Enginerdad t1_j63wckg wrote
Reply to comment by 1234nameuser in I-95 in CT ranks as most congested corridor in USA beating out LA; Merritt Parkway also makes top 10 by celticnutjob
That's not true at all. Suburbs in all different parts of Europe, Japan, and other places have many time more more public transportation than we do here. It's much more about the car culture that we live in, where everybody owns a car and it's generally the most convenient way to travel.
toasterb t1_j66au3i wrote
Suburbs in CT are way too spread out and that sustains the car culture. I live in Vancouver now, and every time I return home, I am shocked at how much space there is.
Our suburbs look like blocks upon blocks of this, and these aren't dense enough to support the type of transit that could cut traffic significantly.
Sure there are buses in our burbs that are more effective than just about anything in CT, but you need significant multi-family density to really change things.
Enginerdad t1_j66br12 wrote
There we go, now we're addressing the issues. It's not the existence of suburbs, it's the distance between them. But it's also the fact that we've been a car culture for so long that basically everybody outside of cities owns a car, so they don't see a need for public transit. It's this weird Domino effect where, because we didn't have public transit 100 years ago, people figured out other ways to get around (namely cars), so now we don't need public transit as much. But of course we need it a lot more than we have it currently. This car culture is unsustainable both and environmental and traffic sense.
toasterb t1_j66d71f wrote
To be clear, I'm not referring to the suburbs being too far spaced between each other -- which may be the case. The homes are just too spread out and nobody can do anything but drive to get day-to-day tasks done.
For buses to be functional, you need a critical mass of folks that can easily walk to bus stops and then those buses need to be able to relatively quickly get them to where they need to go. And that means more density.
Though I think a lot of this is semantics about what a "suburb" actually is. We need more "urban style" development whether that happens in towns we think of as "suburbs" or not.
CT could actually have decent bones to support more transit in certain cities. But we have hollowed out our downtowns to the point where there's nothing worth going to there. And the malls/big box stores have really cemented it.
It'll take a big shift in how we live to really make a change. Living in a city now, we get by just fine as a family of four with one car, and honestly we don't use the car all that much. Lots of buses and cycling. It's pretty great.
rubyslippers3x t1_j67522a wrote
There was a decent rail line in CT once upon a time. In Hartford County its now mostly converted to recreational bike paths
1234nameuser t1_j65zany wrote
Those suburbs either have far more density than Stamford or they sit between 2 major destination on an existing route.
Regardless of terminology, it's about density.
Enginerdad t1_j66a5cy wrote
ALL of the suburbs in Europe and Japan are more dense than Stamford?
1234nameuser t1_j68bq73 wrote
You tell me.
What suburbs with density levels the same as suburbs of Stamford have train access in EU?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments