4 ms·

I think there isn't usually a direct counterargument to be found. One of ST's core points is, hey, you're deluding yourself because you're not accounting for ev

by ip26 8y ago

I think there isn't usually a direct counterargument to be found. One of ST's core points is, hey, you're deluding yourself because you're not accounting for eventual repair costs of all the infrastructure you've already got. There is either no reply- because, heads in the sand- or the reply is that all the new people who will move there and the growth of the tax base will make it affordable. Which, while not exactly a classic ponzi scheme, pretty much resembles one. It's really common, the whole "ignore future repair costs" thing. I lived in an HOA a few years ago that enjoyed low dues for many years, and everyone was always really happy about that. Guess what, the roofs and siding was ten years past due for replacement, and we had nothing in the bank. I want to say we were looking at special assessments of $30-40k/unit.

closeparen 8y ago
I'll try: Strong Towns' predictions of future maintenance-debt doom are already true today of the urbanist, transit-centric alternative. If any group of Americans had sufficient motivation and resources to maintain a good public transit system, it would be New Yorkers, and they empirically don't. The MTA is deteriorating rapidly despite the best efforts of one of the richest cities in the world. That's textbook "unsustainable." It may well be true that America's freeways will meet a similar fate in the future, but that doesn't tell you which one is better or worse. The big roads Strong Towns despises have many lanes, road networks have many paths from A to B, and vehicles that are resilient to low-quality roads are readily available for purchase. On the other hand, the failure of any component anywhere in a rail network can ruin the whole system until it's fixed. If I have to live with a falling-apart transportation system, I'll take crumbling roads over crumbling trains.
- ip26 8y ago
  That is a good point, public transit is not immune to ignoring future costs. However- The real doom is when people abandon the town or city because property taxes have to be hiked dramatically to pay for the bill come due. This drives people to leave, which drives taxes higher, which drives people to leave... This kills the city. New York & the train system there has big problems. But because there are so many people paying into it, nobody is leaving New York over the cost of fixing it. It is troubled but not failed. ST's core raison d'être is abandoned, decaying suburban sprawl. Growing up in Silicon Valley, I didn't really get ST until I was walking through vast, crumbling suburbs in the midwest.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    New York isn't so much fixing it as adapting to a long-term future with fewer, slower, less predictable trains. Their only hope is a multi-decade-scale IT project (positive train control) which is to say, they have no hope. Adapting to worse mobility is also a thing you can do with roads. Drive slower over the potholes, close the lanes that are too far gone, revert to gravel if need be. I guess you could say that dense cities are so singular and compelling, people will be willing to put up with poor mobility in exchange for the other opportunities they provide. Whereas exurbia is so abundant and generic, people will flee to an equivalent municipality with better mobility. Strong Towns' message is more compelling for very small towns, which could be entirely walkable. Then there's no transportation infrastructure needed. People can walk on anything. But for small and mid-sized cities, it has some weaknesses.
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      > New York isn't so much fixing it as adapting to a long-term future with fewer, slower, less predictable trains. Their only hope is a multi-decade-scale IT project (positive train control) which is to say, they have no hope. I think this is a gross exaggeration. New York's subway has pulled back from the precipice before; in the '70s the subway was literally falling to pieces on the ground, with routine derailments, trains running at 5MPH everywhere due to the state of the tracks, and record levels of crime. It got to the point where a triage plan suggested cutting out entire lines, including the L, which is now one of the most congested. Today's issues can mostly be attributed to neoliberal City and State administrations (Giuliani, Pataki, Bloomberg, both Cuomos) that consistently cut MTA funding to tell a future national electorate that they balanced a budget. As a result the MTA took on debt, the interest of which is almost entirely responsible for all the fare hikes in recent memory. Add in a near-crippling focus on safety in operations above all else, including speed, and it explains the current train unreliability.
  - chx 8y ago
    > property taxes have to be hiked dramatically to pay for the bill come due. This drives people to leave This is surprising to me, although I live in Canada and property taxes are a pittance. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/residential.aspx https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/residential.a... So that's like two thousand dollars a year for a million dollar home.
- lewis500 8y ago
  Strong Towns is much more focused on NOT building new roads than on building new transit. Overall, the message is that new infrastructure of all kinds can be unsustainable financially.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Unless your town is so small that you can get away with purely walking, you're gonna need either roads or transit.
    - cimmanom 8y ago
      But the denser you are and the more mixed-use areas you have, the less road mileage you need per resident.
    - lewis500 8y ago
      They don't advocate having no roads and transit...just being more cautious about expanding whatever infrastructure you already have. They are a foil to the idea that infrastructure expansion is always an "investment." Their emphasis is on maintenance and staying in good financial shape so that you can afford to replace infrastructure when it wears out. It's actually not a very radical position which is why they're able to draw crowds in red and blue places both.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  New York's MTA, and the general budgetary situation, is mostly mismanaged, not impossible to keep up. And New York certainly doesn't get its fair share of the tax money raised within its city limits; not from the state and not from the federal government. Consider that Nassau County, home of the first suburbs and one of the wealthiest counties in America by median income, has been under state fiscal control since 2000 because it simply cannot balance a budget. New York City infrastructure looks downright peachy compared to Nassau's troubles.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Obviously it’s possible to maintain public transit under some set of political sensibilities and structures; it works in Europe and Asia. But if any place in America would be willing to address mismanagement (meaning terminate the careers of the politicians who allow it), it would be New York. De Blasio just got re-elected by a wide margin.
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      The problem is that the MTA is managed by the state, not the city. De Blasio doesn't have a mandate to fix the subway; he was elected with a mandate to fix racial relations with the NYPD and get universal pre-K, and his reelection was mostly a function of there being no obvious Democrat alternative. It's why his main thing has been to promote the ferries, biking, and the BQX, because those are the only things he directly controls. There was a gubernatorial challenger who was much more pro-subway, but she lost a campaign by basically treating it as a run for the mayor of New York and ignoring the rest of the state. (Her lack of managerial experience also didn't help.)

by ip26 8y ago

closeparen 8y ago

I'll try: Strong Towns' predictions of future maintenance-debt doom are already true today of the urbanist, transit-centric alternative. If any group of Americans had sufficient motivation and resources to maintain a good public transit system, it would be New Yorkers, and they empirically don't. The MTA is deteriorating rapidly despite the best efforts of one of the richest cities in the world. That's textbook "unsustainable." It may well be true that America's freeways will meet a similar fate in the future, but that doesn't tell you which one is better or worse. The big roads Strong Towns despises have many lanes, road networks have many paths from A to B, and vehicles that are resilient to low-quality roads are readily available for purchase. On the other hand, the failure of any component anywhere in a rail network can ruin the whole system until it's fixed. If I have to live with a falling-apart transportation system, I'll take crumbling roads over crumbling trains.

ip26 8y ago
That is a good point, public transit is not immune to ignoring future costs. However- The real doom is when people abandon the town or city because property taxes have to be hiked dramatically to pay for the bill come due. This drives people to leave, which drives taxes higher, which drives people to leave... This kills the city. New York & the train system there has big problems. But because there are so many people paying into it, nobody is leaving New York over the cost of fixing it. It is troubled but not failed. ST's core raison d'être is abandoned, decaying suburban sprawl. Growing up in Silicon Valley, I didn't really get ST until I was walking through vast, crumbling suburbs in the midwest.
- closeparen 8y ago
  New York isn't so much fixing it as adapting to a long-term future with fewer, slower, less predictable trains. Their only hope is a multi-decade-scale IT project (positive train control) which is to say, they have no hope. Adapting to worse mobility is also a thing you can do with roads. Drive slower over the potholes, close the lanes that are too far gone, revert to gravel if need be. I guess you could say that dense cities are so singular and compelling, people will be willing to put up with poor mobility in exchange for the other opportunities they provide. Whereas exurbia is so abundant and generic, people will flee to an equivalent municipality with better mobility. Strong Towns' message is more compelling for very small towns, which could be entirely walkable. Then there's no transportation infrastructure needed. People can walk on anything. But for small and mid-sized cities, it has some weaknesses.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    > New York isn't so much fixing it as adapting to a long-term future with fewer, slower, less predictable trains. Their only hope is a multi-decade-scale IT project (positive train control) which is to say, they have no hope. I think this is a gross exaggeration. New York's subway has pulled back from the precipice before; in the '70s the subway was literally falling to pieces on the ground, with routine derailments, trains running at 5MPH everywhere due to the state of the tracks, and record levels of crime. It got to the point where a triage plan suggested cutting out entire lines, including the L, which is now one of the most congested. Today's issues can mostly be attributed to neoliberal City and State administrations (Giuliani, Pataki, Bloomberg, both Cuomos) that consistently cut MTA funding to tell a future national electorate that they balanced a budget. As a result the MTA took on debt, the interest of which is almost entirely responsible for all the fare hikes in recent memory. Add in a near-crippling focus on safety in operations above all else, including speed, and it explains the current train unreliability.
- chx 8y ago
  > property taxes have to be hiked dramatically to pay for the bill come due. This drives people to leave This is surprising to me, although I live in Canada and property taxes are a pittance. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/residential.aspx https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/residential.a... So that's like two thousand dollars a year for a million dollar home.
lewis500 8y ago
Strong Towns is much more focused on NOT building new roads than on building new transit. Overall, the message is that new infrastructure of all kinds can be unsustainable financially.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Unless your town is so small that you can get away with purely walking, you're gonna need either roads or transit.
  - cimmanom 8y ago
    But the denser you are and the more mixed-use areas you have, the less road mileage you need per resident.
  - lewis500 8y ago
    They don't advocate having no roads and transit...just being more cautious about expanding whatever infrastructure you already have. They are a foil to the idea that infrastructure expansion is always an "investment." Their emphasis is on maintenance and staying in good financial shape so that you can afford to replace infrastructure when it wears out. It's actually not a very radical position which is why they're able to draw crowds in red and blue places both.
bobthepanda 8y ago
New York's MTA, and the general budgetary situation, is mostly mismanaged, not impossible to keep up. And New York certainly doesn't get its fair share of the tax money raised within its city limits; not from the state and not from the federal government. Consider that Nassau County, home of the first suburbs and one of the wealthiest counties in America by median income, has been under state fiscal control since 2000 because it simply cannot balance a budget. New York City infrastructure looks downright peachy compared to Nassau's troubles.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Obviously it’s possible to maintain public transit under some set of political sensibilities and structures; it works in Europe and Asia. But if any place in America would be willing to address mismanagement (meaning terminate the careers of the politicians who allow it), it would be New York. De Blasio just got re-elected by a wide margin.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    The problem is that the MTA is managed by the state, not the city. De Blasio doesn't have a mandate to fix the subway; he was elected with a mandate to fix racial relations with the NYPD and get universal pre-K, and his reelection was mostly a function of there being no obvious Democrat alternative. It's why his main thing has been to promote the ferries, biking, and the BQX, because those are the only things he directly controls. There was a gubernatorial challenger who was much more pro-subway, but she lost a campaign by basically treating it as a run for the mayor of New York and ignoring the rest of the state. (Her lack of managerial experience also didn't help.)