View Single Post
  #4  
Old Posted May 15, 2012, 2:59 AM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by miketoronto View Post
If public transit was actually provided with a base minimum level of service to all built up areas of the metropolitan areas of American cities, then we would not really need reports like this, as everyone would have access to transit.
We do provide a base minimum of transit service appropriate for density levels in our metropolitan areas. Unfortunately, the density levels in many U.S. suburbs justify a base minimum level of transit service of zero. There is no common sense way to provide transit at extremely low densities. And being the eminently rational people that we are, we respond by providing none.

When land use patterns change, transit will follow, and not before. Land use changes spurred by transit are indirect. Land use changes spurred by zoning are absolute. The trends being touted here in Denver only work if the local government is supportive with transit friendly zoning, which thankfully, most local governments have been. Because zoning is absolute. It is perfectly possible to build a transportation facility with zero impact on land use - just don't allow it. In a laudable example, we managed to build the Northwest Parkway (highway) with almost no sprawl side-effects through supportive land use policies. Unfortunately, some municipalities take the same approach with transit... or, more often, they have subtle flaws in the zoning - not enough density, too much parking, too little supporting public infrastructure, to make the TOD financially viable. But we're learning.
Reply With Quote