Quote:
|
That being said, while there isn't a ton of infill around light rail stations, it certainly exists, at least in the central city, and more is underway. While some may assume that Light Rail has cooties because suburban commuters ride it, I disagree with that assessment and ride it very frequently. I'd rather have them riding Light Rail than driving--it reduces peak-hour commuter loads by tens of thousands of cars every day, and reduces parking demand by an equal amount. If not for Light Rail, even more blocks of downtown would be filled with urbanity-deadening parking lots and parking structures.
|
WBurg I've never heard anyone suggest that light-fail has "cooties" because suburbanites ride it. You seemed to have missed the point.
Not a ton of in-fill is an understatement. Actually looking at all the infill built since light-fail started operations I'd say it's made no appreciable difference.
How can you be so sure that if we didn't have light-fail we'd have more parking lots and parking structures? On what grounds do you base that assumption...your support of, and attraction to light-fail? Considering the low number of riders, the demographics of the riders and the type of employment I'd say you'd be totally wrong about that. As I said earlier I think light-fail has just made it easier for some people to remain in the suburbs. And light-fail certainly hasn't been the boon to K Street as the early proponents promised. If anything it made it worst. If we had spent the same about of money on an urban street car system that connected downtown with inner neighborhoods -Midtown and East Sac, Southside Park and Land Park, Alkali Flats and Old North Sac, Curtis Park and Oak Park, etc. we'd have a lot more infill and a stronger downtown.