"Wow, you really think that's rational? 5mph is nothing. It would take people in Dublin 10 minutes just to get out of their subdivision."

 

    Christopher Alexander does not advocate suburban-style subdivisions. He advocates tight urban neighborhoods with small parking lots instead of excessively wide streets with setbacks and excessive space between buildings.

 

  Walking 3 mph for 1 mile or driving 60 mph for 20 miles will both take you 20 minutes, which is about the average commuting time. Cars don't really save time on commutes within town, compared with a traditional town; they only serve to spread the city out over more area.

 

   

 

Various kinds of pavers including Belgian blocks, bricks, cobblestones, concrete pavers, etc., last must longer than asphalt in Ohio's climate and also reduce storm water runoff. I don't think McAdam is very viable in high traffic urban settings because the stone tends to move around.

 

I've got a book about Ohio roads in the 1930's. It says that the first problem was to get farmers out of the mud. This is a structural problem; the road surface has to be strong enough to support the load. When roads were paved with asphalt, however, another problem appeared. Accidents increased due to high speed, and traffic congestion problems arose. Remember, traffic control didn't just pop up overnight; we had an established system of streets and roads before we had any traffic control.

 

By the way, the traditional definition of a street is "a paved way." The traditional definition of a road is "a ride on horseback." We use the words interchangeably now, and almost all streets and roads are paved with either asphalt or concrete, with a small amount of pavers, but in the old days streets were associated with cities and roads were associated with the country.

 

That's interesting. Cities now seem to use them as a way to create a hierarchy. Parkway, boulevard, avenue, street, road, terrace, court, place, circle for example; though it's never very precise.

 

  Some connumities abuse street titles to exagerate their importance. For example, they might use the word "Avenue" when "street" is more appropriate. Traditional names are descriptive. Nowadays, any paved way can be referred to as either a "street" or "road." This is what I understand traditional titles to mean:

 

  Street: a paved way, usually in urban areas.

  Road: an unpaved or McAdamed way; original meaning "a ride on horseback." In Ohio, often maintained by the county.

    Avenue: a wide, straight way, often lined with trees.

    Highway: Literally a "high way." A way graded for drainage, implying a higher level of design than a mere road. Ex: the King's Highway

    Turnpike or pike: a toll road, traditionally controlled by a barrier or pike that could block the way. Most toll roads were improved in some way. A "Piked Road" can also mean a McAdamized road.

    Motorway: A route specifically designed for automobiles; equibalent of the German word "Autobahn."

    Expressway: a motorway without local access.

    Tollway: a motorway with tolls

    Freeway: a motorway without tolls

    Interstate: a motorway funded under the Interstate Highway Program

    Boulevard: a divided motorway, often with local access.

    Parkway: a way surrounded by parkland; no development.

    Carriageway: designed specifically for horse-drawn carriages. Ex: Arcadia National Park

    Drive or Driveway: designed specifically for automobiles.

    Court: a "courthouse square", or "court of Europe." A street wide enough to turn around in; a cul-de-sac.

    Cul-de-sac: French for "bag." A street that ends in a bag shape.

    Circle: a street that loops.

    Terrace: a street built into the side of a hill, with a cut slope on one side and a fill slope on the other side.

      Mew: a short, stubby street used to stable horses. Common in Boston.

    Lane: Usually straight, narrow way.

    Alley: A narrow street

    Viaduct: bridge not over water.

    Place: a generic place name

      Route: a marked or mapped journey over any kind of way.

   

      Boardwalk; literally, a walk made of boards.

      Promenade: a way for couples to walk

      Gate or Gateway: traditionally, a gate in a city wall; an entry point

      Trail: an unpaved way for walking

      Path: a paved or improved way for walking

      Bike Trail: off road way for bicycles

      Bike Path: paved way for bicycles

      Bike Route: A way shared with automobiles marked for bicycles

      Arcade: an indoor or covered street; usually arched.

      Mall: A very wide, landscaped street. Ex: The Mall in Washington, D.C.

      Square: a paved area that is not long and narrow, as a street.

      Plaza: Spanish for "square."

         

      Landing: a sloped area or ramp at the interface between land and water; a place to land, usually associated with river traffic.

      Wharf: a spit of manmade land between two seawalls.

      Pier: an elevated platform over water

         

      RailRoad: a rural or interurban way on rails.

      Railway: an urban way on rails.

      Streetcar: a rail vehicle that runs in a street, on a street railway.

      Subway: an underground railway

      El or Elevated: an overground railway

      Rapid, Rapid Transit: a fast railway

      Mass Transit: a system designed for high volumes of people.

      Trolley: a rail vehicle that runs on one or more overhead wires by means of a trawler, corrupted to "trolley."

     

     

     

  "Wow, you really think that's rational? 5mph is nothing. It would take people in Dublin 10 minutes just to get out of their subdivision."

 

Christopher Alexander does not advocate suburban-style subdivisions. He advocates tight urban neighborhoods with small parking lots instead of excessively wide streets with setbacks and excessive space between buildings.

 

  Walking 3 mph for 1 mile or driving 60 mph for 20 miles will both take you 20 minutes, which is about the average commuting time. Cars don't really save time on commutes within town, compared with a traditional town; they only serve to spread the city out over more area.

 

Obviously he wishes some kind of radical change in the suburbs, but keep in mind that, at least per the original article, the places that are really short on money to maintain their networks are the truly low-density counties--rural areas.  Not suburbs.  Dublin, at the very least, one would expect to be able to raise enough money to maintain a paved road network, and while it's not as dense as Grandview Heights or Victorian Village, it *is* more dense than Coshocton County.  (The vacuum of outer space may be more dense than Coshocton County.)

 

Walking 3 MPH for 1 mile is certainly viable.  Problems arise, however, when you get a new job that's 20 miles away and your kids are still in high school in your existing location, or when your employer decides to move to a different suburb or to downtown (if we're talking about a business currently in Dublin).  Alexander et al. envision a far less physically mobile society, whether they admit it or not.  That will not sit well with most.

Cars definitely promote flexibility as to the workplace, which is probably why the biggest cities have higher unemployment than Cuyahoga County and the rest of the "driving" cities. At the same time, the foreclosure crisis is keeping people in their houses when they don't necessarily want to be there (their mortgages are underwater).

 

So what about chip-and-seal road construction? It definitely keeps speed and cost down. Most Geauga County roads used to be chip-and-seal, and some still are. That won't achieve the 5 mph goal but it at least keeps people from treating back roads as freeways.

 

And unpaved roads don't necessarily stop people from driving small cars, although it does provide a subsidy to the car wash industry. Sperry Road in Chesterland has been unpaved for many years and you'll see all sorts of cars driving that road.

I think the only real benefit to chip seal is its cost, and depending on the aggregate used it can be one of the better looking pavings especially for more historic areas.  The trouble however is that it still requires a good amount of asphalt, so its cost benefits may be limited in the future.  It's also the roughest pavement out there, short of belgian blocks, cobblestones, or any sort of unit paving.  It's not that it gets rutted or develops potholes excessively, but the lack of very fine aggregate means it's just very coarse, which makes it noisy and is also terrible for bike riding. 

 

This is one aspect to the paving question that does make me somewhat apprehensive.  I love the idea of returning roads in all sorts of areas to brick, belgian block, or gravel, while introducing new unit pavers or other materials.  As oil and energy in general gets more expensive, traditional asphalt and concrete are going to become less viable, certainly to the extent we use them now.  However, traditional asphalt is the best surface for cycling and other smaller vehicles like scooters and mopeds.  Belgian block and older brick is basically out of the question for those, and modern pavers and concrete are OK but are not ideal.  Gravel can be ok for bikes, but usually it has to be the finest crushed limestone you can get, which they generally don't use on roads.  It also doesn't drain nearly as well, so it requires more frequent topping up to fill any depressions that might accumulate water. 

I love the idea of brick roads, but I've been told by people who lived on them that they get very icy and slippery in the wintertime. The low-maintenance factor must be unsurpassed, though. They repaved Falls Road in Chagrin Falls maybe 5 years ago with brick and the road is still as perfect as the day it was laid. Those dilapidated brick roads we see all the time might be upwards of 30 years old.

30?  Any old brick road you'd see has to be at least 70 or 80 years old. 

Speaking from experience, the brick roads of downtown Canton were nightmarish to drive on in the winter and weren't even all that great during the summer.

 

I'm no fan of "traffic calming" and other polite terms for deliberately making outsiders' commutes longer in order to benefit local insiders, and I certainly don't support 5 MPH streets as any kind of goal.  Asphalt remains the best material for areas that can afford it, though it's far from ideal.  The issue is that, much as I like people to get where they're going quickly and efficiently and not damage their mode of transportation in the process (car, bike, truck, bus, whatever), I'm much more an advocate of governments staying within their means.

 

Rural county engineers like those quoted in the original article aren't interested in lectures on the benefits of making people go 5 MPH from one end of Coshocton County to the other.  Their primary concern is cost (including ongoing maintenance costs), not speed--and to the extent that speed *is* a concern, it's probably that they couldn't realistically accept any option that wouldn't allow speeds above 40.

Todays bricks used for paving aren't all slippery like 1920s bricks, so the danger factors are reduced. Wet, old brick streets covered in leaves + motorcycles = terror.

Speaking from experience, the brick roads of downtown Canton were nightmarish to drive on in the winter and weren't even all that great during the summer.

 

I'm no fan of "traffic calming" and other polite terms for deliberately making outsiders' commutes longer in order to benefit local insiders, and I certainly don't support 5 MPH streets as any kind of goal. Asphalt remains the best material for areas that can afford it, though it's far from ideal. The issue is that, much as I like people to get where they're going quickly and efficiently and not damage their mode of transportation in the process (car, bike, truck, bus, whatever), I'm much more an advocate of governments staying within their means.

 

Rural county engineers like those quoted in the original article aren't interested in lectures on the benefits of making people go 5 MPH from one end of Coshocton County to the other. Their primary concern is cost (including ongoing maintenance costs), not speed--and to the extent that speed *is* a concern, it's probably that they couldn't realistically accept any option that wouldn't allow speeds above 40.

 

The 5 MPH reference was on urban residential side streets.  Nobody thinks rural county roads or arterial highways should be 5 MPH.  I think 5 MPH is a little slow, but I do think roads in residential areas should be built only to handle the speeds desired on them (a 25 MPH road shouldn't feel safe to go 50 MPH on).

Walking 3 MPH for 1 mile is certainly viable. Problems arise, however, when you get a new job that's 20 miles away and your kids are still in high school in your existing location, or when your employer decides to move to a different suburb or to downtown (if we're talking about a business currently in Dublin). Alexander et al. envision a far less physically mobile society, whether they admit it or not. That will not sit well with most.

 

The idea is that if everything were urban, it would be closer together and scale well.  That job that is 20 miles away now, thanks to all the suburban strip malls, wide highways, and huge parking lots you have to drive past, could be only a couple miles away with good public transit connecting you to it.  Sure, people wouldn't be as physically mobile, but that's because they wouldn't have to be.  They'd still have access to just as many amenities and jobs, just that they'd all be closer.  We have built a society where people are mobile just because they have to be to get to the same amount of things, and it's a huge waste of energy.

The 5 MPH reference was on urban residential side streets. Nobody thinks rural county roads or arterial highways should be 5 MPH. I think 5 MPH is a little slow, but I do think roads in residential areas should be built only to handle the speeds desired on them (a 25 MPH road shouldn't feel safe to go 50 MPH on).

 

That's akin to saying that cars should be physically incapable of going 75 MPH if the highest speed limits in the country are to be 70 MPH.  I don't particularly see any net social or economic benefit in having roads that essentially deliberately damage cars going above the speed limit.  In addition, if you could potentially build a road that was unsafe to drive above 25 on when the road was brand new, keep in mind that the elements take their toll--pretty soon the effective physical limit of that road would be 15.

 

Walking 3 MPH for 1 mile is certainly viable. Problems arise, however, when you get a new job that's 20 miles away and your kids are still in high school in your existing location, or when your employer decides to move to a different suburb or to downtown (if we're talking about a business currently in Dublin). Alexander et al. envision a far less physically mobile society, whether they admit it or not. That will not sit well with most.

The idea is that if everything were urban, it would be closer together and scale well. That job that is 20 miles away now, thanks to all the suburban strip malls, wide highways, and huge parking lots you have to drive past, could be only a couple miles away with good public transit connecting you to it. Sure, people wouldn't be as physically mobile, but that's because they wouldn't have to be. They'd still have access to just as many amenities and jobs, just that they'd all be closer. We have built a society where people are mobile just because they have to be to get to the same amount of things, and it's a huge waste of energy.

 

There is no guarantee that that job would indeed be closer than 20 miles away even in a more dense urban environment.  It could just as easily be in a different downtown core or node in a multi-core urban landscape.  Also, people in this all-urban world still wouldn't have access to as many amenities because certain amenities simply don't mesh into urban environments.  I like to take day trips on weekends out to wineries in the countryside on occasion, for example--and I like to do that in a car, not an SUV or some 6-wheel gas guzzler.

 

In addition, I can't share the vision of "everything" being urban anymore than I can share the vision of "everything" being suburban (which is admittedly closer to what we have, and why I generally make common cause with those trying to breathe life back into urban cores).

 

We have not built a society where people are mobile just because they have to be.  We have built a society where people have to be mobile, but that is not the same thing.  People also simply want to be mobile.

^You guys are acting like it's one or the other.  There are steps we can take to limit the burden of our city streets and country roads on our budgets.  Not EVERY street in a city needs to be built to handle 35 mph traffic.  Not EVERY country road needs to be built to handle 70 mph traffic.  People do want to be mobile and the state and interstate highway systems allow for interstate and intrastate travel to occur with relative ease at high speeds, but I wouldn't mind seeing more dirt, gravel, chip seal, and brick on roads not used as a main thoroughfares.

 

Point is, we don't need to (and certainly shouldn't) be paving over every street in America.  Large cities would especially benefit from using more permeable surfaces for side streets as combined sewer overflow is a huge environmental problem.

The 5 MPH reference was on urban residential side streets.  Nobody thinks rural county roads or arterial highways should be 5 MPH.  I think 5 MPH is a little slow, but I do think roads in residential areas should be built only to handle the speeds desired on them (a 25 MPH road shouldn't feel safe to go 50 MPH on).

 

That's akin to saying that cars should be physically incapable of going 75 MPH if the highest speed limits in the country are to be 70 MPH.  I don't particularly see any net social or economic benefit in having roads that essentially deliberately damage cars going above the speed limit.  In addition, if you could potentially build a road that was unsafe to drive above 25 on when the road was brand new, keep in mind that the elements take their toll--pretty soon the effective physical limit of that road would be 15.

 

"Damage" cars?  I never said that.  Narrow streets with on-street parking, a fair amount of intersections and stop signs, no long straightaways would do the trick.  And all of those features are functional for the urban environment as well.  I hate the speed bumps and other traffic calming devices as much as you do.  But if you build a residential street as wide as a highway with no cars or trees on the sides and gradual curves, people are natural gonna drive much faster than W. 31st Pl. in Ohio City (or even a normal street like W. 38th St.).

 

Walking 3 MPH for 1 mile is certainly viable.  Problems arise, however, when you get a new job that's 20 miles away and your kids are still in high school in your existing location, or when your employer decides to move to a different suburb or to downtown (if we're talking about a business currently in Dublin).  Alexander et al. envision a far less physically mobile society, whether they admit it or not.  That will not sit well with most.

The idea is that if everything were urban, it would be closer together and scale well.  That job that is 20 miles away now, thanks to all the suburban strip malls, wide highways, and huge parking lots you have to drive past, could be only a couple miles away with good public transit connecting you to it.  Sure, people wouldn't be as physically mobile, but that's because they wouldn't have to be.  They'd still have access to just as many amenities and jobs, just that they'd all be closer.  We have built a society where people are mobile just because they have to be to get to the same amount of things, and it's a huge waste of energy.

 

There is no guarantee that that job would indeed be closer than 20 miles away even in a more dense urban environment.  It could just as easily be in a different downtown core or node in a multi-core urban landscape.  Also, people in this all-urban world still wouldn't have access to as many amenities because certain amenities simply don't mesh into urban environments.  I like to take day trips on weekends out to wineries in the countryside on occasion, for example--and I like to do that in a car, not an SUV or some 6-wheel gas guzzler.

 

If people lived in sufficiently urban areas where they didn't HAVE to drive for everyday amenities or their drive, they would still be ABLE to drive when they want to.  The roads would be lower speed in the cities, yes, but there would be less traffic (thanks to not everyone HAVING to drive everywhere) and you'd hit the countryside much faster (like 5 miles from the core rather than 30), where the roads would (and should) be designed to accomodate higher speeds.

 

We have not built a society where people are mobile just because they have to be.  We have built a society where people have to be mobile, but that is not the same thing.  People also simply want to be mobile.

 

We absolutely HAVE built a society where people HAVE to be mobile.  Sure, people WANT to be mobile.  But people WANT to be mobile WHEN they want to be.  How many people do you hear complain about their commute to work?  How many stories do you hear of people not being able to walk to the Wal-Mart they can see from their development?  Or not being able to walk from one strip plaza to the one across the 9 lane highway (think Morse Rd. in Columbus)?

 

The problem is that we weren't smart, and in trying to accomodate people's desire to drive for recreation, we unintentionally built many environments prohibitive to any means of transport other than automobile.  I believe that it IS possible to have it both ways if we planned better.

If people lived in sufficiently urban areas where they didn't HAVE to drive for everyday amenities or their drive, they would still be ABLE to drive when they want to. The roads would be lower speed in the cities, yes, but there would be less traffic (thanks to not everyone HAVING to drive everywhere) and you'd hit the countryside much faster (like 5 miles from the core rather than 30), where the roads would (and should) be designed to accomodate higher speeds.

 

Again, this still gives me the one-size-fits-all chills.  "Wouldn't it be better if everyone were forced to live the way I wish everyone were forced to live?"

 

We have not built a society where people are mobile just because they have to be. We have built a society where people have to be mobile, but that is not the same thing. People also simply want to be mobile.

 

We absolutely HAVE built a society where people HAVE to be mobile. Sure, people WANT to be mobile. But people WANT to be mobile WHEN they want to be. How many people do you hear complain about their commute to work? How many stories do you hear of people not being able to walk to the Wal-Mart they can see from their development? Or not being able to walk from one strip plaza to the one across the 9 lane highway (think Morse Rd. in Columbus)?

 

I do hear a lot of people complain about their commute to work, but that's part of the point: Notwithstanding the irritating commute, they were willing to move to places that make them endure it because they wanted larger houses with larger lawns (a.k.a. "sprawl").  They wanted it badly enough that they were willing to move far enough away from their workplaces that they lose an hour of their lives every day just sitting behind the wheel, not to mention however much in gas.  It does take some work for me to empathize with that desire, since driving makes me grumpy and it would never be how I'd choose to start my day, and I'd have no problems taking my kids to a park (mowed by someone else) rather than being confined to a yard (big yard, small yard, no difference--any park that isn't a pocket park is going to offer a lot more room to run around).  However, it is a mindset that urbanists need to learn to connect with if they want to engage in any kind of constructive dialogue with the suburbs.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the suburbs will likely be among the last to run out of money for road repair, even if federal highway funds are reduced.  It's rural areas that are likely to feel the real financial stress of maintaining lane-miles, since they have so many miles for so few users.  The suburbs in some places actually have every bit as many users per mile of asphalt as most cities.  Not NYC, perhaps, but the roads in Fairlawn (an upper-middle-class suburb of Akron) are always more packed on the weekends and weeknights than the streets in downtown Akron, barring special events in downtown Akron.

 

    "As I mentioned earlier, the suburbs will likely be among the last to run out of money for road repair..."

 

  I beg to differ, as some of the suburbs in my area are hurting for street funds, and watching the streets gradually deterioate. One can do a life-cycle analysis and determine what level of replacement is necessary to maintain the average condition; the suburb that I am thinking of is has a maintenance program well below the required replacement level, and cannot get a street levy passed.

 

  "It's rural areas that are likely to feel the real financial stress of maintaining lane-miles, since they have so many miles for so few users."

 

    Try measuring lane-miles per user and you might be surprised. The suburbs have an enormous inventory of lane-miles, and most of it is empty most of the time. Plus, it is the suburbs that have the curbs, gutters, catch basins, manholes, sidewalks, utilities, and all the appurtenances that make maintenance more expensive on a per lane-mile basis. Many rural roads have no curbs and no utilities at all except overhead wires.

 

 

 

   

In addition, I can't share the vision of "everything" being urban anymore than I can share the vision of "everything" being suburban (which is admittedly closer to what we have, and why I generally make common cause with those trying to breathe life back into urban cores).

 

They're always going to compete for residents. I think that in the end, urban cores will win out, however--despite perennial bureaucratic mismanagement, they ARE supposed to be more efficient. And, when psychology finally builds a case that suburban living tends to beget more social disorders, people will begin to realize that they don't have it all in Mentor. And keep your fingers crossed for peak oil! Once an oil crisis hits, road use will definitely fall, as we saw in the early 2000s and the 1970s. Maintenance cost will certainly fall as roads won't be torn up as fast by traffic. (Interestingly enough, pictures of the Chernobyl area reveal roads in fairly good repair despite disuse and neglect since the disaster.)

In addition, I can't share the vision of "everything" being urban anymore than I can share the vision of "everything" being suburban (which is admittedly closer to what we have, and why I generally make common cause with those trying to breathe life back into urban cores).

 

They're always going to compete for residents. I think that in the end, urban cores will win out, however

 

We're talking about two different things, however, unless by "win out," you mean that the suburbs will vanish entirely.  I, too, want to see urban cores do a lot more growing, and would consider faster urban growth than suburban growth to be a positive social development.  What I said was that I wouldn't want to see a world, at least one essentially produced by government action, in which "everything" was urban.  I want to live in a country that offers something for everyone.  Right now, I feel like options for quality urban living are where we're short, whereas options for large houses on good-sized yards in the suburbs are plentiful, so I'd like to see land use and living patterns shift in a more urban direction, particularly outside of the major coastal cities.

 

That doesn't mean I want to bulldoze my boss' house in Fairlawn and return it to the deer and the bears.

Right now, I feel like options for quality urban living are where we're short, whereas options for large houses on good-sized yards in the suburbs are plentiful, so I'd like to see land use and living patterns shift in a more urban direction, particularly outside of the major coastal cities.

 

Yes, I find it pretty absurd that the cost of living in a vibrant urban core is far higher than living in a suburb. I imagine it has to do with very, very restrictive laws regarding buildout in urban cores.

 

And I'd rather not anyone bulldoze anything :)

Yes, I find it pretty absurd that the cost of living in a vibrant urban core is far higher than living in a suburb. I imagine it has to do with very, very restrictive laws regarding buildout in urban cores.

 

And I'd rather not anyone bulldoze anything :)

 

Well that's part of the problem right there.  Good urban neighborhoods are in high demand but it's difficult to increase the supply because of zoning limitations and NIMBY-ism. 

Yes, I find it pretty absurd that the cost of living in a vibrant urban core is far higher than living in a suburb. I imagine it has to do with very, very restrictive laws regarding buildout in urban cores.

 

And I'd rather not anyone bulldoze anything :)

 

Well that's part of the problem right there. Good urban neighborhoods are in high demand but it's difficult to increase the supply because of zoning limitations and NIMBY-ism.

 

On this, we completely agree--though the problem is that one person's zoning limitations and NIMBY-ism are another person's guarantee of neighborhood "character" and "stability" and other pleasant-sounding buzzwords ... and such measures are often supported by putative urbanists, which drives me up a wall.  The number of hoops one needs to jump through to build on a suburban greenfield is far smaller than the number needed to put in a 10-story condo tower in an area protected by urban zoning laws, an area commission, and maybe a separate historic preservation commission or similar bureaucracy on top of that.

Yes, I find it pretty absurd that the cost of living in a vibrant urban core is far higher than living in a suburb. I imagine it has to do with very, very restrictive laws regarding buildout in urban cores.

 

And I'd rather not anyone bulldoze anything :)

 

Well that's part of the problem right there. Good urban neighborhoods are in high demand but it's difficult to increase the supply because of zoning limitations and NIMBY-ism.

 

On this, we completely agree--though the problem is that one person's zoning limitations and NIMBY-ism are another person's guarantee of neighborhood "character" and "stability" and other pleasant-sounding buzzwords ... and such measures are often supported by putative urbanists, which drives me up a wall. The number of hoops one needs to jump through to build on a suburban greenfield is far smaller than the number needed to put in a 10-story condo tower in an area protected by urban zoning laws, an area commission, and maybe a separate historic preservation commission or similar bureaucracy on top of that.

 

But do those commissions provide no value to an urban core?  I would argue that by having them you are ensuing that those projects that are built do mesh with the surrounding building stock.  However, I'm sure that the process could be made simpler, I just would not want to see these commissions done away with completely.

But do those commissions provide no value to an urban core?

 

Many regulations/plans are politically motivated. And I think laws calling for a "committee" to analyze the "reasonableness" or similar of a project are the most evil at all, since the committee is held to no standard and may freely favor political cronies and discriminate against his competitors. I think that's worse than having no laws at all.

 

That's not to say Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights haven't benefited from their historic preservation laws.  Frankly, though, I think much of the reason the city of Cleveland became depressed so quickly is because we invented Euclidean zoning and redesigned nearly the whole city to comply with those laws. The city limits now doesn't have nearly the magnetism that other urban cores maintain now.

A lot of the problems lie with zoning laws, and unfortunately most cities are doing the exact opposite of what should be done - relaxing those laws, or taking a side step with form based codes; which ultimately replace bulky, overpowering zoning codes with slightly different bulkier, overpowering zoning codes.

 

Remember, when these beautiful, historic urban areas were built they weren't governed by anything in comparison to what has to be gone through today, and they turned out just fine.  In fact, they turned out a lot better...

Remember, when these beautiful, historic urban areas were built they weren't governed by anything in comparison to what has to be gone through today, and they turned out just fine. In fact, they turned out a lot better...

 

Exactly.

 

On this, we completely agree--though the problem is that one person's zoning limitations and NIMBY-ism are another person's guarantee of neighborhood "character" and "stability" and other pleasant-sounding buzzwords ... and such measures are often supported by putative urbanists, which drives me up a wall. The number of hoops one needs to jump through to build on a suburban greenfield is far smaller than the number needed to put in a 10-story condo tower in an area protected by urban zoning laws, an area commission, and maybe a separate historic preservation commission or similar bureaucracy on top of that.

 

But do those commissions provide no value to an urban core? I would argue that by having them you are ensuing that those projects that are built do mesh with the surrounding building stock. However, I'm sure that the process could be made simpler, I just would not want to see these commissions done away with completely.

 

I would argue that on balance, they provide no or negative value to an urban core.  That is not to say that they do nothing positive; it is to say that they do more harm than good, and that "end it, don't mend it" is a much faster and less corruptible solution than trying to re-jigger all the processes, replace or retrain all the people, and reform the institution.  You are right that these commissions can ensure that "those projects that are built do mesh with the surrounding building stock," but is conformity really such a precious social good that we should sacrifice development to ensure it?  Particularly when the nonconforming structure might well be a much taller (and therefore denser) tower in an area where land values have increased due to the efforts of earlier urban pioneers?

 

In many of Akron's most vibrant older neighborhoods, the houses do not "mesh" with one another.  There's a Tudor next to a Georgian next to a Cape Cod.  Likewise in commercial building stock: The storefronts in Highland Square really are all over the map.

 

  In good urban design, the architecture style (Tudor, Cape Cod, etc) is less important than the overall geometry including street widths, building heights, etc.

 

  Christopher Alexander recommends that no building be more than one or two stories taller than any of it's neighbors. This allows for gradual building up of density, without allowing for the skyscraper in the middle of a low-rise urban area.

See, I guess this is where our visions simply differ: I have no problems with a skyscraper in a low-rise neighborhood; *someone* has to start the vertical build, and I don't think that those willing to make the initial plunge into higher-density building should be straitjacketed (while liberating those who delay), particularly if the market will support something substantially higher: if the current buildings are all three stories and you want to build ten, you're really kind of waiting for someone else to make the first move with a five, then someone else with a seven, etc.  Or else you've got to be a massive developer who can build a 5, 7, 9, and 10-story building all at once.

 

As long as the utility grid can handle it, I'm generally for it.  (Obviously, this is different when we're talking about industrial uses, but for pretty much any residential or light commercial use, I generally think that there should be a heavy presumption in favor of getting out of the way.)  And if the utility grid *can't* handle it, I'm usually for upgrading the infrastructure.

^ Yes, if every city followed "A Pattern Language," we would have very dull cities, in my opinion.  It's the break from the pattern that creates diversity in form, space, and order, a diversity that more closely represents how people live than do the subtle Utopian undertones of new urbanism.

the suburb that I am thinking of is has a maintenance program well below the required replacement level, and cannot get a street levy passed.

 

Politicians know this too; it's the citizens that are the problem. They don't want to pay for their wastefulness.

 

 

  In good urban design, the architecture style (Tudor, Cape Cod, etc) is less important than the overall geometry including street widths, building heights, etc.

 

  Christopher Alexander recommends that no building be more than one or two stories taller than any of it's neighbors. This allows for gradual building up of density, without allowing for the skyscraper in the middle of a low-rise urban area.

 

I agree whole-heartedly. I've seen plenty of neighborhoods with a mix of styles that work very well. People can appreciate that kind of diversity. It's the urban form - density, sidewalks, buffers, landscaping, or even presence of street lights that can make or break a development in terms of its perception of quality. 

Neighborhoods, urban design, and Pattern Language are valid topics worthy of further discussion, folks, but we're drifting off the (gravel) road. The topic is The Gradual Return of Gravel Roads. Please take the other discussions to a more appropriate section/topic. Thanks.

 

  ^---Ok.

 

  One of the patterns in Alexander's book is "Green Streets" in which he advocates two McAdamed wheel tracks in a grass strip. A lot of driveways in rural areas are like this. Obviously it only works in certain situations.

 

   ^---Ok.

 

   One of the patterns in Alexander's book is "Green Streets" in which he advocates two McAdamed wheel tracks in a grass strip. A lot of driveways in rural areas are like this. Obviously it only works in certain situations.

 

Maybe this is a dumb question but why do you see more McAdam wheel tracks with a grass strip between rather than asphalt or concrete wheel tracks? Obviously the other options would be more expensive but couldn't that work out well with pretty much any material used for the tracks?

 

  ^---- I think it's just method of construction.

 

  Wheel tracks can be formed sort of "naturally" by driving on unimproved ground until ruts start to form, and then filling the ruts with gravel. The gravel continues to rut, and more layers are added until a sufficient base gets built up.

 

    There are some residential driveways in my area that consist of two concrete tracks.

 

 

You do see that here and there with shorter driveways, but there's several reasons why you don't see concrete or asphalt strips for longer sections.

 

Different Vehicle widths -- it's tough to space these for all the different sizes of vehicles and tires these days.

 

Slipping off -- it's real easy to slip off the sides of these, especially in the winter. You gotta be ultra-precise with your moves. Invariably, over the years, the soil will either erode away from the hardened surface or will build up on the sides.

 

Cost -- still not cheap

 

Durability -- much less durable than wider sections of surface.

 

 

First of all, it's macadam, not McAdam.  Second, in a gravel road situation, it just sort of happens by itself over time.  The pressure of the wheels keeps the gravel compacted on the two "tracks" preventing anything from growing, while the center isn't as compacted and weeds tend to grow over time as mud and such gets washed in. 

 

There's plenty of older driveways around that use this double track method with concrete, but it's generally not done anymore because it's easier and sometimes even cheaper to just pave the whole width.  The complexity of double the amount of form work, the reduced stability of two separate narrow strips of concrete, and simply a lack of experience in doing it well by contractors makes it very uncommon today.  I don't think it's really possible to do such a setup in asphalt, because there are no forms, and the width of the track is usually narrower than a steamroller, so you wouldn't be able to properly roll the thing nor keep the lines very even.

 

  ^--- The big money in road construction these days is in big roads, not little driveways. Often, if a batch of concrete fails the quality control test for a highway, bridge, or building, then it goes to someone's driveway instead. In that way, the big jobs are sort of subsidizing the little jobs.

 

  Some clever engineer could invent a machine to build two-track driveways, but the market for it just isn't there. Most new residential driveways these days are two lanes wide anyway.

The farm where I grew up is about 1/3 mile off a chip-and-seal county road, and is accessed by a macadam private road that now serves two residences and a machine shop and provides seasonal access for heavy farm machinery.

 

We are within five miles of two large limestone quarries where we can get crushed stone of the appropriate size, and we minimize the need for new stone by surfacing the road regularly with a tractor-pulled maintainer.

 

A maintainer differs from a grader in that it can't apply mechanical down-pressure to the blade; the blade is held down by its own weight and the weight of its supporting mechanism. The blade's cant and angle of attack are controlled by hand cranks. Whenever all the stone in the wheel tracks has become pulverized and compacted, and/or whenever potholes start to develop, we use the maintainer to redistribute the loose stone from the crown and margins into the tracks. Usually we don't have to add new stone more than once a year.

 

The road drains well, and the only serious weather-caused problems can occur when sudden thaws with heavy snow accumulations occur after a prolonged cold period with deep frost. Then, an underlayer of frost can prevent surface water from escaping, and the top layer of soil becomes saturated to the consistency of toothpaste, with the macadam constituting a crust on top. When that happens, sometimes you can feel the surface give when you walk on it, like walking on a rubber mat. Aggressive driving or excess weight could cause a vehicle to break through and become deeply mired, damaging the macadam so that it can take a long time to reconstitute itself even after the soil becomes stable again. I remember a few times when the county closed most of the macadam roads for a few days during Spring thaw.

The chip-seal approach to maintaining roads is popular when my parents live.....and it isn't as expensive.  Granted it's a rural/sub-rural area so the traffic is mainly farm vehicles and road residents.  There are a couple of gravel roads and one dirt road (which has been completely closed to through traffic) near Monroeville, Ohio.

 

In Illinois....different story.  Gravel/crushed limestone/dirt roads are very abundant; including a few in the Chicago metro area.

One thing about gravel roads is that the stormwater runoff can not be handled eficiently to run toward a catch basin along a curb.  Therefore, any deposits from cars, trucks, equipment etc runs through the subgrade into the natural soil strata's.  You can efficiently build one if you run catch basins along the side of the street with a small curb, but you would also need to design for lateral underdrains running approximatley every 75' accross the road which would be backfilled with free-draining material, and then tield into the catch basin.  The underdrain would also need to wither be socked, or the trench lined with fabric to stop water from streaming out of the trenches.  All in all, you start running up costs with all of the stormwater management to install a road as such.  For rural backroads, sure, give it a shot.  But for secondary roads, I really can not see them as functional. 

^ What about curbless rural roads with ditches? Does your proposition not apply to asphalt-paved roads of this style? I'd think an impermeable cloth laid along the contours of the crown would direct runoff toward either side of the road.

 

Don't think gravel roads in medium-density developments are really feasible, but they're more reasonable in the exurbs, where few roads are curbed.

^ What about curbless rural roads with ditches? Does your proposition not apply to asphalt-paved roads of this style? I'd think an impermeable cloth laid along the contours of the crown would direct runoff toward either side of the road.

 

Don't think gravel roads in medium-density developments are really feasible, but they're more reasonable in the exurbs, where few roads are curbed.

 

The water on a curbless rural road that empties into a ditch also has to be designed for.  The runoff calculation still needs tobe performed, and the water in the ditch needs to empty into a known.  I am saying that on gravel roads, the water is lost to the subgrade do to the minus impervious runoff. 

There is still alot of maintenance that goes into a gravel road in the exurbs.  After on winter of plowing, the gravel is pushed off the side into piles therefore making the need for additional gravel.

 

I am trying to see the positive for a gravel road in a semi-populated area, but I can not really find the functionality and cost saving in it.

I'm no fan of "traffic calming" and other polite terms for deliberately making outsiders' commutes longer in order to benefit local insiders, and I certainly don't support 5 MPH streets as any kind of goal.  Asphalt remains the best material for areas that can afford it, though it's far from ideal.  The issue is that, much as I like people to get where they're going quickly and efficiently and not damage their mode of transportation in the process (car, bike, truck, bus, whatever), I'm much more an advocate of governments staying within their means.

 

Wow, that's a pretty aggressively negative view of traffic calming.  Did you recently lose a muffler on a speed bump or something?  Do you think auto noise and pedestrian safety are illegitimate local concerns or do you simply prefer the higher expense and political discretion that police enforcement of speed entails?

I'm no fan of "traffic calming" and other polite terms for deliberately making outsiders' commutes longer in order to benefit local insiders, and I certainly don't support 5 MPH streets as any kind of goal. Asphalt remains the best material for areas that can afford it, though it's far from ideal. The issue is that, much as I like people to get where they're going quickly and efficiently and not damage their mode of transportation in the process (car, bike, truck, bus, whatever), I'm much more an advocate of governments staying within their means.

 

Wow, that's a pretty aggressively negative view of traffic calming. Did you recently lose a muffler on a speed bump or something? Do you think auto noise and pedestrian safety are illegitimate local concerns or do you simply prefer the higher expense and political discretion that police enforcement of speed entails?

 

I think if you decreased speed limits greatly, you would have to supply more police enforcement for speed contrl.  JMHO. 

 

As with anything there's two sides to the issue.  Traffic calming via speed humps seems a bit absurd when you take a rough road, repave it to be smooth as glass, then add artificial humps to calm traffic.  A better solution would be to uncover the old bricks, or use grid pavers or some other material that's not in and of itself conducive to high speeds like asphalt.  Narrowing the street, bumping out curbs at intersections, or allowing more on-street parking are all other ways to achieve the goals without unnecessary barriers. 

 

Another issue with traffic calming is its impact on the overall traffic grid.  By restricting through traffic on residential streets, it becomes more concentrated on major arterials, thus exacerbating congestion.  If the traffic volume could be better distributed among the huge number of side (but still through-connecting) streets, there would be an overall benefit to everyone in less congestion on the roads that are least able to accommodate more of it. 

 

To try to keep on topic here, I think this is somewhere that intermediate pavement types might be valuable.  The roughness of chip-seal or some sort of pavers would be a good choice for neighborhood streets that don't need the highway-grade asphalt treatment, but aren't quite appropriate for straight gravel either. 

Frequent stop signs at cross streets do much to reduce speed.

 

Short blocks formed by a grid pattern also tend to increase pedestrian usability, which in and of itself can slow traffic down.

 

I prefer brick as the best solution. I consider it a crime that the streets of Cleveland were paved wholesale with asphalt without consideration as to the intended use of that road.

Just rest assured knowing that planners are not using materials that in the long run will cost more money to maintain then other materials.  I know that has nothing to do with traffic calming, however, alot of discussion seems to be going in this direction.   

I'm no fan of "traffic calming" and other polite terms for deliberately making outsiders' commutes longer in order to benefit local insiders, and I certainly don't support 5 MPH streets as any kind of goal. Asphalt remains the best material for areas that can afford it, though it's far from ideal. The issue is that, much as I like people to get where they're going quickly and efficiently and not damage their mode of transportation in the process (car, bike, truck, bus, whatever), I'm much more an advocate of governments staying within their means.

 

Wow, that's a pretty aggressively negative view of traffic calming. Did you recently lose a muffler on a speed bump or something? Do you think auto noise and pedestrian safety are illegitimate local concerns or do you simply prefer the higher expense and political discretion that police enforcement of speed entails?

 

No, I simply think you and other traffic-calming advocates sorely underestimate the value of moving commuters around quickly and efficiently, and the drawbacks of a city becoming deliberately and openly hostile to commuters, which is how "traffic calming" is perceived by those who are ostensibly being "calmed."  The last several posts where posters automatically assumed that slowing traffic down is a desirable goal and debated only the ways in which it could be done absolutely astound me.

 

I don't think every city street should be a paved, one-way, four-lane arterial.  But I do think that there need to be enough such arterials to minimize the amounts of time and gasoline needlessly wasted while stuck in traffic, and that essentially telling suburbanites to shut up and move downtown if they want to avoid that traffic is insensitive and counterproductive.  (Not to mention that I use those self-same arterials to get out *to* the suburbs, and I don't want to have to be pointlessly crawling down an essentially empty street to do so.)

^Eeesh, "you and other traffic calming advocates."  Well, I can only speak for myself, but I'm on board with most of what you've posted in this thread.  I just think you're painting with a very broad (and overly suspicious) brush when you dismiss traffic calming.  It's nothing more than mechanical intervention to slow traffic, usually to slow it to the posted speed limits we've lived with for decades.  Nothing inherently anti-suburban about it at all- I'd guess most traffic calming is in suburban neighborhoods.  Nothing inherently central planning-y about traffic calming either.  And it doesn't necessarily stifle traffic flow - replacing stop signs with intersection islands can both slow top speeds and increase average speed.  I don't disagree at all about the need to balance regional traffic flow against parochial interests, but if you don't like how tools are used at times, blame the planners not the tools!

 

Just rest assured knowing that planners are not using materials that in the long run will cost more money to maintain then other materials.  I know that has nothing to do with traffic calming, however, alot of discussion seems to be going in this direction.   

 

Actually, I don't think this is a safe assumption at all.  Granite curbs are now the norm for some jurisdictions because of lower life cycle costs than concrete, yet are rare and treated like luxury goods in Northeast Ohio.  And it wouldn't surprise me if life cycle costs of brick roads are lower than concrete.  Up front costs matter a lot to local budgeting, to state the obvious.