The author states, "Shifts to public transit inevitably increase travel times, reducing accessibility to key services and jobs." In my experience this is not necessarily so if the public transit is really well-planned.
When my family and I moved to Cleveland 30 years ago we bought a house in Shaker Heights, acting primarily on the advice of colleagues at my new law firm. I did a little research and discovered that when Shaker Heights was first laid out by its creators, the Van Swearingen brothers, the light rail transit system was built first and the city was planned so that no house was more than a 15 minute walk from the Rapid, as it was called. The Rapid was originally owned by the City of Shaker Heights, which meant that when other light rail systems in the area were destroyed during the 30s and 40s, the Rapid continued to carry its patrons to downtown Cleveland relatively quickly and comfortably. The City sold the system to a regional transit authority in the late '70s, but only after receiving assurances that the line would be continued and the rolling stock upgraded.
My office was about an 8 minute walk from the downtown Rapid terminal. This meant two things: I could spend my travel time reading the Wall Street Journal and my family only needed one car. My trip downtown was only a little longer than it would have been if I had driven and my quality of life was much better. When after about 8 years I had to move from Cleveland, I really missed the leisure time that the Van Swearingen's planning had given me.
If public transit and access to it are really well planned, travel time is not significantly increased and accessibility to jobs and services can actually be better. And you can have time to read the Journal.
No dejen de leer los muchos comentarios a este articulo. La postura de este autor pro automovil es rebatida punto por punto y de muchas maneras en los comentarios.
