7 ms·

Both Hillary and Trump says they are going to boost infrastructure spending. I think its better to wait and see how self-driving/mobility as a service develops

by gopi 10y ago

Both Hillary and Trump says they are going to boost infrastructure spending. I think its better to wait and see how self-driving/mobility as a service develops before spending money on transportation infrastructure

seibelj 10y ago
In Boston, the presence of a nearby T stop massively boosts property prices, creates businesses, allows people to live without cars, and so on. Nothing improves an area holistically like mass transit improvements.
- massysett 10y ago
  People make the same claim about Washington Metrorail stations, while conveniently ignoring (1) said stations nearly always have excellent road access as well, yet the road gets no credit for the development; and (2) areas around some stations are zoned to develop more densely, so maybe such zoning, not the presence of the station, deserves some credit. I agree that transit can help improve land values, but transit alone does not deserve all the credit when other factors may also be relevant.
  - whafro 10y ago
    I lived in Washington before stops like U Street, Petworth, and others had been built, and the major roads in those neighborhoods were not responsible for the growth they've experienced since the station's openings.
    - massysett 10y ago
      There has been practically no development by the Cheverly station and it also has great road access, and there has also been a lot of devepment in Trinidad and Ivy City even though they have no stations nearby. People are quick to claim that transit stations are responsible for development activity when even a cursory look reveals that the reality is not nearly this simple.
  - technofiend 10y ago
    Well of course there are always other factors - but citing zoning will get you no traction here, sir. Beyond some very basic limits on things like opening a "vice"-related business of some kind near a church or a school Houston has no zoning laws. I can open a nail salon next to a restaurant and there's nothing anyone can do about it. See the infamous "Ashby Highrise" http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/Ashby-casts-long-shadow-over-Houston-land-use-7213635.php http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article... as an example of residents taking matters into their own hands and suing developers after City of Houston rubber-stamped a traffic study that would have allowed a high rise complex in the middle of a neighborhood. The residents were forced themselves to sue because they had no other remedy. Houston's near town development has a long history unique to our area - everything from a former Freedman's town that left lots of prime real estate in the hands of people who really preferred not to sell for development to local management districts using tax money to buy property outside their taxation area in order to prevent or slow gentrification. The area recently expanded to by the Northline extension was considered a blue collar area at best and frankly too crime-ridden and dangerous at worst for any redevelopment. That has turned around with the rail - and since Houston's is an at grade rail, we actually lose one-two lanes of the thoroughfare when rail goes in. Yet North Houston which was the site of the Moody Park Riots is now the target of development and gentrification and you can track that against the rail's expansion.
- technofiend 10y ago
  In Houston, TX we actually had a mayor run and win on an anti-rail platform! As with any construction project delaying it just made it cost more later. And yet when it was finally built the Red Line was a stunning success. Among other things it linked most of the city's major stadiums, creating a relief valve for major event traffic, it linked parking and medical center sites, cutting traffic to and from our congested Medical Center and almost since inception it has carried more people on a daily basis than the combined ridership of our spoke and hub "Park and Ride" system which brings commuters in from the suburbs to downtown. Development along the Red Line has ramped up and the gentrification that comes from it is obvious along its recent Northern expansion. So just like in Boston bringing rail has a net-postive effect on property values once construction is done. Considering those ridership numbers are based on paid rides and ours is an honor system with loose enforcement Metro is putting up some decent ridership numbers! Unfortunately due to Bob Lanier's intentionally blocking such expansion we don't have the desperately needed heavy rail system to cut freeway traffic between Houston's higher density bedroom communities. And more frustratingly we still have only part of the rail plan implemented due to ongoing efforts to block rail funding. The rail line proposed to link our downtown and Galleria commercial district has been blocked for 10+ years by a single Congressman and some vocal business owners in a 1.5 mile stretch of road. If they had just sucked it up the construction would be done and those same businesses would be benefiting from their increased accessibility.
yolesaber 10y ago
What a myopic, Valley-centered view. Self driving cars still need to drive on roads and bridges, automated trains still need tracks. Four, even eight years is a lot of time to do infrastructure repair and upgrades, I highly doubt self driving services will take off exponentially in that period.
dawnerd 10y ago
I disagree. We can't rely on self-driving cars as the solution to our transportation problems. Roads can only handle so many cars no matter how automated it is. Light rail is also a lot more efficient I'd imagine than a ton of cars using gas / batteries. I'd rather take the 2.50 rail fare than the way more expensive lyft/uber/whatever.
vtlynch 10y ago
America's ultimate idiocy is to think the "transportation revolution" is autonomous cars.
- barney54 10y ago
  Well, autonomous cars have real advantages in terms of transportation flexibility and comfort. Those are two factors that are very important in people's transportation decisions.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    On comfort, it's not going to be a robotic BMW that is used for autonomous traffic, it's going to be a robotic subcompact with fiberglass seats and can't be ruined by vomit. Think: carnival ride with a better seatbelts and airbags.
    - inimino 10y ago
      Think: Uber without the driver. Do you think the market for more comfortable transportation is just going to disappear or something?
      - rhizome 10y ago
        I think the profit motive will increase margins.
        inimino 10y ago
        I think the profit motive would lead to somebody serving the top end of the market. People aren't going to give up their BMWs unless the experience is better.
        lmm 10y ago
        People will pick based on cost. Look at air travel: everyone bitches about the low-cost airlines with their narrow seats and $5 sandwiches, but they fly with them anyway.

by gopi 10y ago

seibelj 10y ago

In Boston, the presence of a nearby T stop massively boosts property prices, creates businesses, allows people to live without cars, and so on. Nothing improves an area holistically like mass transit improvements.

massysett 10y ago
People make the same claim about Washington Metrorail stations, while conveniently ignoring (1) said stations nearly always have excellent road access as well, yet the road gets no credit for the development; and (2) areas around some stations are zoned to develop more densely, so maybe such zoning, not the presence of the station, deserves some credit. I agree that transit can help improve land values, but transit alone does not deserve all the credit when other factors may also be relevant.
- whafro 10y ago
  I lived in Washington before stops like U Street, Petworth, and others had been built, and the major roads in those neighborhoods were not responsible for the growth they've experienced since the station's openings.
  - massysett 10y ago
    There has been practically no development by the Cheverly station and it also has great road access, and there has also been a lot of devepment in Trinidad and Ivy City even though they have no stations nearby. People are quick to claim that transit stations are responsible for development activity when even a cursory look reveals that the reality is not nearly this simple.
- technofiend 10y ago
  Well of course there are always other factors - but citing zoning will get you no traction here, sir. Beyond some very basic limits on things like opening a "vice"-related business of some kind near a church or a school Houston has no zoning laws. I can open a nail salon next to a restaurant and there's nothing anyone can do about it. See the infamous "Ashby Highrise" http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/Ashby-casts-long-shadow-over-Houston-land-use-7213635.php http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article... as an example of residents taking matters into their own hands and suing developers after City of Houston rubber-stamped a traffic study that would have allowed a high rise complex in the middle of a neighborhood. The residents were forced themselves to sue because they had no other remedy. Houston's near town development has a long history unique to our area - everything from a former Freedman's town that left lots of prime real estate in the hands of people who really preferred not to sell for development to local management districts using tax money to buy property outside their taxation area in order to prevent or slow gentrification. The area recently expanded to by the Northline extension was considered a blue collar area at best and frankly too crime-ridden and dangerous at worst for any redevelopment. That has turned around with the rail - and since Houston's is an at grade rail, we actually lose one-two lanes of the thoroughfare when rail goes in. Yet North Houston which was the site of the Moody Park Riots is now the target of development and gentrification and you can track that against the rail's expansion.
technofiend 10y ago
In Houston, TX we actually had a mayor run and win on an anti-rail platform! As with any construction project delaying it just made it cost more later. And yet when it was finally built the Red Line was a stunning success. Among other things it linked most of the city's major stadiums, creating a relief valve for major event traffic, it linked parking and medical center sites, cutting traffic to and from our congested Medical Center and almost since inception it has carried more people on a daily basis than the combined ridership of our spoke and hub "Park and Ride" system which brings commuters in from the suburbs to downtown. Development along the Red Line has ramped up and the gentrification that comes from it is obvious along its recent Northern expansion. So just like in Boston bringing rail has a net-postive effect on property values once construction is done. Considering those ridership numbers are based on paid rides and ours is an honor system with loose enforcement Metro is putting up some decent ridership numbers! Unfortunately due to Bob Lanier's intentionally blocking such expansion we don't have the desperately needed heavy rail system to cut freeway traffic between Houston's higher density bedroom communities. And more frustratingly we still have only part of the rail plan implemented due to ongoing efforts to block rail funding. The rail line proposed to link our downtown and Galleria commercial district has been blocked for 10+ years by a single Congressman and some vocal business owners in a 1.5 mile stretch of road. If they had just sucked it up the construction would be done and those same businesses would be benefiting from their increased accessibility.

yolesaber 10y ago

What a myopic, Valley-centered view. Self driving cars still need to drive on roads and bridges, automated trains still need tracks. Four, even eight years is a lot of time to do infrastructure repair and upgrades, I highly doubt self driving services will take off exponentially in that period.

dawnerd 10y ago

I disagree. We can't rely on self-driving cars as the solution to our transportation problems. Roads can only handle so many cars no matter how automated it is. Light rail is also a lot more efficient I'd imagine than a ton of cars using gas / batteries. I'd rather take the 2.50 rail fare than the way more expensive lyft/uber/whatever.

vtlynch 10y ago

America's ultimate idiocy is to think the "transportation revolution" is autonomous cars.

barney54 10y ago
Well, autonomous cars have real advantages in terms of transportation flexibility and comfort. Those are two factors that are very important in people's transportation decisions.
- rhizome 10y ago
  On comfort, it's not going to be a robotic BMW that is used for autonomous traffic, it's going to be a robotic subcompact with fiberglass seats and can't be ruined by vomit. Think: carnival ride with a better seatbelts and airbags.
  - inimino 10y ago
    Think: Uber without the driver. Do you think the market for more comfortable transportation is just going to disappear or something?
    - rhizome 10y ago
      I think the profit motive will increase margins.
      - inimino 10y ago
        I think the profit motive would lead to somebody serving the top end of the market. People aren't going to give up their BMWs unless the experience is better.
        lmm 10y ago
        People will pick based on cost. Look at air travel: everyone bitches about the low-cost airlines with their narrow seats and $5 sandwiches, but they fly with them anyway.