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.
Stamford CT would not meet the transit requirement because it has 30 minutes headways. The other criteria would have to be examined in the following radius.
First, you're wrong. The Stamford headways are not 30 minutes. The train comes every few minutes during peak periods.
Second, you forgot to mention the reason DC Metro runs more frequently than suburban trains like Metro North- lower capacity.
A DC metro train will have 4-6 cars, and the individual cars will be quite small. A Metro North train will have up to 12 cars, with each car much higher capacity. Obviously you will not run the same frequency on Metro North to get the same ridership.
Third, you forgot to mention that Stamford has three train stations, with a fourth on the way, while these areas in DC have one. Stamford also has heavier bus service than you get in DC suburbs.
But the main problem is that all this is mostly irrelevant to relative urbanity. Stamford is much more urban than Bethesda or Wheaton for reasons that have nothing to do with the relative frequency of a train line at rush hour. It's a real city, not a postwar, autocentric suburb built by Baby Boomers like Wheaton.
If you mean outside city limit, maybe. Inside the city....Definitely not. Well, the Westside mostly except Santa Monica,Venice, Westwood & Culver City. Everything east of Robertson is pretty damn dense & walkable.
The best parts of LA are NOT on the westside, Eastside is much more vibrant and more in-line with NE cities, with an LA twist.
LA will never fit into what MD Allstar is seeking in an urban place. That's okay because for millions of people it does function in a very urban manner. MD as a planner is more interested in aesthetics, personally I am more interested in the way a place functions (though I am not a sociologist). And there is no question that a much larger total area of Los Angeles functions in a highly urban manner then most every other US city (DC included), despite the lack of street walls in places, despite the auto-centric design in places, despite the SFHs in quite a few places. You step one foot pretty much anywhere in Central LA and you definitely feel the vibrancy and there is no question it is a highly urban area. It just ain't pretty a lot of the time, which is what I love about this city.
Anyways this has nothing to do with transit, just thought I'd give a spiel.
I think Pasadena fits pretty well with what MD is looking for, pretty much everything one could want within about a .5 radius (though I think for me a mile radius is walking distance) - grocery stores, movie theaters, bars, bookstores, record stores, etc. The Gold Line is about .75 miles from my place so a bit of a jaunt but not too far at all, I make the walk 3-4 times a week into DTLA. I think the headways are not as good as what MD prescribed but not very far off (6 minutes between 6AM and 7:45PM, 10-15 other than that). It also does a pretty decent job of adhering to the urban aesthetics that MD is looking for, though obviously with some gaps.
Stamford is also much further away. For the most part the places you are dicussing around DC would be within the citry proper for NYC and vastly more developed in the NYC area. What reas in DC are as developed 40+ miles away with rail access?
I feel like you are placing criteria to meet a DC wins attitude to be honest
End of the DAy DC does in fact do TOD well - is tit the most urban forms of which, probably not, most expansive or covering the greatest population again also probably not
To be honest, I'm just passing time like I always do on this website. I thought it would be interesting to actually see what is in the .5 mile buffer zone for these places. Don't you think it would be interesting? Did you find everything needed? I didn't look yet.
Also, anybody can take the bus in the D.C. suburbs and NYC suburbs. This is for people that would like to walk to things in their neighborhood as well as the subway station without needed to transfer to a bus. At the end of the day, a suburb is a suburb. We are comparing suburbs. If someone wants a downtown like neighborhood near their job with all the things mentioned, is that really too much to ask?
First, you're wrong. The Stamford headways are not 30 minutes. The train comes every few minutes during peak periods.
Second, you forgot to mention the reason DC Metro runs more frequently than suburban trains like Metro North- lower capacity.
A DC metro train will have 4-6 cars, and the individual cars will be quite small. A Metro North train will have up to 12 cars, with each car much higher capacity. Obviously you will not run the same frequency on Metro North to get the same ridership.
Third, you forgot to mention that Stamford has three train stations, with a fourth on the way, while these areas in DC have one. Stamford also has heavier bus service than you get in DC suburbs.
But the main problem is that all this is mostly irrelevant to relative urbanity. Stamford is much more urban than Bethesda or Wheaton for reasons that have nothing to do with the relative frequency of a train line at rush hour. It's a real city, not a postwar, autocentric suburb built by Baby Boomers like Wheaton.
First, are you really trying to put Metro North up against the D.C. metro system (WMATA)?
I might as well stop talking to you about this. Who takes Metro North one stop like people do in D.C.? Do you find people do that often on Metro North? You can't make this stuff up....
I will have to examine the .5 mile buffer zone to see what lies within it's borders. Here it is if you would like to do the same.
MDAllstar, you keep mentioning stupid stuff that has nothing to do with relative urbanity (like "is there a .5 mile buffer zone", whatever that means or "but is the rush hour frequency 5 minutes or not") without getting to the meat of the matter, which is that DC suburbs are much newer and less dense, because they were built in the autocentric postwar era.
You cannot compare some place like New Brunswick, or Bridgeport, or Hackensack, or Fort Lee, or New Rochelle, with rowhouses, walkability and pre-automobile built form, with some random DC suburb with nothing but sprawl except for a cluster of office buildings right next to a Metro stop.
Who takes Metro North one stop like people do in D.C.? Do you find people do that often on Metro North?
Plenty of people do that. Why wouldn't they? One could easily hop on the train in, say, Greenwich, and take it one stop to Port Chester, to check out the restaurants or the multiplex.
And what does this have to do with urbanity? If they took the bus or drove would would it necessarily be less urban?
MDAllstar, you keep mentioning stupid stuff that has nothing to do with relative urbanity (like "is there a .5 mile buffer zone", whatever that means or "but is the rush hour frequency 5 minutes or not") without getting to the meat of the matter, which is that DC suburbs are much newer and less dense, because they were built in the autocentric postwar era.
You cannot compare some place like New Brunswick, or Bridgeport, or Hackensack, or Fort Lee, or New Rochelle, with rowhouses, walkability and pre-automobile built form, with some random DC suburb with nothing but sprawl except for a cluster of office buildings right next to a Metro stop.
See, that is where you are confused. I'm only talking about a .5 mile buffer zone. That is what transit oriented development is. The ability to live, work, and play without a car with easy access to everything in the metro area at the drop of a hat. I have friends that live all over the D.C. area and this is a reality of people who live here. How many people in New Brunswick, or Bridgeport, or Hackensack, or Fort Lee, or New Rochelle live the same type of transit dependent lifestyle as those around D.C. metro station's? Why would I want to live further than walking distance from a metro or subway station without a car in NYC or in D.C.? And, I don't take the bus unless I have no choice which is almost never.
Who takes Metro North one stop like people do in D.C.?
Who takes Metro from Glenmont to Wheaton? Or from Greenbelt to College Park? Very few people I would imagine. A lot of Metro stations (e.g., Shady Grove, Franconia-Springfield, New Carrollton, Morgan Boulevard, Grosvenor, etc.) don't even have much of anything around them. And the little that's around suburban metro stations is not worth going to (though I do enjoy Chic-f-il-a waffle fries and a good Fuddrucker's burger just as much as the next guy).
See, that is where you are confused. I'm only talking about a .5 mile buffer zone. That is what transit oriented development is. The ability to live, work, and play without a car with easy access to everything in the metro area at the drop of a hat. I have friends that live all over the D.C. area and this is a reality of people who live here. How many people in New Brunswick, or Bridgeport, or Hackensack, or Fort Lee, or New Rochelle live the same type of transit dependent lifestyle as those around D.C. metro station's? Why would I want to live further than walking distance from a metro or subway station without a car in NYC or in D.C.? And, I don't take the bus unless I have no choice which is almost never.
Yeah, but New York has way more TOD than DC. It's called Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx.
Plenty of people do that. Why wouldn't they? One could easily hop on the train in, say, Greenwich, and take it one stop to Port Chester, to check out the restaurants or the multiplex.
And what does this have to do with urbanity? If they took the bus or drove would would it necessarily be less urban?
You must have forgot why we are having this conversation. See below which was posted 4 pages ago....
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Think of it like this:
I'm new to the metro area and I'm looking for an area that gives me subway access within .5 miles of my house in the suburbs near my job. I would also like to have the following things within .5 mile walking distance including a grocery store, gym, restaurants, and a movie theater. Could you give me six option's in different parts of the metro area outside city limits? I prefer a secured building with a 24 hour concierge. What area's would you suggest?
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.
