xthread: (Bicycle)
xthread ([personal profile] xthread) wrote2010-07-27 09:02 pm

Late July Link Harvest

A collection of interesting things from the outside world..


As always, good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.

[identity profile] xthread.livejournal.com 2010-07-28 03:50 pm (UTC)(link)
From the Urban Planners point of view, Max is a streetcar.

A study done about five years ago in Florida suggested that light-rail / streetcar systems may be the only urban redevelopment strategy that we've ever seen reliably succeed - in particular, building stadiums spectacularly doesn't work, which apparently people often suggest. I was going to post links off to that set of studies along with the Oakland article, but I need to go track the original source data again. The most interesting finding from the study was that putting in a streetcar / light-rail system (something running at street grade level, that is effectively increasing the geographic range of walkers) reliably creates local economic activity and concentration. The second most interesting finding was that this works even for very short segments of track - as little as a half mile or some such is enough to start the process rolling.

SF is presently running this set of experiments, having recently installed the Third Street muni line, running from the main in-city subway system down the east (bay) side of the city. The launch was good, but I haven't been closely enough following the development story over the last year. Well, beyond the fact that this is San Francisco, so everyone wants to have their say, whether or not they have anything new to say or whether having their say is likely to increase the likelihood that they'll get what they want.

[identity profile] jeffpaulsen.livejournal.com 2010-07-28 05:44 pm (UTC)(link)
thinking of it in terms of geographic range for walkers is very cool. However if MAX is a streetcar to an urban planner, then there seems to be a need for another category... distinctions between MAX and the portland streetcar:

MAX cost a metric buttload to build per mile
you have to wait a lot longer at a stop for the MAX you want
MAX largely connects suburban park&ride lots to a walkable downtown, whereas the streetcar connects different walkable areas into one awesome whole that you couldn't easily cover on foot yourself

I like stadiums as a place to have events, but I agree they don't drive development. Portland is going to run a zillion more streetcar lines in the next 5 years, some of which will even go through our "Rose Quarter" stadium district. It will be interesting to see if the streetcar development effect can overcome the stadium effect that it is its opposite.

[identity profile] xthread.livejournal.com 2010-07-28 08:33 pm (UTC)(link)
Re: Max - well, sorta - Max was intended to be an alternative to additional freeways. So it acts like a normal rail system outside of downtown, and a streetcar in downtown. Whereas the streetcars are an alternative to owning a car, because they extend the geographic range of a pedestrian.

But even a max system, as expensive as it is per mile, etc, can still be a strong improvement over one more high-rise parking lot in the central city and trying to figure out how to shoehorn one more lane of traffic from the suburbs to the city. Full disclosure: I loathe suburbs, as you may have guessed. I'm all for genuinely rural spaces, but suburbs are a barely mitigated evil.

[identity profile] jeffpaulsen.livejournal.com 2010-07-28 09:12 pm (UTC)(link)
I've got a mixed opinion on suburbs in theory. In practice they suck utterly, yes. With a couple of tweaks, the idea can work, though. What makes suburbs suck is largely the lack of walkability, forced by zoning usually. Mixed-use retail / office / residential mini-downtowns, sensibly sized (ie small) no-car zones coupled with underground parking, transit hubs -- scatter those every half mile, and suddenly it makes sense to leave the car at (or near) home for a good long time. You have reasons to interact with your neighbors, &c. After that the biggest problem with suburbs becomes the horrible curse of acyclic road layout. Grids are good, honestly.

re: freeways: I figure we're less than 20 years away from workable computer-driven driving systems that let freeways run at 4x their current capacity, provided there aren't too many dumb cars in the mix. You can do things like intelligently redivide lanes into eastbound and westbound in realtime, run bumper-to-bumper at 70 mph, make way for emergency vehicles without slowing down, stuff like that. My point being that once that happens, there will be much less need to widen the freeways -- although there may be some transitional demand for 'no manual driving' roads and 'no automatic driving' roads.

when auto-driving becomes commonplace I think the next step is a blurring of the line between taxis and car rentals. Why drive yourself on a commute if the car can do it for you? and then: why own a car if you can have a perfectly good unmanned transport show up at your door every morning? (and the flip side: why keep your car in the garage when it could be out renting itself to commuters?)