So many US cities have situations like this.

  • radix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 days ago

    Rail sometimes end up in the middle of a highway because the government already owns the land in that median, and it’s a lot easier and cheaper to build there than buying and clearing other routes.

    The seeds of urban sprawl with shitty transportation were planted decades ago. Fixing it isn’t cheap, but some bandaids are easier than others.

    Not sure about this station specifically, just speaking broadly

    • Mantzy81@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      If the priority was on mass transport and not roads (which they quite happily destroy the entire neighbourhood to build), then this would solve the issue. And takes up far less land then a 8+ lane highway.

      Better than nothing but a cynical approach to it, and I wonder if that is part of the plan.

      “We built this rail line, in a bad location, and few are using it. I wonder why. Guess nobody likes rail, we should build more roads now instead.”

      Also being general, not about this station in particular

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Typically it’s the other order, in the us. We want to build a train line but it’s ungodly expensive and legally fraught to get that right of way. However there’s a convenient highway where we already have a right of way, and there’s room for rail in the median.

        I’m not convinced it’s a good idea since no one would want to use it, but it’s well-meaning people trying to get a thing done