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.
In the 19th Century the railroads created suburbs by offering commuter service to encourage building on their property. They benefited by freight traffic in building material and coal haulage. Yes, homes were heated with coal. In those days transportation led development. Now it struggles to keep up.
Why do some cities have the transit but not the development? Why won't developers invest in the development around transit centers?
Maybe the sites around transit stops aren't zoned for dense development. Or the stop are situated in a poor location. Or the transit line doesn't go anywhere useful.
Maybe the sites around transit stops aren't zoned for dense development. Or the stop are situated in a poor location. Or the transit line doesn't go anywhere useful.
Some transit lines were run along old railroad lines--many of which were not sited in places well-suited to TOD. In other cases, light rail lines were intended as commuter routes with park & ride lots. In some cities, the idea that downtowns are places to live (rather than just places to work, where nobody should ever live) is still sinking in.
Another factor is often a federal funding requirement that the area where transit lines run already have a population to serve--which limits the opportunity for new development, since the neighborhood already exists--and more than likely already has auto-centric transportation infrastructure. This limits both places where TOD can be built, and potential ridership.
This is how developers built subdivisions a century ago: they built the streetcar line, then started selling lots. This is how it works--build the transit first! Transit has suffered because new developments get built out as car-centric suburbs before transit is installed, and the development ends up with a design that is incompatible with transit. Want to reinvest in a dying part of the city? Do the same thing: build the transit first! Want to make an auto suburb into a walkable neighborhood? Build the transit, and then start urban repair.
I'd like to see some documentation that the transit was built first. I can tell you, such a policy would never fly in CO; we're way too conservative for that. Get a critical mass of people and then build the transit. Even if this IS what happened a century ago, this is 2011, not 1911. People have a lot more options now than they did then; almost everyone has a car or access to one. What if the transit is built and then poeple decide they want to live somewhere else?
What if the transit is built and then poeple decide they want to live somewhere else?
Why would they? Barring some sort of natural disaster, I can't imagine anything better then fixed rail transit connecting people to job centers to keep communities intact.
I can't think of a single instance of mass exodus at the arrival of transit.
Why would they? Barring some sort of natural disaster, I can't imagine anything better then fixed rail transit connecting people to job centers to keep communities intact.
I can't think of a single instance of mass exodus at the arrival of transit.
I can. I've witnessed it in my hometown. As public transit increased so did the number of people who could not afford cars, many of whom lived in poverty. As the poverty rate increased so did the taxes and crime rate. The quality of the schools dropped as they faced increased demand for social services and special education. The middle class started their outward migration. Now the community has half the number of people that it had 25 years ago.
My parents, grandparents, and many of my relatives stayed until they died but none of my cousins stayed once they got married and had children.
I can. I've witnessed it in my hometown. As public transit increased so did the number of people who could not afford cars, many of whom lived in poverty. As the poverty rate increased so did the taxes and crime rate. The quality of the schools dropped as they faced increased demand for social services and special education. The middle class started their outward migration. Now the community has half the number of people that it had 25 years ago.
My parents, grandparents, and many of my relatives stayed until they died but none of my cousins stayed once they got married and had children.
Similar patterns exist throughout America.
Sorry to hear that happened. Just curious - what town is this?
I'd like to see some documentation that the transit was built first. I can tell you, such a policy would never fly in CO; we're way too conservative for that. Get a critical mass of people and then build the transit. Even if this IS what happened a century ago, this is 2011, not 1911. People have a lot more options now than they did then; almost everyone has a car or access to one. What if the transit is built and then poeple decide they want to live somewhere else?
Commuting
Here is how it happened in Chicago, and it was more than a century ago. As you note, it is unlikely to happen now, as traffic in a new development is usually not a problem.
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.