« comments? | Main | on scramble crossings »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83454714d69e20120a6616cc6970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference integrating transit and land use: a cautionary tale:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

J.D. Hammond

I actually see Kentlands as an example of the myopia of much New Urbanist development, at least in its early stages. Having the parts of transit-oriented development doesn't necessarily lead to the whole, particularly when it's a greenfield development disconnected from major thoroughfares.

anonymouse

By the way, the "be on the way" rule is entirely the opposite of what you want with automobile-oriented planning. There, being on the way means more traffic and potential destruction from future road-widenings. With transit, it mostly just means better service.

Pantheon

This is a pretty simple point, but it illustrates exactly why the United States is such a frustrating place for transit advocates and users. The urban fabric in this example does more than just pose an engineering challenge. It also makes transit an unattractive option. Transit and walking go hand in hand. If a place is attractive and pleasant for walking, it is equally so for transit. Places that are built for automobiles are both inconvenient and unpleasant for transit users, and therefore people who live in those areas will continue to drive.

This simple point - that the urban fabric is determinant - has huge consequences for transit and livability advocates in America. It means that we will never have the kind of livable communities that are to be found in Europe. No matter how much political power we acquire, no matter how many transit consultants we hire or how clever they may be, the die has been cast. When the Eisenhower administration decided to subsidize freeways at the rate of 90 cents on the dollar, America's fate was sealed.

It is thoroughly depressing to think that one generation's naive and grandiose visions of automotive paradise could cause such permanent damage to the nation. It is a good illustration though of why I am so intrinsically conservative about building transit infrastructure of any kind - whether freeways or cheapy light rail lines along freeways. Whatever we do will leave an indelible image, so we had better be certain it's the right one.

Peter Schmiedeskamp

Excellent post as per usual. The sidebar about the Eisenhower administration is an interesting one for me. I've heard it proposed that the highways were consciously developed in part to facilitate sprawl. The general idea being that, if we spread out our population and infrastructure, we exponentially increased the cost to the Soviets of nuking us.

I don't remember where I read this or for certain whether it is true, but it seems plausible given that the Interstates were developed as military infrastructure. Coupled with home lending policies that favored suburban development, it seems even more plausible.

I sort of like this vision of the past too, because it doesn't suggest that planners (military or otherwise) were simply naive to the effects of automobiles, but that we simply had the wrong, or at least very different goals. This also suggests to me that there is hope for us if we can agree that a new set of dangers is as dangerous as Ivan and his nukes.

Assuming I'm not just spouting B.S., fear of nuclear armageddon had a very different effect in places like Moscow and St. Petersburg. There, they dug extremely deep metros in hopes that it would shelter them from our nukes.

The comments to this entry are closed.

the firm

Jarrett is now in ...

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...