4 ms·

> 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

by Kalium 9y 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 9y 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 9y ago
  In the US, transit lines are almost always government-owned.
  - chrischen 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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).
- Kalium 9y ago
  Like you, I'm not fond of the idea of stripping local governments of their power and controls. That said, also like you, I'm pretty damn worried about the crisis at hand. Given that the crisis has been pretty uniformly driven by local government policies, they're going to have to be dialed back to fix much of anything.

by Kalium 9y ago

chrischen 9y 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 9y ago
In the US, transit lines are almost always government-owned.
- chrischen 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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).

Kalium 9y ago
Like you, I'm not fond of the idea of stripping local governments of their power and controls. That said, also like you, I'm pretty damn worried about the crisis at hand. Given that the crisis has been pretty uniformly driven by local government policies, they're going to have to be dialed back to fix much of anything.