[chroem-]

We are shooting ourselves in the feet by intentionally diminishing road traffic capacity before the alternative is ready. You are not serving the underprivileged by making it too expensive to drive, since middle and lower income people can only afford to live in the outlying areas in the first place.

[davidw]

> middle and lower income people can only afford to live in the outlying areas in the first place.

That is a solvable problem: get rid of the zoning that keeps them out.

[chroem-]

That's wonderful, but now you're trying to solve mass transit and affordable housing at the same time. The fact of the matter is that a war on driving is a war on the working class. You can get a used car for just above $1000, but that's how much more you would be paying per month to live within transit distance of your workplace.

[jogjayr]

> The fact of the matter is that a war on driving is a war on the working class.

It's not a war on driving - it's favoring public transit over driving. There's a contradiction in your statement because public transit is often opposed by wealthy communities for fear of attracting "undesirable elements" (read: the poor). How can public transit both be used by working class people but also be bad for them?

To add on to that, how is it better financially for working class people to put thousands of dollars (a significant fraction of their net worth) into an otherwise unproductive asset that sits idle 80-90% of the time? Not to mention that $1000 used car is far more likely to break down and require expensive repairs (due to more use) when used by a poor person who has to drive an hour each way every day (because housing within decent commute range is too expensive). Operating a car can cost quite a bit too. Insurance can easily be another $1000/year and gasoline is maybe another $1500 more. Compared to that an unlimited VTA pass is $70/month. And the cost of sitting in traffic vs sitting in a train/bus and possibly getting some sleep or work done.

[marssaxman]

> now you're trying to solve mass transit and affordable housing at the same time.

Yes, that's exactly how it needs to happen. Transit works more efficiently in higher-density areas, and higher-density areas become more appealing when served by transit, and everyone benefits. The solution is obvious: upzone all the low-density neighborhoods within city limits, then build transit links connecting them.

[loeg]

The working class can drive on largely un-congested roads to a park and ride. No one is taking away road capacity in places that aren't getting better mass transit.

[aaronbrethorst]

Exactly! Making mass transit more feasible as a primary method of commuting requires more affordable housing near where people work.

[chroem-]

If you look at the highly affordable and working class friendly cities in the midwest and Texas, the one thing that they all share in common is that they are all highly driveable cities. Rents are driven by supply and demand, so by allowing people to seek housing away from predetermined transit lines, supply increases and rents become vastly cheaper.

[briffle]

How long would it take to widen the freeways to account for the same number of commuters that the light rail is predicted to carry? I'm guessing rebuilding all those roads, overpasses, underpasses, purchasing rights of way, etc, take some serious time and money..

[chroem-]

Even maintaining current capacity would be an improvement over what's happening right now. They are intentionally trying to reduce the number of drivers before the transit system is ready to handle them.

[loeg]

Are you talking about the I-90 express lanes? If not, where else is capacity being reduced?

[jschwartzi]

And that's all right of way that could otherwise be used for rail. So it's not just a matter of building both, but of choosing one mode or the other.