Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Properties or Areas › Impact of Proposed high speed rail
- This topic has 165 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
EconProf.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 23, 2011 at 10:36 AM #706769June 23, 2011 at 11:17 AM #705565
afx114
ParticipantA future beyond traffic gridlock by Bill Ford.
June 23, 2011 at 11:17 AM #705662ParticipantA future beyond traffic gridlock by Bill Ford.
June 23, 2011 at 11:17 AM #706261ParticipantA future beyond traffic gridlock by Bill Ford.
June 23, 2011 at 11:17 AM #706412ParticipantA future beyond traffic gridlock by Bill Ford.
June 23, 2011 at 11:17 AM #706774ParticipantA future beyond traffic gridlock by Bill Ford.
June 23, 2011 at 11:52 AM #705569briansd1
Guest[quote=EconProf]The fatal flaw in high speed rail (and, arguably, all forms of mass transit) is ignoring the time to get from your house or apartment to the station, and then to get from the destination station to your job (or store, etc.)…plus the parking problem at the station.
[/quote]I absolutely agree. That’s a huge flaw that can only be remedied by changes in urban planning that allow dense developments.
[quote=EconProf]
Americans love to go from their own driveway to the parking lot at their destination. This is a luxury we have that the Japanese, Chinese, and europeans envy.[/quote]I agree to some extent.
But we don’t have the choice, outside of Manhattan. Even San Francisco has only one BART line going through the city. The BART extends out to the suburbs but the city itself has only one line. I find that pretty lousy compared to other great cities in the world.
Right now, dense developments are more expensive than suburban types development, so I understand that buyers choose the new, more comfortable living of the suburbs.
In Southern California, if we were to allow dense developments, at competitive prices, a good portion of the population will choose to live, in mid to highrise buildings, near public transport.
Rather than cling to the low rise, low-density zoning that encourage sprawl, we should allow high-rises, without setback and parking requirements. Then, let the marketplace decide if there are buyers/renters.
I think that the problem with Americans, is that we don’t spend any appreciable time abroad, so we don’t see alternatives. I don’t think that driving through a 50 mile sprawl of wood and stucco houses is normal.
Another problem are the activists homeowners who want to stop all development around them after their buy their houses. So developers move out to virgin land where there’s less opposition.
June 23, 2011 at 11:52 AM #705668Guest[quote=EconProf]The fatal flaw in high speed rail (and, arguably, all forms of mass transit) is ignoring the time to get from your house or apartment to the station, and then to get from the destination station to your job (or store, etc.)…plus the parking problem at the station.
[/quote]I absolutely agree. That’s a huge flaw that can only be remedied by changes in urban planning that allow dense developments.
[quote=EconProf]
Americans love to go from their own driveway to the parking lot at their destination. This is a luxury we have that the Japanese, Chinese, and europeans envy.[/quote]I agree to some extent.
But we don’t have the choice, outside of Manhattan. Even San Francisco has only one BART line going through the city. The BART extends out to the suburbs but the city itself has only one line. I find that pretty lousy compared to other great cities in the world.
Right now, dense developments are more expensive than suburban types development, so I understand that buyers choose the new, more comfortable living of the suburbs.
In Southern California, if we were to allow dense developments, at competitive prices, a good portion of the population will choose to live, in mid to highrise buildings, near public transport.
Rather than cling to the low rise, low-density zoning that encourage sprawl, we should allow high-rises, without setback and parking requirements. Then, let the marketplace decide if there are buyers/renters.
I think that the problem with Americans, is that we don’t spend any appreciable time abroad, so we don’t see alternatives. I don’t think that driving through a 50 mile sprawl of wood and stucco houses is normal.
Another problem are the activists homeowners who want to stop all development around them after their buy their houses. So developers move out to virgin land where there’s less opposition.
June 23, 2011 at 11:52 AM #706266Guest[quote=EconProf]The fatal flaw in high speed rail (and, arguably, all forms of mass transit) is ignoring the time to get from your house or apartment to the station, and then to get from the destination station to your job (or store, etc.)…plus the parking problem at the station.
[/quote]I absolutely agree. That’s a huge flaw that can only be remedied by changes in urban planning that allow dense developments.
[quote=EconProf]
Americans love to go from their own driveway to the parking lot at their destination. This is a luxury we have that the Japanese, Chinese, and europeans envy.[/quote]I agree to some extent.
But we don’t have the choice, outside of Manhattan. Even San Francisco has only one BART line going through the city. The BART extends out to the suburbs but the city itself has only one line. I find that pretty lousy compared to other great cities in the world.
Right now, dense developments are more expensive than suburban types development, so I understand that buyers choose the new, more comfortable living of the suburbs.
In Southern California, if we were to allow dense developments, at competitive prices, a good portion of the population will choose to live, in mid to highrise buildings, near public transport.
Rather than cling to the low rise, low-density zoning that encourage sprawl, we should allow high-rises, without setback and parking requirements. Then, let the marketplace decide if there are buyers/renters.
I think that the problem with Americans, is that we don’t spend any appreciable time abroad, so we don’t see alternatives. I don’t think that driving through a 50 mile sprawl of wood and stucco houses is normal.
Another problem are the activists homeowners who want to stop all development around them after their buy their houses. So developers move out to virgin land where there’s less opposition.
June 23, 2011 at 11:52 AM #706417Guest[quote=EconProf]The fatal flaw in high speed rail (and, arguably, all forms of mass transit) is ignoring the time to get from your house or apartment to the station, and then to get from the destination station to your job (or store, etc.)…plus the parking problem at the station.
[/quote]I absolutely agree. That’s a huge flaw that can only be remedied by changes in urban planning that allow dense developments.
[quote=EconProf]
Americans love to go from their own driveway to the parking lot at their destination. This is a luxury we have that the Japanese, Chinese, and europeans envy.[/quote]I agree to some extent.
But we don’t have the choice, outside of Manhattan. Even San Francisco has only one BART line going through the city. The BART extends out to the suburbs but the city itself has only one line. I find that pretty lousy compared to other great cities in the world.
Right now, dense developments are more expensive than suburban types development, so I understand that buyers choose the new, more comfortable living of the suburbs.
In Southern California, if we were to allow dense developments, at competitive prices, a good portion of the population will choose to live, in mid to highrise buildings, near public transport.
Rather than cling to the low rise, low-density zoning that encourage sprawl, we should allow high-rises, without setback and parking requirements. Then, let the marketplace decide if there are buyers/renters.
I think that the problem with Americans, is that we don’t spend any appreciable time abroad, so we don’t see alternatives. I don’t think that driving through a 50 mile sprawl of wood and stucco houses is normal.
Another problem are the activists homeowners who want to stop all development around them after their buy their houses. So developers move out to virgin land where there’s less opposition.
June 23, 2011 at 11:52 AM #706779Guest[quote=EconProf]The fatal flaw in high speed rail (and, arguably, all forms of mass transit) is ignoring the time to get from your house or apartment to the station, and then to get from the destination station to your job (or store, etc.)…plus the parking problem at the station.
[/quote]I absolutely agree. That’s a huge flaw that can only be remedied by changes in urban planning that allow dense developments.
[quote=EconProf]
Americans love to go from their own driveway to the parking lot at their destination. This is a luxury we have that the Japanese, Chinese, and europeans envy.[/quote]I agree to some extent.
But we don’t have the choice, outside of Manhattan. Even San Francisco has only one BART line going through the city. The BART extends out to the suburbs but the city itself has only one line. I find that pretty lousy compared to other great cities in the world.
Right now, dense developments are more expensive than suburban types development, so I understand that buyers choose the new, more comfortable living of the suburbs.
In Southern California, if we were to allow dense developments, at competitive prices, a good portion of the population will choose to live, in mid to highrise buildings, near public transport.
Rather than cling to the low rise, low-density zoning that encourage sprawl, we should allow high-rises, without setback and parking requirements. Then, let the marketplace decide if there are buyers/renters.
I think that the problem with Americans, is that we don’t spend any appreciable time abroad, so we don’t see alternatives. I don’t think that driving through a 50 mile sprawl of wood and stucco houses is normal.
Another problem are the activists homeowners who want to stop all development around them after their buy their houses. So developers move out to virgin land where there’s less opposition.
June 23, 2011 at 12:32 PM #705600GH
ParticipantWithout adequate last mile infrastructure all of these public transport ideas are doomed to fail.
In UK where train travel used to be fantastic, it was decided to cut all of the rural money losing tracks. Officials were “surprised” to find previously money making main tracks now faced substantially reduced traffic and thus were also no longer profitable. Of course the presence of a union mandated “fire man” (looks after the coal burner) even on electric lines is laughable …
June 23, 2011 at 12:32 PM #705698ParticipantWithout adequate last mile infrastructure all of these public transport ideas are doomed to fail.
In UK where train travel used to be fantastic, it was decided to cut all of the rural money losing tracks. Officials were “surprised” to find previously money making main tracks now faced substantially reduced traffic and thus were also no longer profitable. Of course the presence of a union mandated “fire man” (looks after the coal burner) even on electric lines is laughable …
June 23, 2011 at 12:32 PM #706296ParticipantWithout adequate last mile infrastructure all of these public transport ideas are doomed to fail.
In UK where train travel used to be fantastic, it was decided to cut all of the rural money losing tracks. Officials were “surprised” to find previously money making main tracks now faced substantially reduced traffic and thus were also no longer profitable. Of course the presence of a union mandated “fire man” (looks after the coal burner) even on electric lines is laughable …
June 23, 2011 at 12:32 PM #706447ParticipantWithout adequate last mile infrastructure all of these public transport ideas are doomed to fail.
In UK where train travel used to be fantastic, it was decided to cut all of the rural money losing tracks. Officials were “surprised” to find previously money making main tracks now faced substantially reduced traffic and thus were also no longer profitable. Of course the presence of a union mandated “fire man” (looks after the coal burner) even on electric lines is laughable …
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.