3 ms·
> We need more trains, light rail, subways. I'd argue we simply need more walkability, and to place shops and destinations closer to people. Public transit is
by aeharding 5y ago
> We need more trains, light rail, subways.
I'd argue we simply need more walkability, and to place shops and destinations closer to people. Public transit is great, but is not an effective way to fix our auto-centric land use.
In Strong Towns this is discussed. Transit should come to enhance and solve the transportation needs of already great, walkable places. Transit should not be created to try to induce great places.
- mcdonje 5y agoBuses are not an effective way to fix car-centric land use, but trains are. Places built around infrastructure made for cars are not walkable. Places built around train stops are. Train stations are generally planned for places where people are already going. The development that happens around them is a natural result of them being there. Unlike bus stops, train stops are not easily moved and generally have more people passing through on foot. That makes it a good bet developing around there. If your business relies on foot traffic, a bus stop is a risky place to set up next to. The service could move or shut down the bus stop without much effort. Not so with a train station. Buses also use roads, which take up much more land per traveler than trains do. If you want a walkable city, you still need to get people in and out of it. Simply blocking off roads will give you a wide moat of parking lots around the city. Trains are necessary for walkable cities.