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.
In the United States we haven't been able to talk a lot about transit creating new neighborhoods whole cloth since the early 20th century. Now places like Portland have been able to take abandoned rail yards and turn them into new neighborhoods with a walkable street grid and amenities.
In Europe now, it's being taken even further. Eco suburbs in places like Freiburg are popping up and development is happening as tram lines are planned. The map below from a paper written by Berkeley student Andrea Broaddus shows the expansion of the network.
As an interesting side note, Broaddus' study noted that two ecosuburbs were the same except for parking provisions:
Travel behavior data showed that residents of Rieselfeld had higher rates of transit use in an otherwise typical modal split, while Vauban’s residents had extremely low car share and high bicycle share. These differences were attributed in part to more Vauban’s more restrictive parking policies.
But back to the Reiselfeld. Of interest here is how the development was conceived. The tramway was built before the development and historical Google Earth images show this development happening.
This is how developers built subdivisions a century ago: they built the streetcar line, then started selling lots. This is how it works--build the transit first! Transit has suffered because new developments get built out as car-centric suburbs before transit is installed, and the development ends up with a design that is incompatible with transit. Want to reinvest in a dying part of the city? Do the same thing: build the transit first! Want to make an auto suburb into a walkable neighborhood? Build the transit, and then start urban repair.
I nearly got into a conversation about this very thing at work today. The same co-worker who said that she won't patronize any restaurant that doesn't have convenient parking was telling me about how she'd gone to see the first Atlas Shrugged movie this weekend, and how it "really is the way things are headed right now."
She thinks the current administration is just salivating at the idea of gas getting to $5 a gallon because it will make us "more like Europe." She then went on explain how the increasing gas price will cause massive unemployment along with the end of everything from the McDonald's dollar menu to free shipping at Land's End, all with me trying to back out of the room while appearing to listen, as she can go on forever about anything political.
But it made me think about all the people - especially in a sprawly place like the Atlanta area - who have no other way to get to work than a long commute in a car. They have no alternative to driving because no one was even thinking about something as simple as suburb-to-suburb commuter buses back when these subdivisions were being tossed up. Some of this stuff should start getting addressed when (if) the one-cent regional transportation tax is passed next year. But it would have been so much better if planning for multiple ways to move people into, out of and around an area had been the first thing on the developers' list instead of the last.
It would be the ideal, the only problem is transit systems need funding, and their won't be any funding if the trains go nowhere for a while. In this depressed building market, they would go to nowhere for a LONG time...
Besides, a century ago people only had three options: take the trolley/train, walk or ride a horse. Cars pretty much killed that strategy...
It would be the ideal, the only problem is transit systems need funding, and their won't be any funding if the trains go nowhere for a while. In this depressed building market, they would go to nowhere for a LONG time...
Besides, a century ago people only had three options: take the trolley/train, walk or ride a horse. Cars pretty much killed that strategy...
No, they did not. Cars were invented at about the same time as electric streetcars. Taxpayer-funded roads killed that strategy. And most people couldn't afford a horse.
Roads need funding too, no less than transit and often more so, a fact that many seem to ignore. And as people are realizing from the rising cost of gas, driving on roads requires continuing cash outlay from public and private parties. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
No, they did not. Cars were invented at about the same time as electric streetcars. Taxpayer-funded roads killed that strategy. And most people couldn't afford a horse.
Roads need funding too, no less than transit and often more so, a fact that many seem to ignore. And as people are realizing from the rising cost of gas, driving on roads requires continuing cash outlay from public and private parties. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
I think this is a great idea and agree totally. Look at L.A. which started out with transit as a priority and although some dispute it, was sweet-talked by the auto industry into replacing the red cars with (cough) freeways.
I think this is a great idea and agree totally. Look at L.A. which started out with transit as a priority and although some dispute it, was sweet-talked by the auto industry into replacing the red cars with (cough) freeways.
Pretty much every American city with a population over 5000 built out between 1830 and 1920 used the same model. Private investors built the streetcar companies to carry prospective customers to their new neighborhoods. The lines often just broke even or were deliberately operated at a loss to spur traffic--but combined with development, and later with the sale of electric power to homes, made for a very profitable combination of investments. If a neighborhood was built out densely enough, like downtown Los Angeles, they were profitable enough by time of build-out to operate at a profit. In some cases, especially in the later part of the period, new suburbs weren't built dense enough to generate sufficient traffic.
Public perception became a huge problem. In the early 20th century, the public viewed big corporations the way we view government now--inefficient, monopolistic, and generally hostile. They wanted the government to take over the transportation business, by providing taxpayer-funded roads instead of private companies running the transportation industry. An anti-trust law from the 1930s prevented electric utilities from owning streetcar lines. That is what caused the electric utility that owned the Los Angeles Railway (the Yellow Car, not the Red Car) to sell their streetcar holdings to National City Lines (who traded them for buses.) The Pacific Electric (the Red Car) couldn't compete against taxpayer-funded highways, and since they were owned by Southern Pacific, a railroad whose business was focused more on freight, SP turned PE into a freight feeder line and abandoned much of their passenger right-of-way (although LA is now building new streetcar lines along many of the same corridors!)
No, they did not. Cars were invented at about the same time as electric streetcars. Taxpayer-funded roads killed that strategy. And most people couldn't afford a horse.
Roads need funding too, no less than transit and often more so, a fact that many seem to ignore. And as people are realizing from the rising cost of gas, driving on roads requires continuing cash outlay from public and private parties. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Just the invention of cars wasn't what made the difference. Making cars affordable and available to the masses was.
People wanted cars; who can honestly say a private car, owned wholy by yourself with cheap fuel is superior in every way to taking a trolley? That's how it used to be...
People demanded roads and the various taxes, fees, registration, ect were implemented to pay for them. The car came first and the road infrastructure came second.
Now the dynamic has slowly shifted away and made trolleys more viable, and driving more expensive, but cars are still a great option (at least while oil is relatively cheap)
My point is the same though. You just can't implement a turn of the (20th) century strategy in the 21st century. The dynamics are entirely different.
Based on where we are today the logical approach is the build were there is already transit with infill. This has been successful in the BAY Area, where many suburban BART stations have new infill housing: Dublin, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Fruitvale, and Glen Park are all suburban like examples. More urban examples are Downtown Berkeley, 12th St and 19th street in Oakland, and 16th and Mission and 24th and Mission in SF. All of these BART stations have seen a big influx of new housing and amenities over the past 10 years. These areas are also popular due to the location to transit, and have been selling fairly quickly. Current trends support this model, and more "Transit Villages" are planned around the Caltrain stations and other under-utilized stations. (With under-utilized land nearby).
That was the way it used to be. Now traffic must be heavily congested for years before it is studied to death and an application for federal funding is filed. Approval moves at glacial speed.
Just the invention of cars wasn't what made the difference. Making cars affordable and available to the masses was.
People wanted cars; who can honestly say a private car, owned wholy by yourself with cheap fuel is superior in every way to taking a trolley? That's how it used to be...
People demanded roads and the various taxes, fees, registration, ect were implemented to pay for them. The car came first and the road infrastructure came second.
Now the dynamic has slowly shifted away and made trolleys more viable, and driving more expensive, but cars are still a great option (at least while oil is relatively cheap)
My point is the same though. You just can't implement a turn of the (20th) century strategy in the 21st century. The dynamics are entirely different.
A private car wasn't superior in every way to trolleys or trains: for taking long-distance intercity trips, an automobile trip was more like a safari: early motoring guides recommended a huge brace of tools, camping supplies, extra tires and other essentials. On a train you could dine in the dining car, sleep in a bed in a heated sleeping car, or lounge in the lounge.
Cars are a great option in certain times and places, but in many places they are no longer the great option they were when we were an abundantly rich country with cheap gas and it was still fine to knock down the local ghetto to build a freeway on top of it. We don't live in that country anymore. The dynamics aren't exactly the same, but neither are they entirely different. A 21st century TOD isn't exactly like a 19th century streetcar suburb, but they have more in common than either has with a 20th century auto suburb.
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.
