Google sponsored links
Here is a link for an article I found over at bankrate about walkable communities: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/real-estate/20060223a1.asp
My favorite line is
In a two-income household," she says, "if one person can get by without having a car for transit, that's an average savings of $680 a month, which in turn can translate into the possibility of homeownership. So it's a huge economic benefit."
The Stapleton project on the old Denver airport site looks super cool! I am not in a position to pack up and move right now, but maybe someday. Hopefully you guys will like the info-sorry if this was already posted.
See ya,
MN Dan
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
From the neo-trad developments I've seen, I think some of Mr. Berkus' comments are justified. Last summer I biked twice per week through one. It was MUCH better than the surrounding developments but the designers still didn't get it. Some wasn't their fault like no walkable connection to the nearby train station. But the silly never used front porches and the car dominated street scape was. The development was still designed from behind the windshield of a car. For example, the grocery store still needed the huge parking lot rather than a garage. If the place were really so "walkable" they wouldn't need the same huge parking lot and they couldve had more green space with a garage attached to the Safeway. They sited the large parking lot near the so called town square so you got the fumes and heat and traffic in the summer. Maybe that is why I never saw anyone use the "town square". The bike racks were designed on the opposite side of the "town square" from the shops instead of under cover in front of the shops. The message was loud and clear- don't bike to the store, bikes are toys and belong away from the adult activities.
The article also quoted an urban planner from Orlando as an advocate. Try biking from one end of Orlando to the other, with advocates like Orlando's urban planners neo trad needs no foes. But, at least the critics of neo trad didn't blindly defend car dominated suburbs as "gold standard" and "best practice" urban planning like I've heard in various planning meetings around town.
These communities are modelled after small towns and also after the old city neighborhoods with small shopping districts within 15 to 20 minutes walking distance of all homes. Cities also used to have small convenience stores within a 4 or 5 minute walk of most homes.
Why did the old traditional neighborhood shopping districts and small town downtowns die off? Obviously because of cars, and the ease of traveling farther for greater selection and slightly lower prices.
Why do they think "neo-trad" communities will be spared the same fate? Won't most people (not us, obviously) still want to drive to the big box stores on the edge of town? I would be leary about investing in one of these communities, also.
Why do they think "neo-trad" communities will be spared the same fate? Won't most people (not us, obviously) still want to drive to the big box stores on the edge of town? I would be leary about investing in one of these communities, also.
In fact most of the retail refuses to support the neo-traditional concept. Rather than being sprinkled throughout the community they insist on being sited at the edge of development fronting a major arterial road and surrounded by acres of parking lot. Their business model is to serve the customer who arrives by car. Such customers can be counted on to buy more.
Furthermore, since these neo-trad houses cost plenty both spouses will be working to pay the mortgage - at jobs located outside the community so they will be coming and going via car. And since they have to pass the retail as they drive by - that is how they continue to shop.
We will sooner be able to pry the rifle out of Charleton Heston's cold dead hands than we be able to free the car keys from suburbia!
In fact most of the retail refuses to support the neo-traditional concept.
Note also that existing zoning laws often serve to severely restrict the type of development that can happen. Developers are usually required to build very wide (and fast pedestrian-unfriendly) streets. They're required to put in gobs of parking. Mixed-use development is restricted or prohibited by law in most cities.
Even more fascitnating, check out www.carfree.com
Here is a link for an article I found over at bankrate about walkable communities: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/real-estate/20060223a1.asp
My favorite line is
In a two-income household," she says, "if one person can get by without having a car for transit, that's an average savings of $680 a month, which in turn can translate into the possibility of homeownership. So it's a huge economic benefit."
The Stapleton project on the old Denver airport site looks super cool! I am not in a position to pack up and move right now, but maybe someday. Hopefully you guys will like the info-sorry if this was already posted.
See ya,
MN Dan
FYI - there are potential concerns regarding the grounds of stapleton (biohazard). Take it with a grain of salt. BTW - Stapleton is nice, but not self-sustainable. The Denver metro area is huge and sprawling. Public transport from stapleton to most places is good if you aren't in a hurry and willing to take transfers. if you like mtn sports/recreation, Stapleton and car free isn't any better than any other place in the Denver metro area and car free. (Best options are close to RTD hubs)
Not all neo-trads are alike though. Many, however, are no more likely to allow you to be car free than living any another type of place, and some are just regular old suburbs without employement, services, etc. close and abundant enough to make being car free an easy decision for the average person, couple, family, etc.
Traditional cities, e.g. NYC allow one the best chance of being car free and having the recreation, educational, services, cultural centers, etc. within convenient distances.
Although places like NYC may be more condusive to car-free than other places, cost is also an issue (although being car free would certainly offset that).
Maybe it should be a carfree person (group of persons) designing the carfree cities of tomorrow.
Maybe it should be a carfree person (group of persons) designing the carfree cities of tomorrow.
A-freakin-men!
Check out the book that goes with the website that becnal listed. It's very readable even for non-architect/urban planners. If someone would build a city like the one that it describes, I'd be on my way. If it existed now, I'd already live there.
FYI - there are potential concerns regarding the grounds of stapleton (biohazard). Take it with a grain of salt. BTW - Stapleton is nice, but not self-sustainable. The Denver metro area is huge and sprawling. Public transport from stapleton to most places is good if you aren't in a hurry and willing to take transfers. if you like mtn sports/recreation, Stapleton and car free isn't any better than any other place in the Denver metro area and car free. (Best options are close to RTD hubs)
i agree - I live in Denver and Stapleton is wonderfully a wonderfully designed neighborhood, with front porches, garages, in BACK, alleys, and getting better and better, but it is a bit isolated. (But it's an easy ride for bike commuting downtown).
this plan in Denver - when complete, will be phenomenol for transit - as long as it provides decent bus circulation in the suburbs.
http://www.rtd-denver.com/fastracks/
this plan in Denver - when complete, will be phenomenol for transit - as long as it provides decent bus circulation in the suburbs. (fastracks)
Do you actually use RTD? Many people I know who ride the bus (including myself) opposed Fastracks because it will result in less frequent service and probable elimination of entire bus routes. It's questionable whether the Longmont-Boulder-US36 commuter rail service will permit bikes on board. I asked Mary Blue and Lee Kemp about this. Mary has always been a cycling advocate, but she's no longer with RTD. Lee Kemp is a professional planner, which means he's guaranteed to screw things up for us.
Suburb service is often difficult and a $$ drain on profitable lines, and RTD doesn't fully address that aspect. One significant challenge (or problem) is that the concept of a suburb has changed (read City in History - L. Mumford for examples). Suburbs are viable is along a spoke in a hub and spoke system, or if interconnected and still somewhat geographically small. The average North American model no longer resembles that.
agreed on the carfee designers; however, dev $$ dictates design, and as long as people want to pay $$ for the 3 car garage 1/4 acre burb domicile, they will keep popping pu.
Do you actually use RTD? Many people I know who ride the bus (including myself) opposed Fastracks because it will result in less frequent service and probable elimination of entire bus routes. It's questionable whether the Longmont-Boulder-US36 commuter rail service will permit bikes on board. I asked Mary Blue and Lee Kemp about this. Mary has always been a cycling advocate, but she's no longer with RTD. Lee Kemp is a professional planner, which means he's guaranteed to screw things up for us.
I do, I live downtown and commute to tech center, and often use the express busses, and will use the southeast rail line often (when not biking), when it's complete in November.
I'm completely in favor of the plan, especially the airport line. Currently the routes being eliminated for the SE rail line are routes up and down 25, which the new rail line will serve - and other routes will be modified to serve the stations.
BUT - I totally understand that outlying areas are spread out. and just because a rail line goes "near" your house, that doesn't make it convenient to walk to and may prevent people from using it. It's important that the suburbs have "circulator" service. like every 10-15 minutes at most that bring people TO the rail line OR suburb to suburb connections.
If you live in Thorton and work on Golden fastracks is worthless, but the same applies in cities like Chicago and Buenos Aires, where the rail line is mainly a "fork", so to use rail from one burb to the other requires going downtown.
But I do feel for heavy work locations. i.e. tech center to airport, airport to downtown, downtown to Boulder, it will be invaluable during rush hour, and on the right track. hey that was a great pun.
Oh and I'm sure bikes will be allowed on. Most major cities allow bikes on rail, and Denver is now allowing bikes on rail during peak times. I think we're more athletically progressive than most cities, so if some stodgy board members were to decide against it, it would be easily overruled - hopefully
all the best - james...
[QUOTE=schiavonec]Suburb service is often difficult and a $$ drain on profitable lines, and RTD doesn't fully address that aspect. One significant challenge (or problem) is that the concept of a suburb has changed (read City in History - L. Mumford for examples).
Instead of fools like Mumford, try reading Jane Jacobs' "death and life of american cities"
The info you'll find in there is still applicable - over forty years later. Take a city for what it is - not what some utopian idealists say it should be.
so if some stodgy board members were to decide against it, it would be easily overruled - hopefully
The decision to allow bikes on rail was an attempt to appease Bike Denver and other Denver interest groups because they were furious with RTD's failure to deliver on some promises they made regarding bike access to a south Denver Park and Ride. RTD's reason? "The routes could be so popular with cyclists that they could cause overflows at nearby park-n-ride locations."
I mean c'mon!! Have you ever heard of anybody stopping highway construction because too many people might use it?? In spite of lobbying by the City and County of Denver, DRCOG, half the TMOs & TMAs in Front Range, and other groups, nobody "overruled" -- easily or otherwise -- RTD's decision.
It's important that the suburbs have "circulator" service.
Fastracks will not hinder the circulators at all. We have them and they'll continue. It's not an issue.
Right now, the BOLT service between Longmont and Boulder runs every 15 to 20 minutes during peak times. This 55 passenger bus is often full. The B and BX route from Boulder to Denver runs even more frequently. These are intercity expresses, not circulators. Fastracks will replace this frequent service with once or twice hourly trains and since they're sharing track with freight trains the travel time will be longer. From a level of service standpoint this isn't even close to acceptable.
We'll be out of oil by the time Fastracks becomes reality anyway, so I don't think Fastracks is all bad. RTD has done good things for cyclists -- bike lockers at large bus stations, bike racks on every bus and so forth -- but RTD does have its problems.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.