U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-16-2013, 09:14 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,134,008 times
Reputation: 3118

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Care to list examples? I'm curious. Though it sounds like transit was one of many factors, perhaps the initial boost.
Might have been in Minneapolis? I can't remember. I was trying to estimate what increase some of the abandoned properties near a planned transit line in Baltimore would see. There wasn't a lot of research on it because few cities with our level of abandonment have rapid transit. I'll have a look when next at my computer.

A lot of people bought shell homes for $5-10k or so in this godforsaken place called Westport; the train came, and values increased some, but the larger waterfront "destination" redevelopment did not. So many of these places remain boarded, waiting and waiting.

 
Old 02-16-2013, 09:52 AM
 
2,135 posts, read 3,693,724 times
Reputation: 1671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geologic View Post
Why not use a smaller bus?
Have more of them, moving more frequently.

For instance, in Hong Kong we have BIG BUSES, like this:



And SMALL BUSES, like this with 16 seats:


Have you ever seen a small bus like those used in American Cities?
Why not, I wonder?
We have the small busses in Ohio.
 
Old 02-16-2013, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Hong Kong
1,329 posts, read 877,813 times
Reputation: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
No, I do not think a transti station nearby, no matter how successful, can double or triple property values. Perhaps you'd like to give a couple of examples.
London, and Hong Kong are two

Improving public transport has been a major driver in both country's property booms

Hong Kong


London
 
Old 02-16-2013, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Hong Kong
1,329 posts, read 877,813 times
Reputation: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
...If I remember correctly from my research, residential properties that are very close to the train station also are likely to increase in value, but sometimes not at as high a rate (perhaps due to an annoyance factor). Commercial property near a new station skyrockets.
I think it matter a great deal WHAT they build near the station.
Places like Hong Kong and London seem to have a better idea about this than what I have seen in the US
 
Old 02-16-2013, 10:10 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,993 posts, read 42,180,376 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geologic View Post
London, and Hong Kong are two

Improving public transport has been a major driver in both country's property booms

Hong Kong


London
Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. I'm not saying public transport improvements weren't a help, just that there's no way of telling how much it was.

As to London, the long-term residents now having trouble affording a trouble affording a home.
 
Old 02-16-2013, 10:13 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,993 posts, read 42,180,376 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geologic View Post
I think it matter a great deal WHAT they build near the station.
Places like Hong Kong and London seem to have a better idea about this than what I have seen in the US
Agreed. The US does tend to have a lot of rail stations without much nearby. Most London's were built decades, there's usually a neighborhood commercial center around a rail station, but I haven't noticed much recent construction near them. Then again, London experienced a population boom in one decade, and haven't seen it much recently.
 
Old 02-16-2013, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Hong Kong
1,329 posts, read 877,813 times
Reputation: 217
"I do not think having a transit station nearby, no matter how successful, can double or triple property values. Perhaps you'd like to give a couple of examples"
- K.

"Improving public transport has been a major driver in both country's property booms: Hong Kong, and London"
- GL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. I'm not saying public transport improvements weren't a help, just that there's no way of telling how much it was.

As to London, the long-term residents now having trouble affording a trouble affording a home.
Compare two areas of similar quality, a similar distance drive from the Main Central business district - one with a mass transit connection, and one without. Both with good road connections. Let's try that...

(EXAMPLES from Hong Kong)
Gold Coast is connected by good roads, but no rail and South Horizons has the road also, and a rail connection is being built and will be operating within about 2 years. Property prices are already rising faster, in anticipation:

HONG KONG GOLD COAST / Adj. Unit Price: HK$5691.11 : update



SOUTH HORIZONS / Adj. Unit Price: HK$9750.06 : update


The Ratio now is 1.71 Times, and could easily be 2.0X when the rail link is functioning.

Here's where the idea of 3X came from - a major difference between London and the Rest of the UK is that London is a superb walkable city, with great transport. There are other important differences. But transport has mattered more as oil prices have gone up...

Here's a chart showing the result of London's continuing boom, while the rest of the UK languished

: now over 3X

Components of this Ratio : Greater London / Rest-of-UK

Last edited by Geologic; 02-16-2013 at 10:52 AM..
 
Old 02-16-2013, 10:24 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,993 posts, read 42,180,376 times
Reputation: 14811
It'd help if you informed what each line on the graph was — and sourced your graphs.

Actually, seriously, while I've been lax about image posting rules, everyone MUST source all images that are not theirs.
 
Old 02-16-2013, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Hong Kong
1,329 posts, read 877,813 times
Reputation: 217
Which chart ?
The Ratio chart? : London Prices / Rest-of-UK Prices ??

That's simple:
The Black line is the Ratio, and the only line you need to focus upon.
The other lines are moving averages, and are only of use to those who use technical analysis
 
Old 02-16-2013, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Hong Kong
1,329 posts, read 877,813 times
Reputation: 217
OP's comment on "Per Household" car cost - The Debate is not over IMHO
= see below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Apparently you missed some of the other threads. Bus mass transit is no more efficient than the automobile, so switching from personal cars to buses doesn't work. Electric rail mass transit is far too expensive in most areas, and if you implemented it in less-dense areas you'd see its efficiency drop precipitously. Transportation is expensive and uses a lot of energy, no matter what the mode.

Also, the "$8000+" turns out to be household spending, not per-car spending. And that's not the "average American", it's the average over all Americans.
The answer is:
+ To use less expensive and more fuel-efficient cars
+ To build efficient mass transit (and especially rail) and make it sustainable.

Mass rail can be sustainable, and require little or no subsidy if there is enough mixed use Density around the rail stations, and the area around the stations is well designed. Paradoxically, that may require moving the parking slightly away from the stations to make way for people, housing, and mixed use. (see the ST podcast on Transit .)

Other countries do this, and why can the US not do it too?
The average European uses only 1/3 as much oil per capita as the average American. We can do much better, but we have to move towards a less car dependent living arrangement - which I have been arguing tirelessly here, and elsewhere.

I think the figures about car cost are still being debated. It seems that one of the Mods changed the title of MY thread, but I do not necessarily agree that the figure is per household. When I have more time, I will muster my sources on this.


MY TWO RANTS - in #68 and #69 are heart-felt !!

and maybe important, and I hope people will flip back one page to read them !
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top