US Commute patterns.

[noofnoof]

Hi. I was interneting when I stumbled across this picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USCom ... ns2006.png

from it I can say that New York is the best city in the US, and Oklahoma city is the worst.

however looking at thw Wiki page for Oklahoma, they are wanting to build public transport infrastructure.

[PikkaBird]

Population density:

Oklahoma City: 336.5/km2
New York City: 10,606/km2

The reason a higher percentage (not a higher number!) of New Yorkers don't drive is because there's literally nowhere for them to put a car. New York isn't "better" than Oklahoma (I'll bet there are fewer traffic jams in Oklahoma!), it's just much more crowded, which makes public transport more appropriate.

[JamieLei]

It's generally true wherever you are in the world - as population density increases, so does the number of people who travel by public transport. After all, a station will be far better used if there's 25,000 people within walking distance compared to if there's 250.

[doktorhonig]

Yep, but quite a lot of people in those densely populated areas can even walk to work.

[JamieLei]

Yep, but quite a lot of people in those densely populated areas can even walk to work.

If you believe that, then you clearly have no idea of city layout design!
It is true that some people can, but the vast majority still can't.

[Kevo00]

Yep, but quite a lot of people in those densely populated areas can even walk to work.

If you believe that, then you clearly have no idea of city layout design!
It is true that some people can, but the vast majority still can't.

I don't know, a lot of people I know in London could easily walk or cycle to work but take public transport. I used to walk the three miles from Bethnal Green to LSE, in Aldwych, but my flatmates, who were at closer places like City University insisted on taking the tube.

[noofnoof]

I walk to school in the morning, however catch the train in the afternon. it's a 30 minute walk, but not only that it's hilly. very hilly. my uncle, who is a taxi driver (he's really fat, he has the ability to drive buses, and he used to, but he was so fat he failed the medical.) almost died walking this route. various maps that fail to show how steep it is attached.

[doktorhonig]

If you believe that, then you clearly have no idea of city layout design!
It is true that some people can, but the vast majority still can't.

Depends on when the "city" has been built. Areas built after WW2 have separated buildings to live and to work. Most buildings near the city center have shops on the lower floors and people live in the upper ones (except maybe the very close center of the city) and are intermixed with some office buildings. If you live in an inner district of Vienna, for example, you can reach almost all other points in those inner districts within half an hour on foot. Nearly 400000 people live in this very small area, about one forth of Viennas population. But this area is less than 10% of Viennas area.

[JamieLei]

Actually yes, I'd completely forgotten that Continental European cities are built very differently, with people living and working in higher density areas than in Britain. I know it's back to Secondary School Geography, but cities here tend to follow the Burgess and Bid-Rent model, with separation of Commerce, Industry and Residential.



In the US, retail and commerce usually occurs at far greater levels of density, with residential at a very low density, creating sprawling suburbs. New York might be an obvious exception, but it still has an absolutely huge hinterland of the "Bridge and Tunnel Crowd" who drive in from adjacent counties, ie: Suffolk and Nassau counties from very low density houses a considerable distance away.

[Kevo00]

Burgess really is dated for most EMDCs though, I doubt that much manufacturing is around the city centre even in continental Europe any longer. Even the bid rent curve may now be unrealistic because a lot of cities have a huge inner city region that no-one wants to live or work in.

[JamieLei]

Aye - well the assumption of the Bid Rent curve is that industry and commerce would prioritise being closer to the centre of the city as accessibility is greatest to the largest number of workers (and in the latter case, shoppers). As congestion has kicked in, accessibility is greatest for lorries on the edge of cities, hence our remaining industry is often found there.

Thenagain, there are quite a few industrial estates in Birmingham in the midst of the suburbs. About 4-7 miles out from the centre but not really on the edge of the city. Ie: here and here

[Kogut]

Hi. I was interneting when I stumbled across this picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USCom ... ns2006.png

from it I can say that New York is the best city in the US, and Oklahoma city is the worst.

Why more public transport = better?

[doktorhonig]

Because commuting by car affects the living quality near the main traffic routes in a much worse way than public transport. It's the people from the suburbs who bring individual traffic to the city. They flee from noise and traffic and become the cause for that.
The car is not the root of evil, but it consumes a lot of space when it's not used, it creates traffic jams that affect public transport too, and it hinders pedestrians who have to wait for two minutes for their 5-second green on traffic lights.

[JamieLei]

Not to mention the air pollution! Cities like Mexico City, Los Angelies and Kuala Lumpur have god-awful air pollution due to too many cars in too many traffic jams!

[noofnoof]

Because commuting by car affects the living quality near the main traffic routes in a much worse way than public transport. It's the people from the suburbs who bring individual traffic to the city. They flee from noise and traffic and become the cause for that.
The car is not the root of evil, but it consumes a lot of space when it's not used, it creates traffic jams that affect public transport too, and it hinders pedestrians who have to wait for two minutes for their 5-second green on traffic lights.

genau. err, I mean, I detest the use of the automobile, though sometimes I can't avoid it, because It's just so innefficient. one lane of traffic can only transport 2000 vehicles per hour, yet a light rail line can do so much more with taking up a lot of space or harming the enviroment.

[doktorhonig]

Not to mention the air pollution! Cities like Mexico City, Los Angelies and Kuala Lumpur have god-awful air pollution due to too many cars in too many traffic jams!

In richer countries this is not much of a problem anymore, even the situation in Los Angeles seems to improve:

Smog levels are only high during summers because it is dry and warm. In the winter, storms help to clear the smog and it is not as much of a problem. Smog should continue to drop in the coming years due to aggressive steps to reduce it, electric and hybrid cars, amongst other pollution reducing measures taken.

But although the emissions are clean (mostly CO2 and H2O), they are still very high - and public transport is the key to reduce them.

[JamieLei]

To be honest, it's more the topography of the area. The city is situated in a bay with mountains on each side. Onshore winds cannot funnel the pollution anywhere so it's just recirculated round and round. The public transport situation in LA is pretty dire, and efforts with electric cars are token at best. Nonetheless efforts to clean up petrol in California should be applauded and not overlooked

[KeikyuFan]

To be honest, it's more the topography of the area. The city is situated in a bay with mountains on each side. Onshore winds cannot funnel the pollution anywhere so it's just recirculated round and round. The public transport situation in LA is pretty dire, and efforts with electric cars are token at best. Nonetheless efforts to clean up petrol in California should be applauded and not overlooked

Mass public transit is dependent on commuter patterns as well as population density and topography. One issue overlooked by many critics of large American cities in the southwestern US such as Dallas, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and San Diego is that workplaces AND residential areas are pretty decentralized. Traffic patterns at times come closer to random, Brownian motion that a simpler linear commute from say Patchogue, NY (or Westchester County, CT) to Manhattan; Elgin, IL to the Chicago Loop, or for that matter Fujisawa, Chigasaki or Hachioji, Japan to Tokyo or Shinjuku. What makes sense in a high-density, more traditional linear commute pattern doesn't always work in a city with combined low population density and unusual commute patterns.

[ostlandr]

I would so love to give up my automobile commute in favor of driving an electric car a few miles to a park & ride served by light rail, a fast train to a transit hub near work, then a bus or trolley (street-running light rail) the mile or two to my office.

I have done the commute by bike and bus- it takes two hours instead of 40 minutes, and I almost choked to death on the fumes from cars walking from the bus stop to my office. I had left the house showered and tidy- I arrived at work sweaty and exhausted. The reverse commute is worse, since it's six miles all uphill from the nearest major bus stop to the house. One thus has to walk 3 of the 6 miles. In bad weather, it simply can't be done safely by bike.

The park & ride is there (served by one pitiful bus line and private buses). Two rail lines run next to it. The spot for the transit hub is there (public land by the landfill.) No reason at all that it can't be done except short-sighted bureaucratic stupidity.

[Kevo00]

I would so love to give up my automobile commute in favor of driving an electric car a few miles to a park & ride served by light rail, a fast train to a transit hub near work, then a bus or trolley (street-running light rail) the mile or two to my office.

Would you really want the stress and hassle of changing mode twice on your daily commute? Seriously, come to London and try doing a modal change in the rush hour and you'll probably happily return to the solitude of your car.