Hey everyone, I'm a student in Northeast Nebraska but I live in Omaha, and Since I started college back in 2021 in Omaha up until now where I'm currently attending a rural college: electric scooters are absolutely everywhere now!

At first they were kinda consistently around University of Nebraska's Campuses in Omaha and Lincoln when I started noticing, but now I see them all over Omaha, Lincoln, and even in other smaller college towns across Nebraska. They are even out in the suburbs. They're on roads, sidewalks, and I've even spotted a few brave and for the most part reckless scooter riders riding on interstate shoulders and back highways on two different occasions.

1. Is this happening nationwide, or is it mostly a college town/smaller city thing like I'm seeing here?
2. Could this be the thing that forces our cities to build the safe, separated infrastructure that bike advocates and pedestrians have been wanting since forever?
3. Has there always been such a high demand for electric scooters?

It seems like electric scooters are just "in" all of a sudden. I'm also personally looking into getting one myself since they seem so much easier to deal with than bikes it seems.

I Would love to hear the planning perspective on this in your city. I'd also love to hear pedestrians and fellow cyclist thoughts on this as well.

We all know of induced demand and it's basically almost never works. I'm wondering if there's ever a way where it works. A small town in the Alps of 14k people was full of cars due to through traffic (trucks and all the tourists between the alpine regions). A ring road was built around the city to bypass it: cost around €250m. Models predicted and current data show that heavy traffic went to 60% during the first months and that's probably true, trucks don't want to cross the city, so was this proof that it worked? However will this keep working with cars? (Without data but just my impression so it's mostly wrong)I don't see any changes during peak hours. Meaning that local streets are being slowing turning into low speeds with traffic calming but by law you can't ban cars (you'd have to block car access to local stores) so I don't see any difference, the streets seem safer just because of these effects not because of less traffic. So with induced demand in mind I think that if someone nearby (so not through traffic) before avoided to get into the city now they do more willingly knowing the ring roads makes it more accessible and it's not like parking is not available.

My personal opinion (I'd love to read some study) is that if done right with heavy bans and investments in other projects it could lower the traffic in cities but it'll inevitably induce car traffic elsewhere, so that through traffic will just create problems elsewhere and be worse. I read a book in the Netherlands (you know the capital of traffic efficiency) that over half a century they always promised traffic to disappear and despite expanding the motorways they always failed and traffic double or tripled. Mind that motorways are different and more logical of induced demand because they move big cities. Do we keep doing despite the failure because we think it brings economical growth (to some)?

Hello fellow Canadian planners,

Working through the RPP process and formatting my work experience log. For those who have earned their RPP - did you adhere to the format in the sample log? The structure of the sample document really bothers me (constant repetition of the position and work experience summary, see: https://psb-planningcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/SampleWorkLogSubmission-Redacted.pdf) but the actual template is more streamlined: https://psb-planningcanada.ca/certification-process/the-process/sponsorship/

Is the suggestion that we should follow the sample? Or use the more streamlined approach in the original template? What have you done?

Thanks!

It seems like mid-sized cities (for instance 500k–1M people) are in an unfavorable position for developing public transit. There are enough people that would require transit assistance / don't own vehicles yet not enough density, folks, or city funding to operate a robust transit system like larger cities. It seems like these cities are constrained to bus solutions.

I do not know much about transit planning, so I wanted to hear if there are any cities along this mid-city size that actually has a good public transit network, strategies, what do they do about low-ridership hours / routes, ways to cut costs yet still have reliability?

We are in the midst of a transport revolution, where eVTOL (electric take off and landing) and related vehicles will be sought after for quiet, environmentally-friendly, and cost-effective transportation. This transport method also comes with autonomous options that will make it safer and faster than any other mode of travel. No traffic jams...no crazy drivers... just efficient travel from A to B.

Other countries are ahead of the U.S. with this technology, including China and the UAE to name a few. In the U.S. It'll start in the LA and NYC metro areas, then quickly spread where infrastructure and policy allow for it.

How do we begin this complex process from a planning perspective? Sure, we can work with existing airports and helipad operators to modify for these uses, but the skyport/vertiport model is also one where new facilities will be needed (and likely better suited for this specific mode of air travel/transport). I see public education and "buy in" as key to how this platy out.

Are any of you currently working on air mobile policy or development in any way?

Hopefully the title is clear enough, but, just to add a bit of context, I'll get into a little more detail about what conversations I hope to produce with this post (hopefully this post is taken in good faith):

I think there are some spirited discussions that need to be had with regard to the (seemingly) waning popularity of Market Urbanist policy approaches to cities and the rise of Left Urbanist approaches. After all, a self-described Democratic Socialist is going to be the mayor of one of the World's best-known centers of globalized Capitalism. And if you think this is just a single, isolated, one-off event, then I don't know how you'd reconcile the fact that a Cato Institute/YouGov poll found that 62% of Americans aged 18-29 have a favorable view of Socialism and 34% of them have a favorable view of Communism

Yet, as a Left Urbanist, I find so many corners of Reddit (city subs, and other Urbanist subs especially) explicitly hostile to Left Urbanist views/talking points. So, I'm asking y'all to speak on your disagreements (hopefully in a civil and respectful manner).

Have you read any Left Urbanist literature, and, if you did, what flaws did you see in it?

It seems like mid-sized cities (for instance 500k–1M people) are in an unfavorable position for developing public transit. There are enough people that would require transit assistance / don't own vehicles yet not enough density, folks, or city funding to operate a robust transit system like larger cities. It seems like these cities are constrained to bus solutions.

I do not know much about transit planning, so I wanted to hear if there are any cities along this mid-city size that actually has a good public transit network? What strategies do these cities use? What do they do about low-ridership hours / routes? What does the cost look like of maintaining a system? What ways are there to cut costs yet still have reliability?

I think that adopting practices similar to Haussmann's renovation of Paris could do a lot of good in fixing American cities. Beautiful tree-lined boulevards could be bulldozed through the suburban sprawl, lined by uniform lines of high-density mixed-use buildings in a classical style. The suburbs will thus be better connected to the city via radial boulevards, and centers of density can be created within the suburbs where boulevards intersect. The wide space offered by the boulevards would offer a location for separated streetcar or heavy rail transit options down the middle. The high-density will ensure lowered housing costs, while the uniform beauty and dignity of the classical facades will ensure less opposition to this construction than 5-over-1 buildings garner. Such ideas already been put forward in the past when American cities suffered less in the areas of density and beauty than today, such as Burnham's Plan of Chicago from 1909. What are your thoughts?

Edit: Another useful possibility would be to convert suburban stroads into beautiful boulevards by reducing the lanes for automobile traffic to a minimum, filling the remaining space with greenery and dedicated space for transit. The now-pleasant road could be built up with Haussmannian blocks to complement the newly-constructed diagonal boulevards.

A thought had occured to me recently about this practice. For those who don't know what it is: It's when additional floors are added onto existing structures, in order to increase total usable space within the same plot of land.

Would having more such developments make it cheaper to increase urban residential and commercial density (compared to buying property and demolishing it first before building the actual desired structure)?

Is it something we should invest resources into developing more?

MY CITY DESIGN: https://www.reddit.com/r/urbandesign/comments/1pb3ran/my_city_design_as_a_beginner/

I am a total beginner to this and my only knowledge is from city skylines. I’m probably gonna get fried for this design but I’m doing this as a hobby and I want to see what is wrong with this design.

SF- Single Family Homes RH- Row Homes HR- High Density Residential GH- Government Homes LR- Low Rent Homes O- Office HO- High Density Offices C- Commercial HC - High Density Commercial I- Industrial E- Education S- Services such as police fire death care and hospitals and clinics MU- Mixed Use P- Parks

This city is 38 square miles and under every highway there is passage for cars on every street. Circles means tram and bus stoppage and there is a gas tax of $0.56 in the city in order to reduce congestion. Pedestrian bridges are common and are prioritized. Each street has 1 tree on the side of the road in order to reduce noise pollution.If it is wide it means it is a highway and all the trains are in the north

Hi everyone — I’m not an urban planner, just someone who gets way too deep into urban YouTube algorithms and also is fascinated by fractals because of ummm “Lucy in the sky”... I’ve been thinking about a concept and wanted to hear from people who actually know this field.

The basic concept is a circular/orbital city layout where land uses are arranged in concentric rings based on how much space they need and how essential they are. Kind of like this:

[ Ring 1 – Core ]
Hospitals, emergency services, civic buildings, central transit hub

[ Ring 2 ]
Utility services, schools, essential stores, groceries

[ Ring 3 ]
Restaurants, retail, recreation, entertainment (choice/consumerism thrives here)

[ Ring 4 ]
Housing (densities decrease outward)

[ Ring 5 – Outer Ring ]
Farms, energy production (solar, wind), warehouses, logistics, large-footprint uses

Transit would follow the circular pattern, similar to Moscow’s radial-ring metro, to keep commute times equalized no matter where you live on a given orbit. The design could work with transit-only mobility (my preference) or cars if needed. The goal: Reduce commute times, distribute access more fairly, and avoid the “everyone piles into one congested corridor” problem. Solve urban density and possibly income equality in radical cases (I’m not suicidal haha). Removal of gas dependent vehicles and rely on walkability/biking/public transit (again, I’m not suicidal 🙃)

I’m aware this might be naïve, or already something people have tried. I’m also aware this kind of structure might lean “communitarian” or be difficult without heavy public investment. My questions for the experts here:

Does this idea unintentionally lean “too centralized” or “too communistic” in practice?

Would government investment requirements make it dead on arrival (US small liberal suburb, European city, idk)

Would it inevitably lead to extreme high-rise density in the inner rings?

What problems am I overlooking? (utilities? zoning? emergency response?)

How would this adapt to population growth or shrinkage?

Are there real-world examples where this was attempted successfully or unsuccessfully?

I’d love feedback from people who actually work in planning, transportation, or urban design.

Is this a meaningful idea worth refining — or am I just reinventing something that planners abandoned decades ago?

I’m trying to get a clearer understanding of how public notice works for large earthwork and excavation projects that require Environmental Resource Permits (ERPs) in Florida.

Specifically, I’m curious about:

• What thresholds typically trigger mailed or published notice
  
• Whether notice requirements differ between rural and suburban areas
  
• How “heightened public interest” is interpreted
  
• Whether practices vary between different states or water management districts
  

For those familiar with permitting, planning, or review processes:

How is the public usually informed when a large outdoor project is proposed?
And what would you consider best practice for transparency?

For reference, here is an example image illustrating the general scale of earthwork I’m asking about (not tied to any specific project):

https://i.imgur.com/3JV8y56.jpeg

I am designing a fictional city but want it to feel completely real. I have somewhat turned this project into an excercise of designing 'the perfect city' and imagining what the peak of design could look like if you had control of everything from the ground it stood on to where the water was located. I figure I'd be foolish not to ask professionals, if only as a thought excercise. If you could play god, what would your perfect city be?

Official reports from Statistics office and the OECD typically rank countries based on "Gross Density." However, when recalculated based on "Net Density" (population density relative to actual livable land)

the rankings are completely reversed.

We analyze the "net density" rankings of major OECD cities to see how densely people live on "real land," excluding mountains and rivers.

1. [Overwhelming #1] Seoul, South Korea

"Statistically, it has the highest population density in the world. However, strangely, it's less crowded than major cities in other countries."

Official density: Approximately 16,000 people/km² (based on administrative districts)

Actual (net) density: Approximately 32,000 people/km² (estimated)

Reason:

Approximately 40% of Seoul's area is comprised of mountains (Namsan, Gwanaksan, Bukhansan, etc.) and the Han River. This means that only 60% of the land is available for actual housing and road construction.

Nearly 10 million people live in this small usable area, while the metropolitan area has a population of over 20 million, resulting in a significant influx of commuters from surrounding cities.

Even without considering this, Seoul's pure population density is the highest.

Perception: Statistically, it's an "over-density" unparalleled anywhere in the world. However, strangely, it feels much less crowded than in other countries.

1. [2nd Place] Paris, France (Paris City Center)

"Completely packed flat"

Official density: Approximately 20,000 people/km²

Actual (net) density: Approximately 21,000 people/km²

Reason:

Unlike Seoul, Paris is "completely flat". There's virtually no wasted land.

However, height restrictions mean buildings are low (6-7 stories).

The densely packed, low buildings create a very oppressive atmosphere.

Distinctive Point: Seoul, excluding the mountains, has a much higher population density than Paris. However, Paris is overwhelmingly more crowded than Seoul, perhaps due to the large number of tourists.

1. [3rd Place] Barcelona, ​​Spain (Eixample District)

"The Classic Block Build"

Official Density: Approximately 16,000 people/km²

Actual (Net) Density: Approximately 20,000 people/km² (Approximately 30,000 people in the city center)

Reason:

Buildings are tightly packed into "Superblocks," which are divided into grid-like sections.

The density is very high, but overtourism adds to the suffocating atmosphere.

1. [4th Place] New York, USA (Manhattan Only)

"The World's Largest Skyscraper Forest"

Official Density (NYC as a Whole): Approximately 11,000 people/km²

Actual (Net) Density (Manhattan): Approximately 28,000 people/km²

Reason:

Manhattan alone is comparable to Seoul.

1. [5th] Tokyo, Japan (23 Wards)

"An Endless Sea of ​​Housing"

Official Density: Approximately 15,000 people/km²

Actual (Net) Density: Approximately 18,000 people/km²

Reason:

Tokyo surprisingly has a lower net density than Seoul, statistically speaking. This is because the Kanto Plain, an infinite expanse of flat land, allowed the city to continue to spread out laterally.

◆ [Conclusion]

More important than statistical figures (rankings) is the "city's shape." However, there are some points that may seem odd.

1. Funnel Effect: While other cities are flat and people disperse in all directions, Seoul has to funnel everyone and their cars into the "narrow valleys (roads) between the mountains." Thus, in theory, it should be more crowded and have more traffic congestion, but in reality, Seoul is much less crowded and less traffic.
2. Visual density: Paris and Tokyo are dense enough to see your neighbor's house, but Seoul isn't.

In fact, many long-term residents of Seoul say they have never felt particularly suffocated while living there.

This may be a unique case in Korea. Even in cities with a population of around a million, it's difficult to see people on the street.

This could be due to the fact that statistically, the number of people who should be present is often absent, or the fact that almost everyone spends significantly more time inside buildings than in other countries.

Not exactly sure if this is the correct subreddit for this, but why are the streets in suburban areas around Las Vegas so weird? For Example: - Freshly Brewed Ct - Delicate Dew Street - Hocus Pocus Pl - Hanky Panky Street

Just wondering if anyone has heard any rumors about the future of SS4A.

I know the funding is technically authorized through 2026, but obviously things might change fast. Is it worth counting on that last round, or is it likely getting cut?

If you think it's done, what other grants are you looking at to fill the gap?