So you end up with sort of a guessing game. Can you build transit through less expensive land before it's gobbled up? Can you guess that a place will grow in that way. Some don't (Phoenix, Houston). But that's the same way with roads. Building bigger, more robust highway systems that allow for better traffic flow is easier and cheaper when it's not needed. But that's infrastructure.
And the takeaway is kinda an odd one. Like, public transit is super pricy. And things that make driving easier are also really pricy and unless you get it fantastically right often don't make stuff better. So I suppose the answer is do nothing a let places choke themselves out, but in the end people have this pesky habit of trying to do things to make the places they live nicer, for better or worse.
I think the last statement is what irks me.
People act like I'm some sort of buzzkill who is anti-transit because I just don't think it's worthwhile to do something nice for a place to live. And that we should just sometimes "build it and they will come" and it'll end up being nicer than not doing it, so what's the harm?
The problem is that the harm is real, and it's called opportunity cost.
I like transit. I used to use the light rail when I lived in San Jose. When I go to San Francisco for a weekend vacation, parking is so expensive and there's little reason to have a car anyway, so I'd rather ride BART in from the airport to downtown. Same with Denver--if I'm staying downtown, I can ride the light rail in from the airport right to downtown and be in the heart of the city.
But the issue is that when you build light rail, it's tremendously expensive to build, operate, and maintain. That money has to come from somewhere, and because ridership is usually too low to make transit self-funding, it means that you're crowding out other public transit in favor of light rail.
If fundamentally the goal of public transit is to help the most people get around the city the most efficiently, light rail isn't usually the optimal solution. If it means then that you are basically subsidizing light rail for rich suburbanites while eliminating bus service for the working poor, it isn't exactly what I'd call a great strategy.
