Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
This is actually a big debate, usually between environmental groups and transit advocates. The environmental groups claim extending commuter rail outwards and increasing frequency drives sprawl. The transit advocates claim the sprawl already exists, the upgraded rail manages the sprawl around transit.
I definitely side with the transit advocates. Sprawl isn't fed from rail investments.
You see this debate playing out in the Hudson Valley, where for decades Metro North and rail advocates have been trying to extend the Hudson line north of Poughkeepsie, but the environmental groups say this will just encourage development of scenic areas. I suspect the environmentals are being a bit disingenuous, and know that sprawl is controlled by zoning rules, not transit investments. They don't want the rail bc it will change the character of towns (which is accurate; the towns will be more prosperous and expensive) not bc of sprawl.
|
I have heard this argument before. Improving rail service increases sprawl. But generally speaking, it is freeway construction that promoted sprawl in the first place. Almost always, rapid transit follows sprawl, a reaction to congestion on the roads that created the sprawl in the first place.
In a better world, we would build rapid transit as new communities develop instead of freeways. Yes, rapid transit would then be blamed for the sprawl, but at least the built form would be better and these new communities would not be so car dependent.
Has any North American city ever put rapid transit before freeways at least after World War II?
I would not so concerned about sprawl created by rapid transit. At least, what is built is more sustainable.