3 ms·

His whole argument relies on scarcity of light rail routes, as a path to gentrification. But here is what the network looks like in a city like Amsterdam: https

His whole argument relies on scarcity of light rail routes, as a path to gentrification. But here is what the network looks like in a city like Amsterdam: https://almeretours.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Amsterdam-Transportion-Map-2019.jpg https://almeretours.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Amsterdam...

ramchip 7y ago
He argues that’s only possible if you have enough density: > Second of all, unless your city is really dense or you have infinite money to spend, any public transit system that wants to actually provide coverage across the entire city is going to need a good bus network.
- adjkant 7y ago
  Has any city ever argued against this? The thing is you need both, not just one.
jboy55 7y ago
I'm pretty sure his article is only about Sprawling North American cities built around big highways for cars.
- the_watcher 7y ago
  Yea, he covered this with his line that "A lot of North American public transit advocacy can feel like a perpetual lament that North American cities aren’t laid out like European ones."
  - reissbaker 7y ago
    That seems like a pretty dismissive response: are European cities laid out like that as a response to light rail? If so, what's to say that North American cities won't also adapt to the presence of light rail? And it's not just European cities; Japan has an excellent subway system, and I've heard China's very new one is good as well. This feels like the learned-helplessness counterpart to American exceptionalism: what's so special about North America? Other cities adopted rail and adapted; the article doesn't address why North American cities couldn't as well. And in places with a good subway, buses are despised — they're slower, overstuffed (a single subway station can accommodate hundreds or thousands during commute hours; a single bus stop would have lines hours long at that rate), less comfortable... Buses can't move people in a dense area at the volume a subway can. (Also, why does this article only address Toronto? NYC is a pretty strong retort to the idea that subways can't work in North America.)
    - WorldMaker 7y ago
      It's also easy to forget that the high density portions of most American cities were built around long since abandoned light rail or equivalents. San Francisco has turned a couple classic lines of street cars into a working museum, but it's easy to forget a much larger amount of San Francisco was served by them for several decades to the point where neighborhoods were shaped by them. It's even sometimes harder to further recall how many other American cities (almost all of them) had street car routes and passenger train routes lost to time other than as ghost remnants of neighborhood layouts (the odd street circle that used to be a street car turntable, the odd on street parking spaces where once was a street car passenger transit center, the odd railway trellis that used to be for passengers, etc). It's almost cultural amnesia at this point that so much of North America believes it has used nothing but the car for transport. It's not even that far removed in history (the "Greatest Generation" had a lot more transit options than today, which is not even 3 or 4 generations removed).
timwaagh 7y ago
Amsterdam is gentrified. I love the city but nobody who earns a below average income can really afford to live there. Most other Dutch cities rely on buses. Amsterdam still has them as well to cover some outlying areas. What he is saying is that buses should come before rail because they are cheap. That way, if you decide to lay down your first rail, it can operate to its full potential.
maxsilver 7y ago
Your argument re-enforces the author's point. Amsterdam has lots of light rail, and is almost entirely gentrified. It's one of the top-10 most expensive cities in all of Europe. The American version of this argument, is like saying "if rail was less scarce, there'd be less gentrification when it gets built. Just look at all the subway lines in New York City" -- without recognizing that NYC is one of the most hyper-gentrified expensive places in the entire nation.
- adjkant 7y ago
  > without recognizing that NYC is one of the most hyper-gentrified expensive places in the entire nation The lines basically all existed before gentrification. As others have said, it seems like the argument here is that if you build transit that is too good, rich people will come, so keep to buses. In reality, if more cities had good rapid transit, gentrification wouldn't be focused on just a few cities in the US and instead high skilled workers would have more choices. Right now as someone who loves good public transit, my city options in the US are severely limited. Really it comes down to this IMO: If you build it, they will come. If you build it in one place, they will all come to one place. If you build it in many places, they will disperse. I do think the point on the positive feedback cycle is true, but it's not going away so to me that just says that from a market perspective there is a severe supply shortage of good public transit based cities, and the solution to that is not to forget about light rail. Building more transit everywhere is the only thing that will solve the problem.

ramchip 7y ago

He argues that’s only possible if you have enough density: > Second of all, unless your city is really dense or you have infinite money to spend, any public transit system that wants to actually provide coverage across the entire city is going to need a good bus network.

adjkant 7y ago
Has any city ever argued against this? The thing is you need both, not just one.

jboy55 7y ago

I'm pretty sure his article is only about Sprawling North American cities built around big highways for cars.

the_watcher 7y ago
Yea, he covered this with his line that "A lot of North American public transit advocacy can feel like a perpetual lament that North American cities aren’t laid out like European ones."
- reissbaker 7y ago
  That seems like a pretty dismissive response: are European cities laid out like that as a response to light rail? If so, what's to say that North American cities won't also adapt to the presence of light rail? And it's not just European cities; Japan has an excellent subway system, and I've heard China's very new one is good as well. This feels like the learned-helplessness counterpart to American exceptionalism: what's so special about North America? Other cities adopted rail and adapted; the article doesn't address why North American cities couldn't as well. And in places with a good subway, buses are despised — they're slower, overstuffed (a single subway station can accommodate hundreds or thousands during commute hours; a single bus stop would have lines hours long at that rate), less comfortable... Buses can't move people in a dense area at the volume a subway can. (Also, why does this article only address Toronto? NYC is a pretty strong retort to the idea that subways can't work in North America.)
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    It's also easy to forget that the high density portions of most American cities were built around long since abandoned light rail or equivalents. San Francisco has turned a couple classic lines of street cars into a working museum, but it's easy to forget a much larger amount of San Francisco was served by them for several decades to the point where neighborhoods were shaped by them. It's even sometimes harder to further recall how many other American cities (almost all of them) had street car routes and passenger train routes lost to time other than as ghost remnants of neighborhood layouts (the odd street circle that used to be a street car turntable, the odd on street parking spaces where once was a street car passenger transit center, the odd railway trellis that used to be for passengers, etc). It's almost cultural amnesia at this point that so much of North America believes it has used nothing but the car for transport. It's not even that far removed in history (the "Greatest Generation" had a lot more transit options than today, which is not even 3 or 4 generations removed).

timwaagh 7y ago

Amsterdam is gentrified. I love the city but nobody who earns a below average income can really afford to live there. Most other Dutch cities rely on buses. Amsterdam still has them as well to cover some outlying areas. What he is saying is that buses should come before rail because they are cheap. That way, if you decide to lay down your first rail, it can operate to its full potential.

maxsilver 7y ago

Your argument re-enforces the author's point. Amsterdam has lots of light rail, and is almost entirely gentrified. It's one of the top-10 most expensive cities in all of Europe. The American version of this argument, is like saying "if rail was less scarce, there'd be less gentrification when it gets built. Just look at all the subway lines in New York City" -- without recognizing that NYC is one of the most hyper-gentrified expensive places in the entire nation.

adjkant 7y ago
> without recognizing that NYC is one of the most hyper-gentrified expensive places in the entire nation The lines basically all existed before gentrification. As others have said, it seems like the argument here is that if you build transit that is too good, rich people will come, so keep to buses. In reality, if more cities had good rapid transit, gentrification wouldn't be focused on just a few cities in the US and instead high skilled workers would have more choices. Right now as someone who loves good public transit, my city options in the US are severely limited. Really it comes down to this IMO: If you build it, they will come. If you build it in one place, they will all come to one place. If you build it in many places, they will disperse. I do think the point on the positive feedback cycle is true, but it's not going away so to me that just says that from a market perspective there is a severe supply shortage of good public transit based cities, and the solution to that is not to forget about light rail. Building more transit everywhere is the only thing that will solve the problem.