First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply What makes car orientated suburbs more attractive than dense transit orientated suburbs?
28100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/13/15 , edited 7/13/15

biscuitnote [link url="/forumtopic-909593/what-makes-car-orie

You use less energy living in a large city due to gas and electcity. Smog is the result of the car fetish Americans have if we focused more on public transit we would see less pollution in large metro areas. If you really think living in a sprawled out suburb is better than a city you need to do some research on energy usage.


About 40% of our electricity comes from coal, bro. How much electricity does a single city use again????? Smog is more than just cars, for that matter. It is a mix of cars, factories, and electrical use. Also, are you going to rip up all the tracks and build new ones in busy metropolitan areas like New York, disrupting 8 Million+ people coming and going at all hours of the day? Including those that use the trains currently used? Not only would that cost a whole lot of money, the city would be in dire straights when the economy tanks due to the total disruption of businesses and commuters. Unless you are going to both pay for lost wages AND all the costs for a brand new public transportation system... :/

I am not sure you quite understand how the world works. It only speaks volumes when you don't comment on all the other facts of living in a city. It sounds like you are listening to a lot of propaganda instead of doing actual research.
2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 7/13/15

Orga777 wrote:


biscuitnote [link url="/forumtopic-909593/what-makes-car-orie

You use less energy living in a large city due to gas and electcity. Smog is the result of the car fetish Americans have if we focused more on public transit we would see less pollution in large metro areas. If you really think living in a sprawled out suburb is better than a city you need to do some research on energy usage.


About 40% of our electricity comes from coal, bro. How much electricity does a single city use again????? Smog is more than just cars, for that matter. It is a mix of cars, factories, and electrical use. Also, are you going to rip up all the tracks and build new ones in busy metropolitan areas like New York, disrupting 8 Million+ people coming and going at all hours of the day? Including those that use the trains currently used? Not only would that cost a whole lot of money, the city would be in dire straights when the economy tanks due to the total disruption of businesses and commuters. Unless you are going to both pay for lost wages AND all the costs for a brand new public transportation system... :/

I am not sure you quite understand how the world works.


I am not sure where your hostility is coming from? When you have more people living in a smaller space less energy is used. A typical house uses far more energy per person than an apartment dweller. Also where are you getting this idea I want to rip up all the tracks? Transit is more than rail it can be buses and bikes and a whole host of other things. For midsize cities buses are probably going to be more cost effective than rail.
28100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/13/15 , edited 7/13/15

biscuitnote wrote:

I am not sure where your hostility is coming from? When you have more people living in a smaller space less energy is used. A typical house uses far more energy per person than an apartment dweller. Also where are you getting this idea I want to rip up all the tracks? Transit is more than rail it can be buses and bikes and a whole host of other things. For midsize cities buses are probably going to be more cost effective than rail.


That gets negated when you have a city of millions, dude. All the energy "saved" is just spread out so far over so many people that it completely overflows to outrageously high levels. A SINGLE person saves, sure, but it doesn't matter when all the savings are negated when you add everyone up. No suburb uses more energy than any single city just due to population density alone. And buses? You are going to have enough buses for millions of people?
4510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
UK
Offline
Posted 7/13/15
I live in a city but I'm am fortunate to live where there is a village like feel. There's good transport links via buses day and all night. The Underground is still a good 20 minute walk away which is why my area has kept like it is. We still have local butchers, bakers, greengrocers and cobblers. The local parks are good and many streets are tree lined. I don't drive because there is no incentive for me to do so. I've even got a nature trail that I can use for off road cycling. Some use it for jogging. On the other hand they're started charging for the privilege of parking on the streets here. I can do almost all of my shopping within a 10 minute walk. I choose to have more exercise and cut through the biggest park on a 3 mile radius walk so I have a larger variety of shopping places. We've also got many restaurants, 6 sports clubs, some hair dressers, pubs some health clinics, dentists, banks, a little cinema and a library. Again they're less than a 10 minute walk from me. Most residences are houses though there is some low rise flats/apartments. I'd only ever move if I need a bigger residence because the costs of houses here are very high and I'm not a millionaire. If I do I think I'd have a hard time finding somewhere with such amenities within 3 miles without being too busy or too noisey. I'd also want to be in a place with a good atmosphere. I'd be quite happy if there was such an arrangement in the countryside.
2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 7/13/15

Orga777 wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:

I am not sure where your hostility is coming from? When you have more people living in a smaller space less energy is used. A typical house uses far more energy per person than an apartment dweller. Also where are you getting this idea I want to rip up all the tracks? Transit is more than rail it can be buses and bikes and a whole host of other things. For midsize cities buses are probably going to be more cost effective than rail.


That gets negated when you have a city of millions, dude. All the energy "saved" is just spread out so far over so many people that it completely overflows to outrageously high levels. A SINGLE person saves, sure, but it doesn't matter when all the savings are negated when you add everyone up. No suburb uses more energy than any single city just due to population density alone. And buses? You are going to have enough buses for millions of people?


If its a city of millions then commuter rail would be the most effective option. Also why do you think that a 3000 square foot house is more energy efficient than a 400 square foot apartment? City dwellers use less electricity gas and water than suburban dwellers far less. This is killing the planet
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/13/15 , edited 7/13/15
I don't even own a car.

I live in the suburbs, right across the street from a metro station. Only a 30 Minute commute to downtown Washington DC.




28100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 7/13/15 , edited 7/13/15

biscuitnote wrote:
If its a city of millions then commuter rail would be the most effective option. Also why do you think that a 3000 square foot house is more energy efficient than a 400 square foot apartment? City dwellers use less electricity gas and water than suburban dwellers far less. This is killing the planet


And like I said, are YOU going to pay to make better rail systems in cities of millions? Because it will be both overly expensive and destructive to the local economy due to disruption for months if not years, which will end up screwing said millions of people. You can claim all you want how much better it would be all you want, but it is impossible at this point on both a monetary level and the support level. If you can think of a realistic way to implement these plans, that is of course different. :/

Pollution is worse in cities, and will continue to be worse in cities even if all cars are removed from the equation just because of energy use, and factory work, which is a WHOLE lot denser in urban areas. You can claim all you want how "suburbs are destroying the planet" because cities use energy in a different way. Cities still produce more pollution than any suburb. Heck, it produces more than multiple suburbs put together. Also, unless you can somehow make cities affordable for everyday people to live in then your comments are ridiculous and your utopia dream is just that. A dream. Life in cities are not good for everyone, either. Noise pollution, more people means more crime and more poverty. Also, gotta love high rent, high utility prices, high priced basic goods, and high taxes. Always a good sign for everyday people to live in a city! All about economics, dude. It is ALL about economics. The human race runs on economics. This is a fact that will not change unless the human race goes back to the stone age (and even then it is STILL economics, just used differently.)
1430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / The Cosmos
Offline
Posted 7/13/15

VZ68 wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:


VZ68 wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:Would you really want to drive a lot if you don't have to?


Yes.


People say the automobile represents freedom. To me being forced into a car just because everything is so spread and the city won't invest in public transit is not freedom its slavery being chained to your car. Dense urban enviroments where you can bike and walk are far more environmentally friendly and I think create better communities than the post war auto dependent suburbs.


Nope.

If your theory was correct than riots in cities would never happen. When was the last time you hear of a riot in rural America?


http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-new-hampshire-pumpkin-riots-20141019-story.html
24 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F
Online
Posted 7/13/15
But the whole city smog thing is not limited to American cities (*cough cough* London *cough*). Any city without vehicle restrictions is going to have a serious smog problem. Unlike in the burbs or rural nowheresville, traffic congestion and plentiful traffic lights force cars to drive slowly and make frequent stops. This means cars are burning more fuel in a smaller area than they would if they were driving at highway speeds.


You are absolutely right that the typical generic suburb town is inefficient and has negative impacts on the environment (perfect laws mean more water, more pesticides, reduced plant diversity etc...). However the city model has it's own share of ecological problems brought on mainly by population density.

I too fail to see the appeal of those Levi Town type neighborhoods. All the homes are cheaply built, everything looks so generic and you have to drive to a multi-national chain to run all of your errands. I like driving, it's fun, but I prefer being driven by a bus or train driver for a 2 hour commute to work (or at least a carpool).

My ideal neighborhood is one similar to where I used to live. It was in the city so I could commute by bus or just walk if I wanted too, but the houses were large, historical and beautiful. Plus there was plenty of land to do some small scale farming (home grown tomatoes are amazing!). There's just so much more freedom in a house. Whereas in cities if you want to see some green or go birding or something, you have to go to a park. Parks are nice, but they (usually) lack wildlife and hiking trails.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 7/15/15

IShouldBeStudying wrote:


VZ68 wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:


VZ68 wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:Would you really want to drive a lot if you don't have to?


Yes.


People say the automobile represents freedom. To me being forced into a car just because everything is so spread and the city won't invest in public transit is not freedom its slavery being chained to your car. Dense urban enviroments where you can bike and walk are far more environmentally friendly and I think create better communities than the post war auto dependent suburbs.


Nope.

If your theory was correct than riots in cities would never happen. When was the last time you hear of a riot in rural America?


http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-new-hampshire-pumpkin-riots-20141019-story.html


The town's annual Keene Pumpkin Festival is one of its biggest events, bringing millions of dollars to local and state businesses and upwards of 70,000 attendees, according to some estimates. Attendees bring tens of thousands of pumpkins for the festivities.

100,000 people in one spot ain't a small town.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollister_riot

This one was a small shing-ding.

First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.