2 ms·

Cul-de-sacs are great for the people who live in them, and they are a nightmare for people who live in densely populated areas that suffer constant traffic from

Cul-de-sacs are great for the people who live in them, and they are a nightmare for people who live in densely populated areas that suffer constant traffic from the car-dependent suburbanites that drive there from their quiet cul-de-sacs. You don't want other people driving their cars in front of your home, but neither do the people who live in the urban core.

al_borland 2y ago
This is where mass transit from the suburbs to the urban areas are need. The transit needs to be faster, cheaper, and easier than driving and parking. I lived in the Chicago suburbs for a while and never drove downtown. I was a passenger a couple times, but when I went, I always took the Metra. During rush hour it would take half the time, or better, and it was fairly cheap. Though I won’t say the entire system was perfect. Where I’m at now, the only option to avoid driving is the bus. The bus takes at least 3x longer than driving. No one is going to take it unless they have to due to their circumstances. I don’t want to drive and park down there, which leaves me with Uber. I’ve done it a few times, but it’s far from ideal, and fairly expensive. If they had some light rail and a free commuter lot, I’d go down there all the time. Culs-de-sac aren’t the problem, it’s the lack of non-car options to bridge the suburbs and the city, to reduce car traffic in cities while allowing people from the suburbs to come into the city to spend their time and money. Not everyone will use the transit options, but it just needs to be enough to make the roads manageable. The better the transit options, the more people we’ll likely see opt in.
- david-gpu 2y ago
  > Culs-de-sac aren’t the problem, it’s the lack of non-car options to bridge the suburbs and the city North American suburbs typically lack the necessary population density to make the sort of transit you ask for viable. Car dependence is intrinsic to low density single family zoning.
wonderwonder 2y ago
I agree, but this is not the fault of the people that live in the suburbs. The vast majority of urban centers and suburbs outside of major areas like NYC and Chicago have very limited public transport. So people have to drive to where the jobs are. I think the nearest bus stop to my house is probably a 2 mile walk. On top of that, in many states, riding the bus is essentially seen as a poor person activity as everyone is expected to have cars. So if you want to ride the bus, you have to walk 30 minutes in the 100+ degree temp or if its not hot, its raining. Then sit (if you are lucky enough to be next to a bus stop with a bench instead of just a sign) on an uncovered covered bench. Its made (designed??) to be such a bad experience that people avoid it if they can. That's the eternal trade off of city vs suburb. In the suburbs you have to drive everywhere but there are fewer people. In the city (some of them) you can walk or use public transportation but there are far more commuters coming into your area. The choice really just depends on your life needs and personal situation

al_borland 2y ago

This is where mass transit from the suburbs to the urban areas are need. The transit needs to be faster, cheaper, and easier than driving and parking. I lived in the Chicago suburbs for a while and never drove downtown. I was a passenger a couple times, but when I went, I always took the Metra. During rush hour it would take half the time, or better, and it was fairly cheap. Though I won’t say the entire system was perfect. Where I’m at now, the only option to avoid driving is the bus. The bus takes at least 3x longer than driving. No one is going to take it unless they have to due to their circumstances. I don’t want to drive and park down there, which leaves me with Uber. I’ve done it a few times, but it’s far from ideal, and fairly expensive. If they had some light rail and a free commuter lot, I’d go down there all the time. Culs-de-sac aren’t the problem, it’s the lack of non-car options to bridge the suburbs and the city, to reduce car traffic in cities while allowing people from the suburbs to come into the city to spend their time and money. Not everyone will use the transit options, but it just needs to be enough to make the roads manageable. The better the transit options, the more people we’ll likely see opt in.

david-gpu 2y ago
> Culs-de-sac aren’t the problem, it’s the lack of non-car options to bridge the suburbs and the city North American suburbs typically lack the necessary population density to make the sort of transit you ask for viable. Car dependence is intrinsic to low density single family zoning.

wonderwonder 2y ago

I agree, but this is not the fault of the people that live in the suburbs. The vast majority of urban centers and suburbs outside of major areas like NYC and Chicago have very limited public transport. So people have to drive to where the jobs are. I think the nearest bus stop to my house is probably a 2 mile walk. On top of that, in many states, riding the bus is essentially seen as a poor person activity as everyone is expected to have cars. So if you want to ride the bus, you have to walk 30 minutes in the 100+ degree temp or if its not hot, its raining. Then sit (if you are lucky enough to be next to a bus stop with a bench instead of just a sign) on an uncovered covered bench. Its made (designed??) to be such a bad experience that people avoid it if they can. That's the eternal trade off of city vs suburb. In the suburbs you have to drive everywhere but there are fewer people. In the city (some of them) you can walk or use public transportation but there are far more commuters coming into your area. The choice really just depends on your life needs and personal situation