3 ms·
Not because they can't though. Because they think they can't. Most cities in the US could do this with some adjustments to public transit, and by managing regio
by huebomont 8y ago
Not because they can't though. Because they think they can't. Most cities in the US could do this with some adjustments to public transit, and by managing regional transit much better - for example it's insane that the default for suburban rail line stations is the "park and ride" - huge parking lot surrounding the train station, rather than using that area for residential development close to transit.
- responseguy 8y agoI wonder how much space could be allocated to residential development though. Here (Portland Oregon) The park and ride infrastructure isn't that built out (Or maybe it is and I just haven't noticed it???). I dont believe you could move all the people that need to drive into the city to work, into the new residential development provided by that conversion.
- huebomont 8y agoThat's not the idea as much as moving parking away from IMMEDIATELY next to the station - and improving bus links to rail transit.
- eanzenberg 8y agoNo... because they literally can't without massive upheaval of where schools, offices and shops are located.
- munk-a 8y agoShops can move with the times, schools can continue to have buses to get kids there and offices can stay where they are as long as they'd like. Banning vehicles has been shown to greatly increase shopping revenue and improve the healthiness of the area, so if a few businesses suffer, poor them... I'll not shed a tear for the strip malls.
- jodrellblank 8y ago"They literally can't change, because that would involve having to actually change". They only want change that doesn't involve money, effort or change, or what?
- huebomont 8y agoWhere in my comment do I suggest moving the suburbs? Nothing in your comment would be a result of anything in mine.