The problem is that downtowns by their nature are pedestrian zones. It’s unavoidable. You can’t have a freeway that’s also a pedestrian zone and that’s why so many people are dying. Not to mention what I said above—you would need to eliminate almost all intersections which would make it impossible to get to your destination. Without spatially huge interchanges (impossible to build without demolishing the city you’re trying to bring people to), the intersections that remain would still disrupt traffic flow.
You just can’t have high speed roads in heavily populated areas. It’s not safe and congestion prevents them from functioning as designed. If there is a great need for this then it needs to be underground, but this is usually too expensive to consider.
But yeah those other things are definitely needed in downtown areas.
I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with because I don’t think we disagree. I’m not advocating for removing intersections to make arterials or freeway/highways. I’m not advocating for raising the speed limits.
I’m not sure what the equivalent of MS paint for linux is so it’s hard for me provide a graphical example.
Let me try one more time with text. If we still seemingly disagree, I’ll try to provide a graphic.
The way cities /should/ be designed are that you should use bigger roads to get close to your destination, and then take smaller roads to get there.
So highways -> arterials -> roads -> streets.
So, if I’m traveling to London, Ontario, Canda, I would take the 401/402 into the area, then take Wonderland road to get to the block I’m looking for, and then if that lands me in a neighborhood, I might have to take another small street to get to my final destintation.
So if a city is made of rough grids, you’ll still have one or two of those roads be arterials in from the highway, then major roads, then small streets.
From a motorized vehicle point of view, the pain points are intersections because you have to let other vehicles into your path. If you have very small grids, then traffic will stop very often.
If we keep a grid pattern, and we remove most of those intersectinos and make bigger “grids”, we can keep traffic flowing LONGER because there are less places vehicles need to stop. No interchanges – just intersections. Yes, it would still disrupt flow, but you can minimize that throughu the use of PROPERLY SIZED ROUNDABOUTS (traffic circles, for those of us in the US).
Furthermore, unless you can add an arbitrary number of lanes, adding more lanes does not reduce congestion (I’m looking at you Texas). There’s basically an acceptable amount of congestion/slow traffic. So if we make more lanes, more cars will fill it. If we take away lanes, people will find other alternatives (ie. biking, walking).
The thing is, many municipalities have really stupid rules about parking spaces and, more importantly, they allow above grade parking spaces. This is a very inefficient use of space. If you /really/ want to accomodate parking, build it underground and don’t make it an eye sore.
So, what is the better solution? Use mixed-use zoning to create areas where, if provided, parking is below grade, commercial is at/above grade, and above commercial is residential. This reduces the need for residents to leave the walkable area. And we simply increase walkable areas. And we build public transportation for those of us that need to move between areas.
Also, we REDUCE the speed limit to something that makes sense (again, I’m looking at you America) with infrastructure (read: narrow roads, service-use only roads, speed bumps) so that people will find alternatives. And goddammit we can actually use the acres of wasted space devoted to roads.
And again, I don’t belong in this community because I like cars. So what would I do for myself? All roads in a city center should be narrow with really slow speed limits. We should have “toll roads” like the Nurburgring so we can actually enjoy driving our cars instead of being stuck during the commute.
The problem is that downtowns by their nature are pedestrian zones. It’s unavoidable. You can’t have a freeway that’s also a pedestrian zone and that’s why so many people are dying. Not to mention what I said above—you would need to eliminate almost all intersections which would make it impossible to get to your destination. Without spatially huge interchanges (impossible to build without demolishing the city you’re trying to bring people to), the intersections that remain would still disrupt traffic flow.
You just can’t have high speed roads in heavily populated areas. It’s not safe and congestion prevents them from functioning as designed. If there is a great need for this then it needs to be underground, but this is usually too expensive to consider.
But yeah those other things are definitely needed in downtown areas.
I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with because I don’t think we disagree. I’m not advocating for removing intersections to make arterials or freeway/highways. I’m not advocating for raising the speed limits.
I’m not sure what the equivalent of MS paint for linux is so it’s hard for me provide a graphical example.
Let me try one more time with text. If we still seemingly disagree, I’ll try to provide a graphic.
The way cities /should/ be designed are that you should use bigger roads to get close to your destination, and then take smaller roads to get there.
So highways -> arterials -> roads -> streets.
So, if I’m traveling to London, Ontario, Canda, I would take the 401/402 into the area, then take Wonderland road to get to the block I’m looking for, and then if that lands me in a neighborhood, I might have to take another small street to get to my final destintation.
So if a city is made of rough grids, you’ll still have one or two of those roads be arterials in from the highway, then major roads, then small streets.
From a motorized vehicle point of view, the pain points are intersections because you have to let other vehicles into your path. If you have very small grids, then traffic will stop very often.
If we keep a grid pattern, and we remove most of those intersectinos and make bigger “grids”, we can keep traffic flowing LONGER because there are less places vehicles need to stop. No interchanges – just intersections. Yes, it would still disrupt flow, but you can minimize that throughu the use of PROPERLY SIZED ROUNDABOUTS (traffic circles, for those of us in the US).
Furthermore, unless you can add an arbitrary number of lanes, adding more lanes does not reduce congestion (I’m looking at you Texas). There’s basically an acceptable amount of congestion/slow traffic. So if we make more lanes, more cars will fill it. If we take away lanes, people will find other alternatives (ie. biking, walking).
The thing is, many municipalities have really stupid rules about parking spaces and, more importantly, they allow above grade parking spaces. This is a very inefficient use of space. If you /really/ want to accomodate parking, build it underground and don’t make it an eye sore.
So, what is the better solution? Use mixed-use zoning to create areas where, if provided, parking is below grade, commercial is at/above grade, and above commercial is residential. This reduces the need for residents to leave the walkable area. And we simply increase walkable areas. And we build public transportation for those of us that need to move between areas.
Also, we REDUCE the speed limit to something that makes sense (again, I’m looking at you America) with infrastructure (read: narrow roads, service-use only roads, speed bumps) so that people will find alternatives. And goddammit we can actually use the acres of wasted space devoted to roads.
And again, I don’t belong in this community because I like cars. So what would I do for myself? All roads in a city center should be narrow with really slow speed limits. We should have “toll roads” like the Nurburgring so we can actually enjoy driving our cars instead of being stuck during the commute.
Let me know if we still disagree.