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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-19-2014, 09:00 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12635

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
I work in the Peninsula. The scraps for the old vary. For example, no one wants to fund electrification for Caltrain, or improve el Camino into a complete street. BART to San Jose is more important. It happens all over the map. We'd rather spend for a new project than improve or optimize the old.
Electrification wouldn't have particularly helped Caltrain until very recently.

It'll be necessary when Caltrain runs into downtown San Francisco, or at least a hybrid. Plus when/if CA HSR comes it will run on Caltrain tracks, so it'd be completely necessary then. Anyway, that's why it is happening and has been funded.

El Camino is State Highway. There's nothing that the Peninsula can do to make it a complete street. Their hands are completely tied by Caltrans in that regard. It isn't a matter of funding at all and is completely a matter of politics. I agree, it's not a safe street. The only thing they can do, however, is keep pedestrians off it as much as possible as most traffic calming measures are not allowed on State highways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-19-2014, 09:25 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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Electrification wouldn't have particularly helped Caltrain until very recently.
Electrification gives a big bonus in acceleration. If there's a high stop frequency, it'll save lots of time. A diesel MBTA [Boston] train spends twice as long acceleration as an electric Metro North [NYC and northern suburbs].

During acceleration from 0 to 60 mph, a train loses 70 seconds relative to going the same distance at full speed, and even under the DMU plan, it would lose 43. In contrast, a FLIRT loses about 13 seconds accelerating from 0 to 100 km/h. Despite this, there are no plans to electrify or ask for an FRA waiver.

Electrification alone could solve some problems, even without a waiver. The EMUs used by Metro-North lose 13-15 minutes from 12 intermediate stops on the Harlem Line, which after factoring in 30 seconds of dwell time works out to 35-45 seconds per station counting both acceleration and deceleration.


Bad US Rail Practices, and What It Means for FRA Regulations | Pedestrian Observations
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 09:35 AM
 
935 posts, read 1,056,196 times
Reputation: 1777
A small part of the reason we moved from a close suburb to rural northern NY was because of the change in idk what to call it, demographics? When we originally bought our home our neighborhood felt very safe. I could take a walk in the evening alone with no worries. By the time we left that was no longer the case. The final straw was a robbery and shots being fired at our local gas station. Nope not living there. That is definitely not the life for us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Electrification gives a big bonus in acceleration. If there's a high stop frequency, it'll save lots of time. A diesel MBTA [Boston] train spends twice as long acceleration as an electric Metro North [NYC and northern suburbs].

During acceleration from 0 to 60 mph, a train loses 70 seconds relative to going the same distance at full speed, and even under the DMU plan, it would lose 43. In contrast, a FLIRT loses about 13 seconds accelerating from 0 to 100 km/h. Despite this, there are no plans to electrify or ask for an FRA waiver.

Electrification alone could solve some problems, even without a waiver. The EMUs used by Metro-North lose 13-15 minutes from 12 intermediate stops on the Harlem Line, which after factoring in 30 seconds of dwell time works out to 35-45 seconds per station counting both acceleration and deceleration.


Bad US Rail Practices, and What It Means for FRA Regulations | Pedestrian Observations
Electrification would shave off 10 minutes or 22 seconds per station off an all-stops trip. But then no train ever stops at all stops on Caltrain ever. For the baby bullets it would shave off about two minutes and for the normal limited-stop transit, it would save between 1 and 3 minutes due to timed stops on the limited-stop trains. Outside of rush hour is the only time an "all-stops" train runs when it runs once an hour, it would save seven minutes since they don't run out to Gilroy outside rush hour. Additional time could also be saved by flat loading platforms. Those, however, are not allowed because Caltrain runs on a freight line and flat platforms aren't permitted on freight lines. I don't understand the rational for that rule, but there you have it.


Not worth the cost to save seven minutes on something that runs once an hour or 1-3 minutes on commute hour trains. So yeah, in some cases electrification can benefit, just not in Caltrains case. That's why it wasn't done more recently, big cost, minuscule benefit. But you can't run a diesel into the new Transbay Terminal, so that part at least has to be electrified, and extending Caltrain into downtown San Francisco has been a huge priority for a long time. The problem was always on San Francisco's end. There just wasn't anywhere for Caltrain to put a station in downtown until San Francisco dithered. San Francisco's infrastructure is really abysmal. Plus if CA HSR is built, it has to be electrified as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 11:05 AM
 
2,366 posts, read 2,127,138 times
Reputation: 1752
I understand that majority of people want to be somewhere where they are safe but those older suburbs were once safe as well. What happens when the demographics change in the newer suburbs? are people are going to get up and leave once more and repeat the process?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyxius View Post
I understand that majority of people want to be somewhere where they are safe but those older suburbs were once safe as well. What happens when the demographics change in the newer suburbs? are people are going to get up and leave once more and repeat the process?
That tends to be what happens with suburbanites, they keep moving further and further out to get away from the problems rather than dealing with the issues. This is why I support Urban Growth Boundaries, you can only go so far from the city center before you have to deal with the problems at hand which in the end make for stronger communities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
That tends to be what happens with suburbanites, they keep moving further and further out to get away from the problems rather than dealing with the issues. This is why I support Urban Growth Boundaries, you can only go so far from the city center before you have to deal with the problems at hand which in the end make for stronger communities.
So you end up with Portland where the super majority of population growth (80%, I think) occurs outside the UGB. The UGB was more because Portland decided it was tired of incorporating everything it could shake a stick and got tired of trying to provide services to those areas. It's more of a urban service boundary than a growth boundary. Since most people don't give two hoots about being provided with urban services by Portland, they still develop out there.

The difference is it just means they have to develop a little farther away so they're outside of Multnomah County (or inside a pro-growth jurisdiction like Gresham or Troutdale). You can really see that around Beaverton. North of Beaverton there's a pretty hard line where development just stops at the Multnomah County line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
So you end up with Portland where the super majority of population growth (80%, I think) occurs outside the UGB. The UGB was more because Portland decided it was tired of incorporating everything it could shake a stick and got tired of trying to provide services to those areas. It's more of a urban service boundary than a growth boundary. Since most people don't give two hoots about being provided with urban services by Portland, they still develop out there.

The difference is it just means they have to develop a little farther away so they're outside of Multnomah County (or inside a pro-growth jurisdiction like Gresham or Troutdale). You can really see that around Beaverton. North of Beaverton there's a pretty hard line where development just stops at the Multnomah County line.
I have a feeling you don't know what the Portland Urban Growth Boundary is.

Here is a map of the UGB. I can guarantee you that 80% of the population growth in the Portland metro does not happen outside of the UGB. 100% of the population growth in the Portland metro has happened inside the UGB.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 12:56 PM
 
Location: The #1 sunshine state, Arizona.
12,172 posts, read 15,450,274 times
Reputation: 64033
There is a rise and fall of neighborhoods. In a few years a developer will go back and see a diamond in the rough. It might be an undeveloped plot of land near an older neglected area, next thing you know, other developers take an interest, then Home Depot moves in which will attract other stores, and you have a refurbished neighbood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 01:29 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
12,223 posts, read 12,491,644 times
Reputation: 19369
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
Why take care of something old when our highway, gas, and mortgage subsidizes allow you to move a few miles down the road and have a new house for the same price.

It is not a state of mind issue. It is a policy issue.
Roads are mostly funded by gas taxes, but sidewalks are the homeowner's responsibility. If you want a new sidewalk, pay for it yourself. In new subdivisions, the developer is responsible for building out the infrastructure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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
Similar Threads
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