News Are Cars in Metro Cities Causing More Harm Than Good?

[rootX]

Would it be better if cars are banned in the metro-cities?

This would reduce all traffic problems, pollution problems, and excessive use of gas in the big cities, *1. There can be designated parking spaces outside the cities accessible through public transit so that people can commute outside their city.

1: Personally, I always notice that most of the cars have only one passenger even though many of these cars go in same directions. I am not sure if there are some statical study on average number of passengers in a car and number of cars that share similar departure and destination.

 

[256bits]

The funny thing is that in countries where previously the average income made cars unaffordable, but as the avarage income began to rise, what do they buy - a car - and they end up with the same problem you cite.

 

[chiro]

Would it be better if cars are banned in the metro-cities?

This would reduce all traffic problems, pollution problems, and excessive use of gas in the big cities, *1. There can be designated parking spaces outside the cities accessible through public transit so that people can commute outside their city.

1: Personally, I always notice that most of the cars have only one passenger even though many of these cars go in same directions. I am not sure if there are some statical study on average number of passengers in a car and number of cars that share similar departure and destination.

So what is your solution to solving the transport problem?

How are you going to enforce it? By new legislation? By introducing tolls for roads in the CBD? By some other tax?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Venice solved the problem nicely.

 

[turbo]

Venice solved the problem nicely.

Though if I lived there, the gondola-operators would be cursing me in the Italian equivalent of "damned kayakers"!

 

[AlephZero]

Though if I lived there, the gondola-operators would be cursing me in the Italian equivalent of "damned kayakers"!

They are doing that already. http://www.venicekayak.com/

 

[BobG]

If a person lives inside a major city, such as DC, I don't know why they even own a car, let alone drive it to and from work. Their parking fees and/or parking tickets probably cost more than the car payments.

"Parking Wars" is one of the best TV shows on cable and portrays the harried lifestyles of car owners in Philadelphia and Detroit. Evidently, the vehicle impound lot is a favorite location for family reunions. It also seems to be used as a vocabulary training site for sailors.

 

[WhoWee]

I wish we didn't need cars outside of the inner city - but we do. Forget public transport - why doesn't someone re-invent wings?

 

[John Creighto]

I live in Calgary. Public transportation here is pretty inefficient compared to driving and it has been argued by some that carbon cost of public transportation is higher then that of cars. Perhaps Calgary is too small a city for public transpiration to work well. There is only about a million people here. I am sure if you have a large enough city there are efficient ways to do public transpiration in terms of monetary cost, carbon cost, and the speed people can get to where they are going.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I live in London and the only people who own cars seem to be people with nowhere to go. They must be because everyone in a car enjoys an average speed of about 0.0001mph as they dawdle down roads with millions of other cars.

In all seriousness congestion is a big problem. I don't see banning cars as a viable option but you can minimalise their impact by introducing bus lanes, congestion charges and far better (and varied) public transport.

 

[Hepth]

I live in London and the only people who own cars seem to be people with nowhere to go. They must be because everyone in a car enjoys an average speed of about 0.0001mph as they dawdle down roads with millions of other cars.

In all seriousness congestion is a big problem. I don't see banning cars as a viable option but you can minimalise their impact by introducing bus lanes, congestion charges and far better (and varied) public transport.

We can start charging like London:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/

 

[Dale]

Does this thread title remind anyone else of Megamind?

 

[MarcoD]

We can start charging like London:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/

I think the guy is right that you also need to invest in different lanes for public transport. And, coming from the Netherlands, lots of bike lanes; that really rocks.

(Yah, it reminded me of Megamind too.)

 

[mege]

Are cars the problem, or are extremely large metro-areas the problem?

 

[rootX]

So what is your solution to solving the transport problem?

How are you going to enforce it? By new legislation? By introducing tolls for roads in the CBD? By some other tax?

I have lived in cities like Vancouver, Toronto, and NYC. In all places as BobG mentioned parking costs more than car payments etc. But, they all have amazing public transportation. When I started thread, I was thinking of not allowing any cars inside big cities and giving tickets for violation. I think Ryan_m_b suggestion is better.

Are cars the problem, or are extremely large metro-areas the problem?

Interesting question. I never had any negative thoughts about expanding cities (urban population growth) before.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Good!, a topic in transportation.

As a transportation economist, I support the pricing solution. Those that need to be in downtown with the cars should be those that have a high benefit of doing that, and thus I support a dynamic pricing system. Basically increase the price with demand. This is currently done with High Occupancy Toll Lanes (e.g. MnPASS system in I-394 Minnesota).

I believe in London, they have a Cordon Pricing system (area-based charges), but I think the pricing is not dynamically. They should adjust this.

Main problem with the price implementation is expenses on monitoring. I believe Singapore started the concept of usage charges for downtown back in 1975, but the monitoring was quite expensive. I know London's Cordon pricing is highly expensive due to the high costs of processing the data, and the cameras system. The idea is that the revenue from these charges should pay for the operating costs. I know for HOT lanes (the costs are mostly antenna placing, radio devices, and police enforcement), they do pay, and the costs are about 30% of the revenue collected. For London, I believe is about 70% of the revenue collected.

Here is a good article by transportation economist David Hensher (from ITLS Sydney)

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=735

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Are cars the problem, or are extremely large metro-areas the problem?

Interesting question. I never had any negative thoughts about expanding cities (urban population growth) before.

Cities are definitely the problem! Don't quote me on this but as far as I am aware only one new city has been built in the UK (i.e from scratch) in the last 50 years, Milton Keynes. As a Kid I used to live nearby and it is very different to any other UK city. It's spread out, has a grid system of roads, has a huge shopping centre with residential areas around it etc.

The thing is most cities aren't like this. Their are the product of sometimes over a thousand years of incremental development, this means that some areas are hideously designed because they weren't designed with modern life in mind (this is especially true for cities like Edinburgh where a lot of it was built barely with horse and carriages in mind). So it's an interesting puzzle for developers. Do they work to adapt the cities to modern life or does modern life adapt to the cities? It's obviously going to be a bit of both but getting back to the subject of cars I don't think there's an easy way to integrate them. Part of the good things about cities is the high population density but that's a big downfall on a transport system when it has to shuffle millions of people around the same few square miles every day.

 

[ThomasT]

Would it be better if cars are banned in the metro-cities?

Imo, no. This would create more problems than it would solve.

There can be designated parking spaces outside the cities accessible through public transit so that people can commute outside their city.

Every large city I've ever been to already has this.

One of the big problems is clearing transport lanes for emergency vehicles at certain (rush hour) times of the day. Some cities deal with this by prohibiting street parking during those times.

A possible measure to ease crowding during certain hours might be to spread out the work day, ie., to have more 'swing' and night shifts for the workers wrt whom it doesn't matter when during the 24 hour day they do their work.

 

[rootX]

Related article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15207973

America has always liked its wide-open spaces and has had a preference for big homes on large plots with no neighbour in sight.

In the 1990s, ex-urban areas in the US grew twice as fast as their respective metropolitan areas overall, according to the Belgian Science Policy Office.

Between 1982 and 1997, the US converted more than 24m acres (10m ha) of natural habitat into developed land.

In the past, people were willing to accept a long commute for a taste of residential freedom, and cities built the infrastructure to assist them.

Based on wasted time and fuel, congestion cost about $115bn (£74.5bn) in 2010
1.9 billion gallons of fuel were wasted while standing idle, which would fill 38 super-tankers

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The area where I live is built with cars in mind. There is too much "sprawl" for public transport to effectively cover it yet it is all city. City after city after city all right next to each other. When I was living in Long Beach I could hop on the freeway and get to work in about 20 minutes. When my car broke down and I could not afford to fix it I was taking the bus and that took me about 2 hours each way. A lot of people that live around here find jobs in places that are not very close to home. They do it because they can. Because driving allows them to get many places without taking much time. Our public transport system doesn't allow this. Restricting vehicle traffic around here would restrict people in many many ways.

 

[DoggerDan]

Based on wasted time and fuel, congestion cost about $115bn (£74.5bn) in 2010
1.9 billion gallons of fuel were wasted while standing idle, which would fill 38 super-tankers

So do you think the grid layouts in our cities wasn't exactly the most efficient way to get around? Or do you think it's because people want that "perfect job" and are willing to commute an hour for it?

I'm currently looking for employment, but have rank ordered the various companies in order of distance from my home. I'd like to bicycle to work as much as possible. If not, I'd rather not waste my time fighting grid-lock.

If more people approached work with this mindset, we'd have a lot more people working down the block than across town. However, the solution is to change the mindset, rather than banning cars. People still need cars, and not everyone can get obtain transportation.

 

[CAC1001]

IMO cars should not be banned from cities. If a person wants to drive their car through the city, they should be allowed. Not everyone wants to take public transporation. The idea of everyone having to take public transportation I think is something often desired by govenrment bureaucrats who want to control more, having the people move on government-operated buses or trains, operating at government-controlled times, moving along government-controlled routes, etc...the idea of a bunch of independent drivers moving all around of their own volition I think irks some.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

IMO cars should not be banned from cities. If a person wants to drive their car through the city, they should be allowed. Not everyone wants to take public transporation. The idea of everyone having to take public transportation I think is something often desired by govenrment bureaucrats who want to control more, having the people move on government-operated buses or trains, operating at government-controlled times, moving along government-controlled routes, etc...the idea of a bunch of independent drivers moving all around of their own volition I think irks some.

I'm all for personal freedom and I have no problem in theory with people owning and driving their own cars as they please. In an ideal city all major (i.e. non-suburban) roads would have dedicated bus lanes and cycle paths with additional infrastructure such as tramways, a tube/train system and guided busways. That way anyone can travel anyway they like efficiently.

However this isn't the case. Here in the UK (and this is true across much of Europe) most cities pre-date the car by several hundred to over a thousand years. As such much of the centres of these cities aren't designed for cars leading to nightmarish roads that are two small and neighbourhoods that have to adopt complicated one way systems just to make driving possible (there is still much traffic though). In these areas 50 drivers in a car take up over 100m of road whereas all 50 could fit easily in a bus for a little over a tenth of the space. Whilst their are advantages to cars (choice of route, privacy, transport of large goods etc) the freedom of motorists to drive them comes at the expense of other travellers. Cars are a less efficient way of getting around, that one bus I just mentioned could drive around a lot easier than 50 cars because when you have many cars driving around city areas you get a lot of stop-start uncoordinated driving that slows everything down.

So I'm all for better public transport and if you want to drive you car in busy areas you should still have the freedom to but you should have to pay a congestion charge, the proceeds of which can be funnelled into public transport to relieve the hassle your choice has caused.

 

[DoggerDan]

In these areas 50 drivers in a car take up over 100m of road whereas all 50 could fit easily in a bus for a little over a tenth of the space.

Only if they're headed to the same location. :0

Whilst their are advantages to cars (choice of route, privacy, transport of large goods etc)...

...and destination.

So I'm all for better public transport...

Same here. I've used it in some big cities. I checked out the bus routes here, though, and they're ridiculous. It would take me an hour to get to some of the locations I'd like to go (Imax theater across town, for one), when by car it would take between 10 and 25 minutes. And I live within a 5 min walk of a bus stop!

...and if you want to drive you car in busy areas you should still have the freedom to but you should have to pay a congestion charge

Phooey! We already pay an average of 48.9 cents state and federal tax on every gallon.

the proceeds of which can be funnelled into public transport to relieve the hassle your choice has caused.

Depending on its design, public transportation causes its own set of hassles. Let them pay your "congestion charge."

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Only if they're headed to the same location. :0

Not even. The only way such a journey would be smooth is if all drivers drove in a coordinated fashion. Unfortunately life isn't so ideal, people speed up to fast or get distracted and break unnecessarily etc. The result is traffic.

Phooey! We already pay an average of 48.9 cents state and federal tax on every gallon...Depending on its design, public transportation causes its own set of hassles. Let them pay your "congestion charge."

You realize I'm not American right? I don't see why driving in busy areas should be a right. The reason congestion charges exist in places like central London is that cars cause the problem. 1000 people trying to move in 200-1000 cars is a lot less efficient than the same amount of people traveling in 50 buses.

Congestion and traffic is mainly caused by people driving cars who could take public transport. Obviously they have the right to choose but considering that choice makes hassle for other people they should have to pay for it. I don't see what's illogical about that.

 

[DoggerDan]

Not even. The only way such a journey would be smooth is if all drivers drove in a coordinated fashion. Unfortunately life isn't so ideal, people speed up to fast or get distracted and break unnecessarily etc. The result is traffic.

That's a misnomer. Most traffic is artificially created by traffic control systems. Traffic circles are much more efficient for intersections of two-lane roads than are either stop lights or stop signs. Traffic circles aren't desirable in big cities because real estate is at a premium.

1000 people trying to move in 200-1000 cars is a lot less efficient than the same amount of people traveling in 50 buses.

Efficient for whom? Provided the roads can handle the throughput, a car goes from point A to point B with great effectiveness. Taking a bus takes significantly more time. On the other hand, if the roads are gridlocked because of too many cars, then offloading individuals in cars to buses will ease the jams for both cars and buses.

Congestion and traffic is mainly caused by people driving cars who could take public transport.

You are incorrect. It is caused when he modal split exceeds road and flow control capacity.

Obviously they have the right to choose but considering that choice makes hassle for other people they should have to pay for it. I don't see what's illogical about that.

What illogical about it is that such is rarely the root of the problem.

 

[ginru]

Personally, I'd like to see many of these vacant commercial buildings around me converted into telecommuter office parks where businesses could rent out secured offices and cubicles for their most remote employees. Also this would be great for freelancers that don't want to work at home. For businesses that actually need hands-on employees, there could be more tax incentives for hiring workers that live near the employer.

Also, I wonder how effective a communal direction would be in evolving our driving habits. You'd have a small fleet of cars managed and rented out exclusively to neighborhood residents. It doesn't change the demand, but at least it makes it more convenient than taking public transportation and also encourages a more organized, group-minded approach to our driving culture.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That's a misnomer. Most traffic is artificially created by traffic control systems. Traffic circles are much more efficient for intersections of two-lane roads than are either stop lights or stop signs. Traffic circles aren't desirable in big cities because real estate is at a premium.

Right, so as I suggested cities (especially old ones full of listed buildings) are not well designed for cars and therefore when cars drive in them traffic ensues.

Efficient for whom? Provided the roads can handle the throughput, a car goes from point A to point B with great effectiveness. Taking a bus takes significantly more time. On the other hand, if the roads are gridlocked because of too many cars, then offloading individuals in cars to buses will ease the jams for both cars and buses.

Efficient for everyone. Even if the roads are well designed the addition of so many separate drivers increases the chance of traffic. Reason being all it takes is for one driver to stall, another to realize they are in the wrong lane and change quickly etc and you've got a long line of cars that ebb and flow down the road in waves rather than move in a coordinated fashion. Having said that if the road network is good enough then this wouldn't be too much of a problem but we're not talking about good enough road networks, we're talking about city centres where re-designing them isn't really an option.

You are incorrect. It is caused when he modal split exceeds road and flow control capacity.

Which, under the conditions I am discussing (inner areas of large cities) is mainly caused by too many cars.

What illogical about it is that such is rarely the root of the problem.

So if you don't agree that cars are the problem how would you suggest fixing the problem? Bearing in mind that as I pointed out earlier the inner areas of many cities, especially in Europe, are very poor at coping with cars because they were not designed by them.

All I can see is that we are left with few options; deal with the environment (would cost billions, take decades and with listed buildings and private residence wouldn't be feasible) or deal with the traffic or deal with a bit of both. By the latter I mean that we could make small changes e.g. better organised one way systems, traffic lights etc as well as better public transport measures.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This feature on BBC news caught my eye for how it relates to the conversation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/9613795.stm
Future solution perhaps? I could see private subscription/publicly funded PRT being a serious consideration once the technology is there.

 

[DoggerDan]

Personally, I'd like to see many of these vacant commercial buildings around me converted into telecommuter office parks where businesses could rent out secured offices and cubicles for their most remote employees. Also this would be great for freelancers that don't want to work at home. For businesses that actually need hands-on employees, there could be more tax incentives for hiring workers that live near the employer.

Very interesting idea. I had a similar idea about using abandoned parking garages and subway spaces. I don't think they'd meet code without major construction, but I think very little would need to be done to throw temporaries or trailers in there.

One problem I see is renting out cubicle space to workers who have common access to one another's cubicles but who work for competing companies. That's a bit of a security risk, if you ask me. I think companies are ok with work from home, provided it's a trusted employee.

Also, I wonder how effective a communal direction would be in evolving our driving habits. You'd have a small fleet of cars managed and rented out exclusively to neighborhood residents. It doesn't change the demand, but at least it makes it more convenient than taking public transportation and also encourages a more organized, group-minded approach to our driving culture.

I think you're onto something, even if it's large companies branching out into satellite offices organized around a company focus. They may not even need to organize around a company focus, but rather, around where people live. While the need to walk down the hall for a face-to-face remains, it's a lot less of a need now than it used to be. I still do consulting work, but these days via iPhone and the Internet, and I'm sometimes not even on the same continent!

 

[Char. Limit]

What exactly is the lower limit of the city size you're talking about here? As you know, I live in Spokane Valley, a very modest place that barely qualifies for "large town", and traffic is just fine. Next to us is Spokane, a small city that nonetheless has pretty bad traffic. And 300 miles west is Seattle, a rather large city that has horrible traffic. So my question is, where do you draw the line?

 

[WhoWee]

I think you're onto something, even if it's large companies branching out into satellite offices organized around a company focus. They may not even need to organize around a company focus, but rather, around where people live. While the need to walk down the hall for a face-to-face remains, it's a lot less of a need now than it used to be. I still do consulting work, but these days via iPhone and the Internet, and I'm sometimes not even on the same continent!

I do a good bit of telecommuting myself - about 15 hours per week (evenings) in Australia. Everyone understands travel adds cost - VOIP has allowed me to expand operations significantly.

To the point - I don't think companies will begin to fund additional satellite offices until the work-from-home concept is maximized.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What exactly is the lower limit of the city size you're talking about here? As you know, I live in Spokane Valley, a very modest place that barely qualifies for "large town", and traffic is just fine. Next to us is Spokane, a small city that nonetheless has pretty bad traffic. And 300 miles west is Seattle, a rather large city that has horrible traffic. So my question is, where do you draw the line?

I guess it should be up to local counsels/governments as to whether or not the congestion in an area warranted extra measures.

 

[DoggerDan]

I guess it should be up to local counsels/governments as to whether or not the congestion in an area warranted extra measures.

As I've learned since I moved here this summer, the city council hasn't planned our city's growth very well, yet they (the council) seem to be hardwired into growth at all cost.

 

[nickyrtr]

You don't need to ban cars, just make other transport options affordable and convenient. Everyone I know who has lived in a city with good public transit says the ability to live without a car is a plus. It's cheaper, easier and less stressful.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You don't need to ban cars, just make other transport options affordable and convenient. Everyone I know who has lived in a city with good public transit says the ability to live without a car is a plus. It's cheaper, easier and less stressful.

The problem comes when you don't have the space for the infrastructure needed e.g no space for bus lanes, tram ways etc. In that situation you often get cars competing with public transport for space on the road which puts people off. Not saying it can't work but in some situations congestion charges and car bans are worth it.

The latter point reminded me, in Brussels they have a day in the year called no car day. I'll try to dig up a link but I think you have to pay a fee to be able to drive that day.

 

[DoggerDan]

The problem comes when you don't have the space for the infrastructure needed e.g no space for bus lanes, tram ways etc. In that situation you often get cars competing with public transport for space on the road which puts people off. Not saying it can't work but in some situations congestion charges and car bans are worth it.

I don't think car bans are appropriate at all, for many reasons.

I buy groceries for the month, with the number of bags too large and cumbersome for a bus. Should I be forced to take a taxi?

I shop weekly for the perishables, so yes, I could apportion my non-perishable purchases out over the month and make it happen. But meal-planning is a snap when done on a monthly basis. It gets more complicated when your non-perishables are revolving. Still, there are tools like http://www.mealsmatter.org/

What if I want to buy a chair? Must I take the taxi? How about if I'm getting rid of it and want to take it too a friend's instead of throwing it away or donating it? Must I hire a moving truck/van just to do that?

Let's say I lived in a big city yet take frequent business trips to a nearby, much smaller city, one without effective city transportation. If cars were banned, I'd have to either take a train or bus to that city, then be stuck without a vehicle there. Must I be forced to rent a car to do that?

Let's say a friend and I want to take FREX (Front Range Express), the inter-city shuttle bus, to spend the day at Elitch Gardens, a theme park in Denver. In the summer, the park is open from 10am-9pm. Frex can get us there on time in the morning (service starts at 4:02 in the morning where we'd pick it up), but the last bus leaves Elitch at 7:11pm, two hours before the park closes, and smack in the middle of any of the many concerts they have going throughout the summer. Furthermore, let's look at the cost: $11 per person per direction, so that's a total of $44 for the two of us. If I drove, the distance is 125.2 miles round trip. At $0.24 per gallon (gas, oil, tires, wear and tear, and depreciation all factored in), that comes to $30. Even allowing for $10 for daily parking, we're still $4 ahead, and have the convenience of being able to go elsewhere in Denver that day without hassle.

Now, let's look at my city's public transportation site: http://www.springsgov.com/SectionIndex.aspx?SectionID=16

I'm no stranger to public transportation. I spent a few years of my youth in D.C. a took public transportation quite often. But I drove, too, as the Metro system up there isn't perfect. So, when I arrived here in the Springs and saw the buses driving around town, I looked up the schedules hoping to save some bucks. Round-trip fare to downtown would cost a friend of mine and I $5.20. If we drive, it would cost less than $5, and that includes parking meter fees!

Now, let's say I'd like to go downtown, hang out with friends after dinner, grab a few drinks, then head home at the nice, early hour of 10pm without having to worry about driving. Can I do it? No, I can't, as the last bus from downtown to where I live leaves at 6:15pm.

My Point: When taking public transportation is more costly, more time-consuming, or is non-existent during the times I need to travel, then public transportation makes no sense. Around here, public transportation makes sense only for folks who don't have their own vehicles. If you'd otherwise be on foot, it beats being on foot.

The latter point reminded me, in Brussels they have a day in the year called no car day. I'll try to dig up a link but I think you have to pay a fee to be able to drive that day.

Here's a link: http://www.brussels.be/artdet.cfm/5547

It wouldn't work in this town, as the public transportation leaves to much to be desired. Wouldn't work in D.C., either. Even though their public transportation is good, there's just too much going on that's not accessible via public transportation.

I've been to several major cities with good public transportation, including D.C., NY, London, and Paris. I've been to several major cities without good public transportation, including Los Angeles and Seattle.

Public transportation is not a panacea! Banning privately-owned vehicle traffic is a very bad idea for many reasons. Charging a congestion fee might be useful in encouraging people to use public transportation, but a far better incentive is to make public transportation easy, inexpensive, and accommodating in terms of routes and schedules. Unfortunately, most city governments can't resist sticking their fingers into the till. The idea of running it on a non-profit (at cost) basis is beyond their greediness. It's a source of revenue, and they can't resist skimming some profit off the top to be used elsewhere in the city. Personally, I think the "congestion fee" falls into the same category.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

DoggerDan I think you are really missing a lot of my points. I've never advocated getting rid of cars full stop. By "car ban" I don't mean banning people from owning or using cars citywide. At the most I mean restricting some roads to buses and taxis only.

The biggest thing you've missed though is that I haven't suggested anything as a one size fits all approach! There's no point having congestion charges where they aren't needed. Likewise it would be foolish to try to discourage cars without improving public transport to compensate.

EDIT: I feel that we're approaching this with some cultural barriers DD. The past two cities I've lived in both have extensively invested in public transport. Consequently it is almost always faster to get a bus or train rather than drive a car. Other factors meant it was rarely desirable to have a car, for example I have't done a weekly food shop in months. There's simply no need, all I have to do is walk for about 5 minutes and I am at a shop (indeed where I have just moved from there were three major superstores and a plethora of independent stores within a 10 minute walk). So weekly shops for a car load of food get replaced with daily or every other day smaller shops with just a couple of bags. This isn't too unique scenario in the UK whose sparsest populated settlements resemble what in the US would be called suburbs.

 

[BobG]

As I've learned since I moved here this summer, the city council hasn't planned our city's growth very well, yet they (the council) seem to be hardwired into growth at all cost.

I was thinking that sounds a lot like my town.

Now, let's look at my city's public transportation site: http://www.springsgov.com/SectionIndex.aspx?SectionID=16

Well, duh! It is my town!

When planning travel, the planners must have only had number lines to work with. You can travel North-South with no problems, no matter where you are in town. They just forgot that second dimension, so when you try to travel East-West, you wish you didn't.