7 ms·

I am very much in favor of the idea of building high density housing centered around public transit. It sounds like a perfect solution to a large set of relate

by rsync 7y ago

I am very much in favor of the idea of building high density housing centered around public transit. It sounds like a perfect solution to a large set of related problems. I am scared to see what the end result will be in US cities, however, because public transit for almost all of the US means poorly run busing routes that nobody wants to take. Having lived in San Diego for many years (as well as Denver and MPLS which I think are relevant comparisons) I believe that what will happen is that existing (poorly run, poorly utilized) bus routes will be chosen by developers who will use the "blah blah transit blah blah" designation that was just gifted to them to build high end units for people that will drive their cars. No actual transit (the kind that runs on rails) will be built, some more car-centric housing units will exist at high end prices (they're not going to build garage-less buildings nor are they going to build low end units). Oh, and the buses will still be empty. I want this kind of policy regime to be pursued, but they need to build the transit lines first. And buses don't count.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
radus 7y ago
Good news - San Diego is well on its way to extending the trolley system from downtown to UTC.
theluketaylor 7y ago
Here in Kitchener-Waterloo the project approval to build a light rail system included automatic upzoning for a radius around each of the stations and easier approvals for high density development. Tying the rail and zoning together was a deliberate choice to drive density in areas served by transit and prevent as much NIMBY interference as possible. The construction took several years and the trains have just started running, but the city has already transformed. Many dense buildings went up while the rail lines where being built and many more are under construction right now. It will be many years before the true success and failure of the project is known, but the signs look good to me. I'd like to see general loosening of non-safety related zoning restrictions to help keep housing prices in check, but this program was a good compromise since developers were guaranteed an investment of transit and other city services and could take more risk.
markn951 7y ago
>No actual transit (the kind that runs on rails) What an arbitrary way to decide what "actual" transit is. There are about a thousand other, very valid, very useful, very modern ways of building transit that have nothing to do with rails. If you're saying rails but meaning grade-separation, you're still wrong about non-grade-separated systems being somehow inherently inferior or unworthy. Look at any list of top transit systems in the world, the majority of modern systems incorporate non-grade-separated systems like trams, busways, or even regular old busses, because they work and they're cheap. People with your mindset are why this country may never have widespread transit systems, because you think insanely expensive infrastructure is the solution to a culture, marketing, and economic problem.
- rsync 7y ago
  "What an arbitrary way to decide what "actual" transit is. There are about a thousand other, very valid, very useful, very modern ways of building transit that have nothing to do with rails." I think you're missing my point - it's not about a fetish for rails ... In the United States, outside of two or three cities[1], there has been almost zero serious investment in public transportation[2] and that transit infrastructure is always some bullshit sideshow that checks a box but does not provide any kind of meaningful service that would allow car culture to change. Here is everything you need to know about public transit in the United States in one quick commercial: https://www.ispot.tv/ad/wy2O/state-farm-backstory-truck-song-by-john-taylor https://www.ispot.tv/ad/wy2O/state-farm-backstory-truck-song... What is special about rail infrastructure is that you can't half-ass it. You can't sort of put the subway in or sort of build a lightrail line. If they are putting down rails there is serious, meaningful work being done that requires a lot of related investment in the entire ecosystem of transit. In the United States, buses don't count - not because buses are inherently bad but because in our car-centric environment that kind of service will never have the funding or the political backing to actually be useful. [1] NYC, Washington DC ... places with subways. [2] Seeing some halting progress in places like Denver and Minneapolis ... and I say "progress" with some qualifiers - after 25 years now has a second lightrail line and MPLS has one rail line that actually makes sense for commuters...
jimmaswell 7y ago
Why do buses not count? Because you don't like them? Your definition of transit is not shared with most people. I love buses as a transit option. They go directly to parking lots of places like grocery stores and ride smoother than a lot of trains/subways/etc I've been on. If the routes are useful then people will use them and they're as simple to scale as buying more buses and very easy to dynamically adjust, unlike train lines.
- alexhutcheson 7y ago
  [I'm a bus proponent, but...] It's turned out to be very politically difficult to establish and (just as importantly) enforce bus lanes in communities in the US. People get very upset at the prospect of giving up either street parking or travel lanes, and local politicians and the traffic enforcement bureaucracy has mostly sided with the people who complain. The result is either no bus lanes, or part-time bus lanes with no effective enforcement, which is basically the same as no bus lanes. A bus that's able to use bus lanes (and possibly transit signal priority) to bypass traffic is a great thing, and would be appealing to people across the socioeconomic spectrum. A bus that's stuck in the same traffic as the cars has no benefit other than cost, and will only appeal to those who can't afford to maintain a car or are very ideologically committed to transit. Buses would be amazing with bus lanes in congested areas and automated camera-based enforcement of those lanes. However, the inability of the political system to make that happen even in Manhattan makes me fairly pessimistic for that outcome in other places. I still think it's worth investing in buses for those who need them, but if they can't bypass traffic they will be stuck at a low mode share almost everywhere.
  - jimmaswell 7y ago
    I'd rather a bus driver sit in heavy traffic while I get to use my phone/laptop than be the one driving. For going to conventions I still take the bus even though I have a car now.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    The problem with bus lanes is that they require failure in order to operate. If you implement bus lanes and they succeed in relieving traffic congestion but the congestion was the only reason people weren't driving then people go back to driving and you go back to having congestion. There is no way for them to actually relieve the congestion because having congestion is the method by which they operate. But they can make it worse by wasting a travel lane during the times of day when there would have been enough road capacity if not for the bus lane. If you want to make buses actually work, make them work like Uber. You go to the bus stop where there is a screen you can input your destination (or you use your phone), and the nearest minibus going in your direction stops to pick you up, which each carries eight passengers rather than forty. Then it drops you off at your actual destination instead of four blocks from there, and picks you up faster to begin with because there are five times as many buses of a fifth the size and they can be diverted from nearby routes to pick you up as soon as you summon them. At that point they're almost as good as a car most of the time, only they cost a lot less and only take up an eighth of the space on the road per passenger. And you don't have to operate huge wasteful 40-passenger vehicles during off-peak hours just to carry 3 passengers.
aggie 7y ago
> housing units will exist at high end prices People who can afford to buy these new high-end units will move out of their previous, less high-end units and the result is more affordable housing because the supply is closer to meeting the demand.
bluGill 7y ago
That would be a waste of money. Building transit lines without people to ride them means that they reach their end of useful life from old age without serving enough people to be worth them. It would be environmentally sound to build another freeway - at least that somewhat reduces congestion caused pollution (until the city grows and you need a new one). Build high density around a bus stop, and some of the people will take the bus. Those additional riders mean the bus is making more money and can afford to add more routes. More routes means the bus is useful to more people who start riding the bus... Eventually you have enough people on the bus to switch to a better transit mode. The bus rider levels also show where people want to go which guides where you put the trains instead of a guess and prayer. But this all requires enough density to start the cycle in the first place.
- rsync 7y ago
  "That would be a waste of money. Building transit lines without people to ride them means that they reach their end of useful life from old age without serving enough people to be worth them." Agreed. Forgive me - what I meant was, build new transit lines on point to point routes that already make sense, then in-fill the intermediate stops as needed. Those in-fill stations can then be the anchors for transit oriented, high density development which completes the cycle because the line is already in place. I think they have basically succeeded with this in the University St. Paul <--> MPLS lightrail route. The route already made sense point-to-point and now they can choose the intermediate stops that make sense to organically grow the corridor.
  - Mvhsz 7y ago
    This is how most successful rail corridors in the northeast US were built. A line was built to connect two cities, then suburbs spread along the existing right of way.

by rsync 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

radus 7y ago

Good news - San Diego is well on its way to extending the trolley system from downtown to UTC.

theluketaylor 7y ago

Here in Kitchener-Waterloo the project approval to build a light rail system included automatic upzoning for a radius around each of the stations and easier approvals for high density development. Tying the rail and zoning together was a deliberate choice to drive density in areas served by transit and prevent as much NIMBY interference as possible. The construction took several years and the trains have just started running, but the city has already transformed. Many dense buildings went up while the rail lines where being built and many more are under construction right now. It will be many years before the true success and failure of the project is known, but the signs look good to me. I'd like to see general loosening of non-safety related zoning restrictions to help keep housing prices in check, but this program was a good compromise since developers were guaranteed an investment of transit and other city services and could take more risk.

markn951 7y ago

>No actual transit (the kind that runs on rails) What an arbitrary way to decide what "actual" transit is. There are about a thousand other, very valid, very useful, very modern ways of building transit that have nothing to do with rails. If you're saying rails but meaning grade-separation, you're still wrong about non-grade-separated systems being somehow inherently inferior or unworthy. Look at any list of top transit systems in the world, the majority of modern systems incorporate non-grade-separated systems like trams, busways, or even regular old busses, because they work and they're cheap. People with your mindset are why this country may never have widespread transit systems, because you think insanely expensive infrastructure is the solution to a culture, marketing, and economic problem.

rsync 7y ago
"What an arbitrary way to decide what "actual" transit is. There are about a thousand other, very valid, very useful, very modern ways of building transit that have nothing to do with rails." I think you're missing my point - it's not about a fetish for rails ... In the United States, outside of two or three cities[1], there has been almost zero serious investment in public transportation[2] and that transit infrastructure is always some bullshit sideshow that checks a box but does not provide any kind of meaningful service that would allow car culture to change. Here is everything you need to know about public transit in the United States in one quick commercial: https://www.ispot.tv/ad/wy2O/state-farm-backstory-truck-song-by-john-taylor https://www.ispot.tv/ad/wy2O/state-farm-backstory-truck-song... What is special about rail infrastructure is that you can't half-ass it. You can't sort of put the subway in or sort of build a lightrail line. If they are putting down rails there is serious, meaningful work being done that requires a lot of related investment in the entire ecosystem of transit. In the United States, buses don't count - not because buses are inherently bad but because in our car-centric environment that kind of service will never have the funding or the political backing to actually be useful. [1] NYC, Washington DC ... places with subways. [2] Seeing some halting progress in places like Denver and Minneapolis ... and I say "progress" with some qualifiers - after 25 years now has a second lightrail line and MPLS has one rail line that actually makes sense for commuters...

jimmaswell 7y ago

Why do buses not count? Because you don't like them? Your definition of transit is not shared with most people. I love buses as a transit option. They go directly to parking lots of places like grocery stores and ride smoother than a lot of trains/subways/etc I've been on. If the routes are useful then people will use them and they're as simple to scale as buying more buses and very easy to dynamically adjust, unlike train lines.

alexhutcheson 7y ago
[I'm a bus proponent, but...] It's turned out to be very politically difficult to establish and (just as importantly) enforce bus lanes in communities in the US. People get very upset at the prospect of giving up either street parking or travel lanes, and local politicians and the traffic enforcement bureaucracy has mostly sided with the people who complain. The result is either no bus lanes, or part-time bus lanes with no effective enforcement, which is basically the same as no bus lanes. A bus that's able to use bus lanes (and possibly transit signal priority) to bypass traffic is a great thing, and would be appealing to people across the socioeconomic spectrum. A bus that's stuck in the same traffic as the cars has no benefit other than cost, and will only appeal to those who can't afford to maintain a car or are very ideologically committed to transit. Buses would be amazing with bus lanes in congested areas and automated camera-based enforcement of those lanes. However, the inability of the political system to make that happen even in Manhattan makes me fairly pessimistic for that outcome in other places. I still think it's worth investing in buses for those who need them, but if they can't bypass traffic they will be stuck at a low mode share almost everywhere.
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  I'd rather a bus driver sit in heavy traffic while I get to use my phone/laptop than be the one driving. For going to conventions I still take the bus even though I have a car now.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  The problem with bus lanes is that they require failure in order to operate. If you implement bus lanes and they succeed in relieving traffic congestion but the congestion was the only reason people weren't driving then people go back to driving and you go back to having congestion. There is no way for them to actually relieve the congestion because having congestion is the method by which they operate. But they can make it worse by wasting a travel lane during the times of day when there would have been enough road capacity if not for the bus lane. If you want to make buses actually work, make them work like Uber. You go to the bus stop where there is a screen you can input your destination (or you use your phone), and the nearest minibus going in your direction stops to pick you up, which each carries eight passengers rather than forty. Then it drops you off at your actual destination instead of four blocks from there, and picks you up faster to begin with because there are five times as many buses of a fifth the size and they can be diverted from nearby routes to pick you up as soon as you summon them. At that point they're almost as good as a car most of the time, only they cost a lot less and only take up an eighth of the space on the road per passenger. And you don't have to operate huge wasteful 40-passenger vehicles during off-peak hours just to carry 3 passengers.

aggie 7y ago

> housing units will exist at high end prices People who can afford to buy these new high-end units will move out of their previous, less high-end units and the result is more affordable housing because the supply is closer to meeting the demand.

bluGill 7y ago

That would be a waste of money. Building transit lines without people to ride them means that they reach their end of useful life from old age without serving enough people to be worth them. It would be environmentally sound to build another freeway - at least that somewhat reduces congestion caused pollution (until the city grows and you need a new one). Build high density around a bus stop, and some of the people will take the bus. Those additional riders mean the bus is making more money and can afford to add more routes. More routes means the bus is useful to more people who start riding the bus... Eventually you have enough people on the bus to switch to a better transit mode. The bus rider levels also show where people want to go which guides where you put the trains instead of a guess and prayer. But this all requires enough density to start the cycle in the first place.

rsync 7y ago
"That would be a waste of money. Building transit lines without people to ride them means that they reach their end of useful life from old age without serving enough people to be worth them." Agreed. Forgive me - what I meant was, build new transit lines on point to point routes that already make sense, then in-fill the intermediate stops as needed. Those in-fill stations can then be the anchors for transit oriented, high density development which completes the cycle because the line is already in place. I think they have basically succeeded with this in the University St. Paul <--> MPLS lightrail route. The route already made sense point-to-point and now they can choose the intermediate stops that make sense to organically grow the corridor.
- Mvhsz 7y ago
  This is how most successful rail corridors in the northeast US were built. A line was built to connect two cities, then suburbs spread along the existing right of way.