Hello, everyone - To briefly introduce myself, I'm a regular poster over on the General Discussion Forum, but rarely here yet (so far). However:
Is there/ has there been a thread here to discuss the above as a primary topic, especially a recent one ?
Even with the recent forum software changes, I'm not aware of any "Search this Forum" functionality here, so I'd appreciate anyone either pointing me to such, and/ or providing info on any such threads that may have appeared here in the past.
If none or not very much, then I propose starting one here and now.
Any comments ? Anyone else interested ? Thanks in advance.
- Paul North.
I tried the search function on the Trains Magazine site, but it seemed just to find NewsWire articles. I tried Googling ["trains magazine" transit real estate] and the first item was your thread, but no other forum threads in the first few pages. It seems it has been a few months since the last thread on the topic, so I don't see any problem with starting a new one.
Even though Peter Calthorpe (a name I'm sure Paul is familiar with) has been pushing the TOD idea since the early 90s, it never really seemed to gain much traction. Probably because there is so much invovled in creating one? Planning on such a grand scale never seems to happen in real life.
Disclaimer: In a previous life I gave thought of becoming a planner. Just never went for the masters' needed.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Some of the difficulties faced by TOD in southern California is that the light rail and heavy rail transit routes cover only a fraction of the commuter and travel routes in use today. In the Los Angeles area, many people travel suburb-to-suburb to get from home to work and vice versa. Most of the rail routes are not configured that way; they link suburbs to the city center. There is an exception: a Metrolink route that connects Orange County to the Inland Empire without passing through downtown L.A.
There has been relatively new housing constructed near some stations, both on light rail (Pasadena) and heavy rail routes (Fullerton). I don't know how many of the residents use their nearby rail systems.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Apartments are sprouting at a rapid clip along Charlotte s Lynx Blue Line in South End, as developers look to cash in on a booming rental market and cater to young professionals who want to live near uptown. While commercial development across the region is seeing slow growth at best, the South End neighborhood has seen a spurt of new activity this year with more than $200 million worth of new construction being announced. Apartments near the Lynx line are powering the growth. In fact, of the more than 4,000 new apartment units announced in Charlotte this year, 60 percent are within a 15-minute walk of the light-rail line, according to CoStar, a real estate analytics firm. Two more South End complexes were announced this week, as Camden Property Trust said it would build 324 units at West Boulevard and Camden Road, and 266 units at South Boulevard and Iverson Way.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
The purpose of the TOD was to contain sprawl by building high density, urban housing in a cluster (so to speak) around the transit station. Making the transit station the focal point, and packing the most people in the smallest area. Such an action takes lots of advanced planning. Just building more apartments near a station does not always constitute a TOD. I do not know how Charlotte is set up, so I am speaking in generalities. Perhaps they are doing it correct and approaching TOD level status.
My issue with many of the 'popular' (weird description for a planner, I know) urban planners is that they think everyone wants to live in high density urban apartments and don't want to drive cars (doesn't sound appealing to me). Thus we get stuck with lackluster parking options and transit stations with way too small parking lots inurban areas for people that don't live there. And they always seem to ignore the issue of crime - real or percieved (which can go back to the *why* people don't want to live in dense urban areas).
Thanks to all who've replied so far - it seems there's an interest, and a good group so far. There's a lot of wide-ranging sub-topics to this, too. Disclosure: I'm not a professional planner of any sort, but am wanting to get more familiar with this topic because I think it's important (a good reason), and I think I've identified an excellent opportunity for it in the Philadelphia metro area (the real reason !).
MP57313 [snipped - PDN] . . . Most of the rail routes are not configured that way; they link suburbs to the city center. . . .
From http://trimet.org/about/history/wes.htm : "One of the few suburb-to-suburb commuter rail lines in the nation".
See also (usual disclaimers apply): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westside_Express_Service
Another one is the NJ Transit "River Line", from Camden (opposite Philadelphia) through the southern NJ suburbs along the northeastern side of the Delaware River to Trenton.
On the broader topic: Perhaps the philosophy behind these systems and development should not be trying to connect what was or is, but instead to what will be in the future, and then to create that future. One website I've looked at said that the method is to "Build a place, not a project" - i.e., origins and/ or destinations. (Urban Land Institute, "Ten Principles for Successful Development Around Transit", Principle 5 on page 12 of the document = 21 of 32 in the 'PDF" format version, 4.55 MB electronic file size, at: http://www.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TP_DevTransit.ashx_.pdf )
I should also point out that a core underlying principle is that the key to the economic 'exploitation' (term of art - no negative connotations intended) or value of land is transportation. This has been true of the days of the early trolley lines that were built to provide access and customers to then-suburban real estate housing subdivisions (developments), and also the weekend amusement parks and the like.
More later.
zugmann The purpose of the TOD was to contain sprawl by building high density, urban housing in a cluster (so to speak) around the transit station. Making the transit station the focal point, and packing the most people in the smallest area. Such an action takes lots of advanced planning. Just building more apartments near a station does not always constitute a TOD. I do not know how Charlotte is set up, so I am speaking in generalities. Perhaps they are doing it correct and approaching TOD level status.
zugmann My issue with many of the 'popular' (weird description for a planner, I know) urban planners is that they think everyone wants to live in high density urban apartments and don't want to drive cars (doesn't sound appealing to me). Thus we get stuck with lackluster parking options and transit stations with way too small parking lots in urban areas for people that don't live there. And they always seem to ignore the issue of crime - real or percieved (which can go back to the *why* people don't want to live in dense urban areas).
[Edited at 9:45 PM to add:] Another report - "Seven American TODs: Good Practices for Urban Design in Transit-Oriented Development Projects" from the Journal of Transport and Land Use Fall 2008 edition at: http://www.thepep.org/ClearingHouse/docfiles/Seven.American.%20TODs.pdf (38 pages, 2.11 MB electronic file size in this 'PDF' format) includes: "7. Use design and programming strategies to increase safety" (page 78 = 28 of 38 in the PDF version), and: "12. Don't forget (but don't overemphasize) car movement and parking" (pages 81 and 82 = 31 and 32 in the PDF version).
More in a day or so.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.