Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are areas here that lobby pretty hard against transportation based on xenophobia and nothing else.
Our transit is run (poorly) by the state. It expands into some suburban areas but not all. Suburb-suburb transit travel is 99% impossible.
Is the Red Line still going forward? I remember the complaints about xenophobia when reading about it. Typically, if a system is good at collecting fare, people aren't going to be riding around all day without purpose. That's aside from many other factors that prove that it's an illegitimate argument.
Is the Red Line still going forward? I remember the complaints about xenophobia when reading about it. Typically, if a system is good at collecting fare, people aren't going to be riding around all day without purpose. That's aside from many other factors that prove that it's an illegitimate argument.
It seems to be on the right path. Of course, all fundning is subject to bottom out at any minute for everything in this country. But I have some friends who work on the project and its trajectory seems to be pretty straight.
As far as "transit = crime spike" theory evidence in the Baltimore suburbs, check out the Owings Mills metro station and Owings Mills Mall. Note that there is no direct walkway between the two and one was make a circuitous, long walk to get to the mall property. Zoom in and you can see the footpaths of people walking from the train to the mall - and the fence put in to stop this.
Also note this never-opened light rail station near a major retail area. Never opened due to pressure from whatever retail tenant was where Sam's Club is now (can't remember which one). You can see the platform and the express track. Strangely, google recognizes it as a functional station.
Commonwealth states seem to be more difficult in this regard because of the independent cities. It places a large amount of power with the counties, and it sometimes duplicates services, beaurocracy, etc. It kind of creates an "us and them" dynamic that's not exactly great for making coordinated regional decisions.
To be nitpicky, Massachusetts counties (except for two or three) have been abolished so they have no power. The cities (or rather towns, most places are organized as towns rather than cities although both cities and towns are equally independent) do have quite a bit of power.
It seems to be on the right path. Of course, all fundning is subject to bottom out at any minute for everything in this country. But I have some friends who work on the project and its trajectory seems to be pretty straight.
As far as "transit = crime spike" theory evidence in the Baltimore suburbs, check out the Owings Mills metro station and Owings Mills Mall. Note that there is no direct walkway between the two and one was make a circuitous, long walk to get to the mall property. Zoom in and you can see the footpaths of people walking from the train to the mall - and the fence put in to stop this.
Also note this never-opened light rail station near a major retail area. Never opened due to pressure from whatever retail tenant was where Sam's Club is now (can't remember which one). You can see the platform and the express track. Strangely, google recognizes it as a functional station.
Wow, do you know of any situations or studies where this phobia actually holds up? Why would someone pay for a light rail ticket just to go loiter at a retail establishment across town when you can loiter in your own neighborhood? I suppose posting a "No Loitering" sign and putting the police on speed-dial wasn't enough...which reminds me that there's plenty of loitering in malls by nearby residents.
To be nitpicky, Massachusetts counties (except for two or three) have been abolished so they have no power. The cities (or rather towns, most places are organized as towns rather than cities although both cities and towns are equally independent) do have quite a bit of power.
No worries, that's good information. Richmond, VA has been talking about consolidating the city and the counties for some time, but it's not going to happen because the surrounding counties wouldn't benefit by absorbing the city (their taxes would just increase). I completely understand it from their point, but I do think the entire region would eventually end up benefiting in the long run if the government was "regionalized".
Wow, do you know of any situations or studies where this phobia actually holds up? Why would someone pay for a light rail ticket just to go loiter at a retail establishment across town when you can loiter in your own neighborhood? I suppose posting a "No Loitering" sign and putting the police on speed-dial wasn't enough...which reminds me that there's plenty of loitering in malls by nearby residents.
That mall is about 50% vacant anyway, I'm told (Not much of a shopper myself). It's no wonder.
I'd like to find some studies on it but I know of none.
No worries, that's good information. Richmond, VA has been talking about consolidating the city and the counties for some time, but it's not going to happen because the surrounding counties wouldn't benefit by absorbing the city (their taxes would just increase). I completely understand it from their point, but I do think the entire region would eventually end up benefiting in the long run if the government was "regionalized".
hmm. i think what massachusetts did was the opposite of regionalized, since they removed a regional level of government and placed it either at a very local level or state wide. Most likely it centralized power in the state a bit. But having counties was a bit wasteful.
hmm. i think what massachusetts did was the opposite of regionalized, since they removed a regional level of government and placed it either at a very local level or state wide. Most likely it centralized power in the state a bit. But having counties was a bit wasteful.
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply they did the same thing. Rather, they've been trying to change the overlap in services and beaurocracy, but in the opposite direction.
Wow, do you know of any situations or studies where this phobia actually holds up? Why would someone pay for a light rail ticket just to go loiter at a retail establishment across town when you can loiter in your own neighborhood? I suppose posting a "No Loitering" sign and putting the police on speed-dial wasn't enough...which reminds me that there's plenty of loitering in malls by nearby residents.
The phobia is pretty common but it doesn't hold up--Los Angeles did studies and didn't find any connection between presence of light rail transit and crime spikes. People just assume anyone whose looks they don't like on public transit didn't pay to get on, and is planning to rob or ravage whomever they encounter when they get off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
