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.
OK. I think I can say we're friendly. But on like three of these posts, you've basically capped by saying "You know who likes walkable nice urban downtowns? Entitled jerks." I don't think you're a buzzkill. But that read a little buzz-kill-y.
And you described density being "forced" on people as people look to reinvigorate downtowns. I get that it's working toward a goal that might be inefficient, but for better or worse, there's a general sense that having a hollowed out downtown like Detroit's was (or Times square was) is bad. And it might not be, but I don't know I'd get too worked up about people feeling that way. (Also, in the Bay Area, your central areas are often more expensive than the suburbs, which is a curveball)
The SF example is an excellent and interesting one and I think cuts to the core (also, we're conflating rails. BART isn't light rail, MUNI is, though it has non-light rail parts). Efficiency can mean different things. Rail travel like BART is more efficent on a time front. This we know. We know this because you didn't take a bus from San Jose or the airport even though it's cheaper. Now the argument might be, time saved isn't worth money, but it's a factor that at least has to be acknowledged. And poor folks, just like rich folks, appreciate getting home 40 minutes earlier because they're on a train instead of a bus (I've ridden BART, plenty of diversity on those trains).
Now, don’t read this as a full-throated endorsement of all kinds of light rail everywhere. Phoenix is a place without density. Houston too. It’s tricky because you’re kind of projecting down the line. If you project density, you’re rather build that earlier rather than later. A Bay Area with no BART isn’t more efficent to get around. It’s just cheaper to get around slowly.
I don’t know the answer and kinda waffle. But I’m unconvinced that if we could convert all of BARTs ridership into bus riders that we’d be worlds more efficient in the kind of mid-range people-moving that BART does (now perhaps the answer is to be more like LA, where mid-range people moving is an hour in the car or not at all, I dunno).
