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'd like to see some documentation that the transit was built first.
I would think, before the automobile, the transit had to be built first. Without, transit, there would really be no practical way to get work or get anywhere else. A large development or community would be impractical.
To think of some local examples I'm familiar with, I know small railroad suburbs formed outside of NYC where no little was there before around pre-existing long distance railroads.
I have family that lives in Edgeware, London, which got built up after a subway (London underground) got built. from:
Despite having already had a railway station since 1867 (Edgware station on the London and North Eastern Railway), Edgware was, in 1924, still very much a village in character. The new Underground station was built on the north edge of the village in open fields and, as intended, the new line stimulated rapid suburban expansion along its length. By the end of the decade, what had formerly been fields was quickly being covered with new housing.
I remember seeing somewhere a copy of a poster the railway company made to entice residents in the 20s.
Another example I can think of is Garden City in Long Island. The department store owner A.T. Stewart had a railroad branch built and then had a community built around the train. The train still runs and the community is still an upper-middle class suburb.
Today, I doubt this is true, but I've heard of tranist oriented development around train station in formerly less dense areas.
The above is very inteseting. However, that's not how it works in the western US. There would have to be a critical mass of residents before such a transit system would ever be placed before the voters for a vote, and we do vote on all our taxes here. The proponents would have a hard time convincing anyone "If you build it, they will come".
I can. I've witnessed it in my hometown. As public transit increased so did the number of people who could not afford cars, many of whom lived in poverty. As the poverty rate increased so did the taxes and crime rate. The quality of the schools dropped as they faced increased demand for social services and special education. The middle class started their outward migration. Now the community has half the number of people that it had 25 years ago.
My parents, grandparents, and many of my relatives stayed until they died but none of my cousins stayed once they got married and had children.
Similar patterns exist throughout America.
Bus-only transit is often run more as a public charity and everything from the quality of the equipment to the schedules, even the attitude of the drivers, is designed to discourage anyone who pays income tax or is registered to vote from using it.
Bus-only transit is often run more as a public charity and everything from the quality of the equipment to the schedules, even the attitude of the drivers, is designed to discourage anyone who pays income tax or is registered to vote from using it.
I have to agree on this one buses without rail= EPIC FAIL!!!! buses are good in all but they can only do so much. A bus network needs to be convenient and frequent and timely and run with state of the art equipment in order to attract ppl. Then rail development to bring in development which will increase bus ridership
I don't think the build it and they will come idea is very valid. There are so many cases where in order to spur development, they built a rail line, yet the area did not receive the affects expected.
I think, and this is not from a professional at all, that an area needs to already be having an upswing in development in order for a light rail etc to be implemented and have positive affects.
I don't think the build it and they will come idea is very valid. There are so many cases where in order to spur development, they built a rail line, yet the area did not receive the affects expected.
I think, and this is not from a professional at all, that an area needs to already be having an upswing in development in order for a light rail etc to be implemented and have positive affects.
I don't think the build it and they will come idea is very valid. There are so many cases where in order to spur development, they built a rail line, yet the area did not receive the affects expected.
I think, and this is not from a professional at all, that an area needs to already be having an upswing in development in order for a light rail etc to be implemented and have positive affects.
It doesn't just work by itself--transit investment has to happen in conjunction with zoning and other planning to promote TOD-style construction and mixed-use neighborhoods near the transit stations. One won't happen without the other: without the transit, the zoning and plan won't help. Without the plan, the transit's presence doesn't automatically guarantee that nearby development will happen.
But no, it isn't necessary for an area to be on an upswing for that to happen. Often the promise of investment, and the presence of a project (and thus an assurance that investments are being made) are needed to encourage the private sector to move forward and invest too.
The above is very interesting. However, that's not how it works in the western US. There would have to be a critical mass of residents before such a transit system would ever be placed before the voters for a vote, and we do vote on all our taxes here. The proponents would have a hard time convincing anyone "If you build it, they will come".
Found this about Daybreak, Utah. If you look at the map the recently built light rail station is surrounded by nothing and is far away from the commercial center. The area around the station is a construction zone for "transit-oriented development".
Might be some other examples, too and perhaps in western Canada as well. Of course, it's not building a whole transit system to "nowhere" but extension or additional lines.
Also forgot about this one...
Manhattan is building a subway extension to the far west side of the island adjacent to Midtown. The subway access is poor at the moment and there's not much there; so right now it's a subway extension to nowhere. The idea is build subway first, then develop into a large office district with some residential and commercial mixed in. It wouldn't make a huge amount of sense to build without a subway since it's the dominant transportation mode of the area. The future developers would be expected to pay extra property taxes to pay for the subway extension. Here's a rendition of the area when built out:
There are hopeful plans on a waterfront redevelopment in Phildelphia with Light Rail to be built and integrated. Reuse of the old with PT as a centerpiece
I'd like to see some documentation that the transit was built first.
Can you point to any development (in the age of widespread car use) that popped up without roads to and from said development? How many communities have no road access directly to them?
Don't you need the roads to be built first before (most) people even consider living there?
Same thing with rail transit. Back before cars and extensive roads, towns or cities could pop up around rail lines, and they did. Why? Because they had a way to get places other than what was immediately around them.
Do you think suburbia would be what it is today WITHOUT the Interstate system? It was built, and people went. Build the rail, and people will go.
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.
