3 ms·

There is one argument, perhaps the most powerful one, from NIMBY that I agree with and it's about traffic. The way we handle roads and transit simply can't abs

There is one argument, perhaps the most powerful one, from NIMBY that I agree with and it's about traffic. The way we handle roads and transit simply can't absorb the increase from high density. Serious transit investment must follow density when density reaches a certain point. The progression should be - Suburb: Just roads are fine. - Midpoint: Give a lane and make it dedicated for BRT. That's the only way people will take the bus seriously. When they see that bus zoom by while they are stuck in traffic, many will take the bus. - City: Build rail and subway. But high density development keeps happening without any of this. This just makes the NIMBY arguments stronger. EDIT: Just thought of another possible solution for Midpoint: shutdown the bus system and use the funds to give everyone $X per month for Uber Pool/Lyft Line. Make using Pool/Line a requirement for using the money, since those provide the most benefit for increasing road capacity. Bus reputation is so bad in the US, something like this might be the only way.

burlesona 8y ago
The gap in density between most city neighborhoods and where you have to have transit is enormous. Look at the density in old SF, the Sunset or Richmond, or in the inner city Montrose neighborhood of Houston, or many other examples. These places have several times the population per acre of typical post-war suburbs while still consisting mostly of detached houses and townhomes. They have poor transit, and people get by. I’m not saying it’s utopia, but the idea that the roads can’t take any more people is, in most places, baloney.
ummonk 8y ago
This is why you target high density development close to where the jobs are, and close to public transit stations. What increases traffic more: people living an hour away from work and commuting in because they can't afford living near work, or people living close to work because sufficient high density housing is built near the workplace?
Kalium 8y ago
> The way we handle roads and transit simply can't absorb the increase from high density. Serious transit investment must follow density when density reaches a certain point. You're absolutely correct. This must happen. Realistically, it happens when the residents of a newly dense neighborhood push for it to happen. It's rarely politically workable to build transit first.
- chrischen 8y ago
  It's possible to build transit first, if the transit company can also buy the real estate at the terminus, and if the transit company is a private company (not sure if it's feasible in the US). But for government owned transit, it's not possible to speculate or prospect transit lines, so it has to come after density is developed first.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    In the US, transit lines are almost always government-owned.
    - chrischen 8y ago
      There are private transportation vectors like the Ambassador bridge in Windsor/Detroit. I'm not sure why in our instances we end up with them trying lobby to block competing bridges from being put up while in Japan most of the transit lines are private and work spectacularly well. But the US has probably the biggest private Subway franchise in the world, if you count Subway restaurants ;). It's probably something to do with the black and white view of free-market vs government regulation we have in the US. Everyone's gunning for all one or the other.
  - thescriptkiddie 8y ago
    It is absolutely possible for governments to do that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_capture
- bit_logic 8y ago
  It's a classic chicken/egg problem and the NIMBY argument is let's just not have the chicken or egg. City politicians can't fight that argument. Something needs to happen above the city level that makes density a given that they can't do anything about. Then the discussion can shift to how to handle the traffic from the density because even the NIMBY will accept they can't do anything to stop the density. However, all the power is at the city level, so that's why the situation doesn't change. California recently tried to introduce a bill to use state level power to force density, but it was voted down and defeated. I have mixed feelings about all this. I don't like the idea of a higher power like the state or federal forcing everywhere to be dense. Residents should have some control over how their neighborhoods develop. But the current housing shortage is really bad. Long term, it will destroy the economy because people will move away to other states when they start families, and that's often also when their careers reach their prime (maximum tax revenue).

burlesona 8y ago

The gap in density between most city neighborhoods and where you have to have transit is enormous. Look at the density in old SF, the Sunset or Richmond, or in the inner city Montrose neighborhood of Houston, or many other examples. These places have several times the population per acre of typical post-war suburbs while still consisting mostly of detached houses and townhomes. They have poor transit, and people get by. I’m not saying it’s utopia, but the idea that the roads can’t take any more people is, in most places, baloney.

ummonk 8y ago

This is why you target high density development close to where the jobs are, and close to public transit stations. What increases traffic more: people living an hour away from work and commuting in because they can't afford living near work, or people living close to work because sufficient high density housing is built near the workplace?

Kalium 8y ago

> The way we handle roads and transit simply can't absorb the increase from high density. Serious transit investment must follow density when density reaches a certain point. You're absolutely correct. This must happen. Realistically, it happens when the residents of a newly dense neighborhood push for it to happen. It's rarely politically workable to build transit first.

chrischen 8y ago
It's possible to build transit first, if the transit company can also buy the real estate at the terminus, and if the transit company is a private company (not sure if it's feasible in the US). But for government owned transit, it's not possible to speculate or prospect transit lines, so it has to come after density is developed first.
- Kalium 8y ago
  In the US, transit lines are almost always government-owned.
  - chrischen 8y ago
    There are private transportation vectors like the Ambassador bridge in Windsor/Detroit. I'm not sure why in our instances we end up with them trying lobby to block competing bridges from being put up while in Japan most of the transit lines are private and work spectacularly well. But the US has probably the biggest private Subway franchise in the world, if you count Subway restaurants ;). It's probably something to do with the black and white view of free-market vs government regulation we have in the US. Everyone's gunning for all one or the other.
- thescriptkiddie 8y ago
  It is absolutely possible for governments to do that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_capture
bit_logic 8y ago
It's a classic chicken/egg problem and the NIMBY argument is let's just not have the chicken or egg. City politicians can't fight that argument. Something needs to happen above the city level that makes density a given that they can't do anything about. Then the discussion can shift to how to handle the traffic from the density because even the NIMBY will accept they can't do anything to stop the density. However, all the power is at the city level, so that's why the situation doesn't change. California recently tried to introduce a bill to use state level power to force density, but it was voted down and defeated. I have mixed feelings about all this. I don't like the idea of a higher power like the state or federal forcing everywhere to be dense. Residents should have some control over how their neighborhoods develop. But the current housing shortage is really bad. Long term, it will destroy the economy because people will move away to other states when they start families, and that's often also when their careers reach their prime (maximum tax revenue).