"Regional -- multi-state connections -- for the most part these don't exist for transit"
What do you mean? They exist in just about every city that's near a state border: New York, Chicago, Portland, Philadelphia, Boston and of course D.C.
Also, isn't it best to build transit where you want the people to be - as long as you can wait that long for it to attract the ridership?
Well Cap'n... on the first point, you're right, but it isn't so much planned as much as it is legacy connections. It needs to be better planned, e.g., in the proposal that I tout in my region, we call for connections to Richmond and beyond, to Pennsylvania, and to Delaware (there is limited connection to WV already). And it isn't out the question to connect Virginia to North Carolina and Tennessee.
As far as the 2nd goes, in some sense I agree with Ed Glaeser. Does it make sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a rail system in a city whereas in DC (which isn't a leading city in terms of bus usage), one or two of the city's top bus routs easily exceed the ridership. Shouldn't the money be spent where it makes absolute difference?
And rather than discuss this at great length, I'd rather refer you to the discussion about polycentric vs. monocentric transit systems and recentralization in Belmont's _Cities in Full_.
So for infill transit development, sure it's ok to put it where the ain't in order to get them to go there (i.e., Pearl District in Portland). But for promoting exurbanism and sprawl as a lot of fixed rail projects go, it is not good to build where they ain't because building doesn't promote intensification of land use/compact development.
The infill vs. exurban transit contrast is not relevant here. The money should be spent where it is most effective at accomplishing your goals - and I'm sure they're a little different between you, me and Glaeser.
If your goal is to serve existing customers better, then by all means put the transit where the people are. But if it's to promote compact development, then a rail line through a previously sprawly area (like Arlington, VA) may be a better bet.
Catchphrases like "put the transit where the people are" oversimplifies at one level, only to obscure at the other level.
Arlington's built form was not sprawl, as much as it was under-dense but relatively compact development. I suppose it was T3.5.
Arlington was a lot different than the I-270 corridor. Or even "Kentlands" and other New Urban projects in upper Montgomery County Maryland.
You can argue that lines such as the Hiawatha support sprawl more than they do intensifying compact development. That was the point I was making.
But the DC region benefits from having a transit system, while most of the new generation transit projects are putting in lines. By definition, one or two transit lines can't have the same intensifying impact as a metropolitan fixed rail transit system, such as with the five lines of the DC system.
Still, READ BELMONT.
Arlington's built form most definitely was sprawl. It wasn't as fugly as the stuff from the '70s and '80s like in Gaithersburg and north but it was definitely car-dependent. Just look at the rest of Arlington that's not on the Metro. It's early sprawl. Less awful than stuff from the late 20th century and the first half of this decade, but still environmentally destroying and economically leaching.
I'm surprised you took Mr. Gleaser so seriously. He always comes to the conclusion that car-dependence is inevitable because it "what the market wants" despite the fact that property values now tell a different tale. I think he's a serious economist. He just comes off as an apologist for the Highway Lobby all the friggin' time.
Cap'n Transit is right that transit can be used as a planning tool in addition to meeting existing demand. In truth, it will be a planning tool with meeting existing demand, too. For example, if you build heavy rail where a bus line previously existed, you will create demand for more intense land uses that what existed with the bus. It's a feedback loop, just like road projects create feedback loops.
Re: For example, if you build heavy rail where a bus line previously existed, you will create demand for more intense land uses that what existed with the bus.
Did you ever see places like Virginia Square in the late 1980s before they had been reproduced into the "Smart Growth Model" of today?
Very interesting contrast.
However, they were able to do it, because the underlying zoning changes had been in place for almost 20 years.
You can't just throw a heavy rail line somewhere and expect that land uses will change in places that are primarily single family residential. It is extraordinarily difficult to change the zoning without major public outcry.
If you talk to Arlington people, they comment about how the county was declining in population at the time the Metro was being planned, and so they were more willing to consider paradigm-breaking decisions that they might not have otherwise been willing to consider...
In any case, we are dealing with long term time horizons of 20-40 years in any case.
Commenting by HaloScan
