🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <G88LE8.HEG@thunder.sbay.org>,
    Ian Kluft <ikluft@thunder.sbay.org> wrote:

>>You're assuming that population patterns are static, when in fact, they 
>>respond to the transportation infrastructure that's provided.   

>That's wildly optimistic.  It applies in large urban areas but not in
>small ones, and definitely not in rural areas.

It applies anywhere you build any transportation infrastructure.  It's
certainly observable in the Bay Area, where BART and the freeways have
helped facilitate population growth and decentralization on a scale
previously unimaginable.  But it's also observable in most of the nation's
smaller urban areas, where highway construction has brought a similar
decentralization.  And in most rural areas, their habitability is
dependent on transportation access.

>Sometimes you don't have enough population, whether viewed as potential
>ridership or as a tax base, to even begin to make serious transportation
>infrastructure.  

I can't think of a populated place that doesn't have some transportation 
infrastructure, so I'm curious about what places you're thinking of.  

>If examples are needed, the one I was talking about in the text you quoted
>was Reno. 

As most folks who've been there have observed, Reno certainly has 
transportation infrastructure.   

> See what the officials in Reno said when asked about the
>feasibility of light rail transit in that area.  (summary: it was a
>non-starter.)

Actually, the document you referenced made note of the need for planning 
for the possibility of some sort of rail:  "However, our region can 
support improved bus service and operations along certain transit 
corridors/lines and work towards future rail service within key corridors 
(Virginia Street, East 4th Street, Prater Way). This includes the 
reservation of right-of-way to preserve the possibility of all transit 
options."   


-- 
--------------------
Eric Holeman      eholatenteractcom          Chicago Illinois USA