Too Many Roads? (Minneapolis, Duluth, Brooklyn Park: living in, design, budget)

[uptown_urbanist]

I don't think most Americans DO prefer lots that big. Most people don't want to live in Manhattan or Hong Kong, but overall I think more and more do prefer living in a walkable community (and the numbers seem to bear that out). Those don't fall neatly into "suburb" versus "city" categories, but they do tilt towards locations where the lots are small enough where people can realistically walk to places. There does seem to be a generational shift still at work, with older people more likely than the younger adults to be willing to go with size over location, but the trend is towards more walkable and more "urban." As noted, it doesn't take extremely high density levels to make at least some forms of public transportation work. It worked here before; why not now? No one is suggesting running a subway out to Apple Valley, but light rail and BRT is certainly realistic and doable.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by knke0204

Gool ole' SEPTA.

I liked how I could take the train anywhere in the Philly area. Especially to and from the airport and to the Stadiums.

New SEPTA Regional Rail Silverliner V (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25990427@N04/5578840755/ - broken link) by ANDYOOS (http://www.flickr.com/people/25990427@N04/ - broken link), on Flickr

Septa is finally expanding out back into the burbs and plans on restoring there Trolley system in Philly. After Decades of neglect....by 2035 , Quakertown , Reading , West Chester & Newtown will have Rail service back. And a Few older branches like the Stony Brook Branch and old Manunck Branch. Aswell as New Fleet for the Regional Rail and Newer Fare system.

Originally Posted by audadvnc

As a kid, I'd take the New Jersey Railroad into NYC. The passenger cars dated from about 1900, with wooden bench seats and decades of graffiti scrawled into the woodwork. The restroom featured a toilet that was a hole that opened up onto the tracks below; the sign over the toilet read, "Do Not Use In Station".

Well that Railroad got merged into NJT , which plans on restoring a few lines by 2030. The West Trenton line , Philpsburg connections form the Raritan Valley line and Morristown lines , Lackawanna line by 2015 , Matawan line , Red bank line , West Shore line , Cape May line , Sparta line and Flemington lines. Right now we only have $$$ for upgrading stations , tracks and Fleet... A few stations will be restored like Ampere and Harrison as part of TOD projects , and some will be added like Wesmont.... Hehe , they still have those older cars , which have been refurbished and our used a few times a year for Holiday runs. Our Newer trains have high power toilets , wider seats , outlets and East of the Hudson cars have bar / cafe cars....We also have faster trains top speed of 120mph....and 100mph east of the Hudson.


Christmas Day in Manhattan, New York (http://www.flickr.com/photos/flickr4jazz/4214469005/ - broken link) by flickr4jazz (http://www.flickr.com/people/flickr4jazz/ - broken link), on Flickr


YouTube - New Jersey Transit Comet 5 # 6049 & ALP46 # 4601




IMG_3754.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kc2hmv/5342073002/ - broken link) by kc2hmv (http://www.flickr.com/people/kc2hmv/ - broken link), on Flickr

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I don't think most Americans DO prefer lots that big. Most people don't want to live in Manhattan or Hong Kong, but overall I think more and more do prefer living in a walkable community (and the numbers seem to bear that out). Those don't fall neatly into "suburb" versus "city" categories, but they do tilt towards locations where the lots are small enough where people can realistically walk to places. There does seem to be a generational shift still at work, with older people more likely than the younger adults to be willing to go with size over location, but the trend is towards more walkable and more "urban." As noted, it doesn't take extremely high density levels to make at least some forms of public transportation work. It worked here before; why not now? No one is suggesting running a subway out to Apple Valley, but light rail and BRT is certainly realistic and doable.

I agree with this. Obviously most Americans can't handle the density of New York, but even with single family homes sitting on relatively small lots, Minneapolis has been able to make a halfway decent transit system.

I grew up most of my life in northern Minnesota and have never in my living memory (except in a temporary situation for a couple of months) lived on a small lot. Right now my family lives on 10 acres just outside Duluth. The huge lawn we have is pretty and really great (I'd say maybe 2-3 acres are developed with the house and lawn, the rest is forest), but we just don't use it. It's mowed. Sometimes my brother has taken advantage of it by having paintball gun parties in the woods. My family would be more than fine on a tiny lot in city where there's enough room to grill and have a patio. Most people like the concept of a lawn, but don't take advantage of it...they just take care of it every week by mowing it. That's not to say there aren't those who DO take advantage of their land...but I'm willing to bet a huge majority simply don't.

But back to transportation...

Light rail can help spur density near stations, but that doesn't mean the end of single family homes! I like to imagine once Minneapolis has a decent network of trains that areas next to the line will be rather dense with apartments and shops. As you move away from the line, the buildings will be less dense (some smaller apartments, multi-family homes, etc.) until a couple of blocks away you are in primarily single-family homes. I think that would offer the best of both worlds - density and walkability along a transit line with the ability to buy a single family home that is only a couple of blocks from said transit and the businesses that want to be near its stations.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by xandrex

I agree with this. Obviously most Americans can't handle the density of New York, but even with single family homes sitting on relatively small lots, Minneapolis has been able to make a halfway decent transit system.

I grew up most of my life in northern Minnesota and have never in my living memory (except in a temporary situation for a couple of months) lived on a small lot. Right now my family lives on 10 acres just outside Duluth. The huge lawn we have is pretty and really great (I'd say maybe 2-3 acres are developed with the house and lawn, the rest is forest), but we just don't use it. It's mowed. Sometimes my brother has taken advantage of it by having paintball gun parties in the woods. My family would be more than fine on a tiny lot in city where there's enough room to grill and have a patio. Most people like the concept of a lawn, but don't take advantage of it...they just take care of it every week by mowing it. That's not to say there aren't those who DO take advantage of their land...but I'm willing to bet a huge majority simply don't.

But back to transportation...

Light rail can help spur density near stations, but that doesn't mean the end of single family homes! I like to imagine once Minneapolis has a decent network of trains that areas next to the line will be rather dense with apartments and shops. As you move away from the line, the buildings will be less dense (some smaller apartments, multi-family homes, etc.) until a couple of blocks away you are in primarily single-family homes. I think that would offer the best of both worlds - density and walkability along a transit line with the ability to buy a single family home that is only a couple of blocks from said transit and the businesses that want to be near its stations.

That basically sums up where we lived for part of our time in the Los Angeles area. It was a suburb with a light rail station (South Pasadena, for those of you familiar with the area). The station was in the center of town (helped create a real sense of a central community gathering place). We had a single family home in a mini-bungalow court, with most of the other homes on our block either single family with a couple of side-by-side duplexes mixed in. The lots on our block weren't huge, but some of the other homes nearby had very large lots and huge houses. It was great, and really the best of both worlds. I'm really more of a big city person myself, but I loved it there. There was decent public transportation, it was highly walkable, there was a wide range of homes available, including single family homes of all sizes. So many people seem to think you have to have rows of high rises for public transportation to work, but it doesn't have to be that way.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

That basically sums up where we lived for part of our time in the Los Angeles area. It was a suburb with a light rail station (South Pasadena, for those of you familiar with the area). The station was in the center of town (helped create a real sense of a central community gathering place). We had a single family home in a mini-bungalow court, with most of the other homes on our block either single family with a couple of side-by-side duplexes mixed in. The lots on our block weren't huge, but some of the other homes nearby had very large lots and huge houses. It was great, and really the best of both worlds. I'm really more of a big city person myself, but I loved it there. There was decent public transportation, it was highly walkable, there was a wide range of homes available, including single family homes of all sizes. So many people seem to think you have to have rows of high rises for public transportation to work, but it doesn't have to be that way.

I've never really understood why people are opposed to this. It seems to be a system that works, promotes some density (probably primarily in smaller lot size rather than the stereotype of New York-style apartments) while giving people space to breathe out in the suburbs.

And I'm sure it reduces congestion for all those who want to drive. Imagine if everyone who took the train in your community decided to hop into a car alone!

[1stpontiac]

Originally Posted by xandrex

I've never really understood why people are opposed to this. It seems to be a system that works, promotes some density (probably primarily in smaller lot size rather than the stereotype of New York-style apartments) while giving people space to breathe out in the suburbs.

And I'm sure it reduces congestion for all those who want to drive. Imagine if everyone who took the train in your community decided to hop into a car alone!

People are opposed for two reasons, one much more valid than the other IMH(bc)O*.


1) Money. Trains are expensive to build and expensive to operate until they build a critical mass of riders, and that takes time. They are also big political news, so any cost overruns get widely broadcast. That's why I get frustrated when poor planning and cost-overruns happen in public transit. When someone can whip up numbers saying every Northstar line ride is subsidized by $19 of public money, that absolutely kills public support of such systems. As compared to the Hiawatha line, which it seems was better planned and I don't hear any complaints about (although maybe I'm just missing them).

2) Government Control! Socialism! Personal Freedom! This idealistic argument is rather full of baloney. No one is going to take away your car and the thousands of miles of road that already exist aren't going anywhere. Its just another option that may turn out to be more efficient if done right (see #1).



*in my humble (but correct) opinion

[audadvnc]

Yep, cost overruns on a rail system get big news. But billions of dollars in filched cash from the Pentagon deserves hardly a ripple of comment. The perpetrators' line: "We disagree with their findings." And that's it, folks. Water under the bridge.

[MplsTodd]

Originally Posted by audadvnc

Yep, cost overruns on a rail system get big news. But billions of dollars in filched cash from the Pentagon deserves hardly a ripple of comment. The perpetrators' line: "We disagree with their findings." And that's it, folks. Water under the bridge.

What? Are you a communist or something? Questioning our defense budget??

[audadvnc]

Nah, defense is fine. Just questioning the corruption.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Originally Posted by MplsTodd

What? Are you a communist or something? Questioning our defense budget??

Ha, I guess you can add me to the list as a self-proclaimed Commy then.