The red line: What is taking so long?

[Mirage52]

Originally Posted by LtBk

Link?

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/07/d-...hildren-video/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/...juries-arrests

Even a potential terrorist attack:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102704857.html

BTW, I am not trying to trash the DC metro, I use it all the time and think its one of the country's better systems, but its not without its problems too.

[scando]

Oops...mistaken post.

[uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn]

Originally Posted by marcszar

Well, go ahead and prove it. Just be aware that if you're going to post info from Joel Kotkin, Randal O'Toole, or someone similar, you'll just be posting specious, misleading econometrics.

You may disagree, but most planners and 60+ years of observation have shown us that highways fuel dispersion of all kinds - residential, commercial, whatever. I'm not arguing that this means they're "evil," but that this is the fundamental nature of highways. Even Kotkin and O'Toole would agree - they argue that this dispersal/dispersion is a good thing, and a lot of other people would do the same.

If you want to argue that economic and commercial growth in the suburbs is more important than growth in the central cities, that's fine - that's what plenty of people promoting highways already argue. But you can't argue that highways promote urban densification and residential/commercial concentration in urban cores - practically every planner and urban designer will disagree with you. And the postwar history of virtually every city in America proves the dispersive nature of highways too - how else would people have been able to flee into the suburbs if there had been no highways leading out of the cities?

Just take a look at the "booming" sunbelt cities - the common knowledge is that they've been growing phenomenally since the 1960s, right? And they all have great highway access, right? Well, take a look at their populations. The number of residents and businesses in the city proper of many sunbelt cities has FALLEN or stagnated, not risen:


City: 1960 pop. (pre-highways); 2000 pop.
Atlanta: 487,455; 416,474
Birmingham: 340,887; 242,840
Louisville: 390,639, 256,231
etc., etc., etc.

The booming growth has actually taken place in their suburbs and "edge cities," not in their downtowns. Even those sunbelt cities who have seen their downtown populations grow* (such as many cities in Texas), that growth has been far outstripped by the growth in their surrounding suburbs. This growth took place in those fringe areas precisely because of the highways - before 1950, the growth in these cities took place in the downtowns because there were no highways providing access to cheap rural land on the fringes of town.

*Also keep in mind that in many cases, the city proper populations appear to have grown not necessarily because more people actually moved into the cities, but rather because these cities have continued to annex their outlying suburbs into the city proper. This is another reason why highway-friendly southern cities are "growing" - northern cities haven't annexed their suburbs since the 1920s, while southern cities continue to annex them today. Just look at the boundaries and land area of northern cities and compare them to the boundaries and land area of southern cities - northern city boundaries tend to be uniform and easy to follow, and their land areas are relatively small, while southern city boundaries tend to be wild, irregular, and sprawl in every direction, and their land areas tend to be huge, since these cities are eager to annex every scrap of outlying land.

Either way you try to paint a biased picture against highway building/widening in the Inner City it does not take way from the FACT that Highway/Business Friendly Sunbelt Cities like Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston have grown Several x's Faster than Baltimore in which Baltimore(the Abandon Structure Capital of the Eastern US) has lost population in the 10,000's within the past 10 years......

[marcszar]

Originally Posted by uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn

Either way you try to paint a biased picture against highway building/widening in the Inner City it does not take way from the FACT that Highway/Business Friendly Sunbelt Cities like Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston have grown Several x's Faster than Baltimore in which Baltimore(the Abandon Structure Capital of the Eastern US) has lost population in the 10,000's within the past 10 years......

Did you read the post carefully? Those business and highway friendly sunbelt cities lost population (or saw them stagnate) too! Their suburbs and edge cities boomed, but the actual downtowns didn't do so well (Texas excepted). And lo and behold, Baltimore's suburbs have seen tremendous growth since the 1950s too! It's no harder to get into downtown Baltimore than it is to get into downtown New York, Boston, Philly, etc. Actually, it's a lot easier getting into downtown B'more via highway than it is getting into the downtowns of the three aforementioned cities by highway. So why have these three cities generally revitalized/remade themselves better than B'more? It certainly wasn't by improving highway access! By your logic (worse highway access = worse downtown decay), shouldn't these cities be doing worse than B'more?

BTW, I mentioned this earlier - Detroit has fantastic highway access to every part of the city. (This is true of a lot of decaying midwestern cities.) With such superb highway access, shouldn't the city be an economic, residential, and recreational powerhouse, like those sunbelt cities with great highway access supposedly are? Or was it really other factors - deindustrialization in the north and favorable labor laws in the south, for example - that played the primary role in determining these cities' vitality (or lack of it)?

I presented my argument, now you present yours. You said "I have the info to prove it's not true," so prove it! You can't just post flippant one-sentence comments and call that "proof." Oneworld, you were right - there's no point debating someone who's not interested in debating.

[scando]

Originally Posted by marcszar

......

I presented my argument, now you present yours. You said "I have the info to prove it's not true," so prove it! You can't just post flippant one-sentence comments and call that "proof." Oneworld, you were right - there's no point debating someone who's not interested in debating.

A helpful tip - If you to to the User Control Panel on SSC, you can edit your "ignore" list so that you won't even see posts by people that post a lot of contentious BS.

[Mirage52]

Originally Posted by marcszar

Did you read the post carefully? Those business and highway friendly sunbelt cities lost population (or saw them stagnate) too! Their suburbs and edge cities boomed, but the actual downtowns didn't do so well (Texas excepted). And lo and behold, Baltimore's suburbs have seen tremendous growth since the 1950s too! It's no harder to get into downtown Baltimore than it is to get into downtown New York, Boston, Philly, etc. Actually, it's a lot easier getting into downtown B'more via highway than it is getting into the downtowns of the three aforementioned cities by highway. So why have these three cities generally revitalized/remade themselves better than B'more? It certainly wasn't by improving highway access! By your logic (worse highway access = worse downtown decay), shouldn't these cities be doing worse than B'more?

BTW, I mentioned this earlier - Detroit has fantastic highway access to every part of the city. (This is true of a lot of decaying midwestern cities.) With such superb highway access, shouldn't the city be an economic, residential, and recreational powerhouse, like those sunbelt cities with great highway access supposedly are? Or was it really other factors - deindustrialization in the north and favorable labor laws in the south, for example - that played the primary role in determining these cities' vitality (or lack of it)?

I presented my argument, now you present yours. You said "I have the info to prove it's not true," so prove it! You can't just post flippant one-sentence comments and call that "proof." Oneworld, you were right - there's no point debating someone who's not interested in debating.

Excellent response but it will not change a thing. Take the above poster's advice and put that guy on ignore.

[uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn]

Originally Posted by marcszar

Did you read the post carefully? Those business and highway friendly sunbelt cities lost population (or saw them stagnate) too! Their suburbs and edge cities boomed, but the actual downtowns didn't do so well (Texas excepted). And lo and behold, Baltimore's suburbs have seen tremendous growth since the 1950s too! It's no harder to get into downtown Baltimore than it is to get into downtown New York, Boston, Philly, etc. Actually, it's a lot easier getting into downtown B'more via highway than it is getting into the downtowns of the three aforementioned cities by highway. So why have these three cities generally revitalized/remade themselves better than B'more? It certainly wasn't by improving highway access! By your logic (worse highway access = worse downtown decay), shouldn't these cities be doing worse than B'more?

BTW, I mentioned this earlier - Detroit has fantastic highway access to every part of the city. (This is true of a lot of decaying midwestern cities.) With such superb highway access, shouldn't the city be an economic, residential, and recreational powerhouse, like those sunbelt cities with great highway access supposedly are? Or was it really other factors - deindustrialization in the north and favorable labor laws in the south, for example - that played the primary role in determining these cities' vitality (or lack of it)?

I presented my argument, now you present yours. You said "I have the info to prove it's not true," so prove it! You can't just post flippant one-sentence comments and call that "proof." Oneworld, you were right - there's no point debating someone who's not interested in debating.

Take that up to the website below:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...on-change.html

http://www.city-data.com/forum/gener...ch-better.html

http://www.city-data.com/forum/gener...going-end.html

[delawhere]

Originally Posted by uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn

Take that up to the website below:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...on-change.html

http://www.city-data.com/forum/gener...ch-better.html

http://www.city-data.com/forum/gener...going-end.html

IM AN EXPERTS I QUOTE CITYDATA FOR PROOF.

Really? Are you serious?!

[uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn]

Originally Posted by delawhere

IM AN EXPERTS I QUOTE CITYDATA FOR PROOF.

Really? Are you serious?!

I take it that you did not view the links....

[delawhere]

Originally Posted by uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn

I take it that you did not view the links....

I did view the links. Major highway investment does not equate to better urban areas, as every major piece of research (including some of what you linked) demonstrates.

[uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn]

Originally Posted by delawhere

I did view the links. Major highway investment does not equate to better urban areas, as every major piece of research (including some of what you linked) demonstrates.

That is the biggest false information that the Highway Bigots constantly try to use in attempts to brain wash people in the "transit is better that Roads" argument.

I have said numerous times that there are other US Cities that have Both Major Highways and Transit that is doing far better than struggling Baltimore which is losing population and continues to struggle with the existence of urban decay outside of Inner Harbor, Harbor East, and Fells Point.....

One can look at Richmond and Norfolk down in Virginia and Raleigh, NC which has more of a connecting Interstate Highway Grid than Baltimore but they are not suffering from the corruptions of Urban Decay, High AID's Rate, High Crime(Although Richmond had its peak a few years ago but has significantly decreased within the past couple of years), and Expensive Housing.........

[uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn]

Originally Posted by delawhere

I did view the links. Major highway investment does not equate to better urban areas, as every major piece of research (including some of what you linked) demonstrates.

And BTW; what makes Baltimore any better than Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston although they are seeing Major Population Increases while Baltimore Population is decreasing?????

[marcszar]

Uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn is resorting to the typical correlation proves causation argument for his claims. ("Sunbelt cities are booming, and sunbelt cities have great highways, thus their excellent highways are responsible for their growth.")

I'm not denying that highways and other transportation networks *can* direct economic growth, but I'm still waiting for the proof to the claim that highways assist in downtown commercial/residential concentration and densification. I'd like to see some articles back up a claim that flies against common sense...

I should probably follow the advice of the posters above and ignore the nonsensical posts from Uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn, but I think this info might be interesting to other readers here: Baltimore's downtown has apparently done quite well this last decade. B'more's population decline no longer seems to be the biggest among American cities either - Chicago, Cinci, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis (all highway-loving cities) posted bigger declines, and I guess we'll have to wait till the 2020 census to see how far boom-and-bust foreclosure cities like Phoenix and Vegas will fall. This is hardly a reason for Baltimoreans to clap themselves on their back (you can't call a continued-even-if-smaller population decline a "success"), but it might suggest that Baltimore has begun taking the right steps towards gradual revitalization.

Anyway, back to the Red Line. We can blab about highways in another thread. I've made an attempt to read some of the opposition to the Red Line recently and I realized that my earlier dismissal of the opposition as mostly anti-transit NIMBYism isn't that true. Some people actually argue that an incremental expansion of the Metro would be better, and the arguments are pretty convincing. Here's some more info on the heavy rail vs. light rail tug-of-war.

What do y'all think - are Baltimore's transit systems half-assed? I think most of the systems were implemented along the "it's the thought that counts" line - that is, it was more important for them to serve as "at least we tried" showpieces for the pols than to function as practical commuter networks. There's a light rail line that avoids the densest parts of the city (but it still is a pretty convenient way to get to BWI), and there's an insufficient subway line that doesn't do a good job connecting the downtown CBD to the surrounding neighborhoods. And there's also the reality that Baltimore's various transit options are all fragmented - there's the CCC, the local and commuter buses, the MARC system, the Metro, the Light Rail, and even the harbor water taxis, but there are no connections between most of these systems, so it's harder to use (and understand) the network with its varying schedules, frequencies, fares and ticketing, disconnected stations, and so on. On paper it looks like B'more has a pretty comprehensive system (and relying on various transit modes is not inherently bad), but in reality there are a lot of frustrating discontinuities and inconsistencies that make using the system difficult unless you have no other choice. So maybe it doesn't make sense to create yet another disconnected line, and it might be better to put that money into expanding an existing line(s).

[uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn]

Originally Posted by marcszar

Uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn is resorting to the typical correlation proves causation argument for his claims. ("Sunbelt cities are booming, and sunbelt cities have great highways, thus their excellent highways are responsible for their growth.")

I'm not denying that highways and other transportation networks *can* direct economic growth, but I'm still waiting for the proof to the claim that highways assist in downtown commercial/residential concentration and densification. I'd like to see some articles back up a claim that flies against common sense...

I should probably follow the advice of the posters above and ignore the nonsensical posts from Uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn, but I think this info might be interesting to other readers here: Baltimore's downtown has apparently done quite well this last decade. B'more's population decline no longer seems to be the biggest among American cities either - Chicago, Cinci, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis (all highway-loving cities) posted bigger declines, and I guess we'll have to wait till the 2020 census to see how far boom-and-bust foreclosure cities like Phoenix and Vegas will fall. This is hardly a reason for Baltimoreans to clap themselves on their back (you can't call a continued-even-if-smaller population decline a "success"), but it might suggest that Baltimore has begun taking the right steps towards gradual revitalization.

Anyway, back to the Red Line. We can blab about highways in another thread. I've made an attempt to read some of the opposition to the Red Line recently and I realized that my earlier dismissal of the opposition as mostly anti-transit NIMBYism isn't that true. Some people actually argue that an incremental expansion of the Metro would be better, and the arguments are pretty convincing. Here's some more info on the heavy rail vs. light rail tug-of-war.

What do y'all think - are Baltimore's transit systems half-assed? I think most of the systems were implemented along the "it's the thought that counts" line - that is, it was more important for them to serve as "at least we tried" showpieces for the pols than to function as practical commuter networks. There's a light rail line that avoids the densest parts of the city (but it still is a pretty convenient way to get to BWI), and there's an insufficient subway line that doesn't do a good job connecting the downtown CBD to the surrounding neighborhoods. And there's also the reality that Baltimore's various transit options are all fragmented - there's the CCC, the local and commuter buses, the MARC system, the Metro, the Light Rail, and even the harbor water taxis, but there are no connections between most of these systems, so it's harder to use (and understand) the network with its varying schedules, frequencies, fares and ticketing, disconnected stations, and so on. On paper it looks like B'more has a pretty comprehensive system (and relying on various transit modes is not inherently bad), but in reality there are a lot of frustrating discontinuities and inconsistencies that make using the system difficult unless you have no other choice. So maybe it doesn't make sense to create yet another disconnected line, and it might be better to put that money into expanding an existing line(s).

And in ALL SERIOUSNESS I really do hope that Baltimore can find some way to convert that Red Line from a slow Light Rail into a High Speed Subways.........

Believe it or not the Original Plan was for the Red Line to be built as a Subway along the once Planned I-170 Expressway......

BTW- Even though you don't agree with my support for Highway building I will tell you that I Highly Support Subway Building throughout Baltimore and making all Buses and Trains in the Baltimore Metro Area operate 24/7....

Now as for Healthy Highway Cities this can be a good read:

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/n...#ixzz1ITwCu9tC

http://www.slate.com/id/2250999

http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...mployment.html

[LtBk]

The Baltimore Light Rail was suppose to be one of metro lines planned in 1960's, but shoved due to high costs and lack of money from the Feds due to increasing anti-transit mentality.

[marcszar]

Originally Posted by uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn

BTW- Even though you don't agree with my support for Highway building I will tell you that I Highly Support Subway Building throughout Baltimore and making all Buses and Trains in the Baltimore Metro Area operate 24/7....

Now as for Healthy Highway Cities this can be a good read:

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/n...#ixzz1ITwCu9tC

http://www.slate.com/id/2250999

http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...mployment.html

I agree with you on an improved metro system, but I know I'll never convince you on the highways (and you'll never convince me).

I gotta say, though, those articles you posted (the Slate one was really good) only weaken your argument - as Slate said, "Texas today is more suburban engineer than urban cowboy." None of the articles provided any information on how highways encouraged downtown densification and concentration - in fact the Citydata post only showed that many sunbelt cities tended to have smaller CBDs (in terms of employment population) and fewer metro jobs concentrated in the CBDs themselves!

Look, no one's denying that states like Texas are economic powerhouses. But all the evidence (including the links you posted) shows that the economic activity has been diluted into edge cities, suburban office parks, and other dispersed environments. The highways made this possible all over the US, not just in the Sunbelt. The sunbelt also has/had the more important advantages of large swathes of cheap suburban land available for development, and a much lighter regulatory touch on business and industry.

Just walk down the street of any sunbelt CBD - except for the admirable New Urbanist infill efforts in cities like Houston and Miami, the downtowns are often dead, blank-walled fortifications and parking lots. Thank God Baltimore didn't completely carve up its CBD with highways like Atlanta did (only to be rewarded with horrible induced traffic), or it would be much more of a desolate dead zone today.

[uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn]

Originally Posted by LtBk

The Baltimore Light Rail was suppose to be one of metro lines planned in 1960's, but shoved due to high costs and lack of money from the Feds due to increasing anti-transit mentality.

So basically your saying that not only Baltimore(and Inner DC/Maryland Suburbs) suffered from the anti-Highways mentality but Baltimore also suffered from the anti-Transit Mentality.....

Very Interesting.........

[uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn]

Originally Posted by marcszar

I agree with you on an improved metro system, but I know I'll never convince you on the highways (and you'll never convince me).

I gotta say, though, those articles you posted (the Slate one was really good) only weaken your argument - as Slate said, "Texas today is more suburban engineer than urban cowboy." None of the articles provided any information on how highways encouraged downtown densification and concentration - in fact the Citydata post only showed that many sunbelt cities tended to have smaller CBDs (in terms of employment population) and fewer metro jobs concentrated in the CBDs themselves!

Look, no one's denying that states like Texas are economic powerhouses. But all the evidence (including the links you posted) shows that the economic activity has been diluted into edge cities, suburban office parks, and other dispersed environments. The highways made this possible all over the US, not just in the Sunbelt. The sunbelt also has/had the more important advantages of large swathes of cheap suburban land available for development, and a much lighter regulatory touch on business and industry.

Just walk down the street of any sunbelt CBD - except for the admirable New Urbanist infill efforts in cities like Houston and Miami, the downtowns are often dead, blank-walled fortifications and parking lots. Thank God Baltimore didn't completely carve up its CBD with highways like Atlanta did (only to be rewarded with horrible induced traffic), or it would be much more of a desolate dead zone today.

You are gonna say whatever you think is right but it does not outweigh or erase the FACT that Interstate Highway Healthy Atlanta, Houston, Charlotte, and Dallas have GAINED Population while Baltimore is decreasing in Population..............

You can say whatever you like about anti-Highwayism but it will not divert from the Pure Facts that more people are moving into the Atlanta, Houston, Charlotte, and Dallas areas at a faster rate than Baltimore......

Sorry my man but that is the FACTS of Life........


And I will say again don't think that because I support Highway Building/Widening makes me anti-Transit because I have stated before and I will state again that I do support Baltimore building more High Speed Subway Rails and making ALL Buses and Trains in the Baltimore and Maryland/DC areas operate 24/7..........

I have never been into the either or Highways vs Transit BS, a World Class City should be Blessed with both East/West and North/South Highways and State of the Art Rapid(Buses, High Speed Subways, and High Speed Commuter Rails) Transit System......

[oneworld25]

Originally Posted by marcszar

Uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn is resorting to the typical correlation proves causation argument for his claims. ("Sunbelt cities are booming, and sunbelt cities have great highways, thus their excellent highways are responsible for their growth.")

I'm not denying that highways and other transportation networks *can* direct economic growth, but I'm still waiting for the proof to the claim that highways assist in downtown commercial/residential concentration and densification. I'd like to see some articles back up a claim that flies against common sense...

I should probably follow the advice of the posters above and ignore the nonsensical posts from Uptn1bx2hrlm5blyn, but I think this info might be interesting to other readers here: Baltimore's downtown has apparently done quite well this last decade. B'more's population decline no longer seems to be the biggest among American cities either - Chicago, Cinci, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis (all highway-loving cities) posted bigger declines, and I guess we'll have to wait till the 2020 census to see how far boom-and-bust foreclosure cities like Phoenix and Vegas will fall. This is hardly a reason for Baltimoreans to clap themselves on their back (you can't call a continued-even-if-smaller population decline a "success"), but it might suggest that Baltimore has begun taking the right steps towards gradual revitalization.

Anyway, back to the Red Line. We can blab about highways in another thread. I've made an attempt to read some of the opposition to the Red Line recently and I realized that my earlier dismissal of the opposition as mostly anti-transit NIMBYism isn't that true. Some people actually argue that an incremental expansion of the Metro would be better, and the arguments are pretty convincing. Here's some more info on the heavy rail vs. light rail tug-of-war.

What do y'all think - are Baltimore's transit systems half-assed? I think most of the systems were implemented along the "it's the thought that counts" line - that is, it was more important for them to serve as "at least we tried" showpieces for the pols than to function as practical commuter networks. There's a light rail line that avoids the densest parts of the city (but it still is a pretty convenient way to get to BWI), and there's an insufficient subway line that doesn't do a good job connecting the downtown CBD to the surrounding neighborhoods. And there's also the reality that Baltimore's various transit options are all fragmented - there's the CCC, the local and commuter buses, the MARC system, the Metro, the Light Rail, and even the harbor water taxis, but there are no connections between most of these systems, so it's harder to use (and understand) the network with its varying schedules, frequencies, fares and ticketing, disconnected stations, and so on. On paper it looks like B'more has a pretty comprehensive system (and relying on various transit modes is not inherently bad), but in reality there are a lot of frustrating discontinuities and inconsistencies that make using the system difficult unless you have no other choice. So maybe it doesn't make sense to create yet another disconnected line, and it might be better to put that money into expanding an existing line(s).

You're right on the mark about Baltimore's fragmented transit system. And the Red Line will only make that problem worse. In particular, building a light rail tunnel less than two blocks from a subway tunnel that is operating under capacity is just plain stupid. It makes a heck of a lot more sense to incrementally expand the subway line as suggested by TRAC. You might also want to check out Gerald Neilly's plan http://baltimoreinnerspace.blogspot....line-would.htm.

Unfortunately the power's that be don't really want to listen to the community. They're so desperate to get something done, they they aren't willing to stop and think about the alternatives. The only way things are going to change in Baltimore is if there is some sort of grassroots citizens initiative like the highway revolts of old.

However, I must disagree with you that our one subway line is inefficient. Despite being roughly half the size of the light rail line it carries way more people (56,800 people in the fourth quarter of 2010 vs. 36,300 people on the light rail). The problem with the subway is that it's only one line and perhaps more importantly there is no TOD along it. Granted regional leaders have given lots of lip-service to the idea of TOD but they have nothing to show for it.

[Mirage52]

The yellow line (if ever built) would be the one that would use the second level of the Charles Center station. Being that the red line is east/west, it doesn't make sense for it to run through CC when the other platform is for N/S trains.

Or am I completely mistaken?