lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
A lot of the areas where there is a large density concentration have geographical features that contain the urban core. Manhattan is an island. San Fransisco is a peninsula with big hills on the remaining side. The Piedmont of Georgia or the swamps of Central Florida are big, wide open spaces. We're only just now starting to realize the huge, hidden, long term costs of building out and the long term benefits and cost savings of building up.Most of the US cities that have efficient public transit systems had a dense population using the core system before the individual automobile became the norm - think NYC, Boston, Chicago. They are also cities that had enough riders so that rails (including subways) could be expanded from the core as the population expanded further from the center in a widening pattern around an existing core. But these are not areas where there was a small somewhat dense population - think Orlando, Atlanta, Tampa - with little density around the core - until the personal automobile and Southern migration beginning post WWII. And then the population grew in pockets far from the center (in public transportation terms), with lots of room. So multiple spurs would have to be built going in various directions.
And this would assume that everyone living in those areas is going into a central downtown area to work - which is not true for most of these areas. Businesses moved away from the downtown areas to office parks, etc where the costs were less and there is room for expansion. So employees need to drive there.