• Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Considering that stations preceding or proceeding it have good catchment areas, using existing right of ways isn’t the worst idea ever. As for the noise, many places put up sound barriers, that’s a fairly trivial and relatively inexpensive mitigation step.

    The car infrastructure should be blamed for removing catchment space, not the train for being there.

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      the car infratstructure should be blamed

      Sure this is objectively correct, but it’s a rhetorically ineffective take. Most people drive. Most people (less though!) want to continue driving.

      Take the train track project as an opprtunity to re-shape the flow of a neighborhood to suit people rather than… well in many cases, highways literally divide neighborhoods. Using that same right of way is gonna have a lot more costs for a lot less benefit.

      • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Very true, while there is more eventual value in having a station in a connected area, it also leads to more NIMBY-ism for the construction.

        I’m in favour of having mid-highway stations if it means you can more easily build lines that connect the downtown/inner-city with surrounding neighbours before and after the highway section, with a lower chance of vehement opposition and delay from residents from connecting the two.

        One the main lines are built, then it gives a better case for a cross-connecting LRT, subway or train-line that goes through neighbourhoods, rather than scrapping the highway idea and building one neighbourhood line on its own for 15-20 years.

        My previous point mainly stemmed from the Chicago case, where the catchment area was forcibly paved over for the highway.