moreover...talking abt existing networks like Dallas assumes they're built w stops in ideal locations & other such decisions made correctly
that said, chicken/egg problem for new dev supporting rail service--if no railway built, what incentive for new dev to be dense or infill?
-
-
crucial selling point of rail is that a trip by train takes as long when the train is full as when it's empty--can't say the same for roads!
-
so there's strong incentive to *never* build up to the point where roads are fully utilized, because such roads are miserable to drive on...
-
...and consequently if there's ever to be development above this congestion threshold, it helps for a railway to be already there
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"Wait, what?" —Houston https://www.google.com/maps/@29.779793,-95.5602189,3a,75y,262.75h,96.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sllZY0vArqMq6jvscLXXXjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 … "Yeah, I'm confused..." —southern Brooklyn, ca. 1960 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.593572,-73.9426686,3a,75y,313.86h,103.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stT5WCA46E9VhTS5N_nLtSQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 …
-
Ok but what did Houston look like in 1960?
-
Los Angeles got lots of dense infill from the 50-80s despite no rail service
-
Density =/= walkability. The point is to built for a healthier future without the need for as much car use.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.