4 ms·

Wouldn't the very patterns of development be different (and more amenable to rail) if the state didn't spend oodles of money building nice roads to make sprawl

• treflop 2y ago
  Sprawl happens when there is available undeveloped land. Roads are just a symptom. People build outwards first and then upwards.
  • Arainach 2y ago
    There is plenty of undeveloped land that people don't move to because there are no roads to get to. We have more than a century of data showing that roads are subject to induced demand. If you build more roads, people move and sprawl (and take more trips in general) until traffic is once again unbearably bad. If you build more lanes, more people move further out. Roads create sprawl.
    • bjelkeman-again 2y ago
      And active urban planning avoids sprawl.
• spacebanana7 2y ago
  At a high level, urbanisation rates increased through the road building binge of the 20th century. Perhaps those new migrants to cities would’ve chosen to stay in the countryside without roads? Worsening the economics of rail. Or maybe they’d use their collective voting power to get more rail friendly new towns built? I don’t think the answer is obvious.
  • Symbiote 2y ago
    Before the road building binge there was the rail building binge, though limited to the largest cities. As an example, see the history of the Metropolitan Line in London.