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.
There is no problem with Park and Rides! I didn't quite get the link you posted, though I read it twice. But to repeat, there is no problem with Park and Rides. It takes a true anti-car person to be opposed to them; to expect everyone to walk/bike to transit, and live within 1/2 mile or so of transit stops. Park and Rides are usually situated in places where there are express buses and light rail, not local routes, at least in my area. It's not too express if the bus/rail is stopping every mile.
That wasn't my critcism. I know very well the only practical method for many people to access the LIRR is by driving and parking to the station, but I do think park and rides have issues. Yes, the LIRR needs parking by stations, at least most of it. I don't think most Boston rapid or light rail station need park and rides. I'm not criticizing some transit stations for having parking, I'm criticizing them for being park and rides.
What so hard to understand about the Pedestrian Observations link? From the link:
Quote:
And third, invariably, the suburban stations are all park-and-rides themselves. Some are explicitly configured as such, such as Metropark and Route 128. Those are good and need to be there. The problem is that pretty much all stations are friendlier to cars than to pedestrians. Sometimes they’re located outside the towns they purport to serve – for particularly bad examples, look at satellite photos of Plymouth and Westborough. Plymouth’s station is to the north of the old train station and town center, robbing the station of pedestrian traffic, and because Plymouth’s ridership has to come from drivers, the MBTA prefers to have most trains skip Plymouth entirely and just serve Kingston-Route 3, a standard park-and-ride.
These park and rides are put in places less convenient for pedestrians. Note the bolded.
LOL. In other words, a place where cars are discouraged.
Agreed. Better description would be a place where driving is somewhat less convenient, and walking is more convenient. There are trade offs. Why the smack icon?
Yes there is. There were pages discussed on that. If there's not much in walking distance, in a practical sense, it's hard for most to walk to it.
What does hard to walk to mean? It's not entertaining? That's what many on this forum have said, many times over. Why does there need to be anything in walking distance except the transit stop? I don't quite get what some people want out of a walk to the bus!
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
That wasn't my critcism. I know very well the only practical method for many people to access the LIRR is by driving and parking to the station, but I do think park and rides have issues. Yes, the LIRR needs parking by stations, at least most of it. I don't think most Boston rapid or light rail station need park and rides. I'm not criticizing some transit stations for having parking, I'm criticizing them for being park and rides.
What so hard to understand about the Pedestrian Observations link? From the link:
These park and rides are put in places less convenient for pedestrians. Note the bolded.
I was going to ask how people accessed the LIRR. Thanks for the info. But what ON EARTH is wrong with Park and Rides? Forget all these articles; I would like someone to tell me just what is wrong with the concept?
And frankly, I've never been where the author is talking about, I can't relate to it.
What does hard to walk to mean? It's not entertaining? That's what many on this forum have said, many times over. Why does there need to be anything in walking distance except the transit stop? I don't quite get what some people want out of a walk to the bus!
I was going to ask how people accessed the LIRR. Thanks for the info. But what ON EARTH is wrong with Park and Rides? Forget all these articles; I would like someone to tell me just what is wrong with the concept?
And frankly, I've never been where the author is talking about, I can't relate to it.
It's hard to for people to walk to something from the train station if it's too far away.
I'll write later. But I wrote paragraphs explaining all of that, please reread. I don't feel rewriting over and over agin. But simplistically, if there's nothing in walking distance, there wouldn't be many people able to walk to the station, there'd be zero people living in walking distance. And why would anyone go to the transit station? Once you leave the station, there's little in walking distance. Homes, jobs, store, etc. Even if it's a park and ride, those arriving at the station won't have their cars with them.
I haven't been to most of the places of the author is referring, to but I'm familiar with the problem he's referring to from using transit and rail.
Yes there is. There were pages discussed on that. If there's not much in walking distance, in a practical sense, it's hard for most to walk to it.
Pages yes. Pages of excuses. "I don't walk to XYZ because it's not pretty"; "I don't like to walk across strip mall parking lots b/c they have driveway cuts"; "I don't walk because the route is boring", etc, etc. The thing within walking distance of a transit stop should be the transportation!
What does hard to walk to mean? It's not entertaining? That's what many on this forum have said, many times over. Why does there need to be anything in walking distance except the transit stop? I don't quite get what some people want out of a walk to the bus!
The sidewalks are too narrow. There is nothing along the route generating trips so you are the only person walking. Crosswalks are poorly timed, like the one by my office. If I walk normal speed I make it across the street with 4 counts to spare. Forget about people who are older, slower or have limited ability. They can't make it across on time, and there are no medians or anything to wait safely if you don't make it across. The practical speed of traffic is 45 MPH. Those all impact where places are actually walkable or just give the appearance of walkability.
Just having a sidewalk doesn't make a place walkable.
Quote:
But what ON EARTH is wrong with Park and Rides? Forget all these articles; I would like someone to tell me just what is wrong with the concept?
Lots of them are planned or placed in a location where it is going to be difficult to make it into something else. Most park and rides in CA are off the highway, away from most other development. They have a different function, like a carpool pickup spot. But they really can't be used or adapted. They are off the street grid, far from transit infrastructure. Basically parking lots to nowhere. I have seen other "park and ride" type developments near transit that have zoning problems, so they can't easily be repurposed into denser development.
And this is another section of the street I work on. The lights are not timed well at all, so it is pedestrian unfriendly. The entire street is like this. Crosswalks with short timers. And there isn't a buffer between crosswalk countdown ending and the cars getting a green. Last night I almost got hit by a car that was waiting for a parking spot and backed into 3/4s of the crosswalk, while my light was "green." Sure there is a sidewalk, but by no means is it pedestrian friendly. Proving to Caltrans That El Camino Real Can Be a Safer Street | Streetsblog San Francisco
Pages yes. Pages of excuses. "I don't walk to XYZ because it's not pretty"; "I don't like to walk across strip mall parking lots b/c they have driveway cuts"; "I don't walk because the route is boring", etc, etc. The thing within walking distance of a transit stop should be the transportation!
I'm referring to this thread, and my posts specifically.
That makes no sense, people don't use transit to get to transportation, they transit to go somewhere. If there's nothing to walk to by a transit stop, why use it? If few live within say 1/2 mile, how can you have people walking to the stop?
Maybe this example would be helpful. Surrounding Boston are a number of old towns that have a fairly dense concentration of shops and residences. They also have a high number of people of walking around already. If a train station were placed by the town center, a large of residents could take the train without having to drive to the station. People in Boston or along the train line could take the train to visit the town center. Let's say the train station instead was 1.5 miles away, with a big parking lot but less in walking distance. It would less convenient to visit the town by train, and less people would live in walking distance to the station. I feel like a bit of a broken record, I said roughly the same thing over and over again in this thread.
Another possibility: why not have offices and jobs right by some train stations? Wouldn't that make train service more useful?
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.
