Will the suburbs ever evolve? (townhouse, construction, environment, walkable)
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.
I had a series of underpowered VWs and a very slow jeep. The one that broke down was a VW kinda like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Never been on the RiverLine, but I've been on similar train stock in Liverpool's CityLine. Like the RiverLine, it has DMUs (no locomotive, an engine on each car). It seemed noisier with a harsher ride than diesel locomotive trains since you could feel the engine below. A bit like a bus. Not the same location, but similar train stock:
Very interesting - it sure looks like a bus inside!
I suppose the decline of industrial and manufacturing areas therein and in Trenton and Camden contributed significantly to this area's decline?
There was some pretty big deal manafacturing in the area like Roebling which made steel cable for bridges and elevators everywhere . . . but then again, most of that kind of industry was already gone before the area started to suburbanize heavily.
But it's not like employment, population and wealth in the county didn't continue to grow after the industry left. It just reoriented itself from the north/south axis it used to be on (parallel to the river) to a more east/west axis along Route 38, 70, 73 and 295 (295 tracks more easterly than northerly for quite a ways).
It's also peculiar because Burlington has some really nice farmland and forests east of the Turnpike and they've been pretty successful at protecting them through buying land for open space and in using transfer of development rights - basically trying to channel growth between the river and the Turnpike.
There's really no other reason that Route 130 should look like it does other than the retail was overbuilt (and continues to be built) and the retail that does pop up isn't catering well to the people who live there.
Never been on the RiverLine, but I've been on similar train stock in Liverpool's CityLine. Like the RiverLine, it has DMUs (no locomotive, an engine on each car). It seemed noisier with a harsher ride than diesel locomotive trains since you could feel the engine below. A bit like a bus. Not the same location, but similar train stock:
The RiverLine has it's motor in the middle, articulated section, not underneath and you can pass through the engine compartment even though NJTransit posts signs that say "keep out" . . . and i'm pretty sure that it's just a really big diesel generator that drives electric motors. Yeah, they're pretty quiet and a smooth ride.
The same type of cars (same manufacturer) are in use in Austin and if i heard correctly, versions that look more like the CityLine are headed to Denver and Dallas too (cars that are built to be FRA crash-compliant)
Quote:
The CityLine has frequent stops, a size more similar to light rail, but uses mainline railroad tracks (never street runs). Most similar to commuter rail, but there's no local rail, so a bit of a hybrid system. Some other electrified lines reach near rapid transit frequencies (a train every 15 minutes, stops with multiple lines more).
A lot of the riverline is still single tracked so it can only run on 15 minute headways anyway. They don't have enough rolling stock to get down to 12 minutes even if they wanted to and Christie pared back the schedule two years ago as a budget item . . . so for the trains they have and the schedule they're running they're close to capacity. With some more trains and double-tracking they would have room to at least triple the ridership.
Why would someone from Chicago care how dense the suburbs are?
Keep living your life in Chicago, and let those in the suburbs live their life how they want....
I appreciate the thought. And I agree to an extent.
But as far as I'm concerned, people in the city... and in the suburbs... and in rural areas, are Americans. I want the best for all Americans. I don't want to see the suburbs take the path of Detroit (figuratively and literally?). Placing all the eggs in the back of a SUV or minivan, so to speak.
That's why I care what happens in the suburbs. I don't want to live there (been there, done that), but what the suburbs do affects my city, my state, my country, and my personal life and finances.
And my question still stands:
Will America's suburbs evolve?
Will the suburbs embrace and spend money on multiple forms of transportation and building styles?
Will the suburbs continue with their current designs, but only bigger?
Why would someone from Chicago care how dense the suburbs are?
Keep living your life in Chicago, and let those in the suburbs live their life how they want....
The libertarian lone ranger position belies the truth that we are, literally, in this together. What happens in the suburbs has effects on urban areas and vice versa. This is true for environmental, health, financial, and political effects.
I think we'd be better for it if we all took more libertarian positions (you make your decision, I make mine), given a caveat, below, so I agree with you somewhat.
That only works, though, if our decisions reflect (ie, internalize) all costs and benefits. Right now, many decisions residents and business owners make reflect the fact that many costs and benefit are externalized (aka, subsidized).
If, for example, I choose to live in the suburbs and commute to work, my choice should internalize costs of road upkeep and any environmental effects my driving has on my community. Right now, however, many of those costs are externalized. My gas tax doesn't cover the cost of upkeep. I don't pay for the pollution my car puts in to my community's air, or the oil drippings or rubber debris (which is a big component of the dust we all see on our cars in big cities) I put on the road.
If, for example, I choose to live in the suburbs and commute to work, my choice should internalize costs of road upkeep and any environmental effects my driving has on my community. Right now, however, many of those costs are externalized. My gas tax doesn't cover the cost of upkeep. I don't pay for the pollution my car puts in to my community's air, or the oil drippings or rubber debris (which is a big component of the dust we all see on our cars in big cities) I put on the road.
I pay for a transit system I rarely use. By rarely I mean once every few years. Every time I buy something, I pay 1% percent to the RTD. I can accept that transit is a public good, but I get tired of hearing about how my choices are heavily subsidized.
I pay for a transit system I rarely use. By rarely I mean once every few years. Every time I buy something, I pay 1% percent to the RTD. I can accept that transit is a public good, but I get tired of hearing about how my choices are heavily subsidized.
You also benefit by fewer cars being driven on the roads (less congestion and road maintenance that you'd have to pay for).
You also benefit by fewer cars being driven on the roads (less congestion and road maintenance that you'd have to pay for).
Well, yeah, every subsidized system has its less tangible benefits. I'd like the anti-surburban/anti-driving people to acknowledge my right to choose.
There's not much congestion in my neck of the woods.
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.
).
