>>2024118>The tracks weren't the issue.You're not allowed to drive on a government road if your car can't pass an inspection. If the government owned the rails, the same would be true about the trains' brakes. Trains should be required to follow the same kind of inspections that cars do
>but the freight train lines still take control anyway.Well maybe we shouldn't leave it up to the freight rail companies to enforce the US government's laws. If the Federal government owned the tracks, then we wouldn't be at the mercy of the freight rail companies
>Sprawl keeps growing cities affordable,It literally does the opposite because in order to sprawl, we need all new sewage, lighting, law enforcement, road and road maintenance, and schools. It is the most expensive way to grow a community from both a municipal level and a housing cost level
>high land value of the inner city means that every new development basically has to be a luxury apartment to be profitable.No it does not. If we legalized dense housing and got rid of parking minimums as I suggested, we could affordably mass produce homes in the heart of the city, raising supply and increasing affordability. Works in every other country, it can work here. The "Luxury apartment" problem is literally the result of housing regulations being so strict that the most expensive apartments are the only one that is financially feasible for a business to build
>definition for whata "suburb" isI'm not going to bother typing up a response for this because it's clear you don't bother reading anything. If you think I'm wrong, click here:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/9/20/the-suburbs-are-a-one-life-cycle-product>Describes the suburban style of building, with single-story malls and shops, wide streets and winding subdivisions—all of which will likely fall apart within a few decades, with little money or plan in place to fix them.