5 ms·
I don't disagree with most of that, but some places in the US do put some priority on public transit. Much to the annoyance of local neighborhoods, for example
by rootusrootus 5y ago
I don't disagree with most of that, but some places in the US do put some priority on public transit. Much to the annoyance of local neighborhoods, for example, Tri-met in Portland regularly proposes and then eventually builds out new light rail lines through existing neighborhoods. The bus network could be better in outlying areas but in the city proper it is pretty useful for many people, not a toy. And Portland builds new highways rarely. Aside from small extensions, there hasn't been a new interstate-size highway created in decades. It all stopped in the 70s (though the final bits didn't get finished until the mid 80s).
Edit:
IMO Portland could really justify another interstate and Columbia river crossing to the east of the city, but probably won't do it. It would primarily serve lower income people who've migrated out that direction, and they don't really have much voting power. I don't envy their commute since so much of it has to be on surface streets before they hit a major arterial. The light rail has a leg that direction but it's slow, and there's just one out there.
- crowbahr 5y agoHighways do not serve low income areas, public transit does. Portland is entirely justified in not building expensive and low density transit solutions (highways) to service communities. A BRT or Light Rail line will justify the cost significantly better and lead to denser, transit oriented development along the path: All of which better serves the poor.
- rdiddly 5y agoBeaverton, Hillsboro and Washington County meanwhile are busy widening roads like always.