Civil Engineering question . . .

[quade 4]

Anybody know what percentage of land in a city (LA, New York, San Francisco) is devoted to cars? I'd want to take into account all highways, roads and other obvious things, but also parking lots and structures, gas stations and anything else you can think of.

My WAG would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 30%. Anybody have a better number?

Edited to add . . .
Found this but it's a little dated.

Quoted in pertinent part

Quote

North America is inundated with roads. Typically, 30 to 50 percent of the land area of cities and towns consists of infrastructure catering predominantly to cars and trucks.

This includes roads, right-of-ways, bridges, garages and parking lots.1 The highway system in the United States, for example, covers a land mass equivalent to the entire state of Georgia.2

30-50% . . . holy cow! Much higher than I would have thought.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Zing 2]

I'd have estimated it at about 50% ... and wouldn't have been surprised if that was on the low end for major metro areas.

Zing Lurks

[quade 4]

God we live in a fucked up world.

And now that I've said that, I guess it's time to move this to SC.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

30-50% . . .

Hence the reason that I live in the country. There is more land used for horse and hiking trails than cars.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[skydiver30960 0]

One trick would be to take some satellite pics (Google Maps or whatever), import them into a photo editor or whatever you have, and cut/paste simple squares to try to estimate the ratio of the surface ares for automotive vs. non-automotive.

You'd go buggy trying to do it for a whole city, so consider doing it for a pic of a few city blocks that you would consider representative of the whole.

If no computer program is available, print out the picture, get out your scissors, and start cutting out sections. Then measure and add up.

My WAG would be for a higher percentage used for car stuff in the suburbs than in the city. In the burbs there's room for big parking lots and 2.5 cars per family. In the city there are more parking garages (vertical rather than horizontal storage) and fewer car-owners. No?

Elvisio "sounds like a good arts and crafts project for the kiddies" Rodriguez

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

North America is inundated with roads. Typically, 30 to 50 percent of the land area of cities and towns consists of infrastructure catering predominantly to cars and trucks... we live in a fucked up world.

Why do you consider that "fucked up"?

It's what we want, what we pay taxes for, and what we want our politicians to do for us.

Would you prefer that everyone walk 10 miles each way to work every day?

With mobility comes great benefits.

[billvon 3,107]

>Would you prefer that everyone walk 10 miles each way to work every day?

You're missing the point. Without all those roads/gas stations/parking lots/driveways/overpasses/street drainage systems, you'd be living 3 miles from work instead of 10. You'd get to work faster on a bicycle than you do in your car now.

[quade 4]

Exactly correct.

If you were going to design a civilization with the technology we have available today, but from scratch, I seriously doubt you'd want the mess we've ended up with.

Currently NOTHING integrates in any way, shape or form that makes any sense whatsoever.

Trains and busses are designed to carry individual bodies, but they have an awful time accomodating secondary modes of transportation like bicycles or Segways. The upshot is you need a car to get bus or train, then once you get to some other hub, you need to pick up another bus or whatever. It just doesn't make any sense.

Either that or have what we already have; individuals in cars.

Does it make any real sense to use a 3,000lb hunk of metal to transport a 200lb body 10 miles? In my case, the 3,000lb hunk of metal sits doing nothing for 22.5 out of every 24 hours. Does THAT make sense? Also, the 3,000lb hunk of metal occupies more square footage than -my- work area. Does THAT make sense? And bear in mind, mine is a fairly "conservative" small, car. There are vehicles out there people are using for single person commutes that are well in excess of 6,000lb curb weight.

Further, the idea of commuting, for a VAST number of jobs is just freekin' silly.

Look at the huge number of jobs that ARE telecommute friendly . . . THEY got shipped over seas.

Hell, there's no reason why -I- have to commute at all. The only reason I do is because it's what my boss wants me to do, but the reality is I could do the job just as well at a desk in my home.

We need to rethink this. It's a huge waste of resources.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Tornolf 0]

Civil engineers don't make nearly enough money to deal with this headache

A waddling elephant seal is the cutest thing in the entire world.
-TJ

[nathaniel 0]

It gets worse. The whole Earth is almost 71% devoted to boats. We've got our work cut out for us.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Without all those roads/gas stations/parking lots/driveways/overpasses/street drainage systems, you'd be living 3 miles from work instead of 10. You'd get to work faster on a bicycle than you do in your car now.

Incorrect. We don't all live on self-sustaining farms any more. There are too many of us, and we're too advanced. Specialization requires that people travel to get to the specialty centers.

It would be nice if we could all live just 3 miles from a skydiving center, but that's a specialty. And most of us have to travel a ways to get to one. That's not "fucked up" as the original poster said - it's just the way our technologically advanced society works.

Take away the vast mobility of vehicle transport, and you would have chaos, poverty and starvation.

[dorbie 0]

I'm led to believe that cities made extensive use of roads before the advent of the motor vehicle.

[DJL 235]

Quote

It gets worse. The whole Earth is almost 71% devoted to boats. We've got our work cut out for us.

Thank Goodness. My goal in life is to buy a large enough sailboat that I can run an independent engineering/consulting practice from my dock. I have a ways to go.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[quade 4]

Quote

I'm led to believe that cities made extensive use of roads before the advent of the motor vehicle.

Sure they did. No question about it. Ya simply have to get goods and services from point A to point B. We'll always have a transportation system of some sort.

Cars in general though have become far more than simply a way to get from point A to point B. They are; armor, avatars, a physical manifestation of a dream that doesn't exist in reality, a portable house . . . .

I'd like to think that we're smart enough that we can figure out a better way.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Without all those roads/gas stations/parking lots/driveways/overpasses/street drainage systems, you'd be living 3 miles from work instead of 10. You'd get to work faster on a bicycle than you do in your car now.

Incorrect. We don't all live on self-sustaining farms any more. There are too many of us, and we're too advanced. Specialization requires that people travel to get to the specialty centers.

This is certainly true, and an all-walking/biking society at this point is really not practical, but I think most people can make smarter choices to at least reduce the amount we need to use our cars. The length of daily commutes that people create for themselves here (Los Angeles County) by choosing to live so far from work is completely insane.

The common complaint about public transportation in this city is that the Metro system doesn't go anywhere. While this is a valid grievance, people have to realize that there's really nowhere for it to go. (except the airport, but don't get me started on that...)

Places of work and places to live are so interspersed around here that long commutes make very little sense, but people do it anyway.

[quade 4]

Quote

While this is a valid grievance, people have to realize that there's really nowhere for it to go. (except the airport, but don't get me started on that...)

Well, I'm already started . . . the F'in' thing doesn't connect to LAX . . . or ANY airport for that matter. WTF?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,107]

>Incorrect.

Literally correct. Reduce land use by 50% and your average distance-to-travel is reduced by _over_ 50%.

>We don't all live on self-sustaining farms any more. There are too many
>of us, and we're too advanced. Specialization requires that people travel to
>get to the specialty centers.

I agree. Cars are the worst (as in most land-consuming) way to do it.

>It would be nice if we could all live just 3 miles from a skydiving center,
>but that's a specialty.

?? Most of the people who work at Perris live quite close to the DZ. Many live across the street.

Perris shares a border with a railroad (a freight line.) If there were train service from LA to Perris, fun jumpers would use it - it would be a lot cheaper (and faster) than driving.

The problem is not that people travel. The problem is caused by the enormous amounts of land used by cars.

>Take away the vast mobility of vehicle transport, and you would have chaos, poverty and starvation.

Take away most people's cars as daily transportation and you'd have - New York City. Hardly an example of chaos, poverty and starvation.

[jumpinfarmer 0]

First off let me start by saying that before the dreaded auto you talk of came into wide spread use about 90 years ago over 25% of the land area of our country was devoted to the horse. Pasture, hay, oats, stables in the cities not to mention many of the roads we still use just that they were dirt or brick and not very wide.

Next look at how much more mobile we are today than say 50 years ago. At that time most people never traveled more than a hundred miles from home and if they did it was very infrequantly.

Then probably one of the worst reasons is our not in my back yard idea. Years ago people lived neer the place they worked. Now because of most local zoning places of employment have to be farther away from peoples homes.

Another major problem is that almost no one can or even would if they still could shop on Main St. The stores we used to walk to from home or, were just a short drive from the country are gone. Replaced by the mega box supper centers that are always overcrouded with no where to park. And all because we want to save .10 on a role of paper towels.

Just my .02

[billvon 3,107]

> First off let me start by saying that before the dreaded auto you talk
>of came into wide spread use about 90 years ago over 25% of the land
>area of our country was devoted to the horse.

I'd say it was a lot more than 25% if you counted pasture!

>Next look at how much more mobile we are today than say 50 years
>ago. At that time most people never traveled more than a hundred miles
>from home and if they did it was very infrequantly.

True - although I would argue that airplanes have had more to do with people traveling long distances than cars do.

>Years ago people lived neer the place they worked. Now because of
>most local zoning places of employment have to be farther away from
>peoples homes.

That's definitely an issue. Many city planners have proposed altering that to allow better mixing of zones. We're doing that around here - light industrial next to condos. Seems to work well.

>Another major problem is that almost no one can or even would if they still
>could shop on Main St. The stores we used to walk to from home or, were
>just a short drive from the country are gone. Replaced by the mega box
>supper centers that are always overcrouded with no where to park. And all
>because we want to save .10 on a role of paper towels.

Again, that's a zoning issue. And if you look at an aerial picture of a Wal-Mart, more than 2/3 of the space it takes is parking.

Consider a planned community that works like this:

Interstates hit a big garage near the center of town; there is also a loading dock/truck farm.

All city buildings (courts, state offices) are in the center. The center also contains access to the garage and a transit center using very light rail (VLR.) The ring around the center contains industry and retail, including "big box" stores that are zoned to fit in smaller spaces.

Around the industry are residential units, dense close in and less dense further out. These are served by narrow (10' wide) roads intended for pedestrian, bicycle and NEV (small electric vehicle) usage. The roads also provide fire/police/ambulance access. The VLR tracks are elevated above this road.

No private vehicles are allowed on these roads. Most short distance traffic will be pedestrian/bicycle; medium distance transport will be via the rail system. Deliveries to homes are handled via NEV.

Airports are accessed via trains from the transit center. Cars are effectively stored there, as are their required maintenance facilities (gas, repair etc.)

Farms are furthest out, again accessible via the VLR. VLR "produce trains" carry crops to the transit center.

[Gawain 0]

Bear in mind that somewhere less than 10% of the USAs total land area is even developed at all.

Some cities devote a greater area to infrastructure. For example, based purely on my subjective observation, I would say that the Atlanta area devotes a greater percentage to highways than LA, but I would argue that Atlanta's traffic is far worse overall. Why? Due to how the traffic is managed. Cities with "perimeter" highway systems have the shittiest traffic I've ever seen (Atlanta and Washington DC come to mind) and they are nowhere near the largest cities.

NYC, Boston and Chicago devote a far less percentage overall, but their mass transit systems are outstanding.

I would ask your question a different way: How, or why do some cities manage their traffic and infrastructure so differently?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,146]

Let's not forget that traffic lights are evil.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Let's not forget that traffic lights are evil.

as are carpool lanes

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Let's not forget that traffic lights are evil.

as are carpool lanes

They're like crack cocaine for the stressed commuter.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

While this is a valid grievance, people have to realize that there's really nowhere for it to go. (except the airport, but don't get me started on that...)

Well, I'm already started . . . the F'in' thing doesn't connect to LAX . . . or ANY airport for that matter. WTF?

Back in Chicago, taking the CTA Blue Line to O'hare made airport trips a breeze. In San Francisco you can take the BART Blue Line right to SFO. And I think one of the subway lines in New York goes right to JFK, but I've never been there, so I can't speak to how easy it is.

But what happens when you get on the Metro Green Line here in Los Angeles? It takes you directly to... a parking lot off of Aviation Blvd... There you get to wait 15 minutes under an onramp to the 105 for a bus. Once on the bus, you will proceed to get stuck in airport traffic for an additional 15-30 minutes creeping along Aviation and Century Blvd and finally through the loop of all the airport terminals. And then you get to do it all again when you get back into town!

Not that I'm bitter or anything...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Cars in general though have become far more than simply a way to get from point A to point B. They are; armor, avatars, a physical manifestation of a dream that doesn't exist in reality, a portable house . . . .

I'd like to think that we're smart enough that we can figure out a better way.

So, when are you going to put action behind your words, step forward and set an example, and give up your automobile?