• queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    That makes sense. I’m not familiar with CA policy specifically but in the southeast, all cities (at least, the ones I’m familiar with) have in common:

    1. most constituents already have cars (or limited access to transport).
    2. constituents who must walk are much less likely to vote (for related and unrelated reasons).
    3. Fixing transportation infrastructure is actually hard, and expensive, and it takes forever, and it often goes wrong.

    So, it’s political safer to just continually complain about it than to spend one’s capital on actually addressing the problem.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Yeah spot on here too I think. We do have a light rail but its reach is limited, most people live in spaced out suburbs, and the mode share is overwhelmingly car dominated.

      The density issue is really hard to fix. There’s been so much conversation and debate about a new light rail line and even as a public transit advocate I have to wonder if it makes sense when you’re serving such a spread out population. The number of people within walking distance of the stations is so low when it’s just single-story houses on 1/4 acre lots as far as the eye can see.

      That’s why I’d rather focus on transforming the urban core into a really great car-lite destination. This is more physically and economically viable, but the issue is most voters in the suburbs won’t like this because it makes it harder for them to access. Our metro area is so huge that cars are really the only practical way to cover that distance, so I think we need to build more urban town centers in every suburb. But they won’t want to do so unless they can see a successful example, which they’re currently blocking. It’s a thorny issue.