Quote:
Originally Posted by exit2lef
Until recently, there was no organized opposition, which was a shame because I-10 has always been a bad route for light rail. It would have involved noisy, smoggy stations within walking distance of few destinations and would have done little to catalyze development along its route. It would have most likely been used primarily by suburban park-and-ride commuters during weekday business hours, leaving it underutilized nights and weekends. Freeway alignments are fine for commuter rail and express buses, but they make little sense for light rail. Often the path of least resistance is that way because it's the least desirable path to take. Fast forward to today, and now there is organized opposition, albeit for all the wrong reasons. The opposition is coming from state legislators who are ideologically opposed to rail transit. They know that they have control of state property and highways, so making that land off limits to light rail is a way for them to stymie its expansion.
|
It's entertaining that you called me out for my sources when you're the one back here manufacturing opposition when apparently it's just you. I've not seen any meaningful opposition to the I-10 portion.
There's nothing light about the light rail and yah, putting it on I-10 makes it more of a commuter for that portion but I-10 is our biggest transit challenge in the state so giving commuters an option to get downtown would benefit the CoP primarily. On weekends it would get some traffic from those going out or going to events downtown.
Threaded Mode