Comments on: Sidelining the Metro: How Fear, Prejudice, and University Inaction Kept the College Park Metro Station away from Campus http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/523/ Helping imagine a great college town for a great university Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:03:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Transit Ramblings: Los Angeles Transit History and College Park Metro « Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet… http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/523/comment-page-1/#comment-169702 Transit Ramblings: Los Angeles Transit History and College Park Metro « Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet… Thu, 21 May 2009 05:49:43 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/523/#comment-169702 [...] Los Angeles and mass transit, I may as well talk about something interesting closer to home.  <http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/523/> discusses the reasons behind the current location of the College Park–UMD Green Line [...] [...] Los Angeles and mass transit, I may as well talk about something interesting closer to home.  <http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/523/&gt; discusses the reasons behind the current location of the College Park–UMD Green Line [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: David Daddio http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/523/comment-page-1/#comment-65887 David Daddio Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:57:53 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/523/#comment-65887 The vast majority of the housing we're talking about is student housing, not upscale condos. I'm a little confused. I'm sure most would agree that it would be preferable to replace the low density, sprawl-type buildings along route 1 with walkable 4-5 story buildings. I have a feeling you would have a hard time convincing folks that PG county needs affordable unit requirements at this point in time. Kevin has some valid points. If you are a homeowner, then this development would most likely increase the value of your house while at the same it would keep rents down for renters by flooding the market with a fresh supply of apartments. The vast majority of the housing we’re talking about is student housing, not upscale condos. I’m a little confused. I’m sure most would agree that it would be preferable to replace the low density, sprawl-type buildings along route 1 with walkable 4-5 story buildings. I have a feeling you would have a hard time convincing folks that PG county needs affordable unit requirements at this point in time.

Kevin has some valid points. If you are a homeowner, then this development would most likely increase the value of your house while at the same it would keep rents down for renters by flooding the market with a fresh supply of apartments.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Jesse Blitzstein http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/523/comment-page-1/#comment-65819 Jesse Blitzstein Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:36:30 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/523/#comment-65819 Sorry to be picky, but since we're already 30+ comments deep why not. Kevin I like most of the points you make, but what's wrong with tattoo parlors in College Park? Last I checked, there are three successful, well thought of establishments in CP. It's a college town, and Im sure all three places enjoy their locations due in part to the boost in traffic they see from the college crowd. A quick Google search suggests there are at least 5 tattoo parlors in Ann Arbor. Looking at the bigger picture I think this is just another small example of what makes getting a consensus on development in College Park so difficult. As I think Jane Doe tries to point out, there is such a multiplicity of viewpoints at hand. What is unwanted by one person is desirable to the next. How do you please as many people as possible in a diverse college town? I think Jane Doe kind of brings us back to the original message of this post, that lower income people and/or minorities often get overlooked, sometimes intentionally, when this question is being answered. Sorry to be picky, but since we’re already 30+ comments deep why not. Kevin I like most of the points you make, but what’s wrong with tattoo parlors in College Park? Last I checked, there are three successful, well thought of establishments in CP. It’s a college town, and Im sure all three places enjoy their locations due in part to the boost in traffic they see from the college crowd. A quick Google search suggests there are at least 5 tattoo parlors in Ann Arbor.

Looking at the bigger picture I think this is just another small example of what makes getting a consensus on development in College Park so difficult. As I think Jane Doe tries to point out, there is such a multiplicity of viewpoints at hand. What is unwanted by one person is desirable to the next.

How do you please as many people as possible in a diverse college town? I think Jane Doe kind of brings us back to the original message of this post, that lower income people and/or minorities often get overlooked, sometimes intentionally, when this question is being answered.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Sin V http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/523/comment-page-1/#comment-65778 Sin V Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:50:11 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/523/#comment-65778 David, The CCTrail is a concern but not my only one. If we put in a great system I am sure I will use it. By great I mean fast and scalable (extendable later) with WiFi etc.. I must admit I am not looking forward to seeing poles for the overhead wiring running along the trail. Is there any way to avoid using overhead wiring for power? I do have a question as to why is there a group that only seems to support Light Rail. It seems to me that transit groups should support commuter rail (heavy rail), subway (Metro style), and even monorail, along with Light Rail. Why the fixation on Light Rail. David,

The CCTrail is a concern but not my only one. If we put in a great system I am sure I will use it. By great I mean fast and scalable (extendable later) with WiFi etc..

I must admit I am not looking forward to seeing poles for the overhead wiring running along the trail. Is there any way to avoid using overhead wiring for power?

I do have a question as to why is there a group that only seems to support Light Rail. It seems to me that transit groups should support commuter rail (heavy rail), subway (Metro style), and even monorail, along with Light Rail. Why the fixation on Light Rail.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: David Daddio http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/523/comment-page-1/#comment-65748 David Daddio Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:46:13 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/523/#comment-65748 "light rail trolley" isn't really an accurate term. Looks like an interesting system in Austin, but you'll notice that it is basically a commuter rail like the MARC train. It would not be very compatible with highly pedestrian areas like those where the Purple Line is planned - thus necessitating tunnels and costing quite a bit more than light rail. The hybrid diesel and electrical engines are interesting, though I'm not sure I'd list overhead wires as a major drawback to light rail. If your concern is the CCT, I'm not sure how this kind of system is any better than light rail. “light rail trolley” isn’t really an accurate term.

Looks like an interesting system in Austin, but you’ll notice that it is basically a commuter rail like the MARC train. It would not be very compatible with highly pedestrian areas like those where the Purple Line is planned – thus necessitating tunnels and costing quite a bit more than light rail. The hybrid diesel and electrical engines are interesting, though I’m not sure I’d list overhead wires as a major drawback to light rail. If your concern is the CCT, I’m not sure how this kind of system is any better than light rail.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>