TOD can be done well--a lot of neighborhoods in Queens, where I live, were pretty much empty fields when they got subways, and are now thriving communities (basically all along the 7 train--Jackson Heights, Sunnyside, etc). The key is to not build very much parking, and to make sure the transit is good enough that a large share of the population can live car-free.
I doubt it's literally zero people--if there's one thing I learned from working as a pollster, it's to never underestimate true oddballs--but yeah, it's pretty marginal.
Interesting. Where I'm at in CT, "Transit Oriented Development" is more about building denser where there is already transit, particularly trains. I kind of assumed that's what it was for everyone.
When I visited Virginia (came in Dulles airport, went to Vernon), I will say a lot of places gave that movie-set feel.
It is that, mostly, but there was and is a lot of talk here about how the train will direct future development. Maybe pre-COVID that was a fine bet, now it looks a little shaky I think. But building more densely where there already is transit would basically mean building in the expensive inner suburbs where the opposition to densification is strong
More transit is a better alternative to another state route. I do like how strong towns presents it - "development oriented transit" - building transit to where people and places are. The unfortunate reality is, so many people are reflexively NIMBYs - "building a bus/train here will bring crime," or "this isn't the character of our neighborhood," or they increase the cost of construction by requiring boring so they're not inconvenienced by cut and cover. I agree the final product would be better, but historically, development has often followed railroads/highways/public subsidies. So faced with NIMBY opposition to development oriented transit and the historical prevalence of development following infrastructure, I see TOD as a net win overall. It's not perfect, but it's good, and better than alternatives. Let's not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
I took it to the airport for my Christmas travel, and it's marvelous! I think the authorities are hoping that the metro spurs development around it, and there is a lot of unrealized potential. But as a commuter train or as a cheap, easy, quick, civilized way to get to Dulles Airport, I think it's terrific!
It's great for reaching the airport. That's probably a more natural endpoint for it, and had it been done in the 1970s you might have had a more compact development pattern along that whole stretch.
I've been ranting about mass transit advocacy recently because it's painfully weak. The extreme examples would be high-speed rail, fixed & light rail, and streetcars. They're snared by falling in love with a solution rather than falling in love with a problem. It's hard to tell, for example, if Silver Line will draw many people out of their cars. Like you said, the surrounding attempts at TOD are like many other development nodes along arterials.
Alternative: legalize housing options. Arlington took a big step forward. Alexandria is working on it. And those are already transit-richish environments.
I mean, I haven't studied it in detail, but I'm definitely up for critiques of TOD proponents who think it's trivially easy to get people to not buy cars because you put apartments a 10 minute walk away from an every 15 minute bus. Sure, that's an oversimplification, but there's a lot of confirmation bias. For example, there's a new apartment building near me, in Wheaton, and people always say "the building's parking garage isn't even fully booked! TOD Win!" But apparently the "secret" is that there's a county lot directly across the street that's free on nights and weekends, so a bunch of residents just use the county parking instead of paying for a garage spot. Like cmon, I hardly ever see anybody else out walking, or taking grocery bags on the bus, so are you really sure these people aren't driving???
Yep. OTOH, when I live near a supermarket or shopping center, I do walk more. I drive fewer miles, but I wouldn't get rid of a car. So by that measure these projects might be successful. Sadly, none of the hundreds of people who live right near the Ashburn station have a pleasant walk to a supermarket. There's one in a close-by strip plaza, but it's not the kind of walk most affluent folks with two cars will choose to do.
Sure, I will walk more too in those situations. Right now, my wife and I have one 13 year old car, and we drive it once, sometimes twice a week, usually for groceries. If not for COVID, we would visit my parents in Baltimore County a lot more often. Extremely car-lite, but with the unpleasant grocery walk, and family to visit, car-free just doesn't make sense. Those Zipcar fees, and the hassle of going to get it and leave it, would result in much higher monetary and time costs. So I'm pretty skeptical of arguments about how easy it is to go car-free. It's way more difficult than car-lite, or than one car for two parents.
I guess it would be nice to have the kind of density much closer, but given the fact that people are completely using it when there is an even an option to build a duplex in neighborhoods that are very close to existing Metro, this is absolutely the best thing we can get. The development may seem a little shoddy now, but I think it will come along in the very long term. And honestly in the modern environment, how many places does someone want to be able to walk to? A grocery store, maybe a couple of restaurants - and you can have a nice walking oriented life, even if not car free.
I get that what surrounds the new stops doesn't look like much now, but keep in mind that when the Orange Line was first built in Arlington County, there wasn't any density there, either. It's not apples to apples, I know, but let's wait a few more years before declaring this a failure.
In Salt Lake City, where I live, there's a white elephant in the horizon. The Department of Transportation and local officials are set to build a gondola in a popular canyon on the east side of the city mountain range. It is a popular destination for skiers in the winter and to relieve traffic on a narrow road this project is promising relief to winter traffic jams. Public comment ended with a majority of the community opposed to the projected 500 million scheme. The plan is set to likely go forward as it was apparently decided before the pretense of gathering public sentiment. People object to it as an eye sore to the beauty of the area and to the unjust use of taxpayer money that will benefit a minority who can afford the winter pastime.
I've never been to Utah, so I'm asking to inform myself. If there are traffic jams, wouldn't some sorta transit - whether a gondola or a bus or a train - be benefitting a fair amount of people that use the road? I can understand the hesitation to the "eyesore" aspect of it, especially in a place as pristine as the mountains, altho I imagine those winter sports areas have gondolas that move people within the mountain ranges too. And I tend to be less sympathetic to the eyesore argument since it seems to get used for things like affordable housing too.
Many people would prefer a more affordable alternative to the pricy gondola, such as expanded bus service, which was actually cut at the beginning of this past winter and widening the road. My point in writing this comment was that the Big project seems to have been approved regardless of community sentiment, alternatives, or cost, likely influenced by big corporate pockets and influence.
TOD can be done well--a lot of neighborhoods in Queens, where I live, were pretty much empty fields when they got subways, and are now thriving communities (basically all along the 7 train--Jackson Heights, Sunnyside, etc). The key is to not build very much parking, and to make sure the transit is good enough that a large share of the population can live car-free.
Yeah. I'd be surprised if anybody in Loudoun County lives car-free, at least by choice.
I doubt it's literally zero people--if there's one thing I learned from working as a pollster, it's to never underestimate true oddballs--but yeah, it's pretty marginal.
Interesting. Where I'm at in CT, "Transit Oriented Development" is more about building denser where there is already transit, particularly trains. I kind of assumed that's what it was for everyone.
When I visited Virginia (came in Dulles airport, went to Vernon), I will say a lot of places gave that movie-set feel.
It is that, mostly, but there was and is a lot of talk here about how the train will direct future development. Maybe pre-COVID that was a fine bet, now it looks a little shaky I think. But building more densely where there already is transit would basically mean building in the expensive inner suburbs where the opposition to densification is strong
More transit is a better alternative to another state route. I do like how strong towns presents it - "development oriented transit" - building transit to where people and places are. The unfortunate reality is, so many people are reflexively NIMBYs - "building a bus/train here will bring crime," or "this isn't the character of our neighborhood," or they increase the cost of construction by requiring boring so they're not inconvenienced by cut and cover. I agree the final product would be better, but historically, development has often followed railroads/highways/public subsidies. So faced with NIMBY opposition to development oriented transit and the historical prevalence of development following infrastructure, I see TOD as a net win overall. It's not perfect, but it's good, and better than alternatives. Let's not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
I took it to the airport for my Christmas travel, and it's marvelous! I think the authorities are hoping that the metro spurs development around it, and there is a lot of unrealized potential. But as a commuter train or as a cheap, easy, quick, civilized way to get to Dulles Airport, I think it's terrific!
It's great for reaching the airport. That's probably a more natural endpoint for it, and had it been done in the 1970s you might have had a more compact development pattern along that whole stretch.
I've been ranting about mass transit advocacy recently because it's painfully weak. The extreme examples would be high-speed rail, fixed & light rail, and streetcars. They're snared by falling in love with a solution rather than falling in love with a problem. It's hard to tell, for example, if Silver Line will draw many people out of their cars. Like you said, the surrounding attempts at TOD are like many other development nodes along arterials.
Alternative: legalize housing options. Arlington took a big step forward. Alexandria is working on it. And those are already transit-richish environments.
I mean, I haven't studied it in detail, but I'm definitely up for critiques of TOD proponents who think it's trivially easy to get people to not buy cars because you put apartments a 10 minute walk away from an every 15 minute bus. Sure, that's an oversimplification, but there's a lot of confirmation bias. For example, there's a new apartment building near me, in Wheaton, and people always say "the building's parking garage isn't even fully booked! TOD Win!" But apparently the "secret" is that there's a county lot directly across the street that's free on nights and weekends, so a bunch of residents just use the county parking instead of paying for a garage spot. Like cmon, I hardly ever see anybody else out walking, or taking grocery bags on the bus, so are you really sure these people aren't driving???
Yep. OTOH, when I live near a supermarket or shopping center, I do walk more. I drive fewer miles, but I wouldn't get rid of a car. So by that measure these projects might be successful. Sadly, none of the hundreds of people who live right near the Ashburn station have a pleasant walk to a supermarket. There's one in a close-by strip plaza, but it's not the kind of walk most affluent folks with two cars will choose to do.
Sure, I will walk more too in those situations. Right now, my wife and I have one 13 year old car, and we drive it once, sometimes twice a week, usually for groceries. If not for COVID, we would visit my parents in Baltimore County a lot more often. Extremely car-lite, but with the unpleasant grocery walk, and family to visit, car-free just doesn't make sense. Those Zipcar fees, and the hassle of going to get it and leave it, would result in much higher monetary and time costs. So I'm pretty skeptical of arguments about how easy it is to go car-free. It's way more difficult than car-lite, or than one car for two parents.
I guess it would be nice to have the kind of density much closer, but given the fact that people are completely using it when there is an even an option to build a duplex in neighborhoods that are very close to existing Metro, this is absolutely the best thing we can get. The development may seem a little shoddy now, but I think it will come along in the very long term. And honestly in the modern environment, how many places does someone want to be able to walk to? A grocery store, maybe a couple of restaurants - and you can have a nice walking oriented life, even if not car free.
I get that what surrounds the new stops doesn't look like much now, but keep in mind that when the Orange Line was first built in Arlington County, there wasn't any density there, either. It's not apples to apples, I know, but let's wait a few more years before declaring this a failure.
In Salt Lake City, where I live, there's a white elephant in the horizon. The Department of Transportation and local officials are set to build a gondola in a popular canyon on the east side of the city mountain range. It is a popular destination for skiers in the winter and to relieve traffic on a narrow road this project is promising relief to winter traffic jams. Public comment ended with a majority of the community opposed to the projected 500 million scheme. The plan is set to likely go forward as it was apparently decided before the pretense of gathering public sentiment. People object to it as an eye sore to the beauty of the area and to the unjust use of taxpayer money that will benefit a minority who can afford the winter pastime.
I've never been to Utah, so I'm asking to inform myself. If there are traffic jams, wouldn't some sorta transit - whether a gondola or a bus or a train - be benefitting a fair amount of people that use the road? I can understand the hesitation to the "eyesore" aspect of it, especially in a place as pristine as the mountains, altho I imagine those winter sports areas have gondolas that move people within the mountain ranges too. And I tend to be less sympathetic to the eyesore argument since it seems to get used for things like affordable housing too.
Many people would prefer a more affordable alternative to the pricy gondola, such as expanded bus service, which was actually cut at the beginning of this past winter and widening the road. My point in writing this comment was that the Big project seems to have been approved regardless of community sentiment, alternatives, or cost, likely influenced by big corporate pockets and influence.