Suburban sprawl sucks.

oldsaw wrote: Much of the problem might be attributed to cheap oil and transportation costs, BUT, I put higher blame on those who flat-out screwed the pooch with mismanagement of the growth. Greed, stupidity and corruption are bigger players than cheap fossil fuels.

Agreed. I think a lot of our national resources could have been managed better. From energy, right down to our land use. We can't create more oil, and we can use alternative means for a while (though they may not be scalable, so we'll have to use a combination of energy sources), but a thorough overhaul of our infrastructure planning will need to happen, by choice or by force.

z31maniac wrote: Hopefully once the I-44 construction is done and capacity dramatically increased, the congestion will calm down a bit and I won't have to wake up so early.

That's another issue that touches on a core problem. The more capacity you introduce, the more we, as humans, will use it.

Add another lane to the highway? You just allowed more people to move into sprawling areas. Back to same problem.

Make a more efficient car? You just allowed people to drive more. Back to same problem.

Move into a bigger house? I guarantee you'll find yourself acquiring more stuff to fill that space. Back to same problem.

Room in that engine bay? I guarantee you'll find a way to cram an LS1 in there. I see no problem here, really.

^It's more that I-44 is the shipping corridor through Tulsa and the a$$h0le truck drivers that sit parked in the fast land going 5-10 under the speed limit.

People aren't knocking down the door to move into the Tulsa area.

Really makes me miss having a sportbike for commuting duties.

I love being able to live far from where I work. As much as I like the city, it's nice to go home to the bunnies and crickets and such. The commute is long, about a 90 min train ride, and then a bus or subway depending on where I am on a given day but it sems like a small price to pay to have clean air and quiet.

MrMook wrote: Lately, especially here in NYC, there is a rumbling debate about traffic congestion, to the point where the city is actually getting sued for putting in bike lanes because they supposedly increase traffic congestion. It's a hot topic, to say the least, and it's just one part of a larger infrastructure/city planning/transportation engineering conundrum that's apparent in nearly every region of the country, from big cities to smaller towns.

Something I know a little bit about. There have been some successes and some failures with his ideas on reorganizing the city. The biggest problem is his ego won't allow him to admit a mistake. I spent a year posted at the corner of Houston and Allen streets when he put in the bike lanes, planters ect. There were a few things that they seem to have not thought of.

1) Lots of trucks come off the Williamsburg bridge and go up 1st ave to the Willis ave bridge to avoid the toll. Since they made the bike lane, that sits mostly unused as the bikes continue to ride in traffic, on the sidewalk ect, it takes these truck forever to get across Houston street. Our buses generally sat through the light twice from the stop at Stanton st to 1st st. Now it is 4-6 lights. If you look at the apartments in the area noone opens their window in nice weather anymore because it starts to smell like a truckstop inside.

2) Atleast twice a day someone in the projects on the southbound side of the street calls the fire dept. When they show up and double park no one can get by unless they run over the barriers for the bike lane. Fortunately that's a little easier since someone moved the planters back a few feet.

3) Times Square has become a bigger pain to pass through since Broadway was turned into a park. The Mayor says they don't have any way to tell if traffic got better or worse. I take that to mean they know it got worse since they won't release the info. I am supposed to believe they can look in a computer and tell me how many times I used the bathroom at work but they never counted cars passing through Times Square?

Some things have gone well. Like the SBS bus lane on 1st and 2nd aves. After some initial problems caused by an overly optomistic schedule and getting the customers used to paying on the sidewalk service was greatly improved over the old limited service, with up to a 20% cut in travel time during rush hour. The rest of the rush hour traffic suffers a bit because they lost a lane but for us it has been a great improvement and they are looking at using the enforced bus lane and of bus fare payment in other parts of the city soon.

thummmper wrote: we must redefine growth--from urban planning to family planning. If you made a 3+ child family, you are the problem. your love for racing will pass when fuel goes away. start gathering seeds for your food gardens. stockpile toothbrushes, peroxide and all the other things oil produces. we will all turn amish. giddyap

Whew! i'm a no child family, my parents are 2 child, my brother is a 2 child family. Does that mean my smug level can go up to 'Prius owner' levels? And ya know, the ancients still managed to have oval track racing with horses... My fiancee's family is a 3 child family though... Then again, they are from Korea, and they have the problem of not having enough young people to support the older popluation. Not as bad as Japan, but still bad.

I guess the problem with urban planning in the US is that Americans hate being told what to do. "Greater good? Take that commie talk back to China where you got it!" Turn the argument around where it emphasizes personal benefit, and maybe we can get somewhere.

If I never had to do yard work again in my life, I wouldn't shed a tear.