Originally Posted by
Walter S
An area with insufficient population density will not necessarily economically justify a good mass transit system.
Originally Posted by
Mobile 155
So to be clear those that don't care for dense living should just give up on being part of the movement?
My comment is about economics. Can you not see that dense populations justify densely packed mass transit routes and infrastructure? Do you want to be subsidized by the cities with mass transit that equals theirs? Not a practical idea.
Are the two sides doomed to be at odds forever?
I don't get the "two sides" thing. Experiencing the economies of scale found living in the city is not something you can do. To change that you need to move. Nobody is "doing that to you". It's just a fact. You have to hold your breath when you go underwater too.
Is there any truth in the link that the closed to the best mass transit lines the more expensive housing becomes?
Naturally. Any real estate goes up in value as it displays more and more conveniences. But I will say that this one does not matter much in an area with dense mass transit. Bus lines offer convenient travel and spread out to where almost any place is a reasonable walk from the stop. Apartments etc are more expensive next to rail lines, trails, parks. But many many thousands of people travel car free (and not voluntarily) in my city every day and I'd guess most people walk well under a mile commuting. That's not far enough to hardly qualify as exercise in my book.