Re:Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes peo...
by sulam on Friday December 28, 2018 @06:45PM
(#18780432)
We have regional commute rail in the SF Bay Area and in the NYC Metropolitan Region. It doesn't seem to have done much except drive up housing prices near rail stations and create silliness like 5-yr waiting lists for parking at them.
It seems clear that commuter rail is not a silver bullet. Housing density is probably what we really need.
Re:Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes peo...
by int_19h on Friday December 28, 2018 @11:51PM
(#18781911)
It's both. Rail lets you be more flexible about where to put that density.
Re:Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes peo...
by throwawayjava on Sunday December 30, 2018 @11:32AM
(#18789889)
Counter-anecdotes: in Chicago (e.g., UP-N), Boston (e.g., Fitchburg), and much of Europe (e.g., many major cities in Germany), the commuter rail systems do take you out into very affordable areas.
Re:Fundamental rule of traffic: building new roads makes peo...
by llampx on Sunday December 30, 2018 @01:07PM
(#18790445)
I used to commute into SF from Redwood City with the Caltrain. If I couldn't have taken a bike with me on the train, it would have been impossible because the last mile at both ends was completely undoable with local buses.
Mid-sized USA cities tend to have half decent transit around their urban core (often woefully under-served especially in cities that don't have either trains/subways or else dedicated right-of-way for buses, but none-the-less serviceable).
However, the thing that mid-sized cities almost uniformly lack in the US is any form of regional commuter rail.