subdivisions and developments are built to deliberately limit access to the area which, well, causes exactly what you'd expect it to.
Except that isn't how it works. The old grids actually increase traffic because you have more active 4-way intersections. It is quite literally where we get the term gridlock from. They also increase the number of accidents. Pretty much every plan to replace the current hierarchy (well, those that have been designed by traffic engineers) still uses a hierarchical system; eliminating it causes just as many problems as strictly enforcing it.
Actually it is how it works because the way shit is often designed now just restricts that same number of cars to a smaller number of 4 way intersections and roads, causing an expected rise in traffic volume. The more you funnel people onto the same location and road, the worse traffic gets. It also causes huge problems for non-car-based transportation.
To go back for a second to the picture posted, the problem is that the entire setup is a bunch of curvy roads with like, one or two exits and that's it. It's the way subdivisions are almost always designed. Buy a plot of land, slap down a very small number of exits and then turn the inside into a maze. And it's fucking terrible for traffic flow.
PS - I'm starting to get the sense you maybe have a weird idea of the size of roads we are talking about here.
@acsis We didn't stop using large airships because the Hindenberg went down. The US was the first nation to field helium Zeppelins (we were the only nation with enough helium). However, of the five rigid airships we fielded, three crashed, and a fourth came apart in midair due to wind.
I totally saw it work on an episode of Dr. Who.
ARE YOU SAYING DR. WHO WAS WRONG!?
Hang your head in shame.
Even more depressing, the mighty Kirov airship is a lie.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I think the idea you want is more of a fused grid. Like I said, the roads are still hierarchical, but the hierarchy is loosened a bit. You still have a bunch of cul-de-sacs, but some if them dump out directly to the arterial a, rather than looping through to the collectors.
Nah, I'm talking about old city design. Look at anything built before, I don't know, like the 90s at least. Mostly straight roads, almost no cul-de-sacs. People take the larger roads when going longer distances or the like but the ability to move in and out of the smaller streets at all sorts of points makes the area much less prone to traffic and much easier to navigate on foot and by bike and makes it easier to service with public transport.
You want to loosen and avoid the hierarchy as much as possible. Look around at older neighbourhoods on Google maps or something and they are easy to spot because of it. The biggest thing you notice is that basically every road that would reasonably connect to a major roads does.
Newer style subdivisions and developments are built to deliberately limit access to the area which, well, causes exactly what you'd expect it to.
Except that isn't how it works. The old grids actually increase traffic because you have more active 4-way intersections. It is quite literally where we get the term gridlock from. They also increase the number of accidents. Pretty much every plan to replace the current hierarchy (well, those that have been designed by traffic engineers) still uses a hierarchical system; eliminating it causes just as many problems as strictly enforcing it.
Actually it is how it works because the way shit is often designed now just restricts that same number of cars to a smaller number of 4 way intersections and roads, causing an expected rise in traffic volume. The more you funnel people onto the same location and road, the worse traffic gets. It also causes huge problems for non-car-based transportation.
To go back for a second to the picture posted, the problem is that the entire setup is a bunch of curvy roads with like, one or two exits and that's it. It's the way subdivisions are almost always designed. Buy a plot of land, slap down a very small number of exits and then turn the inside into a maze. And it's fucking terrible for traffic flow.
PS - I'm starting to get the sense you maybe have a weird idea of the size of roads we are talking about here.
When I say arterial, I am basically talking about most signal controlled roads with a speed limit 35 or greater (I think they technically go down to 30). If it has stop signs or residential driveways, it's a collector or local.
Edit: basically anything between a collector and a highway.
I've actually begun to suspect we are having two completely different arguments that share enough concepts to be very infuriating.
I have no problem getting rid of curvilinear streets, which are basically aesthetic, traffic calming bullshit. I have no problem trying to desegregate the residential and commercial zones, though the economic advantages (to the store owner) of supermarkets and quasi-regional big box stores over local markets have made that more difficult.
All I am talking about is the actual hierarchical system, itself. Preferably one with a greater focus on three way intersections when changing levels in the hierarchy. Really, you aren't going to find that many traffic engineers advocating a return to the undifferentiated grid.
Like I said before, check out the fused grid layout. It's still hierarchical, but somewhat more relaxed. It also has most (if not all) cul-de-sacs adjacent to green belts or parks, so people can walk from one to another.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Because, at least in my area, attempts at traffic circles result in increased accident rates.
The only way to avoid that is to make them single lane, which severely constricts the flow of traffic.
I think ACSIS would agree with me on this one, the increased number of accidents is a poor reason to not use traffic circles. In fact, if anything, given the impending issue of gross over population, it is an argument for for magic roundabouts and lots of them.
It would apply additional selection pressure, and help keep humanity evolving.
Because, at least in my area, attempts at traffic circles result in increased accident rates.
The only way to avoid that is to make them single lane, which severely constricts the flow of traffic.
It is annoying in our area they keep throwing up more traffic circles. Studies are showing accident rates shot through the roof with them but fatalities are down as there are no head on collisions and most of the accidents are side to side low speed impacts the local DMV finds the trade off acceptable.
Because, at least in my area, attempts at traffic circles result in increased accident rates.
The only way to avoid that is to make them single lane, which severely constricts the flow of traffic.
It is annoying in our area they keep throwing up more traffic circles. Studies are showing accident rates shot through the roof with them but fatalities are down as there are no head on collisions and most of the accidents are side to side low speed impacts the local DMV finds the trade off acceptable.
Yeah, the news articles I read about my area suggested that accidents were mostly minor. But even a minor accident can still cost a bit to fix and cause your insurance rate to go up, so they're redoing some of the circles around here.
I think ACSIS would agree with me on this one, the increased number of accidents is a poor reason to not use traffic circles. In fact, if anything, given the impending issue of gross over population, it is an argument for for magic roundabouts and lots of them.
It would apply additional selection pressure, and help keep humanity evolving.
Are you serious? My sarcasm detector is on the fritz.
You're trying to generate an "ought" from an "is". That doesn't always go so well.
Because, at least in my area, attempts at traffic circles result in increased accident rates.
The only way to avoid that is to make them single lane, which severely constricts the flow of traffic.
I think ACSIS would agree with me on this one, the increased number of accidents is a poor reason to not use traffic circles. In fact, if anything, given the impending issue of gross over population, it is an argument for for magic roundabouts and lots of them.
It would apply additional selection pressure, and help keep humanity evolving.
It is also the dark sigil, Odegra, and fated to bring about the end of days.
Also, roundabouts are an absolute bitch for commercial traffic. Up in Lacey, Wa, both Home Depot and Target have DCs that you have to pass two roundabouts to get to, and three to leave. We don't just take up both lanes; we take both lanes, the entire interior brickwork, and enter the damn thing on the blind hope that some goose doesn't come whipping around at 30mph and hit us.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think community planking is a fascinating topic. Perhaps a new thread is warranted?
On energy, are there designs that we can use to lessen the need for air conditioning? It is a modern marvel that we can control the temperature like we can, but I know from my electric bills that it is very energy intensive.
I think community planking is a fascinating topic. Perhaps a new thread is warranted?
On energy, are there designs that we can use to lessen the need for air conditioning? It is a modern marvel that we can control the temperature like we can, but I know from my electric bills that it is very energy intensive.
Reducing exposed, exterior wall space is the only real way to go about that, so far as floor plan is concerned. Building down also helps, if that is an option. At my place, I've seen temperatures reach 126. Summer months are triple digits as many days as not. My house has one floor sunk half into the ground, and it is amazing how much cooler it is there than even the ground floor (the upper floor is basically a no-go area Until dusk). With ceiling fans down there, sometimes I'd just leave the AC off and let it be 80-90 in there (I grew up in the heat).
Also make sure you can close the air vents and shut up rooms you don't use much (guest bedroom, etc). Even just shutting that door will help. That way you are cooling less space.
Also, ceiling fans. I cannot stress the difference air circulation makes on the perceived temperature in a room, and they use relatively little power.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I think the idea you want is more of a fused grid. Like I said, the roads are still hierarchical, but the hierarchy is loosened a bit. You still have a bunch of cul-de-sacs, but some if them dump out directly to the arterial a, rather than looping through to the collectors.
Nah, I'm talking about old city design. Look at anything built before, I don't know, like the 90s at least. Mostly straight roads, almost no cul-de-sacs. People take the larger roads when going longer distances or the like but the ability to move in and out of the smaller streets at all sorts of points makes the area much less prone to traffic and much easier to navigate on foot and by bike and makes it easier to service with public transport.
You want to loosen and avoid the hierarchy as much as possible. Look around at older neighbourhoods on Google maps or something and they are easy to spot because of it. The biggest thing you notice is that basically every road that would reasonably connect to a major roads does.
Newer style subdivisions and developments are built to deliberately limit access to the area which, well, causes exactly what you'd expect it to.
Except that isn't how it works. The old grids actually increase traffic because you have more active 4-way intersections. It is quite literally where we get the term gridlock from. They also increase the number of accidents. Pretty much every plan to replace the current hierarchy (well, those that have been designed by traffic engineers) still uses a hierarchical system; eliminating it causes just as many problems as strictly enforcing it.
Actually it is how it works because the way shit is often designed now just restricts that same number of cars to a smaller number of 4 way intersections and roads, causing an expected rise in traffic volume. The more you funnel people onto the same location and road, the worse traffic gets. It also causes huge problems for non-car-based transportation.
To go back for a second to the picture posted, the problem is that the entire setup is a bunch of curvy roads with like, one or two exits and that's it. It's the way subdivisions are almost always designed. Buy a plot of land, slap down a very small number of exits and then turn the inside into a maze. And it's fucking terrible for traffic flow.
PS - I'm starting to get the sense you maybe have a weird idea of the size of roads we are talking about here.
When I say arterial, I am basically talking about most signal controlled roads with a speed limit 35 or greater (I think they technically go down to 30). If it has stop signs or residential driveways, it's a collector or local.
Edit: basically anything between a collector and a highway.
I've actually begun to suspect we are having two completely different arguments that share enough concepts to be very infuriating.
I have no problem getting rid of curvilinear streets, which are basically aesthetic, traffic calming bullshit. I have no problem trying to desegregate the residential and commercial zones, though the economic advantages (to the store owner) of supermarkets and quasi-regional big box stores over local markets have made that more difficult.
All I am talking about is the actual hierarchical system, itself. Preferably one with a greater focus on three way intersections when changing levels in the hierarchy. Really, you aren't going to find that many traffic engineers advocating a return to the undifferentiated grid.
Like I said before, check out the fused grid layout. It's still hierarchical, but somewhat more relaxed. It also has most (if not all) cul-de-sacs adjacent to green belts or parks, so people can walk from one to another.
I'm not against a hierachy of roads, I'm against specific implementations of it that strangle intersections between levels of it. This might help explain the issue better: http://www.streets.mn/2012/02/07/roadway-hierarchies/
Over-reliance on a Single Level of the Hierarchy or Levels Underdeveloped
In some areas, communities become over-reliant on a single level of the hierarchy, or a particular level of the hierarchy is underdeveloped. For example, in some communities, it’s difficult to get anywhere without using a county roadway, or a minor arterial, usually because all of the local roadways have been severed to accommodate the larger roadways. This is an indication that too many roadways have been classified too high (typically, not enough collectors, too many minor arterials). If the functional classification system in a community funnels too many trips onto higher class roadways too often, the system is unbalanced and will function poorly.
This is basically how all subdivisions are designed these days. They sever or stop all the minor roads, forcing everyone into a few exits to get to a few arterial roads which causes, as you'd expect, brutal traffic snarls. And utterly fucks up your ability to service those areas with public transit and makes pedestrian/bicycle traffic really difficult.
From what I saw, fused grid didn't seem to fix that although maybe I'm looking at the wrong pictures. Here for instance: http://www.fusedgrid.ca/fusedgrid.php
It's better but still not as good imo. The excuse for it is:
Conversely, centre-city street grid patterns, the inheritance of a strictly pedestrian era, provide connectivity but at the expense of tranquillity, safety and security.
Which is incredibly dubious.
shryke on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I think community planking is a fascinating topic. Perhaps a new thread is warranted?
On energy, are there designs that we can use to lessen the need for air conditioning? It is a modern marvel that we can control the temperature like we can, but I know from my electric bills that it is very energy intensive.
In ground housing.
Obviously this is an expensive example of it, and it's got other issues aside from power usage (Water and roots being chief among those), but that shouldn't be anything more than your typical basement. Obviously drywall is out of the question when building these due to moisture collection, and you'll probably invest heavily in dehumidifiers. However, I haven't had a basement in 15 years so I could be behind the times.
That aside, in-ground housing has two benefits:
It reduces the space used by houses which allows plants to grow there. Obvious benefit when it comes to oxygen production, erosion, runoff, and other things.
It reduces the amount of cooling and warming power required to keep your house at a decent temp. With the exception of the dead of winter and the dead of summer, you may need nothing else but a ceiling fan.
I think the idea you want is more of a fused grid. Like I said, the roads are still hierarchical, but the hierarchy is loosened a bit. You still have a bunch of cul-de-sacs, but some if them dump out directly to the arterial a, rather than looping through to the collectors.
Nah, I'm talking about old city design. Look at anything built before, I don't know, like the 90s at least. Mostly straight roads, almost no cul-de-sacs. People take the larger roads when going longer distances or the like but the ability to move in and out of the smaller streets at all sorts of points makes the area much less prone to traffic and much easier to navigate on foot and by bike and makes it easier to service with public transport.
You want to loosen and avoid the hierarchy as much as possible. Look around at older neighbourhoods on Google maps or something and they are easy to spot because of it. The biggest thing you notice is that basically every road that would reasonably connect to a major roads does.
Newer style subdivisions and developments are built to deliberately limit access to the area which, well, causes exactly what you'd expect it to.
Except that isn't how it works. The old grids actually increase traffic because you have more active 4-way intersections. It is quite literally where we get the term gridlock from. They also increase the number of accidents. Pretty much every plan to replace the current hierarchy (well, those that have been designed by traffic engineers) still uses a hierarchical system; eliminating it causes just as many problems as strictly enforcing it.
Actually it is how it works because the way shit is often designed now just restricts that same number of cars to a smaller number of 4 way intersections and roads, causing an expected rise in traffic volume. The more you funnel people onto the same location and road, the worse traffic gets. It also causes huge problems for non-car-based transportation.
To go back for a second to the picture posted, the problem is that the entire setup is a bunch of curvy roads with like, one or two exits and that's it. It's the way subdivisions are almost always designed. Buy a plot of land, slap down a very small number of exits and then turn the inside into a maze. And it's fucking terrible for traffic flow.
PS - I'm starting to get the sense you maybe have a weird idea of the size of roads we are talking about here.
When I say arterial, I am basically talking about most signal controlled roads with a speed limit 35 or greater (I think they technically go down to 30). If it has stop signs or residential driveways, it's a collector or local.
Edit: basically anything between a collector and a highway.
I've actually begun to suspect we are having two completely different arguments that share enough concepts to be very infuriating.
I have no problem getting rid of curvilinear streets, which are basically aesthetic, traffic calming bullshit. I have no problem trying to desegregate the residential and commercial zones, though the economic advantages (to the store owner) of supermarkets and quasi-regional big box stores over local markets have made that more difficult.
All I am talking about is the actual hierarchical system, itself. Preferably one with a greater focus on three way intersections when changing levels in the hierarchy. Really, you aren't going to find that many traffic engineers advocating a return to the undifferentiated grid.
Like I said before, check out the fused grid layout. It's still hierarchical, but somewhat more relaxed. It also has most (if not all) cul-de-sacs adjacent to green belts or parks, so people can walk from one to another.
I'm not against a hierachy of roads, I'm against specific implementations of it that strangle intersections between levels of it. This might help explain the issue better: http://www.streets.mn/2012/02/07/roadway-hierarchies/
Over-reliance on a Single Level of the Hierarchy or Levels Underdeveloped
In some areas, communities become over-reliant on a single level of the hierarchy, or a particular level of the hierarchy is underdeveloped. For example, in some communities, it’s difficult to get anywhere without using a county roadway, or a minor arterial, usually because all of the local roadways have been severed to accommodate the larger roadways. This is an indication that too many roadways have been classified too high (typically, not enough collectors, too many minor arterials). If the functional classification system in a community funnels too many trips onto higher class roadways too often, the system is unbalanced and will function poorly.
This is basically how all subdivisions are designed these days. They sever or stop all the minor roads, forcing everyone into a few exits to get to a few arterial roads which causes, as you'd expect, brutal traffic snarls. And utterly fucks up your ability to service those areas with public transit and makes pedestrian/bicycle traffic really difficult.
From what I saw, fused grid didn't seem to fix that although maybe I'm looking at the wrong pictures. Here for instance: http://www.fusedgrid.ca/fusedgrid.php
It's better but still not as good imo. The excuse for it is:
Conversely, centre-city street grid patterns, the inheritance of a strictly pedestrian era, provide connectivity but at the expense of tranquillity, safety and security.
Which is incredibly dubious.
Here is a slightly better diagram. White is residential, tan and purple are mixed use and commercial, I think, and green represents parks and greenbelts.
Switching to a grid pattern won't really do much for mass transit, except maybe in the largest subdivisions, the kind that could honestly use a major road down the middle and actually put a reasonable amount of traffic on it. Like I said earlier, where my house is, the bus stops are right near the entrance to most subdivisions, and that isn't all that far a walk, even in the heat. Going to a grid isn't going to put extra stops in my neighborhood, it will just let me walk to the existing stops by a variety of routes.
From a planning perspective, you don't want through traffic anywhere that cars will be backing out of a driveway. Frankly, you want as little traffic on those streets as possible. Between that and its complete inability to handle heavy traffic (have you ever been on a grid when traffic has overflowed to the side streets, and everyone wants to get to the freeway?), the grid is far from optimal.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I think the idea you want is more of a fused grid. Like I said, the roads are still hierarchical, but the hierarchy is loosened a bit. You still have a bunch of cul-de-sacs, but some if them dump out directly to the arterial a, rather than looping through to the collectors.
Nah, I'm talking about old city design. Look at anything built before, I don't know, like the 90s at least. Mostly straight roads, almost no cul-de-sacs. People take the larger roads when going longer distances or the like but the ability to move in and out of the smaller streets at all sorts of points makes the area much less prone to traffic and much easier to navigate on foot and by bike and makes it easier to service with public transport.
You want to loosen and avoid the hierarchy as much as possible. Look around at older neighbourhoods on Google maps or something and they are easy to spot because of it. The biggest thing you notice is that basically every road that would reasonably connect to a major roads does.
Newer style subdivisions and developments are built to deliberately limit access to the area which, well, causes exactly what you'd expect it to.
Except that isn't how it works. The old grids actually increase traffic because you have more active 4-way intersections. It is quite literally where we get the term gridlock from. They also increase the number of accidents. Pretty much every plan to replace the current hierarchy (well, those that have been designed by traffic engineers) still uses a hierarchical system; eliminating it causes just as many problems as strictly enforcing it.
Actually it is how it works because the way shit is often designed now just restricts that same number of cars to a smaller number of 4 way intersections and roads, causing an expected rise in traffic volume. The more you funnel people onto the same location and road, the worse traffic gets. It also causes huge problems for non-car-based transportation.
To go back for a second to the picture posted, the problem is that the entire setup is a bunch of curvy roads with like, one or two exits and that's it. It's the way subdivisions are almost always designed. Buy a plot of land, slap down a very small number of exits and then turn the inside into a maze. And it's fucking terrible for traffic flow.
PS - I'm starting to get the sense you maybe have a weird idea of the size of roads we are talking about here.
When I say arterial, I am basically talking about most signal controlled roads with a speed limit 35 or greater (I think they technically go down to 30). If it has stop signs or residential driveways, it's a collector or local.
Edit: basically anything between a collector and a highway.
I've actually begun to suspect we are having two completely different arguments that share enough concepts to be very infuriating.
I have no problem getting rid of curvilinear streets, which are basically aesthetic, traffic calming bullshit. I have no problem trying to desegregate the residential and commercial zones, though the economic advantages (to the store owner) of supermarkets and quasi-regional big box stores over local markets have made that more difficult.
All I am talking about is the actual hierarchical system, itself. Preferably one with a greater focus on three way intersections when changing levels in the hierarchy. Really, you aren't going to find that many traffic engineers advocating a return to the undifferentiated grid.
Like I said before, check out the fused grid layout. It's still hierarchical, but somewhat more relaxed. It also has most (if not all) cul-de-sacs adjacent to green belts or parks, so people can walk from one to another.
I'm not against a hierachy of roads, I'm against specific implementations of it that strangle intersections between levels of it. This might help explain the issue better: http://www.streets.mn/2012/02/07/roadway-hierarchies/
Over-reliance on a Single Level of the Hierarchy or Levels Underdeveloped
In some areas, communities become over-reliant on a single level of the hierarchy, or a particular level of the hierarchy is underdeveloped. For example, in some communities, it’s difficult to get anywhere without using a county roadway, or a minor arterial, usually because all of the local roadways have been severed to accommodate the larger roadways. This is an indication that too many roadways have been classified too high (typically, not enough collectors, too many minor arterials). If the functional classification system in a community funnels too many trips onto higher class roadways too often, the system is unbalanced and will function poorly.
This is basically how all subdivisions are designed these days. They sever or stop all the minor roads, forcing everyone into a few exits to get to a few arterial roads which causes, as you'd expect, brutal traffic snarls. And utterly fucks up your ability to service those areas with public transit and makes pedestrian/bicycle traffic really difficult.
From what I saw, fused grid didn't seem to fix that although maybe I'm looking at the wrong pictures. Here for instance: http://www.fusedgrid.ca/fusedgrid.php
It's better but still not as good imo. The excuse for it is:
Conversely, centre-city street grid patterns, the inheritance of a strictly pedestrian era, provide connectivity but at the expense of tranquillity, safety and security.
Which is incredibly dubious.
Here is a slightly better diagram. White is residential, tan and purple are mixed use and commercial, I think, and green represents parks and greenbelts.
Switching to a grid pattern won't really do much for mass transit, except maybe in the largest subdivisions, the kind that could honestly use a major road down the middle and actually put a reasonable amount of traffic on it. Like I said earlier, where my house is, the bus stops are right near the entrance to most subdivisions, and that isn't all that far a walk, even in the heat. Going to a grid isn't going to put extra stops in my neighborhood, it will just let me walk to the existing stops by a variety of routes.
One of the keys with that grid is the size, which may alleviate some of the problems. Most subdivisions I've ever seen are built on FAR larger scale then shown there.
And the point is that transit is only efficient if it doesn't have to wind down those side-streets to pick people up. Frequent connections with larger roads which are spaced closer together means people can just walk a few minutes to the nearest one and hit a transit corridor and get on a bus.
From a planning perspective, you don't want through traffic anywhere that cars will be backing out of a driveway. Frankly, you want as little traffic on those streets as possible. Between that and its complete inability to handle heavy traffic (have you ever been on a grid when traffic has overflowed to the side streets, and everyone wants to get to the freeway?), the grid is far from optimal.
You don't want HEAVY through traffic. That's why you need frequent larger roads to off-load people on to.
And have you ever been in a neighbourhood where traffic CAN'T overflow to the side streets? Because that's what I'm talking about this whole time. By forcing everyone onto a few specific arteries you cause enormous traffic congestion. The ability to cut through side streets occasionally or move in and out of smaller residential areas through multiple avenues is the point. It relieves congestion.
I think the idea you want is more of a fused grid. Like I said, the roads are still hierarchical, but the hierarchy is loosened a bit. You still have a bunch of cul-de-sacs, but some if them dump out directly to the arterial a, rather than looping through to the collectors.
Nah, I'm talking about old city design. Look at anything built before, I don't know, like the 90s at least. Mostly straight roads, almost no cul-de-sacs. People take the larger roads when going longer distances or the like but the ability to move in and out of the smaller streets at all sorts of points makes the area much less prone to traffic and much easier to navigate on foot and by bike and makes it easier to service with public transport.
You want to loosen and avoid the hierarchy as much as possible. Look around at older neighbourhoods on Google maps or something and they are easy to spot because of it. The biggest thing you notice is that basically every road that would reasonably connect to a major roads does.
Newer style subdivisions and developments are built to deliberately limit access to the area which, well, causes exactly what you'd expect it to.
Except that isn't how it works. The old grids actually increase traffic because you have more active 4-way intersections. It is quite literally where we get the term gridlock from. They also increase the number of accidents. Pretty much every plan to replace the current hierarchy (well, those that have been designed by traffic engineers) still uses a hierarchical system; eliminating it causes just as many problems as strictly enforcing it.
Actually it is how it works because the way shit is often designed now just restricts that same number of cars to a smaller number of 4 way intersections and roads, causing an expected rise in traffic volume. The more you funnel people onto the same location and road, the worse traffic gets. It also causes huge problems for non-car-based transportation.
To go back for a second to the picture posted, the problem is that the entire setup is a bunch of curvy roads with like, one or two exits and that's it. It's the way subdivisions are almost always designed. Buy a plot of land, slap down a very small number of exits and then turn the inside into a maze. And it's fucking terrible for traffic flow.
PS - I'm starting to get the sense you maybe have a weird idea of the size of roads we are talking about here.
When I say arterial, I am basically talking about most signal controlled roads with a speed limit 35 or greater (I think they technically go down to 30). If it has stop signs or residential driveways, it's a collector or local.
Edit: basically anything between a collector and a highway.
I've actually begun to suspect we are having two completely different arguments that share enough concepts to be very infuriating.
I have no problem getting rid of curvilinear streets, which are basically aesthetic, traffic calming bullshit. I have no problem trying to desegregate the residential and commercial zones, though the economic advantages (to the store owner) of supermarkets and quasi-regional big box stores over local markets have made that more difficult.
All I am talking about is the actual hierarchical system, itself. Preferably one with a greater focus on three way intersections when changing levels in the hierarchy. Really, you aren't going to find that many traffic engineers advocating a return to the undifferentiated grid.
Like I said before, check out the fused grid layout. It's still hierarchical, but somewhat more relaxed. It also has most (if not all) cul-de-sacs adjacent to green belts or parks, so people can walk from one to another.
I'm not against a hierachy of roads, I'm against specific implementations of it that strangle intersections between levels of it. This might help explain the issue better: http://www.streets.mn/2012/02/07/roadway-hierarchies/
Over-reliance on a Single Level of the Hierarchy or Levels Underdeveloped
In some areas, communities become over-reliant on a single level of the hierarchy, or a particular level of the hierarchy is underdeveloped. For example, in some communities, it’s difficult to get anywhere without using a county roadway, or a minor arterial, usually because all of the local roadways have been severed to accommodate the larger roadways. This is an indication that too many roadways have been classified too high (typically, not enough collectors, too many minor arterials). If the functional classification system in a community funnels too many trips onto higher class roadways too often, the system is unbalanced and will function poorly.
This is basically how all subdivisions are designed these days. They sever or stop all the minor roads, forcing everyone into a few exits to get to a few arterial roads which causes, as you'd expect, brutal traffic snarls. And utterly fucks up your ability to service those areas with public transit and makes pedestrian/bicycle traffic really difficult.
From what I saw, fused grid didn't seem to fix that although maybe I'm looking at the wrong pictures. Here for instance: http://www.fusedgrid.ca/fusedgrid.php
It's better but still not as good imo. The excuse for it is:
Conversely, centre-city street grid patterns, the inheritance of a strictly pedestrian era, provide connectivity but at the expense of tranquillity, safety and security.
Which is incredibly dubious.
Here is a slightly better diagram. White is residential, tan and purple are mixed use and commercial, I think, and green represents parks and greenbelts.
Switching to a grid pattern won't really do much for mass transit, except maybe in the largest subdivisions, the kind that could honestly use a major road down the middle and actually put a reasonable amount of traffic on it. Like I said earlier, where my house is, the bus stops are right near the entrance to most subdivisions, and that isn't all that far a walk, even in the heat. Going to a grid isn't going to put extra stops in my neighborhood, it will just let me walk to the existing stops by a variety of routes.
One of the keys with that grid is the size, which may alleviate some of the problems. Most subdivisions I've ever seen are built on FAR larger scale then shown there.
And the point is that transit is only efficient if it doesn't have to wind down those side-streets to pick people up. Frequent connections with larger roads which are spaced closer together means people can just walk a few minutes to the nearest one and hit a transit corridor and get on a bus.
From a planning perspective, you don't want through traffic anywhere that cars will be backing out of a driveway. Frankly, you want as little traffic on those streets as possible. Between that and its complete inability to handle heavy traffic (have you ever been on a grid when traffic has overflowed to the side streets, and everyone wants to get to the freeway?), the grid is far from optimal.
You don't want HEAVY through traffic. That's why you need frequent larger roads to off-load people on to.
And have you ever been in a neighbourhood where traffic CAN'T overflow to the side streets? Because that's what I'm talking about this whole time. By forcing everyone onto a few specific arteries you cause enormous traffic congestion. The ability to cut through side streets occasionally or move in and out of smaller residential areas through multiple avenues is the point. It relieves congestion.
Actually, it causes congestion, because those cars cutting down sidestreets are still going to have to rejoin or cross the traffic tgey are trying to avoid. If everything were controlled by four-way stop signs or timed, synchronized stoplights, a grid would be able to accommodate more cars without increased delay, but the base travel time also increases due to traffic stopping whether or not the cross traffic warrants it. Grids with sensor driven lights are a complete clusterfuck. And when all that side street traffic tries to get back to the artery to make the freeway onramp or enter the Walmart parking lot, you end up with an even worse snarl than if they had all stayed on one street.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
edited June 2013
I'm not sure how cars avoiding main arteries through side streets because the artery won't take them to their destination causes congestion.
Take me for example. I live right next to the northernmost highway in my town. I could take that highway to an off ramp to one of the main streets (that's busy quite a bit) and then a right to ANOTHER main street to get a soda from Stripes. Or I can just cut through my neighborhood because the Stripes is directly on 40th street, avoid all the traffic and get back home even sooner.
Lawton, Oklahoma is a crappy town in many respects, even our roads look like something from a third world country. But driving through the middle of town is always fast and easy because there are so many ways to get everywhere. In comparison, Lexington Park, MD was a town a quarter of the size of Lawton, at least when I lived there. It has 2 main roads and it took at least 10 minutes to get anywhere because it dumped all the traffic into two main arteries.
Look, what I'm saying is that traffic flow is more effectively regulated by speed limits that road placement. Don't want a busy side street then make it 25 mph.
jungleroomx on
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I think community planking is a fascinating topic. Perhaps a new thread is warranted?
On energy, are there designs that we can use to lessen the need for air conditioning? It is a modern marvel that we can control the temperature like we can, but I know from my electric bills that it is very energy intensive.
Reducing exposed, exterior wall space is the only real way to go about that, so far as floor plan is concerned. Building down also helps, if that is an option. At my place, I've seen temperatures reach 126. Summer months are triple digits as many days as not. My house has one floor sunk half into the ground, and it is amazing how much cooler it is there than even the ground floor (the upper floor is basically a no-go area Until dusk). With ceiling fans down there, sometimes I'd just leave the AC off and let it be 80-90 in there (I grew up in the heat).
Also make sure you can close the air vents and shut up rooms you don't use much (guest bedroom, etc). Even just shutting that door will help. That way you are cooling less space.
Also, ceiling fans. I cannot stress the difference air circulation makes on the perceived temperature in a room, and they use relatively little power.
Isn't insulation the most effective way to keep temperatures liveable?
Actually, it causes congestion, because those cars cutting down side streets are still going to have to rejoin or cross the traffic they are trying to avoid. If everything were controlled by four-way stop signs or timed, synchronized stoplights, a grid would be able to accommodate more cars without increased delay, but the base travel time also increases due to traffic stopping whether or not the cross traffic warrants it. Grids with sensor driven lights are a complete clusterfuck. And when all that side street traffic tries to get back to the artery to make the freeway on ramp or enter the Walmart parking lot, you end up with an even worse snarl than if they had all stayed on one street.
That's only true under certain assumptions that don't make any sense outside of the mind of a 1960's traffic engineer. To go back to my original example, let's pretend they aren't two backyards but a backyard and a grocery store. Now, the people who are literally butted up against it will probably just walk over, but anyone who's a little bit further away where lugging a gallon of milk is inconvenient won't be doing that. So now, due to poor land use, they're not going to be driving a ~mile on local streets as local traffic, they're going to be driving ~6 miles on arterials mixing with truly through traffic (people heading cross town for whatever reason) in order to go get a gallon of milk. Artificially increasing the amount of traffic, VMT, gas demand (both from increased VMT and increased idling due to added congestion), and emissions. Because a cul-de-sac is pointlessly in the way of them just heading straight over to walgreens, as well as zoning requiring everyone in a 10 mile radius to go to the same (massive) store (with higher HVAC requirements, parking lots, and resultant runoff issues) instead of having options. Contrast this with more traditional grids /urban planning:
Sorry it's a bit small, but this is the girl's neighborhood. It is primarily full of 2 storey single family homes with yards, but there are a smattering of 3-4 storey apartment complexes mixed in as well. (Also schools and a hospital, those are the big not very leafy squares) There is enough local/through traffic that you wouldn't want to play street hockey, say, but not so much that you can't go jogging, riding your bike, or even play in a fire hydrant (all of which happens constantly on her block) for fear of constantly getting hit by a car. Given the relatively narrow road widths made narrower by parallel parked cars nobody really goes over 20 mph simply because it isn't comfortable to do so. Raised speed humps also help. Due to the areas' grid nature we have a variety of ways to head North, South, East, or West if we need to go anywhere, however we never really need to go anywhere that isn't very local (within a mile or two) aside from meeting up with friends from other neighborhoods, because 90% of what you need to do in a day is available nearby. There's an Aldi, Walgreens, and Jewel within 2 miles and who are all directly accessible without adding our local traffic to arterials thanks to the grid. The main streets all have relatively frequent bus routes on them, as well as the L being close by on the diagonal street, due to having multiple households and businesses nearby as well as being on the way of the bus rather than twisted up and far off in a spur, which further reduces the demand for traffic congestion over medium length trips. Top to bottom is basically a 4 block square, or ~1/2 mile, with nearly ~12 block squares (or ~1.5 miles) lengthwise, for reference.
The population density is moderately high here, but I could easily point to Oak Park (or a similar street car suburb as well as a traditional small town even further out) that is just moderately-moderately low density for a similar descriptor. I just wouldn't know the area quite as well offhand. Solely due to land use/planning these areas are far less energy intensive in a lot of ways.
moniker on
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I think community planking is a fascinating topic. Perhaps a new thread is warranted?
On energy, are there designs that we can use to lessen the need for air conditioning? It is a modern marvel that we can control the temperature like we can, but I know from my electric bills that it is very energy intensive.
Reducing exposed, exterior wall space is the only real way to go about that, so far as floor plan is concerned. Building down also helps, if that is an option. At my place, I've seen temperatures reach 126. Summer months are triple digits as many days as not. My house has one floor sunk half into the ground, and it is amazing how much cooler it is there than even the ground floor (the upper floor is basically a no-go area Until dusk). With ceiling fans down there, sometimes I'd just leave the AC off and let it be 80-90 in there (I grew up in the heat).
Also make sure you can close the air vents and shut up rooms you don't use much (guest bedroom, etc). Even just shutting that door will help. That way you are cooling less space.
Also, ceiling fans. I cannot stress the difference air circulation makes on the perceived temperature in a room, and they use relatively little power.
Isn't insulation the most effective way to keep temperatures liveable?
Insulation is the best way to kneecap temperature extremes. Modern spray-in insulation is much more effective than fiberglass rolls, and brickwork is more effective than drywall and wood.
Insulation has failure points like doors, windows, through attics, among other places. If we were insulating optimally wed be putting huge sheets of aerogels, custom cut and caulked in to the frame. Obviously were a few years away from that, as its prohibitively expensive.
I'm not sure how cars avoiding main arteries through side streets because the artery won't take them to their destination causes congestion.
Take me for example. I live right next to the northernmost highway in my town. I could take that highway to an off ramp to one of the main streets (that's busy quite a bit) and then a right to ANOTHER main street to get a soda from Stripes. Or I can just cut through my neighborhood because the Stripes is directly on 40th street, avoid all the traffic and get back home even sooner.
Lawton, Oklahoma is a crappy town in many respects, even our roads look like something from a third world country. But driving through the middle of town is always fast and easy because there are so many ways to get everywhere. In comparison, Lexington Park, MD was a town a quarter of the size of Lawton, at least when I lived there. It has 2 main roads and it took at least 10 minutes to get anywhere because it dumped all the traffic into two main arteries.
Look, what I'm saying is that traffic flow is more effectively regulated by speed limits that road placement. Don't want a busy side street then make it 25 mph.
That's actually how the system is supposed to work, only they seem to have a local road acting as a collector. In not talking about you taking that road a mile to a store at the edge of your subdivision. I'm talking about traffic from 62 taking it because they think 38th is too crowded and the problems that makes both in your neighborhood and on Cache when they try to cross or rejoin the main road.
Also, as of the last census, Lexington Park has a 15% higher population density than Lawton.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure how cars avoiding main arteries through side streets because the artery won't take them to their destination causes congestion.
Take me for example. I live right next to the northernmost highway in my town. I could take that highway to an off ramp to one of the main streets (that's busy quite a bit) and then a right to ANOTHER main street to get a soda from Stripes. Or I can just cut through my neighborhood because the Stripes is directly on 40th street, avoid all the traffic and get back home even sooner.
Lawton, Oklahoma is a crappy town in many respects, even our roads look like something from a third world country. But driving through the middle of town is always fast and easy because there are so many ways to get everywhere. In comparison, Lexington Park, MD was a town a quarter of the size of Lawton, at least when I lived there. It has 2 main roads and it took at least 10 minutes to get anywhere because it dumped all the traffic into two main arteries.
Look, what I'm saying is that traffic flow is more effectively regulated by speed limits that road placement. Don't want a busy side street then make it 25 mph.
That's actually how the system is supposed to work, only they seem to have a local road acting as a collector. In not talking about you taking that road a mile to a store at the edge of your subdivision. I'm talking about traffic from 62 taking it because they think 38th is too crowded and the problems that makes both in your neighborhood and on Cache when they try to cross or rejoin the main road.
Also, as of the last census, Lexington Park has a 15% higher population density than Lawton.
I don't take 38th. I take 40 to 43 when 40 turns to Lincoln then 40 all the way up, and don't even get on Cache. And 38th from 62 is never crowded because it only unloads out to a small section of neighborhood, a small school, and a richy development. Past Cache it does become crowded from traffic going to the hospital and Cameron University.
Nobody takes 38th, and even fewer people ever go through the route to 40th.
And I lived in Lexington Park 10 years ago. The population has increased appreciably.
Posts
- John Stuart Mill
I totally saw it work on an episode of Dr. Who.
ARE YOU SAYING DR. WHO WAS WRONG!?
Hang your head in shame.
Actually it is how it works because the way shit is often designed now just restricts that same number of cars to a smaller number of 4 way intersections and roads, causing an expected rise in traffic volume. The more you funnel people onto the same location and road, the worse traffic gets. It also causes huge problems for non-car-based transportation.
To go back for a second to the picture posted, the problem is that the entire setup is a bunch of curvy roads with like, one or two exits and that's it. It's the way subdivisions are almost always designed. Buy a plot of land, slap down a very small number of exits and then turn the inside into a maze. And it's fucking terrible for traffic flow.
PS - I'm starting to get the sense you maybe have a weird idea of the size of roads we are talking about here.
- John Stuart Mill
When I say arterial, I am basically talking about most signal controlled roads with a speed limit 35 or greater (I think they technically go down to 30). If it has stop signs or residential driveways, it's a collector or local.
Edit: basically anything between a collector and a highway.
I've actually begun to suspect we are having two completely different arguments that share enough concepts to be very infuriating.
I have no problem getting rid of curvilinear streets, which are basically aesthetic, traffic calming bullshit. I have no problem trying to desegregate the residential and commercial zones, though the economic advantages (to the store owner) of supermarkets and quasi-regional big box stores over local markets have made that more difficult.
All I am talking about is the actual hierarchical system, itself. Preferably one with a greater focus on three way intersections when changing levels in the hierarchy. Really, you aren't going to find that many traffic engineers advocating a return to the undifferentiated grid.
Like I said before, check out the fused grid layout. It's still hierarchical, but somewhat more relaxed. It also has most (if not all) cul-de-sacs adjacent to green belts or parks, so people can walk from one to another.
- John Stuart Mill
Because they are huge sources of accidents.
Because, at least in my area, attempts at traffic circles result in increased accident rates.
The only way to avoid that is to make them single lane, which severely constricts the flow of traffic.
I think ACSIS would agree with me on this one, the increased number of accidents is a poor reason to not use traffic circles. In fact, if anything, given the impending issue of gross over population, it is an argument for for magic roundabouts and lots of them.
It would apply additional selection pressure, and help keep humanity evolving.
It is annoying in our area they keep throwing up more traffic circles. Studies are showing accident rates shot through the roof with them but fatalities are down as there are no head on collisions and most of the accidents are side to side low speed impacts the local DMV finds the trade off acceptable.
Yeah, the news articles I read about my area suggested that accidents were mostly minor. But even a minor accident can still cost a bit to fix and cause your insurance rate to go up, so they're redoing some of the circles around here.
Are you serious? My sarcasm detector is on the fritz.
You're trying to generate an "ought" from an "is". That doesn't always go so well.
It is also the dark sigil, Odegra, and fated to bring about the end of days.
Also, roundabouts are an absolute bitch for commercial traffic. Up in Lacey, Wa, both Home Depot and Target have DCs that you have to pass two roundabouts to get to, and three to leave. We don't just take up both lanes; we take both lanes, the entire interior brickwork, and enter the damn thing on the blind hope that some goose doesn't come whipping around at 30mph and hit us.
- John Stuart Mill
On energy, are there designs that we can use to lessen the need for air conditioning? It is a modern marvel that we can control the temperature like we can, but I know from my electric bills that it is very energy intensive.
Reducing exposed, exterior wall space is the only real way to go about that, so far as floor plan is concerned. Building down also helps, if that is an option. At my place, I've seen temperatures reach 126. Summer months are triple digits as many days as not. My house has one floor sunk half into the ground, and it is amazing how much cooler it is there than even the ground floor (the upper floor is basically a no-go area Until dusk). With ceiling fans down there, sometimes I'd just leave the AC off and let it be 80-90 in there (I grew up in the heat).
Also make sure you can close the air vents and shut up rooms you don't use much (guest bedroom, etc). Even just shutting that door will help. That way you are cooling less space.
Also, ceiling fans. I cannot stress the difference air circulation makes on the perceived temperature in a room, and they use relatively little power.
- John Stuart Mill
I'm not against a hierachy of roads, I'm against specific implementations of it that strangle intersections between levels of it. This might help explain the issue better:
http://www.streets.mn/2012/02/07/roadway-hierarchies/
This is basically how all subdivisions are designed these days. They sever or stop all the minor roads, forcing everyone into a few exits to get to a few arterial roads which causes, as you'd expect, brutal traffic snarls. And utterly fucks up your ability to service those areas with public transit and makes pedestrian/bicycle traffic really difficult.
From what I saw, fused grid didn't seem to fix that although maybe I'm looking at the wrong pictures. Here for instance:
http://www.fusedgrid.ca/fusedgrid.php
It's better but still not as good imo. The excuse for it is: Which is incredibly dubious.
In ground housing.
Obviously this is an expensive example of it, and it's got other issues aside from power usage (Water and roots being chief among those), but that shouldn't be anything more than your typical basement. Obviously drywall is out of the question when building these due to moisture collection, and you'll probably invest heavily in dehumidifiers. However, I haven't had a basement in 15 years so I could be behind the times.
That aside, in-ground housing has two benefits:
It reduces the space used by houses which allows plants to grow there. Obvious benefit when it comes to oxygen production, erosion, runoff, and other things.
It reduces the amount of cooling and warming power required to keep your house at a decent temp. With the exception of the dead of winter and the dead of summer, you may need nothing else but a ceiling fan.
Here is a slightly better diagram. White is residential, tan and purple are mixed use and commercial, I think, and green represents parks and greenbelts.
Switching to a grid pattern won't really do much for mass transit, except maybe in the largest subdivisions, the kind that could honestly use a major road down the middle and actually put a reasonable amount of traffic on it. Like I said earlier, where my house is, the bus stops are right near the entrance to most subdivisions, and that isn't all that far a walk, even in the heat. Going to a grid isn't going to put extra stops in my neighborhood, it will just let me walk to the existing stops by a variety of routes.
From a planning perspective, you don't want through traffic anywhere that cars will be backing out of a driveway. Frankly, you want as little traffic on those streets as possible. Between that and its complete inability to handle heavy traffic (have you ever been on a grid when traffic has overflowed to the side streets, and everyone wants to get to the freeway?), the grid is far from optimal.
- John Stuart Mill
One of the keys with that grid is the size, which may alleviate some of the problems. Most subdivisions I've ever seen are built on FAR larger scale then shown there.
And the point is that transit is only efficient if it doesn't have to wind down those side-streets to pick people up. Frequent connections with larger roads which are spaced closer together means people can just walk a few minutes to the nearest one and hit a transit corridor and get on a bus.
You don't want HEAVY through traffic. That's why you need frequent larger roads to off-load people on to.
And have you ever been in a neighbourhood where traffic CAN'T overflow to the side streets? Because that's what I'm talking about this whole time. By forcing everyone onto a few specific arteries you cause enormous traffic congestion. The ability to cut through side streets occasionally or move in and out of smaller residential areas through multiple avenues is the point. It relieves congestion.
Actually, it causes congestion, because those cars cutting down sidestreets are still going to have to rejoin or cross the traffic tgey are trying to avoid. If everything were controlled by four-way stop signs or timed, synchronized stoplights, a grid would be able to accommodate more cars without increased delay, but the base travel time also increases due to traffic stopping whether or not the cross traffic warrants it. Grids with sensor driven lights are a complete clusterfuck. And when all that side street traffic tries to get back to the artery to make the freeway onramp or enter the Walmart parking lot, you end up with an even worse snarl than if they had all stayed on one street.
- John Stuart Mill
Take me for example. I live right next to the northernmost highway in my town. I could take that highway to an off ramp to one of the main streets (that's busy quite a bit) and then a right to ANOTHER main street to get a soda from Stripes. Or I can just cut through my neighborhood because the Stripes is directly on 40th street, avoid all the traffic and get back home even sooner.
Lawton, Oklahoma is a crappy town in many respects, even our roads look like something from a third world country. But driving through the middle of town is always fast and easy because there are so many ways to get everywhere. In comparison, Lexington Park, MD was a town a quarter of the size of Lawton, at least when I lived there. It has 2 main roads and it took at least 10 minutes to get anywhere because it dumped all the traffic into two main arteries.
Look, what I'm saying is that traffic flow is more effectively regulated by speed limits that road placement. Don't want a busy side street then make it 25 mph.
Isn't insulation the most effective way to keep temperatures liveable?
That's only true under certain assumptions that don't make any sense outside of the mind of a 1960's traffic engineer. To go back to my original example, let's pretend they aren't two backyards but a backyard and a grocery store. Now, the people who are literally butted up against it will probably just walk over, but anyone who's a little bit further away where lugging a gallon of milk is inconvenient won't be doing that. So now, due to poor land use, they're not going to be driving a ~mile on local streets as local traffic, they're going to be driving ~6 miles on arterials mixing with truly through traffic (people heading cross town for whatever reason) in order to go get a gallon of milk. Artificially increasing the amount of traffic, VMT, gas demand (both from increased VMT and increased idling due to added congestion), and emissions. Because a cul-de-sac is pointlessly in the way of them just heading straight over to walgreens, as well as zoning requiring everyone in a 10 mile radius to go to the same (massive) store (with higher HVAC requirements, parking lots, and resultant runoff issues) instead of having options. Contrast this with more traditional grids /urban planning:
Sorry it's a bit small, but this is the girl's neighborhood. It is primarily full of 2 storey single family homes with yards, but there are a smattering of 3-4 storey apartment complexes mixed in as well. (Also schools and a hospital, those are the big not very leafy squares) There is enough local/through traffic that you wouldn't want to play street hockey, say, but not so much that you can't go jogging, riding your bike, or even play in a fire hydrant (all of which happens constantly on her block) for fear of constantly getting hit by a car. Given the relatively narrow road widths made narrower by parallel parked cars nobody really goes over 20 mph simply because it isn't comfortable to do so. Raised speed humps also help. Due to the areas' grid nature we have a variety of ways to head North, South, East, or West if we need to go anywhere, however we never really need to go anywhere that isn't very local (within a mile or two) aside from meeting up with friends from other neighborhoods, because 90% of what you need to do in a day is available nearby. There's an Aldi, Walgreens, and Jewel within 2 miles and who are all directly accessible without adding our local traffic to arterials thanks to the grid. The main streets all have relatively frequent bus routes on them, as well as the L being close by on the diagonal street, due to having multiple households and businesses nearby as well as being on the way of the bus rather than twisted up and far off in a spur, which further reduces the demand for traffic congestion over medium length trips. Top to bottom is basically a 4 block square, or ~1/2 mile, with nearly ~12 block squares (or ~1.5 miles) lengthwise, for reference.
The population density is moderately high here, but I could easily point to Oak Park (or a similar street car suburb as well as a traditional small town even further out) that is just moderately-moderately low density for a similar descriptor. I just wouldn't know the area quite as well offhand. Solely due to land use/planning these areas are far less energy intensive in a lot of ways.
Insulation is the best way to kneecap temperature extremes. Modern spray-in insulation is much more effective than fiberglass rolls, and brickwork is more effective than drywall and wood.
Insulation has failure points like doors, windows, through attics, among other places. If we were insulating optimally wed be putting huge sheets of aerogels, custom cut and caulked in to the frame. Obviously were a few years away from that, as its prohibitively expensive.
[ cite ]
That's actually how the system is supposed to work, only they seem to have a local road acting as a collector. In not talking about you taking that road a mile to a store at the edge of your subdivision. I'm talking about traffic from 62 taking it because they think 38th is too crowded and the problems that makes both in your neighborhood and on Cache when they try to cross or rejoin the main road.
Also, as of the last census, Lexington Park has a 15% higher population density than Lawton.
- John Stuart Mill
I don't take 38th. I take 40 to 43 when 40 turns to Lincoln then 40 all the way up, and don't even get on Cache. And 38th from 62 is never crowded because it only unloads out to a small section of neighborhood, a small school, and a richy development. Past Cache it does become crowded from traffic going to the hospital and Cameron University.
Nobody takes 38th, and even fewer people ever go through the route to 40th.
And I lived in Lexington Park 10 years ago. The population has increased appreciably.