Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg
Cars need somewhere to park. Buses and trains don't. The cost of building a car-only crossing across a major body of water only tells part of the story. Old buildings must be torn down if cars are to park in large numbers in cities.
The Golden Gate and Bay Bridges induced tons of automobile commuting into San Francisco. If each had instead been built as transit-only crossings, there would be far fewer parking garages and lots in San Francisco.
Building a vehicular crossing between Long Island and Connecticut would free some capacity between Queen and The Bronx and thus make it easier for people to drive into Manhattan.
Where are those people going to park?
|
There are many solutions to this. Adaptive reuse and adding parking that can later be converted to housing or office should demand shift is a possibility. That density that is removed as a result of any demolished building won't disappear. It will simply shift elsewhere making other areas denser or expand the city outward creating a better quality of life which sprawl provides cheaper than urban areas can offer.
I also don't see anyone against a mass transit component being added to a vehicular crossing.
Of course forcing a lifestyle on people will affect their decisions.