is fine and good (at great cost) but high density at stations is being pushed because it can help justify the original light rail vision and all the millions and millions and millions into it (billions collectively, much debt), with some developers hoping to cash in well above the communal cost-to-benefits gain by a leg to the airport now. Pushing for higher density in suburbia to justify a city transportation dream is backwards, but that is how some (people's) dreams are made and labeled a success. When will success come and at what price? And at the expenses of other more organic development elsewhere and higher functioning plans, like bus service. A more saturated and flexible bus system that goes where more people want and need to go would cost less and offer more service.
I love trains. They are cool. Light rail is still novel even after about a thousand trips and cool and touristy and can be commutery for a small group who are going where it goes. (Personal safety issues aside, DART scandal and conflict of interests aside). I like that whoosh and speed. They are costly. They need to make sense. Until we are made to fit it (the light rail or whatever variation of it), it won't make sense. Whereas the automobile opened up mobility opportunities and new lifestyles (leaving some train travel behind), the light rail transit model is more limiting in many ways, doesn't offer anywhere near as much mobility (or speed, time savings as it is operated now) as the automobile.
Packing UTD, densifying stations, bringing people in, it could all make the light dream work. At a very high cost. Those wanting the suburban lifestyle (less traffic, less pollution, less crowding) will have to go somewhere else. (Doesn't that equal the so called dreaded sprawl anyway?) (You should know that packing a place with more people does not cut down on local congestion and traffic and idle pollution).
Farm land has been taken out of production, but what has been taken out due to sprawl is only a small fraction. "Sprawl" in and of itself is not a main problem. (It's how we do it).
Oh, big density is going to get approved in spots because the thinking is that we are in for a dime already, so go all the way in for a pound (to make a dream work). Make that millions and millions of pounds.
Creating hot spots of density does not a successful regional transit system make, but it does make for some other things.
I got a few emails this morning originating (originally) from someone claiming to represent some people or residents (not sure who "they" are who agreed to be represented) on that high density apartment proposal mentioned at 75 and Renner (notice I used the word "that"). Riiight. Like things were represented before. I think the closer I lived the quicker I would say, "no thanks." If you think it is so good for the environment as you espouse, and are talking about how "smart planning" you are, you go live in high density somewhere that it already exists. Don't try to talk me into it. The "walkable" tiny dream community. But I still got to get to the grocery store, the doctor, the soccer game, and least of all work, schools and church.
Who is left that represents suburbanites? Anyone? Anyone?
If you want to live in a high density apartment area, pave over everything, go there. If not, don't agree so easily to have it come to you. (Not that much of it).
Michael in Portland wrote this in 2004 and it can be ours if we want it (but it will cost).
