What’s the point of a metro station if its completely inaccessible by foot? If you’re going to invest billions into a metro line, each station should be maximizing its economic contribution by building housing and mixed use development around it. Otherwise what’s the point of building transit if you need to drive a car just to get to the train?
ETA: Just to be clear, I’m not saying that park-ride can never work. There are plenty of examples of park-ride stations in cities like Seattle that are actually accessible by foot, with transit oriented development near the station. This isn’t that. This is a train station that will never actually get major ridership because its builders have decided that the only people with access should be people with cars. If they wanted this to actually be useful, there would be proper sidewalks, a pedestrian bridge over the roadway, and some level of Transit Oriented Development around the station. There is absolutely no evidence that there’s even a half-decent park near the station. Just a parking lot and some roads.
What’s the point of a metro station if its completely inaccessible by foot?
It doesn’t look like it has to be. There seems to be quite a lot of housing (for USA standards) within one kilometre of that station. I would call that a walkable distance, build some proper sidewalks if they don’t exist.
That’s literally my entire point. This station is entirely inaccessible by foot. Are you people just being willfully obtuse? Nobody wants to walk a mile and a half along a highway just to get to a train station. This kind of garbage infrastructure is why transit use is so low in the united states.
Yes, actually, hospitals and libraries should contribute value to their communities. How is that even a question? Are you saying that libraries and hospitals should be poorly run and not contribute to society?
We should have libraries that are well-run and have lots of books. We should also have transit that is accessible, fast, and reliable. Train stations like this make it so transit is difficult to access for most people that would actually use it. Park-and-ride stations are fine, but not if they’re out in the middle of nowhere with nothing useful within a half mile radius of the station. This station is literally surrounded by high-speed roads and would be horrible to get to on foot. This is the sort of thing that makes American transit bad at its job.
Contributing and being economical are wholefully different things.Make sure you have your point in order before yapping your gums. Words have meanings, make sure you use them properly if you’re trying to make an argument.
Of course libraries should be beneficial and run well, but that doesn’t make them profitable or economical. Most of those are actually tax sinks and extremely uneconomical. It’s why you didn’t mention the post in your reply but I did….
How can libraries and hospitals be economical if they don’t charge? Or are you suggesting these should be charged instead of free via taxpayer money?
Of things had to economical and run at max efficiency nothing would be built and all this infrastructure would cost money to use. You can’t seriously be trying to suggest this is the better option…?
Hospitals contribute massively to regional economies. They are a net benefit to society both in terms of public health and economic impact. Similarly to libraries, they improve land values and GDP in addition to their less quantifiable impacts on peoples’s lives.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44950667
All of this is besides the point that transit systems should be accessible by foot. It is so fucking weird to pretend that its okay for a metro station to he completely encircled by massive roads for cars. This sort of car-brained infrastructure has led to decades of wasted public investment in cities like Denver and Los Angeles, where this exact sort of station characterizes sprawling train systems that almost nobody uses. People don’t like actually using these kinds of train stations. That’s not to say that park-ride stations can’t ever work, Seattle actually does a great job of integrating them into neighborhoods while also promoting walkability and development around the station.
There is value in having a good transit connection to nature parks and other “low value” recreation areas, but this isn’t it.
Of course in such a so low density area, it shouldn’t be underground.
What’s the point of a metro station if its completely inaccessible by foot? If you’re going to invest billions into a metro line, each station should be maximizing its economic contribution by building housing and mixed use development around it. Otherwise what’s the point of building transit if you need to drive a car just to get to the train?
ETA: Just to be clear, I’m not saying that park-ride can never work. There are plenty of examples of park-ride stations in cities like Seattle that are actually accessible by foot, with transit oriented development near the station. This isn’t that. This is a train station that will never actually get major ridership because its builders have decided that the only people with access should be people with cars. If they wanted this to actually be useful, there would be proper sidewalks, a pedestrian bridge over the roadway, and some level of Transit Oriented Development around the station. There is absolutely no evidence that there’s even a half-decent park near the station. Just a parking lot and some roads.
It doesn’t look like it has to be. There seems to be quite a lot of housing (for USA standards) within one kilometre of that station. I would call that a walkable distance, build some proper sidewalks if they don’t exist.
That’s literally my entire point. This station is entirely inaccessible by foot. Are you people just being willfully obtuse? Nobody wants to walk a mile and a half along a highway just to get to a train station. This kind of garbage infrastructure is why transit use is so low in the united states.
For people who live in the surrounding municipalities to ALSO be able to use the infrastructure… it’s almost like there’s more than one usecase…
Why do you think everything has to be “economical” are libraries? The post? Hospitals?
It’s NEVER about maximizing the economy contribution, where the hell did you get that idea?
Yes, actually, hospitals and libraries should contribute value to their communities. How is that even a question? Are you saying that libraries and hospitals should be poorly run and not contribute to society?
We should have libraries that are well-run and have lots of books. We should also have transit that is accessible, fast, and reliable. Train stations like this make it so transit is difficult to access for most people that would actually use it. Park-and-ride stations are fine, but not if they’re out in the middle of nowhere with nothing useful within a half mile radius of the station. This station is literally surrounded by high-speed roads and would be horrible to get to on foot. This is the sort of thing that makes American transit bad at its job.
Contributing and being economical are wholefully different things.Make sure you have your point in order before yapping your gums. Words have meanings, make sure you use them properly if you’re trying to make an argument.
Of course libraries should be beneficial and run well, but that doesn’t make them profitable or economical. Most of those are actually tax sinks and extremely uneconomical. It’s why you didn’t mention the post in your reply but I did….
How can libraries and hospitals be economical if they don’t charge? Or are you suggesting these should be charged instead of free via taxpayer money?
Of things had to economical and run at max efficiency nothing would be built and all this infrastructure would cost money to use. You can’t seriously be trying to suggest this is the better option…?
I do not understand people who get this upset over an internet argument when they’re so confidently wrong. Chill, dude.
Libraries strengthen GDP and improve land values. They are a net benefit to society both economically and culturally. https://criticaldebateshsgj.scholasticahq.com/article/117035-how-public-libraries-drive-economic-vitality-in-surrounding-communities
Hospitals contribute massively to regional economies. They are a net benefit to society both in terms of public health and economic impact. Similarly to libraries, they improve land values and GDP in addition to their less quantifiable impacts on peoples’s lives. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44950667
All of this is besides the point that transit systems should be accessible by foot. It is so fucking weird to pretend that its okay for a metro station to he completely encircled by massive roads for cars. This sort of car-brained infrastructure has led to decades of wasted public investment in cities like Denver and Los Angeles, where this exact sort of station characterizes sprawling train systems that almost nobody uses. People don’t like actually using these kinds of train stations. That’s not to say that park-ride stations can’t ever work, Seattle actually does a great job of integrating them into neighborhoods while also promoting walkability and development around the station.
There is value in having a good transit connection to nature parks and other “low value” recreation areas, but this isn’t it.
Of course in such a so low density area, it shouldn’t be underground.