At crosscut there’s an interesting piece about rail transit. David Brewster writes this about the densities required to make rail transit work:
The case for transit is not an easy one to make for the voters. Costs are very high, and only a few of the voters live near enough to the lines to get much direct benefit. The trickle-down case is difficult to make, especially since expensive transit systems usually force cutbacks in bus service to pay for the rails. So it’s not surprising that the case is invariably oversold. One of the worst ways it is oversold is to urge people to imagine that these first baby steps, or “starter lines,” will someday grow into a full system, as in larger, older cities.
Ain’t gonna happen. The general rule is that only cities with densities of more than 10,000 people per square mile pass the threshold for extensive use of public transportation systems. That qualifies only New York and Chicago, which account for a large percentage of all public transportation in America. Seattle’s density, for its urbanized area, is about 3,000 people per square mile. Moreover, public transportation becomes dominant only in the downtown business districts of these cities.
He’s confused. When New York built it’s first subway, there were 500,000 people living there. It wasn’t even as dense as Seattle. New York, Chicago, etc. became dense because of transit, not the other way around.
He does go on to say that Rail will attract different and more riders, that it will allow for smart urban planning and that it will increase development and investment. But he’s wrong on density.
Yes, he’s confused but I’m not entirely sure the counter-argument is the best one. NYC, Boston, Chicago all invested in mass transit before widespread automobile ownership and use. Those cities were, in many ways, dense both on account of both lack of auto usage as well as well-engineered public transit.
Density alone does not dictate success and/or failure of public transit (and I’m getting kind of tired and bored of the argument that density alone can solve all of our provlems)- other less sexy and obvious factors also come into playin terms of supply-and-demand in public transit: travel/commute patterns, municipal and regional automotive infrastructure, climate, geography, and other pieces play very strongly into the mix as well.
It’s also not to say that public transit does not and cannot work now that so many more people have cars and density is not as high (in most newer U.S. cities) – it’s just a harder sell, and a place where intelligent civic planning and forward-thinking voters absolutely must work hand-in hand to make progress. (I’m not sure the civic leaders meet that description, nor do many of the region’s voters…). Building a world-class city and transit system take time and sacrifice – civically backward 70s/80s-era Seattle fetishists like Mossback and others just don’t want to swallow that pill.
Rapid mass transit can work in Seattle, but it will take more than just density to make it happen.
Seattle’s density is not like those older cities. They have nice row houses, brownstones, etc.
Seattle has ugly highrises and then little bungalows.
Well, I don’t know if David Brewster is talking about a different Seattle than the one I live in.
Seeing as how we have an estimate Proper Population of 578,700 and square mileage of 84 land miles, that puts the density at about 7k per square mile.
PDX, which has three lines, has far less people (50k) and about 4k per square mile.
In each of those cases (and Davey boy’s cited cases) those reach out around the metro-area and stay out of the proper.
Hell, the current last southern stop in Tukwila has over 80k within a 3 mile radius! Plus, he forgets about the concept of Park and Ride in less dense areas.
Why people don’t want accept progressionis an interesting phenomenon.
All facts and figures of Seattle and Portland were from wikipedia. Figures on Tukwila were from Tukwila’s city planner and this is a damn neat fact site: http://www.publicpurpose.com/dmseapor.htm
Remember, people, the rail will happen. We will stop driving cars as much as we did in the 80′s and 90′s and things will get bigger, denser, and cooler. Just relax and accept that we’re a “big boy” city now.
7000 per square mile in Seattle, not 3000. Also, SF has 14,000 per square mile, so NYC and Chicago are not the only ones over 10,000.