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.
It's obvious what you think I know and don't know in the subtext of your posts. You've written on for two pages saying, "Don't you know that if you build a city with NO transit, people won't be able to move around!!!" I mean, why would you keep raising that point ad nauseum if you think I didn't know that already? As much as you keep bringing it up, you must think it's a position that I hold.
I kept restating myself because I did not understand your responses as directed at the core of my position. They seemed to be responding to points I did not make, and therefore I felt it was important to make myself understood. It is now clear that we understand each other, and can move forward.
Clearly, people need a way to get around. You asked if (presumably, based on your various posts, publicly funded) TOD was the best approach. You suggest it is not. I suggested, based upon my hypothetical, that it (TOD) is a natural approach; TOD would arise organically, as a matter of necessity for getting around. Whether or not it would focus on buses, I did not hypothesize.
Clearly, people need a way to get around. You asked if (presumably, based on your various posts, publicly funded) TOD was the best approach. You suggest it is not.
I don't think I've taken a position one way or the other. I just asked, "Is TOD the best approach?" I'm more interested in hearing arguments for/against and alternative viewpoints on creating walkable communities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
I suggested, based upon my hypothetical, that it (TOD) is a natural approach; TOD would arise organically, as a matter of necessity for getting around. Whether or not it would focus on buses, I did not hypothesize.
If TOD arises organically, then why hasn't that happened in Atlanta, which is one of the few American cities with a heavy rail system?
I don't think I've taken a position one way or the other. I just asked, "Is TOD the best approach?" I'm more interested in hearing arguments for/against and alternative viewpoints on creating walkable communities.
If TOD arises organically, then why hasn't that happened in Atlanta, which is one of the few American cities with a heavy rail system?
Atlanta is a city that has no need for the heavy rail system it has.
It sounds like in sunbelt cities (Houston, Dallas, Atlanta) most of the TOD has been inorganic and seems somewhat forced. Probably because in those cities, most of the demand is still for low-priced single family homes, which is what they are building for the most part.
In the Atlanta metro, only 28 percent of new residential units are multi-family, Houston is 27 and Dallas is 49. Even DC is only at 50%.
If TOD arises organically, then why hasn't that happened in Atlanta, which is one of the few American cities with a heavy rail system?
I can't say with confidence, as I don't know Atlanta and am in no position to talk about it. I would say, though, that I'd imagine the problem to be multi-faceted, based on layers of development (broadly defining development, including residential, industrial, rail, road) over a couple centuries.
I think that once we involve the nature of people in governance, theoretical economic approaches falter and organic developments break down. Normative vs. positive.
Atlanta is a city that has no need for the heavy rail system it has.
It sounds like in sunbelt cities (Houston, Dallas, Atlanta) most of the TOD has been inorganic and seems somewhat forced. Probably because in those cities, most of the demand is still for low-priced single family homes, which is what they are building for the most part.
In the Atlanta metro, only 28 percent of new residential units are multi-family, Houston is 27 and Dallas is 49. Even DC is only at 50%.
Btw, the reason the New York metro is so high is that the New York metro is the MSA, which includes the city and only some nearby suburban counties, some of which have fairly dense cities in their right. (I could tell because it listed Long Island as a separate metro). Since Long Island made the listed as having the 2nd lowest home construction, I'm guessing the suburbs won't decrease the multi-family percentage by much. Long Island has been the slowest growing suburb, but fast-growing suburbs don't make up a high % of the metro by population. The NYC MSA is the orange counties:
Atlanta is a city that has no need for the heavy rail system it has.
No, it does not. I actually met a woman who did an oral history project on the creation of MARTA. I don't have her sources in front of me (obviously), but she basically said that Atlanta's planners visited cities in the Northeast and said, "We need a subway." All of the studies concluded that Atlanta did not have the density to support heavy rail transit. I think she said the study recommended more bus service, but the planners then said, "Yeah, but a subway is sexier." And a subway system they got.
I think a lot of cities start out with a technology-centric approach like Atlanta. They're thinking more about what they want as opposed to what they really need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
It sounds like in sunbelt cities (Houston, Dallas, Atlanta) most of the TOD has been inorganic and seems somewhat forced.
I don't know if any TOD is "organic." Unless you call zoning rewrites and massive subsidies and tax abatments "organic."
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
In the Atlanta metro, only 28 percent of new residential units are multi-family, Houston is 27 and Dallas is 49. Even DC is only at 50%.
I don't think that the type of housing makes a big difference in the grand scheme of things (at least as far as the success of heavy rail transit is concerned). The most important thing, I think, is the structural density of the CBD(s). That is, if parking is prohibitively expensive, people will not drive. Can you think of one city with high PT usage that has $4 (or even free!) parking lots downtown?
I don't think that the type of housing makes a big difference in the grand scheme of things (at least as far as the success of heavy rail transit is concerned). The most important thing, I think, is the structural density of the CBD(s). That is, if parking is prohibitively expensive, people will not drive. Can you think of one city with high PT usage that has $4 (or even free!) parking lots downtown?
No, but they aren't independent of each other. Cities with free parking tend not to be very dense and have mostly single family homes (exception is Calgary, which has high PT use, low density, and very expensive downtown parking). Or maybe LA, but I dunno how much its downtown parking costs.
I can't say with confidence, as I don't know Atlanta and am in no position to talk about it. I would say, though, that I'd imagine the problem to be multi-faceted, based on layers of development (broadly defining development, including residential, industrial, rail, road) over a couple centuries.
I think that once we involve the nature of people in governance, theoretical economic approaches falter and organic developments break down. Normative vs. positive.
Well, I'd venture to say that it hasn't happened because there's been no concerted effort to develop around the stations, which goes to show that growth around transit lines (particularly in our auto-centric era) is not as organic as you might think. Atlanta has had a tremendous amount of growth since its subway was opened in 1976--it just hasn't occurred around transit lines.
And for the most part, there was no need to concentrate growth around transit lines when no one really needs or wants to use it. You can park in a Downtown Atlanta lot for $4. It would cost you nine times that much for all day parking in Downtown DC. That goes a long way in explaining why so many people take Metro.
No, but they aren't independent of each other. Cities with free parking tend not to be very dense and have mostly single family homes (exception is Calgary, which has high PT use, low density, and very expensive downtown parking). Or maybe LA, but I dunno how much its downtown parking costs.
Agree with your point, though.
My wife has to go downtown sometimes for work. Parking in DTLA is somewhere in between, definitely not as cost prohibitive as downtown Boston.
Despite abundant parking, PT in LA is not terrible on a ridership-per-mile basis, just a couple notches below cities like SF and Philly, but nearly twice as trafficked as most American cities.
Quote:
I don't know if any TOD is "organic." Unless you call zoning rewrites and massive subsidies and tax abatments "organic."
I believe I posted a couple of TODs from the LA area on this thread earlier - those were organically developed. The only subsidization that occurred was the Hollywood/Western TOD because it is mostly low-income units. (of course this is over heavy rail).
Well, I'd venture to say that it hasn't happened because there's been no concerted effort to develop around the stations, which goes to show that growth around transit lines (particularly in our auto-centric era) is not as organic as you might think. Atlanta has had a tremendous amount of growth since its subway was opened in 1976--it just hasn't occurred around transit lines.
And for the most part, there was no need to concentrate growth around transit lines when no one really needs or wants to use it. You can park in a Downtown Atlanta lot for $4. It would cost you nine times that much for all day parking in Downtown DC. That goes a long way in explaining why so many people take Metro.
But, you've made clear that Atlanta's system was forced on the citizens by the government of the time. But, I bet if you looked at historical maps of Atlanta, you'd see residential development around "old downtowns", which were eventually incorporated in to Atlanta proper and around which the freeways were built.
That's assuming it's like California.
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.
