America's TRULY densest metros: Pop-weighted density

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

But high-speed rail in the Central Valley is the "train to nowhere" or whatever other nonsense the Ayn Rand tea party Republicans want us to believe.

I don't see too many Central Valley residents utilizing HSR.

As for an area that could someday benefit from HSR...The alignment from SD to LA isn't direct, it won't save much time at all from the current Surfliner route. (HSR probably won't get built in SD in our lifetimes).

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by mhays

Because density works very differently, and feels very different, when it's grouped in a small area or corridor rather than spread evenly over 100 or 200 acres.

That may be, but when we're comparing cities and metros, a few teeny tiny clumps of apartment buildings with 5x higher density than surrounding areas is not really representative or all that important.

It's not really until you get to consistent significant density anyway that you have real vibrancy and really bear the effects of absolute density.

[mhays]

Part of this is me trying to justify Seattle's numbers. One factor is that we have an unusual volume of hillside greenbelts, ravines, wetlands, etc. that touch a large percentage of census tracts. Another factor is that while Seattle and certain suburbs are mostly houses by land area, we put a lot of density into clumps and corridors.

I'm contrasting both of those with some cities that have similar density numbers but do it by using nearly all land, and/or spread their density more evenly by putting houses closer together or with townhouses, garden apartments, etc.

[memph]

Originally Posted by mhays

Part of this is me trying to justify Seattle's numbers. One factor is that we have an unusual volume of hillside greenbelts, ravines, wetlands, etc. that touch a large percentage of census tracts. Another factor is that while Seattle and certain suburbs are mostly houses by land area, we put a lot of density into clumps and corridors.

I'm contrasting both of those with some cities that have similar density numbers but do it by using nearly all land, and/or spread their density more evenly by putting houses closer together or with townhouses, garden apartments, etc.

A good comparison would be Vancouver, which has an urban area density of about 12,000 ppsm, so maybe 10-11k ppsm if you include the more rural parts of the metro area.

Esperance/Edmonds area and Kingsgate are around the Seattle average of 4500-5000 ppsm.

This is about average for Vancouver, the area bound by 92 and 96 ave and 128 St and King George Hwy in Surrey. The density is 12,459 ppsm. Average household size is 3.4.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.1733493,-122.8581762,16z

Now if you zoom in to the block from 132a St to 133a St and 94 Ave to 95 Ave, the census claims there are 237 homes with 75 dwellings of which 68 are occupied. So an average household size of 3.5.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.1742905,-122.8540531,19z
However if you count how many houses there actually are based on the satellite image, there's only 53... so many of those houses are 2 units, probably mostly basement apartments. So there's an average of 4.5 people living in each house. I think much of Greater Vancouver is like this, and many parts of Toronto too (4-5 people per house).

So I think what you have happening is

A) More apartment buildings which are a higher density housing type
B) The apartments mostly house small households, which leaves mostly larger households to live in the SFHs.
C) Basement apartments

I suspect there are at least some similarities with California, although there it's probably often backyard cottages instead of basement apartments and just larger household sizes.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

I don't see too many Central Valley residents utilizing HSR.

As for an area that could someday benefit from HSR...The alignment from SD to LA isn't direct, it won't save much time at all from the current Surfliner route. (HSR probably won't get built in SD in our lifetimes).

High speed rail will benefit the Central Valley and the rest of the state by connecting metropolitian areas with significantly higher unemployment (but significantly lower housing costs) with employment centers in the Bay Area and Southern California. With high speed rail, it would be feasible to live in Frenso and commute to good-paying jobs in Santa Clara Co., with a 45 min - 1 hour train ride.

Richard Florida wrote about how high speed rail will enhance these economies of scale in the New Republic a few years ago: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/e...economy-future.

[202_Cyclist]

Ardecila:

However, this density does not translate to any meaningful kind of urbanity, walkability, or transit usage.

This just is not correct.

From Anthony Downs, Still Stuck in Traffic.

"Residential densities do affect public transit usage. At residential
densities below seven housing units per net acre (or gross densities under
4,200 to 5,600 persons per square mile), public transit use is minimal. It
increases sharply at densities above seven units per net acre. Therefore,
"moderate residential densities in the range of 7 to 15 dwellings per acre
can support moderately convenient transit service" (by rapid transit,
buses, and taxis).13
— In generating transit usage, the residential density of an area is less
significant than its location. Residential areas near large downtown areas
generate much higher fractions of transit trips than those with the same
densities but farther out. Moreover, areas within 2,000 feet of rapid
transit stops exhibit much higher fractions of transit usage than those
farther from such stops. Therefore, clustering high-density housing in
relatively small areas near downtowns or rapid transit stops is more
effective at increasing public transportation usage than raising average
residential densities over large areas.
—The density of nonresidential clusters—such as large shopping centers
or business districts—is much more important in generating public
transportation usage than residential density, other things equal. Hence
clustering many nonresidential land uses close together would be more
effective at promoting public transportation usage than raising residential
densities but keeping commercial space dispersed. However, commercial
nodes need 10 million square feet of nonresidential space or
more to generate much public transportation usage. Moreover, to make
bus service effective there, that space must be concentrated within not
much more than a single square mile."

Robert Cevero from UC Berkeley has also written extensively about how higher density, especially if located within a 5 to 10 minute walk of a rail transit station, significantly increases transit ridership.

[202_Cyclist]

Ardecila:

They may have the raw population to support a station but they certainly do not have the local transit networks and developed downtowns that are conducive to intercity rail.

Perhaps not now but high speed rail is an infrastructure investment that will be with us for 50 to 75 years or more. The California High Speed Rail authority is providing millions of dollars to local jurisdictions for land-use planning for the areas surrounding the stations. These local jurisdictions are also planning for enhance transit connections to the stations.

Fresno has been particularly active with this land-use planning: http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/...r%20Fresno.pdf.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

High speed rail will benefit the Central Valley and the rest of the state by connecting metropolitian areas with significantly higher unemployment (but significantly lower housing costs) with employment centers in the Bay Area and Southern California. With high speed rail, it would be feasible to live in Frenso and commute to good-paying jobs in Santa Clara Co., with a 45 min - 1 hour train ride.

Richard Florida wrote about how high speed rail will enhance these economies of scale in the New Republic a few years ago: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/e...economy-future.

Is it a development tool or is it to relieve congestion at LAX/SFO? Most proponents argue that it is needed to relieve congested air traffic.

What you seem to be proposing as a reason to build HSR, would result in a housing boom (sprawl, SFHs) hundreds of miles outside of our cities, further stressing the road infrastructure of the CV, and further reducing precious agricultural lands?

Once these newcomers buy houses in the CV, they're going to use cars to run all their errands and daily tasks.

[memph]

Unsubsidized cost of high speed rail is very high though. It would probably be at least $50 one way and like $2000/month. It would probably be cheaper to drive or to just bite the bullet with the higher LA/Bay Area housing prices and commute by regular transit.

And the difference between the Central Valley cities and NE or European cities is that the densities, while moderate, are relatively flat. So you might have moderate densities everywhere, while NE/Euro cities would have dense cores and in the case of NE cities, low density suburbs.

The way I see it, the Central Valley cities aren't enough to justify HSR. It's that they happen to be in between the Bay Area/Sacramento and LA/SD so if you're going to build HSR through there anyways, you might as well put in a few stops at a relatively low cost. At least in the bigger Central Valley cities... you don't want too many stops or it will increase travel times too much.

[urbanadvocate]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

I don't see too many Central Valley residents utilizing HSR.

As for an area that could someday benefit from HSR...The alignment from SD to LA isn't direct, it won't save much time at all from the current Surfliner route. (HSR probably won't get built in SD in our lifetimes).

Why not? It isn't as if the central valley is comprised of 7 million farmers that never leave their respective towns. Give me a break. I think too many people put too much emphasis on ridership being about work. Daily commuting between cities is just one aspect. The valley line (not the cap corridor) of Amtrak continues to break its own record of ridership from Oakland/Sac to Bakersfield.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by memph

Unsubsidized cost of high speed rail is very high though. It would probably be at least $50 one way and like $2000/month. It would probably be cheaper to drive or to just bite the bullet with the higher LA/Bay Area housing prices and commute by regular transit.

Perhaps not commute daily from Fresno to SJ or Bakersfield to Southern California but it is not at all unreasonable to expect someone would telework 2-3 days per week and commute via high-speed rail the rest of the week.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Ardecila:


This just is not correct.

From Anthony Downs, Still Stuck in Traffic.

"Residential densities do affect public transit usage...

You just posted a bunch of facts that support my claim. The correlation of higher density with transit ridership does not imply a direct causal relationship. Other factors, like clustering, distance from downtowns/job centers, and the placement of transit stations are just as important if not moreso.

Fact is, Western-style suburbia like Bakersfield or Scottsdale is just not very conducive to transit ridership despite a relatively high overall density by American standards. The pedestrian networks, mixed-use, clustering of density at nodes and corridors, etc is simply not there even if the subdivisions are more tightly packed, whereas the push factors that get people out of cars, like road bottlenecks, traffic congestion, tolls, parking hassles - are simply not a serious issue.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Fact is, Western-style suburbia like Bakersfield or Scottsdale is just not very conducive to transit ridership despite a relatively high overall density by American standards. The pedestrian networks, mixed-use, clustering of density at nodes and corridors, etc is simply not there even if the subdivisions are more tightly packed, whereas the push factors that get people out of cars, like road bottlenecks, traffic congestion, tolls, parking hassles - are simply not a serious issue.

http://www7.mississauga.ca/Documents...WeekdayMap.pdf

I'm not sure sure how people can argue in favour of lower density in the suburbs. If the eastern US cities had denser suburbs, their transit ridership would be even higher than it is now.

Would Bay Area have higher transit ridership if had Rustbelt-style sprawl isntead of Sunbelt style? Give me a break. That's jsut ridiculous.

The eastern central cities are dense, so the central cities have high transit ridership. Higher density means higher ridership. Get it? Why would you argue in favour of lower ridership, that's just dumb.

Scottsdale and Bakersfield are not conducive to transit, but that are a hell of a lot more conducive to transit than they would be if they were the atrocious Rustbelt style of sprawl.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Doady

http://www7.mississauga.ca/Documents...WeekdayMap.pdf

I'm not sure sure how people can argue in favour of lower density in the suburbs. If the eastern US cities had denser suburbs, their transit ridership would be even higher than it is now.

Would Bay Area have higher transit ridership if had Rustbelt-style sprawl isntead of Sunbelt style? Give me a break. That's jsut ridiculous.

The eastern central cities are dense, so the central cities have high transit ridership. Higher density means higher ridership. Get it? Why would you argue in favour of lower ridership, that's just dumb.

Scottsdale and Bakersfield are not conducive to transit, but that are a hell of a lot more conducive to transit than they would be if they were the atrocious Rustbelt style of sprawl.

This is mostly wrong. The lower density suburbs in areas surrounding NYC have much higher transit usage than someplace like Orange County, CA despite generally having much lower density.

A main reason is because the density in someplace like Westchester is heavily concentrated around transit nodes, while in Orange County it's more evenly distributed.

If theoretically, you would take the sprawly parts of Westchester, and build more dense Orange County-type suburbia, I do not believe you would get higher transit share. You would probably lower transit share by enabling more of a car-centric lifestyle. Currently, it's kind of a pain in the ass for most folks to deal with multiacre lots, well water, and windy, isolated roads. It would be much easier for folks to live a "standard" suburban subdivision-type lifestyle.

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by Crawford

A majority of Californians oppose high speed rail

Not necessarily true.

http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?i=1483

Of course, older polls say otherwise.

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

Not necessarily true.

http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?i=1483

Of course, older polls say otherwise.

Thank you for posting this...many people erroneously think that this is something that was forced upon Californians. But, the fact is that they voted for it (at least the major funding mechanism for it)...and the majority continue to support it!!!

[memph]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This is mostly wrong. The lower density suburbs in areas surrounding NYC have much higher transit usage than someplace like Orange County, CA despite generally having much lower density.

A main reason is because the density in someplace like Westchester is heavily concentrated around transit nodes, while in Orange County it's more evenly distributed.

If theoretically, you would take the sprawly parts of Westchester, and build more dense Orange County-type suburbia, I do not believe you would get higher transit share. You would probably lower transit share by enabling more of a car-centric lifestyle. Currently, it's kind of a pain in the ass for most folks to deal with multiacre lots, well water, and windy, isolated roads. It would be much easier for folks to live a "standard" suburban subdivision-type lifestyle.

The density clustered around transit in Westchester is reflected in the relatively high weighted density though (9,954 ppsm) which I think is a bit higher than OC.

Also I think that if you replaced Orange County with Westchester County and instead of having commuter rail heading into Midtown and Downtown Manhattan you had stops in DTLA and Mid-Wilshire, with a couple stops in South and South Central LA County instead of the Bronx... transit ridership would probably be a decent bit lower.

I think density is still a big factor, it just depends on what and how you're measuring.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by creamcityleo79

Thank you for posting this...many people erroneously think that this is something that was forced upon Californians. But, the fact is that they voted for it (at least the major funding mechanism for it)...and the majority continue to support it!!!

Most polls I've seen have 50-55% of Californians against it. What they voted for and what is being built are two entirely different things. LA to SD is now called "phase II". Meaning it's not funded anymore and won't ever happen in our lifetimes.

The cost has ballooned to $68B in 2011 dollars. Voters approved something like $8-9 billion in bonds. This is why the whole idea has soured. I'd like to see $70 billion spent on urban rail in the big 3 of CA.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by memph

I think density is still a big factor, it just depends on what and how you're measuring.

I agree density is a factor, and a pretty big factor, though one of many. Density alone is insufficient for transit potential.

[urbanadvocate]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Most polls I've seen have 50-55% of Californians against it. What they voted for and what is being built are two entirely different things. LA to SD is now called "phase II". Meaning it's not funded anymore and won't ever happen in our lifetimes.

The cost has ballooned to $68B in 2011 dollars. Voters approved something like $8-9 billion in bonds. This is why the whole idea has soured. I'd like to see $70 billion spent on urban rail in the big 3 of CA.

Coastal bias much? Didn't realize there are only 3 big cities in the state.