Renown transit planner Jarrett Walker writing on a common point of contention in planning. Do you increase service in the core, or expand service along the edges. The story goes like this:
Edge: “The core area has so much transit, and we have little or nothing, but we pay taxes too, so why does so much of the money go to the core? Also, we’re trying to build denser development in more transit-oriented ways, to start moving beyond car-dependence, but how can we do that without good transit? We’re desperate out here!”
Core: “It’s great that you want to be denser, but we’re already very dense. That means a much bigger share of our residents need or want transit, and our ability to grow and thrive depends on it. Car-dependence just isn’t an option at our density, so if transit doesn’t work, our city doesn’t work. We’re desperate in here!”
Both are reasonable points of view, but they are not mutually exclusive.
Outward expansion isn’t a bad thing. Transit oriented development around stations will help tackle the housing crisis, but it means adding even more riders and trains being funneled into already congested downtown subways. The edge and core are part of an interconnected network.
You cannot think about it the way you think about libraries or fire stations, where putting one in a certain place mainly benefits the people there, because the whole network affects everyone’s ability to get everywhere. So when folks argue that the another part of the network should be weaker so that theirs can be stronger, they’re actually undermining their own transit service.
In North America, the edge tends to have the votes to win edge-core debates, so it’s not surprising that many North American transit networks are weak at the core. When you look at North American rapid transit systems, you often notice pieces missing in the middle.
Caltrain quite noticeably ends a mile short of Downtown San Francisco and a connection to BART.
