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.
This is straight from the blog in the OP in italics as well as quote marks this time:
"But with the same money, Sound Transit could enter public-private partnerships to develop housing or even retail next to stations (like Japanese transit agencies do), or provide better access for cycling and walking." The blogger is proposing using tax money to develop housing and retail.
public-private suggest with private money. Like Japanese transit agencies would mean at a profit. But I'd rather talk about the article. But I'm not going to talk about that article anymore, I'm rather frustrated with the result of this thread.
Quote:
I don't know if there are any stats on how many people walk to the light rail stations in Denver. The only one I'm familiar with has a parking garage.
Boston has few park and rides at its non-commuter rail stations. I suspect, like on Long Island, the densities are often too low for most to be able to walk to the station. But the Long Island (or any other transit area, especially rail) could zone the immediate area of the train station for denser development and then transit would be more useful.
Quote:
1/4 mile is the standard. We have discussed this before, and I believe I posted a link at one time.
This is straight from the blog in the OP in italics as well as quote marks this time:
"But with the same money, Sound Transit could enter public-private partnerships to develop housing or even retail next to stations (like Japanese transit agencies do), or provide better access for cycling and walking." The blogger is proposing using tax money to develop housing and retail.
I don't know if there are any stats on how many people walk to the light rail stations in Denver. The only one I'm familiar with has a parking garage. My local Park and Ride, which is for bus transportation, is built at a strip mall, and few people live close enough to walk. (You can go to Target, which has a grocery store, also Whole Foods at that P and R, referencing previous conversation on here.) Boulder has a couple of big parking garages at major bus stops, one in downtown Boulder, which presumably a lot of people could walk to. A Mormon church in Boulder also rents out its lot in a residential area to the RTD for a Park and Ride.
1/4 mile is the standard. We have discussed this before, and I believe I posted a link at one time.
1/4 mile is standard when it comes to walking distance to a station, but that doesn't mean there needs to be a station every 1/4 mile.
public-private suggest with private money. Like Japanese transit agencies would mean at a profit. But I'd rather talk about the article. But I'm not going to talk about that article anymore, I'm rather frustrated with the result of this thread.
Boston has few park and rides at its non-commuter rail stations. I suspect, like on Long Island, the densities are often too low for most to be able to walk to the station. But the Long Island (or any other transit area, especially rail) could zone the immediate area of the train station for denser development and then transit would be more useful.
I don't think there is one standard.
The heck it does! It couldn't be more clear. Here's the entire quote:
"There’s a political cost, of course. As far as I’m aware, Sound Transit has never tried A-B testing a ballot measure with polling to compare options with and without park and rides, and some people would surely be less likely to support a transit expansion without parking. But with the same money, Sound Transit could enter public-private partnerships to develop housing or even retail next to stations (like Japanese transit agencies do), or provide better access for cycling and walking." "
He's talking TAX money! The same tax money as is used for building Park and Ride facilities.
The 1/4 mile walk is pretty standard in transit planning. I have way too much to do today to go surfing the web for the cite, but I know that is the correct number.
He's talking TAX money! The same tax money as is used for building Park and Ride facilities.
Ok, I think you're right then. But I wish we could talk about my article instead.
Quote:
The 1/4 mile walk is pretty standard in transit planning. I have way too much to do today to go surfing the web for the cite, but I know that is the correct number.
I don't think there is one correct number. Some may rather walk more for the option of faster transit, for example. I care more about total trip than walking time (why should walking time be weighted more?)
The 1/4 mile walk is pretty standard in transit planning. I have way too much to do today to go surfing the web for the cite, but I know that is the correct number.
That is correct, rail stations are positioned based on the number of residential that is 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile distance from the station. That doesn't mean stations are positioned every 1/4 mile from each other, that would just be absurd.
That is correct, rail stations are positioned based on the number of residential that is 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile distance from the station. That doesn't mean stations are positioned every 1/4 mile from each other, that would just be absurd.
Boston has few park and rides at its non-commuter rail stations. I suspect, like on Long Island, the densities are often too low for most to be able to walk to the station. But the Long Island (or any other transit area, especially rail) could zone the immediate area of the train station for denser development and then transit would be more useful.
They are doing that here. Here is an example at a really suburban BART station, in a very suburban place, that decided they wanted more density in the "new" part of town. It is mostly condo, town home, apartments in that portion. And the "old" part of town is mostly single family homes, with apartments on a few main corridors.
One of the most popular Oakland neighborhoods has a BART station in the middle. With a parking lot. It isn't super dense, but many people walk there. 75% of the surrounding area is single family homes. Occasionally there are duplexes and inlaw apartments mixed in. Every couple of blocks, on the bigger streets, there are larger buildings 3-4 stories of multifamily homes. My closest train station has a similar layout but the ratio of single family to multi family is more like 50:50. There are a handful of taller buildings in the 1/2 mile radius, but not many. Transit/walking/ biking are about 40% for that station. It looks nothing like Manhattan nearby.
While the transit station may get enough people walking to the station, BART can't cover anywhere everyone to be in walking distance to a station (at any reasonable walking distance). To cover the rest you'd:
1) Bus to BART transfers. Buses hold less people than trains, and they're cheaper than trains, so you can have the cover the spots trains miss. But bus to a train can be very slow. If the transfer could be timed, it won't be so bad, but it's hard to time buses. Bus to train seems popular in Canada, and does happen in the US (somewhat common in Boston).
2) Park and rides. Of course, this is only useful to those that have a car at their disposable. Also requires space. Transit is no longer a car replacement. One-car households are difficult with this setup
3) Drop off by car or "kiss and ride", presumably because a spouse/SO is dropping you off at the transit station. Seems like it'd result in twice the amount of driving as (2) if the person dropping off goes back home.
4) Bike parking. More environmentally friendly, and require less space than (2), though if biking is super popular you'll eventually run into space issues. Seems like that's the default in the Netherlands. Distances required to get the station are small for most, maybe under 2 miles, so biking is practical as long as the roads are safe. But besides weather issues, bicycling may not be good with "proper business attire". Bay Area is maybe the best place in the country weather-wise for biking for transportation (your winters are great for biking, though the locals sometimes think it's cold )
Boston local rail (as in light rail / rapid transit) covers most of the busiest corridors so a lot of people live within say 1/2 mile of the station even a lot of area is missed. For the rest going to the center city, a bus to subway trip is needed, as except for short distances bus to subway is faster than taking the bus all the way. In lower density areas, there's no way to avoid having some park and rides unless you're not interested serving the region. That's not so absurd: you could have many commuter rail stations have no parking lot or a minimal one and then every three or so have a big parking garage to cover the drivers, who don't need as close of a stop spacing.
The author of the OP's article seems to object to park and rides just for having parking. My objections are mostly:
1) Transit should be able to, whenever possible, allow people to get do destinations without a car. Say, in Boston, I can use the rail system to go to any neighborhood near another subway/light rail station. Using commuter rail, often ones ends up in area surrounded by little but parking. Or the main destinations are too far. Some of that is unavoidable in a low density area, but the region could plan to try to zone areas around commuter rail station for offices, rather than just having parking.
2) With that logic, small parking lots are fine. Giant parking lots surrounded not much, or just hard to busy roads aren't so good.
The 1/4 mile walk is pretty standard in transit planning. I have way too much to do today to go surfing the web for the cite, but I know that is the correct number.
Here's a source on that:
Main points:
I don't know the whole world, but in the countries I've worked in (US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) the view is pretty consistent:
If you have to choose a single walking distance standard for all situations, the most commonly cited standard is 400m or 1/4 mi. Europe tends to be comfortable with slightly longer distances.
However, people walk further to faster services. (Rail advocates are more likely to phrase this as "people walk further to rail".) This doesn't have to be a sociological or humanistic debate, though urbanists often frame it that way. If you are a rational and informed actor seeking to minimize travel time, it often makes sense to walk more than 400m to a rapid transit station rather than wait for a bus to cover such a short distance.
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.
)
