7 ms·
I'm of the opinion that it depends on density. You could build a subway line in some US cities of 1M and nobody would ride it; you could build a subway line in
by xvedejas 2y ago
I'm of the opinion that it depends on density. You could build a subway line in some US cities of 1M and nobody would ride it; you could build a subway line in a city of 50k and everyone would ride it. It depends on whether there is density to support walking directly to many things (businesses, residences, and other transit lines) or not.
- HPsquared 2y agoThe subway is the big expensive investment. In theory, businesses and housing etc would develop around the stations. Like how suburbs develop around train stations.
- ghaff 2y agoIn theory. The commuter rail I sometimes take follows an old rail right of way. Some of the stations are in fairly developed areas. But some of those, like Concord, presumably predate even the original rail. And a lot of the towns are pretty spread out. You can't walk to much until you get to the last two stops in the city proper.
- jonahrd 2y agoThis is because the T is not a "real" transit system in the way that it's simply not designed to move enough people fast enough to compete with cars.
- ghaff 2y agoWell, if I’m going into the city 9 to 5ish I’ll usually take commuter rail because it’s less painful even if it takes as long as driving. But I do need to drive to and park at the nearby commuter rail station.
- macNchz 2y agoI imagine that at least one factor there is that building up is prohibited by zoning—a super brief glance at Concord's zoning map & code it looks like the only kind of residential buildings you can build anywhere without special permission are single-family. Now there are surely people living there who would argue that this zoning has protected the shape and nature of the town they that they prefer, but the flip side of that coin is that, at $1.4m, a median home in Concord costs more than 3x that of the country overall.
- ghaff 2y agoThere's probably some truth in that. On the other hand, Concord is a pretty far-flung suburb; you're probably over 30 minutes to get to Cambridge without heavy traffic. I believe the prison out there is closed now but don't know what the plans are for the land.
- macNchz 2y agoSure, I wouldn't imagine it'd turn into a cluster of skyscrapers if the restrictions were not there, but I would imagine there might be some small apartment buildings near the train station. New Jersey has had some impressive housing changes happen by opening areas near transit to development in not-dissimilar environments.
- ghaff 2y agoApparently, the governor is interested in using it for housing development but I'm sure that will be tied up in the courts for years--especially with it being Concord.
- llamaimperative 2y agoAnd then landowners who were “smart” enough to own land where this ends up going in get to reap all the financial upside, instead of the public which actually invested in that infrastructure. Just imagine if the public could capture the (financial) upside it produces, then it could apply that money to do the same thing down the road, then do the same thing again down the road further. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem?wprov=sfti1# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem?wprov=sft...
- showerst 2y agoA version of this is common now in the US through Tax Increment Financing. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/value_capture/defined/tax_increment_financing.aspx https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/value_capture/defined/tax_incre...
- lotsofpulp 2y agoI don’t see how that is a version of what llamaimperative posts. If anything, TIF increases rewards for landowners who do nothing or otherwise underutilize land. Taxing the product of work to make a piece of land beneficial for society is amazingly backwards. The proper direction to go in is marginal land value tax rates, with increasing penalties the longer a spaces remains unused.
- icegreentea2 2y agoIn some countries the transit companies (public or private) also become the landowners of the adjacent areas - this would be the "rail plus property" model. In fact, the rail plus property model allows the rail operate to better capture their added value, so it applies even in "private" scenarios. The most famous example would be Tokyo. The goal shouldn't be for the public to be able to reap direct financial benefits from the induced activity around transit hubs, the goal should be to firstly to incentivize and maintain affordable, high quality, sustainable transit, secondly to provide more and better economic opportunities.
- shipp02 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- balderdash 2y agoDensity yes, but more importantly 1) speed vs traveling by car, 2) starting and stopping in places people want to travel between, 3) safety, 4) real estate prices/regulation. Density goes to number 1 (more traffic = better reason to use the subway) and 2 (more likely to be able to serve people’s desired trip)
- humanrebar 2y ago5) Weather. If it's under -20 C or over 40 C, walking five blocks is unpleasant for anyone and dangerous for some. Especially if the walk is unsheltered, which it typically is.
- xvedejas 2y agoPeople do have to walk from their cars too (for any city I've been to)
- bobthepanda 2y agoAlso the shape of density. A small city in a straight line along the coast is going to get a lot more mileage out of a single line than something spread out across a plain.
- CalRobert 2y agoIn the ideal scenario you build the subway or other transit when density is low and land is relatively cheap, and THEN you make it high density. Doing it after the fact is much, much harder.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> In the ideal scenario you build the subway or other transit when density is low and land is relatively cheap, and THEN you make it high density Do we have examples of this working? (Genuine question.)
- DiogenesKynikos 2y agoOutside the US, there are many examples (Japan and China both do this). In the US, I don't know specific examples, but you can definitely use a combination of policies (building public transit, zoning laws to encourage high density, making parts of the city more pedestrian-friendly - and generally less car-friendly) to encourage high density.
- CalRobert 2y agoDefinitely! Here’s a video with some discussion https://youtu.be/MnyeRlMsTgI?t=667&si=g-xwXEjLPPobUkzy https://youtu.be/MnyeRlMsTgI?t=667&si=g-xwXEjLPPobUkzy There’s photos of subway stops in random fields in china that sometimes get laughs but in actuality china is just smart enough to build the subway and THEN the buildings. Meanwhile Japanese rail companies own land where they build rail and can make more money on the land than on the trains
- ekianjo 2y agoYou don't decide to make things high density out of the blue. People have to WANT to live there.
- Too 2y agoCheap + quick commute to downtown takes care of that.
- 42772827 2y agoBuilding a subway system after the city is so dense that it will be ridden by “enough” people is exactly the wrong way to create livable urban spaces. Building a subway is the solution to inducing density, not responding to it.