CATS Long Term Transit Plan - Silver, Red Lines

[15895]

46 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

Here is a report about CATS management and so forth. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TPR9GbleT75me68Sa1KNzVLu3-ojnL_z/view

summary article here

https://www.wfae.org/charlotte-area/2022-12-23/charlottes-transit-agency-needs-a-major-overhaul-management-review-finds

Avg one way bus time 90 minutes is striking. I believe it being a former rider who had no other legal alternative form of transportation (super dead tags, too poor to afford  the annual vehicle tax because there was always either a new ticket + court fees from dead tags or major thing like new tire etc.)

Additionally, I can’t think of any transit system that has decreased from 2021 to 2022. 

Edited January 6, 2023 by AirNostrumMAD

[elrodvt]

Such absolute crap. Why's the buck stop at Lewis? Aren't we paying to manage the city?? 

[MarcoPolo]

We’re on the same page KJHBurg!  Happy New Year Kermit!  Your number 2 and 3 options are sound.   As stated, your first choice is a bit fanciful, but only because Charlotte's existing density pattern and supporting transportation infrastructure do not enable sufficient benefits to potential riders from such an alignment.  Had we been developing transit infrastructure and a more pedestrian based urban economy for generations, (similar to some of the cities you listed), your proposal would be less “fanciful”.  

One point to make concerning your "comparison" cities.  They may be "smaller" as regards their GDP, and in some instances in their populations too, but they are not an apples to apples comparison when it comes to transit infrastructure and usage with Charlotte.  Many punch well above their weight in the transit arena.  If you were to run a regression analysis holding GDP for the independent variable as an indicator of the presence of robust transit infrastructure (the dependent variable), you would quickly see there is little correlation between the two, which to summarize, means other "variables" are more predictive of robust transit infrastructure.  Just because Charlotte "has the wealth", does not mean it has the development profile to support a commensurate level of transit investment.  It punches well below its weight in this arena.  Sooooo many examples of wealthier metropolitan areas with no, or abysmal transit penetration support this observation.  This makes CATS' and Council’s continued feckless deliberations all the more frustrating, as the opportunities for beneficial transit in Charlotte are obvious, but preciously few, and they brazenly ignore them.  Their current actions will hobble the City’s transit progress for decades to come.

A quick logic exercise based on the above will also shed more light on TCLT's comment as to why "we should even be concerned" about the new projections.   As I've stated several times no projection for, or against, should ever be used to make a case for expenditures to increase (or decrease) transit, or auto infrastructure.  We should be concerned because CATS and Council continue to pedal them as reason to justify their foolishness.  The modeling employed is faulty, and the results meaningless.  This is why I call the practice out in my responses; not because I believe CATS “needs to go back and redo the model”.   The modeling effort itself is worthless as a predictor of robust and sustainable transit use; as equally worthless as it is in predicting car trips on highways that the DOT is so desperate to widen, and parking needs for financing that lending institutions use to peddle all the unaffordable housing that continues to reinforce segregation.  The scam that has been perpetuated by transportation engineers since the 1950’s should be called out for what it is: malpractice.  Traffic modeling, trip generation rates, parking requirements…all of these are literally made up and highly patronizing!  I’ve been involved in transportation and transit projects for 30 years around the world, and I can tell you I’ve NEVER come across a traffic or transit projection that has been proven accurate over any assigned time period.  Not only are they inaccurate, they are wildly so!  The ITE manual itself warns users (in very small print of course) that the error terms for the regression models run to support whatever is being pitched as “engineering science” are so great as to be “un-predictive”.   Yes, the very bible responsible for most of the devastation wreaked on our cities since WWII states “do not take what we say seriously”.

So the logic exercise goes something like this….can a transit system be built that generates few to no riders even with high projection estimates?  Of course!  Just because you build it does not mean people will ride it.  And the opposite is also true. Just because transit is absent does not mean people are in no need of it.  The open ended systems and human decision trees that weave into every nook and cranny of “real world” situations regarding accessibility and mobility make any attempt at computerized modeling impractical in the field of transit.  It is a tool of voodoo science.  There are sound methods and analysis that deserve more discussion than possible here.  Suffice it to say the end game should never be to “predetermine” how many people will use transit, an impossible task; but rather to plan for a system that unlocks choice and accessibility for the most people possible.  It has to increase a population's “freedom-shed”.  Modeling cannot identify this most fundamental of transit outcomes.  Please re-read my post on page 194 of this thread for context and background.  And for more, please visit humantransit.org, a website of a colleague of mine named Jarrett Walker.  A serious source of practical information for seriously minded people.  There are links to many books and articles.  Read up on them.

Back to the real conundrum.  Why is this inferior routing supported so dogmatically by CATS and Council?  When you stop to think a moment, it really isn't so mysterious.  A cursory look at the “corridor” shows:

1- that no end-to-end point benefits from any local destinations along the line, and

2- the capture sheds for most of the corridor are riddled with auto-centric development, and in downtown (arguably the most important location), actually make love to a Freeway…the complete antithesis of pedestrian freedom.

3- and the land along the route is less expensive, with fewer people impacted (while fewer "impacted" may sound like a positive, the real way to read this last point is "fewer people" which for transit is arguably a negative, wouldn't you agree?)

Who is going to get on a train that bypasses downtown for a ride to 4th ward from the Matthews side of town?  Who in the Belmont area will do the same?  Is Alexander Micheals such a draw?  What jobs lie along Independence Blvd that people from these same areas can access as a result of the Silver Line, the Walmart Supercenter, Bojangles Coliseum, Rick Hendrick Chevrolet, The Greek Agora? How many will voluntarily ride transit that requires multiple block walks and/or additional bus connections that also end with lengthy walks, to access jobs, education, health care, recreation and housing, not to mention the pathetically conceived, elementary school level, design proposal to integrate with the Blue Line.  All these needs tantalizing close but nonetheless may as well be on the Moon as regards the Silver Line.   Non of these are rhetorical questions.  And, as we discussed a long while back, a train ride to the airport is not sufficient reason to build a +$1 Billion dollar transit line.  The Line is poorly placed along most of its corridor.  An exercise akin to throwing a piece of spaghetti against a wall to see how it sticks. 

The Silver Line’s routing is being justified purely an “aspirational” real estate play, in order to obscure the main reason for its failure, which is that the roll-out and discussion about what transit is and how it can benefit Charlotte were botched from day one, making it all but impossible to advocate for real and beneficial options due to their associated costs and politics.  The projections are a sideshow, as witnessed by the comical responses used to address them.  I use the word “aspirational” purposefully because even as a real estate play, the line is ineffectual.  If certain land owners and lobbyists/politicians want to convince us that downtown Charlotte needs help in attracting development they need to get out more; and if we fall for their condescending stance , we deserve the crap on a plate we’ve been handed.  To claim that the Silver Line will unleash some “just around the corner” orgy of construction is a false.   As discussed a few pages ago, transit lines are not the guaranteed development Viagra many believe.  And as I have already argued, real estate development is not the primary purpose of transit infrastructure.

Happy to chat more offline, or at the next UP meet, but I've said my piece about this topic.  

[kermit]

^ Happy New Year to you as well! I genuinely appreciate your thoughts on transit in Charlotte.

I don't disagree with anything in your post, but it did push a few of my buttons related to the rationalizations that American's use to avoid transit development (which I did not interpret as your own view).  Forgive the novel that follows, this ranting is better suited for a beer-based discussion than a message board. The other disclaimer is my perspective on transit development is as a theorist who's job is to look into the long-term future. As such, I am unburdened by pragmatism.

First, the "not an apples to apples comparison" issue. It is unarguably true that  the culture of urban mobility (in all of its forms) is radically different in most European cities. However, to me, that is not a sound reason to avoid transit expansion. We CANNOT reduce our auto dependence without providing transit (and bike and pedestrian) infrastructure first. The rationalization that we can't "afford" transit because not enough people will ride it in the short term (e.g. we are not Vienna) will result in us being auto dependent forever. I know that there are limits to the fiscal resources of government that prevent the "build everything everywhere" approach that I would like to see but American's DRAMATICALLY underestimate the value of transit (due to our focus on ridership, particularly choice riders) and DRAMATICALLY overestimate the net costs of transit development (because of our auto dependence).

Our tendency to underestimate the value of transit is a product of short-term perspectives on the economy. It is my (moderately informed) opinion that auto dependent cities are going to have a very bleak future in the post-carbon world and I think the obsolescence of car culture will come regardless of how remote work shakes out. Successful post-pandemic cities will be the places that people want to be, not places with good parking and uncontested freeways. Cities without density and walkability (and transit if the city wants to be bigger than 20,000 people) are going to become the Youngstown Ohios of the next generation (IMO).

In terms of underestimating the net costs of transit, the US has been trapped in a "understand the cost of everything but value of nothing" phase for a while. While mobility is the most obvious (and easily quantifiable) benefit of transit, good transit benefits society in myriad other ways. One of those is its ability to create density (which is often shorthanded as  "development"). While modeling a direct causal link between transit and development is fraught with misspecification error, I don't think anyone who has watched the changes that have occurred in Southend over the past 20 years (along with the much slower change on the Northside) would deny that transit encourages development, most of which at least nods at walkability. This development makes substantial contributions to the tax base AND the walkability of their surroundings (by putting more people in the urban environment).  The 11th street route for the Silver Line at least provide Charlotte with the opportunity to build LOTS more urban multi-family. Ideally this will lower the cost urban living as well as enable reduced auto dependence. Higher density, less auto oriented neighborhoods are cheaper to provide municipal services to.  Human-scaled neighborhoods have network effects -- the more urban neighborhoods we have, the greater the utility of ditching your car and riding transit!

I agree with you that ridership models are bullcrap! There is no variable that directly captures the attitudes of residents towards transit (or how much the dislike their cars).  Ridership is driven as much by the size of the 'freedom shed' as it is by the number of jobs at the destination station (and this is a decreasingly relevant variable these days anyway). Trying to predict future mobility needs using models calibrated during the auto-era is foolish at best and intentionally obstructionist at worst.

But yea, I disagree that the 11th street routing is merely an aspirational real estate play. Its not a very useful route for home to work riders, but I don't think the real estate development opportunities of the 11th street route should be discounted entirely. Opeining up the Northside to high density multifamily is a transformational opportunity to develop a more human-scaled city (something that has more long-term value (IMO) than a commuter route).  More urban housing will achieve the end goal of transit (creating density, efficiency and ending auto dependence) by increasing the supply (and reducing the cost) of urban living. It will take decades for this benefit to play out, its not going to show up in ridership for many years, but it is a huge long-term benefit for the city. Unfortunately, politically,  CATS needs to sell the Silver Line as a tool for moving people from Matthews to work in an uptown tower and the 11th Street route is really bad at that.

To be clear, I did not mean for the above paragraph to suggest I think the 11th street route is the best choice for the Silver Line (its not), but there are some (non-mobility) benefits to it and the city will eventually see a positive ROI from the investment. Ultimately I think Silver Line concept  is flawed due to its focus on suburban riders (yes, I understand the political necessity of that) -- the Matthews to Uptown connection is going to be a crappy one regardless of the uptown routeing. I say this as a near daily rider of the Blue Line from East/West to UNCC. It is a LONG trip, I could drive to work faster and honestly the seats on the Blue Line are kinda uncomfortable after a 40 minute ride. If I was not a rail nerd I would drive to work (and pay the >$500 it costs to park on campus). My experience shows that Light Rail is a lousy mode to carry people from the burbs to the city (or the reverse of that). Ideally LRT would be limited to intown circulation needs while regional mobility would be provided by regional rail from places like Matthews (the CSX tracks make that connection already!). In this context, the Silver Line would be a mode that carries people from Ashley Park or Sharon Amity to work uptown or lunch in Plaza Midwood (or tourists from Bank of America stadium to the airport).  The truncated Silver Line would become one of many LRT lines in Charlotte intended to create a post-auto city.  I do understand that most of the city/state/nation feels like we can't afford LRT plus regional rail however this is exactly the type of "cost of everything value of nothing" perspective that is likely to doom the American economy (especially the Sunbelt) in the post-carbon world.

Following WWII we spent many multiples of GDP on reshaping our built environment for the auto-age. That infrastructure is obsolete now plus we can't afford to maintain it. There is no economic reason why we can't invest in the human-scaled infrastructure we need (LRT plus regional rail plus walkability plus bike infrastructure) to adapt our cities to the future.  To me the issue is merely a question of political will.

EDIT: I want to reiterate that none of this is intended to be an attack on you-- I think your takes on mobility are spot on. However, my screed was a stream of consciousness effort to suggest a perspective shift on what the end goal of transit is. I think its much more than mobility, transit is the most effective tool we have to adapt the built environment of cities to modern needs. 

/Wall of Text/

/apologies to innocent bystanders/

/Rant/

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by kermit

[MarcoPolo]

Hi Kermit, thanks for the thoughtful response.   You made me go back on my word to move on, lol!  We agree on the fundamentals, but your position conflates several observations that detract from  your otherwise sound understanding of transit, and arms opponents of transit with reasons (incorrect as they are) to fight against it.  I'll be brief.   And of course, pragmatism should never be considered a burden    Aiming for long term successes while navigating the intricacies of short and mid term needs are never mutual exclusive endeavors if conceived mindfully and with deliberation, (actions obviously absent within CATS and Council).   Theory is powerfully pragmatic  

Firstly, the city comparison explanation was not made from the perspective of an apologist defending America's avoidance of transit because of how we are.   American's are just as eager and capable of wanting, using, and supporting transit usage and expenditure as are Europeans, Asians, etc., and Charlotte has a few good opportunities to leverage existing fabric to build a strong transit base on which a multi-generational system can grow.   The reason for the comparison was to interject "order" into how successful transit must unfold, (more on that with the third point).   Order is important because unlike other parts of the world we do have to defend and advocate for the obvious benefits of transit in the face of a unique set of ideological  naysayers that view transit as an affront to their "freedom" to be enslaved by the car.   The benefits quickly become obscured by their misinformation when transit discussions are handled or understood at an elementary level, such as has been the case in Charlotte since the Blue Line was built.   Every misstep arms these opponents with the ammunition needed to fight against all progress.   So, it is very much the case that the timing of transit investment and the sound practicality of its intent are paramount!   Secondly, the "freedom shed" includes jobs.  Jobs are elemental to one's ability to be free.   I would encourage you to read some of Jarrett's literature for a fuller understanding of what this term implies.   He is also a theorist such as yourself, and I feel you will appreciate how he folds thought into practice.  

And it is here where it is important to not become distracted by what transit is suppose to do, as opposed to what it is perceived to influence.   Your explanation of density and development is the Achilles Heel in your otherwise strong grasp of transit theory and brings me to the third point.   Density is not dependent on transit and transit should not be a proxy for development.  It can be argued that Hyper-density is enabled by transit, but high density itself is not.  There are many parts of Charlotte undergoing similar "densification" that have no access to transit.  They will continue to fill in denser and with growing tax bases without transit.   I named several of these in a post a few weeks back.   Specific to Southend and Northend, had the blue line never come to pass, redevelopment would have still occurred for a myriad of reasons, many due to the relative ease of rezoning and the presence of existing sympathetic zoning in these areas.   It is not a coincidence that most of the multi family built in Charlotte occurs adjacent to, or in parts of the City along wedges of rail and/or commercial thoroughfares historically zoned non-residential and non-single family.   These also happen to be the location of the City's minority populations.   Would growth have occurred in Southend as strongly as it has since the inauguration of the blue line?  No.   But that is not the point.  The Blue Line's success is not that it kickstarted development.   Development had already begun and would have continued in Southend without it.   The success of the Blue Line is that it directly accessed the core of the City with an alternative means of mobility.  This direct connection is what will enable all the "crooked teeth" suburban areas beyond Southend and Northend to straighten out into bright, toothy smiles in the decades to come.   As an aside, Los Angeles is the densest US city across the entirety of its built up area.  From its desert edge, to downtown, to its various beachfront communities, its per square mile population on average, is far greater than metropolitan NYC's, and has been so since the early 1980's, well before their metro system.   Most of LA remains a transit desert, yet there are vast areas of high density, connected street networks and even walkable urban fabric.   Yes, NYC has a spike of hyper dense core in and around its center enabled by a robust transit system, but beyond it the density drops off dramatically into Long Island, Connecticut and New Jersey.  

The danger of your argument is that by calling attention to a byproduct of Transit, (ie: density), which is an  incorrect correlation, you arm opponents with straw man reasons to fight against transit.   Let me know the last time someone felt good about subsidizing developers with billions of dollars in tax payer infrastructure to build even less affordable housing, often in once minority neighborhoods, in a City chronically short of broad spectrum housing price points.  Routing the Silver Line along underutilized properties (underutilized at the moment due to their adjacency to a freeway) because building it through downtown is "hard", and then pitching the outcome as some how justifiable because it will jump start "development" is a cascade of failure.   This is not putting one's best transit foot forward.   

Happy to get into detail more about LRT/RRT and Charlotte's interesting hybrid situation over that beer at the next UP meet, or when I'm next in town.   Or email me here.   No need to bore everyone.    I believe that KJHburg and CLT Development are too busy these days to organize meets more regularly.  But I do get into town every couple of weeks or so and CLT and I do grab a beer on such occasions.   Btw, you are spot on about transit along the Monroe Rd/CSX Rail corridor.  The benefits to Matthews alone would be as transformational as Southend's, never mind the stretch from Coliseum Dr to Wendover Rd.   Off the hook!   I wrote about that last year on this thread too!

 

[kermit]

Thanks for your reply and I am enjoying the discussion very much. Unfortunately I am in a work crunch too large to procrastinate as much as usual today on UP.  I will make a couple of points now just because they are at top of mind. I am not sure they support my (not yet fully formed) perspective on transit and development.

1 hour ago, MarcoPolo said:

 Density is not dependent on transit and transit should not be a proxy for development.

But in Charlotte (and many other American cities) density has been made contingent on transit, the kerfuffle about the parking-free apartments built in Seversville a couple of years ago was the prime example. The neighborhood NIMBYs formed their entire opposition to the project on the lack of 'transit' nearby (there was a bus stop a block away but...) which would lead to the neighborhood getting swamped with cars. Nearly all of the NIMBYism in Charlotte is built around the assumption that density = more cars (which is a bad thing to them), but they always hedge and say if (rail) transit was available here then adding more density would be fine. These folks are clearly going to be less moved by the provision of sidewalks and protected bike lanes.  Hopefully the UDO will put an end to this density-transit dependence when implemented, but it seems clear that existing residents need to have transit (even if they never ride it) in order to bless density increases.

While there have been some significant density increases in Charlotte that are not on the rail, nearly all of those have been in either former industrial areas like Southend and Optimist Park (so NIMBYism is weak or non-existent) or vacant parcels in lower income neighborhoods like Bryant Park, Tryon Hills or Hidden Valley where residents have less political power to block density.

1 hour ago, MarcoPolo said:

Let me know the last time someone felt good about subsidizing developers with billions of dollars in tax payer infrastructure to build even less affordable housing

Nobody complained much about the billions spent on I-485. Nobody pitched much of a fit about expanding roads and creating new school districts for the still gestating River District. This sort of expenditure happens all the time and taxpayers seem to ignore it when spent on roads.  At least the development that follows transit is dense and relatively walkable.

 

I did get distracted in my original post on this topic. I don't mean to advocate for building transit without regard to ridership. But I do believe that the density and development benefits that come with transit development should be valued more highly than they are, and these benefits need to be included in the cost-benefit estimations.

Edited January 9, 2023 by kermit

[kermit]

 

Great...

[15895]

3 hours ago, kermit said:

 

Great...

I can’t stand Tim Moore. The man is so arrogant because everyone in Kings Mountains treats him like a god and he’s been unopposed for god knows how long (my mom had a shop in downtown kings mountain he’d come into all the time) And that’s the man literally dictating what Charlotte can’t do.  So annoying. 

[JHart]

5 hours ago, MarcoPolo said:

 As an aside, Los Angeles is the densest US city across the entirety of its built up area.  From its desert edge, to downtown, to its various beachfront communities, its per square mile population on average, is far greater than metropolitan NYC's, and has been so since the early 1980's, well before their metro system.   Most of LA remains a transit desert, yet there are vast areas of high density, connected street networks and even walkable urban fabric.   Yes, NYC has a spike of hyper dense core in and around its center enabled by a robust transit system, but beyond it the density drops off dramatically into Long Island, Connecticut and New Jersey. 

I mean, that's not even remotely close to true.. I'm not sure how you could possibly think this? New York is easily the most dense US city by far, almost 4X LA. NY metro CSA is 10X greater LA. 

The density definitely drops off outside of Manhattan, but LA is still about as dense as Staten Island is..

[Eastern]

Tim Moore is clueless about the urban needs of the state's largest cities. If he thinks you can pave your way out of traffic congestion, he needs to cough up the billions of dollars needed.

 

[kermit]

I was under the impression that the state was going to contribute just a token portion of the cost of the Charlotte transportation plan. Nearly all of the revenue was going to come from local sales taxes and federal grants. Interesting that Sneaker Moore feels empowered to tell a locality how to spend their money without any real skin of their own in the game.

Is the NCGOP a believer in small government and respecting the will of the people? Nope, they are just grandstanding assholes who are comfortable handicapping 40% of the state's economy.

Edited January 10, 2023 by kermit

[southslider]

It's disappointing that the State Legislature disrespects home rule, but when City Council is so married to a poorly conceived Silver Line, they deserve each other.

Edited January 10, 2023 by southslider

[lit]

Wait, so if they build the Independence/Matthews side of the Silver Line first and then build the Wilkinson/Airport side but it remains segmented at the Gateway Station (meaning you have to transfer from one to the other) then would the Airport/Wilkinson side still be the Silver Line or are we going to give it its own color?

[kayman]

https://www.wfae.org/politics/2023-01-09/n-c-house-speaker-tim-moore-blasts-charlottes-proposed-13-5-billion-transportation-plan

All I'm going to say is elections have consequences... Much of this could've been put to bed by the people voting for people with sense into the NCGA but nope. Instead, more of this nonsense and less of pragmatic will to make things happen.

 

[kermit]

On 1/10/2023 at 9:39 AM, kayman said:

https://www.wfae.org/politics/2023-01-09/n-c-house-speaker-tim-moore-blasts-charlottes-proposed-13-5-billion-transportation-plan

All I'm going to say is elections have consequences... Much of this could've been put to bed by the people voting for people with sense into the NCGA but nope. Instead, more of this nonsense and less of pragmatic will to make things happen.

 

I think it is more accurate in this case  to say Gerrymandering has consiquences. Had NCGA districts been drawn to be competitive we would not produce an anti-urban legislature.

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by kermit

[CLT2014]

The unfortunate political reality is roads are popular talking points with rural / suburban voters. Transit / walkability benefits locals being able to get around our own city and enjoy day to day life. Big wide roads are a selling point for voters in Kings Mountain who need to drive to a Panthers game twice a month in the fall and park a Ford F250 Super Duty and are annoyed all the surface lots that can accommodate their truck are disappearing in Charlotte as the city becomes more dense. They shouldn't have a say in Meck voters deciding to tax itself, but alas the political reality of our state. They want their big wide roads in Charlotte to use our city when convenient and then return to their suburban or rural life.

I'm not sure who the right people are to negotiate with the Legislature and Tim Moore so they can optically come out looking like a winner, but the unfortunate reality is that will need to happen. The NCGOP holds a lot of the cards right now. Ed Driggs will probably be sent to Raleigh to try to get buy in as a party insider that is a bit more pro transit and level headed than Tariq.

Edited January 10, 2023 by CLT2014

[MarcoPolo]

Morning JHart and Happy New Year!  Apologies if my statement has unnecessarily caused confusion!  I did not bother to clearly distinguish between "built up area" and metro area, or for that matter City limits!  I also failed to introduce and define measures for average and weighted densities.  Pretty slack on my part 

It is true that within each City's municipal boundary NYC is far and away the denser than LA's.   Interestingly, it is also true that the densest communities within metro NY are actually along the Hudson River in New Jersey where average pop densities in places like Union City and West NY are nearly twice as dense as NYC's average.  

But, what I stated is true.   LA Metro's average density across the entirety of its built up area (*2,926 people per sq mi) is greater than that of NY's built up metro (*2,744 people per sq mi), (*2020 figures......the counts vary depending on source, but they consistently show LA with a similar or slightly higher average density......and over time show its density increasing whereas NY's has stayed fairly constant...the method used teases out data by focusing on census tracts and adjusts for the significant size discrepancies between Counties and Census tracts in Metro LA vs NY, and the sharp divide between urbanized and non-urbanized lands in metro LA, versus the more blurred boundary in metro NY).  LA's density spreads across land like a thick shag carpet with a clear edge boundary....staying fairly consistent across its coverage, with a few lumpy protrusions here and there.  Beyond NY's ceiling busting core its average density sprawls across the land like a Persian rug with patches of shag carpet thrown on top here and there, unraveling along its fringes into loose threads. 

Using weighted population density measures NYC's built up area comes out on top due to its hyper dense core.  By this measure it is twice as dense as LA's built up area.   And here we have a very surprising and not so well known fact.  Guess which metro area is number 4 on the weighted population density measure?  Metro Honolulu   Crazy to think, right?   Its average and weighted densities exceed those of Chicago!  Honolulu brings me back to the reason for using LA in my discussion with Kermit.

I brought up LA’s average density in my reply to emphasize that significant density is achieved and sustained in the absence of transit, and in and of itself transit is not a precursor to densification and real estate development.  The areas around the Brookshire Frwy viewed as "needing-a-hand-by-the-Silver Line", do not actually need its hand.  They can develop without the Line just by deploying better planning and design and some inexpensive pp-partnership strategies.  Density exists in the absence of Transit, and therefore its provision should not justified as a means to generate development.  It is a bi-product.  Transit should first and foremost be a tool for population mobility and access to choice (freedom).   And it is precisely this need which is not served by the Silver Line's selected routing.  

[Reverie39]

Happy to see polite debate on this thread after what was happening before lol. 

15 hours ago, JHart said:

I mean, that's not even remotely close to true.. I'm not sure how you could possibly think this? New York is easily the most dense US city by far, almost 4X LA. NY metro CSA is 10X greater LA. 

The density definitely drops off outside of Manhattan, but LA is still about as dense as Staten Island is..

I actually wonder how much the CSA definitions are playing into this. The borders of a CSA (and MSA) are limited to aligning with counties I think, and counties out in California are weird. For example San Bernardino County is part of the LA CSA and is the largest county by land area in the US - nearly the size of West Virginia. Most of it is just empty desert, but the entire thing is considered LA's CSA which presumably causes the CSA density to absolutely nosedive. Our eastern counties such as those around New York are nothing like that.

@MarcoPolo said "built-up area" and tbh I do believe that LA's built-up area could be denser than NYC's. Once you leave the city itself as well as the northeastern fringe of New Jersey and the western fringe of Long Island, the density drops drastically. There are a lot of people, but like any east coast region there is a lot of space between houses, tons of woodland, etc. Meanwhile go look at LA on Google Earth. It is just house after house after house after house for miles and miles and miles with no gaps in between. 

Edit: posted this before seeing MarcoPolo's response, he explains basically the same thing

Edited January 10, 2023 by Reverie39

[JHart]

1 hour ago, MarcoPolo said:

Morning JHart and Happy New Year!  Apologies if my statement has unnecessarily caused confusion!  I did not bother to clearly distinguish between "built up area" and metro area, or for that matter City limits!  I also failed to introduce and define measures for average and weighted densities.  Pretty slack on my part 

It is true that within each City's municipal boundary NYC is far and away the denser than LA's.   Interestingly, it is also true that the densest communities within metro NY are actually along the Hudson River in New Jersey where average pop densities in places like Union City and West NY are nearly twice as dense as NYC's average.  

But, what I stated is true.   LA Metro's average density across the entirety of its built up area (*2,926 people per sq mi) is greater than that of NY's built up metro (*2,744 people per sq mi), (*2020 figures......the counts vary depending on source, but they consistently show LA with a similar or slightly higher average density......and over time show its density increasing whereas NY's has stayed fairly constant...the method used teases out data by focusing on census tracts and adjusts for the significant size discrepancies between Counties and Census tracts in Metro LA vs NY, and the sharp divide between urbanized and non-urbanized lands in metro LA, versus the more blurred boundary in metro NY).  LA's density spreads across land like a thick shag carpet with a clear edge boundary....staying fairly consistent across its coverage, with a few lumpy protrusions here and there.  Beyond NY's ceiling busting core its average density sprawls across the land like a Persian rug with patches of shag carpet thrown on top here and there, unraveling along its fringes into loose threads. 

Using weighted population density measures NYC's built up area comes out on top due to its hyper dense core.  By this measure it is twice as dense as LA's built up area.   And here we have a very surprising and not so well known fact.  Guess which metro area is number 4 on the weighted population density measure?  Metro Honolulu   Crazy to think, right?   Its average and weighted densities exceed those of Chicago!  Honolulu brings me back to the reason for using LA in my discussion with Kermit.

I brought up LA’s average density in my reply to emphasize that significant density is achieved and sustained in the absence of transit, and in and of itself transit is not a precursor to densification and real estate development.  The areas around the Brookshire Frwy viewed as "needing-a-hand-by-the-Silver Line", do not actually need its hand.  They can develop without the Line just by deploying better planning and design and some inexpensive pp-partnership strategies.  Density exists in the absence of Transit, and therefore its provision should not justified as a means to generate development.  It is a bi-product.  Transit should first and foremost be a tool for population mobility and access to choice (freedom).   And it is precisely this need which is not served by the Silver Line's selected routing.  

Without defining "built up area" I still have no idea what part of LA you are choosing to include or not include compared to NYC, but even the full NYC MSA is ~5,300/sqmi (double the number you use) and that even includes areas like Pike County, PA which is only 50,000 people across 500 square miles.. You can stretch the boundary out as far as you want to finally make LA as dense as New York but that's the whole point, NYC is the densest metropolitan city in the US and LA is sprawled. 

Weighted population density is just manipulating the data depending on how small of segments you choose; density is already an average. You say transit is not a precursor to densification, but I would argue the opposite; LA cannot possibly reach the density levels of NYC without substantial public transit systems to support that population. 

[RANYC]

4 hours ago, MarcoPolo said:

Morning JHart and Happy New Year!  Apologies if my statement has unnecessarily caused confusion!  I did not bother to clearly distinguish between "built up area" and metro area, or for that matter City limits!  I also failed to introduce and define measures for average and weighted densities.  Pretty slack on my part 

It is true that within each City's municipal boundary NYC is far and away the denser than LA's.   Interestingly, it is also true that the densest communities within metro NY are actually along the Hudson River in New Jersey where average pop densities in places like Union City and West NY are nearly twice as dense as NYC's average.  

But, what I stated is true.   LA Metro's average density across the entirety of its built up area (*2,926 people per sq mi) is greater than that of NY's built up metro (*2,744 people per sq mi), (*2020 figures......the counts vary depending on source, but they consistently show LA with a similar or slightly higher average density......and over time show its density increasing whereas NY's has stayed fairly constant...the method used teases out data by focusing on census tracts and adjusts for the significant size discrepancies between Counties and Census tracts in Metro LA vs NY, and the sharp divide between urbanized and non-urbanized lands in metro LA, versus the more blurred boundary in metro NY).  LA's density spreads across land like a thick shag carpet with a clear edge boundary....staying fairly consistent across its coverage, with a few lumpy protrusions here and there.  Beyond NY's ceiling busting core its average density sprawls across the land like a Persian rug with patches of shag carpet thrown on top here and there, unraveling along its fringes into loose threads. 

Using weighted population density measures NYC's built up area comes out on top due to its hyper dense core.  By this measure it is twice as dense as LA's built up area.   And here we have a very surprising and not so well known fact.  Guess which metro area is number 4 on the weighted population density measure?  Metro Honolulu   Crazy to think, right?   Its average and weighted densities exceed those of Chicago!  Honolulu brings me back to the reason for using LA in my discussion with Kermit.

I brought up LA’s average density in my reply to emphasize that significant density is achieved and sustained in the absence of transit, and in and of itself transit is not a precursor to densification and real estate development.  The areas around the Brookshire Frwy viewed as "needing-a-hand-by-the-Silver Line", do not actually need its hand.  They can develop without the Line just by deploying better planning and design and some inexpensive pp-partnership strategies.  Density exists in the absence of Transit, and therefore its provision should not justified as a means to generate development.  It is a bi-product.  Transit should first and foremost be a tool for population mobility and access to choice (freedom).   And it is precisely this need which is not served by the Silver Line's selected routing.  

If Moore's suggestion of more roads means not widening roads but increasing the number of them in order to better distribute traffic and get us as close to a grid as we can get given floodplains and other barriers, and if all these new roads happen to be complete streets, and if the retrofitting of existing roads to complete streets gets massively accelerated, then I could probably get behind that.  Somehow, however, I don't think that's what he meant. 

Edited January 10, 2023 by RANYC

[MarcoPolo]

Happy to explain further JHart     Built-up area is defined as a contiguous "developed" area of human settlement.  All human habitation in the form of buildings and infrastructure not separated from the same by intervening agriculture lands, grazing lands, woodlands, wetlands, habitat preserves, and water bodies.   Improved lands used for open space/ recreation are included in the built-up area unless these exceed a certain acreage, typically no larger than 1,000 acres.  The United Nations and US Geological Survey use satellite imagery (night and day photos) to calculate built-up areas for purposes of energy use, GDP analysis, poverty rates, environmental assessments, and societal health tallies (density being a key ingredient for these).   It is an important measure and a well known "term of art" in the planning profession.   All the points you raise about boundaries and how they can be manipulated are the reason "built-up area" is used when precision is required to establish apples-to-apples base data for city to city comparison purposes.   

Two other well defined terms in the profession are density and sprawl.  You incorrectly use both in your post.   High density can sprawl over land with the same vigor as low density (the shag carpet vs the frayed Persian rug analogy I used).  In planning, sprawl is used to describe land area covered by human settlement (built-up land) and does not carry a density connotation.  The habitation can take the form of endless blocks of multi-story apartments (Shanghai), or endless cul-de-sacs of single-family homes (Atlanta).   The New York built up area is the largest in the US both in population and sprawl.   LA is second in population, but has recently begun to loose grip on its #2 sprawl ranking.   Guess which cities compete with LA for built up area......Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Boston, and DC/Baltimore.  In fact, Atlanta, Houston and Dallas, with substantially less populations, are the fastest growing sprawlers.  Houston wins first place in the amount of new sprawl, adding over 200 square miles since 2001 if I remember correctly.   At current rates, within 15 years, all three of these cities will be as large, or larger in area than LA.  (There was a great article in the Washington Post a year or so ago that colleagues of mine at MIT put together that discussed sprawl across US cities….can’t put my finger on it now.  Google it.  It is great work!)

To recap, my use of built-up area is purposefully so as to not fall into the rabbit hole of “stretching boundaries” as you state.  All boundaries have meaningful data to assess against, but in the discussion we are having they are an incorrect method from which to draw comparisons about built up areas and densities.  Also, the statement “density is already an average” does not mean anything.  It is not factually true.  Density can be a mean, a mode, and average, a weighted average, a precise tally…...  I used weighted average to show that by one measure you were correct in your statement that NY’s built-up area is the “densest” in the US.  Lastly, your counter point about density and transit does not address the conversation we are having, nor the factual measures stated above.  True, central LA will never become a Manhattan without a robust transit system.  Hyper-density, which I discussed in the last post is dependent on transit.  But, hyper-density is not the norm, and is not necessarily a model of growth to be emulated everywhere.  Since it is true that most of LA’s built up area is denser than most of NY’s, and most of LA’s built up area has no access to light rail and heavy rail transit, the point about transit not being a precursor for density stands.  We were never discussing the merits of downtown LA becoming as dense as Manhattan.  Happy to do so if anyone cares? 

[Hidden Valley memory]

On 1/9/2023 at 3:57 PM, kermit said:

 

  Good 'ole backwards North Carolina! 

 

[kayman]

18 hours ago, kermit said:

I think it is more accurate in this case  to say Gerrymandering has consiquences. Had NCGA districts been drawn to be competitive we would not have an anti-urban legislature.

 

Ironically, our political neighbors to the north (Virginia) are working itself out of gerrymandering by people voting in the right people.  I'm certain there's something to be said and learned from our neighbors with urban agenda advancements. 

[Reverie39]

Also might help that NC just got redistricted at the federal level too. The new districts look much better than the ridiculous nonsense we had before. Maybe that inspires some change at the state level.

[kermit]

different subject...

So CATS reduced Blue Line frequency in August from 4 to 3 TPH. They blamed staffing difficulties. Its been four months, and the labor market has softened, and it definitely does not take 4 months to train new operators, whats up CATS?