🚀 go-pugleaf

"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<u1YMc.28996$eM2.8862@attbi_s51>...
> "Dano" <wxdano9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e351cb91.0407251300.161aeb20@posting.google.com...
> > "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
>  news:<r81Mc.143576$a24.94703@attbi_s03>...
> >
> > The MODE has not failed, policy-makers have failed to secure proper
> > development adjacent to LR stations.
> 
> Why would commercial stores want to build expensive stores next to little
> used light rail with an often poor group of users that will not buy much.
> Why would someone want to carry a lot on a light rail in sacks or boxes
> after buying those goods.
> 
> The problem is far deeper.  Light rail in general is far too slow and too
> difficult for people to use to be used by more than an insignificant number
> of people.
> 
> Light rail is a failure because it has no compelling advantage to make it
> succeed.  The coninuing story of light rail is "Just because you build it
> does not mean they will come."


I'm not a big LR fan, unless planned at the same time as development
(not re-development). My reply is more concerned with misconceptions
of LR.

Creating commercial zones around LR stations is a market stimulus to
create opportunities for SMALL businesses to capture latent markets.
In the case of Sac, the LR doesn't go anywhere besides employment
downtown. What if those workers could stop and pick up
milk/bread/dinner on the way to park & ride or on the way home? What
if that created a demand for a north-south line (to get over the
problematic American River)? Would that be a compelling advantage?

Again, reading Cervero would enlighten one side of the discussion in
this regard.

A 'LR is too slow' broad-brush assertion neglects BART. The congestion
on Bay Arean freeways makes auto traffic time and stress
considerations a significant calculation for the utility maximizers
who ride BART.

Best,

D