3 ms·

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 ta

by 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.

by ip26 8y ago

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.