Because I despise "this" and other clickbait-y titles, the "this" in the video is walkshed: the area around public transit that's reachable on foot by the average person. North America tends to...
Because I despise "this" and other clickbait-y titles, the "this" in the video is walkshed: the area around public transit that's reachable on foot by the average person. North America tends to have minimum parking requirements for development, so space around transit stations where people wouldn't be in a car isn't as dense as it could/should be therefore making transit less effective by there being less stuff for people on it to get to reasonably.
Yeah... I've got a great example of that from my local area: the outermost link in the Bay Area Rapid Transit (light rail) system. It's a ten minute walk from the station to the very nearest...
Yeah... I've got a great example of that from my local area: the outermost link in the Bay Area Rapid Transit (light rail) system. It's a ten minute walk from the station to the very nearest business, and multiple minutes more to the next one after that. I recognize that its key value is to convert drivers from the suburbs into rail passengers, but it's practically its only value. It's located in the center of a freeway so the walk is dry, dirty, and noisy, there's nothing to walk to nearby... blech. I'm not going to say that it would have become a vibrant center of urban life if it had been built differently, but as it is there is a single purpose to it, and it's not for a human on foot.
I've read that cities like San Francisco have been trying to incentivize denser development near transit links for this reason, as well as the diminishing returns of building it when the...
I've read that cities like San Francisco have been trying to incentivize denser development near transit links for this reason, as well as the diminishing returns of building it when the population it ostensibly serves is so spread out. It's ironic that suburbs are "walkable" in the sense that they generally have sidewalks, trees, and other design aspects that are good for pedestrians, but there's practically nowhere to walk to.
Yeah, closer into the core where the population and service density are higher, there's major developments happening where there used to be ground level parking lots around the transit links. 8-12...
Yeah, closer into the core where the population and service density are higher, there's major developments happening where there used to be ground level parking lots around the transit links. 8-12 story apartment buildings with street level retail, so there's reasons to visit and also easy access to the system for all the new people living nearby. It's not all bad.
Because I despise "this" and other clickbait-y titles, the "this" in the video is walkshed: the area around public transit that's reachable on foot by the average person. North America tends to have minimum parking requirements for development, so space around transit stations where people wouldn't be in a car isn't as dense as it could/should be therefore making transit less effective by there being less stuff for people on it to get to reasonably.
Yeah... I've got a great example of that from my local area: the outermost link in the Bay Area Rapid Transit (light rail) system. It's a ten minute walk from the station to the very nearest business, and multiple minutes more to the next one after that. I recognize that its key value is to convert drivers from the suburbs into rail passengers, but it's practically its only value. It's located in the center of a freeway so the walk is dry, dirty, and noisy, there's nothing to walk to nearby... blech. I'm not going to say that it would have become a vibrant center of urban life if it had been built differently, but as it is there is a single purpose to it, and it's not for a human on foot.
I've read that cities like San Francisco have been trying to incentivize denser development near transit links for this reason, as well as the diminishing returns of building it when the population it ostensibly serves is so spread out. It's ironic that suburbs are "walkable" in the sense that they generally have sidewalks, trees, and other design aspects that are good for pedestrians, but there's practically nowhere to walk to.
Yeah, closer into the core where the population and service density are higher, there's major developments happening where there used to be ground level parking lots around the transit links. 8-12 story apartment buildings with street level retail, so there's reasons to visit and also easy access to the system for all the new people living nearby. It's not all bad.