3 ms·
This is where mass transit from the suburbs to the urban areas are need. The transit needs to be faster, cheaper, and easier than driving and parking. I lived
by al_borland 2y ago
This is where mass transit from the suburbs to the urban areas are need. The transit needs to be faster, cheaper, and easier than driving and parking.
I lived in the Chicago suburbs for a while and never drove downtown. I was a passenger a couple times, but when I went, I always took the Metra. During rush hour it would take half the time, or better, and it was fairly cheap. Though I won’t say the entire system was perfect.
Where I’m at now, the only option to avoid driving is the bus. The bus takes at least 3x longer than driving. No one is going to take it unless they have to due to their circumstances. I don’t want to drive and park down there, which leaves me with Uber. I’ve done it a few times, but it’s far from ideal, and fairly expensive. If they had some light rail and a free commuter lot, I’d go down there all the time.
Culs-de-sac aren’t the problem, it’s the lack of non-car options to bridge the suburbs and the city, to reduce car traffic in cities while allowing people from the suburbs to come into the city to spend their time and money. Not everyone will use the transit options, but it just needs to be enough to make the roads manageable. The better the transit options, the more people we’ll likely see opt in.
- david-gpu 2y ago> Culs-de-sac aren’t the problem, it’s the lack of non-car options to bridge the suburbs and the city North American suburbs typically lack the necessary population density to make the sort of transit you ask for viable. Car dependence is intrinsic to low density single family zoning.