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'm going to go ahead and make a prediction that eventually, cities will reach critical mass and will eventually have to demolish existing development to make room for denser development for residents and businesses. My question is-will they do this in the cities, and demolish existing structures there, or will they go for the less built-up areas instead and build those up (which seems more logical IMO)? If the latter, how will urban planners cope with the large parking lots, expansive office parks, cul-de-sacs, and other characteristics of typical suburbia when making a more dense area? How do you think it would be done, and how would you think it should be done? And would anyone happen to know of any real-life examples of this happening?
They are doing this in several higher density "multiuse transportation hubs" on Long Island. Ronkonkoma, Wyandanch, Huntington Station, Farmingdale, Patchogue, ect. are some of them. In most cases they are demolishing blight and replacing it with attractive, denser commuter apartments.
The predictions by some are that as gas rises people will be moving more centrally, leaving the exburbs behind. All of the development I have noted is occurring in the suburbs.
At least the folks planning the extensions of the DC metro have their heads on straight as opposed to their counterparts here in Los Angeles who for some incomprehensible reason refuse to build a transit line into LAX; the extension to Tyson's Corner and eventually to Dulles certainly makes plenty of sense,
At least the folks planning the extensions of the DC metro have their heads on straight as opposed to their counterparts here in Los Angeles who for some incomprehensible reason refuse to build a transit line into LAX; the extension to Tyson's Corner and eventually to Dulles certainly makes plenty of sense,
Denver is just getting light rail to the airport this year, 20 years after the first light rail lines started up. Pittsburgh has no LR service to the airport. I agree it's nuts, but it seems to be a theory of LR planning to service airports later, rather than sooner. Do note DC has had its metro for a long time, probably more than 20 years, and they're just getting around to serving the airport.
Denver is just getting light rail to the airport this year, 20 years after the first light rail lines started up. Pittsburgh has no LR service to the airport. I agree it's nuts, but it seems to be a theory of LR planning to service airports later, rather than sooner. Do note DC has had its metro for a long time, probably more than 20 years, and they're just getting around to serving the airport.
The reason is most people don't go to airport regularly, airport rail lines tend to get rather low ridership. Seattle did the reverse, and made its first light rail line an airport line, but it has rather low ridership, the lines to the north and east have more destinations and probably would have gotten more ridership.
Part of the reason Dulles Airport hasn't gotten a rail connection yet is rather far from the center of DC. The metro system of the three largest northeastern cities is much older than DC's, old enough that it predates air travel. Two of the three airports for NYC have a rail connection, but they're barely over 10 years old. Boston's airport used to be shuttle bus to rapid transit line, a direct bus rapid transit connection from downtown was added recently.
They are doing this in several higher density "multiuse transportation hubs" on Long Island. Ronkonkoma, Wyandanch, Huntington Station, Farmingdale, Patchogue, ect. are some of them. In most cases they are demolishing blight and replacing it with attractive, denser commuter apartments.
The predictions by some are that as gas rises people will be moving more centrally, leaving the exburbs behind. All of the development I have noted is occurring in the suburbs.
For all them, it's more of a "I'll believe when I see it", as right now, a number of them are rather empty. Immediately by Huntington Station is a bit barren other than a couple of apartment complexes (mostly low-income) then it's somewhat built up but these days it's relatively poor and hispanic, so it gets ignored by the rest of the locals. Ronkonkoma is an enormous park and ride with almost nothing nearby. Further west, Nassau stations tend to have more development surrounding the stations and have had some recent growth. It's a bit better fit than Suffolk, especially eastern Suffolk as it's more densely built up.
At least the folks planning the extensions of the DC metro have their heads on straight as opposed to their counterparts here in Los Angeles who for some incomprehensible reason refuse to build a transit line into LAX; the extension to Tyson's Corner and eventually to Dulles certainly makes plenty of sense,
Personally I can't understand why LA is playing around with light rail when they should be planning much larger transit rail throughout their metro that rivals Chicago and NYC.
The reason is most people don't go to airport regularly, airport rail lines tend to get rather low ridership. Seattle did the reverse, and made its first light rail line an airport line, but it has rather low ridership, the lines to the north and east have more destinations and probably would have gotten more ridership.
Part of the reason Dulles Airport hasn't gotten a rail connection yet is rather far from the center of DC. The metro system of the three largest northeastern cities is much older than DC's, old enough that it predates air travel. Two of the three airports for NYC have a rail connection, but they're barely over 10 years old. Boston's airport used to be shuttle bus to rapid transit line, a direct bus rapid transit connection from downtown was added recently.
In the original light rail plan for Portland the airport line wasn't even included. It wasn't until when trying to decide which line to build for their second line when they choose the airport. Which Portland did it right because the station is in the Airport making it extremely easy for airport commuters to use the line, plus it added extra trains to a portion of the original line which meant more people were using the airport line regularly.
For all them, it's more of a "I'll believe when I see it", as right now, a number of them are rather empty. Immediately by Huntington Station is a bit barren other than a couple of apartment complexes (mostly low-income) then it's somewhat built up but these days it's relatively poor and hispanic, so it gets ignored by the rest of the locals. Ronkonkoma is an enormous park and ride with almost nothing nearby. Further west, Nassau stations tend to have more development surrounding the stations and have had some recent growth. It's a bit better fit than Suffolk, especially eastern Suffolk as it's more densely built up.
Yes, many are still in their infancy. Wyandanch has just put in the sewer systems, so it may be a while. Huntington Station has just finished negotiations with the Hispanic population as they are not interested in gentrification, but a more vibrant Hispanic living space.
I live in Farmingdale and we are well underway here, with downtown shops full, several complexes already built, and three of the major projects currently in progress or starting this month. Negotiations are underway for the few blighted buildings left in town-they cannot be utilized until zoning changes/cleanup occurs.
Denver is just getting light rail to the airport this year, 20 years after the first light rail lines started up.
Checking the website of the project (technically not light rail,as I've nitpicked before) the airport rail line is faster than most airport rail connectors: 35 minutes downtown to airport or an average speed of 39 mph, because of the lack of stops. Most airports aren't as far away, so speed is less important.
The post- 8 pm frequency of every half hour sounds a bit annoying after a flight, though. For the rail connection for JFK to Long Island train stations, that's about I have, though. I like that the JFK rail connection is useful for accessing most of Long Island rather than just a center city link.
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.
