Cost of commuter station parking space?

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

SEPTA announced it is adding spaces to its Trevose train station
having acquired a lot to do so.

Grading, retaining walls, etc., for the lot will cost $3,000,000 to
yield 125 spaces, or $24,000 per space.

See: http://www.septa.org/news/pages/20071129.html

Unless there are other costs involved, doesn't that price seem high
for a parking lot, unless it includes the cost of land acquisition?

I know of a parking garage that cost $10,000,000 but yielded 9,000
spaces or $1,111 per space.

Would anyone be familiar with parking lot construction costs?

[Richard Mlynarik]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
SEPTA announced it is adding spaces to its Trevose train station
having acquired a lot to do so.
Grading, retaining walls, etc., for the lot will cost $3,000,000 to
yield 125 spaces, or $24,000 per space.
See: http://www.septa.org/news/pages/20071129.html
Unless there are other costs involved, doesn't that price seem high
for a parking lot, unless it includes the cost of land acquisition?
I know of a parking garage that cost $10,000,000 but yielded 9,000
spaces or $1,111 per space.
Would anyone be familiar with parking lot construction costs?

Station parking lots (and "free" downtown urban parking lots for
shoppers) in the San Francisco Bay Area are now running over
$40,000/space. These are multi-level structures; real estate costs
are such that surface lots are even worse per space.

And no, excluding land acquisition costs (= massive opportunity costs)
is not a reasonable thing to do.

Parking is by FAR the least cost-effective way of attracting riders
to public transportation ($40/space = $2k/space/year capital cost
alone excluding maintenance = $8/weekday excluding maintenance
just to attract one round trip via a SOV) yet is the technique
which is uniformly pursued by suburbanite, regressive, ignorant
and innumerate US public works "planners".

Parking -- particularly "free" parking, but even pay parking
comes nowhere near recouping actual costs -- is an absolute
fiscal black hole. There are scores of cheaper ways to attract
people to use a transporation facility, most of which are
EXCLUSIVE of the construction of parking lot dead zones.

[Jack May]

Post by Richard Mlynarik
Parking -- particularly "free" parking, but even pay parking
comes nowhere near recouping actual costs -- is an absolute
fiscal black hole. There are scores of cheaper ways to attract
people to use a transporation facility, most of which are
EXCLUSIVE of the construction of parking lot dead zones.

The main question is what if there was no commuter parking, what would be
the cost in lost riders? If the lack of parking greatly decreased
ridership, the transit might be shut down because of operational cost per
passenger far greater than would be acceptable to voters and politicians.

It is sort of like stores that must offer "free" parking to sell enough to
make a profit. Of course as usual you offered no other options or any data
giving the cost of not having parking.

Of course transit comes no where near recouping actual cost, so why would
parking have to recoup cost when transit can't recoup its costs. You have
to do the trade offs to see what is viable for very heavily subsidized
transit systems including possible parking.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Jack May
The main question is what if there was no commuter parking, what would be
the cost in lost riders?

Less than the cost of the parking?

Post by Jack May
If the lack of parking greatly decreased
ridership, the transit might be shut down because of operational cost per
passenger far greater than would be acceptable to voters and politicians.
It is sort of like stores that must offer "free" parking to sell enough to
make a profit. Of course as usual you offered no other options or any data
giving the cost of not having parking.

I guess they could be built within walking distance of a rail station.

Post by Jack May
Of course transit comes no where near recouping actual cost, so why would
parking have to recoup cost when transit can't recoup its costs. You have
to do the trade offs to see what is viable for very heavily subsidized
transit systems including possible parking.

Parking is a subsidy to the nearby land users. Think about why this is.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Jack May

Post by Richard Mlynarik
Parking -- particularly "free" parking, but even pay parking
comes nowhere near recouping actual costs -- is an absolute
fiscal black hole. There are scores of cheaper ways to attract
people to use a transporation facility, most of which are
EXCLUSIVE of the construction of parking lot dead zones.

The main question is what if there was no commuter parking, what would be
the cost in lost riders? If the lack of parking greatly decreased
ridership, the transit might be shut down because of operational cost per
passenger far greater than would be acceptable to voters and politicians.
It is sort of like stores that must offer "free" parking to sell enough to
make a profit. Of course as usual you offered no other options or any
data giving the cost of not having parking.
Of course transit comes no where near recouping actual cost, so why would
parking have to recoup cost when transit can't recoup its costs. You have
to do the trade offs to see what is viable for very heavily subsidized
transit systems including possible parking.

Could someone check Hell and tell us if it's snowing there? Jackie just
posted a completely rational comment that I actually agree with...

S

[Kristian M Zoerhoff]

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Could someone check Hell and tell us if it's snowing there? Jackie just
posted a completely rational comment that I actually agree with...

It's been below freezing most of the day in Hell....Michigan.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell%2C_Michigan>

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Richard Mlynarik

I know of a parking garage that cost $10,000,000 but yielded 9,000 spaces
or $1,111 per space.
Would anyone be familiar with parking lot construction costs?

Station parking lots (and "free" downtown urban parking lots for
shoppers) in the San Francisco Bay Area are now running over
$40,000/space. These are multi-level structures; real estate costs
are such that surface lots are even worse per space.
And no, excluding land acquisition costs (= massive opportunity
costs) is not a reasonable thing to do.

Not when looking at the totals, but comparing the cost of building something
without the land when comparing how effectively a given lot or structure was
built. One also needs to know numbers like that when deciding whether a lot
or garage is cheaper.

Post by Richard Mlynarik
Parking is by FAR the least cost-effective way of attracting riders
to public transportation ($40/space = $2k/space/year capital cost
alone excluding maintenance = $8/weekday excluding maintenance
just to attract one round trip via a SOV) yet is the technique
which is uniformly pursued by suburbanite, regressive, ignorant
and innumerate US public works "planners".

$40k/space is ridiculously expensive and nobody should be providing "free"
parking at that rate. Hancock gave an example of a structure that cost
1/36th of that, or about 22c/space/day. Given that most transit agencies
are losing several dollars per trip, that's nothing.

Post by Richard Mlynarik
Parking -- particularly "free" parking, but even pay parking
comes nowhere near recouping actual costs -- is an absolute
fiscal black hole.

There are plenty of companies that do nothing but run parking lots and
garages; why are they still in business after several decades if that "comes
nowhere near recouping actual costs"?

"Free" parking only makes fiscal sense to a business if the increased
patronage it brings results in better profits (or lower losses). Free
parking is the most cost-effective way for a transit agency to do that in
some cases. For instance, if you're losing $10/passenger without parking,
but you're losing only $3/passenger with parking, as long as the parking
costs less than $7/passenger, you come out ahead.

Pay parking also has a matter of supply and demand, and yield management
comes into play just like it does for airlines; you want the maximum
revenue, which usually means the highest price you can charge with the lot
consistently as close to full as possible. If the lot is completely full
(particularly by 7am), that means you're not charging enough money; if it's
half-empty, you're charging too much (or, if it's already free, need to find
something else to do with the land).

Post by Richard Mlynarik
There are scores of cheaper ways to attract people to use a
transporation facility, most of which are EXCLUSIVE of the
construction of parking lot dead zones.

Tha'ts not so true if your target riders are suburbanites that are
infeasible to serve at home via transit (because, for example, running a bus
past their place is even more expensive than a parking space).

Also, there's no requirement that parking structures be "dead zones". Turn
the first level into shops, similar to a strip mall, with parking above for
commuters. That leaves the street level productive economically and
attractive to pedestrians, as well as potentially attracting rail riders
from other areas. You can pack a _lot_ of parking away out of sight within
a block or two of the station, while having a positive effect on the
businesses (and residences, with mixed use) in the area.

S

[Mark Mathu]

Hancock gave an example of a structure that cost 1/36th of that, or about
22c/space/day.

I'd like to know what structure was that?

The cost of precast concrete parking deck structure runs $5000-$10000 per
stall -- without land acquistion, site improvment, and foundation costs. So
for a simple two-deck parking structure (half of the spots on deck), you'd
be facing $2500 per space minimum.

[Richard Mlynarik]

Stephen Sprunk wrote, On 2007-11-30 11:59:

[...]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
And no, excluding land acquisition costs (= massive opportunity
costs) is not a reasonable thing to do.

Not when looking at the totals, but comparing the cost of building
something without the land when comparing how effectively a given lot
or structure was built. One also needs to know numbers like that
when deciding whether a lot or garage is cheaper.

The point is that highly subsidised parking is seldom if ever the
highest and best use of the land, measured either by pure capitalist
metrics (ie who will pay most for the chunk of real estate) or by a
public transportation cost-effectiveness metric (ie new riders
gained per annualised capital+operating dollar.)

Fictitious "cost" of parking lot construction is regularly used as
a stick with which to bludgeon any proposals for non-100%-automobile-
oriented investments by public agencies. Voodoo economics is alive
and well.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
Parking is by FAR the least cost-effective way of attracting riders
to public transportation ($40/space = $2k/space/year capital cost
alone excluding maintenance = $8/weekday excluding maintenance just
to attract one round trip via a SOV) yet is the technique which is
uniformly pursued by suburbanite, regressive, ignorant and
innumerate US public works "planners".

$40k/space is ridiculously expensive and nobody should be providing
"free" parking at that rate. Hancock gave an example of a structure
that cost 1/36th of that, or about 22c/space/day. Given that most
transit agencies are losing several dollars per trip, that's
nothing.

All sorts of things get said on usenet. That's what kill files are for.

The argument that because an operator is losing several dollars per
trip that the WORST and MOST EXPENSIVE investment should be made
-- in effect maximising losses, not ameliorating them -- is an
extremely curious one, though admittedly one with wide currency in
the US political sector.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
Parking -- particularly "free" parking, but even pay parking comes
nowhere near recouping actual costs -- is an absolute fiscal black
hole.

There are plenty of companies that do nothing but run parking lots
and garages; why are they still in business after several decades if
that "comes nowhere near recouping actual costs"?

We're talking about land use adjacent to fixed public transportation
corridors and the best and highest use of that land, not the economics
of strip malls.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
"Free" parking only makes fiscal sense to a business if the increased
patronage it brings results in better profits (or lower losses).
Free parking is the most cost-effective way for a transit agency to
do that in some cases. For instance, if you're losing $10/passenger
without parking, but you're losing only $3/passenger with parking, as
long as the parking costs less than $7/passenger, you come out
ahead.

An interesting hypothetical, but seldom realised.

Attracting an additional rider by bus service -- the horror! buses!
foamers hate buses! -- service or attracting additional riders via
TOD (locating actual destinations and origins and services close to
a station rather than an economic dead zone of dead parking that no
pedestrian will choose to traverse) nearly always comes out ahead.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Pay parking also has a matter of supply and demand, and yield
management comes into play just like it does for airlines; you want
the maximum revenue, which usually means the highest price you can
charge with the lot consistently as close to full as possible. If
the lot is completely full (particularly by 7am), that means you're
not charging enough money; if it's half-empty, you're charging too
much (or, if it's already free, need to find something else to do
with the land).

That's not the way public agencies function here.
Firstly, such yield management is not practiced beyond some token
peak/off-peak price differentials, for political reasons.
Secondly, the prices charged come NOWHERE NEAR covering the
operating and capital costs of the parking, again for political
reasons.

Public agencies are generally politically beholden to an affluent
and active suburban/exurban constituency (one which generally
resembles the officials running and overseeing the agencies)
and will always place the perceived needs of this group
(= free parking and higher subsidies for exurban trips)
over more economically rational urban investments.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
There are scores of cheaper ways to attract people to use a
transporation facility, most of which are EXCLUSIVE of the
construction of parking lot dead zones.

Tha'ts not so true if your target riders are suburbanites that are
infeasible to serve at home via transit (because, for example,
running a bus past their place is even more expensive than a parking
space).

Some riders aren't worth serving, in the end.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Also, there's no requirement that parking structures be "dead zones".
Turn the first level into shops, similar to a strip mall, with parking
above for commuters. That leaves the street level productive
economically and attractive to pedestrians, as well as potentially
attracting rail riders from other areas. You can pack a _lot_ of
parking away out of sight within a block or two of the station, while
having a positive effect on the businesses (and residences, with mixed
use) in the area.

An interesting theory, but one not realised in reality.

Large surface or above surface parking lots and human activity are
on the whole mutually exclusive.

[Adam H. Kerman]

The point is that highly subsidised parking . . .

I've made these points a number of times, but you said it a lot better
than I have in the past. Thank you.

Permission to plagarize?

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

The point is that highly subsidised parking . . .

I've made these points a number of times, but you said it a lot better
than I have in the past. Thank you.

"Free" parking is ridiculously expensive no matter where you put it.
That parking structure outside the shopping mall is no cheaper to
build than the one next to the train station. Those costs are
completely subsidized by consumers in the form of higher prices for
the goods they purchase at that mall. Yet we as a society have come to
expect "free" parking everywhere we go, so we willingly tolerate this
situation.

The same thing is true at our workplaces - we gladly accept a slightly
lower salary from our employers in exchange for "free" parking outside
our office buildings.

So why is it such a crime that parking at commuter transit stations
must also be subsidized?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman

The point is that highly subsidised parking . . .

I've made these points a number of times, but you said it a lot better
than I have in the past. Thank you.

"Free" parking is ridiculously expensive no matter where you put it.
That parking structure outside the shopping mall is no cheaper to
build than the one next to the train station. Those costs are
completely subsidized by consumers in the form of higher prices for
the goods they purchase at that mall. Yet we as a society have come to
expect "free" parking everywhere we go, so we willingly tolerate this
situation.
The same thing is true at our workplaces - we gladly accept a slightly
lower salary from our employers in exchange for "free" parking outside
our office buildings.
So why is it such a crime that parking at commuter transit stations
must also be subsidized?

Uh, for the points Richard made. Sheesh.

Ideally, rail transit positively influences land use. The more
park-n-ride spaces provided, the more the influence is induced short
trips made by automobile, the fewer made by walking.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ideally, rail transit positively influences land use. The more
park-n-ride spaces provided, the more the influence is induced short
trips made by automobile, the fewer made by walking.- Hide quoted text -

I do not think rail transit is supposed to influence land use. For
the most part, it can't, that is a separate mission than
transportation.

Keep in mind that suburban towns will not allow high density
development near train stations that would provide the kind of walk-in
traffic you're speaking of. Indeed, some transit carriers have tried
to encourage that and the suburban towns fight it tooth and nail (I
think it's a great idea but the towns don't want it.)

In addition, many commuters are coming from homes that simply are too
far away to walk. Driving 5-10 miles to a local station is very
commonplace. Those people need to be accomodated and a parking lot is
the way to do it. The number of people who live within walking
distance is relatively small. Not building a parking lot won't change
that one bit.

Are you suggesting SEPTA should not have expanded this parking lot to
meet demand? If so, how would you accomodate those riders who live
too far away?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ideally, rail transit positively influences land use. The more
park-n-ride spaces provided, the more the influence is induced short
trips made by automobile, the fewer made by walking.

I do not think rail transit is supposed to influence land use. For
the most part, it can't, that is a separate mission than transportation.

I've been puzzling how to answer this, shocked that someone in a
transportation newsgroup fails to appreciate the relationship between
transportation and land value. Transportation is the most important
societal factor in creating land value.

The cliche, "The three most important factors in determining land value
are location, location, location," is a comment about transportation.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Keep in mind that suburban towns will not allow high density
development near train stations that would provide the kind of walk-in
traffic you're speaking of.

I am not speaking of high density development; most suburban land isn't
valuable enough for that. Walkability and high density don't necessarily
go hand-in-hand; it's a matter of design.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Indeed, some transit carriers have tried to encourage that and the
suburban towns fight it tooth and nail (I think it's a great idea
but the towns don't want it.)

Then don't force them to take rail transit. Truly, it's absurd building
a transit rail facility under such circumstances.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
In addition, many commuters are coming from homes that simply are too
far away to walk. Driving 5-10 miles to a local station is very
commonplace. Those people need to be accomodated and a parking lot is
the way to do it. The number of people who live within walking
distance is relatively small. Not building a parking lot won't change
that one bit.

We have a few suburbs in which demand for parking greatly exceeds the
supply. Ridership grows. In fact, there is so much ridership at one
outlying suburb that it has its own dedicated express service with 13
gallery car coaches in the consist.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Are you suggesting SEPTA should not have expanded this parking lot to
meet demand? If so, how would you accomodate those riders who live
too far away?

Not unless parking is the highest and best use for that land. I believe
in feeder buses.

To me, successful transit means most riders don't own cars to use it.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ideally, rail transit positively influences land use. The more
park-n-ride spaces provided, the more the influence is induced short
trips made by automobile, the fewer made by walking.

I do not think rail transit is supposed to influence land use. For
the most part, it can't, that is a separate mission than transportation.

I've been puzzling how to answer this, shocked that someone in a
transportation newsgroup fails to appreciate the relationship between
transportation and land value. Transportation is the most important
societal factor in creating land value.

LOTS of people don't understand this simple fact. That's why you have
NIMBYs voting down new rail projects that run near their neighborhoods
because they think it will reduce their property values.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I've been puzzling how to answer this, shocked that someone in a
transportation newsgroup fails to appreciate the relationship between
transportation and land value. Transportation is the most important
societal factor in creating land value.

I lived in a city neighborhood that declined--the schools got rough
and crime went up. The neighborhood had excellent transportation and
was in a good location. None the less, people fled and property
values fell. Many people went to areas where their commute
significantly lengthened and got tougher. The point is that good
transport was not a priority in their decision to move and where to
move to. For many families, good schools are the top priority; and
parents will sacrifice by accepting a long lousy commute to live in a
place with good schools.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
The cliche, "The three most important factors in determining land value
are location, location, location," is a comment about transportation.

No. Transportation is only one of MANY variables about "location".
See above.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Not unless parking is the highest and best use for that land. I believe
in feeder buses.

Who gets to define "best use" for a land parcel? I assure you that
every citizen has their own definition. Some people want a parcel
left undeveloped, some people want it fully developed.

To provide attractive service to suburbia, feeder buses would be
extremely uneconomical. Suburbia is too spread out. The feeder bus,
assuming they run to meet all trains and are coordinated, would take
twice or three times as long as driving one's self to the station.
Not attractive.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
To me, successful transit means most riders don't own cars to use it.

That is not practical for a great variety of reasons. Who can carry
four bags of groceries on the train or bus?

[Bolwerk]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I've been puzzling how to answer this, shocked that someone in a
transportation newsgroup fails to appreciate the relationship between
transportation and land value. Transportation is the most important
societal factor in creating land value.

I lived in a city neighborhood that declined--the schools got rough
and crime went up. The neighborhood had excellent transportation and
was in a good location. None the less, people fled and property
values fell. Many people went to areas where their commute
significantly lengthened and got tougher. The point is that good
transport was not a priority in their decision to move and where to
move to. For many families, good schools are the top priority; and
parents will sacrifice by accepting a long lousy commute to live in a
place with good schools.

You keep talking about bad schools and crime, as if it's necessary for
cities to have shitty schools, crime, and grit. If somebody talks about
transportation in relation to land usage, you can safely assume they
mean to discuss other matters ceteris paribus. Crappy schools are of
course a major problem in cities, and America as a whole, but following
that red herring tells you nothing about transportation provisions in
relation to land values.

And for your information, there are good schools in some cities too.
Some of them even attract people from the suburbs.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
The cliche, "The three most important factors in determining land value
are location, location, location," is a comment about transportation.

No. Transportation is only one of MANY variables about "location".
See above.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Not unless parking is the highest and best use for that land. I believe
in feeder buses.

Who gets to define "best use" for a land parcel? I assure you that
every citizen has their own definition. Some people want a parcel
left undeveloped, some people want it fully developed.
To provide attractive service to suburbia, feeder buses would be
extremely uneconomical. Suburbia is too spread out. The feeder bus,
assuming they run to meet all trains and are coordinated, would take
twice or three times as long as driving one's self to the station.
Not attractive.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
To me, successful transit means most riders don't own cars to use it.

That is not practical for a great variety of reasons. Who can carry
four bags of groceries on the train or bus?

Who needs to? I live near a market, and I buy what food I need for a
day or two, and go back when I need/want more. I waste less food that
way, because little goes bad in the frige. BTW, I save energy too,
since my frige is small and energy-efficient and I don't need to drive
to the market.

Of course, suburbanites don't have that luxury, and I guess shouldn't
want it because the tradeoff clearly means having to contend with
dark-skinned criminals with big lips, urban decay, and bad schools.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Bolwerk
You keep talking about bad schools and crime, as if it's necessary for
cities to have shitty schools, crime, and grit. If somebody talks about
transportation in relation to land usage, you can safely assume they
mean to discuss other matters ceteris paribus. Crappy schools are of
course a major problem in cities, and America as a whole, but following
that red herring tells you nothing about transportation provisions in
relation to land values.

I was contradicting the statement, "Transportation is the most
important societal factor in creating land value." My point is that
there are a variety of factors that determine land value
(desirability), and transportation is only one of many. You could--as
has been done--provide excellent transportation but if a neighborhood
has crime or other problems people won't want to live there. People
move away, even it means a sacrifice in commuting time.

Obviously, plenty of city schools and neighborhoods are very desirable
and excellent and priced accordingly. Plenty of suburban
neighborhoods are lousy.

I know of two postwar neighborhoods, one within the city with very
solidly built houses and excellent transportation, and one in the
suburbs with high maint frame construction and non existent
transportation. When built after WW II, both neighborhoods were
priced roughly the same. Today, the suburban neighborhood sells for
_twice_ as much as the city neighborhood. Why is the suburban one so
much more desirable today when before it was equal? The high crime
and lousy schools of the city neighborhood is a key factor.

Whether we like it or not, urban issues are a key factor in
transportation issues, not the other way around.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I was contradicting the statement, "Transportation is the most
important societal factor in creating land value." . . .

But you didn't, did you.

[Bolwerk]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Bolwerk
You keep talking about bad schools and crime, as if it's necessary for
cities to have shitty schools, crime, and grit. If somebody talks about
transportation in relation to land usage, you can safely assume they
mean to discuss other matters ceteris paribus. Crappy schools are of
course a major problem in cities, and America as a whole, but following
that red herring tells you nothing about transportation provisions in
relation to land values.

I was contradicting the statement, "Transportation is the most
important societal factor in creating land value." My point is that
there are a variety of factors that determine land value
(desirability), and transportation is only one of many. You could--as
has been done--provide excellent transportation but if a neighborhood
has crime or other problems people won't want to live there. People
move away, even it means a sacrifice in commuting time.

That doesn't contradict it, except maybe for a category of the
population (parents with dependent children living at home) that are
usually a minority at any given time. They get a lot of advantages from
suburbs besides schools and low crime, including additional space and
back yards (which are safer than streets).

Demand for suburbs right down relative to demand for city space, so the
location factor probably still applies as it always did.

The result is the curious fact that many urban areas simply import
residents who are bored in the 'burbs, but can afford the city.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Obviously, plenty of city schools and neighborhoods are very desirable
and excellent and priced accordingly. Plenty of suburban
neighborhoods are lousy.
I know of two postwar neighborhoods, one within the city with very
solidly built houses and excellent transportation, and one in the
suburbs with high maint frame construction and non existent
transportation. When built after WW II, both neighborhoods were
priced roughly the same. Today, the suburban neighborhood sells for
_twice_ as much as the city neighborhood. Why is the suburban one so
much more desirable today when before it was equal? The high crime
and lousy schools of the city neighborhood is a key factor.

Of course. But it's still anecdotal, and location is still a bigger
factor --- the city neighborhood happens to be a lousy location :-p

Seriously though, putting aside all anecdotes, many people are priced
out of nice urban neighborhoods.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Whether we like it or not, urban issues are a key factor in
transportation issues, not the other way around.

When there are problems with urban areas, they can and should be
addressed. But that doesn't mean that transit should be built in
nonsensical places.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Bolwerk
That doesn't contradict it, except maybe for a category of the
population (parents with dependent children living at home) that are
usually a minority at any given time. They get a lot of advantages from
suburbs besides schools and low crime, including additional space and
back yards (which are safer than streets).

Empty nesters and widowed seniors also left the neighborhood, too.

Actually, IMHO, city living (presuming low crime) is better for kids.
Suburban parents today spend a zillion hours chaufeuring their kids
everyone, afterschool activities, sports, clubs, social engagements,
etc. Where I grew up in the city I could walk on my own safely to
much of that stuff. Playmates lived on the block. We had a back
common driveway we played in, very safe. As I got older and my world
expanded, we all took the public bus or rode our bikes. There is no
bus and it's not safe for bikes in the suburbs so parents must drive
the kids.

Parents sacrifice a heck of a lot to live in the suburbs. Having
lived in lousy city neighborhoods, I can't blame them.

Post by Bolwerk
Demand for suburbs right down relative to demand for city space, so the
location factor probably still applies as it always did.

I don't agree. As mentioned, two neighborhoods when built were priced
the same, now 50 years later, one sells for twice as much as the
other. Obviously the desirability has changed.

Post by Bolwerk
The result is the curious fact that many urban areas simply import
residents who are bored in the 'burbs, but can afford the city.

Nothing wrong with that. But many of them are older without kids.
Others have money to send their kids to private schools and live in
buildings with tight security.

Post by Bolwerk
When there are problems with urban areas, they can and should be
addressed. But that doesn't mean that transit should be built in
nonsensical places.

I agree that transit shouldn't be built in non-sensical places. I am
saying that transit is a victim of social trends, much of which are
beyond its control, esp now that it's govt owned and operated.

[Bolwerk]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Bolwerk
That doesn't contradict it, except maybe for a category of the
population (parents with dependent children living at home) that are
usually a minority at any given time. They get a lot of advantages from
suburbs besides schools and low crime, including additional space and
back yards (which are safer than streets).

Empty nesters and widowed seniors also left the neighborhood, too.

...and have invested time, money, social circles, friends, and equity
where they live now.

But many who might want to go back --- and that's a noticeable trend
nowadays --- can't because it's too expensive. Many others just settle
for getting a second home or condo in a city, if they can afford it.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Actually, IMHO, city living (presuming low crime) is better for kids.

I agree. But a lot of people left not because of a problem, but because
of a perceived problem. If you're going to be perfectly logical about
it, you're more likely to be killed because of suburban traffic than
urban crime.

Sadly, one of the main platitudes of economics, that people make
rational decisions, is wrong.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Suburban parents today spend a zillion hours chaufeuring their kids
everyone, afterschool activities, sports, clubs, social engagements,
etc. Where I grew up in the city I could walk on my own safely to
much of that stuff. Playmates lived on the block. We had a back
common driveway we played in, very safe. As I got older and my world
expanded, we all took the public bus or rode our bikes. There is no
bus and it's not safe for bikes in the suburbs so parents must drive
the kids.
Parents sacrifice a heck of a lot to live in the suburbs. Having
lived in lousy city neighborhoods, I can't blame them.

Post by Bolwerk
Demand for suburbs right down relative to demand for city space, so the
location factor probably still applies as it always did.

I don't agree. As mentioned, two neighborhoods when built were priced
the same, now 50 years later, one sells for twice as much as the
other. Obviously the desirability has changed.

Again, that's an anecdote. The overall trend, at least along the NEC,
has been the opposite: cities spaces are getting more valuable. There
are desirable suburban spaces, as well, like Beverly Hills.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Bolwerk
The result is the curious fact that many urban areas simply import
residents who are bored in the 'burbs, but can afford the city.

Nothing wrong with that. But many of them are older without kids.
Others have money to send their kids to private schools and live in
buildings with tight security.

And others are just 20-somethings trying to make it in a more creative,
permissive environment.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Bolwerk
When there are problems with urban areas, they can and should be
addressed. But that doesn't mean that transit should be built in
nonsensical places.

I agree that transit shouldn't be built in non-sensical places. I am
saying that transit is a victim of social trends, much of which are
beyond its control, esp now that it's govt owned and operated.

It's more a victim of political trends. Central governments don't like
spending money on cities, even when the money that goes into their
coffers comes from cities. Even when they do spend money in cities,
it's often in the wrong way, as part of a one-size-fits-all lump sum
(roads rather than transit, or failing to address unique issues with
urban schools, for instance).

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Empty nesters and widowed seniors also left the neighborhood, too.

...and have invested time, money, social circles, friends, and equity
where they live now.

Which demonstrates how much people sacrificed to flee a declining
neighborhood. It's funny, social advocates worry about existing
residents when a neighborhood gentrifies, but no one cares about
existing residents when a neighborhood declines. The book, "The Bronx
is Burning" goes into some detail about declining NYC neighborhoods.

Post by Bolwerk
I agree. But a lot of people left not because of a problem, but because
of a perceived problem. If you're going to be perfectly logical about
it, you're more likely to be killed because of suburban traffic than
urban crime.

The odds of being killed, either by crime or by auto are so low that
it's not statistically relevent (although my old block had three
homicides after we left and a jr high teacher was murdered by a kid).
A better comparison might be comparing apples to apples, such as being
the victim of crime in the old vs. new neighborhoods.

Is it perception or reality that stores in the old neighborhood have
the cashiers in plexiglass booths?

Post by Bolwerk
Sadly, one of the main platitudes of economics, that people make
rational decisions, is wrong.

People make what they believe to be rational decisions, although
exactly what is "rational" is up for debate. People rationalize
buying a gas guzzler SUV because they think it's safer for the kids,
whether or not it really is. People rationalize buying bottled water
because they think it is cleaner or tastier than tap water, even
though it often is not.

However, some decisions, such as the purchase of stylish clothing, may
appear to be irrational but actually are not. If someone's
perceptions are strong enough that buying a certain product makes them
feel better, the decision is not so irrational. Even Consumers
Reports has recognized this, recognizing that luxury product frills
are important to people.

Having lived in the neighborhood, moving out was indeed a rational
decision. The problems were not a "perception" fed by sensationalist
news media but reality, like the blood and urine my mother had to wash
off her sidewalk.

Post by Bolwerk
Again, that's an anecdote. The overall trend, at least along the NEC,
has been the opposite: cities spaces are getting more valuable. There
are desirable suburban spaces, as well, like Beverly Hills.

The trend for real estate everywhere has been to go up, even in crappy
areas. But some areas go up much faster than others. All along the
NEC there are plenty of dilapidated areas, both in cities and suburbs.

Very simply:

House built in 1950, about 1,000 sq feet. Both available originally
for VA loans.

1950 price 2007 price
Levittown: $11,000 $250,000
Phila: $11,000 $125,000

Post by Bolwerk

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I agree that transit shouldn't be built in non-sensical places. I am
saying that transit is a victim of social trends, much of which are
beyond its control, esp now that it's govt owned and operated.

It's more a victim of political trends. Central governments don't like
spending money on cities, even when the money that goes into their
coffers comes from cities. Even when they do spend money in cities,
it's often in the wrong way, as part of a one-size-fits-all lump sum
(roads rather than transit, or failing to address unique issues with
urban schools, for instance).

Not totally. Much of the decline in urban schools was due to the kids
themselves, not the school. The very same school buildings and
faculty that produced outstanding students had big problems at exactly
the same time with other students. Unfortunately, the newcomers did
not place the same priority on education as their predecessors and the
kids were not well behaved (many were outright violent) and not as
motivated to study and learn.

I visited my old elemntary school (built 1948) and found that the
building had been rehabbed. It's got air conditioning, tons of
computers, foreign languages, teachers' aides, smaller classes, and
free breakfast and lunch for all students (no food at all in my day).
Clearly the school system is spending money to meet contemporary needs
of the students.

[Bolwerk]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Bolwerk

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Empty nesters and widowed seniors also left the neighborhood, too.

...and have invested time, money, social circles, friends, and equity
where they live now.

Which demonstrates how much people sacrificed to flee a declining
neighborhood. It's funny, social advocates worry about existing
residents when a neighborhood gentrifies, but no one cares about
existing residents when a neighborhood declines. The book, "The Bronx
is Burning" goes into some detail about declining NYC neighborhoods.

It's probably harder for poorer people when a neighborhood is going up.
Rent goes up, food goes up, everything goes up.

It's less of an issue in the 'burbs, where if you own something, you can
always sell it and take off to Florida. Rent doesn't get you equity.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Bolwerk
I agree. But a lot of people left not because of a problem, but because
of a perceived problem. If you're going to be perfectly logical about
it, you're more likely to be killed because of suburban traffic than
urban crime.

The odds of being killed, either by crime or by auto are so low that
it's not statistically relevent (although my old block had three
homicides after we left and a jr high teacher was murdered by a kid).
A better comparison might be comparing apples to apples, such as being
the victim of crime in the old vs. new neighborhoods.

Why is that better? A violent death is a violent death, whether you're
pushed down a manhole, nailed by a car, hit by an asteroid, or take a
bullet.

Steven O'Neill even posted something roughly discussing that a while
ago. In the best case, moving to LI from NYC, the increased safety was
a statistical wash. Your increased odds of getting killed by a car ate
up any increase in safety (of course, NYC and LI are both much safer
compared to other places around the country).

http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/05/30/long-island-extremely-safe-or-especially-dangerous/
http://groups.google.com/group/nyc.transit/browse_frm/thread/e9b9dec3892581a0/cbc3481e2878c02b?lnk=st&q=#

Anyway, the only difference is the perception that cities are less safe.

(Oh, and taking this thing with roads v. crime a little further: I bet
you're much safer as long as you don't go near bad neighborhoods.
That's probably how a lot of people end up in trouble in cities. They
go to bad neighborhoods, say looking for drugs, and in the course of
doing so they're announcing two sensitive facts: they're not from around
here, and they have money.)

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Is it perception or reality that stores in the old neighborhood have
the cashiers in plexiglass booths?

It's reality. But, they have higher odds of being killed in the course
of a robbery, since they're next to cash registers. That's true in new
neighborhoods too, and becoming more common.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Bolwerk
Sadly, one of the main platitudes of economics, that people make
rational decisions, is wrong.

People make what they believe to be rational decisions, although
exactly what is "rational" is up for debate. People rationalize
buying a gas guzzler SUV because they think it's safer for the kids,
whether or not it really is. People rationalize buying bottled water
because they think it is cleaner or tastier than tap water, even
though it often is not.

Not all things objective are rational...

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
However, some decisions, such as the purchase of stylish clothing, may
appear to be irrational but actually are not. If someone's
perceptions are strong enough that buying a certain product makes them
feel better, the decision is not so irrational. Even Consumers
Reports has recognized this, recognizing that luxury product frills
are important to people.

...and not all things subjective are irrational.

The SUV is measurably more dangerous. Tap water, in some places, is
measurably safer. Clothing and cosmetics have social implications which
can't easily be measured objectively. Sometimes impressing a man might
mean wearing no makeup, sometimes it might mean dressing like a hooker.
It would vary from man to man (ask Tammy Faye; she know how to pick them).

Rational might be right or wrong, of course. All the things you mention
above are rational, assuming you aren't rational enough to fact check. ;)

But fleeing a place because of an emotional sensation that there's more
danger isn't really rational, whether the place is in fact more
dangerous or not.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Having lived in the neighborhood, moving out was indeed a rational
decision. The problems were not a "perception" fed by sensationalist
news media but reality, like the blood and urine my mother had to wash
off her sidewalk.

Must....hold....in....tampon....under....dress....joke.....

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Bolwerk
Again, that's an anecdote. The overall trend, at least along the NEC,
has been the opposite: cities spaces are getting more valuable. There
are desirable suburban spaces, as well, like Beverly Hills.

The trend for real estate everywhere has been to go up, even in crappy
areas. But some areas go up much faster than others. All along the
NEC there are plenty of dilapidated areas, both in cities and suburbs.
House built in 1950, about 1,000 sq feet. Both available originally
for VA loans.
1950 price 2007 price
Levittown: $11,000 $250,000
Phila: $11,000 $125,000

You're not Jack May. I never see you intentionally spreading
misinformation.

I believed you. But it's *still* anecdotal. Land values as a whole are
rising in big cities, even if some parts have falling values (thanks to
the subprime mess, for instance). Last I heard, even Philly is rising,
albeit barely.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Bolwerk

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I agree that transit shouldn't be built in non-sensical places. I am
saying that transit is a victim of social trends, much of which are
beyond its control, esp now that it's govt owned and operated.

It's more a victim of political trends. Central governments don't like
spending money on cities, even when the money that goes into their
coffers comes from cities. Even when they do spend money in cities,
it's often in the wrong way, as part of a one-size-fits-all lump sum
(roads rather than transit, or failing to address unique issues with
urban schools, for instance).

Not totally. Much of the decline in urban schools was due to the kids
themselves, not the school. The very same school buildings and
faculty that produced outstanding students had big problems at exactly
the same time with other students. Unfortunately, the newcomers did
not place the same priority on education as their predecessors and the
kids were not well behaved (many were outright violent) and not as
motivated to study and learn.

On that note, suburbanites don't really give *that* much of a damn about
school quality either. Pure and simple, there's been a country-wide
decline in educational quality over the course of the past century.

I really blame it on too much feel-good democracy. American schools are
more democratic than American elections. Parents have too much power to
get their kids free passes, and standards just keep dropping because
failure is stigmatized more than learning is appreciated. I don't get
it, but it seems to me that suburban school boards often don't even
require a Ph.D. in education to serve --- a plumber could be elected.
(I got no problems with plumbers. It's a perfectly honorable
profession. But it doesn't qualify you to vote for a biology curriculum.)

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I visited my old elemntary school (built 1948) and found that the
building had been rehabbed. It's got air conditioning, tons of
computers, foreign languages, teachers' aides, smaller classes, and
free breakfast and lunch for all students (no food at all in my day).
Clearly the school system is spending money to meet contemporary needs
of the students.

Bah. Here are their needs: teach them to read and reason early. Most
kids can learn that with or without computers. I wish they'd teach
logic in high school. It should be mandatory, but then if it were, I
guess it would lead to a lot of dumb politicians being recalled. :-\

(Admittedly, computers probably are helpful in some cases, particularly
with students with learning disabilities.)

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Bolwerk
Why is that better? A violent death is a violent death, whether you're
pushed down a manhole, nailed by a car, hit by an asteroid, or take a
bullet.

My point is that the odds of being killed, for whatever reason, are
extremely low. The odds of one being a victim of a crime are higher
in bad neighborhoods; that is a reason that makes them 'bad' and
people move out of them.

Post by Bolwerk

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Having lived in the neighborhood, moving out was indeed a rational
decision. The problems were not a "perception" fed by sensationalist
news media but reality, like the blood and urine my mother had to wash
off her sidewalk.

Must....hold....joke.....

It's not funny. After the neighborhood changed, we had regular street
fights, thrown bottles, and the like. Also, when someone had to go,
they just unzipped right into the street. Most people, at least the
pre-existing residents, found those practices objectionable.

Post by Bolwerk
I believed you. But it's *still* anecdotal. Land values as a whole are
rising in big cities, even if some parts have falling values (thanks to
the subprime mess, for instance). Last I heard, even Philly is rising,
albeit barely.

The bottom line is that two houses, once priced the same, now have a
big price gap. The suburban one is now worth twice as much as the
city one, even though the city neighborhood has far superior
transportation. I submit decaying city conditions is the primary
reason for the price gap. It doesn't matter that city values are
going up because suburban values are going up even faster.

Indeed, the older suburbs that are close to the cities and getting
some spillover of city problems, face declining values as well.

Post by Bolwerk
On that note, suburbanites don't really give *that* much of a damn about
school quality either. Pure and simple, there's been a country-wide
decline in educational quality over the course of the past century.

I think the pendulum has swung the other way. Parents today tell me
their kids' education is more comprehensive and demanding than in
their day, especially parents who went to the same schools as their
kids do now. The suburban schools don't look the other way on some
discipline issues the way our city schools did in the past. (IMHO,
some of today's suburban discipline is too 1984ish, but I digress.)

[Bolwerk]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Bolwerk
Why is that better? A violent death is a violent death, whether you're
pushed down a manhole, nailed by a car, hit by an asteroid, or take a
bullet.

My point is that the odds of being killed, for whatever reason, are
extremely low. The odds of one being a victim of a crime are higher
in bad neighborhoods; that is a reason that makes them 'bad' and
people move out of them.

I understand that. But rationally, the odds of being killed are even
higher in the "good" neighborhood. They're just because of the
environment, rather than social factors.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Bolwerk

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Having lived in the neighborhood, moving out was indeed a rational
decision. The problems were not a "perception" fed by sensationalist
news media but reality, like the blood and urine my mother had to wash
off her sidewalk.

Must....hold....joke.....

It's not funny. After the neighborhood changed, we had regular street
fights, thrown bottles, and the like. Also, when someone had to go,
they just unzipped right into the street. Most people, at least the
pre-existing residents, found those practices objectionable.

PTD would be pleased.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Bolwerk
I believed you. But it's *still* anecdotal. Land values as a whole are
rising in big cities, even if some parts have falling values (thanks to
the subprime mess, for instance). Last I heard, even Philly is rising,
albeit barely.

The bottom line is that two houses, once priced the same, now have a
big price gap. The suburban one is now worth twice as much as the
city one, even though the city neighborhood has far superior
transportation. I submit decaying city conditions is the primary
reason for the price gap. It doesn't matter that city values are
going up because suburban values are going up even faster.

That's not the case on the whole. It may be the case with some specific
places. Overall, city values are going up faster. Of course, that
could be skewed by just a small number of things REALLY GOING UP.

I don't know the exact situation in Philly, but I think even there city
values are going up faster than suburban values.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Indeed, the older suburbs that are close to the cities and getting
some spillover of city problems, face declining values as well.

Or reap the rewards. Look at Yonkers or Fort Lee.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Bolwerk
On that note, suburbanites don't really give *that* much of a damn about
school quality either. Pure and simple, there's been a country-wide
decline in educational quality over the course of the past century.

I think the pendulum has swung the other way. Parents today tell me
their kids' education is more comprehensive and demanding than in
their day, especially parents who went to the same schools as their
kids do now. The suburban schools don't look the other way on some
discipline issues the way our city schools did in the past. (IMHO,
some of today's suburban discipline is too 1984ish, but I digress.)

I doubt the pendulum has swung the other way. Rather, what you probably
deal with are parents who see more difficulty relative to what they have
because things might have been worse when they were in primary or
secondary school (which depending how old you are, could easily have
been the 1980s or 1990s). I deal with an incredible number of high
school graduates at work, often from "good" schools, who I find
atrociously nonfunctional with basic reading and math skills.

Eh, Americans just have a horrible educational system. My family is
split on both sides of the Atlantic (and to a small extent, my education
is too). You know, in some countries besides English-speaking ones,
it's expected you speak English better than an American? :-p

Re discipline: I remember accidentally bringing a pocket knife to
school, and being told to just keep it hidden and bring it home at the
end of the day. Nowadays, I hear kids get expelled for that. One
example I heard (actually, in the 1990s in a suburban middle school in
Virginia), a little girl was suspended for using a plastic knife to but
butter on a bagel she brought from home.

[Art Clemons]

Post by Bolwerk
Re discipline: I remember accidentally bringing a pocket knife to
school, and being told to just keep it hidden and bring it home at the
end of the day.

I got to bring a scout knife to school once a week and have the principal
store it until the end of the day so I could get to scout meetings on time.
Today, that wouldn't happen, I'ld be charged with a felony, expelled and
likely never get an education. Funny thing though, I don't recall ever
threatening anyone or anything except wood with that knife.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Bolwerk
I doubt the pendulum has swung the other way. Rather, what you
probably deal with are parents who see more difficulty relative to
what they have because things might have been worse when they
were in primary or secondary school (which depending how old
you are, could easily have been the 1980s or 1990s). I deal with
an incredible number of high school graduates at work, often from
"good" schools, who I find atrociously nonfunctional with basic
reading and math skills.

That's because current educational thought is about improving the students'
self-esteem more than actually teaching them things.

A middle school (grades 6-8) near me was touted as an example of forward
thinking because they banned failing grades; you could sleep through all
your classes, never take a single test, and still get a D. The fact that
their kids had the worst standardized test scores and (later) highest high
school failure rates in the district was glossed over because all the
kids -- and particularly parents -- were "happy". Of course, this is from a
district that hired a superintendent with a PhD in _football_, whose monthly
newsletters had spelling and grammar mistakes that wouldn't have passed
muster in any decent elementary school.

OTOH, there's a heck of a lot more that kids have to learn these days. My
HS math and science classes blew away everything my parents learned during
their college undergrad years. I also had mandatory fine arts, PE, computer
classes, health, economics, government, and a dozen other things that either
didn't exist or were only electives when they were in school. It's not that
surprising that scores in the Three Rs are down when they went from being
80% of the material students had to learn to only 20%.

Post by Bolwerk
Re discipline: I remember accidentally bringing a pocket knife to school,
and being told to just keep it hidden and bring it home at the end of the
day. Nowadays, I hear kids get expelled for that. One example I heard
(actually, in the 1990s in a suburban middle school in Virginia), a little
girl was suspended for using a plastic knife to but butter on a bagel she
brought from home.

My mother once told me of taking one of her father's rifles (with his
permission) to show and tell in kindergarten. A friend, who's a bit older
than me, took his to school with him every day for practice with the
school's shooting team. I can't even imagine doing that.

Fast forward a few years, and a guy I knew in HS was suspended for merely
wearing a Guns 'n Roses _T-shirt_ because it was "violent". Certain colors
were also banned due to gangs and "antisocial" connotations; lots of
Southern Baptist kids at my school were sent home every year for wearing
black armbands on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. These days, that school
has metal detectors and X-ray machines, backpacks and purses are banned, and
students aren't even allowed to carry books out of the classroom (makes
homework fun). Oh, and this was in a nationally-ranked suburban district,
though they quick fell off the list when the average income in the area
plummeted...

S

[[e-mail]]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Having lived in the neighborhood, moving out was indeed a rational
decision. The problems were not a "perception" fed by sensationalist
news media but reality, like the blood and urine my mother had to wash
off her sidewalk.

Let me ask you a question. Was you family one of the first to go, in
the middle, or one of the last?

I tend to think the people who are first to go, go because they have a
good income, upward mobility, rather then the actual change of a
neighborhood.

In 1960 we lived on E 128th St in the Glenville Section of Cleveland.
The school I went to was still pretty much white, with a few blacks.
In 2nd grade, they were offering French immersion, which the suburban
school we moved to did not.

That year we moved to the eastern suburbs of Cleveland.

As I remember it, all of the streets around us were white. My father
owned a two family house. He did not want to sell it because there
was an old guy living upstairs. So he rented the first floor to
hillbillies.

Theye did not cause any problems. They were there for about 1 year
then they moved out. The my father rented to blacks. As I remember
it, there was nothing but problems. The old guy got sick and went
into a nrusing home, and at that point my father sold it. I am sure
he took a financial beating. By that time the neighborhood was on
the downhill slide.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Bolwerk
Again, that's an anecdote. The overall trend, at least along the NEC,
has been the opposite: cities spaces are getting more valuable. There
are desirable suburban spaces, as well, like Beverly Hills.

The trend for real estate everywhere has been to go up, even in crappy
areas. But some areas go up much faster than others. All along the
NEC there are plenty of dilapidated areas, both in cities and suburbs.

Age of the housing stock has a lot to do with it. That is what hurts
Rahway and Linden. Older houses do not command the same price as a
newer house.

New brunswick, even with J&J and Rutgers has a lot of older houses and
bad areas.

Elizabeth has very little going for it.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
House built in 1950, about 1,000 sq feet. Both available originally
for VA loans.
1950 price 2007 price
Levittown: $11,000 $250,000
Phila: $11,000 $125,000

Post by Bolwerk

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I agree that transit shouldn't be built in non-sensical places. I am
saying that transit is a victim of social trends, much of which are
beyond its control, esp now that it's govt owned and operated.

It's more a victim of political trends. Central governments don't like
spending money on cities, even when the money that goes into their
coffers comes from cities. Even when they do spend money in cities,
it's often in the wrong way, as part of a one-size-fits-all lump sum
(roads rather than transit, or failing to address unique issues with
urban schools, for instance).

Not totally. Much of the decline in urban schools was due to the kids
themselves, not the school. The very same school buildings and
faculty that produced outstanding students had big problems at exactly
the same time with other students. Unfortunately, the newcomers did
not place the same priority on education as their predecessors and the
kids were not well behaved (many were outright violent) and not as
motivated to study and learn.

I think it is safe to say we all knew how to read before we started
Kindergarten. You cannot say that today about most kids white or
black.

The breakdown of the family, and the breakdown of the love of learning
are the biggest problems.

Even in the suburbs, there is a lot of family problems.

You mention idiots sitting on school boards. I tend to think they
have always been there, just in this day and age it is a lot more
noticeable. Esp with Christian fundmentalism.

Randy

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I've been puzzling how to answer this, shocked that someone in a
transportation newsgroup fails to appreciate the relationship between
transportation and land value. Transportation is the most important
societal factor in creating land value.

I lived in a city neighborhood that declined--the schools got rough
and crime went up. The neighborhood had excellent transportation and
was in a good location. None the less, people fled and property
values fell.

Without good transportation, the property would have been worth even less.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Not unless parking is the highest and best use for that land. I believe
in feeder buses.

Who gets to define "best use" for a land parcel?

The marketplace.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
To me, successful transit means most riders don't own cars to use it.

That is not practical for a great variety of reasons. Who can carry
four bags of groceries on the train or bus?

There's this invention called "the cart". You may see elderly women
pushing them with four bags of groceries.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Who gets to define "best use" for a land parcel?

The marketplace.

Sorry, but the "marketplace" has been artificially manipulated ever
since the govt starting building free paved roads for cars. Also
zoning skews the marketplace. Lastly, public uses, such as parks,
schools, libraries, etc., skew the marketplace.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Who gets to define "best use" for a land parcel?

The marketplace.

Sorry, but the "marketplace" has been artificially manipulated ever
since the govt starting building free paved roads for cars.

Yes. Under circumstances in which transportation facilities are provided
by society, the marketplace (together with societal benefits) is quite
capable of determining the highest and best use for a given parcel.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Also zoning skews the marketplace.

This is true; zoning restrictions should be eliminated.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Lastly, public uses, such as parks, schools, libraries, etc., skew
the marketplace.

For residential property, the marketplace will take into account the
quality of government service. For commercial property, not so much.
Some corporate siting decisions are based on things like the quality of
local schools: Can we attract the best people to work for us? Too often,
corporate siting decisions are made on an irrational basis to limit the
travel of the CEO from the place he has chosen to live.

[Mark Mathu]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Who gets to define "best use" for a land parcel?

The marketplace.

Sorry, but the "marketplace" has been artificially manipulated ever
since the govt starting building free paved roads for cars.

Hah hah hah -- You think artificial manipulation started with cars!!!

You've got a lot of history to learn about post roads, federal land sales,
and canal & railroad land grants.

[Clark F Morris]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ideally, rail transit positively influences land use. The more
park-n-ride spaces provided, the more the influence is induced short
trips made by automobile, the fewer made by walking.

I do not think rail transit is supposed to influence land use. For
the most part, it can't, that is a separate mission than transportation.

I've been puzzling how to answer this, shocked that someone in a
transportation newsgroup fails to appreciate the relationship between
transportation and land value. Transportation is the most important
societal factor in creating land value.
The cliche, "The three most important factors in determining land value
are location, location, location," is a comment about transportation.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Keep in mind that suburban towns will not allow high density
development near train stations that would provide the kind of walk-in
traffic you're speaking of.

I am not speaking of high density development; most suburban land isn't
valuable enough for that. Walkability and high density don't necessarily
go hand-in-hand; it's a matter of design.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Indeed, some transit carriers have tried to encourage that and the
suburban towns fight it tooth and nail (I think it's a great idea
but the towns don't want it.)

Then don't force them to take rail transit. Truly, it's absurd building
a transit rail facility under such circumstances.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
In addition, many commuters are coming from homes that simply are too
far away to walk. Driving 5-10 miles to a local station is very
commonplace. Those people need to be accomodated and a parking lot is
the way to do it. The number of people who live within walking
distance is relatively small. Not building a parking lot won't change
that one bit.

We have a few suburbs in which demand for parking greatly exceeds the
supply. Ridership grows. In fact, there is so much ridership at one
outlying suburb that it has its own dedicated express service with 13
gallery car coaches in the consist.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Are you suggesting SEPTA should not have expanded this parking lot to
meet demand? If so, how would you accomodate those riders who live
too far away?

Not unless parking is the highest and best use for that land. I believe
in feeder buses.
To me, successful transit means most riders don't own cars to use it.

Given some of the suburban development in North America, as uneconomic
as parking is, the bus would be even worse. PACE gave up on the bus
for Hanover Park that served a town house development to the station.
The potential ridership is just too scattered. Much of suburban
development makes it dangerous to walk to the bus stop or train
station. Obviously I am not talking about the lake shore suburbs in
Illinois.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Clark F Morris
Given some of the suburban development in North America, as uneconomic
as parking is, the bus would be even worse. PACE gave up on the bus
for Hanover Park that served a town house development to the station.
The potential ridership is just too scattered. Much of suburban
development makes it dangerous to walk to the bus stop or train
station. Obviously I am not talking about the lake shore suburbs in
Illinois.

Pace (it's not an acronym [well, some of us have assigned a meaning to
it]) commuter feeder service failed because Metra massively subsidizes
parking. The out-of-pocket cost to the passenger is significantly lower
if he drives to the park-n-ride lot rather than takes the feeder bus.
The parking fee versus the additional bus fare is often less than half.

Pace feeders work only where demand for parking greatly exceeds the
supply, like Naperville and Lisle, again because Metra keeps the daily
parking fee so very low.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Clark F Morris
Given some of the suburban development in North America, as uneconomic
as parking is, the bus would be even worse. PACE gave up on the bus
for Hanover Park that served a town house development to the station.
The potential ridership is just too scattered. Much of suburban
development makes it dangerous to walk to the bus stop or train
station. Obviously I am not talking about the lake shore suburbs in
Illinois.

Pace (it's not an acronym [well, some of us have assigned a meaning to
it]) commuter feeder service failed because Metra massively subsidizes
parking. The out-of-pocket cost to the passenger is significantly lower
if he drives to the park-n-ride lot rather than takes the feeder bus.
The parking fee versus the additional bus fare is often less than half.

The Metrolink feeder shuttles are included in your standard Metrolink
fare. Perhaps if the RTA offered the same arrangement fewer people
would drive to the train stations.

[Art Clemons]

Post by Scott in SoCal
The Metrolink feeder shuttles are included in your standard Metrolink
fare. Perhaps if the RTA offered the same arrangement fewer people
would drive to the train stations.

The problem for any such scheme is that the three agencies involved in the
RTA seem to have to compete for funding. Metra getting more riders if Pace
runs buses coinciding with trains isn't really likely, since it doesn't
really benefit PACE. There are fare instruments which allow Metra riders
to use PACE but they're not systemwide.

Of course, the same comment can be made about other transit systems.
Scheduling buses and trains is likely more complicated than it seems.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Art Clemons

Post by Scott in SoCal
The Metrolink feeder shuttles are included in your standard Metrolink
fare. Perhaps if the RTA offered the same arrangement fewer people
would drive to the train stations.

The problem for any such scheme is that the three agencies involved in the
RTA seem to have to compete for funding. Metra getting more riders if Pace
runs buses coinciding with trains isn't really likely, since it doesn't
really benefit PACE. There are fare instruments which allow Metra riders
to use PACE but they're not systemwide.
Of course, the same comment can be made about other transit systems.
Scheduling buses and trains is likely more complicated than it seems.

It's not meant to be beyond the abilities of those who schedule transit
services. If it is, then the wrong people are working for your agency.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Clark F Morris
Given some of the suburban development in North America, as uneconomic
as parking is, the bus would be even worse. PACE gave up on the bus
for Hanover Park that served a town house development to the station.
The potential ridership is just too scattered. Much of suburban
development makes it dangerous to walk to the bus stop or train
station. Obviously I am not talking about the lake shore suburbs in
Illinois.

Pace (it's not an acronym [well, some of us have assigned a meaning to
it]) commuter feeder service failed because Metra massively subsidizes
parking. The out-of-pocket cost to the passenger is significantly lower
if he drives to the park-n-ride lot rather than takes the feeder bus.
The parking fee versus the additional bus fare is often less than half.

The Metrolink feeder shuttles are included in your standard Metrolink
fare. Perhaps if the RTA offered the same arrangement fewer people
would drive to the train stations.

We'd have to have an agency in Chicago that promoted cooperation and
coordination in fares and services as a matter of public policy.

[RJ]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
To me, successful transit means most riders don't own cars to use it.

What a strange definition!

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by RJ

Post by Adam H. Kerman
To me, successful transit means most riders don't own cars to use it.

What a strange definition!

You'll find that Adam has quite a few ideas that are "outside the
box."

:)

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by RJ

Post by Adam H. Kerman
To me, successful transit means most riders don't own cars to use it.

What a strange definition!

How very Victorian of me.

[Mark Mathu]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
To me, successful transit means most riders don't own cars to use it.

With the high percentage of leased vehicles (about one-third of new cars are
leases and not purchases) and trucks & SUVs that shouldn't be too hard!!!
But seriously Adam, I assume you include leases and other similar financial
arrangements, and other vehicles under car ownership... if not, please
correct me.

Why do you think the ownership of a car of the majority of riders should
play into the measure of successful transit? Overall, about 10% of
Americans live in a home without a car, end even in a large metrpolitan area
like New York City over 50% of the households have a car. Using your
measure of success," it would be hard to justify a transit system --- even
in a city as denseley populated as NYC. Very few transit systems even come
anywhere close to being successful in your eyes.

Sure, it makes sense to have a transit system attempt to serve areas with a
large percentages of people without access to private transportation, but to
require a system to a attempt to meet a 50% threshold of private vehicle
ownership to qualify as successful doesn't make sense... most any transit
system would never be able to expand beyond a central core of any city in
order to stick to your criteria.

Can you expand on the reasons for why you'd measure transit success in that
way?

____
Mark Mathu

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Mark Mathu

Post by Adam H. Kerman
To me, successful transit means most riders don't own cars to use it.

With the high percentage of leased vehicles (about one-third of new cars are
leases and not purchases) and trucks & SUVs that shouldn't be too hard!!!
But seriously Adam, I assume you include leases and other similar financial
arrangements, and other vehicles under car ownership... if not, please
correct me.

Not commenting on a particular form of ownership, whether a vehicle is
leased or if an employer or partnership provides an individual car to an
employee or partner. It's a comment about transit being used by
individuals who generally have a private automobile available for their
exclusive use.

Post by Mark Mathu
Why do you think the ownership of a car of the majority of riders should
play into the measure of successful transit?

Specifically: If the car itself is used for their exclusive use as a
part of the transit journey.

Post by Mark Mathu
Can you expand on the reasons for why you'd measure transit success in that
way?

Highway advocates see transit as supplemental to highway. Its purpose is
to reduce congestion on parallel routes. Perhaps that's a useful role
for transit, but those subsidies should come from highway. And then
transit is thought about only in its role as serving a portion of the
journey to work (or school or some other regular daily activity),
instead of in the context of what trip purposes transit can serve generally.

Successful transit should be able to do more.

[[e-mail]]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Ideally, rail transit positively influences land use. The more
park-n-ride spaces provided, the more the influence is induced short
trips made by automobile, the fewer made by walking.- Hide quoted text -

I do not think rail transit is supposed to influence land use. For
the most part, it can't, that is a separate mission than
transportation.
Keep in mind that suburban towns will not allow high density
development near train stations that would provide the kind of walk-in
traffic you're speaking of. Indeed, some transit carriers have tried
to encourage that and the suburban towns fight it tooth and nail (I
think it's a great idea but the towns don't want it.)

With all due respect, it seems to me that is a great
overgeneralization.

Cranford is a wealthy, nice suburban town that is just finishing up a
relatively high density retail/residential development on former
vacant land right across from their train station.

Rahway is a relatively poor former industrial town. They are doing
extensive redevelopment all over downtown and in close proximity to
the NJT rail station.

It is all residential ranging from studio apts to town houses and
condos. Private developers are turning former commercial bldgs into
lofts. They are building a 16 story hotel/condo development right
across from Rahway Station. They sold the penthouse for $800K.

If you get a chance, come see what is being built. I think the
redevlopment is impressive.

Randy

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by ***@yahoo.com
If you get a chance, come see what is being built. I think the
redevlopment is impressive.

That of course is good, but I suggest that is the exception rather
than the rule. Go a little further down on the NEC and Princeton Jct
and Hamilton Twp are fighting hard to maintain low density and block
redevelopment of old sites into smart-use near the train stations.

Go further south and see the towns in Camden County that passionately
fought and blocked light rail even though they have terrible traffic
congestion. They built the line in Burlington County instead.

Many towns on the Pascack Valley Line fought the recent addition of
off-peak and weekend train service.

Other suburban towns fight things such as bike paths and walkways.
They want automobile access only. I don't agree with that attitude at
all; I'd rather see what you described in Rahway and Cranford.

But my point is that much of suburbia today does not want it and will
fight it.

[[e-mail]]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by ***@yahoo.com
If you get a chance, come see what is being built. I think the
redevlopment is impressive.

That of course is good, but I suggest that is the exception rather
than the rule. Go a little further down on the NEC and Princeton Jct
and Hamilton Twp are fighting hard to maintain low density and block
redevelopment of old sites into smart-use near the train stations.
Go further south and see the towns in Camden County that passionately
fought and blocked light rail even though they have terrible traffic
congestion. They built the line in Burlington County instead.
Many towns on the Pascack Valley Line fought the recent addition of
off-peak and weekend train service.
Other suburban towns fight things such as bike paths and walkways.
They want automobile access only. I don't agree with that attitude at
all; I'd rather see what you described in Rahway and Cranford.
But my point is that much of suburbia today does not want it and will
fight it.

The rules of the game are changing. Rahway had to do what it did to
survive as a viable community. They were on their way to becoming
another Orange or Passaic, and they did not want that to happen.

Cranford had a very valuable large vacant space across from the train
station. They wanted to use their assets and a private developer was
willing to do it in a beneficial fashion for the town.

Yes, generally speaking the wealthy suburbs are anti-everything. But
as I am sure you know we have never had gas at $3 a gal before and it
looks like it is going even higher. Also as I am sure you know,
housing/real estate is on a long road to bargain basement prices.
Generally speaking the economy sucks.

It was easy for said suburbs to be anti everything when they are
riding high. But give it 10 years, are they going to be riding so
high????

I am sure you know, attitudes don't change over night. But given
the economics of the situation, I believe they will change.

Another thing, and this is esp true in NJ. Property taxes are huge.
Municipalities have high fixed costs. They have to increase their tax
base and the best way to do that is either commercial development or
high density residential development.

You might be interested in this. Linden, NJ, decided to go the
commercial development route. I think that is what is going to
replace the old GM plant.

I think there will be a lot of bitching and moaning, but East and West
Windsor, the two towns around P-ton Jct, and the towns south of
Camden, are going to have to accept the inevitable at some point.

Randy

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Richard Mlynarik

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
And no, excluding land acquisition costs (= massive opportunity costs)
is not a reasonable thing to do.

Not when looking at the totals, but comparing the cost of building
something without the land when comparing how effectively a given
lot or structure was built. One also needs to know numbers like that
when deciding whether a lot or garage is cheaper.

The point is that highly subsidised parking is seldom if ever the
highest and best use of the land, measured either by pure capitalist
metrics (ie who will pay most for the chunk of real estate)

The cars are going to be parked somewhere; it's better for them to be
parked in the 'burbs next to a train station on relatively cheap land than
to park them downtown on land that costs 10-100 times as much, where they
are preventing people from putting up more productive structures (and
improving the density in transit's catchment area).

Post by Richard Mlynarik
or by a public transportation cost-effectiveness metric (ie new riders
gained per annualised capital+operating dollar.)

That depends how many people will ride if you don't provide parking. If the
trains are full without it, then don't build it. If you have to provide
parking so that people will ride, you don't have a choice -- but you still
want to do it the most cost-effective way possible.

Post by Richard Mlynarik
Fictitious "cost" of parking lot construction is regularly used as
a stick with which to bludgeon any proposals for non-100%-automobile-
oriented investments by public agencies. Voodoo economics is alive
and well.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Post by Richard Mlynarik

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
Parking is by FAR the least cost-effective way of attracting riders
to public transportation ($40/space = $2k/space/year capital
cost alone excluding maintenance = $8/weekday excluding
maintenance just to attract one round trip via a SOV) yet is the
technique which is uniformly pursued by suburbanite, regressive,
ignorant and innumerate US public works "planners".

$40k/space is ridiculously expensive and nobody should be
providing "free" parking at that rate. Hancock gave an example of
a structure that cost 1/36th of that, or about 22c/space/day. Given
that most transit agencies are losing several dollars per trip, that's
nothing.

All sorts of things get said on usenet. That's what kill files are for.
The argument that because an operator is losing several dollars per
trip that the WORST and MOST EXPENSIVE investment should be
made -- in effect maximising losses, not ameliorating them -- is an
extremely curious one, though admittedly one with wide currency in
the US political sector.

See above; depending on local costs, free parking may in fact be the
cheapest way to attract new riders. If not, and there is no shortage of
riders, charge whatever maximizes revenue and only expand parking if it's
profitable.

Post by Richard Mlynarik

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
Parking -- particularly "free" parking, but even pay parking comes
nowhere near recouping actual costs -- is an absolute fiscal black
hole.

There are plenty of companies that do nothing but run parking lots
and garages; why are they still in business after several decades if
that "comes nowhere near recouping actual costs"?

We're talking about land use adjacent to fixed public transportation
corridors and the best and highest use of that land, not the economics
of strip malls.

I never said anything about strip malls; I'm talking about private companies
that operate parking lots and garages. There's a couple here in town that
collectively have dozens of blocks downtown. They don't seem to have any
problem recovering costs and turning a profit. Likewise, the city runs
quite a number of parking meters and lots themselves and turns a profit
(particularly from tickets). There is _zero_ free parking in the area during
standard business hours.

Post by Richard Mlynarik

Post by Stephen Sprunk
"Free" parking only makes fiscal sense to a business if the
increased patronage it brings results in better profits (or lower
losses). Free parking is the most cost-effective way for a transit
agency to do that in some cases. For instance, if you're losing
$10/passenger without parking, but you're losing only $3/passenger
with parking, as long as the parking costs less than $7/passenger,
you come out ahead.

An interesting hypothetical, but seldom realised.
Attracting an additional rider by bus service -- the horror! buses!
foamers hate buses! -- service

In some areas, that's realistic. In others, it's not. Relying on buses to
provide rail riders only gets you those without cars in practice, at least
here. You can see it for yourself at the rail stations without parking

Post by Richard Mlynarik
or attracting additional riders via TOD (locating actual destinations
and origins and services close to a station ...

If you can get TOD to work, great. But the catchment area is still
relatively small compared to the city as a whole, and developers (and even
city planners) generally don't consider locating major destinations near a
rail line to be a priority. Most major destinations are already built and
won't move, so either you build the rail line to them, run shuttles between
them and the nearest station(s), or give up on that traffic entirely.

Post by Richard Mlynarik
rather than an economic dead zone of dead parking that no
pedestrian will choose to traverse) nearly always comes out ahead.

There are ways to build parking that do not result in dead zones.

Still, most rail stations are either "origin" or "destination" stations.
Sure, it'd be nice if they were all both, but the reality is that few are
and it's very difficult to fix that. Transit agencies are not real estate
developers, and the actual developers don't seem to be interested in TOD
without massive incentives (which probably dwarf the cost of just building a
P&R lot).

Post by Richard Mlynarik

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Pay parking also has a matter of supply and demand, and yield
management comes into play just like it does for airlines; you want
the maximum revenue, which usually means the highest price you can
charge with the lot consistently as close to full as possible. If
the lot is completely full (particularly by 7am), that means you're
not charging enough money; if it's half-empty, you're charging too
much (or, if it's already free, need to find something else to do
with the land).

That's not the way public agencies function here.
Firstly, such yield management is not practiced beyond some token
peak/off-peak price differentials, for political reasons.
Secondly, the prices charged come NOWHERE NEAR covering the
operating and capital costs of the parking, again for political
reasons.

The airports here don't do yield management either; the highest-priced lots
are always overflowing and the cheaper lots are abandoned. Transit
agencies, as an arm of the government, are equally incompetent. That
doesn't mean it can't be done right or that the idea is flawed. If they
didn't have parking lots, they'd just be screwing up something else with
that money; it's how public agencies work in this country.

Post by Richard Mlynarik
Public agencies are generally politically beholden to an affluent
and active suburban/exurban constituency (one which generally
resembles the officials running and overseeing the agencies)
and will always place the perceived needs of this group
(= free parking and higher subsidies for exurban trips)
over more economically rational urban investments.

Are you kidding? Here, our transit agency isn't beholden to anyone; their
board isn't elected. State law requires them to maximize ridership, and
they do that to the best of their ability. If they think P&R lots are
necessary, they put them in; there is no public debate on the matter. They
might be wrong, but they've got a lot more analysis at their disposal than
you do, so I have to assume they're doing a reasonably competent job in the
particular circumstances that apply here.

Post by Richard Mlynarik

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
There are scores of cheaper ways to attract people to use a
transporation facility, most of which are EXCLUSIVE of the construction
of parking lot dead zones.

Tha'ts not so true if your target riders are suburbanites that are
infeasible to serve at home via transit (because, for example,
running a bus past their place is even more expensive than a parking
space).

Some riders aren't worth serving, in the end.

Again, depending on the circumstances, they may be the cheapest new riders
to acquire. Land in the suburbs here is dirt cheap, and most people won't
get out of their cars for a bus -- but they will for a train.

Post by Richard Mlynarik

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Also, there's no requirement that parking structures be "dead
zones". Turn the first level into shops, similar to a strip mall, with
parking above for commuters. That leaves the street level
productive economically and attractive to pedestrians, as well as
potentially attracting rail riders from other areas. You can pack a
_lot_ of parking away out of sight within a block or two of the
station, while having a positive effect on the businesses (and
residences, with mixed use) in the area.

An interesting theory, but one not realised in reality.
Large surface or above surface parking lots and human activity are
on the whole mutually exclusive.

Surface lots, yes. Parking structures, no. I've seen it work in several
places. The economics won't work everywhere, but particularly near rail
stations it will. The key is mixed use and building density.

S

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
And no, excluding land acquisition costs (= massive opportunity costs)
is not a reasonable thing to do.

Not when looking at the totals, but comparing the cost of building
something without the land when comparing how effectively a given
lot or structure was built. One also needs to know numbers like that
when deciding whether a lot or garage is cheaper.

The point is that highly subsidised parking is seldom if ever the
highest and best use of the land, measured either by pure capitalist
metrics (ie who will pay most for the chunk of real estate)

The cars are going to be parked somewhere; it's better for them to be
parked in the 'burbs next to a train station on relatively cheap land than
to park them downtown on land that costs 10-100 times as much, where they
are preventing people from putting up more productive structures (and
improving the density in transit's catchment area).

It's better for the drivers in question and the owners of the land they
are travelling to. It sure as hell is not better for society.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
or by a public transportation cost-effectiveness metric (ie new riders
gained per annualised capital+operating dollar.)

That depends how many people will ride if you don't provide parking. If the
trains are full without it, then don't build it. If you have to provide
parking so that people will ride, you don't have a choice -- but you still
want to do it the most cost-effective way possible.

You're utterly missing the point. If you allow rail transit to influence
development naturally (at the very least by eliminating all off-street
parking thresholds), then a transit-accessible destination is created
around the rail station with lots of stuff to walk to. You get trips in
both directions and the development of moderate density housing which in
turn contributes to the vitality of a traditional suburban downtown by
putting residents within walking distance of shopping.

To have people within walking distance of anything, parking must be
minimized.

If too many people have to drive (or be driven) to take public
transportation for only a portion of the trip, it's a useless thing to
subsidize. Let 'em drive the entire trip.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
Fictitious "cost" of parking lot construction is regularly used as
a stick with which to bludgeon any proposals for non-100%-automobile-
oriented investments by public agencies. Voodoo economics is alive
and well.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

What is the opportunity cost of land being used for subsidized parking
rather than its highest and best use as influenced by rail transit?

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik

Post by Stephen Sprunk
"Free" parking only makes fiscal sense to a business if the
increased patronage it brings results in better profits (or lower
losses). Free parking is the most cost-effective way for a transit
agency to do that in some cases. For instance, if you're losing
$10/passenger without parking, but you're losing only $3/passenger
with parking, as long as the parking costs less than $7/passenger,
you come out ahead.

An interesting hypothetical, but seldom realised.
Attracting an additional rider by bus service -- the horror! buses!
foamers hate buses! -- service

In some areas, that's realistic. In others, it's not. Relying on buses to
provide rail riders only gets you those without cars in practice, at least
here. You can see it for yourself at the rail stations without parking

So you've designed a public transportation system that has a negligible
positive influence on society if nearly all of the households that use
it continue to own an automobile for each person of driving age.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Still, most rail stations are either "origin" or "destination" stations.

If you build them that way surrounded by a sea of parking, yeah.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Sure, it'd be nice if they were all both, but the reality is that few are
and it's very difficult to fix that. Transit agencies are not real estate
developers, and the actual developers don't seem to be interested in TOD
without massive incentives (which probably dwarf the cost of just building a
P&R lot).

They used to be. Why do you ignore history? The Vans, Ravenswood "L" in
Chicago, several suburban lines in Philadelphia, etc. are famous
examples of rail transit built to influence development. Either
developers subsidized the railroad or the railroad's investors were
themselves land developers.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
Some riders aren't worth serving, in the end.

Again, depending on the circumstances, they may be the cheapest new riders
to acquire. Land in the suburbs here is dirt cheap, and most people won't
get out of their cars for a bus -- but they will for a train.

Then society has made several poor choices.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
That depends how many people will ride if you don't provide parking. If the
trains are full without it, then don't build it. If you have to provide
parking so that people will ride, you don't have a choice -- but you still
want to do it the most cost-effective way possible.

You're utterly missing the point. If you allow rail transit to influence
development naturally (at the very least by eliminating all off-street
parking thresholds), then a transit-accessible destination is created
around the rail station with lots of stuff to walk to. You get trips in
both directions and the development of moderate density housing which in
turn contributes to the vitality of a traditional suburban downtown by
putting residents within walking distance of shopping.
To have people within walking distance of anything, parking must be
minimized.

Actually, when people have a ready, heavily-subsidized alternative
such as the personal automobile, what you end up with is a complete
withering of the rail transit system. We saw this happen already in
the early 1960s.

Now that we're trying to rebuild the rail transit system we abandoned
40 years ago, we have to do something kick-start the process.
Providing parking at transit stops is one way to get things going
again. There's time for things to evolve naturally later on.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Scott in SoCal
Actually, when people have a ready, heavily-subsidized alternative
such as the personal automobile, what you end up with is a complete
withering of the rail transit system. We saw this happen already in
the early 1960s.

One big killer of RR psgr service was the truck and subsidized
highways. Railroads had extensive local freight business, either
whole carloads left for local industries or package express.
Railroads were the UPS and FedEx of their day. Railroads also
delivered coal to dealers for local delivery and the mail. All of the
business was profitable and supported the infrastructure costs. When
trucks killed off this business 60 years ago the infrastructure maint
cost was left to the psgr trains.

Another killer was social changes. People used to work a 6 day week
and come into the center city for entertainment and shopping. The
patronage was spread out much more making for better equipment
utilization and efficiency.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
That depends how many people will ride if you don't provide parking. If the
trains are full without it, then don't build it. If you have to provide
parking so that people will ride, you don't have a choice -- but you still
want to do it the most cost-effective way possible.

You're utterly missing the point. If you allow rail transit to influence
development naturally (at the very least by eliminating all off-street
parking thresholds), then a transit-accessible destination is created
around the rail station with lots of stuff to walk to. You get trips in
both directions and the development of moderate density housing which in
turn contributes to the vitality of a traditional suburban downtown by
putting residents within walking distance of shopping.
To have people within walking distance of anything, parking must be
minimized.

Actually, when people have a ready, heavily-subsidized alternative
such as the personal automobile, what you end up with is a complete
withering of the rail transit system. We saw this happen already in
the early 1960s.
Now that we're trying to rebuild the rail transit system we abandoned
40 years ago, we have to do something kick-start the process.
Providing parking at transit stops is one way to get things going
again. There's time for things to evolve naturally later on.

It's not transit! It's a multi-modal trip that includes driving.
If families nearly always have one car available per driver, what changes?

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Scott in SoCal
Now that we're trying to rebuild the rail transit system we abandoned
40 years ago, we have to do something kick-start the process.
Providing parking at transit stops is one way to get things going
again. There's time for things to evolve naturally later on.

It's not transit! It's a multi-modal trip that includes driving.
If families nearly always have one car available per driver, what changes?

The cars are used less, emitting less pollution. Some commuters might
even use shared and/or electric cars, like the ZevNet
(http://www.zevnet.org/) Rav4-EVs that are in use at the Irvine
Metrolink station. But the real benefit is more long-term, as more
ridership encourages expansion of the rail system, and expansion of
the rail system encourages the kind of transit-oriented development
that you want.

It's happening now in SoCal, where the Car is King. For example, part
of the planned redevelopment of the former MCAS El Toro is a TOD
surrounding the Irvine Transportation Center. This is the same
Metrolink station where they are now building that 1500 space parking
garage I mentioned in an earlier post.

The approach seems to be working.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Scott in SoCal
Now that we're trying to rebuild the rail transit system we abandoned
40 years ago, we have to do something kick-start the process.
Providing parking at transit stops is one way to get things going
again. There's time for things to evolve naturally later on.

It's not transit! It's a multi-modal trip that includes driving.
If families nearly always have one car available per driver, what changes?

The cars are used less, emitting less pollution.

The cars, because they exist, are used for more short trips when another
land use design would have encouraged walking to shopping. If there's a
benefit to society, it's marginal. I highly doubt it's worth the subsidy.

Post by Scott in SoCal
Some commuters might even use shared and/or electric cars,

I don't want to discuss station cars; same sprawl inducement.

Post by Scott in SoCal
It's happening now in SoCal, where the Car is King. For example, part
of the planned redevelopment of the former MCAS El Toro is a TOD
surrounding the Irvine Transportation Center. This is the same
Metrolink station where they are now building that 1500 space parking
garage I mentioned in an earlier post.
The approach seems to be working.

This is exactly why I refuse to use the term TOD, used to describe all
manner of crap. Just building something near a station doesn't make it TOD.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Scott in SoCal
Now that we're trying to rebuild the rail transit system we abandoned
40 years ago, we have to do something kick-start the process.
Providing parking at transit stops is one way to get things going
again. There's time for things to evolve naturally later on.

It's not transit! It's a multi-modal trip that includes driving.
If families nearly always have one car available per driver, what changes?

The cars are used less, emitting less pollution.

The cars, because they exist, are used for more short trips when another
land use design would have encouraged walking to shopping.

As I pointed out, that can happen later on.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
If there's a
benefit to society, it's marginal. I highly doubt it's worth the subsidy.

The main benefit to society is long-term, as it encourages the kind of
transit-oriented development that you want.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Scott in SoCal
Some commuters might even use shared and/or electric cars,

I don't want to discuss station cars; same sprawl inducement.

<shrug> Don't ask the question if you don't like the answer.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Scott in SoCal
It's happening now in SoCal, where the Car is King. For example, part
of the planned redevelopment of the former MCAS El Toro is a TOD
surrounding the Irvine Transportation Center. This is the same
Metrolink station where they are now building that 1500 space parking
garage I mentioned in an earlier post.
The approach seems to be working.

This is exactly why I refuse to use the term TOD, used to describe all
manner of crap. Just building something near a station doesn't make it TOD.

Judge for youself:

http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/tod.html

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Scott in SoCal
Now that we're trying to rebuild the rail transit system we abandoned
40 years ago, we have to do something kick-start the process.
Providing parking at transit stops is one way to get things going
again. There's time for things to evolve naturally later on.

It's not transit! It's a multi-modal trip that includes driving.
If families nearly always have one car available per driver, what changes?

The cars are used less, emitting less pollution.

The cars, because they exist, are used for more short trips when another
land use design would have encouraged walking to shopping.

As I pointed out, that can happen later on.

There's no benefit to subsidizing it today. If people insist on living
where they must drive to the train station, then make them pay
significantly more for parking.

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman
If there's a
benefit to society, it's marginal. I highly doubt it's worth the subsidy.

The main benefit to society is long-term, as it encourages the kind of
transit-oriented development that you want.

That's the point! If the parking lot exists, then compatible development
won't! The parking spaces occupy the best land.

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Scott in SoCal
Some commuters might even use shared and/or electric cars,

I don't want to discuss station cars; same sprawl inducement.

<shrug> Don't ask the question if you don't like the answer.

I didn't ask a question along those lines. I know who the guy is
promoting station cars. It has nothing to do with development near the
railroad station or mitigating sprawl.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Scott in SoCal
Some commuters might even use shared and/or electric cars,

I don't want to discuss station cars; same sprawl inducement.

<shrug> Don't ask the question if you don't like the answer.

I didn't ask a question along those lines.

You asked what the benefits were of providing subsidized parking at
commuter rail stations. Commuters driving zero- (OK,
displaced-)emission vehicles is one benefit.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Scott in SoCal
Some commuters might even use shared and/or electric cars,

I don't want to discuss station cars; same sprawl inducement.

<shrug> Don't ask the question if you don't like the answer.

I didn't ask a question along those lines.

You asked what the benefits were of providing subsidized parking at
commuter rail stations. Commuters driving zero- (OK,
displaced-)emission vehicles is one benefit.

Give me a break. If you wish to advocate for station cars, then you need
to provide subsidy for a whole lot more than just parking. How about power
distribution for recharging the vehicles while the passenger is at work?

Scott, if you want to discuss this, kindly start another thread.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
The point is that highly subsidised parking is seldom if ever the
highest and best use of the land, measured either by pure capitalist
metrics (ie who will pay most for the chunk of real estate)

The cars are going to be parked somewhere; it's better for them to be
parked in the 'burbs next to a train station on relatively cheap land than
to park them downtown on land that costs 10-100 times as much, where they
are preventing people from putting up more productive structures (and
improving the density in transit's catchment area).

It's better for the drivers in question and the owners of the land they
are travelling to. It sure as hell is not better for society.

I disagree. Using P&R lot to ride transit is definitely better for society
than driving the entire way and parking at the destination. That taking
transit (or walking) to the station is still better yet does not change
things, nor is it necessarily feasible.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
or by a public transportation cost-effectiveness metric (ie new riders
gained per annualised capital+operating dollar.)

That depends how many people will ride if you don't provide parking. If the
trains are full without it, then don't build it. If you have to provide
parking so that people will ride, you don't have a choice -- but you still
want to do it the most cost-effective way possible.

You're utterly missing the point.

No, I'm not. I understand the point but think it's wrong in some cases.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
If you allow rail transit to influence development naturally (at the very
least by eliminating all off-street parking thresholds), then a transit-
accessible destination is created around the rail station with lots of
stuff
to walk to. You get trips in both directions and the development of
moderate density housing which in turn contributes to the vitality of a
traditional suburban downtown by putting residents within walking
distance of shopping.

That's great, and where it happens it should be celebrated. Now, what are
you going to do about the 99% of the population that doesn't and will never
live within the catchment area of any station? What are you going to do
when the TOD _doesn't_ happen "naturally"?

Post by Adam H. Kerman
To have people within walking distance of anything, parking must be
minimized.

No, only surface parking must be minimized. _Every_ successful high-density
development here has free parking hidden away in a garage where it doesn't
interfere with pedestrian traffic or density of shops on the surface. Put
enough of them in the same area and a lot of people start walking instead of
driving. But, even if they live there, they'll still want their cars to go
elsewhere in the city, and merchants want the parking so customers from
elsewhere can visit them. Perhaps eventually one can get away without
providing parking, but we're nowhere close right now.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
If too many people have to drive (or be driven) to take public
transportation for only a portion of the trip, it's a useless thing to
subsidize. Let 'em drive the entire trip.

Taking 30,000 cars off the road and putting them in P&R lots, even if only
for the most congested part of their trip, saves money and helps the
environment. The lots cost less than the freeway expansion needed to handle
that number of cars, therefore it's a net win on subsidy dollars.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
Fictitious "cost" of parking lot construction is regularly used as
a stick with which to bludgeon any proposals for non-100%-automobile-
oriented investments by public agencies. Voodoo economics is alive
and well.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

What is the opportunity cost of land being used for subsidized parking
rather than its highest and best use as influenced by rail transit?

We have a few stations here without P&R lots. The nearby land is still
vacant or low-density after several years and the stations are virtually
unused. Compare to a station a mile away with a packed 3,000-space lot and
heavy use.

Very, very few of our stations have seen TOD happen in the first ten years
of operation, and those were partially funded by the transit agency; perhaps
it will happen eventually on its own at the others, but so far it hasn't.
The developers aren't interested, because they can make a lot more money
turning farms into tract housing and strip malls.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
Attracting an additional rider by bus service -- the horror! buses!
foamers hate buses! -- service

In some areas, that's realistic. In others, it's not. Relying on buses to
provide rail riders only gets you those without cars in practice, at least
here. You can see it for yourself at the rail stations without parking

So you've designed a public transportation system that has a negligible
positive influence on society if nearly all of the households that use
it continue to own an automobile for each person of driving age.

Why is the mere act of automobile ownership bad for society? We should only
care about reducing actual use and/or making it _possible_ to live without a
car, or with fewer cars per household.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Still, most rail stations are either "origin" or "destination" stations.

If you build them that way surrounded by a sea of parking, yeah.

You'll never get a station to be both unless you legalize mixed-use zoning;
it's still illegal in the vast majority of the country. Even here, where
we're doing a decent job of it, only a handful of stations are in areas
where mixed-use zoning is allowed. The remainder are "origin" stations,
surrounded by a sea of parking as you note, or "destination" stations with
no parking -- and no residents within walking distance.

S

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Stephen Sprunk
I disagree. Using P&R lot to ride transit is definitely better for society
than driving the entire way and parking at the destination. That taking
transit (or walking) to the station is still better yet does not change
things, nor is it necessarily feasible.

Very true. Often walking to the station is NOT feasible at all.
That's reality.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
That's great, and where it happens it should be celebrated. Now, what are
you going to do about the 99% of the population that doesn't and will never
live within the catchment area of any station? What are you going to do
when the TOD _doesn't_ happen "naturally"?

Excellent point.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
No, only surface parking must be minimized. _Every_ successful high-density
development here has free parking hidden away in a garage where it doesn't
interfere with pedestrian traffic or density of shops on the surface.

Here's an example: there's a garden court complex across from a train
station; two story buildings with multiple units within. I guess the
density is about 10 units per acre, or each unit occupies 1/10 an
acre. Anyway, they still have drivways and parking and spend quite a
bit of money maintaining the parking lot. Almost all residents have
cars. Most residents do NOT use the train for commuting, they work
elsewhere and drive. (Many residents are retired and they use the
train for entertainment.)

[[e-mail]]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Stephen Sprunk
I disagree. Using P&R lot to ride transit is definitely better for society
than driving the entire way and parking at the destination. That taking
transit (or walking) to the station is still better yet does not change
things, nor is it necessarily feasible.

Very true. Often walking to the station is NOT feasible at all.
That's reality.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
That's great, and where it happens it should be celebrated. Now, what are
you going to do about the 99% of the population that doesn't and will never
live within the catchment area of any station? What are you going to do
when the TOD _doesn't_ happen "naturally"?

Excellent point.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
No, only surface parking must be minimized. _Every_ successful high-density
development here has free parking hidden away in a garage where it doesn't
interfere with pedestrian traffic or density of shops on the surface.

Here's an example: there's a garden court complex across from a train
station; two story buildings with multiple units within. I guess the
density is about 10 units per acre, or each unit occupies 1/10 an
acre. Anyway, they still have drivways and parking and spend quite a
bit of money maintaining the parking lot. Almost all residents have
cars. Most residents do NOT use the train for commuting, they work
elsewhere and drive. (Many residents are retired and they use the
train for entertainment.)

I will give you the opposite.

Two huge garden apts, probably the same density as you mention, in the
Avenel section of Woodbridge Twp. They provide a pkg space for each
apt.

One of the ways they market themselves is proximity to Rahway Station
and frequent train service.

Many of the residents commute to Manhattan on the train.

I know for a fact some of the residents do not own cars and do not
drive.


Randy

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Many of the residents commute to Manhattan on the train.

Would you have a rough percentage of households in those complexes
that work in Newark or NYC and take the train? I can't help but
think quite a few of the residents still drive to work at jobs in New
Jersey. I know of people in NJ who must drive through NYC to get to
work in Long Island, not practical by train despite it being a
miserable auto trip.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
I know for a fact some of the residents do not own cars and do not
drive.

Again I wonder what the percentage of households that is. Also, how
do these people get their groceries, do other shopping, visit friends,
get to the doctor, etc. Is all that within walking distance, esp with
packages? Does Avenel have good transit that makes this practical?


In any event, NYC is fortunate that it is a strong job magnet.
Philadelphia is not as strong; many corporate HQs are no longer in the
city; their once proud office buildings have been turned into condos
or hotels. Years ago many took the train to jobs in the industrial
neighborhoods, those areas are decimated and the train stations closed.

[[e-mail]]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Many of the residents commute to Manhattan on the train.

Would you have a rough percentage of households in those complexes
that work in Newark or NYC and take the train? I would say 50%, maybe more.

I can't help but

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
think quite a few of the residents still drive to work at jobs in New
Jersey. I know of people in NJ who must drive through NYC to get to
work in Long Island, not practical by train despite it being a
miserable auto trip.

I am sure some do. But judging by my passengers, these are computer
professionals that command a lot more money working in Manhattan then
they would in NJ. That, and proximity to Rahway station, and frequent
train service make it worthwhile.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by ***@yahoo.com
I know for a fact some of the residents do not own cars and do not
drive.

Again I wonder what the percentage of households that is. Also, how
do these people get their groceries, do other shopping, visit friends,
get to the doctor, etc. Is all that within walking distance, esp with
packages? Does Avenel have good transit that makes this practical?

My guess would be 10%. Avenel has NO transit, none what so ever.
They have Avenel station which has about 4 rush hour trains a day on
the Coast Line. They have a few rush hour busses on the 115 NYC bus.

There is a Pathmark/K Mart within walking distance, also they built a
new Home Depot across from Pathmark.

We get quite a bit of business from this complex. Also I think there
is a lot of cooperation between the people that have cars and the ones
that don't..

There is an interesting story about Avenel Station. It mostly existed
for the General Dynamics plant on Avenel St. But it was never heavily
used. And the General Dynamics plant is closed.

NJT wanted to close the station and extend the 115 bus from Rahway
down Avenel St to Rahway Ave in Avenel.

That way Avenel would have had all day bus service, where it has none
now.

Talk about anti-everything people. They screamed and screamed. You
cannot close the station. They were terrified that if the station
were closed that kids would congregate there and people would start
living there.

It makes no sense. It is not really a station, it is a couple of
stairways and two platforms. But the anti everything's won, and the
station is still open for maybe 4 rush hour trains a day.




Randy

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
The point is that highly subsidised parking is seldom if ever the
highest and best use of the land, measured either by pure capitalist
metrics (ie who will pay most for the chunk of real estate)

The cars are going to be parked somewhere; it's better for them to be
parked in the 'burbs next to a train station on relatively cheap land than
to park them downtown on land that costs 10-100 times as much, where they
are preventing people from putting up more productive structures (and
improving the density in transit's catchment area).

It's better for the drivers in question and the owners of the land they
are travelling to. It sure as hell is not better for society.

I disagree. Using P&R lot to ride transit is definitely better for society
than driving the entire way and parking at the destination. That taking
transit (or walking) to the station is still better yet does not change
things, nor is it necessarily feasible.

Where's your argument, Stephen? That's a statement.

Park-n-ride requires subsidizing the auto trip and subsidizing the
transit trip AND continuing to put up with the worst pollution from the
short-distance trip from someone who owns that automobile and will
continue to use it for short distance trips for purposes other than
journey to work.

Has society benefitted from the pollution saved that he didn't drive all
the way to work? That's unlikely to the extent of the subsidy.

Thanks to that park-n-ride lot and the ability to use transit for a
portion of the trip, people live farther from work. Transit parking
contributes to sprawl.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
or by a public transportation cost-effectiveness metric (ie new riders
gained per annualised capital+operating dollar.)

That depends how many people will ride if you don't provide parking.
If the trains are full without it, then don't build it. If you have
to provide parking so that people will ride, you don't have a choice --
but you still want to do it the most cost-effective way possible.

You're utterly missing the point.

No, I'm not. I understand the point but think it's wrong in some cases.

The opportunity cost of the lost land use? In what case is that ever not lost?

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
If you allow rail transit to influence development naturally (at the very
least by eliminating all off-street parking thresholds), then a transit-
accessible destination is created around the rail station with lots of
stuff to walk to. You get trips in both directions and the development
of moderate density housing which in turn contributes to the vitality
of a traditional suburban downtown by putting residents within walking
distance of shopping.

That's great, and where it happens it should be celebrated. Now, what are
you going to do about the 99% of the population that doesn't and will never
live within the catchment area of any station? What are you going to do
when the TOD _doesn't_ happen "naturally"?

Change the transporation plan if it won't influence land use.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
To have people within walking distance of anything, parking must be
minimized.

No, only surface parking must be minimized.

Parking in structures minimizes the land devoted to parking, yes, but it
doesn't necessarily make it any more cost effective. As we've discussed,
a structure likely increases the subsidy and is justifiable only where
land is extremely expensive.

I don't object to parking, per se. I object to subsidized parking and
zoning with off-street parking thresholds.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
If too many people have to drive (or be driven) to take public
transportation for only a portion of the trip, it's a useless thing to
subsidize. Let 'em drive the entire trip.

Taking 30,000 cars off the road and putting them in P&R lots, even if only
for the most congested part of their trip, saves money and helps the
environment.

That's highly unlikely. It really means that we are losing an
opportunity to improve transit where it currently works better. Don't
forget the zero-sum game of transit subsidies.

(How much off-street parking should the American Lung Association
provide at its headquarters?)

Post by Stephen Sprunk
The lots cost less than the freeway expansion needed to handle that number
of cars, therefore it's a net win on subsidy dollars.

Freeway expansion that won't have occurred... You fail to appreciate the
beauty of congestion. Now THAT'S good for the environment. It's the only
limit on driving that we practice.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
Fictitious "cost" of parking lot construction is regularly used as
a stick with which to bludgeon any proposals for non-100%-automobile-
oriented investments by public agencies. Voodoo economics is alive
and well.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

What is the opportunity cost of land being used for subsidized parking
rather than its highest and best use as influenced by rail transit?

We have a few stations here without P&R lots. The nearby land is still
vacant or low-density after several years and the stations are virtually
unused. Compare to a station a mile away with a packed 3,000-space lot and
heavy use.

How long have the stations been there? What's the land use plan? Just
give it time.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
Attracting an additional rider by bus service -- the horror! buses!
foamers hate buses! -- service

In some areas, that's realistic. In others, it's not. Relying on
buses to provide rail riders only gets you those without cars in
practice, at least here. You can see it for yourself at the rail
stations without parking

So you've designed a public transportation system that has a negligible
positive influence on society if nearly all of the households that use
it continue to own an automobile for each person of driving age.

Why is the mere act of automobile ownership bad for society?

If there is a car available, it'll be used for short trips. That's
highly polluting.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
We should only care about reducing actual use and/or making it
possible_ to live without a car, or with fewer cars per household.

Longer auto trips through uncongested areas have fairly minimal
environmental costs, comparatively.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Still, most rail stations are either "origin" or "destination" stations.

If you build them that way surrounded by a sea of parking, yeah.

You'll never get a station to be both unless you legalize mixed-use zoning;
it's still illegal in the vast majority of the country.

Didn't I just say that? Let development be influenced by transit rail
and let it occur naturally. Zoning probably interferes.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Even here, where we're doing a decent job of it, only a handful of
stations are in areas where mixed-use zoning is allowed. The remainder
are "origin" stations, surrounded by a sea of parking as you note,
or "destination" stations with no parking -- and no residents within
walking distance.

Congrats on zoning's victory over transportation planning.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Park-n-ride requires subsidizing the auto trip and subsidizing the
transit trip AND continuing to put up with the worst pollution from the
short-distance trip from someone who owns that automobile and will
continue to use it for short distance trips for purposes other than
journey to work.

The important point is that those short-term trips are NOT going
away. People will drive to the supermarket.

Further, having someone drive a short trip instead of a long trip--
which park 'n ride encourages--is a superior outcome.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Has society benefitted from the pollution saved that he didn't drive all
the way to work? That's unlikely to the extent of the subsidy.

There is less pollution which is a benefit. There is less traffic
congestion where it is most congested. There is less land use in
tight areas.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Thanks to that park-n-ride lot and the ability to use transit for a
portion of the trip, people live farther from work. Transit parking
contributes to sprawl.

You have it backwards. Park 'n ride was developed as an attraction
AFTER the suburban neighborhoods were developed. In this particular
SEPTA station, that suburbia was developed 55 years ago and the train
has existed for 125 years.

Suburban train stations always have had a little bit of parking and
space for drop-offs. Those railroad developed estates you spoke of
were low density.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Change the transporation plan if it won't influence land use.

Too late. The suburban expressways and highway improvements are in
place and not going away.

There are other factors contributing to suburban growth that transit
has nothing to do with nor can resolve. Many people _want_ lower
density. Others are fleeing crime or lousy schools.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I don't object to parking, per se. I object to subsidized parking and
zoning with off-street parking thresholds.

Virtually the entire United States today is built under that model.
As others pointed out, most employers and shopping malls are built
that way.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
That's highly unlikely. It really means that we are losing an
opportunity to improve transit where it currently works better. Don't
forget the zero-sum game of transit subsidies.

No, transit does not work well in low density environments. The auto
works better.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
If there is a car available, it'll be used for short trips. That's
highly polluting.

Yes, but there WILL be a car available. Postwar high density row
houses have garages built in. Even apt towers have garages. This is
nothing new.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Park-n-ride requires subsidizing the auto trip and subsidizing the
transit trip AND continuing to put up with the worst pollution from the
short-distance trip from someone who owns that automobile and will
continue to use it for short distance trips for purposes other than
journey to work.

The important point is that those short-term trips are NOT going
away. People will drive to the supermarket.

Not if they don't own the car in the first place.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Further, having someone drive a short trip instead of a long trip--
which park 'n ride encourages--is a superior outcome.

No, it's not. You get serious pollution from those short trips. I keep
making this obvious point that several park-n-ride supporters ignore.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Has society benefitted from the pollution saved that he didn't drive all
the way to work? That's unlikely to the extent of the subsidy.

There is less pollution which is a benefit. There is less traffic
congestion where it is most congested.

Congestion is NOT mitigated. Some other driver fills those slots.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
There is less land use in tight areas.

Not sure what you mean, but it's not reasonable.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Thanks to that park-n-ride lot and the ability to use transit for a
portion of the trip, people live farther from work. Transit parking
contributes to sprawl.

You have it backwards. Park 'n ride was developed as an attraction
AFTER the suburban neighborhoods were developed.

People move to outlying places who work in central areas who wouldn't
have otherwise. That's the contribution to sprawl.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
That's highly unlikely. It really means that we are losing an
opportunity to improve transit where it currently works better. Don't
forget the zero-sum game of transit subsidies.

No, transit does not work well in low density environments. The auto
works better.

Yes, we. agree. Generally, I don't want to build rail if there's no
chance of really influencing land use. I'd rather improve transit where
it would make a difference.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Park-n-ride requires subsidizing the auto trip and subsidizing the
transit trip AND continuing to put up with the worst pollution from the
short-distance trip from someone who owns that automobile and will
continue to use it for short distance trips for purposes other than
journey to work.

The important point is that those short-term trips are NOT going
away. People will drive to the supermarket.

Not if they don't own the car in the first place.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Further, having someone drive a short trip instead of a long trip--
which park 'n ride encourages--is a superior outcome.

No, it's not. You get serious pollution from those short trips. I keep
making this obvious point that several park-n-ride supporters ignore.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Has society benefitted from the pollution saved that he didn't drive all
the way to work? That's unlikely to the extent of the subsidy.

There is less pollution which is a benefit. There is less traffic
congestion where it is most congested.

Congestion is NOT mitigated. Some other driver fills those slots.

Nobody ever wants to admit it, but the only ways to reduce congestion
are environmental and economic. Environmental changes make it less
pleasant and more difficult to drive on a congested artery --- this
often involves eliminating capacity or access, the latter of which
really pisses people off.

An economic strategy makes it so the cost of the congestion is something
other than just lost time, like tolling and congestion charges.

Then, of course, I guess an oil shock might do the trick. That's why I
wonder about local opposition in the NYC metro area to the congestion
charge scheme. At this point, people probably pay as much in wasted
fuel as they would pay for the congestion fee. Figure you waste 2
gallons a day round trip sitting in traffic, that charge starts looking
like not very much (especially if it's offset against other tolls).

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
There is less land use in tight areas.

Not sure what you mean, but it's not reasonable.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Thanks to that park-n-ride lot and the ability to use transit for a
portion of the trip, people live farther from work. Transit parking
contributes to sprawl.

You have it backwards. Park 'n ride was developed as an attraction
AFTER the suburban neighborhoods were developed.

People move to outlying places who work in central areas who wouldn't
have otherwise. That's the contribution to sprawl.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
That's highly unlikely. It really means that we are losing an
opportunity to improve transit where it currently works better. Don't
forget the zero-sum game of transit subsidies.

No, transit does not work well in low density environments. The auto
works better.

What is part-'n-ride then? It brings transit out to a low-density
environments, has people drive to it from miles around to get to the
central city, and that by itself results in pollution. Not only that,
but while transit provides a comfortable long-distance strategy for
getting into the city, virtually all other transportation (and that
means even trips that sensibly would involve walking in a city or town)
becomes pollution-generating car trips.

It's probably pretty unavoidable that such places exist, but there's no
reason to encourage more of such things by bringing transit further and
further away from transit-friendly places. As a matter of fact,
encouraging more wasteful, sprawling, polluting suburbs is just stupid,
and that's exactly what transit to exurbs does.

Billions of dollars for the Silver Line from D.C. to Loudoun County?
Blah, only if it doesn't stop anywhere inbetween.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Yes, we. agree. Generally, I don't want to build rail if there's no
chance of really influencing land use. I'd rather improve transit where
it would make a difference.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Bolwerk
Nobody ever wants to admit it, but the only ways to reduce congestion
are environmental and economic. Environmental changes make it less
pleasant and more difficult to drive on a congested artery --- this
often involves eliminating capacity or access, the latter of which
really pisses people off.
An economic strategy makes it so the cost of the congestion is something
other than just lost time, like tolling and congestion charges.
Then, of course, I guess an oil shock might do the trick.

That's "economic."

The problem right now is our rail transit system is so atrophied that,
if an "oil shock" were to happen today, we'd be completely screwed
because most people have NO alternatives to the personal automobile.
People buy houses on the urban fringe where they could not take a
train or a bus even if they wanted to. Children, the elderly, and
anyone else who can't drive must be driven EVERYWHERE - NOTHING is
within walking distance. These people are going to be in a world of
hurt if there is an oil crisis.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Bolwerk
Nobody ever wants to admit it, but the only ways to reduce congestion
are environmental and economic. Environmental changes make it less
pleasant and more difficult to drive on a congested artery --- this
often involves eliminating capacity or access, the latter of which
really pisses people off.
An economic strategy makes it so the cost of the congestion is something
other than just lost time, like tolling and congestion charges.
Then, of course, I guess an oil shock might do the trick.

That's "economic."

Definitely, though not really a strategy. More like a contingency. ;)

Post by Scott in SoCal
The problem right now is our rail transit system is so atrophied that,
if an "oil shock" were to happen today, we'd be completely screwed
because most people have NO alternatives to the personal automobile.
People buy houses on the urban fringe where they could not take a
train or a bus even if they wanted to. Children, the elderly, and
anyone else who can't drive must be driven EVERYWHERE - NOTHING is
within walking distance. These people are going to be in a world of
hurt if there is an oil crisis.

First of all, there is no "if" there is an oil crisis. That's a matter
of when, and it may or may not be soon (and then, what do you call
soon?). For some, there already is one. Gasoline was 99 cents in the
late 1990s, and even went down that low around 2001 in some places.
What's it now, hovering near $3? And that's in cheaper places. I doubt
California and New York go that low very.

It's got to be really painful for poorer people in more remote areas,
where fuel prices have increased at considerably higher than the rate of
inflation (20% or so from 1999-2006). Transit will never work in such
places.

As for what will happen when there's an oil shock? Yeah, I'm guessing
most people would be completely screwed. But I'm guessing if you live
in a city with a decent electric rail network, you'd be less screwed.
And such cities suddenly aren't doing too badly.

There are already signs of such places strengthening economically. The
NYC metropolitan region has proven indescribably resilient in the real
estate market and, even more interestingly, the job market. That trend
has gone on since the 1990s, really only interrupted once by 9/11. Even
parts of Philadelphia are suddenly turning into something a little akin
to Williamsburg, Brooklyn --- and that's Williamsburg in the 1990s, not
the Williamsburg of today. Boston and Chicago don't seem to be doing all
that badly either.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Bolwerk
Nobody ever wants to admit it, but the only ways to reduce congestion
are environmental and economic. Environmental changes make it less
pleasant and more difficult to drive on a congested artery --- this
often involves eliminating capacity or access, the latter of which
really pisses people off.
An economic strategy makes it so the cost of the congestion is something
other than just lost time, like tolling and congestion charges.
Then, of course, I guess an oil shock might do the trick.

That's "economic."

Definitely, though not really a strategy. More like a contingency. ;)

Post by Scott in SoCal
The problem right now is our rail transit system is so atrophied that,
if an "oil shock" were to happen today, we'd be completely screwed
because most people have NO alternatives to the personal automobile.
People buy houses on the urban fringe where they could not take a
train or a bus even if they wanted to. Children, the elderly, and
anyone else who can't drive must be driven EVERYWHERE - NOTHING is
within walking distance. These people are going to be in a world of
hurt if there is an oil crisis.

First of all, there is no "if" there is an oil crisis. That's a matter
of when

It need not be a crisis, although I suspect it will be.

Post by Bolwerk
It's got to be really painful for poorer people in more remote areas,
where fuel prices have increased at considerably higher than the rate of
inflation (20% or so from 1999-2006). Transit will never work in such
places.

Then those people need to move to places where transit DOES work. The
era of cheap petroleum is over; people had better start adapting to
the new reality or they will not survive.

Post by Bolwerk
Boston and Chicago don't seem to be doing all
that badly either.

Chicago is poised on the brink of a public transit doomsday. The state
legislature may be about to throw away one of the best transit systems
left in the country. Stay tuned!

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Park-n-ride requires subsidizing the auto trip and subsidizing the
transit trip AND continuing to put up with the worst pollution from the
short-distance trip from someone who owns that automobile and will
continue to use it for short distance trips for purposes other than
journey to work.

The important point is that those short-term trips are NOT going
away. People will drive to the supermarket.

Not if they don't own the car in the first place.

In an age where EVERYONE owns at least one car, this is simply
unrealistic.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Further, having someone drive a short trip instead of a long trip--
which park 'n ride encourages--is a superior outcome.

No, it's not. You get serious pollution from those short trips. I keep
making this obvious point that several park-n-ride supporters ignore.

Short trips are going to happen whether people use transit or not.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Has society benefitted from the pollution saved that he didn't drive all
the way to work? That's unlikely to the extent of the subsidy.

There is less pollution which is a benefit. There is less traffic
congestion where it is most congested.

Congestion is NOT mitigated. Some other driver fills those slots.

Huh?

If there are n commuters who normally drive on the freeway to work,
and one of them leaves his car at the station and takes the train,
that leaves n-1 cars on the freeway. Congestion IS reduced, however
slightly.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Park-n-ride requires subsidizing the auto trip and subsidizing the
transit trip AND continuing to put up with the worst pollution from the
short-distance trip from someone who owns that automobile and will
continue to use it for short distance trips for purposes other than
journey to work.

The important point is that those short-term trips are NOT going
away. People will drive to the supermarket.

Not if they don't own the car in the first place.

In an age where EVERYONE owns at least one car, this is simply unrealistic.

I don't own even one car.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Park-n-ride requires subsidizing the auto trip and subsidizing the
transit trip AND continuing to put up with the worst pollution from the
short-distance trip from someone who owns that automobile and will
continue to use it for short distance trips for purposes other than
journey to work.

The important point is that those short-term trips are NOT going
away. People will drive to the supermarket.

Not if they don't own the car in the first place.

In an age where EVERYONE owns at least one car, this is simply unrealistic.

I don't own even one car.

OK, everyone except *you* owns a car. :)

[Bolwerk]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Park-n-ride requires subsidizing the auto trip and subsidizing the
transit trip AND continuing to put up with the worst pollution from the
short-distance trip from someone who owns that automobile and will
continue to use it for short distance trips for purposes other than
journey to work.

The important point is that those short-term trips are NOT going
away. People will drive to the supermarket.

Not if they don't own the car in the first place.

In an age where EVERYONE owns at least one car, this is simply unrealistic.

I don't own even one car.

OK, everyone except *you* owns a car. :)

Ever been to New York? I'm the only person I know around here with a car.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman

In an age where EVERYONE owns at least one car, this is simply unrealistic.

I don't own even one car.

OK, everyone except *you* owns a car. :)

Ever been to New York? I'm the only person I know around here with a car.

Then what is causing all that gridlock in Manhattan? Bicycles and
scooters? :)

Besides, the conditions in Manhattan are hardly representative of the
rest of the country, where almost everyone with a driver's license has
at least one.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_n12_v18/ai_18894247

Adam is the exception, not the rule.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman

In an age where EVERYONE owns at least one car, this is simply unrealistic.

I don't own even one car.

OK, everyone except *you* owns a car. :)

Ever been to New York? I'm the only person I know around here with a car.

Then what is causing all that gridlock in Manhattan? Bicycles and
scooters? :)

50% of city households in the city own a car, and then a lot of people
drive in. Roughly 50% of the traffic is from the city.

(Manhattan's traffic is largely foreign. The number that owns cars in
Manhattan was somewhere in the 20%-30% range.)

Post by Scott in SoCal
Besides, the conditions in Manhattan are hardly representative of the
rest of the country, where almost everyone with a driver's license has
at least one.

I know that, but the point is it's not material for Ripley's Believe It
Or Not. Worldwide, it's often the rule, not the exception.

Post by Scott in SoCal
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_n12_v18/ai_18894247
Adam is the exception, not the rule.

And if Adam lives in Chicago, Boston, or Philadelphia, he's probably not
that exceptional. You can get around those cities without a car, though
only NY seems to make it a relative breeze.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Park-n-ride requires subsidizing the auto trip and subsidizing the
transit trip AND continuing to put up with the worst pollution from the
short-distance trip from someone who owns that automobile and will
continue to use it for short distance trips for purposes other than
journey to work.

The important point is that those short-term trips are NOT going
away. People will drive to the supermarket.

Not if they don't own the car in the first place.

In an age where EVERYONE owns at least one car, this is simply
unrealistic.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Further, having someone drive a short trip instead of a long trip--
which park 'n ride encourages--is a superior outcome.

No, it's not. You get serious pollution from those short trips. I keep
making this obvious point that several park-n-ride supporters ignore.

Short trips are going to happen whether people use transit or not.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Has society benefitted from the pollution saved that he didn't drive all
the way to work? That's unlikely to the extent of the subsidy.

There is less pollution which is a benefit. There is less traffic
congestion where it is most congested.

Congestion is NOT mitigated. Some other driver fills those slots.

Huh?
If there are n commuters who normally drive on the freeway to work,
and one of them leaves his car at the station and takes the train,
that leaves n-1 cars on the freeway. Congestion IS reduced, however
slightly.

Modernized Sorites paradox question: how many cars does n need to be
before congestion is noticeably reduced?

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Park-n-ride requires subsidizing the auto trip and subsidizing the
transit trip AND continuing to put up with the worst pollution from the
short-distance trip from someone who owns that automobile and will
continue to use it for short distance trips for purposes other than
journey to work.

The important point is that those short-term trips are NOT going
away. People will drive to the supermarket.

Not if they don't own the car in the first place.

In an age where EVERYONE owns at least one car, this is simply
unrealistic.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Further, having someone drive a short trip instead of a long trip--
which park 'n ride encourages--is a superior outcome.

No, it's not. You get serious pollution from those short trips. I keep
making this obvious point that several park-n-ride supporters ignore.

Short trips are going to happen whether people use transit or not.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Has society benefitted from the pollution saved that he didn't drive all
the way to work? That's unlikely to the extent of the subsidy.

There is less pollution which is a benefit. There is less traffic
congestion where it is most congested.

Congestion is NOT mitigated. Some other driver fills those slots.

Huh?
If there are n commuters who normally drive on the freeway to work,
and one of them leaves his car at the station and takes the train,
that leaves n-1 cars on the freeway. Congestion IS reduced, however
slightly.

Modernized Sorites paradox question: how many cars does n need to be
before congestion is noticeably reduced?

Well, congestion is *completely eliminated* for those people who ride
the trains. How's that? :)

[Bolwerk]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Park-n-ride requires subsidizing the auto trip and subsidizing the
transit trip AND continuing to put up with the worst pollution from the
short-distance trip from someone who owns that automobile and will
continue to use it for short distance trips for purposes other than
journey to work.

The important point is that those short-term trips are NOT going
away. People will drive to the supermarket.

Not if they don't own the car in the first place.

In an age where EVERYONE owns at least one car, this is simply
unrealistic.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Further, having someone drive a short trip instead of a long trip--
which park 'n ride encourages--is a superior outcome.

No, it's not. You get serious pollution from those short trips. I keep
making this obvious point that several park-n-ride supporters ignore.

Short trips are going to happen whether people use transit or not.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Has society benefitted from the pollution saved that he didn't drive all
the way to work? That's unlikely to the extent of the subsidy.

There is less pollution which is a benefit. There is less traffic
congestion where it is most congested.

Congestion is NOT mitigated. Some other driver fills those slots.

Huh?
If there are n commuters who normally drive on the freeway to work,
and one of them leaves his car at the station and takes the train,
that leaves n-1 cars on the freeway. Congestion IS reduced, however
slightly.

Modernized Sorites paradox question: how many cars does n need to be
before congestion is noticeably reduced?

Well, congestion is *completely eliminated* for those people who ride
the trains. How's that? :)

But the reality of that is that new people replace the displaced ones.
So, yeah, the transit works, but people are driving to it. And more
drivers are taking over the space that those who now drive to the train
freed up heading into the central city or wherever they go.

I know, it sounds silly, but it really happens.

If you want the best bang for your transit buck, you probably need to
link the densest population centers with the most popular destinations
for those population centers (often they jive with most popular
destinations for everyone else too). It has the same effect you want in
the end, only better.

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Congestion is NOT mitigated. Some other driver fills those slots.

Huh?
If there are n commuters who normally drive on the freeway to work,
and one of them leaves his car at the station and takes the train,
that leaves n-1 cars on the freeway. Congestion IS reduced, however
slightly.

Modernized Sorites paradox question: how many cars does n need to be
before congestion is noticeably reduced?

Well, congestion is *completely eliminated* for those people who ride
the trains. How's that? :)

But the reality of that is that new people replace the displaced ones.

Yes, induced traffic is a documented fact. But there is a lag in the
reshuffling process because no commuter has perfect knowledge.

Let's say you were able to convince 10,000 people, all of whom
normally drive to work on a particular freeway, to leave their cars at
home and take the train instead. Those 10,000 empty freeway slots
would not all be filled instantaneously. It would take a while for
other drivers who normally avoid the freeway to notice that the
freeway is a little less jammed than it used to be, and to take a
chance on switching routes. Until then, there is a net decrease in
congestion on the freeway.

Post by Bolwerk
So, yeah, the transit works, but people are driving to it.

Better than nothing. And not all of us are driving to the stations,
either - I ride my bike or walk.

Post by Bolwerk
And more
drivers are taking over the space that those who now drive to the train
freed up heading into the central city or wherever they go.

Which eases congestion on whichever routes those drivers took before
they switched to the freeway. The overall net effect is reduced
congestion - at least until more cars are built and more drivers buy
them and start driving to work.

Post by Bolwerk
I know, it sounds silly, but it really happens.
If you want the best bang for your transit buck, you probably need to
link the densest population centers with the most popular destinations
for those population centers (often they jive with most popular
destinations for everyone else too).

That's how you start, but it can't end there. To be truly useful to
more people, the system needs to expand. To support the expansion,
ridership needs to increase. And it's easier to build parking spaces
for commuters to use than it is to build new TOD neighborhoods where
people can walk tok the train station.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Congestion is NOT mitigated. Some other driver fills those slots.

Huh?
If there are n commuters who normally drive on the freeway to work,
and one of them leaves his car at the station and takes the train,
that leaves n-1 cars on the freeway. Congestion IS reduced, however
slightly.

Modernized Sorites paradox question: how many cars does n need to be
before congestion is noticeably reduced?

Well, congestion is *completely eliminated* for those people who ride
the trains. How's that? :)

But the reality of that is that new people replace the displaced ones.

Yes, induced traffic is a documented fact. But there is a lag in the
reshuffling process because no commuter has perfect knowledge.
Let's say you were able to convince 10,000 people, all of whom
normally drive to work on a particular freeway, to leave their cars at
home and take the train instead. Those 10,000 empty freeway slots
would not all be filled instantaneously. It would take a while for
other drivers who normally avoid the freeway to notice that the
freeway is a little less jammed than it used to be, and to take a
chance on switching routes. Until then, there is a net decrease in
congestion on the freeway.

How long? A few weeks? :-p

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Bolwerk
So, yeah, the transit works, but people are driving to it.

Better than nothing. And not all of us are driving to the stations,
either - I ride my bike or walk.

Having that station near your house is a more realistic approach.

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Bolwerk
And more
drivers are taking over the space that those who now drive to the train
freed up heading into the central city or wherever they go.

Which eases congestion on whichever routes those drivers took before
they switched to the freeway. The overall net effect is reduced
congestion - at least until more cars are built and more drivers buy
them and start driving to work.

And the long-term net effect is actually more people using their cars.

Post by Scott in SoCal

Post by Bolwerk
I know, it sounds silly, but it really happens.
If you want the best bang for your transit buck, you probably need to
link the densest population centers with the most popular destinations
for those population centers (often they jive with most popular
destinations for everyone else too).

That's how you start, but it can't end there. To be truly useful to
more people, the system needs to expand. To support the expansion,
ridership needs to increase. And it's easier to build parking spaces
for commuters to use than it is to build new TOD neighborhoods where
people can walk tok the train station.

As (I think) Adam was saying, the parking spaces practically negate the
value "TOD" (though he rightfully avoids that term, and I try to as well).

SoCal has no transit-compatible neighborhoods? It probably doesn't take
a lot. Maybe upwards of 3k people/1sqmi.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
The cars are going to be parked somewhere; it's better for them to be
parked in the 'burbs next to a train station on relatively cheap land than
to park them downtown on land that costs 10-100 times as much, where
they are preventing people from putting up more productive structures
(and improving the density in transit's catchment area).

It's better for the drivers in question and the owners of the land they
are travelling to. It sure as hell is not better for society.

I disagree. Using P&R lot to ride transit is definitely better for society
than driving the entire way and parking at the destination. That taking
transit (or walking) to the station is still better yet does not change
things, nor is it necessarily feasible.

Where's your argument, Stephen? That's a statement.
Park-n-ride requires subsidizing the auto trip and subsidizing the
transit trip AND continuing to put up with the worst pollution from the
short-distance trip from someone who owns that automobile and will
continue to use it for short distance trips for purposes other than
journey to work.

Yes. However, the alternative for the vast majority of suburban commuters
is that they'll simply drive the whole way and park downtown. Moving at
least part of that trip onto transit is an improvement. Getting all of it
would be nice, as would getting non-JTW trips, but in practice that's
impossible to pull off in the suburbs.

I'm all for raising gas taxes (or imposing tolls) so that auto trips aren't
subsidized. I'm all for making transit more efficient and increasing use so
that it doesn't need to be subsidized. However, the politicians aren't
interested in either, so it won't happen.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Has society benefitted from the pollution saved that he didn't drive all
the way to work? That's unlikely to the extent of the subsidy.
Thanks to that park-n-ride lot and the ability to use transit for a
portion of the trip, people live farther from work. Transit parking
contributes to sprawl.

People are going to live in suburbs whether there's transit or not, and the
suburbs usually develop long before transit service reaches them. 50-100
years ago, sure, new transit lines were built into undeveloped areas and
spurred development, but since the 1950s it's been freeways that perform
that function.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
To have people within walking distance of anything, parking must be
minimized.

No, only surface parking must be minimized.

Parking in structures minimizes the land devoted to parking, yes, but it
doesn't necessarily make it any more cost effective. As we've discussed,
a structure likely increases the subsidy and is justifiable only where
land is extremely expensive.

OTOH, a structure allows other uses to exist on the same land, which may pay
for the cost of building and maintaining the structure. For that matter,
the parking may pay for itself if demand is high enough.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I don't object to parking, per se. I object to subsidized parking

I dislike subsidized parking in principle, but in practice, if one is going
to subsidize, parking may be the best use of those dollars. If P&R lots add
10% to the cost of your rail line but increase ridership 50%, that's a win.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
and zoning with off-street parking thresholds.

I don't know what you mean by that term. Zoning here makes no mention of
parking; you can pave over as much or as little of your property as you
wish, as long as any structures you do build are within the types allowed by
the classification.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
We have a few stations here without P&R lots. The nearby land is still
vacant or low-density after several years and the stations are virtually
unused. Compare to a station a mile away with a packed 3,000-space lot
and heavy use.

How long have the stations been there? ... Just give it time.

Some over a decade, some four years.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
What's the land use plan?

Huh? The only city plan is to turn every acre of the city into either tract
housing or strip malls. Some developers manage to successfully fight that
and get mixed-use, high-density projects built, but only after bribing the
right officials to look the other way -- and paying high property taxes to
make up for all the tax abatements on the city-planned low-density projects.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Richard Mlynarik
Attracting an additional rider by bus service -- the horror! buses!
foamers hate buses! -- service

In some areas, that's realistic. In others, it's not. Relying on
buses to provide rail riders only gets you those without cars in
practice, at least here. You can see it for yourself at the rail
stations without parking

So you've designed a public transportation system that has a negligible
positive influence on society if nearly all of the households that use
it continue to own an automobile for each person of driving age.

Why is the mere act of automobile ownership bad for society?

If there is a car available, it'll be used for short trips. That's
highly polluting.

That's interesting. I have an SUV and a motorcycle, yet I walk to the
grocery store and other shops, dozens of restaurants, etc. When I worked in
an office, I walked to the rail station or (in bad weather) rode the
trolley. I only drive/ride when I'm going to places that aren't served by
transit or (like the airport) are served so badly as to be unusable. Well,
I'm single, so I drive/ride for dates as well due to peer pressure.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Still, most rail stations are either "origin" or "destination" stations.

If you build them that way surrounded by a sea of parking, yeah.

You'll never get a station to be both unless you legalize mixed-use zoning;
it's still illegal in the vast majority of the country.

Didn't I just say that? Let development be influenced by transit rail
and let it occur naturally. Zoning probably interferes.

The wrong type of zoning interferes; the right type encourages. Right and
wrong are subjective, of course... There are plenty of people that think
it's good that zoning is preventing mixed-use, high-density development.
You and I may think they're dolts, but we're outnumbered on election day.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Even here, where we're doing a decent job of it, only a handful of
stations are in areas where mixed-use zoning is allowed. The remainder
are "origin" stations, surrounded by a sea of parking as you note,
or "destination" stations with no parking -- and no residents within
walking distance.

Congrats on zoning's victory over transportation planning.

I'm not sure congratulations are appropriate...

S

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
The cars are going to be parked somewhere; it's better for them
to be parked in the 'burbs next to a train station on relatively
cheap land than to park them downtown on land that costs 10-100
times as much, where they are preventing people from putting
up more productive structures (and improving the density in
transit's catchment area).

It's better for the drivers in question and the owners of the land they
are travelling to. It sure as hell is not better for society.

I disagree. Using P&R lot to ride transit is definitely better for
society than driving the entire way and parking at the destination.
That taking transit (or walking) to the station is still better
yet does not change things, nor is it necessarily feasible.

Where's your argument, Stephen? That's a statement.
Park-n-ride requires subsidizing the auto trip and subsidizing the
transit trip AND continuing to put up with the worst pollution from the
short-distance trip from someone who owns that automobile and will
continue to use it for short distance trips for purposes other than
journey to work.

Yes. However, the alternative for the vast majority of suburban commuters
is that they'll simply drive the whole way and park downtown.

Then someone will pay a whole lot for them to do that if they won't take
public transporation.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Moving at least part of that trip onto transit is an improvement.

The improvement is for those particular employees and their employers,
not for society as a whole. It saves the cost of driving and parking
close to the work location and the cost of congestion to the employee.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
I'm all for raising gas taxes (or imposing tolls) so that auto trips aren't
subsidized.

They will continue to be subsidized unless demand-sensitive tolls are
imposed. Raising gas taxes won't help. Until you realize that park-n-ride
is a cross subsidy FROM transit TO highway (as well as a subsidy to land
owners near the train station), you're encouraging auto use through
subsidy.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Has society benefitted from the pollution saved that he didn't drive all
the way to work? That's unlikely to the extent of the subsidy.
Thanks to that park-n-ride lot and the ability to use transit for a
portion of the trip, people live farther from work. Transit parking
contributes to sprawl.

People are going to live in suburbs whether there's transit or not, and the
suburbs usually develop long before transit service reaches them.

So further subsidy doesn't benefit society!

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
To have people within walking distance of anything, parking must be
minimized.

No, only surface parking must be minimized.

Parking in structures minimizes the land devoted to parking, yes, but it
doesn't necessarily make it any more cost effective. As we've discussed,
a structure likely increases the subsidy and is justifiable only where
land is extremely expensive.

OTOH, a structure allows other uses to exist on the same land, which may pay
for the cost of building and maintaining the structure. For that matter,
the parking may pay for itself if demand is high enough.

There is no OTOH. Parking structure versus building over a parking lot
amounts to the same thing. Can't assume that land that includes parking
will be valuable enough for such a structure.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I don't object to parking, per se. I object to subsidized parking

I dislike subsidized parking in principle, but in practice, if one is going
to subsidize, parking may be the best use of those dollars. If P&R lots add
10% to the cost of your rail line but increase ridership 50%, that's a win.

The benefit is highly limited, not general to society as a whole. Those
who benefit sure as hell are not paying their fair share of the cost.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
and zoning with off-street parking thresholds.

I don't know what you mean by that term. Zoning here makes no mention of
parking; you can pave over as much or as little of your property as you
wish, as long as any structures you do build are within the types allowed by
the classification.

Zoning regulates everything from land occupied, building size per size
of parcel, building height, setbacks, and (for this purpose) a threshold
of off-street parking per square foot of various uses within the building.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Park-n-ride requires subsidizing the auto trip and subsidizing the
transit trip AND continuing to put up with the worst pollution from the
short-distance trip from someone who owns that automobile and will
continue to use it for short distance trips for purposes other than
journey to work.

Yes. However, the alternative for the vast majority of suburban commuters
is that they'll simply drive the whole way and park downtown.

Then someone will pay a whole lot for them to do that if they won't take
public transporation.

How do you not see it being better to let them drive 1-3mi to a P&R lot and
then take the train the other 10-30mi, vs driving the entire distance. The
former is cheaper, even as much as you obviously dislike the cost of
subsidizing parking. If the service is attractive enough, the parking might
even pay for itself.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Moving at least part of that trip onto transit is an improvement.

The improvement is for those particular employees and their employers,
not for society as a whole. It saves the cost of driving and parking
close to the work location and the cost of congestion to the employee.

It saves the pollution of going 10-30mi on a congested freeway at 20mph,
which is a benefit to society, and it reduces congestion for other drivers.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
I'm all for raising gas taxes (or imposing tolls) so that auto trips aren't
subsidized.

They will continue to be subsidized unless demand-sensitive tolls are
imposed. Raising gas taxes won't help.

Unfortunately, tolls are illegal if a freeway has ever received federal gas
tax money and are impractical on surface roads.

Raising gas taxes could eliminate subsidy to roads from other sources (e.g.
income, property, and sales taxes) and make people think a lot harder about
what mode to use -- and demand better transit.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Until you realize that park-n-ride is a cross subsidy FROM transit TO
highway
(as well as a subsidy to land owners near the train station), you're
encouraging
auto use through subsidy.

You're encouraging reducing auto use.

Also, P&R is not a subsidy if the fees cover its cost.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
To have people within walking distance of anything, parking must be
minimized.

No, only surface parking must be minimized.

Parking in structures minimizes the land devoted to parking, yes, but it
doesn't necessarily make it any more cost effective. As we've discussed,
a structure likely increases the subsidy and is justifiable only where
land is extremely expensive.

OTOH, a structure allows other uses to exist on the same land, which may pay
for the cost of building and maintaining the structure. For that matter,
the parking may pay for itself if demand is high enough.

There is no OTOH. Parking structure versus building over a parking lot
amounts to the same thing. Can't assume that land that includes parking
will be valuable enough for such a structure.

If it's not, then it's illogical to complain that parking is not the best
use of the land. Either it's valuable enough for other purposes that a
plain lot shouldn't be built, or it's so worthless a structure shouldn't be
built.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I don't object to parking, per se. I object to subsidized parking

I dislike subsidized parking in principle, but in practice, if one is going
to subsidize, parking may be the best use of those dollars. If P&R lots add
10% to the cost of your rail line but increase ridership 50%, that's a win.

The benefit is highly limited, not general to society as a whole. Those
who benefit sure as hell are not paying their fair share of the cost.

That's a funny statement when no transit rider in the country pays the "fair
share" of their cost for riding. Why should they pay their "fair share" for
parking? If subsidizing parking reduces the per-rider subsidy for the
transit service, that's a better use of money.

If you're going to play "paying their fair share" for parking, you need to
do so for the transit service itself, which means none should be built at
all. And, that ignores the fact that some parking _does_ pay for itself
plus a profit, even when privately owned (and thus not receiving indirect
subsidies like exemption from property tax).

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
and zoning with off-street parking thresholds.

I don't know what you mean by that term. Zoning here makes no mention of
parking; you can pave over as much or as little of your property as you
wish, as long as any structures you do build are within the types allowed by
the classification.

Zoning regulates everything from land occupied, building size per size
of parcel, building height, setbacks, and (for this purpose) a threshold
of off-street parking per square foot of various uses within the building.

By that do you mean a minimum or maximum amount?

Our zoning doesn't specify either for commercial property; there are
properties with none and some with 100%, all with the same zoning class.
There might be some limit for residential property, but I've seen plenty
with none.

S

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Park-n-ride requires subsidizing the auto trip and subsidizing the
transit trip AND continuing to put up with the worst pollution from the
short-distance trip from someone who owns that automobile and will
continue to use it for short distance trips for purposes other than
journey to work.

Yes. However, the alternative for the vast majority of suburban commuters
is that they'll simply drive the whole way and park downtown.

Then someone will pay a whole lot for them to do that if they won't take
public transporation.

How do you not see it being better to let them drive 1-3mi to a P&R lot and
then take the train the other 10-30mi, vs driving the entire distance. The
former is cheaper, even as much as you obviously dislike the cost of
subsidizing parking.

Then it's NOT cheaper for society. What's the matter with you? You keep
ignoring the opportunity cost for not devoting that land to commuter parking.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
If the service is attractive enough, the parking might even pay for itself.

Doubtful. I don't rule out building actual parking that pays for itself,
not that anyone can think of common park-n-ride examples. There ain't
none in Chicago.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Moving at least part of that trip onto transit is an improvement.

The improvement is for those particular employees and their employers,
not for society as a whole. It saves the cost of driving and parking
close to the work location and the cost of congestion to the employee.

It saves the pollution of going 10-30mi on a congested freeway at 20mph,
which is a benefit to society,

You do know that there's a lot more pollution per mile for just that
short trip? With park-n-ride, there's no way to avoid that pollution.
With a well-designed feeder system, there is.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
and it reduces congestion for other drivers.

No. Other drivers are attracted from parallel routes and transit. Congestion
never goes away.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
I'm all for raising gas taxes (or imposing tolls) so that auto trips
aren't subsidized.

They will continue to be subsidized unless demand-sensitive tolls are
imposed. Raising gas taxes won't help.

Unfortunately, tolls are illegal if a freeway has ever received federal gas
tax money and are impractical on surface roads.

So, it's not a design issue. Laws can never be changed, is that your
position? That's not an argument in your favor.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Raising gas taxes could eliminate subsidy to roads from other sources (e.g.
income, property, and sales taxes) and make people think a lot harder about
what mode to use -- and demand better transit.

No, that doesn't make any sense. As long as there's no link between the
taxes one pays and the highway resources consumed, then the individual
driver has an incentive to consume excess highway resources. One's travel at
highly congested times is STILL being paid for by someone else. Therefore,
there's no incentive to use an alternative.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Until you realize that park-n-ride is a cross subsidy FROM transit TO
highway (as well as a subsidy to land owners near the train station),
you're encouraging auto use through subsidy.

You're encouraging reducing auto use.

Again, it's not important role for transit to be playing with transit
subsidies. If it's important for highway, then let highway subsidies
purchase transit services for the purpose of reducing congestion.

As a transit rider, I don't give a shit if the expressway parallel to my
rail service is congested.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Also, P&R is not a subsidy if the fees cover its cost.

You've been arguing against unsubsidized park-n-ride. Generally,
park-n-ride is the most heavily subsidized "transit" service on a fully
allocated cost basis.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
To have people within walking distance of anything, parking must be
minimized.

No, only surface parking must be minimized.

Parking in structures minimizes the land devoted to parking, yes, but it
doesn't necessarily make it any more cost effective. As we've discussed,
a structure likely increases the subsidy and is justifiable only where
land is extremely expensive.

OTOH, a structure allows other uses to exist on the same land, which may
pay for the cost of building and maintaining the structure. For that
matter, the parking may pay for itself if demand is high enough.

There is no OTOH. Parking structure versus building over a parking lot
amounts to the same thing. Can't assume that land that includes parking
will be valuable enough for such a structure.

If it's not, then it's illogical to complain that parking is not the
best use of the land. Either it's valuable enough for other purposes
that a plain lot shouldn't be built, or it's so worthless a structure
shouldn't be built.

Obviously, heavily subsidized park-n-ride wouldn't be built if not for
the heavy subsidies, open air, structure, or as part of a building. Duh.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I don't object to parking, per se. I object to subsidized parking

I dislike subsidized parking in principle, but in practice, if one
is going to subsidize, parking may be the best use of those dollars.
If P&R lots add 10% to the cost of your rail line but increase ridership
50%, that's a win.

The benefit is highly limited, not general to society as a whole. Those
who benefit sure as hell are not paying their fair share of the cost.

That's a funny statement when no transit rider in the country pays the "fair
share" of their cost for riding.

Not really. I'm not the one arguing for motor fuel subsidies for
highway. You are.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Why should they pay their "fair share" for parking?

I object to cross subsidies from one transit rider who doesn't drive to
take transit to another rider who does.

You're the one arguing in favor of cross subsidy. Why are you acting
shocked that I think you are wrong?

Post by Stephen Sprunk
If subsidizing parking reduces the per-rider subsidy for the

transit service, that's a better use of money.

It RAISES average costs. It signficantly raises marginal costs,
the critical cost to consider from the perspective of provisioning
transit service.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
If you're going to play "paying their fair share" for parking, you need to
do so for the transit service itself, which means none should be built at
all.

Nope, because you just assigned to me a straw man. You aren't arguing
against my actual position. You're not paying attention.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
And, that ignores the fact that some parking _does_ pay for itself plus
a profit, even when privately owned (and thus not receiving indirect
subsidies like exemption from property tax).

Surely, subsidized unsubsidized park-n-ride is a contradiction in terms.

I can't ignore examples I am not familiar with, so kindly share with the
class.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
and zoning with off-street parking thresholds.

I don't know what you mean by that term. Zoning here makes no mention of
parking; you can pave over as much or as little of your property as you
wish, as long as any structures you do build are within the types allowed
by the classification.

Zoning regulates everything from land occupied, building size per size
of parcel, building height, setbacks, and (for this purpose) a threshold
of off-street parking per square foot of various uses within the building.

By that do you mean a minimum or maximum amount?

What do you think threshold means?

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Our zoning doesn't specify either for commercial property; there are
properties with none and some with 100%, all with the same zoning class.
There might be some limit for residential property, but I've seen plenty
with none.

I'm sorry Stephen, but I don't find your comment credible that parking
thresholds don't exist in municipal code, with exceptions.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
How do you not see it being better to let them drive 1-3mi to a P&R lot and
then take the train the other 10-30mi, vs driving the entire distance.
The
former is cheaper, even as much as you obviously dislike the cost of
subsidizing parking.

Then it's NOT cheaper for society. What's the matter with you? You keep
ignoring the opportunity cost for not devoting that land to commuter parking.

No, I'm not; however, that opportunity cost has to be balanced against the
benefit to the transit system.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
If the service is attractive enough, the parking might even pay for itself.

Doubtful. I don't rule out building actual parking that pays for itself,
not that anyone can think of common park-n-ride examples. There ain't
none in Chicago.

I don't have cost numbers for the paid P&R lots I'm aware of, so I can't
give examples.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Moving at least part of that trip onto transit is an improvement.

The improvement is for those particular employees and their employers,
not for society as a whole. It saves the cost of driving and parking
close to the work location and the cost of congestion to the employee.

It saves the pollution of going 10-30mi on a congested freeway at 20mph,
which is a benefit to society,

You do know that there's a lot more pollution per mile for just that
short trip?

Less pollution total.

Also, are you referring to higher pollution levels before a car warms up, or
due to "city" mileage? Good luck getting even that on today's freeways
during rush hour...

Post by Adam H. Kerman
With park-n-ride, there's no way to avoid that pollution.

Of course not.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
With a well-designed feeder system, there is.

In typical suburbs, a feeder system will cost more and get less riders than
a P&R lot.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
I'm all for raising gas taxes (or imposing tolls) so that auto trips
aren't subsidized.

They will continue to be subsidized unless demand-sensitive tolls are
imposed. Raising gas taxes won't help.

Unfortunately, tolls are illegal if a freeway has ever received federal gas
tax money and are impractical on surface roads.

So, it's not a design issue. Laws can never be changed, is that your
position? That's not an argument in your favor.

It's been tried several times and failed. There's another bill up to fix
it, but one of my senators snuck in an amendment keeping it illegal in our
state even if the bill passes and gets signed by Dubya (unlikely on both
counts, IMHO).

Yes, one could fix that, in theory. However, I do try to design for the
world we actually live in, not a theoretical one that I wish we lived in.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Raising gas taxes could eliminate subsidy to roads from other sources (e.g.
income, property, and sales taxes) and make people think a lot harder about
what mode to use -- and demand better transit.

No, that doesn't make any sense. As long as there's no link between the
taxes one pays and the highway resources consumed, then the individual
driver has an incentive to consume excess highway resources. One's travel at
highly congested times is STILL being paid for by someone else. Therefore,
there's no incentive to use an alternative.

All very true, but as the marginal cost of using an auto increases from its
currently still-negligible level, other options will start to look more
attractive.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Until you realize that park-n-ride is a cross subsidy FROM transit TO
highway (as well as a subsidy to land owners near the train station),
you're encouraging auto use through subsidy.

You're encouraging reducing auto use.

Again, it's not important role for transit to be playing with transit
subsidies. If it's important for highway, then let highway subsidies
purchase transit services for the purpose of reducing congestion.

That's an interesting idea, but probably also illegal.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
As a transit rider, I don't give a shit if the expressway parallel to my
rail service is congested.

I do; it makes me smile.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Also, P&R is not a subsidy if the fees cover its cost.

You've been arguing against unsubsidized park-n-ride.

No, I've been arguing that P&R facilities _may_ be worth the money.
Ideally, they'd be profitable. At minimum, they should reduce the total
subsidy per rider by attracting more riders at a rate greater than the total
cost increase.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Generally, park-n-ride is the most heavily subsidized "transit" service on
a
fully allocated cost basis.

The subsidy for me to ride DART LRT is about $2.71/u-trip or $5.42/day. Are
you saying that a parking space in a P&R lot costs more than that? How
much?

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Why should they pay their "fair share" for parking?

I object to cross subsidies from one transit rider who doesn't drive to
take transit to another rider who does.

That's a good point. I'd compromise on charging for parking at a rate that
_at least_ kept their average subsidy the same; how's that?

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
If subsidizing parking reduces the per-rider subsidy for the

transit service, that's a better use of money.
It RAISES average costs. It signficantly raises marginal costs,
the critical cost to consider from the perspective of provisioning
transit service.

I'm not sure those economics apply when we're talking about a venture that
knowingly loses money on operations and does it anyways.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
And, that ignores the fact that some parking _does_ pay for itself plus
a profit, even when privately owned (and thus not receiving indirect
subsidies like exemption from property tax).

Surely, subsidized unsubsidized park-n-ride is a contradiction in terms.

That's not what I said.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
I can't ignore examples I am not familiar with, so kindly share with the
class.

I'm not familiar with any transit examples, since I don't have their cost
figures, but there are obviously private, for-profit companies that provide
paid parking. They wouldn't do it if they couldn't make a profit, so that
gives me an upper bound on the cost.

Given that such companies here charge as little as $5/day (less for monthly
contract rates) for parking on the most valuable land in the city
(downtown), I submit that it's possible for a transit agency to provide paid
P&R lots in the burbs, where land is worth about 1/100th as much by area,
for $2-3/day and not lose money. People would pay it because it's still
cheaper than the alternative; if the lots are still overflowing, either
build more or raise the rates.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Our zoning doesn't specify either for commercial property; there are
properties with none and some with 100%, all with the same zoning class.
There might be some limit for residential property, but I've seen plenty
with none.

I'm sorry Stephen, but I don't find your comment credible that parking
thresholds don't exist in municipal code, with exceptions.

There are plenty of commercial properties around me, ones newly built in the
last decade, as well as ones 50+ years old, that have zero parking. Perhaps
there's a minimum in other cities, but not here.

Granted, most property owners provide parking because it usually increases
their revenue more than it increases costs, but in some areas (like my
neighborhood) that's not always true because of the land values and high
pedestrian traffic. There are plenty of office towers downtown that have no
parking either; tenants' employees either have to take transit or rent
parking from third parties. There's even a few new residential buildings
there that don't provide parking.

The only other major city I've lived in, Houston, has no zoning at all so
that doesn't help. I've visited NYC and downtown Chicago numerous times,
and none of the buildings I went to had parking on-property. Heck, even in
Des Moines, Iowa, the customer's office I visited had no parking and I had
to park in a public garage a couple blocks away. This minimum parking
requirement you cite doesn't seem to be widespread.

S

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
How do you not see it being better to let them drive 1-3mi to
a P&R lot and then take the train the other 10-30mi, vs driving
the entire distance. The former is cheaper, even as much as you
obviously dislike the cost of subsidizing parking.

Then it's NOT cheaper for society. What's the matter with you? You keep
ignoring the opportunity cost for not devoting that land to commuter parking.

No, I'm not; however, that opportunity cost has to be balanced against the
benefit to the transit system.

For you, it's nothing but a numbers issue. Greater ridership (on this
particular line) is good, no matter the impact on the rest of the
system.

And you're rejecting that failure to use that adjacent land at its
highest and best use costs the transit system patronage.

Park-n-ride is a subsidy to highway, just like grade separation, just
like replacing street cars with buses. Transit gets saddled with a lot
of costs that are cross subsidy to another mode of travel.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
If the service is attractive enough, the parking might even pay for itself.

Doubtful. I don't rule out building actual parking that pays for itself,
not that anyone can think of common park-n-ride examples. There ain't
none in Chicago.

I don't have cost numbers for the paid P&R lots I'm aware of, so I can't
give examples.

Stephen, I suggest that you don't have an example at all.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Moving at least part of that trip onto transit is an improvement.

The improvement is for those particular employees and their employers,
not for society as a whole. It saves the cost of driving and parking
close to the work location and the cost of congestion to the employee.

It saves the pollution of going 10-30mi on a congested freeway at 20mph,
which is a benefit to society,

You do know that there's a lot more pollution per mile for just that
short trip?

Less pollution total.

That's simply not true. You continue to ignore that other drivers simply
notice that some particular route is less congested and switch to it,
restoring the missing trips.

What has the community gained with the park-n-ride lot? It's given up
development and given up commerce, but it keeps the higher pollution
and local congestion from those first few miles.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Also, are you referring to higher pollution levels before a car warms up,

Yeah.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
or due to "city" mileage? Good luck getting even that on today's
freeways during rush hour...

If the congestion situation is eliminated with park-n-ride, you're
keeping the same pollution levels. You gonna acknowledge that which you
can observe from first-hand experience?

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
With park-n-ride, there's no way to avoid that pollution.

Of course not.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
With a well-designed feeder system, there is.

In typical suburbs, a feeder system will cost more and get less riders than
a P&R lot.

Maybe. In a free market, it should affect land use patterns, perhaps
encouraging some greater density at least on the through streets. If the
household saves the cost of full-time auto ownership for just a car that
lives in a parking lot, then it's not going to cost more.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Raising gas taxes could eliminate subsidy to roads from other
sources (e.g. income, property, and sales taxes) and make people
think a lot harder about what mode to use -- and demand better
transit.

No, that doesn't make any sense. As long as there's no link between
the taxes one pays and the highway resources consumed, then the
individual driver has an incentive to consume excess highway
resources. One's travel at highly congested times is STILL being
paid for by someone else. Therefore, there's no incentive to use
an alternative.

All very true, but as the marginal cost of using an auto increases from its
currently still-negligible level, other options will start to look more
attractive.

Raising gas taxes on all drivers won't accomplish that at all. You want
to talk politics? Explain how taxes would be raised in a way that won't
result in major additions to the highway network.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Also, P&R is not a subsidy if the fees cover its cost.

You've been arguing against unsubsidized park-n-ride.

No, I've been arguing that P&R facilities _may_ be worth the money.
Ideally, they'd be profitable. At minimum, they should reduce the total
subsidy per rider by attracting more riders at a rate greater than the total
cost increase.

You're not worth arguing with if you mix up average and marginal costs
in the same sentence.

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Adam H. Kerman
Generally, park-n-ride is the most heavily subsidized "transit" service on
a fully allocated cost basis.

The subsidy for me to ride DART LRT is about $2.71/u-trip or $5.42/day. Are
you saying that a parking space in a P&R lot costs more than that? How
much?

You're average cost numbers don't look like they include capital.

[Art Clemons]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
That's simply not true. You continue to ignore that other drivers simply
notice that some particular route is less congested and switch to it,
restoring the missing trips.

Doesn't this imply that other routes are then less congested? There are
only so many drivers and cars available to fill every route unless of
course you're stating that some people don't move at all because of
congestion.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
To have people within walking distance of anything, parking must be
minimized.

It's extremely rare to have adequate density so that people can walk
anywhere, or to have adequate public transit. Even in New York City
there is a place for the personal automobile. Always was, and the
horse before the car.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
If too many people have to drive (or be driven) to take public
transportation for only a portion of the trip, it's a useless thing to
subsidize. Let 'em drive the entire trip.

Not true. The reality is that super high density won't be desired
outside of NYC. Having an intermodal split allows people to drive
part of the way in low density sections and collect them at a station
for a high density trip. Win-win for all.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
So you've designed a public transportation system that has a negligible
positive influence on society if nearly all of the households that use
it continue to own an automobile for each person of driving age.

I dare say the vast majority of commuter rail psgrs come to the
station by car, not by walking. Yet those systems, which carry
massive numbers of people, clearly DO have a positive influence on
society.

People WANT to own their own car. That is NOT going to change. What
public transit can and should do is REDUCE the amount of driving in
favor of transit; it will not eliminate driving altogether. People
who live in high density neighborhoods with good transit STILL own
automobiles, they just use them less than suburbanites. But they
still want and have that car.

To suggest that transit by itself can significantly influence suburban
land use is not practical or realistic whatsoever.

Post by Adam H. Kerman
They used to be. Why do you ignore history? The Vans, Ravenswood "L" in
Chicago, several suburban lines in Philadelphia, etc. are famous
examples of rail transit built to influence development. Either
developers subsidized the railroad or the railroad's investors were
themselves land developers.

That was a very different world, a century ago. That was when the
suburbs had absolutely nothing, people worked a six day week, and came
into the city for entertainment and shopping. That was long before
urban decay. Now we have TV and suburban shopping malls. Further,
the economy of scale is much different, what the railroad could
survive on 100 years ago is not the same today. Also, the railroads
carried package freight, mail, and local coal back then which help
cover operating costs.

FWIW, my local train station bulldozed the long-abandoned coal trestle
and freight house to expand the parking lot. I strongly doubted that
coal shipments would resume, nor would local freight, particularly
since the Interstate was built.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Stephen Sprunk
The cars are going to be parked somewhere; it's better for them to be
parked in the 'burbs next to a train station on relatively cheap land than
to park them downtown on land that costs 10-100 times as much, where they
are preventing people from putting up more productive structures (and
improving the density in transit's catchment area).

This is an excellent critical point.

A second consideration is that people will ride the train into town
rather than drive themselves, which is also a desired outcome.

Let's remember some downtown parking garages are operated by the
muncipality and semi-subsidized.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
See above; depending on local costs, free parking may in fact be the
cheapest way to attract new riders. If not, and there is no shortage of
riders, charge whatever maximizes revenue and only expand parking if it's
profitable.

Many station parking lots charge, sometimes a $1 per day, sometimes
$12 per day depending on location/demand. Some station lots are owned/
operated by the carrier, some are privately owned/operated. Some lots
charge less after the end of the morning rush hour. Some lots charge
for premium spaces.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
In some areas, that's realistic. In others, it's not. Relying on buses to
provide rail riders only gets you those without cars in practice, at least
here. You can see it for yourself at the rail stations without parking

Low density suburban areas don't use feeder buses very effectively.

[Mark Mathu]

Post by Richard Mlynarik

SEPTA announced it is adding spaces to its Trevose train station having
acquired a lot to do so.
Grading, retaining walls, etc., for the lot will cost $3,000,000 to yield
125 spaces, or $24,000 per space.
See: http://www.septa.org/news/pages/20071129.html
Unless there are other costs involved, doesn't that price seem high for a
parking lot, unless it includes the cost of land acquisition?
I know of a parking garage that cost $10,000,000 but yielded 9,000 spaces
or $1,111 per space.
Would anyone be familiar with parking lot construction costs?

Station parking lots (and "free" downtown urban parking lots for
shoppers) in the San Francisco Bay Area are now running over
$40,000/space. These are multi-level structures; real estate costs
are such that surface lots are even worse per space.
And no, excluding land acquisition costs (= massive opportunity costs)
is not a reasonable thing to do.

According to Septa's 2006 report, the cost cited above did not include land
acquistion. The overall budget for the parking addition including land cost
$3,980,000 -- or $30,000 per space.
http://www.septa.org/inside/reports/BucksCo200612.pdf

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
SEPTA announced it is adding spaces to its Trevose train station
having acquired a lot to do so.
Grading, retaining walls, etc., for the lot will cost $3,000,000 to
yield 125 spaces, or $24,000 per space.

How long is SEPTA claiming the spaces will last till repaving: 10 years
or 20 years?

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
See: http://www.septa.org/news/pages/20071129.html
Unless there are other costs involved, doesn't that price seem high
for a parking lot, unless it includes the cost of land acquisition?

It's what Metra tends to pay for 20 year spaces.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I know of a parking garage that cost $10,000,000 but yielded 9,000
spaces or $1,111 per space.
Would anyone be familiar with parking lot construction costs?

[Scott in SoCal]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
SEPTA announced it is adding spaces to its Trevose train station
having acquired a lot to do so.
Grading, retaining walls, etc., for the lot will cost $3,000,000 to
yield 125 spaces, or $24,000 per space.
See: http://www.septa.org/news/pages/20071129.html
Unless there are other costs involved, doesn't that price seem high
for a parking lot, unless it includes the cost of land acquisition?
I know of a parking garage that cost $10,000,000 but yielded 9,000
spaces or $1,111 per space.

They are building a new 1500 space parking structure at the Irvine
(California) Transportation Center. The budget for the structure is
$24.9 million, and the city already owns the land upon which it is
being built (it is replacing a former surface parking lot). No doubt
Calirfornia's strict seismic building codes account for some of the
cost.

[Shawn H.]

In article

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
SEPTA announced it is adding spaces to its Trevose train station
having acquired a lot to do so.
Grading, retaining walls, etc., for the lot will cost $3,000,000 to
yield 125 spaces, or $24,000 per space.
See: http://www.septa.org/news/pages/20071129.html
Unless there are other costs involved, doesn't that price seem high
for a parking lot, unless it includes the cost of land acquisition?
I know of a parking garage that cost $10,000,000 but yielded 9,000
spaces or $1,111 per space.
Would anyone be familiar with parking lot construction costs?

The calculation is pretty simple. The cost to buy the land where that
parking garage sits and the cost to build it was probably a lot less
than the $3,000,000 that SEPTA paid for that land in Trevose, plus how
old is that parking garage you referred to? The price of real estate has
skyrocketed over the past few years, even for vacant land.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Shawn H.
The calculation is pretty simple. The cost to buy the land where that
parking garage sits and the cost to build it was probably a lot less
than the $3,000,000 that SEPTA paid for that land in Trevose, plus how
old is that parking garage you referred to? The price of real estate has
skyrocketed over the past few years, even for vacant land.- Hide quoted text -

I don't think they paid $3 million for the land. Rather, as the
website describes, it was for various construction contracts to grade
the land, put in drainage, retaining walls, lighting, walkways, and
station fixtures. It sounds like it was more than taking an already
flat vacant light and merely lying a strip of asphalt atop it. The
website has a variety of construction photos.

[[e-mail]]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Shawn H.
The calculation is pretty simple. The cost to buy the land where that
parking garage sits and the cost to build it was probably a lot less
than the $3,000,000 that SEPTA paid for that land in Trevose, plus how
old is that parking garage you referred to? The price of real estate has
skyrocketed over the past few years, even for vacant land.- Hide quoted text -

I don't think they paid $3 million for the land. Rather, as the
website describes, it was for various construction contracts to grade
the land, put in drainage, retaining walls, lighting, walkways, and
station fixtures. It sounds like it was more than taking an already
flat vacant light and merely lying a strip of asphalt atop it. The
website has a variety of construction photos.

A little ot, but somewhat relevent.

What do you think about that big park and ride lot they built several
years ago at Cornwells Heights? I know they used fed highway money to
build it, as it was done by PennDOT. I saw the const plans.

I used it several times and I never had any problems, but the State
Police posted notices warning about car thefts and vandalism.

It has been a while since I was there. How is it doing currently?

Actually the p&r I prefer is the big Woodlawn lot of the High Speed
Line.

There have never been any problems there that I know of, and the DRPA
Police patrol it heavily.

Randy

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by ***@yahoo.com
What do you think about that big park and ride lot they built several
years ago at Cornwells Heights? I know they used fed highway money to
build it, as it was done by PennDOT. I saw the const plans.

It doubled the base ridership at that station. Obviously more parking
was needed than was available. However, the lot is very large and I
don't think it was ever utilized that extensively, except when I-95
was closed due to a bad fire.

I would've built such a lot at the Torresdale Station, a little
further south down the line, where I think it would've been more
attractive. But Cornwells had the empty land available.

NJT was supposed to build a park 'n ride garage at Secaucus Jct. The
NJ Tpk put an exit there for that reason. A private developer was
supposed to put up some office buildings; never happened.

[[e-mail]]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
NJT was supposed to build a park 'n ride garage at Secaucus Jct. The
NJ Tpk put an exit there for that reason. A private developer was
supposed to put up some office buildings; never happened.

I forget all of the details now, but it was supposed to be Allied Jct
owned by the billboard company of the same name.

The land was vacant for years excepting said billboards.

I am pretty sure there were environmental objections to any sort of
parking and the NJ office market is not exactly booming currently

Office development is always a possibility, they built it with
sufficient support for an office tower. When the market improves
sufficiently is an open question.

Randy

[Mark Mathu]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Unless there are other costs involved, doesn't that price seem high
for a parking lot, unless it includes the cost of land acquisition?
I know of a parking garage that cost $10,000,000 but yielded 9,000
spaces or $1,111 per space.

I'd love to see where that was.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Would anyone be familiar with parking lot construction costs?

I'm a civil engineer... costs for parking aren't a simple function of cost
per space -- the site/civil requirements of the specific site have a lot to
do with the cost. You could do a quick review of recent on-line news
articles and see the variety. When a few extra spots are squeezed into and
already developed lot (where the "easy" spots have already been built) the
costs can be astronimical:

Court parking may get easier
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071121/NEWS01/711210354&template=news0307
$198,000 / 180 spots = $1,100 per spot

Council approves million dollar parking lot on Danforth
http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/News/EastYork/article/33641
$1,400,000 / 19 = $73,684

On-time, on-budget' claim for rail questionable
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/11/25/1125railcost.html
$7,400,000 / 600 = $12,333

Downtown parking garage opens
http://www.newstimes.com/ci_7598561
$9,000,000 / 386 = $23,316

Campus Development: Parking lot under President's Circle?
http://media.www.dailyutahchronicle.com/media/storage/paper244/news/2007/11/30/News/Campus.Development.Parking.Lot.Under.Presidents.Circle-3125031.shtml
$12,000,000 / 600 = $20,000

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Stephen Sprunk
In some areas, that's realistic. In others, it's not. Relying on buses to
provide rail riders only gets you those without cars in practice, at least
here. You can see it for yourself at the rail stations without parking

It already helps a lot, if the buses are closer than the parking spaces.
Loading Image...


Hans-Joachim