Crazy Transit Pitches

[Commuting Boston Student]

Hmm? Isn't that the definition of sprawl? Development is expensive, you want to do it where existing resources are located already. Extending utilities out to the middle of nowhere is extremely expensive. It's not environmentally friendly either.

Fair enough, but I'd hardly call the space between Hartford and Providence the middle of nowhere, and my argument is that closing the gap between the 'Boston metro' and 'New York metro' (which are the two large metro regions I assume Nexis4jersey is referring to) is not a bad thing. Everyone benefits from a cohesive 'Northeast Metro Region,' and the benefits far outweigh the consequences of extending development through that area.

I can't even call it a corridor, because there is no corridor there.

 

[Riverside]

I mean't to correct the Wachusetts mistake... TOD between HFD and PVD would lead to regular sprawl damaging the remaining gap between the 2 large Metros in the Northeast. I don't think that's a wise thing to do.... I don't see either city that progressive with TOD compared to Boston or Stamford or even Cambridge.... What makes you think a Rail line between the 2 would change this? A New High Speed Rail Connection to NYC and Boston would greatly benefit both cities , but I can't see the market for commuter rail between the two.

I'm not sure rail would lead to the same kind of sprawl that highways do. If anything, I'd think the opposite was true. If we're talking about local rail here, and not HSR, you could design the system to encourage people to live within walking distance of the train station, and discourage people from living farther away (ie. don't build multi-story parking lots).

I mean, I'm not an expert on this stuff at all, but that's the way it looks to me.

 

[Nexis4jersey]

Wait, so, your argument is that we shouldn't connect the two because it will fill a gap of empty space and that's... not... wise?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?

Seriously, what?

Why WOULDN'T you want more development anywhere and everywhere you could get it?

Why wouldn't you figure either city - hell, either STATE - as progressive with TOD? What evidence do you have for that?

And seriously, even if the 'New NEC' gets built - and the open secret is, it's never going to be - that's going to be a connection for PVD to BOS or NYC, and for HFD to BOS or NYC. Nobody is going to board a BOS-NYC HSR line to go one stop, and that's where HFD-PVD commuter rail comes in.

And looking over your list some more... 'Central Manchester' already puts you a significant percentage of the way towards PVD. Throw down another stop in Willmantic, Danielson(?), Foster/Glocester, Johnston and PVD - four new stops and you're done.

Except really, it's more like two new stops because Central Manchester would need a Willmantic extension eventually and Johnston-PVD is a connection that needs to happen.

It would case an explosion of sprawl...and thats not something I would want... I'm very Anti-Sprawl...these days you should invest in your old cities and towns not in these cheesy unsustainable Mc Mansion towns. Their not even popular anymore , the older towns and cities are outgrowing the Auto sprawl. Both cities are getting stops ,there isn't that enough demand for regional Rail service and they're probably never will be. At least not past Manchester. I'm sure the Secondary High Speed Service will see stops adding in Storrs and near Danielson to connect with future regional Rail being proposed.

A Station Similar to the one both will probably be installed in between the Large stations , these kinds of stations are built all over Europe to service the smaller towns and cities.... The Midwestern Network plans on having these types of stations in smaller cities and college towns to service them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6HwIJub3UM

 

[Equilibria]

Commuter Rail won't cause an "explosion of sprawl" for the simple reason that there won't be stations in the middle of nowhere. As you said, you might put stations in some existing small towns and some folks who work in Hartford or Providence might move there, but that's exactly the kind of development you say you want, and if the people in those towns don't want to expand, they can change zoning or decline the station.

Rail is a links-and-nodes network. You can only board at nodes, and adding links doesn't impact the degree of development of the land surrounding the line. I might agree with you that leaving gaps in megalopolises is a good thing (not all development is good), but connecting cities through wilderness doesn't automatically eliminate the wilderness, and these two cities need to be connected better than they are.

 

[Riverside]

Commuter Rail won't cause an "explosion of sprawl" for the simple reason that there won't be stations in the middle of nowhere. As you said, you might put stations in some existing small towns and some folks who work in Hartford or Providence might move there, but that's exactly the kind of development you say you want, and if the people in those towns don't want to expand, they can change zoning or decline the station.

Rail is a links-and-nodes network. You can only board at nodes, and adding links doesn't impact the degree of development of the land surrounding the line. I might agree with you that leaving gaps in megalopolises is a good thing (not all development is good), but connecting cities through wilderness doesn't automatically eliminate the wilderness, and these two cities need to be connected better than they are.

This. If you wish to preserve the wilderness, just don't build park-n-rides or stations where you don't want development.

I like a lot of your other ideas, Nexis4jersey. Any chance of a map?

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

It would case an explosion of sprawl...and thats not something I would want... I'm very Anti-Sprawl...these days you should invest in your old cities and towns not in these cheesy unsustainable Mc Mansion towns. Their not even popular anymore , the older towns and cities are outgrowing the Auto sprawl. Both cities are getting stops ,there isn't that enough demand for regional Rail service and they're probably never will be. At least not past Manchester. I'm sure the Secondary High Speed Service will see stops adding in Storrs and near Danielson to connect with future regional Rail being proposed.

A Station Similar to the one both will probably be installed in between the Large stations , these kinds of stations are built all over Europe to service the smaller towns and cities.... The Midwestern Network plans on having these types of stations in smaller cities and college towns to service them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6HwIJub3UM

I mean, again, I'm not really equating an active and bustling HFD-PVD corridor with 'an explosion of sprawl.' Even if it fits the 'definition' of sprawl.

There's plenty of demand for regional service between HFD and PVD - it's one of the last remaining corridors where we could conceivably see a new Interstate constructed. Given what we've learned since constructing the Interstate Highway Network and how damaging the construction of these things are, for there to be enough support behind a brand new Interstate in spite of that demonstrates, to me, a huge amount of demand. This is far from a never will be. Construction could have been well underway by now if not for the Army Corps of Engineers not liking the proposed alignment (because it wasn't 'their' alignment).

HFD and PVD are being connected. It's only a matter of time. Do you want 8 lanes of interstate, or 4 tracks of rail? One of these things is going to be far more damaging than the other, and you have to pick one.

edit: Retraction - the Interstate 82 was apparently officially dropped in 2005 due to the Army Corps taking their ball and bat and going home, but there is still support for the project. Building the regional rail connection will likely reduce support enough that the project will never be reactivated.

 

[Nexis4jersey]

I'm not sure rail would lead to the same kind of sprawl that highways do. If anything, I'd think the opposite was true. If we're talking about local rail here, and not HSR, you could design the system to encourage people to live within walking distance of the train station, and discourage people from living farther away (ie. don't build multi-story parking lots).

I mean, I'm not an expert on this stuff at all, but that's the way it looks to me.

While Id be comfortable with High Speed Rail making stops in Storrs or Manchester , regular commuter rail will cause sprawl and it does in PA. My Childhood has been paved over with sprawl and i'm not even half way through my life that's to fast. So I would like a chunk of the Northeast to remain rural by the year 2050...

 

[Riverside]

While Id be comfortable with High Speed Rail making stops in Storrs or Manchester , regular commuter rail will cause sprawl and it does in PA. My Childhood has been paved over with sprawl and i'm not even half way through my life that's to fast. So I would like a chunk of the Northeast to remain rural by the year 2050...

Vermont.

But, for the sake of argument, say you put down tracks between Providence and Hartford, put in stations in Johnston, Willimantic and Manchester. And you run non-stop through everything else. I don't see how that cause sprawl. And even if you eventually add little stations in a few small towns along the way, I just don't see how that will cause sprawl the way the interstate highways have.

 

[Nexis4jersey]

I mean, again, I'm not really equating an active and bustling HFD-PVD corridor with 'an explosion of sprawl.' Even if it fits the 'definition' of sprawl.

There's plenty of demand for regional service between HFD and PVD - it's one of the last remaining corridors where we could conceivably see a new Interstate constructed. Given what we've learned since constructing the Interstate Highway Network and how damaging the construction of these things are, for there to be enough support behind a brand new Interstate in spite of that demonstrates, to me, a huge amount of demand. This is far from a never will be. Construction could have been well underway by now if not for the Army Corps of Engineers not liking the proposed alignment (because it wasn't 'their' alignment).

HFD and PVD are being connected. It's only a matter of time. Do you want 8 lanes of interstate, or 4 tracks of rail? One of these things is going to be far more damaging than the other, and you have to pick one.

But there isn't even a demand for an Interstate , maybe in the past but not today. It wouldn't be 4 tracks but 2 tracks , with 4 tracks in and around stations for trains to pick up passengers without slowing down the line which is a current NEC issue.

 

[Equilibria]

While Id be comfortable with High Speed Rail making stops in Storrs or Manchester , regular commuter rail will cause sprawl and it does in PA. My Childhood has been paved over with sprawl and i'm not even half way through my life that's to fast. So I would like a chunk of the Northeast to remain rural by the year 2050...

Just the fact that there is sprawl where you grew up doesn't necessarily mean that commuter rail in CT will cause it there. In addition, what's your definition of sprawl? I don't know the exact story of your hometown, but if you lived on the outskirts of a small town and commuter rail caused a couple new tracts of housing to be built there, that's not sprawl. That's a healthy expansion of a small town.

I just have a hard time believing that a station on what is frankly a marginal CR line between 2 regional centers of medium size is going to turn rural Connecticut into the LA Basin. Freeways do, because they generally have exits at lots of major roads in open land. True sprawl requires open, unprotected, flat land, and that's in short supply in New England to begin with.

Growth and change and evolution aren't choices, they're imperatives. A city, town or region (that isn't geographically isolated in some fundamental way) can evolve, or it can stagnate and decline. Creating and enforcing "forgotten corners" of a state will only serve to leave those areas behind.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

But there isn't even a demand for an Interstate , maybe in the past but not today. It wouldn't be 4 tracks but 2 tracks , with 4 tracks in and around stations for trains to pick up passengers without slowing down the line which is a current NEC issue.

There's demand for some kind of connection. If it's not the regional rail, it's going to be the interstate. That's my point.

After some digging, it appears that the Interstate has been tabled for now. So I restate my question: would you rather it come back with a vengeance later when the HSR proves inadequate for the needs of HFD-PVD and especially the towns between them (because let me tell you - those big stations you mention service servicing smaller towns in Europe sounds disturbingly similar to 'park and ride megaplex'), or would you rather we build a regional rail connection that can service Hartford, Manchester, Willmantic, Johnston, Providence and the small towns in between that might just eliminate the demand for improved road access entirely, or eliminate it enough that simple road improvements (and not an interstate) takes care of the rest?

 

[Nexis4jersey]

Vermont.

But, for the sake of argument, say you put down tracks between Providence and Hartford, put in stations in Johnston, Willimantic and Manchester. And you run non-stop through everything else. I don't see how that cause sprawl. And even if you eventually add little stations in a few small towns along the way, I just don't see how that will cause sprawl the way the interstate highways have.

Actually it might go the US 44 Route which is straighter and doesn't need to dip down. If theres a highway or Major road within the same area as the Railway sprawl tends to explode...while its not as bad as Interstate sprawl , its still sprawl.

 

[omaja]

The notion that commuter rail (or rail of any kind, really) causes sprawl is ridiculous just by virtue of the limited scope of a station's service area. People will really only comfortably consider walking that is less than a half-mile (ideally less than a quarter mile) from their origin/destination. How else do they get to stations? Other public transit or, you guessed it, cars.

There's a huge difference between, say, the development of Boston's streetcar suburbs and the South Shore. In the case of Boston's streetcar suburbs, the rail lines were extended to open areas to encourage development. In the case of the South Shore, commuter rail was built to service already existing sprawl - sprawl caused by the advent of the automobile and limited access highways.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

The notion that commuter rail (or rail of any kind, really) causes sprawl is ridiculous just by virtue of the limited scope of a station's service area. People will really only comfortably consider walking that is less than a half-mile (ideally less than a quarter mile) from their origin/destination. How else do they get to stations? Other public transit or, you guessed it, cars.

I'd honestly be very interested in a study to find out how far people are generally willing to drive to a train station before deciding to just drive the entire length of their journey.

 

[Riverside]

Actually it might go the US 44 Route which is straighter and doesn't need to dip down. If theres a highway or Major road within the same area as the Railway sprawl tends to explode...while its not as bad as Interstate sprawl , its still sprawl.

What would you cite as a source for your assertion that railway plus highway yields sprawl?

And again, why should we assume that the designers of a PVD-HFD CR line would route it along a curvy ex-turnpike that's the better part of 200 years old?

 

[Riverside]

I'd honestly be very interested in a study to find out how far people are generally willing to drive to a train station before deciding to just drive the entire length of their journey.

Well, people drive from all over the place to get to 128. Heck, they drive to Alewife so they don't have to park downtown. If I lived in Concord and worked in Cambridge, I might very well drive most of the way in, park at Alewife and ride the Red Line in.

But I agree, it would be interesting to see a study about that. I'd also be interested in seeing how far people are willing to walk to a train station (rather than drive), or how many transfers people are willing to put up with before they just drive instead.

(Sorry for the double post.)

 

[Matthew]

Rail sprawl is sprawl, even though it occurs along linear paths and is generally more walkable. Like many 19th century suburbs. So perhaps it is preferable.

But I wasn't referring to that, but to the notion of creating new subdivisions where no utilities existed previously. That means you have to bring the grid out there, which is expensive. TOD should really be about infill or development where there's already infrastructure of some sort, to make more efficient use of it.

 

[Nexis4jersey]

Just the fact that there is sprawl where you grew up doesn't necessarily mean that commuter rail in CT will cause it there. In addition, what's your definition of sprawl? I don't know the exact story of your hometown, but if you lived on the outskirts of a small town and commuter rail caused a couple new tracts of housing to be built there, that's not sprawl. That's a healthy expansion of a small town.

I just have a hard time believing that a station on what is frankly a marginal CR line between 2 regional centers of medium size is going to turn rural Connecticut into the LA Basin. Freeways do, because they generally have exits at lots of major roads in open land. True sprawl requires open, unprotected, flat land, and that's in short supply in New England to begin with.

Growth and change and evolution aren't choices, they're imperatives. A city, town or region (that isn't geographically isolated in some fundamental way) can evolve, or it can stagnate and decline. Creating and enforcing "forgotten corners" of a state will only serve to leave those areas behind.

Its not my town , but my cousins once rural small quiet town. I live in the thick of the Urbanized Railroad Sprawl of North Jersey. The Classic Sprawl is focused around Automobiles , and encourages auto use over rail and Transit use. It accounts for 60% of the American population , although only 10% of the New England population lives in what I would call Auto Sprawl. New England has stuck to its Transit Sprawl roots which is more dense and controlled and promotes Transit / Alt Modes of Transportation over Auto. However most of these towns were built around the Railroads before 1930s...these days if Rail was built through area like that they would sprawled within 10 years...

 

[Equilibria]

Its not my town , but my cousins once rural small quiet town. I live in the thick of the Urbanized Railroad Sprawl of North Jersey. The Classic Sprawl is focused around Automobiles , and encourages auto use over rail and Transit use. It accounts for 60% of the American population , although only 10% of the New England population lives in what I would call Auto Sprawl. New England has stuck to its Transit Sprawl roots which is more dense and controlled and promotes Transit / Alt Modes of Transportation over Auto. However most of these towns were built around the Railroads before 1930s...these days if Rail was built through area like that they would sprawled within 10 years...

You're talking about streetcar suburbs, which involved a level of access more akin to automobiles than what we're talking about here, and the old definition of "commuter rail", which had stop spacing small enough that many lines in Boston ultimately became rapid transit or light rail later on. In addition, you seem to define any expansion of a city/urban area beyond it's Civil War era boundaries as "sprawl". I don't. I define as sprawl the auto-centric development pattern which demonstrates low density, economically-engineered housing with segregated uses. Due to its density and the ease of access over long trips, this development will "sprawl" for massive distances through the landscape.

Cities will always expand as they grow, and as long as the population continues to grow those people have to live somewhere. "Sprawl" is a loaded term (and you've made a value judgement on it), so I think it's important to define it in a way distinct from "any part of a city made possible through improved access". If that's your definition, most of Manhattan is sprawl.

 

[omaja]

The Classic Sprawl is focused around Automobiles , and encourages auto use over rail and Transit use. It accounts for 60% of the American population , although only 10% of the New England population lives in what I would call Auto Sprawl. New England has stuck to its Transit Sprawl roots which is more dense and controlled and promotes Transit / Alt Modes of Transportation over Auto. However most of these towns were built around the Railroads before 1930s...these days if Rail was built through area like that they would sprawled within 10 years...

Transit sprawl is an oxymoronic term at best. Sprawl implies low density development while areas originally developed around the railroads were built to good level of density. Most of New England can't be called 'transit sprawl' when the mainstay of much of the development - the single family home - wasn't popularized and made anywhere attainable for most until the auto. Correlation (town centers along railroads) does not imply causation (railroads create sprawl).

It is true that New England has a much more engrained village/town center culture than other parts of the country (similar to what you might see in Europe - a dense core and various small satellite cities linked together). As a result, outside of these traditional town centers, densities tend to fall much more dramatically compared to all of the sprawl in places like LA, Chicago, Miami.

EDIT: Just saw Equilibria basically beat me to it.