Improving transit and strengthening neighborhoods in Manchester

Well done (4.00 / 1)

This is excellent work. I couldn't agree with you more that connecting Manchester's neighborhoods via public transit and trails is one of the greatest long-term challenges facing our city. In addition to the proposed rail system to Boston, these steps will increase the prospects of a more vibrant downtown and a more prosperous city, which in turn will benefit all of southern NH.  

---

by: Garth Corriveau @ Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 12:02:24 PM CST

back to where it once was...linked by neighborhood trans to rail to the world h/t (0.00 / 0)

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. HST

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 15:30:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

I really think good public transit and dense, walkable neighborhoods are the future.  For the past several decades, the majority of people who could choose to live in auto-reliant suburbs, but that trend has been changing for the past several years, and more and more people are choosing to live in the sort of dense, walkable, urban neighborhoods that make up most of Manchester.  Good public transit, in addition to its environmental benefits and being an important service to those who depend on it, is a vital tool to attracting residents and workers to vibrant, urban neighborhoods and downtowns.

I hope that in the near future, the City and region will more seriously look into properly funding a reliable, convenient public transit system of some sort for the Greater Manchester area.  It's clear that it's a good economic development tool, as well improving the quality of life for residents and workers.  With neighboring communities being more tied to Manchester (Bedford zoning for density and transit along South River Road, for instance), a regional approach for funding and service seems to make sense.

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 10:14:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Excellent! (4.00 / 1)

While the current political climate precludes this, I have great hopes that this is a bump in our road, and that we will get past this nasty experiment in nation demolition and decay and move on to be the place we should be, on the cutting edge of technology and planning.  We will have to run awfully fast to catch up to Europe and Asia, however, so the sooner the better.
Meanwhile, Mr. Architect (was so pleased to see that, my older grandson is at Rice studying architecture, I sent your diary and links to him), keep reminding us of where we are really going. And thanks!

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 13:20:31 PM CST

I'm all for rail, and have spent a lot of time on this, (0.00 / 0)

But cars aren't the enemy.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Jan 19, 2011 at 23:10:30 PM CST

Agreed. (0.00 / 0)

I think several cities with good public transit and similar density to Manchester offer strong examples of how public transit--especially rail, but also a good bus system--compliments cars.  Most people in Manchester will probably continue to own cars even if light-rail ever becomes a reality in the city.  Those people might leave the car in the garage for a day or two while taking transit to work; instead of hopping in the car to breakfast on the weekend, they might walk down the block; and instead of a car for every person, it would be easier to need only a car for every household.  People would still drive, but they would drive less, and as a result they would spend much less money on insurance, maintenance, etc.  Cars aren't the enemy of public transit; auto-centric planning is.

To the best of my knowledge (and anyone please correct me if I'm wrong), Manchester and the surrounding towns right now have a very auto-centric planning framework.  There's little investment in public transit and the type of development to support it.  Meanwhile, roads like Granite Street are being widened at the expense of surrounding neighborhoods and a real sense of a gateway in an effort to accommodate more traffic.  I think this is changing, and I believe the city has recently revised its zoning to support neighborhood businesses and reduce the need for parking, but more should be done to support both transit and the vibrant communities that can only exist in a non-auto-reliant urban environment.

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 08:34:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't see light rail happening in the foreseeable future. (0.00 / 0)

I'm still waiting for a train to Boston.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 10:40:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thinking big (0.00 / 0)

The problem I see with that is that more and more cities, some no bigger than Manchester, are beginning to look into the possibility of light rail.  That certainly doesn't guarantee implementation, but it makes it a possibility.  If Portland builds a light rail line, which they are considering, Manchester will be at a serious disadvantage even if it remains the largest city north of Boston.

The bigger issue with discussing something like light rail, however, is that it's a complete shift from the rather sorry discussion about transit in Manchester that exists.  Manchester, a city of 110,000 in a metro area of several hundred-thousands, is served by a transit system of a dozen bus lines running at hourly intervals five-days a week with limited Saturday service.  Frankly, this is a very poor reflection of the city, but right now discussion of improvement often ends at trying to extend hours past 7pm or getting buses running on Sunday.  Even if light rail never happens, discussing it illuminates the possibility of (and need for) a vastly better bus system.  It's similar to how many progressives think that had single-payer not have been removed from the discussion of health care reform, we might have ended up with a better final product.  

All that said, I do think that light rail is feasible in the future once the political tide changes a bit and as walkable, urban neighborhoods served by transit are continuing to gain in popularity.

A train to Boston is very important, and I'm impatient about the speed of that project, but a good transit system will play a much larger role in the daily lives of city residents than a commuter rail line.

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 12:59:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

clarification (4.00 / 1)

I just wanted to clarify that my criticism of the state of transit in Manchester and the lack (at least that I'm aware of) of big plans to drastically improve it are not a criticism of the people at the MTA or the City even.  I don't know enough about the situation to know whether they deserve any criticism or not, but the MTA seems to be doing an excellent job with the limited resources they have, and the City is in a bit of a jam running a system that logically should be run and funded regionally.

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 13:18:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here's the thing, (0.00 / 0)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Federal cash or bust. That's the only way big stuff gets built in this state.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 16:16:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

True (0.00 / 0)

which is why something like this might not happen in the next couple years.  However, from my limited understanding of transit funding, a lot of it has to do with environmental requirements and air quality mitigation.  I believe that is how the Downtown Circulator bus was and is being funded.  I could be mistaken about the details, but I know the source of at least the majority of funding came from USDOT.

The same is true of streetcar proposals for New Haven and Stamford, which compete for federal urban circulator funding.  If Manchester and the region is to improve its transit someday, a good deal of the funding will certainly come from the federal government.

Cities like Portland, Ore. also illustrate how local businesses can contribute to funding, both through sponsorship and with specific taxes on businesses directly benefiting from transit.

Funding is just one thing that needs to be worked out in any consideration of an improved and expanded transit system, but that's exactly why there should be a more robust discussion of what is desired and possible for the city and region.

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 15:17:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]