What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 50 Most Christmassy City Names view!
realtor.com - Put yourself in a holiday mood by reading about these cities and towns with festive names.
219 Comments
- kitsua, on 04/07/2009, -2/+63Manhattan/London, Manhattan/London - hey, this is fun!
- caoimhinn, on 04/08/2009, -14/+70Looks like traffic becomes even more of a nightmare.
- FreckleEars, on 04/07/2009, -6/+52I love these ideas but sadly, for us northern climate areas, not all of these options are feasible.
Where I live, we have among the highest freeze-thaw occurrences in the world for a populated area. Combine that with 10,000kg plows and 50cm of snow per snowstorm and you get roads that only last 5 years. Sidewalks face a similar fate. Our roads here are boring and simple for a reason. Cluttering them up with bulb-outs and median's filled with trees will only hamper snow clearing.
That being said, speaking from one of the worst places to engineer any motorway more than basic in design, I can say that having dedicated bus lanes and/or bike lanes would be very useful in specific areas. Also, I love the idea of the offset signals so that pedestrians can get a go first. As for the textured sidewalks. My city already has them in busy areas and they actually last longer than pavement roads. They just cost a lot to install and maintain.
As an engineer who has dealt with urban planning scenarios, most of these items are only problems in high congestion areas. For the most part, a quiet neighborhood needs no more than a painted bike lane. - thegamingguy, on 04/07/2009, -8/+47All of these suggestions should be welcome additions. I was hoping for some higher tech solutions, but these will do just fine.
- OfNumbers, on 04/07/2009, -3/+39Before = Chicago setting
After = Portland setting - socokoolaid, on 04/08/2009, -10/+44Good ideas: Plant trees, pedestrian lighting, pedestrian protecting poles.
Bad ideas:
Overpriced traffic controllers to show pedestrians what lights cars would have. Isn't walk/don't walk good enough?
Very expensive 'raised textured' crosswalks (ie bricks that have to be redone every couple of years at very high price.)
Reduce 4 lane one-way street down to 1 dedicated bus lane, a likely unused bike lane, wasted space divider, and two regular lanes that if you measured would likely be too small to use.
Speed bumps, cause that's what we really need at busy intersections to damage our vehicles, and interrupt the flow of traffic.
Conclusion:
Back to the drawing board hippy !! - inactive, on 04/08/2009, -1/+27There won't be streets in the futures. We'll live in arcologies.
- jwolcott, on 04/08/2009, -4/+28The whole point is that by creating "livable" streets, there will be less cars on the road, and thus less "traffic" to deal with and accommodate. *cough* look at the bikes *cough*
- NCSUspoon, on 04/08/2009, -7/+29Yeah, take out 2 lanes in Manhattan. Good luck with that. Want to talk about bad traffic planning.
- cersad, on 04/08/2009, -2/+23Most of this could be a good idea, maybe--if traffic volume decreases. But speed bumps are a bad idea. There's no good reason to put out traps to deliberately and indiscriminately damage motor vehicles.
- jcaino, on 04/08/2009, -5/+25Good, get on the bus. Or get a bike. Even if you live far from a 'downtown' area most public transit systems offer 'Park and Ride' locations that allow use public transit to avoid downtown driving/delays.
- Mariokartfever, on 04/08/2009, -13/+30Welcome additions to tourists, not business commuters.
They reduced 6 lanes of traffic to 2 in order to be more "aesthetically appeasing" and allow more space for bikers and pedestrians. Do you have an idea how much backup this would cause for people commuting to work?
Buried for lack of proper planning. - pilot3033, on 04/08/2009, -1/+17With dedicated bus lanes and improved rapid/mass transit infrastructure, you would have a lot less people on the road.
Not to mention the increased use of bike lanes. They've been adding a bunch here in NYC, and it is really a great thing. - inactive, on 04/08/2009, -7/+21Brilliant city planning, here. Take out 3 lanes, including a lane for parking, in exchange for 3 lanes of trees. Traffic will be bad for awhile, then will get better as people slowly realize how ***** stupid the people in city government are, and start leaving the city.
Isn't that one theory as to why the Mayans disappeared - they overwhelmed their infrastructure, and caused massive complications with some necessities? - Bic823, on 04/08/2009, -1/+14Not to mention that point that was brought up in that cracked.com article from yesterday about ambulances.
- jp2535, on 04/08/2009, -3/+16I like it, but speed bumps all over will slow the emercency services a lot, and it leaves no parking for people.
- Dush, on 04/08/2009, -5/+17Haha, could you just imagine police, ambulances and firetrucks having to go over speed bumps at every single intersection?
- hagiaso, on 04/08/2009, -2/+12Awesome idea if we dictate that 60% of the people with cars in cities must give up their autos. The picture is pretty and all that, but going from 4 lanes + parking space down to 2 with no parking looks like a nightmare.
Oh, what's that in the background, a taxi? Guess he's going to block 50% of the road when he picks up a fare.
The accidents of people trying to turn right across that bus lane are going to be fun as well (and that dumb little pole near the middle of the intersection must have been placed their by an auto body shop, that's going to be side-swiped more times than Britney Spears at an after hours party). - bromac, on 04/08/2009, -5/+15Because conservation means planning to put more cars on the road.
I just don't get how people can bitch about energy and environmental crises, yet not have the reality check that the fact millions of people commuting to work every day might have change.
Either we start making hard, DRASTIC changes, or we shall reap what we sow. - Bic823, on 04/08/2009, -7/+16These solutions seem to ignore the reality of the world we live in- the car *is* the dominant mode of transportation and it's not likely to change fast. I'm not saying these are bad suggestions, they just seem to be viewing the world through a "wishful thinking lens" where the landscapes we have are obsolete because everyone walks or takes the bus or bikes everywhere. As it is now, the system is ugly and perhaps inefficient in some places, but for the most part it's functional and designed to help the most people-those that drive. FreckleEars also brought up a great point concerning snow removal.
A city that could *really* benefit from these suggestions is the Seattle Waterfront. - apackofmonkeys, on 04/08/2009, -1/+10In most cities, many if not most people commute long distances to get to work. Bikes are not anywhere near a viable option for most people in these cities. Also, here in St. Louis, they just cut bus routes in half. It's harder than ever to use public transportation and they keep making it harder.
- kamakazitp, on 04/08/2009, -0/+8@vman: thats pretty hard to do because vehicle clearance, spring rates and shock bound/rebound forces vary widely among vehicles. the speed bump you can go over at 30 in your expedition taken only as a "gentle reminder" not to go faster taken as the same speed in a corvette would probably bottom out and/or damage your suspension and lower body panels.
- sarcasmosis, on 04/08/2009, -0/+8I've lived in Chicago and Portland. Chicago is a concrete jungle. There is a little vegetation in some places, but it's all taxi territory and city dwellers vastly prefer public transportation. Portland is not like that at all, and looks and feels as if it were actually planned out by urban developers, because it was. It's great for walking or (most of the time) driving, and parking isn't even imaginably close to the nightmare it is in Chicago.
Portland is definitely ahead of the curve in this department. Not only are pedestrians very prominent, but so are their dogs. Speedbumps are a modern atrocity that needs to disappear and be forgotten forever. There are better ways of hustling people into not going fast.
We also don't have brick streets, because brick in streets is retarded. They are insanely expensive and deteriorate horribly. I can attest to this first hand because my hometown was mostly brick streets when I started driving, and it's very hard on a car if those streets are more than a few years old. - inactive, on 04/08/2009, -1/+9Haha I live in Portland. Some of our streets actually do look like that.
- vman81, on 04/08/2009, -3/+11Ambulance takes bump free bus lane, with the added bonus that this lane is never blocked by traffic, only the odd bus or two.
Problem solved?
Also speed bumps should be engineered so that driving at the maximum allowed speed the bump is only a gentle reminder not to go faster. It should NEVER be necessary to break before a bump. - Origin415, on 04/08/2009, -1/+8Then improve mass transit so less people use cars.
- mykotron, on 04/08/2009, -3/+10I like this but it definitely reads like it was written by a pedestrian
- honeybrass, on 04/08/2009, -0/+7Yes, we will all live in tall, round, phallic symbols.
- JayD16, on 04/08/2009, -4/+11They turned a 2 way street into a 1 way street and removed all the parking. This would be a death sentence for any street level business without a parking structure.
- NinjaBass, on 04/08/2009, -1/+8How is being a douchebag this time of year?
- tsukiyo, on 04/08/2009, -1/+8It looks like a one-way street, JayD. The signs on the right hand side of the photo actually shows a crossing of two one-ways. Sure, they still took out the parking, but I think that is part of the goal: reduce the amount of car traffic.
It all looks nice in practice, but I'm sure it depends on location and people's willingness to change. I would be happy commuting in a city designed like this. - JCEEZ, on 04/08/2009, -0/+7Brahma Lama dome?
- pilot3033, on 04/08/2009, -2/+8funny, since they've added more bike lanes here in NYC, I've seen all types of people riding to work. Bike's are cheap, easy to use, and very durable. Why take 30mins to drive 2 miles when you can ride a bike and be there in a fraction of that?
- ahawks, on 04/08/2009, -0/+6Living in a city where biking and bus use is fairly common (still a minority though)... I disagree with a lot of your "bad idea" assessments
Unused bike lane? Quite a few people would bike, if it were safe to. It's a community decision though. Companies have to encourage employees to bike to work. Have bike racks, and a social atmosphere accepting of showing up in bike clothes and changing at the office.
Might not work in manhattan, but guess what, there are actually other cities out there. - dougmidkiff, on 04/08/2009, -1/+7Andrés Duany disagrees with you:
"People walk in hotter places and in colder places. There are more walkable streets in four cities in Canada than the entire United States,"
Duany knows his stuff. Here is his company wedsite: http://www.dpz.com/
He also wrote Suburban Nation. Good book. - brainflakes, on 04/08/2009, -0/+6Looks just like a typical European street :)
- monkeyrun, on 04/08/2009, -0/+6These so called "livable street" already exist in other parts of the world.....
- zumpiez, on 04/08/2009, -1/+7Unintuitively, planning for fewer cars in your design helps decrease congestion. Simply, people wind up not bringing their car into the city. You see more people parking as quickly as possible at the edge of downtown or whatever and then either walking or riding the bus to get around.
- R33E8, on 04/08/2009, -3/+8A feasible concept... I like it..
- NastiestNate, on 04/08/2009, -1/+6Dedicated bus lanes means buses won't hold up car traffic.
- mx13punk, on 04/08/2009, -2/+7Good Magazine has the info-graphic down to a science. More info-graphics like this please.
- xB4R7x, on 04/08/2009, -1/+6Which is a bad idea... because there WON'T be less vehicles on the road. If people can drive... they're going to. And the majority of traffic in NY is Taxis and other public transportation anyway
- lamejoketeller, on 04/08/2009, -0/+5how about we boost the economy by trying to make our major economic centers more tourist-friendly and attract more pedestrians, who are infinitely more likely to spend (think window-shopping) than people trapped behind a fiberglass wall?
- WVUDoss, on 04/08/2009, -0/+5Bikes offer quick transportation across town without battling traffic (saving time) or parking (saving money) or gas (saving money/environment)
- armakaryk, on 04/08/2009, -0/+5roads? where were going we dont need roads!
- drmordax, on 04/08/2009, -1/+6Hard to imagine very much of my native Los Angeles ever looking like Vancouver. I would certainly love for it to do so, but we're just now beginning to work on synchronizing traffic signals.
- Volatile36, on 04/08/2009, -1/+5Uh...People shouldn't be driving on the sidewalks anyway. If they do, they get what they deserve.
- lamejoketeller, on 04/08/2009, -2/+6you won't need to drive in the future.
When you really think about it, the concept of driving every day is a little ridiculous. On an overpopulated earth, it's so impractical to have everyone go from within a mile of point A to within a mile of point B all by themselves.
Hell, also cars are powered by exploding dinosaurs, how archaic does that sound? - TsuruchiBrian, on 04/08/2009, -2/+6They could make the street even more livable by removing those dangerous and unsightly lanes altogether. We could fill all the lanes with book stores, coffee shops, and trendy apartments. Then you could really live IN the street. Pedestrians would be the priority over drivers, because everyone would be pedestrians, because driving would be impossible.
- byronm, on 04/08/2009, -1/+5Thats the point.. to make sure that the common ground is multi use and not just for the sake of people in cars.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 220 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is