Re: Southwest LRT (Green Line Extension)
Posted: September 2nd, 2014, 8:02 am
EOst is correct. In addition, it was built and operated by private companies but construction was funded by the cities.
Architecture, Development, and Infrastructure of the Twin Cities
https://urbanmsp.com/
Absolutely, they were "pedestrian accelerators." They were successful because these new areas did not have to cater to the car, awful zoning codes, car-centric federal underwriting standards, etc nor were they served by massively subsidized competing infrastructure (urban freeways).I think he's referring to the fact that they were frequently built to relatively undeveloped areas as a way to spur development. The borough of Queens, for example, largely didn't exist when a lot of the trains there were built.It was built by private companies because we had not yet built urban freeways with the expectation that everyone get a car?
Well, elevated lines and streetcars were funded by private companies prior to underground service, and my understanding was that the first underground lines that opened from 1904 to the early teens (? running of memory of blog posts) were also funded by the private companies. After consolidation of said companies somewhat forced the city's hand in regulation, the companies agreed to have new construction funded by the city in exchange for fare regulation (among other things, like the transit companies paving streets for their competition, cars). The city creating its own transit agency operating at cost, competition from cars (subsidized by road widenings), and fare caps strangling transit profitability all led to the city taking ownership of the entire system (and dismantling some legacy rapid lines, mostly elevated ones). So, it's a bit more complicated than that..EOst is correct. In addition, it was built and operated by private companies but construction was funded by the cities.
Like the decent wages and minimum safety standards? Because those are what really drive up building costs, not car minimums or anything like that. Buildings were dirt-cheap to build a century ago because they treated the workers and the residents like dirt.Yes, which is why we need to undo all the government regulation that is a handout to large-scale developers at the expense of the small-scale and incremental developments that made our cities dense and vibrant a century ago.
As David Greene said, the lawsuits are basically a moot point. The EIS process is a federal one, and the municipal consent a state one, and they do not intersect, and in the municipal consent legislation there is no explicit connection between the successful conclusion of the EIS and municipal consent.So what happens from here? Besides the lawsuits and yelling
I mean, you're right in some respects. We shouldn't ascribe zero value to certain regulations (safety standards, ADA requirements) that certainly do increase costs and prices. But 1) the increase in wages as a % of construction costs has to be at least somewhat (mostly?) balanced by the increase in productivity and drop in materials costs over time, and 2) ignoring parking minimums, lot regulations, height limits, etc effect on construction costs per unit seems odd. They're not trivial and definitely tip the scale toward larger lot development.Like the decent wages and minimum safety standards? Because those are what really drive up building costs, not car minimums or anything like that. Buildings were dirt-cheap to build a century ago because they treated the workers and the residents like dirt.Yes, which is why we need to undo all the government regulation that is a handout to large-scale developers at the expense of the small-scale and incremental developments that made our cities dense and vibrant a century ago.
Because arguing about urban theory is way easier than actually operating in the defined limits of reality.Regardless, we should try to steer this back to SWLRT specific stuff.
ftfyBeing constrained by reality = actually doing stuff instead of fantasizing on the internet.
“We are all looking forward to a lawsuit,” said Mary Pattock, a leader of the group LRT Done Right. “We have the law on our side.”
I hope we have some very smart people doing the EIS that will give out data that is accurate. What pollution can a light rail give anyways? Noise pollution? Weight of the train? Construction? All things that happen when you decide to do a teardown and rebuild of your million dollar near lakefront home?“They think the planning and decision-making is getting ahead of the environmental review,” said Johnson, who said he expects a decision this week on whether to file suit against the city.
Probably not much once it's running, but pollution during the construction process is a very real danger. Also "rebuilding a near lakefront home" does not equal "digging a tunnel right under the channel".What pollution can a light rail give anyways? Noise pollution? Weight of the train? Construction? All things that happen when you decide to do a teardown and rebuild of your million dollar near lakefront home?