NEW YORK | City and State struggle to increase residential development

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mhays

Ideally, the state would mandate that cities have to allow a certain amount of growth.

The Gov. tried that, last year, and it was beaten back. And this year is an election year so not happening. I'm betting she tries again next year.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Doady

What pressure is there to build transit-oriented development in Nassau County when transit is basically non-existent there?

Huh? Nassau might have the best suburban transit in North America. It has 24/7 LIRR service, running on subway style third-rail, almost all of it grade separated, and the main lines are now 3-4 tracks. And the Babylon line is almost entirely elevated out to Babylon.

You can live almost anywhere in Nassau, and be in relative proximity of third-rail transit taking you directly to either Grand Central or Penn. Something like 1,100 weekday trains now.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Huh? Nassau might have the best suburban transit in North America. It has 24/7 LIRR service, running on subway style third-rail, almost all of it grade separated, and the main lines are now 3-4 tracks. And the Babylon line is almost entirely elevated out to Babylon.

You can live almost anywhere in Nassau, and be in relative proximity of third-rail transit taking you directly to either Grand Central or Penn. Something like 1,100 weekday trains now.

I already provided a very clear explanation, which you conveniently and deliberately chose to omit from your quote of my post:

"And when I say transit that frees up parking space for redevelopment, I don't mean commuter rail stations surrounded by park and ride lots."

Nassau can't build transit-oriented development if the transit is surrounded by park-and-ride lots. They can't redevelop parking lots if they encourage people to park. Reliance on parking also severely restricts the ridership of LIRR, which is reflected in its lower ridership compared to MiWay and Brampton Transit in Peel Region.

Long Island Rail Road: 70.3 million riders in 2022
vs.
MiWay: 48.0 million
Brampton Transit: 49.2 million

Despite the third rail and grade separation, LIRR carries only a small fraction of the riders of a typical grade separation and electrified rail system. With such low ridership, the system is limited in its impact on development.

Ultimately, for intensification in Nassau County to happen, they will need to make a serious commitment to funding transit. Park and ride lots are a symptom of high car dependence. With increasing car dependence, the market of high density development becomes much smaller, and the costs for the developers becomes much higher too.

[mrnyc]

transit is basically non-existant in nassau? goofy wat?!

[dchan]

Yes, Nassau does need far more actual TOD that isn't reliant on nearby commuters doing the park-and-ride.

And like much of the NYC region, the transit is too oriented towards serving Manhattan CBD commuters. It would be great if there were at least two North-South rail lines that would connect all of the various East-West LIRR lines. The same could be said for Queens and Brooklyn. And of course, it would be the opposite for the Bronx (a couple of E-W train lines connecting the various N-S lines)

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Doady

I already provided a very clear explanation, which you conveniently and deliberately chose to omit from your quote of my post:

"And when I say transit that frees up parking space for redevelopment, I don't mean commuter rail stations surrounded by park and ride lots."

This has absolutely nothing to do with transit quality. You're claiming that transit isn't transit if there's parking, which is absurd. Please name a suburban region in North America without parking for transit.

Even many of the big downtown rail hubs, like DC's Union Station, have parking. Even many non-suburban subway stations, like on the TTC, or DC Metro, have parking. And rail in Nassau isn't particularly parking-oriented. The stations are mostly in city cores, with limited parking, often only for residents and with long waitlists. And the stations often have municipal bus shuttle connectors, timed to each train.

Originally Posted by Doady

Nassau can't build transit-oriented development if the transit is surrounded by park-and-ride lots.

Of course they can, but totally irrelevant. You mentioned transit, not transit-oriented development. Where in North America is there TOD without parking?

Originally Posted by Doady

They can't redevelop parking lots if they encourage people to park.

I have no idea what this means. Every suburban place, and 95% of urban places in North America, have parking. LIRR is actually unusual in that many suburban stations have limited or no parking, since the towns predate autotopia.

Originally Posted by Doady

Reliance on parking also severely restricts the ridership of LIRR, which is reflected in its lower ridership compared to MiWay and Brampton Transit in Peel Region.

LIRR has, by far, the highest commuter rail ridership in North America. MiWay and Brampton Transit have commuter rail ridership of 0. They're buses. Ridership is mostly poorer riders traveling within suburbia. So nothing to do with what we're talking about. And commuter rail ridership in suburban Toronto is much lower than in the NY area.

Originally Posted by Doady

Despite the third rail and grade separation, LIRR carries only a small fraction of the riders of a typical grade separation and electrified rail system. With such low ridership, the system is limited in its impact on development.

Again, the "low ridership" is by far the highest. NIMBYism impacts the development, not the ridership.

Originally Posted by Doady

Ultimately, for intensification in Nassau County to happen, they will need to make a serious commitment to funding transit.

No, this is all wrong. In order for higher Nassau density, you need state housing mandates. Has zero to do with transit.

Originally Posted by Doady

Park and ride lots are a symptom of high car dependence.

Ok? Practically every community in Nassau has municipal bus routes connecting to LIRR, often running every few minutes. You couldn't have picked a worse example in NA.

Originally Posted by Doady

With increasing car dependence, the market of high density development becomes much smaller, and the costs for the developers becomes much higher too.

I have no idea what this means.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by dchan

Yes, Nassau does need far more actual TOD that isn't reliant on nearby commuters doing the park-and-ride.

And like much of the NYC region, the transit is too oriented towards serving Manhattan CBD commuters. It would be great if there were at least two North-South rail lines that would connect all of the various East-West LIRR lines. The same could be said for Queens and Brooklyn. And of course, it would be the opposite for the Bronx (a couple of E-W train lines connecting the various N-S lines)

well the transit system is ancient, you can’t rewrite rail history so easily.

but anyway no, long island does not need cross island rail as any sort of priority (over dozens of other projects anyone could think of). the island is narrow, its low density suburbia and its served well enough by busses and park and rides.

also, its no comparision to the bx, which definitely needs better cross bx services. outside of the new pelham prkway brt busses and the co-op city commuter busses, the rest of the bus service up there is a slowpoke mess, trust me.

qns and brklyn are getting the ibx. eventually.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Doady

I already provided a very clear explanation, which you conveniently and deliberately chose to omit from your quote of my post:

"And when I say transit that frees up parking space for redevelopment, I don't mean commuter rail stations surrounded by park and ride lots."

Nassau can't build transit-oriented development if the transit is surrounded by park-and-ride lots. They can't redevelop parking lots if they encourage people to park. Reliance on parking also severely restricts the ridership of LIRR, which is reflected in its lower ridership compared to MiWay and Brampton Transit in Peel Region.

Long Island Rail Road: 70.3 million riders in 2022
vs.
MiWay: 48.0 million
Brampton Transit: 49.2 million

Despite the third rail and grade separation, LIRR carries only a small fraction of the riders of a typical grade separation and electrified rail system. With such low ridership, the system is limited in its impact on development.

Ultimately, for intensification in Nassau County to happen, they will need to make a serious commitment to funding transit. Park and ride lots are a symptom of high car dependence. With increasing car dependence, the market of high density development becomes much smaller, and the costs for the developers becomes much higher too.

Intensification around Nassau's train stations can happen today if they wanted, but they don't want to do it. Metro North stations are commonly located next to town centers with multi-tenant housing in walking distance, even at the stations with large parking lots. LIRR stations are mostly surrounded by gigantic parking lots and rarely have anything of note within walking distance.

LIRR stations often look like this:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XBHiSuUF85LTvGJUA
https://maps.app.goo.gl/wxpU8Dumiwf7n4vi6

While Metro North stations often look like this:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/KQ9DsQd7Yd5GUGav5
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ujqUuhT1iztJikXJA

Westchester doesn't have better transit than Nassau. Westchester just didn't plan stations around huge surface parking lots.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This has absolutely nothing to do with transit quality. You're claiming that transit isn't transit if there's parking, which is absurd. Please name a suburban region in North America without parking for transit.

I am talking about development. Parking for transit means two parking spaces: one at the rail station, and one at home. If one person does not have a car, that is two spaces less. That not only increases the amount of land available for high density development, it also increases the density of each development.

Even many of the big downtown rail hubs, like DC's Union Station, have parking. Even many non-suburban subway stations, like on the TTC, or DC Metro, have parking. And rail in Nassau isn't particularly parking-oriented. The stations are mostly in city cores, with limited parking, often only for residents and with long waitlists. And the stations often have municipal bus shuttle connectors, timed to each train.

TTC Subway and WMATA Metro stations have thousands of buses feeding into them, unlike LIRR stations.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Of course they can, but totally irrelevant. You mentioned transit, not transit-oriented development. Where in North America is there TOD without parking?

I am talking about parking for transit, not parking for residences. TOD will have parking for residences, but not parking for transit. And being close to transit the amount of parking per unit can be decreased and therefore the number of units can be increased.

I have no idea what this means. Every suburban place, and 95% of urban places in North America, have parking. LIRR is actually unusual in that many suburban stations have limited or no parking, since the towns predate autotopia.

Even ihearthed doesn't believe that, you expect me to believe that?

LIRR has, by far, the highest commuter rail ridership in North America. MiWay and Brampton Transit have commuter rail ridership of 0. They're buses. Ridership is mostly poorer riders traveling within suburbia. So nothing to do with what we're talking about. And commuter rail ridership in suburban Toronto is much lower than in the NY area.

By that standard, Seattle is one the poorest urban areas in North America.

Again, the "low ridership" is by far the highest. NIMBYism impacts the development, not the ridership.

LIRR and NICE in Nassau County have lower ridership than MiWay, Brampton Transit, and GO Transit in Peel Region.

No, this is all wrong. In order for higher Nassau density, you need state housing mandates. Has zero to do with transit.

And housing mandates are dictated by political will, and that will not come from people who live a car dependent lifestyle.

Ok? Practically every community in Nassau has municipal bus routes connecting to LIRR, often running every few minutes. You couldn't have picked a worse example in NA.

The worst example, eh? Are you saying that Nassau County has the highest level of bus service in North America? That means Nassau County is the poorest place in North America, doesn't it? Which NICE bus route runs "every few minutes"? I am interested to know.

I have no idea what this means.

When people live a car dependent lifestyle, they will not demand housing based on a transit-dependent lifestyle. Designing cities around parking therefore reduces the demand for housing built around transit.

More parking space also increases the costs of high density development. Alternate forms of transportation such as transit reduce the amount of parking space and therefore reduces the costs of high density development.

Parking mandates are the number one obstacle to high density development. Such mandates are both a symptom of car dependence and the cause of car dependence. The problem of parking mandates is the persistent underlying theme when comes to increasing density, even more so than NIMBYism.

YES IN OUR BACKYARD: New Yorkers Widely Support Parking Reform, Density Near Transit

[Doady]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Intensification around Nassau's train stations can happen today if they wanted, but they don't want to do it. Metro North stations are commonly located next to town centers with multi-tenant housing in walking distance, even at the stations with large parking lots. LIRR stations are mostly surrounded by gigantic parking lots and rarely have anything of note within walking distance.

LIRR stations often look like this:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XBHiSuUF85LTvGJUA
https://maps.app.goo.gl/wxpU8Dumiwf7n4vi6

While Metro North stations often look like this:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/KQ9DsQd7Yd5GUGav5
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ujqUuhT1iztJikXJA

Westchester doesn't have better transit than Nassau. Westchester just didn't plan stations around huge surface parking lots.

Yes, those Metro North station are better examples how development around stations can be.

Bee-line Bus does have better ridership than NICE, but I guess you can argue it is chicken or egg thing. NICE is starting to make major improvements after a decade of massive cuts.

Besides increasing transit there are other ways to reduce parking around stations such as cycling facilities and on-street parking.

In that second Nassau example, you can see the station is located along a 7 lane road. If they convert two of those lanes for parallel parking, they can reduce the amount of off-street parking and free up land beside the station for development.

[iheartthed]

^I meant to post another example of a Metro North station. Mineola is on Long Island, and is one of the few examples of there being any density around a LIRR station. Here's another Metro North example: https://maps.app.goo.gl/qnyD3RYr3T7DkTBN8

[Doady]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

^I meant to post another example of a Metro North station. Mineola is on Long Island, and is one of the few examples of there being any density around a LIRR station. Here's another Metro North example: https://maps.app.goo.gl/qnyD3RYr3T7DkTBN8

Yes, on-street parking like that Metro-North station is the key. The LIRR station is all off-street parking in garages.

You can see another LIRR station just down the line from Mineola where they seem to be making major effort improve the pedestrian access. The properties right across the street seem ripe for redevelopment, if not for the full parking lots.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/RvFP2E3TmR2om5Tc8

It appears to be a small downtown. Of course in any downtown, you don't just have people living there, you also have people working there and shopping there, so the demand for parking is even higher.

Every day in suburban Toronto, I pass by land zoned for high density, with no height limits, but the development has yet to happen because too much parking. Cars parked at home, parked at the office, parked at the store, parked at the mall, cars parked everywhere, beside a giant 6-7 lane road, so the developers can hardly build anything. Cars are a fact of life here, and the developers can't ignore that.

It's not to enough for our governments to allow high density development, the governments also need to create the right conditions for the development. I see it every day, NIMBYism is the least of the problems in the suburbs when it comes to increasing housing.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Doady

"And when I say transit that frees up parking space for redevelopment, I don't mean commuter rail stations surrounded by park and ride lots."

Nassau can't build transit-oriented development if the transit is surrounded by park-and-ride lots. They can't redevelop parking lots if they encourage people to park. Reliance on parking also severely restricts the ridership of LIRR, which is reflected in its lower ridership compared to MiWay and Brampton Transit in Peel Region.

Why couldn't these park and ride lots be replaced by parking garages with housing on top? Or consolidate parking in a garage, and free up the rest of the lot for redevelopment? That model has been implemented in many places, but the first example that comes to mind for me is Pentagon City.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Westchester doesn't have better transit than Nassau. Westchester just didn't plan stations around huge surface parking lots.

Nassau has somewhat better rail service than Westchester, but when MNR Penn Station access is completed, it's basically a wash.

Neither county "planned stations around huge surface lots". These are very old counties, with stations built in town centers, long before suburban sprawl. There are very few examples, in either county, of such arrangements.

I can't think of one highway-oriented park-and-ride station in Nassau. There are a few in NJ and CT, and at least one in Suffolk County. The commuter rail network in the tri-state is very much a legacy pre-sprawl arrangement.

I also don't get what you posted. You had two links to elevated, rapid-transit style stations in downtown districts along the Babylon line. These are commuter lines dating from the 19th century, with stations elevated in the 1960's. What is the specific issue with these stations? The fact that there's parking?

Where in North America is there suburban rail without parking? Is there a single suburban BART or Washington Metro or TTC subway station with no parking?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I also don't get what you posted. You had two links to elevated, rapid-transit style stations in downtown districts along the Babylon line. These are commuter lines dating from the 19th century, with stations elevated in the 1960's. What is the specific issue with these stations? The fact that there's parking?

Those Babylon line stations aren't built near much nearby that is accessible by foot. To be fair, a lot of NJ Transit stations are like that too, but Metro North stations are often located next to walkable town centers. For example:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/zBD8Cbwgs2Kzoyj66
https://maps.app.goo.gl/VFCR21qKcyvJ7A967
https://maps.app.goo.gl/okxB9QePZSirc4Ub9

[Doady]

Originally Posted by edale

Why couldn't these park and ride lots be replaced by parking garages with housing on top? Or consolidate parking in a garage, and free up the rest of the lot for redevelopment? That model has been implemented in many places, but the first example that comes to mind for me is Pentagon City.

That is a parking garage for the residences and the mall customers, right? That is already 4-5 floors of parking above the ground. The bottom-most residential units are 6 floors above ground, with only 18 floors of residences total. It's only profitable because of the owner of the building is also the owner of the mall, and malls make money unlike transit.

Consolidating all parking into one garage make sense, but the transit agency has no incentive to do that. If they build garage they will keep the remaining parking lots. More parking, more riders. The local municipality might care housing and affordability, but a regional transit agency? They have no reason to care.

I know of a train station where parking was consolidated into one garage, and the remaining park and ride lots will be redeveloped into condo towers. That only came about because a $4 billion light rail line that will connect to the station. It wasn't the regional transit agency that pushed for the LRT, it was the municipality and local transit agency that pushed for it.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Doady

That is a parking garage for the residences and the mall customers, right? That is already 4-5 floors of parking above the ground. The bottom-most residential units are 6 floors above ground, with only 18 floors of residences total. It's only profitable because of the owner of the building is also the owner of the mall, and malls make money unlike transit.

Consolidating all parking into one garage make sense, but the transit agency has no incentive to do that. If they build garage they will keep the remaining parking lots. More parking, more riders. The local municipality might care housing and affordability, but a regional transit agency? They have no reason to care.

I know of a train station where parking was consolidated into one garage, and the remaining park and ride lots will be redeveloped into condo towers. That only came about because a $4 billion light rail line that will connect to the station. It wasn't the regional transit agency that pushed for the LRT, it was the municipality and local transit agency that pushed for it.

The garage in Pentagon City is used for the mall, residences, and as a park and ride. Maybe not so much for daily commuters, but people from Northern Virginia definitely park there and ride the metro into things like sport and arts events, festivals, etc. It's even marketed as such on their website: "The Fashion Centre’s location plus the transit stop make this a favorite place to “Park and ride” to popular Washington D.C. events such as the Cherry Blossom Festival!"

Regardless of the specifics of Pentagon City, it's not outlandish to think that park and ride lots could be converted to garages and mixed use developments. The incentive for the transit agency is money earned from selling the real estate, plus they're building in rail customers by increasing density near their stations. I understand economics could be challenging, especially if the agency collects proceeds from the parking lots, but these challenges aren't insurmountable. Maybe a public private partnership or some government underwriting would be required, but there's nothing keeping the park and ride lots in Long Island from ever being redeveloped.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Those Babylon line stations aren't built near much nearby that is accessible by foot. To be fair, a lot of NJ Transit stations are like that too, but Metro North stations are often located next to walkable town centers. For example:

I'm pretty sure every single Babylon line station is located in or near a walkable downtown district. Every one to Babylon, 45 miles out.

The Babylon line is pretty middle class, not affluent like all three Westchester Metro North routes. Rockville Centre & Merrick, which are sorta affluent, might be exceptions.

So I guess the downtowns aren't posh or charming like in Westchester, but they're very functional. The Babylon line has some of the highest ridership of any suburban line in North America.

[Nouvellecosse]

There are certainly cases where park'n'rides offered parking structures and in fact there are large and expensive parking garages such as the many on the GO network. The parking doesn't necessarily take up all the space near the station so some could still be used for TOD. But that displaces other uses from that space with acts as a disincentive for using transit. When done well, TOD at rail stations offers the residents or workers at the TOD convenient, car-free access, to where ever the rail line goes which for commuter rail is usually a major downtown. But having the station act as a bus hub for feeder buses also means the hub is well connected to the local area. This means that locals can access the amenities at the hub without a car since the routes already go there to feed the station, and it gives residents at the hub car-free access to the surrounding community. In terms of over-used corporate buzz words, it forms a type of synergy.

But adding commuter parking facilities undermines both. The station is less of a bus hub since it's so easy to drive and therefore the local transit at the hub isn't good enough for TOD residents to be fully car-free. Plus there's congestion that affects any pedestrians or transit users accessing the station. Sure TOD residents can get downtown without a car, but not around the local community if the local transit connections are weak. So they likely take transit downtown to work and use their car for everything else.

So ultimately both sides are correct. Yes, you can combine TOD with park'n'rides, and no, it doesn't lead to very good TOD.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm pretty sure every single Babylon line station is located in or near a walkable downtown district. Every one to Babylon, 45 miles out.

The Babylon line is pretty middle class, not affluent like all three Westchester Metro North routes. Rockville Centre & Merrick, which are sorta affluent, might be exceptions.

So I guess the downtowns aren't posh or charming like in Westchester, but they're very functional. The Babylon line has some of the highest ridership of any suburban line in North America.

Nah, I'm pretty familiar with the Babylon line, and I assure you they are not. Most of them are surrounded by areas that look like Livonia, Michigan.