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.
How much parking in the immediate vicinity of the station is "too much"? Has it occurred to you that "getting it right" in most American cities means having enough parking to encourage multi-modal trips?
To summarise what IR says:
"You must get the most amenities within 10-15 minutes of the station, and you will get a more functional station, if you assume people are walking from the station, not driving."
Everything that Ian Rasmussen says makes perfect sense to me, and is even obvious to someone who has lived carfree for decades. But I do not think it is obvious to most Americans - else, why would they build so many non-functional stations?
BTW, I am not AGAINST having ANY PARKING near a rail station. (Perhaps it can be multilayer parking, or a little bit away from the station, as Rasmussen suggests.) The main idea is to have Housing and some Retail in the immediate vicinity of the station. This is critical, and if it is not done right then the station will be a destination in its own right, and may turn out as nothing but a means of transferring people from cars to rail - A dire mistake.
I will agree that Park-and-Ride stations may have a role to play in a rail system (even Hong Kong has one like that - It is so spooky to see it) but you cannot have a majority of the stations like that, and expect the rail system to function well. Such systems (with parking lots dominating the stations) are bound to require big subsidies.
Everything that Ian Rasmussen says makes perfect sense to me, and is even obvious to someone who has lived carfree for decades. But I do not think it is obvious to most Americans - else, why would thy build so many non-functional stations?
BTW, I am not AGAINST having ANY PARKING near a rail station. (Perhaps it can be multilayer parking, or a little bit away from the station, as Rasmussen suggests.) The main idea is to have Housing and some Retail in the immediate vicinity of the station. This is critical, and if it is not done right then the station will be a destination in its own right, and may turn out as nothing but a means of transferring people from cars to rail - A dire mistake.
I will agree that Park-and-Ride stations may have a role to play in a rail system (even Hong Kong has one like that - It is so spooky to see it) but you cannot have a majority of the stations like that, and expect the rail system to function well. Such systems (with parking lots dominating the stations) are bound to require big subsidies.
Why? You do not say what about a station with adequate parking makes it "non-functional". Why is it a "dire mistake" to have a "means of transferring people from cars to rail"?
You keep saying such and such is bad, but you never say why. So why, for heaven's sake?
Why? You do not say what about a station with adequate parking makes it "non-functional". Why is it a "dire mistake" to have a "means of transferring people from cars to rail"?
You keep saying such and such is bad, but you never say why. So why, for heaven's sake?
To build ridership, stations need to do more than that.
The successful mass transit systems I know of, have many people living within a very short walk of the station, even right on top of it. And the people who live there have have shopping needs - so why not make the station "a destination in its own right."?
Listen to the Ian Rasmussen podcast : "the first 200 steps" near a station really matter.
If you do not like podcasts, then maybe try this video:
Jump in at 11 minutes, the intro (by the woman, Marcie) is way too long.
BTW, what he says is so obvious (to someone who has lived carfree for years), it makes me a little depressed to learn that he has to say it, because some many people are so car-oriented that they cannot see what should be obvious to pedestrians.
How much parking in the immediate vicinity of the station is "too much"? Has it occurred to you that "getting it right" in most American cities means having enough parking to encourage multi-modal trips?
This is a good article on how much parking train stations should have, though more geared towards commuter rail rather than light rail:
I want to add that, in addition to a few strategically located park-and-rides at major highway intersections, commuter lines should have some parking at stations. There’s a big difference between having 200 parking spaces occupy one of four corners flanking a station for a thousand commuters and have the entire station moved out of the urban area and fitted with a parking spot per commuter.
too much parking, and it becomes harder for people to use the train station as a destination, for example for office buildings and stores nearby and awkward for those who can walk to the store. Perhaps a few stations designed mainly to driven to with large lots and most others with small parking lots could be a good compromise.
too much parking, and it becomes harder for people to use the train station as a destination, for example for office buildings and stores nearby and awkward for those who can walk to the store.
That is well said. Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Perhaps a few stations designed mainly to driven to with large lots and most others with small parking lots could be a good compromise.
I think the key thing is: Think First about what is good for the pedestrians and those that want to live near the station. Then make some compromise which allows car owners to make use of the station too.
A simple slogan will suffice: Cars are Last... behind even cyclists.
A simple slogan will suffice: Cars are Last... behind even cyclists.
You realize this is the "Urban Planning" forum, not the "Hate On The Automobile" forum? The idea that the best thing for an urban transportation system is to consider the car (and its driver -- remember, cars have people in them too!) last is not a universally accepted premise, and you've presented no support for it besides your own prejudices.
You realize this is the "Urban Planning" forum, not the "Hate On The Automobile" forum? The idea that the best thing for an urban transportation system is to consider the car (and its driver -- remember, cars have people in them too!) last is not a universally accepted premise, and you've presented no support for it besides your own prejudices.
You are entitled to you opinion, yet you have just presumed I am wrong. How arrogant is that ?!
Have you lived somewhere which is a successful urban area, is not running deficits, and is not car-dependent?
(see the title of this thread! I have for decades in places where transit does not require huge subsidies. Do you think I might have learned something useful? If you have seen something different that also works, then why not describe it - I'm all ears! - rather than rubbishing the information I have provided.)
Have you bothered to listen to the Podcasts and video that I have recommended?
(Once you have done so, I think we might have a more useful discussion. I am not making up my opinions and ideas from nothing. People like Ian Rasmussen have said: If we want to have more successful Transit systems, we need to be willing to inconvenience motorists. Hear! Hear! That's less aggressive than what some UK cyclists I have heard say: "Hit 'em with an effing brick!" Car owners have been favored too much, and for too long in the USA. And I am far from the only one interested in Urban Planning who will tell you that.)
Your comment just reinforces what I said right at the beginning of this thread: "My premiss is that many Americans just do not 'get' it. They see their country losing wealth, but have not taken the time and effort to understand why it is happening."
My husband and I are car-dependent, and helicopter and plane-dependent because we tour the world on an ongoing basis.
If we didn't work in the field(s) we do, we'd still like to have a car at our disposal because we choose to live in a remote mountain area, and we don't wish to move. However, if we had to go back to horse and buggy, it wouldn't bother me too much.
There is no shortage of oil on Earth; that's a myth, as oil continually 'bubbles up' (layman's lingo) to where even today's drills can reach it, and it always will.
Oil is exactly the same as every other exchangeable commodity (gold and other PMs, diamonds, natural gas, etcetera. Create the illusion of scarcity and one can control the price of commodities - and consequently the economy; it doesn't matter where.
Of course, WAR (an unnecessary war) is the biggest thief of everyone's dollars nowadays, and America is bankrupt and has been for quite some time. The only factor keeping the U.S. afloat is the public's confidence in a dollar that isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and that's nowhere near a new development.
It's true that we've polluted and abused the Earth and it's oceans to the point where we have passed the point of recovery, so 'peak oil' and other fabricated nonsense is the least of our concerns.
I too am constantly amazed by the number of people globally who have no idea what's true about the money world, the environment, and man's agenda versus God's agenda.
We do indeed live in 'interesting times.'
May God bless and keep you all and grant you His Peace.
My husband and I are car-dependent, and helicopter and plane-dependent because we tour the world on an ongoing basis.
If we didn't work in the field(s) we do, we'd still like to have a car at our disposal because we choose to live in a remote mountain area, and we don't wish to move. However, if we had to go back to horse and buggy, it wouldn't bother me too much.
There is no shortage of oil on Earth; that's a myth, as oil continually 'bubbles up' (layman's lingo) to where even today's drills can reach it, and it always will.
Oil is exactly the same as every other exchangeable commodity (gold and other PMs, diamonds, natural gas, etcetera. Create the illusion of scarcity and one can control the price of commodities - and consequently the economy; it doesn't matter where.
Of course, WAR (an unnecessary war) is the biggest thief of everyone's dollars nowadays, and America is bankrupt and has been for quite some time. The only factor keeping the U.S. afloat is the public's confidence in a dollar that isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and that's nowhere near a new development.
It's true that we've polluted and abused the Earth and it's oceans to the point where we have passed the point of recovery, so 'peak oil' and other fabricated nonsense is the least of our concerns.
I too am constantly amazed by the number of people globally who have no idea what's true about the money world, the environment, and man's agenda versus God's agenda.
We do indeed live in 'interesting times.'
May God bless and keep you all and grant you His Peace.
Mahrie.
Perhaps one of us lives in a bubble.
In my world, I have seen oil prices move up from 20 cents a gallon, to about $4.00 in the USA, and $6.00-$8.00 in most other civilized countries.
Oil may be abundant, but it sure seems to me that we are running out of cheap oil. If that is not true, then I suspect that elites "tour the world on an ongoing basis" have done a pretty good job at fooling us all.
To Mahrie:
1. This is not the Religion Forum.
2. You're wrong about oil. The amount is finite, the human race has been using it in very large quantities for the last 80 years or so, and the oil which is cheap and easy to get out of the ground has already been gotten. Increasingly, oil is now more expensive to get out of the ground (deeper, etc.). You may be able to cite one or two locations where it is "bubbling up", but that does not represent any general truth.
3. This is not the Economics Forum either. However, the dollar absolutely still has worth. Over the years, there has been inflation. Prices and wages, say, 100 years ago were such that a dollar then was worth many times what a dollar now is worth. But since wages have increased with prices, the dollars that we earn now still buy as much (more, actually) than the dollars that an average worker earned in 1913.
4. What is it about urban planning that makes the subject such a draw for ideologues?
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.
Why don't you explain yourself?
