Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Induced Traffic Principle, aka Latent Demand


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#1 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 08:07 AM

To make Andy's work easier, taken from the SW PKWY thread.

QUOTE (cberen1 @ Mar 18 2009, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm not questioning the validity of the Induced Traffic Principle, but at some level don't you still have to be able to accomodate the traffic that already exists? Big cities need some big roads. If there is sufficient traffic to require a big road running Southwest from downtown today, aren't there some public safety risks to not providing adequate access to hospitals and the like?

I'm conflicted on this because I'm all for density, but how can you dsitinguish between legitimate growth requiring additional services, and unintended growth you think might come about as a result of the services offered? Can you justify building highways to areas where there is limited development today in order to foster development tomorrow?

I'm just rambling...


That is a good question, but I can answer that with an anecdote. Two similar questions that have very different answers. In Texas we ask "How are we going to efficiently move all these cars?" A similar question, which is asked outside of the Sunbelt is "How are we going to efficiently move all these people?" In Manhattan (1.6 million people on 23 square miles), there is zero expressways within the borough. Only the FDR on its border.

Having a hostipal next to an expressway doesn't increase safety. What happens when congestion sets in and it is bumber-to-bumper. Plus there are greater safety concerns with increased auto use (more people die in car accident every year then the entire 15-year Vietman conflict). In fact, a gridded street pattern with no major streets (because maybe they all are major streets) is more safe for emergency vehicles since traffic is spread out over the grid and there are near infinite route possibilities.

For the second point, "Can you justify building highways to areas where there is limited development today in order to foster development tomorrow?", yes, Fort Worth has instituted impact fees, which require developments to pay a fee to help cover infrastructure costs to the development. This is one way to make it a bit more sustainable. However, like most everything else, development in the inner city areas, like downtown, which already have most of the infrastructure in place, help subsidize growth in greenfield developments, which have little infrastructure in place.

QUOTE (Electricron @ Mar 18 2009, 04:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I didn't miss your point. I completely understand the induced growth argument.
You missed mine. The growth is happening ANYWAYS, without a freeway or tollway!


Then in that case you missed the point about the shape that growth will take. You put a freeway down and growth will be auto-oriented. You don't, you have a chance to make it walkable. Either way, this is still a bad idea from a city and region that is trying to make the area more sustainable.

QUOTE
Granbury and Hood County have been growing ever since Lake Granbury was built. People like living close to a lake with all its recreational opportunities. From 1960 to 1980 the population of Hood County increased threefold, from 5,443 to 17,714. Between 1970 and 1980 Hood County ranked sixth among all United States counties in the category of highest growth rate. One of the main reasons for the sudden increase was the completion in 1969 of Lake Granbury, which turned the county into a popular recreation and resort center as well as a retirement community. Our two lane rural highway was expanded to four lanes by 1982.

In the 30 years afterwards, Hood County's population has nearly tripled again, from 17,714 to over 49,170. I remember when there were no traffic signals on the highway between Benbrook and Granbury. Today, there's at least a dozen or more along the highway. Per TXDOT, without increasing the capacity of the highway, from 2010 to 2030, average daily traffic on US 377 from SH 144 to Acton Highway can be expected to increase from 54,400 vehicles to 81,600 vehicles.

Interesting fact about these numbers most overlook, there's more vehicles than people in Hood County using that highway.


And? going back to Manhattan, there are more people that in Hood County, should they bulldoze Central Park, everything between 70 and 72nd St, and everything between Park and Madison Ave. so the suburbanites in Yonkers or Nassau County get to the Midtown easier. For a pro-rail guy, you seem to be a growth at all costs guy too, which helps to cripple rail service and capability.

QUOTE
I sincerly submit that's too much traffic for a four lane rural highway. Sucks, that's more than a third of the capacity of the initial eight lane LBJ freeway was designed to handle.


Then widen the road (even though Laten Demand still kicks in, and we will be back to square one, with you argueing for more roadway capacity) or run a rail line. Running another expressway has predictable results.

QUOTE
You can plan for induced growth demand by limiting the amount of lanes added. It has been proven that growth in traffic in a corridor can be handled by other streets in that corridor if freeway expansion isn't done. But I would like to point put there isn't any other street to pick up additional growth in the US 377 corridor towards Granbury.

None what-so-ever! No county road, no Farm to Market road, no State Highway, and no transit system. I'll add there's no commuter/regional rail plan by NCTCOG either. There are no alternates.


Much of this road will bulldoze existing areas in Fort Worth. You can preach all you want that Granbury needs this, but Fort Worth needs it a lot less.

QUOTE
To suggest an urban solution in a rural area is foolish, imho.


Downtown Fort Worth and the surrounding area will suffer more that Granbury will benefit. Sorry, this causes all sorts of chaos for the urban environment. And Latent Demand still exists in rural settings, too.

I should also point out that studies show that the more "unsafe" a roadway is, the less actual accidents happen. Researchers attribute this to drivers paying more attention in conditions that feel unsafe.

QUOTE (AndyN @ Mar 18 2009, 05:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We could also have a thread to discuss induced traffic and transportation theory (if we don't already have one).


Would ya? I feel this is an important topic for discussion.

#2 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 08:08 AM

QUOTE (Keller Pirate @ Mar 18 2009, 07:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
A little harsh considering that Electricon is very new to the forum. If you had applied that quote to me it might have been fair, but to use it on a person that has been posting for less than a month is rude.


He may be new to this site, but I am quite familiar with the poster from DFWU and Skyscraperpage. Him being new doesn't change the fact that he misses the forest for the trees consistently.

QUOTE
99% of the population doesn't want single familiy housing, however people like you and others, that want something else, are less flexable in your views than the other side, I don't see you acknowledging the other 29 choices.


Expressways spawn two types of residential uses, owner-occupied detached single-family houses and rental garden style apartments.

Urban environs spawn those, as well as townhomes, towers, low-rises, historic rehabilitation, historic preservation with each being owner or rental. The thing you seem to be misintrepreting is that in my advocating for urbanity, that I am anti-suburb. While I personally would despise living in the burbs, I believe we need options and balance, this region has neither as it is so far to the suburban living that it negatively impacts urban living.

Plus, I don't have to acknowledge the other side, it is 99% of the existing choice. It is inherently acknowledged.

QUOTE
I have opinions about the neighborhoods that some folks on this board live in and even though my opinion might be negative, I try not to express it because it just isn't nice. The new urbanism folks on this board like to trash anything that doesn't meet their concept of sustainability. We constantly hear how North Ft Worth, Keller, Southlake, Arlington and Plano to name a few, are suburban wastelands, compared to the urban paradise some folks live in the central cities. Respect is a two way street. You get push back from people because you are militant in your views about how people should live.


To each their own. Every living situation has their own positives and negatives. Suburbanites constantly express their opinions on how city living is dirty, noisy, crowded, etc. While I personally disagree with some of their defintions, those physical attributes don't bother me and the positives clearly outweigh the negative. Suburban sprawl is an unsustainable growth model, as it requires growth in order to have a balanced budget. There is no denying that fact. Places like this are the hardest hit in this economic downturn because of that. If you think the positives outweigh the negative, then I am happy you found a situation that works for you, but that still doesn't mean there aren't negatives associated with your living choice.

QUOTE
I don't think that sentence makes any sense but, I'm sure you are unfamiliar with the census data that shows folks living in Southern California, in what you would call suburbs, have shorter commuting times than people living in the central city.


As a planning student, I am quite familiar. I am also famailiar with their authors and realize they have a knack for finding info that will come to the conclusion they want. A good, established urban reseacher will have many topics that come to many different conclusions. Guys like Peter Gordon, Harry Richardson, Wendall Cox and Randall O'Toole all have a body of work that point to one thing, sprawl is good.

That said, there is a certain truth to that conclusion, especially if we focus solely on commutes, but still doesn't change the fact that it is flawed. I have stated that freeways have been a big factor in emptying out downtowns. So, if an area like LA has been extensively developed by a freeway system, it makes sense that suburbs are the job centers. It also makes sense that since the suburbs have the jobs their commutes are going to be shorter.

However, what these "researchers" have ignored in their work, and been constantly criticized by the peers, is their focus is too narrow. These same suburbanites who commutes are shorter also drive more miles overall, since everything is segragated in the suburbs, than the people in the inner city, who have the ability to walk and make trips that are more consolidated.

By saying what you did, it seems your focus is on "how are we going to move these cars" not on "how are we going to move these people."

But let's assume that what you said above also applied to general trip length of all trip types. Would it be a surprise to anyone that a system that was setup for automobile commuting in the hinterlands actually benefits those who use the automobile in the hinterlands versus those in the inner city? Still doesn't change the fact that the growth model, on that large a scale, is flawed and has negative consequences.

QUOTE
I will reiterate, we all live in an urban area, and North Dallas and Plano are just as urban as DT Dallas when you narrow your focus to a block by block view.


And I will counter that you use the term urban and built environment interchangeably. Plano, aside from their downtown and Legacy is not urban, but SUB-urban. If I lived here, http://www.google.co...=...009613&z=17, then my option is to drive and only drive for everything, recreation, work, shopping, socializing, etc. If I live here, http://www.google.co...=...019226&z=16, I can drive, walk, bus, train, bike, etc. for all those activities. That is what makes those areas urban and suburban.

#3 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 19 March 2009 - 08:43 AM

QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Mar 19 2009, 09:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE
I will reiterate, we all live in an urban area, and North Dallas and Plano are just as urban as DT Dallas when you narrow your focus to a block by block view.


And I will counter that you use the term urban and built environment interchangeably. Plano, aside from their downtown and Legacy is not urban, but SUB-urban. If I lived here, http://www.google.co...=...009613&z=17, then my option is to drive and only drive for everything, recreation, work, shopping, socializing, etc. If I live here, http://www.google.co...=...019226&z=16, I can drive, walk, bus, train, bike, etc. for all those activities. That is what makes those areas urban and suburban.


Exactly. "We all live in an urban area" is either a dodge or a misunderstanding of the term. We live in a metro area, yes, but it is *far* from being entirely urban. As you say, outside of their Downtown and Legacy, Plano is urban in virtually no way.

Urban means, at a minimum, walkable, a mix of uses at some level, a mix of housing types, well-served by transit, and being able to live without a car if you so choose. Most of the FW/D metroplex fails that definition. It is absolutely not all "an urban area" except by the definition of "urban = city" which is not the "urban" most of us are using.

And "urban" takes many forms - it has nothing to do with skyscrapers or forcing everybody into apartments. Urbanism provides more choice - it provides single family, rowhouse, apartment, flats above stores, etc. in neighborhoods rather than segregated pods.

And yeah, not everybody wants to live above the store, or near the store, or in places where they can walk. On the other hand, quite a lot of people WOULD like to live above or near the store or where they could walk, but they either don't realize there's an alternative or in many parts of the country are prevented from having access to the alternative.

As FoUTA says, the drivable suburbanism model is inherently acknowledged - it's 99% of new development, after all. It's hardly because that's what everybody wants, though, and is in no way a product of the free market working on its own - we encouraged and subsidized it by building freeways into the hinterland and into open countryside, and we legislated urbanism out of existence through a series of zoning laws, parking requirements, etc. over time, all across this country. It's *impossible* to build in many parts of the US, or at least nearly impossible without getting countless variances and fighting every step of the way.

So no, the fact of living in the Metroplex does not inherently mean one is living in an "urban" setting.

#4 UncaMikey

UncaMikey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 19 March 2009 - 10:27 AM

QUOTE (Atomic Glee @ Mar 19 2009, 09:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So no, the fact of living in the Metroplex does not inherently mean one is living in an "urban" setting.


I agree with your idea of what constitutes urbanism, but I think you are too gentle. I'm not sure there are *any* true urban areas in the Metroplex, and I doubt we could have any within the next 5 or 10 years. The population density is so low and there is virtually no enabling infrastructure to allow true urban living.

I love city life, myself, but for now I have to travel elsewhere to enjoy it. Fort Worth is a nice place to come back to, partly because it is so un-urban.

#5 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 532 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 11:32 AM

I'm sorry, but do you really expect people to walk 40 miles dragging a shopping cart or a fishing boat behind them. I don't think you're that stupid. You would rather I do all my shopping in Granbury, and everyone in Fort Worth go fishing in Fort Worth, although the fish are much bigger in Lake Granbury. More walkable, who are you kidding?

You would rather sacrafice the economic health of Granbury for the economic health and sustainability of Fort Worth. How do you propose for citizens of Granbury, Stephenville, Dublin, Brownwood, and Comanche visit Fort Worth in the future, or vice versa? Walking isn't the answer.

As for bulldozing much of Fort Worth, since the Southwest Parkway bulldozes very few structures, how dishonest can you be?

I believe it will be far more sustainable to build a 20 mile spur off the Southwest Parkway towards Granbury, better yet around Granbury, than build the new proposed 250 mile outer loop. There would be 230 miles less highway for uncontrolled sprawl to develope around. My way makes downtown Fort Worth more sustainable, and have a larger economic impact, by sending the traffic to Fort Worth, than NCTCOG's outer loop which diverts traffic around Fort Worth. The same can be said for NCTCOG's planned rail corridor bypass.

You can't be an urban hub without spokes, all kinds of spokes, including highways. The reason Dallas and Forth Worth are urban areas was caused by rail and highway spokes. Like Rome, all types of highways led to them. Without the spokes, Dallas and Fort Worth wouldn't be urban cities.

If you want Fort Worth to be sustainable, look in your yard first. Does every street have a sidewalk? Are there bike paths connecting every neighborhood in the city? Does every major spoke into the city center have mass transit or rail? Once you have your house in order, then maybe those cities surrounding Fort Worth will develop sustainable transit into Fort Worth. But please don't expect us to build sustainable spokes for you first from the hicks, where walkable, sustainable neighborhoods don't exist in Fort Worth.



#6 Jim Wilson

Jim Wilson

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 12:09 PM

An "urban hub" certainly does need "spokes."
Its too bad we built a wonderful place to live and play (Granbury) while setting it up to "need" Fort Worth.
That those happily living in Granbury must commute regularly to-from Fort Worth for the work and the retail they seek is a failure.

While we must admit our nation, and even more so our state, revolves around the single occupant motor-vehicle...
... we must look beyond that. We need to truly embrace an intermodal transportation system.

We've got to provide adequate, but not never ending expansion of roadways- more roads and more lanes simply lead to more cars.
A highway backed-up with motor-vehicles doesn't show we need more lanes, it shows a lot of people want to get from here to there.
That's an understanding we must all come to before we cover our entire Texas landscape with more motor-vehicle lanes.
Commuter Rail, Rapid Bus, Light Rail, Urban Street Cars, Bicycles, Pedestrians, and yes the ever-popular motor-vehicle- we need them all.

#7 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 12:57 PM

QUOTE (Electricron @ Mar 19 2009, 12:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm sorry, but do you really expect people to walk 40 miles dragging a shopping cart or a fishing boat behind them. I don't think you're that stupid. You would rather I do all my shopping in Granbury, and everyone in Fort Worth go fishing in Fort Worth, although the fish are much bigger in Lake Granbury. More walkable, who are you kidding?


Can't see the forest yet, can you?

You've made some outlandish quotes before, but to make this one is the clearest example that you have little understanding of what I am saying. I want the area to develop in a more sustainable way. You interpret that as I want people to push shopping carts 40 miles.

And think about this, how much shopping would you do in Fort Worth? I'm sure a new roadway wouldn't alter that decision too much. "Hey, let's not go to the Chili's a mile away, let's go to the one 40 miles away."

Let's look at two cases. 1) The short term. You won't do everyday shopping for items like grocery, dry cleaning, pharmacy, mainstream medical, casual dining, auto repair etc. These represent 70% (rough average) of your spending. You may go (but probably not) for electronics, furniture, appliances or car buying. This is about 20%. You probably would go for malls or destination shopping like Cabella's. This is 10%. So a vast minority of your shopping trips would be done in FW, at the expense of Fort Worth residents and its developing urban environment.

Now the long term, after the roadway has been developed by auto-oriented business. You won't have any trip in Fort Worth, because you would be going to the Best Buy, Wal-mart and Dick's Sporting Goods that have been built along the new highway. So, now Fort Worth has no new dollars, an urban environ scarred by a freeway and the loss of business as stores within the city limits relocated outside. Fort Worth loses either way.

QUOTE
You would rather sacrafice the economic health of Granbury for the economic health and sustainability of Fort Worth. How do you propose for citizens of Granbury, Stephenville, Dublin, Brownwood, and Comanche visit Fort Worth in the future, or vice versa? Walking isn't the answer.


What exactly is the future of those cities? Why do you submit that the future is ubiqutious suburban sprawl? Why does urban Fort Worth have to suffer so Granbury can become the next exburb.

Plus, since this highway doesn't go to any of those cities, it won't do squat for them to begin with, still further puzzling me as to why this road is so important. Essentially, all it does is act as a reliever route for I-35W and you still have to drive all the way over there, whereas if you built a rail line (also not on any plan) to Granbury, it would serve you directly with no new infrastructure, no scarring of the built environment and taking of people's property.

QUOTE
As for bulldozing much of Fort Worth, since the Southwest Parkway bulldozes very few structures, how dishonest can you be?


You may want to rethink that statement. http://www.nctcog.or...s/FW121Real.pdf
Between DTFW and the rail lines, lots of property will be taken. Between I-20 and the hinterlands, lots of properties will be taken.
Every road expansion takes property. Just the widening of Central (on already owned ROW) took over 100 parcels of land. Where do you think ROW exists that has enough room for frontage roads, the main lanes,interchanges, entrances and exits without taking people's property and bulldozing it?

QUOTE
I believe it will be far more sustainable to build a 20 mile spur off the Southwest Parkway towards Granbury, better yet around Granbury, than build the new proposed 250 mile outer loop. There would be 230 miles less highway for uncontrolled sprawl to develope around. My way makes downtown Fort Worth more sustainable, and have a larger economic impact, by sending the traffic to Fort Worth, than NCTCOG's outer loop which diverts traffic around Fort Worth. The same can be said for NCTCOG's planned rail corridor bypass.


I'm sorry, I thought we were debating the merits of building yet another highway in the area, not debating if we should build the SW PKWY (or better yet, a spur that isn't on any plans to Granbury) or Loop 9.

QUOTE
You can't be an urban hub without spokes, all kinds of spokes, including highways. The reason Dallas and Forth Worth are urban areas was caused by rail and highway spokes. Like Rome, all types of highways led to them. Without the spokes, Dallas and Fort Worth wouldn't be urban cities.


The quintessential urban areas in this country have no spokes. Most of the rest of the world has no spokes. The only major metro areas that do have spokes are in America and I wouldn't classify most as urban hubs. And again, I thought we were debating the merits of the SW PKWY, not if rail lines makes FW an urban hub.

QUOTE
If you want Fort Worth to be sustainable, look in your yard first. Does every street have a sidewalk? Are there bike paths connecting every neighborhood in the city? Does every major spoke into the city center have mass transit or rail? Once you have your house in order, then maybe those cities surrounding Fort Worth will develop sustainable transit into Fort Worth. But please don't expect us to build sustainable spokes for you first from the hicks, where walkable, sustainable neighborhoods don't exist in Fort Worth.


So as long as every street doesn't have a sidewalk, it is ok to subsidize sprawl? Plain truth, downtowns suffer when expressways are built. Fort Worth has 6 "spokes" heading away from downtown. Dallas has 11. Fort Worth has a better pedestrian downtown than Dallas does. Those two aren't coincidence.

#8 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 01:06 PM

QUOTE (Jim Wilson @ Mar 19 2009, 01:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
An "urban hub" certainly does need "spokes."
Its too bad we built a wonderful place to live and play (Granbury) while setting it up to "need" Fort Worth.
That those happily living in Granbury must commute regularly to-from Fort Worth for the work and the retail they seek is a failure.

While we must admit our nation, and even more so our state, revolves around the single occupant motor-vehicle...
... we must look beyond that. We need to truly embarce an intermodal transportation system.

We've got to provide adequate, but not never ending expansion of roadways- more roads and more lanes simply lead to more cars.
A highway backed-up with motor-vehicles doesn't show we need more lanes, it shows a lot of people want to get from here to there.
That's an understanding we must all come to before we cover our entire Texas landscape with more motor-vehicle lanes.
Commuter Rail, Rapid Bus, Light Rail, Urban Street Cars, Bicycles, Pedestrians, and yes the ever-popular motor-vehicle- we need them all.


Great post Jim. I think you hit on a great point that I have neglected to hit on.

Why make Granbury, or in the case of the actual plans, Cleburne, more auto-oriented and dependent on Fort Worth, when plans could be made to make it self-suffcient now for most things.

Here's some numbers to back up your second point. Dallas proper has almost 150 miles of expressways. Fort Worth has almost 110. That's just for the actual cities and not lane miles. That doesn't include Arlington, Plano, Denton, Midlothian, etc. Likely the region has around 600 miles, though I have never measured.

The region as a whole now has 89 miles of rail and near 1/2 of the population has no access to transit at all, (measured by cities belonging to a transit agency and cities not). Within the cities that do have transit service, over 80% don't have access to convenient transit.

I think many would find that AG and I aren't oppsed to cars per se, but we opposed to cars as they are set up today. Going back to the tired example of New York, you can use a car, bus or train to get to places. Here, it is virtually car only, and that is what we are campaigning to change.

#9 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 19 March 2009 - 03:16 PM

I also don't understand why Granbury, to continue to use this example, has to remain some sort of backwater that is dependent on Fort Worth for everything. (Not saying it's a backwater, just for discussion purposes.) I want Granbury to grow smarter and become more self-sufficient. What's frustrating is that Granbury has a classic example of what I'm talking about - the design of the square around the courthouse - but it's chosen to built everything instead along the highway in a car-dependent fashion. If Granbury would leverage the success and love people have for the square and their old downtown into encouraging smart growth in a form that supports walking and bicycle usage in addition to cars - and hey, maybe eventual transit of some sort - rather than have everything built as a series of boxes behind massive parking lots along 377, it'd be well-prepared for the future and could become its own even better place. Instead of forcing everybody in Granbury to commute to Fort Worth or Dallas for work, maybe it would be a good idea to encourage some office development in an urban fashion around the square - it's not going to take over all the jobs, and it takes time for workforce patterns to shift, but it would give the option. Maybe build some rowhouses off the square and allow people to live there. Start working on, and passing, a form-based zoning code for new development. Granbury's old form could have created something like Alexandria or Savannah but instead they're going to choke on traffic and gas prices as all that development on 377 can't be accessed by anything but the car, and all the jobs remain in Tarrant and Dallas counties. Weatherford is another example of a town that has enormous potential to become more self-sufficient and more loved but is instead content to become a Wal-Mart and Target hub on I-30.

Granbury shouldn't be just a bedroom community for Fort Worth and Dallas. I want better for it. I want better for every town and suburb in this region. We would all be better off if they became more traditional towns instead of placeless bedroom communities.

#10 cberen1

cberen1

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,302 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 19 March 2009 - 04:03 PM

QUOTE (Electricron @ Mar 19 2009, 12:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm sorry, but do you really expect people to walk 40 miles dragging a shopping cart or a fishing boat behind them. I don't think you're that stupid. You would rather I do all my shopping in Granbury, and everyone in Fort Worth go fishing in Fort Worth, although the fish are much bigger in Lake Granbury. More walkable, who are you kidding?

You would rather sacrafice the economic health of Granbury for the economic health and sustainability of Fort Worth. How do you propose for citizens of Granbury, Stephenville, Dublin, Brownwood, and Comanche visit Fort Worth in the future, or vice versa? Walking isn't the answer.

As for bulldozing much of Fort Worth, since the Southwest Parkway bulldozes very few structures, how dishonest can you be?


I think we better keep name calling out of the discussion. I've been on this forum too long to see it degrade now.

#11 AndyN

AndyN

    Skyscraper Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midland, Tx. for now

Posted 19 March 2009 - 04:16 PM

Yeah, I kinda let that slide on account of Foutasportscaster being a little harsh previously without me saying anything. But what's good for the goose, etc. So let's keep it nice and beat each other up with sound rhetoric and avoid the name-calling, actual or implied.
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com

#12 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 07:32 PM

QUOTE (AndyN @ Mar 19 2009, 05:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeah, I kinda let that slide on account of Foutasportscaster being a little harsh previously without me saying anything. But what's good for the goose, etc. So let's keep it nice and beat each other up with sound rhetoric and avoid the name-calling, actual or implied.


No harm or ill-will intended. If something is construed as such, I'd be more than happy to use the edit feature.

#13 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 532 posts

Posted 19 March 2009 - 10:20 PM

QUOTE (Atomic Glee @ Mar 19 2009, 04:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I also don't understand why Granbury, to continue to use this example, has to remain some sort of backwater that is dependent on Fort Worth for everything. (Not saying it's a backwater, just for discussion purposes.) I want Granbury to grow smarter and become more self-sufficient. What's frustrating is that Granbury has a classic example of what I'm talking about - the design of the square around the courthouse - but it's chosen to built everything instead along the highway in a car-dependent fashion. If Granbury would leverage the success and love people have for the square and their old downtown into encouraging smart growth in a form that supports walking and bicycle usage in addition to cars - and hey, maybe eventual transit of some sort - rather than have everything built as a series of boxes behind massive parking lots along 377, it'd be well-prepared for the future and could become its own even better place. Instead of forcing everybody in Granbury to commute to Fort Worth or Dallas for work, maybe it would be a good idea to encourage some office development in an urban fashion around the square - it's not going to take over all the jobs, and it takes time for workforce patterns to shift, but it would give the option. Maybe build some rowhouses off the square and allow people to live there. Start working on, and passing, a form-based zoning code for new development. Granbury's old form could have created something like Alexandria or Savannah but instead they're going to choke on traffic and gas prices as all that development on 377 can't be accessed by anything but the car, and all the jobs remain in Tarrant and Dallas counties. Weatherford is another example of a town that has enormous potential to become more self-sufficient and more loved but is instead content to become a Wal-Mart and Target hub on I-30.

Granbury shouldn't be just a bedroom community for Fort Worth and Dallas. I want better for it. I want better for every town and suburb in this region. We would all be better off if they became more traditional towns instead of placeless bedroom communities.


Half the homes and buildings within a quarter mile of the downtown square have Historical Markers on them. They can't be torn down for three story office buildings. That area is already very walkable, none of the streets are more than one lane in each direction.
Half the population in both the city and county don't want any growth. The city is helpless to control growth that takes place along the Lake nor along the highway outside the city limits. The county can't zone by state law. While the city has been annexing 200 feet on either side of the highway as much as possible after reaching the magical 5,000 number required for self rule, it's limited to what it can annex by what it can spend to provide services.
Granbury's total city sales tax revenues add up to ~$6 Million all last year. That's not enough to support any form of transit, not one mile of rail tracks, not one Dart light rail vehicle, nor one mile of new roads while also providing basic city services everyone expects, like water, sewer, and streets.
Golly, the independent school system has a larger budget.

It's easy to sit in your armchair and say large cities can control developments within their cities after annexing half the county, that small cities, or towns if you prefer, can do the same. But you aren't being realistic when you look at the finances and state law.



#14 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 20 March 2009 - 07:36 AM

Electricon, I wouldn't read too much into these comments. I don't know where they got the idea that Granbury is dependent on Ft Worth for everything.

When they use words like "backwater" and "placeless" to describe other towns they are just repeating something they read and ignore the fact that Ft Worth is 1,000 times the placeless backwater Granbury is. Instead of being happy with their situation, they want to run down folks that have a different vision of how they would like to live. They are just kids and don't have the life experience to know how stuff works.

As far as I know we are just expressing opinions here, if there are any actual paid urban planners posting, it would be good to know, I would give their posts a little more credibility.

Granbury is probably in a much better financial postion than Ft Worth. In my development here in Keller, of about 55 homes, we have had 6 families move to Granbury over the last 3 or 4 years as they retired. I'm sure they don't depend on Ft Worth for everything.

Sounds to me that the slow growth folks are pretty smart out your way, you wouldn't want some city slickers moving in and telling you how to run stuff. smilewink.gif

#15 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 20 March 2009 - 12:53 PM

QUOTE (Keller Pirate @ Mar 20 2009, 08:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Electricon, I wouldn't read too much into these comments. I don't know where they got the idea that Granbury is dependent on Ft Worth for everything.


That's the premise of running an expressway from FW to Granbury. Their growth is dependent on a connection to FW. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need for an expressway.

QUOTE
When they use words like "backwater" and "placeless" to describe other towns they are just repeating something they read and ignore the fact that Ft Worth is 1,000 times the placeless backwater Granbury is. Instead of being happy with their situation, they want to run down folks that have a different vision of how they would like to live. They are just kids and don't have the life experience to know how stuff works.


I wouldn't call FW 1,000 times as placeless. Downtown, Cultural District, Medical Center, TCU, etc. are all distinct places and when you see a picture, you know where that picture was taken. They each contribute a sence of place. Keller, on the other hand, is churning out subdivisions and strip malls that could exist in any suburb in any metro area and not appear out of place.

Example, if I showed you a shot of downtown or TCU, you'd know it was Fort Worth. If I showed a shot of Keller, you could say Keller and be right or Plano, Cedar Hill, Benbrook, Denton, Irvine, California, Naperville, Illinois or White Plains New York and you'd be right.

P.S. I would avoid such terms as kids. Generalizing does nothing to help your point, and makes it look like you are grasping for straws. It can be easier to discredit someone, rather than the merits of their point. I person trained in the art of debate will be able to pick that out fairly quickly.

QUOTE
As far as I know we are just expressing opinions here, if there are any actual paid urban planners posting, it would be good to know, I would give their posts a little more credibility.


Hello. Nice to meet you. And what do you do?

QUOTE
Granbury is probably in a much better financial postion than Ft Worth. In my development here in Keller, of about 55 homes, we have had 6 families move to Granbury over the last 3 or 4 years as they retired. I'm sure they don't depend on Ft Worth for everything.


I think you missed what we were saying.

If an expressway gets built, Granbury then becomes dependent on Fort Worth, as has been the case in every metropolitan area. Again, to emphasize, we are talking cause and effect, not current state of affairs.

That isn't always a bad thing. Dallas and Fort Worth were more independent before what is now I-30 was built then afterward. Each is made stronger economically afterward, but also more dependent. However, in the case of a Duncanville, which essentially is nothing more than a bedroom community, if Dallas fails, so does it. But, the evidence is consistent that a dependency does occur. If expressways are built, the areas become interdependent.

That snippet is also telling for another reason. I could conclude that you are a residential real estate developer. If that were true, I'd be against what I am saying to. You'd have to change your entire business model and actually acknowledge the inherent problems with your products, which would cut into your bottom line.

As the saying goes, it is hard to get someone to understand something that their salary is dependent upon them not understanding it.

#16 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 20 March 2009 - 01:41 PM

QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Mar 20 2009, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hello. Nice to meet you. And what do you do?

I would have thought you have been visiting this forum long enough to know what I do.

I do, what I do best, nothing. I am a retired former BNSF Railway employee. ninja.gif

#17 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 532 posts

Posted 20 March 2009 - 03:44 PM

QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Mar 20 2009, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That's the premise of running an expressway from FW to Granbury. Their growth is dependent on a connection to FW. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need for an expressway.


Since 1970, Hood County has grown from ~6000 to ~50,000 souls. In another 20 years, it'll grow to ~70,000 souls.
All without a freeway or a tollway. 30% commute to Tarrant County to work.

I don't think not building a freeway or tollway has worked in the past and I don't think not building a freeway or tollway will work in the future either. At some point, US 377 will become the most dangerous highway in the country if nothing is done to make that highway safer.

Just drive down it once, and count all the crosses along the side of the highway, if you don't believe me. More congestion will breed in the future more accidents and more deaths! There's one reason why controlled access highways were proposed decades ago for the Interstate Highway system, they're designed to be safer.

#18 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 20 March 2009 - 10:02 PM

QUOTE (Electricron @ Mar 20 2009, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Mar 20 2009, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That's the premise of running an expressway from FW to Granbury. Their growth is dependent on a connection to FW. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need for an expressway.


Since 1970, Hood County has grown from ~6000 to ~50,000 souls. In another 20 years, it'll grow to ~70,000 souls.
All without a freeway or a tollway. 30% commute to Tarrant County to work.

I don't think not building a freeway or tollway has worked in the past and I don't think not building a freeway or tollway will work in the future either. At some point, US 377 will become the most dangerous highway in the country if nothing is done to make that highway safer.

Just drive down it once, and count all the crosses along the side of the highway, if you don't believe me. More congestion will breed in the future more accidents and more deaths! There's one reason why controlled access highways were proposed decades ago for the Interstate Highway system, they're designed to be safer.



I should also point out that limited-access freeways produce more fatalities than any other roadway. If you are going to preach that a new road is needed based on safety, it is a good idea not to use a limited-access freeway as the preferred mode. As stated earlier, urban geographers and researchers have determined that "unsafe" roadways have fewer accidents and fatalities that roadways designed for safer guidelines.

Example, for all the hullabaloo about dead mans curve on U.S. 75 in Dallas. More people die on Central Expressway per capita in the city limits than there.

Out of sincerity, how old are you?

#19 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 532 posts

Posted 21 March 2009 - 11:33 AM

QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Mar 20 2009, 11:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (Electricron @ Mar 20 2009, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Mar 20 2009, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That's the premise of running an expressway from FW to Granbury. Their growth is dependent on a connection to FW. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need for an expressway.


Since 1970, Hood County has grown from ~6000 to ~50,000 souls. In another 20 years, it'll grow to ~70,000 souls.
All without a freeway or a tollway. 30% commute to Tarrant County to work.

I don't think not building a freeway or tollway has worked in the past and I don't think not building a freeway or tollway will work in the future either. At some point, US 377 will become the most dangerous highway in the country if nothing is done to make that highway safer.

Just drive down it once, and count all the crosses along the side of the highway, if you don't believe me. More congestion will breed in the future more accidents and more deaths! There's one reason why controlled access highways were proposed decades ago for the Interstate Highway system, they're designed to be safer.



I should also point out that limited-access freeways produce more fatalities than any other roadway. If you are going to preach that a new road is needed based on safety, it is a good idea not to use a limited-access freeway as the preferred mode. As stated earlier, urban geographers and researchers have determined that "unsafe" roadways have fewer accidents and fatalities that roadways designed for safer guidelines.

Example, for all the hullabaloo about dead mans curve on U.S. 75 in Dallas. More people die on Central Expressway per capita in the city limits than there.

Out of sincerity, how old are you?


I'm going to disagree limited access highways cause more accidents. Those stating that often use words like "per capital" living in an area the highway serves. They don't use the words "per vehicle".

I think it's common sense to believe a highway carrying 200,000 vehicles a day will have more accidents than a highway carrying 10,000 vehicles per day.



#20 McHand

McHand

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shaw-Clarke
  • Interests:music, neighborhoods, kids, education, biking, politics, urbanism, food, friends, family

Posted 22 March 2009 - 11:27 AM

QUOTE (Atomic Glee @ Mar 19 2009, 09:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And "urban" takes many forms - it has nothing to do with skyscrapers or forcing everybody into apartments. Urbanism provides more choice - it provides single family, rowhouse, apartment, flats above stores, etc. in neighborhoods rather than segregated pods.

And yeah, not everybody wants to live above the store, or near the store, or in places where they can walk. On the other hand, quite a lot of people WOULD like to live above or near the store or where they could walk, but they either don't realize there's an alternative or in many parts of the country are prevented from having access to the alternative.


How about price preventing that access? Let's face it, the uber-urban settings most of y'all are talking about are not affordable to everyone. Unfortunately the suburbs are cheaper on virtually all fronts. We chose to stay in the inner-ring neighborhoods, but price was a huge consideration for us. Would I rather live closer to downtown? Absolutely. But we don't pay too much for our place and hopefully in 10 or 20 years improved transit down Hemphill will connect us to DT without so much reliance on our (one) car.

[climbing off the soapbox now]

Voice & Guitars in The Crystal Furs
Elementary Music Specialist, FWISD

Texas Wesleyan 2015
Shaw-Clarke NA 


#21 McHand

McHand

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shaw-Clarke
  • Interests:music, neighborhoods, kids, education, biking, politics, urbanism, food, friends, family

Posted 22 March 2009 - 11:32 AM

QUOTE (Jim Wilson @ Mar 19 2009, 01:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
An "urban hub" certainly does need "spokes."
Its too bad we built a wonderful place to live and play (Granbury) while setting it up to "need" Fort Worth.
That those happily living in Granbury must commute regularly to-from Fort Worth for the work and the retail they seek is a failure.


Agreed. Granbury should utilize its historic downtown for residents in a real way by providing better shopping and work opportunities, rather than leaving it as a Disneyesque time capsule for decorative purposes only (city hall notwithstanding). I bet with some good planning an adjacent park and ride could be built nearby for those FW commuters. Oh to dream...

edit: AG thought of this first, see his post above!

another edit: Electricron said something about the homes surrounding DT Granbury with historic designations. Are they just standing there empty or are they occupied? If it weren't for business owners in Fort Worth setting up shop in Near SS, we would have far fewer of our historic homes standing. Historic designation doesn't have to inhibit business growth, and in fact it can be a symbiotic relationship.

Voice & Guitars in The Crystal Furs
Elementary Music Specialist, FWISD

Texas Wesleyan 2015
Shaw-Clarke NA 


#22 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 532 posts

Posted 22 March 2009 - 07:14 PM

QUOTE (avvy @ Mar 22 2009, 12:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
another edit: Electricron said something about the homes surrounding DT Granbury with historic designations. Are they just standing there empty or are they occupied? If it weren't for business owners in Fort Worth setting up shop in Near SS, we would have far fewer of our historic homes standing. Historic designation doesn't have to inhibit business growth, and in fact it can be a symbiotic relationship.


They are occupied by commercial and residential residents. Few remain empty for long.



#23 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 23 March 2009 - 06:32 AM

QUOTE (Electricron @ Mar 21 2009, 12:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm going to disagree limited access highways cause more accidents. Those stating that often use words like "per capital" living in an area the highway serves. They don't use the words "per vehicle".

I think it's common sense to believe a highway carrying 200,000 vehicles a day will have more accidents than a highway carrying 10,000 vehicles per day.


Yes, per capita, it may be less. But in pure numbers, it is more. Plain and simple, more people will die if you build that road than if you don't.

Again I ask, out of sincerity, how old are you?

QUOTE (avvy @ Mar 22 2009, 12:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
How about price preventing that access? Let's face it, the uber-urban settings most of y'all are talking about are not affordable to everyone. Unfortunately the suburbs are cheaper on virtually all fronts. We chose to stay in the inner-ring neighborhoods, but price was a huge consideration for us. Would I rather live closer to downtown? Absolutely. But we don't pay too much for our place and hopefully in 10 or 20 years improved transit down Hemphill will connect us to DT without so much reliance on our (one) car.

[climbing off the soapbox now]


There is quite a bit wrong with this.

1) There is a limited supply of these things with a greater demand. That will always up the price. People want to live in walkable areas. However, that does not mean the area is expensive because it is close to the core. Places like Legacy in Plano and Southlake's Town Square are in the burbs and would qualify as a higher price point product compared to its peers just a few blocks away.

2) You are comparing only apples to apples. I live in a downtown and my cost of living is cheaper now than when it was. My wife and I were able to give up a car and use the other less. Were it not for trips to UTA that began last semester, I would be virtually car free. My transportation costs are a lot lower. Also, things like groceries are cheaper. Because we walk to the grocery store and buy only what we need, we use less and spend less compared to when we drove to Kroger and bought three weeks in advance and threw stuff out. If you try to live the same lifestyle that you grew up with in the burbs downtown, it will be much more expensive. But if you live a lifestyle conducive to a walkable environment, you'll save a lot more.

NOTE: The price of gas plays a huge factor in this. Whereas in the burbs, you are forced to pay for whatever gas is, I never paid attention to it until I had to make those twice weekly trips to UTA. Even then it didn't effect me near as much.

3) Social costs are higher (or lower depending on your viewpoint). I have known more of my neighbors in the building I currently live in (a little less than three years) than I did in all other places since moving out on my own (6+years). A few times, a couple of neighbors have walked our dogs for us when we've been out. I never knew anyone who I would be that ok with in any other stop.

4) Health costs are lower. No personal story, just using others researchers. More walkable places lead to higher physical activity, less sendentarianism and a healthy life. Also, just anecdotally, it leads to lowered auto use which leads to lowered pollution emissions. I haven't seen any definative research on this, just conjecture. I personally don't believe this to be the case, since Latent Demand kicks in when excess capacity is open at a zero price point.

From the SW PKWY thread:
QUOTE (Electricron @ Mar 21 2009, 08:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (mmiller2002 @ Mar 21 2009, 08:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (Electricron @ Mar 18 2009, 12:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I both live and work in Granbury, like 70% of the rest of the citizens in Hood County. Not everyone living in these satellite communities work in Dallas and Tarrant Counties. If you wish that I spend some of my recreation cash in Forth Worth, for the rodeo, see the museums, go shopping at malls or dine at restaurants, we need a better highway, an alternate highway, or an alternate mode of transportation.


You made that choice.

I would love to have some space, but I wasn't willing to commute. It's all about choice.


Who commutes? How many times do I have to write I live in Granbury and work in Granbury.
But I do expect to be able to travel to Fort Worth and Dallas occasionally to shop and for entertainment.


You already can make that drive. The difference is that you want it to take 5-10 minutes less the 10 or fewer trips you make a year at the expense of Fort Worth's urban character and economic health.

#24 McHand

McHand

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shaw-Clarke
  • Interests:music, neighborhoods, kids, education, biking, politics, urbanism, food, friends, family

Posted 23 March 2009 - 10:12 AM

QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Mar 23 2009, 07:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There is quite a bit wrong with this.

1) There is a limited supply of these things with a greater demand. That will always up the price. People want to live in walkable areas. However, that does not mean the area is expensive because it is close to the core. Places like Legacy in Plano and Southlake's Town Square are in the burbs and would qualify as a higher price point product compared to its peers just a few blocks away.

2) You are comparing only apples to apples. I live in a downtown and my cost of living is cheaper now than when it was. My wife and I were able to give up a car and use the other less. Were it not for trips to UTA that began last semester, I would be virtually car free. My transportation costs are a lot lower. Also, things like groceries are cheaper. Because we walk to the grocery store and buy only what we need, we use less and spend less compared to when we drove to Kroger and bought three weeks in advance and threw stuff out. If you try to live the same lifestyle that you grew up with in the burbs downtown, it will be much more expensive. But if you live a lifestyle conducive to a walkable environment, you'll save a lot more.

NOTE: The price of gas plays a huge factor in this. Whereas in the burbs, you are forced to pay for whatever gas is, I never paid attention to it until I had to make those twice weekly trips to UTA. Even then it didn't effect me near as much.

3) Social costs are higher (or lower depending on your viewpoint). I have known more of my neighbors in the building I currently live in (a little less than three years) than I did in all other places since moving out on my own (6+years). A few times, a couple of neighbors have walked our dogs for us when we've been out. I never knew anyone who I would be that ok with in any other stop.

4) Health costs are lower. No personal story, just using others researchers. More walkable places lead to higher physical activity, less sendentarianism and a healthy life. Also, just anecdotally, it leads to lowered auto use which leads to lowered pollution emissions. I haven't seen any definative research on this, just conjecture. I personally don't believe this to be the case, since Latent Demand kicks in when excess capacity is open at a zero price point.




You make good points. I would like to clarify some of mine.


QUOTE
1) There is a limited supply of these things with a greater demand. That will always up the price. People want to live in walkable areas. However, that does not mean the area is expensive because it is close to the core. Places like Legacy in Plano and Southlake's Town Square are in the burbs and would qualify as a higher price point product compared to its peers just a few blocks away.


By extension, are you saying offering more of the walkable/new urban environment will bring down price? I'm talking about up front cost, not cost over time. The high rent/sale price of many of these places is prohibitive to many people who would otherwise choose to live there. Conversely, the price may be low because it is substandard, causing only the poorest to live there. These seem to be the choices, the closer to DT one gets. So you have rich and poor but no one in between.

QUOTE
2) You are comparing only apples to apples. I live in a downtown and my cost of living is cheaper now than when it was. My wife and I were able to give up a car and use the other less. Were it not for trips to UTA that began last semester, I would be virtually car free. My transportation costs are a lot lower. Also, things like groceries are cheaper. Because we walk to the grocery store and buy only what we need, we use less and spend less compared to when we drove to Kroger and bought three weeks in advance and threw stuff out. If you try to live the same lifestyle that you grew up with in the burbs downtown, it will be much more expensive. But if you live a lifestyle conducive to a walkable environment, you'll save a lot more.


See previous answer. The thought of paying hundreds more for rent for less square footage can turn people off. Not me personally, but for some this is an issue. There has to be a way to bring down pp sq ft. Is it the construction of these things that causes high overhead? eta: I totally understand the need to turn a profit and I know that is a huge consideration. I am not asking for huge decreases but if someone offered an "economy loft" that maybe doesn't have all the bells and whistles, but was still in a mixed use type area I wonder how that would do in the marketplace.

3. and 4. No argument here. We live a semi-urban life; at least I can say my husband doesn't get on the interstate to go to work. But he still drives. We are getting to know our neighbors, albeit slowly. But then we bought so we will be here a few more years. In the VAC we got to know people fairly quickly, although our neighbors turned over a few times in the two years we were there.

Attempting to bring this post back to topic, I am all for density, which I believe more and bigger roads discourages - why walk when you can drive? seems to be the mantra. It is such a way of life here. My hypothesis is that increasing the marginal benefit (close proximity to services people use day to day and not just high end retail; lower rent/sale price of units) over the marginal cost of high-density housing will make it more appealing and affordable to more people.

one last thing...I am here to learn, this topic is intriguing to me as I look forward to the next 10-20 years of growth.

Voice & Guitars in The Crystal Furs
Elementary Music Specialist, FWISD

Texas Wesleyan 2015
Shaw-Clarke NA 


#25 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 23 March 2009 - 11:44 AM

QUOTE (avvy @ Mar 23 2009, 11:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
By extension, are you saying offering more of the walkable/new urban environment will bring down price? I'm talking about up front cost, not cost over time. The high rent/sale price of many of these places is prohibitive to many people who would otherwise choose to live there. Conversely, the price may be low because it is substandard, causing only the poorest to live there. These seem to be the choices, the closer to DT one gets. So you have rich and poor but no one in between.


Good point. I was making an observation as a whole. You were making it an individual level. But, while it isn't true on the whole, you can find cheaper places near the core in decent areas, for example the Cultural District has some decent, well-made housing.

QUOTE
See previous answer. The thought of paying hundreds more for rent for less square footage can turn people off. Not me personally, but for some this is an issue. There has to be a way to bring down pp sq ft. Is it the construction of these things that causes high overhead? eta: I totally understand the need to turn a profit and I know that is a huge consideration. I am not asking for huge decreases but if someone offered an "economy loft" that maybe doesn't have all the bells and whistles, but was still in a mixed use type area I wonder how that would do in the marketplace.


This isn't a discussion about all people. In fact, I want all things for everybody. As I told my family this weekend, I don't want to take away the option to live in the suburbs for you, but I don't want to be required to live in one. We need options. Some people will choose space as their prefered amenity (though that can be found in the core as well), while some people, like me and maybe you will prefer accessibility and walkability as their prefered amenity. However, when comparing all costs, the suburbs aren't that much of an advantage.

QUOTE
Attempting to bring this post back to topic, I am all for density, which I believe more and bigger roads discourages - why walk when you can drive? seems to be the mantra. It is such a way of life here. My hypothesis is that increasing the marginal benefit (close proximity to services people use day to day and not just high end retail; lower rent/sale price of units) over the marginal cost of high-density housing will make it more appealing and affordable to more people.


Agreed whole-hearted agree. While I am not against driving per se, I am against driving as the sole or even majority means of transportation. Walking and transit need to be a bigger part of the mix. In order to do that, the way we have designed physical space needs to be fundamentally altered.

#26 UncaMikey

UncaMikey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 23 March 2009 - 12:24 PM

QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Mar 23 2009, 07:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...Also, things like groceries are cheaper. Because we walk to the grocery store and buy only what we need, we use less and spend less compared to when we drove to Kroger and bought three weeks in advance and threw stuff out.


What downtown do you live in, that you can walk to the grocery? Not Fort Worth! Wherever it is, I'm envious.

I agree with much of what you say, but I don't think this is true at all. You can't blame your residence for buying so much you had to throw things out, LOL. If you buy smaller amounts more frequently, you may very easily pay more per unit cost. An 8 oz bag of Starbucks coffee instead of the 2.5 lb bag of freshly roasted beans from Costco, for example.

I would love to live in a city where I can avoid having a car, and may yet get to one in a year or two. But it won't be in Texas -- the infrastructure is just not here, not yet and not soon, I think. Look at the discussions on this board: when someone mentions living downtown at The Tower or the Neil P or one of the lofts, one of the first issues is inevitably parking, simply because no one can get by here without a car. On the other hand, we have friends in cities like Buenos Aires and Rome who not only do have a car, they have never had a driver's license!

#27 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 23 March 2009 - 12:46 PM

What FoUTA is talking about is the frequency and kind of grocery shopping - in an urban setting, one tends to shop for groceries more frequently (whatever the means of getting there) and buying much less and smaller quantities at a time, in contrast to the way a lot of people in the exurbs tend to shop, which is making infrequent but much larger grocery trips and packing in a lot more food in the car. Even in Fort Worth I find this to be true despite that we have no truly urban-designed grocers (as in stores designed not solely to accommodate car traffic - grocers without big parking lots in front and such). Since I'm only a minute's walk from Spiral Diner (for a few items) or a few minutes' bike ride from Fiesta (which isn't urban but they have been kind enough to provide bike racks), I tend to buy less and keep less, resulting in less waste.

I believe that FoUTA's experience is from downtown Dallas, which does have a full urban grocery store. Another good Texas example is downtown Austin, which has two urban grocers (soon to be three).

#28 McHand

McHand

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shaw-Clarke
  • Interests:music, neighborhoods, kids, education, biking, politics, urbanism, food, friends, family

Posted 23 March 2009 - 02:09 PM

QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Mar 23 2009, 12:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (avvy @ Mar 23 2009, 11:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
See previous answer. The thought of paying hundreds more for rent for less square footage can turn people off. Not me personally, but for some this is an issue. There has to be a way to bring down pp sq ft. Is it the construction of these things that causes high overhead? eta: I totally understand the need to turn a profit and I know that is a huge consideration. I am not asking for huge decreases but if someone offered an "economy loft" that maybe doesn't have all the bells and whistles, but was still in a mixed use type area I wonder how that would do in the marketplace.


This isn't a discussion about all people. In fact, I want all things for everybody. As I told my family this weekend, I don't want to take away the option to live in the suburbs for you, but I don't want to be required to live in one. We need options. Some people will choose space as their prefered amenity (though that can be found in the core as well), while some people, like me and maybe you will prefer accessibility and walkability as their prefered amenity. However, when comparing all costs, the suburbs aren't that much of an advantage.


I see, yes, we don't want to reduce people's choices. But we do need to sell other, non-suburban options to those who want/need space. I am on a one-girl mission to promote core ring neighborhoods like mine. Because when it comes down to it, you can drive way out and get some "space" but those houses are built just as closely together as houses "inside the loop", usually.

QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Mar 23 2009, 12:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (avvy @ Mar 23 2009, 11:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Attempting to bring this post back to topic, I am all for density, which I believe more and bigger roads discourages - why walk when you can drive? seems to be the mantra. It is such a way of life here. My hypothesis is that increasing the marginal benefit (close proximity to services people use day to day and not just high end retail; lower rent/sale price of units) over the marginal cost of high-density housing will make it more appealing and affordable to more people.


Agreed whole-hearted agree. While I am not against driving per se, I am against driving as the sole or even majority means of transportation. Walking and transit need to be a bigger part of the mix. In order to do that, the way we have designed physical space needs to be fundamentally altered.


Cars have their place, it's just trying to decide where so that it's not the only option. Actually, I want more options - good sidewalks, good mass transit, good roads for bikes, and roads for cars if you really have the need to use one smile.gif

As a side note, has anyone tried to cross Berry & Hemphill lately? It is a suicide mission at certain times of the day. This is something the city should look at to implement this whole walkability thing. I think there is a thread about that somewhere.



Voice & Guitars in The Crystal Furs
Elementary Music Specialist, FWISD

Texas Wesleyan 2015
Shaw-Clarke NA 


#29 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 23 March 2009 - 02:13 PM

QUOTE (UncaMikey @ Mar 23 2009, 01:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Mar 23 2009, 07:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...Also, things like groceries are cheaper. Because we walk to the grocery store and buy only what we need, we use less and spend less compared to when we drove to Kroger and bought three weeks in advance and threw stuff out.


What downtown do you live in, that you can walk to the grocery? Not Fort Worth! Wherever it is, I'm envious.

I agree with much of what you say, but I don't think this is true at all. You can't blame your residence for buying so much you had to throw things out, LOL. If you buy smaller amounts more frequently, you may very easily pay more per unit cost. An 8 oz bag of Starbucks coffee instead of the 2.5 lb bag of freshly roasted beans from Costco, for example.

I would love to live in a city where I can avoid having a car, and may yet get to one in a year or two. But it won't be in Texas -- the infrastructure is just not here, not yet and not soon, I think. Look at the discussions on this board: when someone mentions living downtown at The Tower or the Neil P or one of the lofts, one of the first issues is inevitably parking, simply because no one can get by here without a car. On the other hand, we have friends in cities like Buenos Aires and Rome who not only do have a car, they have never had a driver's license!


I live in downtown Dallas, and walk to Urban Market. It is close to the limit of walkability at .3 miles. And yes, my shopping habits in a suburban locale had me throwing away food, where now I rarely throw anything out. I can't say that it makes a huge difference in overall budget, but the $15-20 I save (usually produce, but also things like dairy, baked goods or other perishables) a month adds up when taken with everything else. I put numbers down and compared a full year of my typical suburban existence to my typical urban existence and I spend less on groceries, eventhough UM's prices are a bit higher than Kroger. I have read many a feature story where buying in bulk can cost you more, since you buy more than you need, and many times stuff gets thrown out. Other times it sits there for a very long time, since you got more than you needed. Also, since my wife and I plan meals weekly, we eat out less, which also saves money too.

But again, my bills are lower for groceries in downtown than when I was in Arlington or Irving.

#30 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 23 March 2009 - 02:17 PM

QUOTE (avvy @ Mar 23 2009, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I see, yes, we don't want to reduce people's choices. But we do need to sell other, non-suburban options to those who want/need space. I am on a one-girl mission to promote core ring neighborhoods like mine. Because when it comes down to it, you can drive way out and get some "space" but those houses are built just as closely together as houses "inside the loop", usually


I also failed to mention that the higher price is also due to better construction. Houses built in the 1920's are still around, but I doubt many of the houses on the fringe will be around in 80-90 years.

#31 UncaMikey

UncaMikey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 23 March 2009 - 02:24 PM

I didn't mean to say that I was against urban grocery shopping -- I love it, wish we had that option in FW, but just don't think that saving money is one of the reasons why it is so nice to have.

We try to spend a month or so each year in Buenos Aires (our summer, their winter, to cool off!). I gotta tell ya, it's fabulous to have 3 or 4 large supermarkets within a block or two, besides all kinds of specialty stores like bakeries and take-out food and cheese shops. The groceries even have free delivery, although we generally carry our 2 or 3 bags -- those cheap bottles of malbec are heavy.

#32 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 23 March 2009 - 03:27 PM

I think the wasted food claim may be over used. At our house we rarely throw any food out, except for the occasional head of lettuce. I agree that produce is your most likely food to spoil, but if you like fresh produce you wouldn't buy a weeks worth (or a month) of it anyway.

Now I admit we may not be typical, but even when I worked, I had to drive by 3 or 4 grocery stores twice a day and stopping for an item or two wasn't a big deal. I suspect that urban dwellers can waste as much food as suburban folks on a one to one comparison.

QUOTE
Even in Fort Worth I find this to be true despite that we have no truly urban-designed grocers (as in stores designed not solely to accommodate car traffic - grocers without big parking lots in front and such).


How about the Pope Grocery? It seems like a throw-back to a different time.

#33 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 24 March 2009 - 06:14 AM

^Why the hang-up on groceries? I was talking purely from my personal stance. Yes there may be people who waste as much either way, but my wife and I discovered we spent less when we shopped more often, because we bought what we needed (that can be a difference too as it is much easier to predict the upcoming week than two-three weeks in advance) and threw less out. Many urbanites buy for a couple of days. I rarely see anyone going through Urban Market with a big cart like we do. When you do that, you use less. There are people in our building who still do it weeks at a time. They probably consume more than we do, just like we used to do.

However, the point still is that when you compare true costs to true costs, it isn't as expensive to live close to amenities compared to the suburbs. Comparing rent-to-rent, yes, but cost-to-cost, not as much, and in my case, not at all. Groceries are a small part of that.

To keep this thread on topic: I was going through some of my old journal articles yesterday for a research paper and I remembered another name for the Iduced Traffic Principle, it is also known as Triple Convergence.

#34 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 26 March 2009 - 12:27 PM

QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Mar 19 2009, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Here's some numbers to back up your second point. Dallas proper has almost 150 miles of expressways. Fort Worth has almost 110. That's just for the actual cities and not lane miles. That doesn't include Arlington, Plano, Denton, Midlothian, etc. Likely the region has around 600 miles, though I have never measured.

The region as a whole now has 89 miles of rail and near 1/2 of the population has no access to transit at all, (measured by cities belonging to a transit agency and cities not). Within the cities that do have transit service, over 80% don't have access to convenient transit.

I think many would find that AG and I aren't oppsed to cars per se, but we opposed to cars as they are set up today. Going back to the tired example of New York, you can use a car, bus or train to get to places. Here, it is virtually car only, and that is what we are campaigning to change.


I went back and instead of eyeballing it on a Rand McNally, I measures using Google maps. I was close on Dallas, but underestimated Fort Worth (probably missed 2 of those expressways that jaunt off into the hinterlands. Here's what I found:

Dallas
I-20 15 mi
I-30 15.5
I-35E 22.5
I-45 9
I-345 1.5
I-635 18
U.S. 67 5.5
U.S. 75 10.5
U.S. 175 13.5
Tx-183 1.5
Loop 12 5.5
Spur 408 4.5
Woodall 1.5
NTTA DNT 15.5
NTTA Bush 7.5

Total 147 mi

Fort Worth
I-20 13.5
I-30 25
I-35W 34
I-820 27.5
U.S. 287 15.5
Tx-121 3
Tx-183 5.5
Tx-360 2
International Parkway 1

Total 127

I did the totals for all the cities with transit service.
DART 238.5
The T 128.5
DCTA 32.5

Total 399.5

Now, when you compare that to rail, DART LRT system is 45 miles and the TRE is 34 (portions of the TRE run in non-member cities), you can see the obvious unbalance of our transportation system. Even counting the expansion (The T (40), DART (48) and DCTA (21)), we add a total of 109 and come out with 198 for the entire region. or less than half of what is in just the transit-served cities. It is a start, but we have a long way to go, and that is part of the reason why people like me and probably AG are against new freeways. I want balance and the ability for anyone to live anyway they choose.

#35 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 26 March 2009 - 01:11 PM

QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Mar 26 2009, 01:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
... that is part of the reason why people like me and probably AG are against new freeways. I want balance and the ability for anyone to live anyway they choose.


I don't know what kind of point you are trying to make, but your last sentence is absolutly incorrect. You want people to be free to live the way you think they should.


#36 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 27 March 2009 - 06:15 AM

QUOTE (Keller Pirate @ Mar 26 2009, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't know what kind of point you are trying to make, but your last sentence is absolutly incorrect. You want people to be free to live the way you think they should.


Nope, if you want to live in auto-based sprawl, feel free. I shouldn't have to. And considering all "urban" areas in the region have higher occupancy than almost all of the suburban markets, it is apparent that there is not an even market supply for both. One has an over abundance and one has a shortage.

Please, for the sake of your arguement, don't weaken it by falsely assuming what other people want and are debating. It makes your point look uneducated and faulty.

#37 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:27 PM

A great summation of the Induced Traffis Principle.

http://www.transact....congestion2.htm

#38 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 532 posts

Posted 12 April 2009 - 08:33 PM

QUOTE (FoUTASportscaster @ Apr 2 2009, 09:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
A great summation of the Induced Traffis Principle.

http://www.transact....congestion2.htm


I'll agree that it is a bad idea to build new highways, or expand existing highways, where demand doesn't exist. But I strongly disagree where demand does exist. So, what's the best way to determine that? Traffic counts will show existing demand. At night satellite photos show density, like this one.



I would like to point out all the lights on the road heading southwestward from Fort Worth are mainly from car and truck headlights, because there are no streetlamps on that highway. The photo is dated as being taken in 2003.

FYI, the very large orange dot in the southwest corner of the photo is the Comanche Peak power plant.

Imho, once a through freeway needs to be expanded to more than 8 lanes because it can't handle the traffic anymore, we should be looking at building other transportation options in that corridor. The only areas where more than 8 lanes should be used is when two different freeways join and run parallel, like where 1-30 and US 80 join, SH 183 and IH 35E join, or where US 67 and IH 35E join. Traffic is sufficient to support mass transit options at that point. US 377 isn't even a four lane freeway, much less an eight lane freeway.

I too shudder at the point of expanding freeway capacity by adding additional lanes in tunnels or viaducts adjacent to the existing freeway. If they need to build two or three levels of freeways in one corridor, they should be looking at providing another transportation corridor nearby, preferably using a different mode of transportation.


#39 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 13 April 2009 - 09:43 AM

Before I get to your post, I would like to kindly and gently point out that the moderators have asked that people do not quote the previous post if they are responding to it. Like me, I am responding to your quote, and since you are immediately above mine, there is no need to quote your previous post. Moving on...

I still don't think you quite understand the point of this principle. When you say things like "I'll agree that it is a bad idea to build new highways, or expand existing highways, where demand doesn't exist. But I strongly disagree where demand does exist," it clearly illustrates that you missed the point.

Let me put it this way, if you build any sort of highway facility within a metropolitan region it will congest. It creates its own demand.

In your example, if a road is built to Granbury, it will congest. Soon, people who use that road will clamor for more capacity. It gets built. Soon it will congest again. Soon, people who use the roadway will clamor for more capacity. It is a cycle. The Bush was open less than five years ago and is already congesting (on top of that, it is a tollroad, so congestion could be worse since people are actually paying a percentage of the costs to use the road itself, though not the others, still leading to increased usage).

So, when you say things like build a road where there is demand, but not where there isn't, you clearly miss the point of the principle. The best thing for Granbury would be something else, other than a new freeway, which has a very predicable outcome.

Before I get to your post, I would like to kindly and gently point out that the moderators have asked that people do not quote the previous post if they are responding to it. Like me, I am responding to your quote, and since you are immediately above mine, there is no need to quote your previous post. Moving on...

I still don't think you quite understand the point of this principle. When you say things like "I'll agree that it is a bad idea to build new highways, or expand existing highways, where demand doesn't exist. But I strongly disagree where demand does exist," it clearly illustrates that you missed the point.

Let me put it this way, if you build any sort of highway facility within a metropolitan region it will congest. It creates its own demand.

In your example, if a road is built to Granbury, it will congest. Soon, people who use that road will clamor for more capacity. It gets built. Soon it will congest again. Soon, people who use the roadway will clamor for more capacity. It is a cycle. The Bush was open less than five years ago and is already congesting (on top of that, it is a tollroad, so congestion could be worse since people are actually paying a percentage of the costs to use the road itself, though not the others, still leading to increased usage).

So, when you say things like build a road where there is demand, but not where there isn't, you clearly miss the point of the principle. The best thing for Granbury would be something else, other than a new freeway, which has a very predicable outcome.

#40 tamtagon

tamtagon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta - Dallas

Posted 18 April 2009 - 10:05 PM

Great discussion!

Induced traffic principle is counter-intuitive and politically difficult concept from which more efficient transportation 'solutions' can be proposed to a growing population. In low growth areas, it doesn't really happen.

#41 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 20 April 2009 - 06:04 AM

QUOTE (tamtagon @ Apr 18 2009, 11:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Induced traffic principle is counter-intuitive and politically difficult concept from which more efficient transportation 'solutions' can be proposed to a growing population. In low growth areas, it doesn't really happen.


I agree that it is difficult to understand and that politics plays a part of the problem. There is also more political savy as a politician to introduce a new faciltiy than it is to divert those funds to maintenance.

The second part is just not true at all. Detroit, Pittsburgh and just about any city in Ohio for example all are experiencing no to negative growth, yet traffic congestion has grown. In all of the cases, new freeways have helped expand the urban area that hasn't experienced much growth. In the Detroit case, metropolitan population has been steady for decades (no growth), but freeway miles and the urbanized area has doubled.

Induced Traffic can be seen in small metros too. In Midland (100,000, 250,000 region), Loop 250 was constructed in the 90's. There is now more traffic congestion now than before. The funny thing is, there was virtually none before.

#42 tamtagon

tamtagon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta - Dallas

Posted 20 April 2009 - 09:43 AM

I just hope it doesn't take another generation or longer for community builders to finally guide the engineering and planning process for metropolitan highways in the future. As long as the edge of town is most affordable place for people snatch up a nice new houses with a quarter+ acre yard, we will need new highways.

The function of a highway in a rapidly growing population center needs to be commonly understood as more than a way to get to a different part of town. I think commuter trains will once again the primary reason exurbs are able to become popular suburbs.

#43 McHand

McHand

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shaw-Clarke
  • Interests:music, neighborhoods, kids, education, biking, politics, urbanism, food, friends, family

Posted 26 April 2009 - 12:21 PM

QUOTE (tamtagon @ Apr 20 2009, 10:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As long as the edge of town is most affordable place for people snatch up a nice new houses with a quarter+ acre yard, we will need new highways.


I can't believe I'm writing this, but that is a compelling reason to build an inner-ring neighborhood with those affordable houses, even though, let's face it, they are way short on design. For some people a brand new house is the only way to go and most of those houses, like tamtagon said, are on the edge of town.

Voice & Guitars in The Crystal Furs
Elementary Music Specialist, FWISD

Texas Wesleyan 2015
Shaw-Clarke NA 


#44 FoUTASportscaster

FoUTASportscaster

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 08 May 2009 - 12:34 PM

Going on with the theme of this thread, http://www.fortworth...amp;#entry55102, a CoG planner was talking about planning for the highways in the mobility 2030 plan and I asked point blank if they factored in the Induced Traffic Principle into their forecasts and modeling or if the used a simple supply and demand function. The answer surprised the S out of me.

He said they do and that they use a step in the process that adds the extra traffic. He then added (after previously mentioning the congestion levels will get worse, even if the whole system is built) that is part of the reason congestion will never be relieved. He also detailed the CoG's efforts to steer the region away from auto-oriented areas and toward more walkability. Later, as we got into the toll road section, he stated the largest reason for increased toll roads in the planning was funding, but the other part was for the outlying sections to pay for their trip, an effort toward a more sustainable region.

I was almost floored by his statements.

#45 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,535 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 21 June 2014 - 10:39 AM

What’s Up With That: Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worse

Induced Demand Revisited by Wired.com

 

http://www.wired.com...induced-demand/


Edited by gdvanc, 21 June 2014 - 10:23 PM.
corrected issue with link


#46 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 24 August 2014 - 09:10 AM

(Tried to find appropriate place to put this. Feel free to move it if there's a better thread).

 

My neighborhood (Oakhurst) is directly to the east of the massive I-35W project that is about to get underway. Last week we had a neighborhood meeting where we received a briefing from NTTA and the City on the project as it gets underway.

 

As I'm sure everyone who travels I-35W knows, there is currently a bottleneck that occurs northbound at 28th Street where the highway goes from 3 lanes to 2. This same bottleneck occurs again north of 820 where it again goes from 3 lanes to 2 just north of Western Center. Not surprisingly, these bottlenecks are a major contributor to the gridlock that we see on I-35W on a daily basis.

 

I was interested to learn at this meeting that the bottleneck at 28th Street is going to be reconstructed just as it is now! There will be two tolled lanes added in each direction, but this bottleneck design of 3 to 2 lanes northbound is going to be replicated when the entire highway is rebuilt. I'm sure this will recreate the gridlock effect quite well, and drive additional revenue onto the tolled lanes. Unbelievable.



#47 360texas

360texas

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Fort Worth, Texas USA
  • Interests:Digital photography, computers since 1980, Panorama imaging, world travel. After 37 years retired Federal Service 1999.

Posted 24 August 2014 - 09:41 AM

Sounds to me the folks that did the 3 to 2 street design are in cahoots with the with the toll road designers... maintain the gridlock and force traffic to move to the pay toll roads.  

 

Reads like a conflict of funding interest. 


Dave still at

360texas45x145.png
Visit 360texas.com


#48 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,535 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 24 August 2014 - 01:32 PM

The same thing is going to happen on the I-820 Wright Freeway between the SH-183 interchange (NE Mall) and I-35 W. There are 3 free lanes on 183 but it narrows down to 2 through NRH and Haltom City, even though the traffic from northbound 820 joins 183 traffic to go west along the route. This is going to be a huge funnel and will no doubt lead to massive backups during rush hour. The entrance onto the toll lanes is just to the west of NE Mall so the "induced" squeeze will effectively feed business onto the Spanish Highway. In the original plans and presentations I attended the company operating the road was sup[poised to add 1 free lane each side with a few (5 ?) years, but given the design in place I have a hard time seeing it happen. Add to this financial foible the fact that practical alternative routes running parallel to the highway don't exist. The short-sighted planning process used by the various cities in the area, acting along with no coordination, resulted in a hodgepodge of local roads that do no connect to one another, making even local trips (< 5 miles) depend on using the interstate.

 

Again, I will state my belief that ANY highway project in the area should be required to provide right-of-way for future rail transit; It is going to be ever more difficult to get around by car... by design.



#49 mmmdan

mmmdan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ridglea Hills

Posted 24 August 2014 - 08:35 PM

Here's another one for induced demand.  All of this development is occurring strictly because of the new highway.

 

http://www.star-tele...-growth-in.html

 

In another thread someone mentioned how nice it is to be able to set the cruise control and enjoy the ride into town.  I bet that in 5, maybe 10 years tops there's enough traffic that people start talking about needing to widen the CTP.



#50 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 24 August 2014 - 09:47 PM

The awesome thing about the CTP, there is no parallel alternative. So if it's backed up there is no where you can go to escape. Enjoy your commute suburbanites!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users