3 ms·

>Only a handful of cities have remotely passable public transit systems. Everyone else needs parking. They don't need parking. They need a solution to enable

>Only a handful of cities have remotely passable public transit systems. Everyone else needs parking. They don't need parking. They need a solution to enable access to the downtown core. The solution you want is parking, because that's the status quo. Improving public transit is also a solution - It's not actually impossible to build.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
closeparen 8y ago
Building out acceptable public transit over America's vast <1,000 people/square mile suburbia is probably not economical. First you would need drastically higher densities to become socially acceptable and legal. Then you would need decades of building until most of a metro area's population actually lived at high enough densities. Then public transit that's actually competitive with the status quo for mobility could start to pencil out. Even when the density is there, the social mission of public transit agencies is to be a lifeline for the very poor. Improving service for professional commuters is at the bottom of their priority list. I can't even argue with that: the middle class can drive as an alternative, without bus service the destitute are just stuck. The solution I want is unlimited construction of skyscrapers and travel mostly by foot and elevator. But if there's one thing our democracy is great at, it's preventing high rises. For the densities we have, our choices are cars or simply having commutes eat further into our already scarce free time. (No, public transit is not free time, as any vaguely useful train is crush-loaded standing room only).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- adrianN 8y ago
  You could have parking spots at train stations that take you downtown. It's not necessary to have a bus stop at every corner in the suburbs.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Indeed, those can work well, but the urbanist community is working hard to remove them (i.e. AB 2923 in California).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

closeparen 8y ago

Building out acceptable public transit over America's vast <1,000 people/square mile suburbia is probably not economical. First you would need drastically higher densities to become socially acceptable and legal. Then you would need decades of building until most of a metro area's population actually lived at high enough densities. Then public transit that's actually competitive with the status quo for mobility could start to pencil out. Even when the density is there, the social mission of public transit agencies is to be a lifeline for the very poor. Improving service for professional commuters is at the bottom of their priority list. I can't even argue with that: the middle class can drive as an alternative, without bus service the destitute are just stuck. The solution I want is unlimited construction of skyscrapers and travel mostly by foot and elevator. But if there's one thing our democracy is great at, it's preventing high rises. For the densities we have, our choices are cars or simply having commutes eat further into our already scarce free time. (No, public transit is not free time, as any vaguely useful train is crush-loaded standing room only).

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
adrianN 8y ago
You could have parking spots at train stations that take you downtown. It's not necessary to have a bus stop at every corner in the suburbs.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Indeed, those can work well, but the urbanist community is working hard to remove them (i.e. AB 2923 in California).