Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not really. People choose to live in the places they live. They can very well choose to live in places that don't require an automobile. As I said earlier, if given the choice in living in dense compact quarters or having a house with a yard, they will choose the house and yard. This has been happening in Charlotte for over 100 years.
Another fallacy is the one that states that building of transit results in high density. It doesn't. Density is achieved either because local conditions (lack of land & over population) cause it, or choice is removed from the people that forces them to live in such conditions. (Portland's urban development zone) Transit's only purpose is to solve transit problems caused by density. This fallacy is repeated endlessly by people pushing transit as the only option, yet they can never provide any definitive proof. (i.e. compared to a no build situation)
If you want to live somewhere where you can ride on a train, I've got no issue with this. Again it's a choice. Where the issue arises is when such advocacy attempts to remove the same choice from others who choose to live differently.
I think Charlotte is popular because it has both options available at reasonable prices.
"Another fallacy is the one that states that building of transit results in high density. It doesn't. Density is achieved either because local conditions (lack of land & over population) cause it, or choice is removed from the people that forces them to live in such conditions."
The Density doesn't happen magically. It requires flexible zoning laws and good design.
Many cities have made the same mistake as CLT and surrounded mass transit stations with parking instead of well designed mixed use developments
Architect Ian Rassmussen discusses this in this excellent podcast. Why not listen and comment (rather than not listening and commenting):
20 cents? I remember when it was $1.00 and we could fill our Saturn up with $12.00 in Philly in 2003.
..and one of the reason's gas is so high is due to the demand from China...
from Bloomberg
And that trend is going to continue. Whenever a Chinese person buys a car, the US gains more competition for imported foreign oil. And their currency is stronger, because China is becoming more wealthy, rather than hemorraging wealth, like the US. Increasing wealth in China (and India etc) means that Global oil demand is likely to rise, even if it falls in the US, in a time of a weak US dollar and rising dollar oil prices.
Growth in demand in China and India will more than offset drops in demand in the US. Because of its falling real wealth per capita, the US will be forced to "make way" for new motorists from emerging countries. That's just economics in action, and does not require any policy changes in the US.
- Yet another reason to seek ways to become less car dependent
Many cities have made the same mistake as CLT and surrounded mass transit stations with parking instead of well designed mixed use developments
I gotta disagree with you on the above point. I think that Charlotte's stations are well planned: stations closest to Downtown CLT are built in such a way as to encourage dense residential projects, while stations far from Downtown CLT have parking facilities, which encourage people to use mass transit (as opposed to driving into) Downtown CLT.
And that trend is going to continue. Whenever a Chinese person buys a car, the US gains more competition for imported foreign oil. And their currency is stronger, because China is becoming more wealthy, rather than hemorraging wealth, like the US.
It's much more complicated than this.
The United States also has control over substantial oil reserves which China doesn't. This meas more profits for the USA everytime someone buys a barrel of oil. Furthermore, oil is bought and sold in $s. No other currency is used. i.e. the Petrodollar. So China has to have $s to buy oil. It's not good for them and there isn't much they can do about that. The US Military guarantees this arrangement.
The stalled projects at Scaleybark, and the only-recently begun projects near New Bern station, are examples that you can't rush the market. There is also a large stalled development behind Arrowwood station called Hadley, that has been nothing but weeds for 3 years. I could also mention the "light rail townhomes" near Sharon Road west, that the builder finished a few of, before going bust and getting foreclosed upon.
The financial crisis was a factor in scuttling things. But if people were rushing to move close to the stations, I think the developers would have chased the demand and continued building.
Transit living in Charlotte is kind of like the electric vehicle market. It's small, it's there, some dedicated people want to support it. But it will take time to mature.
I don't think that development will proceed in a straight line - things like a financial crisis and a dip in oil prices may interrupt the trend. But I do think that over the long term it is inevitable to seem mid-rise and even highrise Condos near transit stops. And this should be an interesting investment theme.
I have decide to start a new thread on this idea
Investing near Blue Line Stops : News, views, opportunities
Link: (to follow)
... And I hope you will post there.
CLT may have planned well. We will see.
There are bound to be stages in the development, it cannot happen all at once along the line. I do think Park and Ride stations will someday be converted to stops with denser development someday. The parking has to be worth more dead (ie as land for Condos) than alive. And what is there can be moved into multi-level parking buildings to make way for the new mid-rise and high-rise Condos. But that will require higher property prices.
Looking again at Dilworth prices (Below) I can understand why developments have stalled
And that trend is going to continue. Whenever a Chinese person buys a car, the US gains more competition for imported foreign oil. And their currency is stronger, because China is becoming more wealthy, rather than hemorraging wealth, like the US. Increasing wealth in China (and India etc) means that Global oil demand is likely to rise, even if it falls in the US, in a time of a weak US dollar and rising dollar oil prices.
Growth in demand in China and India will more than offset drops in demand in the US. Because of its falling real wealth per capita, the US will be forced to "make way" for new motorists from emerging countries. That's just economics in action, and does not require any policy changes in the US.
- Yet another reason to seek ways to become less car dependent
I think part of Felt's point was that you keep praising HK doing transit the right way, yet their huge demand for cars may be part of the reason for high oil prices...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDL
I gotta disagree with you on the above point. I think that Charlotte's stations are well planned: stations closest to Downtown CLT are built in such a way as to encourage dense residential projects, while stations far from Downtown CLT have parking facilities, which encourage people to use mass transit (as opposed to driving into) Downtown CLT.
Yeah, if Geologic's dreams about CLT are going to come even remotely close to true, it's going to happen in stages IMO. I do think real commuter rail would get a good amount of use if there were convenient park and ride lots (or garages if that makes Geologic happier) in places like Matthews/Cornelius/Concord/Fort Mill. How long it would take to justify the cost I don't know. But still I don't think one can necessarily say "not putting mixed use development is a bad move." As you were saying, park and ride lots would encourage people to use mass transit, but in most cases they will still need a car to get there. Maybe once these stations get busier you can add retail etc. later. And Geologic also seems to want housing near transit stations to be more expensive. If that's the case, as was said, people will still choose to live further out if it means they can get more space for less money.
I mean even places like DC that do transit "the right way" (even though they have some of the worst automobile traffic in the country) have dreaded park and ride lots.
I think part of Felt's point was that you keep praising HK doing transit the right way, yet their huge demand for cars may be part of the reason for high oil prices...
I think you mean: Demand is rising in mainland China, not in Hong Kong.
Sure. And that demand is most likely to go on rising. China is climbing up the wealth curve, and has reached the stage where many more people want to own cars, and can afford them. There is nothing (apart from starting a huge war - cancel/cancel) that the US can do to stop it. So it is best to accommodate that rise in demand, and remake its own living arrangements so they are less threatened by rising dollar oil prices. The strength of this trend, and the threat to the US way of living is crystal clear when you live outside the US. What do Americans have such difficulty in grasping the fact that they are part of a global economy, and things may not go the way that US carowners want?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoPhils
Yeah, if Geologic's dreams about CLT are going to come even remotely close to true...
I am not talking about Dreams... but rather what I see as an inevitable future. I have watched it happen in various cities where I have lived. And CLT seems to be at that same stage now.
Given the strong trends in place, we need to adjust, or get hit by a powerful wave that we ignored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoPhils
... it's going to happen in stages IMO. I do think real commuter rail would get a good amount of use if there were convenient park and ride lots (or garages if that makes Geologic happier) in places like Matthews/Cornelius/Concord/Fort Mill. How long it would take to justify the cost I don't know. But still I don't think one can necessarily say "not putting mixed use development is a bad move."
As you were saying, park and ride lots would encourage people to use mass transit, but in most cases they will still need a car to get there. Maybe once these stations get busier you can add retail etc. later. And Geologic also seems to want housing near transit stations to be more expensive. If that's the case, as was said, people will still choose to live further out if it means they can get more space for less money.
I mean even places like DC that do transit "the right way" (even though they have some of the worst automobile traffic in the country) have dreaded park and ride lots.
Ian Rasmussen suggests that no parking should be within 5 minutes walk of a train station. The space nearby should be reserved for apartments (up to 5 stories high - I think higher), retail, and commercial. This way, those who commute would move into the new development, and find the commuting highly convenient. They may even be able to give up their cars. The drivers from the outside who need to park at the station would suffer the (minor?) inconvenience of walking further.
This would truly building more viable transit, and STRONGER TOWNS, they say in the podcast. I heartily concur.
I'm not sure if essentially not allowing people to park there is the right way to go about it. You could just as easily have no one using the transit then.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
