7 ms·

I Did the Math on My Town’s Cul-de-Sacs. Here's What I Found

72 points by oftenwrong 6y ago

claydavisss 6y ago
An article from StrongTowns that advocates raising taxes and increasing density. Shocking! Naturally, the taxes will be raised on everyone but the author. Naturally, undesirables will be packed tightly a suitable distance from the author. Anyone who disagrees will be derided as a NIMBY and cancelled on Twitter. Barak Obama autographed my iPhone when I was in Yountville.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 6y ago
Great work by the author on accounting for the opex for roads, sidewalks, utilities, etc, but it doesn’t feel like a call to action for more density; it’s about local government having a spine and charging residents the necessary taxes to cover the costs of the services they’re being provided (for example, the taxes for residents in this example would only need to go up ~$25/month to break even on road/sidewalk/curb costs; I’ve had my taxes go up more than that just for storm water runoff improvements). I’d even go so far to say that this should be a requirement for mortgage origination on a property (tax rate is sustainable wrt ongoing shared maintenance costs, documented it’s been communicated to the buyer at closing), as its in the lender’s interest in maintaining the value of the property. Very similar to HOA fees or FHA requirements of multi family units, and this would prevent local taxing authorities from low balling the tax rate and pushing the costs into the future. “Show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcome.” Don’t force people into highly dense housing, let them pay for sprawl if they want it and can afford it.
- Swizec 6y ago
  Narrator: they can’t afford it. That’s the problem with low density housing. If all externalities were accounted for, nobody would want it. Oh and that includes paying taxes to the local city you’re commuting to for your job.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Please prove it’s not affordable for such a bold statement. Most of Texas and Florida (the Sun Belt in general, where folks are moving to) are low density, Texas is the second most populated state, Florida third. If Americans will buy $60k pickup trucks and thousand dollar iPhones, I argue they’re willing to pay a few hundred dollars more per year to not live on top of each other in urban cores and enjoy their cul-de-sac (or other suburban neighborhood arrangement), just as they stretch their housing payment for good schools for their kids.
    - howlgarnish 6y ago
      The math is right there in the article, so please download the spreadsheet and poke holes into if it's broken. The thing with Texas is that it's growing fast, and cities get an initial windfall when brand new property is built out, which is why they want to see more of it. The Strong Towns hypothesis (which is pretty darn close to proven from what I can see) is that low-density sprawl is not sustainable, because it can't pay for its own maintenance. (And a lot of that sprawl is or will be inhabited by people who don't have $60k pickup trucks.)
      - SamBam 6y ago
        No, the question is whether or not people will agree to increasing their taxes for it.
      - prepend 6y ago
        Pretty simply, it’s broken as there is a simple solution to just slightly raise prices now or sightly more 20 years from now. It seems like a non-issue that isn’t particular to culs de sac but to any new community where they don’t charge enough in taxes to cover long term expenses. In my region culs de sac are more prevalent in affluent areas that wouldn’t mind slightly raised prices. And the assumption that property values will stagnate is pretty easy to disprove and just count on increased property taxes.
      - theamk 6y ago
        The math in article is correct when it says that those communities need to raise taxes by few hundred dollars per year. However, the article talks a lot about increased density, and even says outright: > Ultimately, though, I think no amount of bandaging with higher tax rates or user fees is going to be a long-term solution The author presents no no evidence of this fact. The only way this can be correct is if raising taxes by a few hundred dollars would make those houses so expensive, that people would move out and houses would stay empty. I doubt this is the case, and I see no data to support this for this in the article.
- wahern 6y ago
  The thing about sprawl is that by the time these roads and sidewalks need to be rebuilt the neighborhood will have likely transitioned to low income residents who the city can just ignore. The roads and sidewalks won't be maintained; certainly not to the original quality. Of course, a major reason why the neighborhood will become low income is precisely because of the aging infrastructure. Middle income home buyers expect brand-new everything. It creates a cycle of sprawl. On the other hand, it does leave in its wake alot of affordable housing.
  - denimnerd46 6y ago
    Does housing really depreciate like that where you're from? I don't see that at all where I live. I also don't see middle income expecting all new everything. They can't afford it. They can afford a house from the 70s or 80s that needs some TLC. The ones from the 50s and 60s cost over a million bucks because of location and lot size. There's always new construction available way far out at a middle income price range, there's no history of depreciation there because way far out is a relatively new thing. The previous way far out are those 70s and 80s houses I mentioned above. With the 90s and 00's in between.
- burlesona 6y ago
  I agree with you in principal, and actually this is a lot of what Strong Towns tries to suggest. The author is saying there are two rational responses: raise fees, or fill in more density to better utilize the infrastructure. Either one is fine. I will say though, from having seen a lot of these projects, the examples this author gave are actually pretty low cost. I’ve seen examples where the density was lower, and even though the streets were lower quality, the “unpaid cost” per homeowner was in the thousands of dollars per year. It’s just a wide range depending on the circumstances. The important thing is not that cities try to force anyone to a particular lifestyle, just that they do the math and balance their books. Above and beyond that, there’s enormous opportunity for wealth creation in communities by adopting more of the traditional Main Street pattern for neighborhood development, and ST definitely encourages that for anyone who is interested / wants it. But it should definitely be voluntary. Strong Towns is generally opposed to zoning, parking restrictions, etc. which are forms of coercion that badly distort the market.
- danans 6y ago
  > Don’t force people into highly dense housing, let them pay for sprawl if they want it and can afford it. 'Letting them pay' for sprawl implies that it is already priced in, which it is not. Rather, it's often opposite: A few years back back Strong Towns did a case study of their Growth Ponzi scheme hypothesis on a town in Louisiana and found that under the current tax regime, higher density poorer neighborhoods were actually subsidizing lower density and richer sprawl areas: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
cul de sacs are the safest house planning template. i have never seen even one high density development be truly sustainable. this is the biggest lie stuffed down our throats. nothing can be truly sustainable when the numbers keep increasing because resources dont renew as the same exponential rate of housing(related to population growth and nuclear families and weight of consumption indices), what they mean by sustainable is really more housing(and hence more taxes) with the least amount of infrastructure and public services delivered to it due to the high density. this has nothing to do with the public or environment and the only loose affiliation 'sustainablity' has to high density is with city and state budgets because it allows them to bury more deficits while spending like crazy riding on unfunded liabilities on their financials. anyone who believes that high density is sustainable is taken for a ride and is naive. anyone who sells that is either a charlatan or ignorant. or naive.
seibelj 6y ago
According to Keynesians, and even more-so with MMT proponents, all we need to do is print new money to pay for all of this maintenance and infrastructure. It’s as simple as that - just print the money. In fact, a major infrastructure bill funded with money printing is likely the only major bipartisan bill that Biden will be able to pass in a divided congress.
nwsm 6y ago
culs-de-sac
- pekim 6y ago
  It does seem a little strange that the article has used an incorrect plural for the very subject that it's discussing. It's hard to believe that no one has drawn the author's attention to this in the four months since the article was published. EDIT: It appears that both forms are acceptable in English.
jay_kyburz 6y ago
>What would make it fiscally solvent? I guess there are two options: raise the taxes or increase the density. There are a few other options. Replace the roads less often, make them less expensive in the first place. Gravel roads like in the country.
- kube-system 6y ago
  > Replace the roads less often, This is exactly what happens neighborhood I've ever lived in with cul-de-sacs. These roads have low traffic, slow speeds, are salted less or not at all, and have low speed traffic which can tolerate a few bumps.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  or. we could stop breeding so many humans. the earth isn't expanding.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    The earth has plenty of space, and isn't at risk of running out any time soon.
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      we dont have enough natural and renewable resources. unless we are going to find ourself a house in a high density 'sustainble' neighbourhood that rations water, pay astronomical rates for power, still have two cars in a walkable neighbourhood and get caught in freeways to work 30 miles from home with a 2 hour daily commute. towns full of children and not enough schools. old people and not enough open spaces. increasing public sector pension liabilities and sinking into debt every year. this is happening in every part of the world. except countries with a low population. i think 5-7 million is the magic number for resource management purposes. take NZ for example. 5 million. sparsely populated. high density in north island/auckland. i doubt if it would be called 'sustainable' or 'smart'.
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
soared 6y ago
ctrl+f -> kids, family, play, children Nothing. The author, along with many strongtown arguments I've read, completely misses the point. A cul-de-sac is not optimized for cost, efficiency, or anything measurable by numbers. The value is in community building - kids playing in a safe area away from a trafficked road, neighborhood BBQs, a place to learn to ride a bike, etc. Many suburbs don't have access to a park or even parking lot right outside their door, but a cul-de-sac provides a very convenient and safe space To counter those thinking car traffic still exists since its a road - it does not. Neighbors in a cul-de-sac see kids playing in it all the time and when turning off the main road slow down to a crawl or stop. EDIT: My comment kind of misses the point of the article - that cul-de-sacs should maybe be taxed higher since they're inefficient from a cost perspective. Most of the article reads very negatively against them though, and the bias of strongtowns bolsters that point for me.
- tjr225 6y ago
  The point is not that they don’t have positives; but that they don’t pay for themselves. If you want to live in a cul de sac you should at least pay more in taxes to keep up the inefficient infrastructure you require for your lifestyle. Ironically it seems the people that live in cul de sacs feel like they should pay less in taxes for some reason even though the public infrastructure that is required to maintain the positives they enjoy costs more and is inefficient.
  - teeray 6y ago
    Sometimes HOAs basically account for that. New streets in some cities and towns are made responsible for their roads, culverts, sewer, etc. HOAs can be good all the way down to horrific, sure, but when they’re good things typically get addressed quicker than they would waiting for the municipality to get around to it.
- cool_dude85 6y ago
  Probably better to have purpose-built infrastructure for this kind of thing, genuinely open to everyone and not just those who can afford the suburban home. Why don't all suburbs have close access to a park within walking distance?
kube-system 6y ago
I don't think that it's correct to assume that infrastructure on a col-de-sac needs the same amount of maintenance as infrastructure in other places. The amount of traffic on roads that are not used for through-traffic can be exponentially lower than other roads.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  The problem is the number of taxpayers who are covering the costs. A road that handles heavy traffic generally has a lot of commercial activity to support it. A cul-de-sac that has 6-10 homes, means only 6-10 tax payers. And it's not just roads, it's pipes, copper/fiber, EMS, etc. Even if the maintenance cycle is 2x longer, the tax base isn't there to pay it.
cryptofistMonk 6y ago
Is this really all based on roads needing replacement every 14 years? I don't know where the author came up with that number... But if you've ever lived on a low-traffic road for more than 14 years you will know that they are not replaced that often
- Dork1234 6y ago
  I second that, if anything the roads only need to be patched. The roads also have their cracks sealed every few years causing them to last even longer than drive ways normally do. This is only true if it is built to high spec, I know some neighbor cul-de-sac in my town are not "Town" roads. They do not get plowed or town maintenance because the builder didn't build it to high enough / correct spec, and the home owners are required to pay for these things.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  14 is the average, and yeah, I think he failed to account that less used roads (such as cul de sacs) can be replaced much less often.
- ip26 6y ago
  I suspect that number varies significantly with climate. Strongtowns is based out of Minnesota, land of snow, studded tires, plows, and temperatures forty below zero.
- denimnerd46 6y ago
  yeah 14 years.. our HOA is required by TX state law to collect revenue such that it can replace the roads every 30 but I have a feeling they will last 50+ given my previous neighborhoods.
rel2thr 6y ago
A low traffic cul de sac has a lifetime of way longer than 14 years, maybe that is the number for highways with 18 wheeler traffic?
- djmips 6y ago
  Yeah, I wasn't sure if that made sense. I'd like to see some of the science.
- denimnerd46 6y ago
  maybe it's the lifetime of 3" of asphalt on dirt in Minnesota.
natchy 6y ago
Would revamping zoning laws to be more mixed (residential + commercial) like japan provide more local commerce and more local tax opportunities?
- burlesona 6y ago
  Most likely. Places with very permissive zoning tend to have a wide range of housing and business types, and with increased supply the cost of living decreases, which supports entrepreneurship and social mobility. It is not a magic bullet, though. There still needs to be enough base industry to justify a place existing. There also needs to be reasonably good utilities, public services, low crime etc. Zoning is only one piece of the economic development puzzle.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> The core insight (that “light bulb” moment) of Strong Towns for me was that low density suburban living requires more roads, curbs, sidewalks, and pipes than it pays for in tax revenue—meaning, it’s not solvent. I mean, whether or not that's true is a question of tax rates, and probably also a question of whether you are counting only property taxes paid by residents or other revenues driven by their presence of the housing, including those from businesses enabled by having housing that is attractive to the demographic that prefers suburban cul-de-sac style housing. > If a cul-de-sac is stripped to its essentials and brought to the bar of the balance sheet, it has nowhere to escape....It exists for one purpose and one purpose only: to provide access to the homes built around it. Incorrect. Cul-de-sacs, and non-grid suburban road designs more generally, exist to deter access to the homes built around them. Specifically, to deter non-resident access to and traffic, especially high-speed traffic, near them. There are a wide number of reasons, but promoting pedestrian (and particularly child) traffic safety, deterring crime, and reducing noise pollution are among the reasons. > e.g., roads are assumed to have an average lifespan of 14 years according to our local Engineering Division But are cul-de-sacs assumed to have that average life? The life of a road depends on wear, which depends on traffic volume, traffic speed, and vehicle weight (immensely!). Cul-de-sacs are designed to minimize all three compared to through roads, and thus should have much higher than average life for the broader class of all roads.
- antisthenes 6y ago
  > Cul-de-sacs are designed to minimize all three compared to through roads, and thus should have much higher than average life for the broader class of all roads. On top of that, you might not even care that the cul-de-sac itself is in poor condition. It's usually short enough to the point where driving a bit on a mediocre/poor surface won't really damage a modern car, especially the ever popular crossover suv types. There are plenty of gravel cul-de-sacs as well which cost peanuts to construct and maintain, compared to traditional high-throughput roads. They also won't damage your car as long as your drive slowly and carefully.
  - Arnt 6y ago
    "Well then, let's build a road standard that we can maintain for peanuts in this new development" sounds like something the author might actually say. The developer would protest, perhaps.
hedora 6y ago
This article doesn’t show that the total revenue for the cul de sac is less than the total expenditures for the households that live there. Instead, it shows they pay less in money earmarked for roads than is spent on them. In other news, the elderly’s ambulance fees don’t come close to covering their use of emergency medical services. People require different services during different phases of their lives. Also, income taxes exist.
psidebot 6y ago
A third way to make a low density neighborhood solvent is to decrease the cost of the infrastructure. We live in a low density neighborhood with right-of-ways along property lines, but no sidewalks, curbs, or below-ground storm drains. The roads are designed to discourage high speeds, and it's a pleasant walking environment, so the non-vehicular traffic along the roadside is higher than most suburban neighborhoods.
chmod600 6y ago
I'm a little confused. It looks like the author compares the average road expenditures to the specific road costs per resident in a cul-de-sac, and finds that cul-de-sac residents require a disproportionate expenditure. That's kind of obvious. Lower-density residents require more roads. But "disproportionate" is different from "insolvent". The analysis doesn't close the loop on tax revenues vs. expenditures.
chmod600 6y ago
I'm not sure if I like the idea of public servants joining a "movement". They are entrusted to serve the public, not their own political ideals. Of course everyone comes in with their own philosophy, but it should ultimately be responsive and accountable to what the public wants, even if it goes against the movement.
aimor 6y ago
I don't understand the reasoning for the author's conclusion: "I think no amount of bandaging with higher tax rates or user fees is going to be a long-term solution. ... With any luck, we can use a Strong Towns-inspired analysis to back up these sentiments with hard-hitting fiscal facts." Why isn't taxing an acceptable solution?
- jkmcf 6y ago
  Depending on your area, new taxes are hard to implement and new taxes on old infrastructure would cause a riot. It’s well known that our water infrastructure is woefully underfunded, not to mention the plethora of bridges needing important maintenance. These issues aren’t being addressed because of the legions of anti tax, pro free stuff Americans. We’ve had it so good for 70 years no one ole at to accept that “great again” will require a lot of taxes or money from trees.
throwawaybutwhy 6y ago
'I Did the Math on My Town’s Cul-de-Sacs. Here's What I Found.' --> 'Suburban sprawl should be taxed' Burying the lede is a form of clickbait and antagonizes the readers. BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front) is a reader-friendly approach.
jokethrowaway 6y ago
I'm not sure how accurate this analysis is, but the free market gives us another answer to the author's options. Why just not build the roads and let people do it when they want and can afford it, without stealing money from everyone and redistributing? Subsidising roads cost is one of the worst thing the government did to the economy and the environment. I'd much rather live in a world where people have less mobility and there is less pollution, more local products, less cars and less asphalt.

72 points by oftenwrong 6y ago

An article from StrongTowns that advocates raising taxes and increasing density. Shocking! Naturally, the taxes will be raised on everyone but the author. Naturally, undesirables will be packed tightly a suitable distance from the author. Anyone who disagrees will be derided as a NIMBY and cancelled on Twitter. Barak Obama autographed my iPhone when I was in Yountville.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

toomuchtodo 6y ago

Great work by the author on accounting for the opex for roads, sidewalks, utilities, etc, but it doesn’t feel like a call to action for more density; it’s about local government having a spine and charging residents the necessary taxes to cover the costs of the services they’re being provided (for example, the taxes for residents in this example would only need to go up ~$25/month to break even on road/sidewalk/curb costs; I’ve had my taxes go up more than that just for storm water runoff improvements). I’d even go so far to say that this should be a requirement for mortgage origination on a property (tax rate is sustainable wrt ongoing shared maintenance costs, documented it’s been communicated to the buyer at closing), as its in the lender’s interest in maintaining the value of the property. Very similar to HOA fees or FHA requirements of multi family units, and this would prevent local taxing authorities from low balling the tax rate and pushing the costs into the future. “Show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcome.” Don’t force people into highly dense housing, let them pay for sprawl if they want it and can afford it.

Swizec 6y ago
Narrator: they can’t afford it. That’s the problem with low density housing. If all externalities were accounted for, nobody would want it. Oh and that includes paying taxes to the local city you’re commuting to for your job.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Please prove it’s not affordable for such a bold statement. Most of Texas and Florida (the Sun Belt in general, where folks are moving to) are low density, Texas is the second most populated state, Florida third. If Americans will buy $60k pickup trucks and thousand dollar iPhones, I argue they’re willing to pay a few hundred dollars more per year to not live on top of each other in urban cores and enjoy their cul-de-sac (or other suburban neighborhood arrangement), just as they stretch their housing payment for good schools for their kids.
  - howlgarnish 6y ago
    The math is right there in the article, so please download the spreadsheet and poke holes into if it's broken. The thing with Texas is that it's growing fast, and cities get an initial windfall when brand new property is built out, which is why they want to see more of it. The Strong Towns hypothesis (which is pretty darn close to proven from what I can see) is that low-density sprawl is not sustainable, because it can't pay for its own maintenance. (And a lot of that sprawl is or will be inhabited by people who don't have $60k pickup trucks.)
    - SamBam 6y ago
      No, the question is whether or not people will agree to increasing their taxes for it.
    - prepend 6y ago
      Pretty simply, it’s broken as there is a simple solution to just slightly raise prices now or sightly more 20 years from now. It seems like a non-issue that isn’t particular to culs de sac but to any new community where they don’t charge enough in taxes to cover long term expenses. In my region culs de sac are more prevalent in affluent areas that wouldn’t mind slightly raised prices. And the assumption that property values will stagnate is pretty easy to disprove and just count on increased property taxes.
    - theamk 6y ago
      The math in article is correct when it says that those communities need to raise taxes by few hundred dollars per year. However, the article talks a lot about increased density, and even says outright: > Ultimately, though, I think no amount of bandaging with higher tax rates or user fees is going to be a long-term solution The author presents no no evidence of this fact. The only way this can be correct is if raising taxes by a few hundred dollars would make those houses so expensive, that people would move out and houses would stay empty. I doubt this is the case, and I see no data to support this for this in the article.
wahern 6y ago
The thing about sprawl is that by the time these roads and sidewalks need to be rebuilt the neighborhood will have likely transitioned to low income residents who the city can just ignore. The roads and sidewalks won't be maintained; certainly not to the original quality. Of course, a major reason why the neighborhood will become low income is precisely because of the aging infrastructure. Middle income home buyers expect brand-new everything. It creates a cycle of sprawl. On the other hand, it does leave in its wake alot of affordable housing.
- denimnerd46 6y ago
  Does housing really depreciate like that where you're from? I don't see that at all where I live. I also don't see middle income expecting all new everything. They can't afford it. They can afford a house from the 70s or 80s that needs some TLC. The ones from the 50s and 60s cost over a million bucks because of location and lot size. There's always new construction available way far out at a middle income price range, there's no history of depreciation there because way far out is a relatively new thing. The previous way far out are those 70s and 80s houses I mentioned above. With the 90s and 00's in between.
burlesona 6y ago
I agree with you in principal, and actually this is a lot of what Strong Towns tries to suggest. The author is saying there are two rational responses: raise fees, or fill in more density to better utilize the infrastructure. Either one is fine. I will say though, from having seen a lot of these projects, the examples this author gave are actually pretty low cost. I’ve seen examples where the density was lower, and even though the streets were lower quality, the “unpaid cost” per homeowner was in the thousands of dollars per year. It’s just a wide range depending on the circumstances. The important thing is not that cities try to force anyone to a particular lifestyle, just that they do the math and balance their books. Above and beyond that, there’s enormous opportunity for wealth creation in communities by adopting more of the traditional Main Street pattern for neighborhood development, and ST definitely encourages that for anyone who is interested / wants it. But it should definitely be voluntary. Strong Towns is generally opposed to zoning, parking restrictions, etc. which are forms of coercion that badly distort the market.
danans 6y ago
> Don’t force people into highly dense housing, let them pay for sprawl if they want it and can afford it. 'Letting them pay' for sprawl implies that it is already priced in, which it is not. Rather, it's often opposite: A few years back back Strong Towns did a case study of their Growth Ponzi scheme hypothesis on a town in Louisiana and found that under the current tax regime, higher density poorer neighborhoods were actually subsidizing lower density and richer sprawl areas: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

cul de sacs are the safest house planning template. i have never seen even one high density development be truly sustainable. this is the biggest lie stuffed down our throats. nothing can be truly sustainable when the numbers keep increasing because resources dont renew as the same exponential rate of housing(related to population growth and nuclear families and weight of consumption indices), what they mean by sustainable is really more housing(and hence more taxes) with the least amount of infrastructure and public services delivered to it due to the high density. this has nothing to do with the public or environment and the only loose affiliation 'sustainablity' has to high density is with city and state budgets because it allows them to bury more deficits while spending like crazy riding on unfunded liabilities on their financials. anyone who believes that high density is sustainable is taken for a ride and is naive. anyone who sells that is either a charlatan or ignorant. or naive.

seibelj 6y ago

According to Keynesians, and even more-so with MMT proponents, all we need to do is print new money to pay for all of this maintenance and infrastructure. It’s as simple as that - just print the money. In fact, a major infrastructure bill funded with money printing is likely the only major bipartisan bill that Biden will be able to pass in a divided congress.

nwsm 6y ago

culs-de-sac

pekim 6y ago
It does seem a little strange that the article has used an incorrect plural for the very subject that it's discussing. It's hard to believe that no one has drawn the author's attention to this in the four months since the article was published. EDIT: It appears that both forms are acceptable in English.

jay_kyburz 6y ago

>What would make it fiscally solvent? I guess there are two options: raise the taxes or increase the density. There are a few other options. Replace the roads less often, make them less expensive in the first place. Gravel roads like in the country.

kube-system 6y ago
> Replace the roads less often, This is exactly what happens neighborhood I've ever lived in with cul-de-sacs. These roads have low traffic, slow speeds, are salted less or not at all, and have low speed traffic which can tolerate a few bumps.
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
or. we could stop breeding so many humans. the earth isn't expanding.
- kube-system 6y ago
  The earth has plenty of space, and isn't at risk of running out any time soon.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    we dont have enough natural and renewable resources. unless we are going to find ourself a house in a high density 'sustainble' neighbourhood that rations water, pay astronomical rates for power, still have two cars in a walkable neighbourhood and get caught in freeways to work 30 miles from home with a 2 hour daily commute. towns full of children and not enough schools. old people and not enough open spaces. increasing public sector pension liabilities and sinking into debt every year. this is happening in every part of the world. except countries with a low population. i think 5-7 million is the magic number for resource management purposes. take NZ for example. 5 million. sparsely populated. high density in north island/auckland. i doubt if it would be called 'sustainable' or 'smart'.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago

soared 6y ago

ctrl+f -> kids, family, play, children Nothing. The author, along with many strongtown arguments I've read, completely misses the point. A cul-de-sac is not optimized for cost, efficiency, or anything measurable by numbers. The value is in community building - kids playing in a safe area away from a trafficked road, neighborhood BBQs, a place to learn to ride a bike, etc. Many suburbs don't have access to a park or even parking lot right outside their door, but a cul-de-sac provides a very convenient and safe space To counter those thinking car traffic still exists since its a road - it does not. Neighbors in a cul-de-sac see kids playing in it all the time and when turning off the main road slow down to a crawl or stop. EDIT: My comment kind of misses the point of the article - that cul-de-sacs should maybe be taxed higher since they're inefficient from a cost perspective. Most of the article reads very negatively against them though, and the bias of strongtowns bolsters that point for me.

tjr225 6y ago
The point is not that they don’t have positives; but that they don’t pay for themselves. If you want to live in a cul de sac you should at least pay more in taxes to keep up the inefficient infrastructure you require for your lifestyle. Ironically it seems the people that live in cul de sacs feel like they should pay less in taxes for some reason even though the public infrastructure that is required to maintain the positives they enjoy costs more and is inefficient.
- teeray 6y ago
  Sometimes HOAs basically account for that. New streets in some cities and towns are made responsible for their roads, culverts, sewer, etc. HOAs can be good all the way down to horrific, sure, but when they’re good things typically get addressed quicker than they would waiting for the municipality to get around to it.
cool_dude85 6y ago
Probably better to have purpose-built infrastructure for this kind of thing, genuinely open to everyone and not just those who can afford the suburban home. Why don't all suburbs have close access to a park within walking distance?

kube-system 6y ago

I don't think that it's correct to assume that infrastructure on a col-de-sac needs the same amount of maintenance as infrastructure in other places. The amount of traffic on roads that are not used for through-traffic can be exponentially lower than other roads.

arrosenberg 6y ago
The problem is the number of taxpayers who are covering the costs. A road that handles heavy traffic generally has a lot of commercial activity to support it. A cul-de-sac that has 6-10 homes, means only 6-10 tax payers. And it's not just roads, it's pipes, copper/fiber, EMS, etc. Even if the maintenance cycle is 2x longer, the tax base isn't there to pay it.

cryptofistMonk 6y ago

Is this really all based on roads needing replacement every 14 years? I don't know where the author came up with that number... But if you've ever lived on a low-traffic road for more than 14 years you will know that they are not replaced that often

Dork1234 6y ago
I second that, if anything the roads only need to be patched. The roads also have their cracks sealed every few years causing them to last even longer than drive ways normally do. This is only true if it is built to high spec, I know some neighbor cul-de-sac in my town are not "Town" roads. They do not get plowed or town maintenance because the builder didn't build it to high enough / correct spec, and the home owners are required to pay for these things.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
14 is the average, and yeah, I think he failed to account that less used roads (such as cul de sacs) can be replaced much less often.
ip26 6y ago
I suspect that number varies significantly with climate. Strongtowns is based out of Minnesota, land of snow, studded tires, plows, and temperatures forty below zero.
denimnerd46 6y ago
yeah 14 years.. our HOA is required by TX state law to collect revenue such that it can replace the roads every 30 but I have a feeling they will last 50+ given my previous neighborhoods.

rel2thr 6y ago

A low traffic cul de sac has a lifetime of way longer than 14 years, maybe that is the number for highways with 18 wheeler traffic?

djmips 6y ago
Yeah, I wasn't sure if that made sense. I'd like to see some of the science.
denimnerd46 6y ago
maybe it's the lifetime of 3" of asphalt on dirt in Minnesota.

natchy 6y ago

Would revamping zoning laws to be more mixed (residential + commercial) like japan provide more local commerce and more local tax opportunities?

burlesona 6y ago
Most likely. Places with very permissive zoning tend to have a wide range of housing and business types, and with increased supply the cost of living decreases, which supports entrepreneurship and social mobility. It is not a magic bullet, though. There still needs to be enough base industry to justify a place existing. There also needs to be reasonably good utilities, public services, low crime etc. Zoning is only one piece of the economic development puzzle.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> The core insight (that “light bulb” moment) of Strong Towns for me was that low density suburban living requires more roads, curbs, sidewalks, and pipes than it pays for in tax revenue—meaning, it’s not solvent. I mean, whether or not that's true is a question of tax rates, and probably also a question of whether you are counting only property taxes paid by residents or other revenues driven by their presence of the housing, including those from businesses enabled by having housing that is attractive to the demographic that prefers suburban cul-de-sac style housing. > If a cul-de-sac is stripped to its essentials and brought to the bar of the balance sheet, it has nowhere to escape....It exists for one purpose and one purpose only: to provide access to the homes built around it. Incorrect. Cul-de-sacs, and non-grid suburban road designs more generally, exist to deter access to the homes built around them. Specifically, to deter non-resident access to and traffic, especially high-speed traffic, near them. There are a wide number of reasons, but promoting pedestrian (and particularly child) traffic safety, deterring crime, and reducing noise pollution are among the reasons. > e.g., roads are assumed to have an average lifespan of 14 years according to our local Engineering Division But are cul-de-sacs assumed to have that average life? The life of a road depends on wear, which depends on traffic volume, traffic speed, and vehicle weight (immensely!). Cul-de-sacs are designed to minimize all three compared to through roads, and thus should have much higher than average life for the broader class of all roads.

antisthenes 6y ago
> Cul-de-sacs are designed to minimize all three compared to through roads, and thus should have much higher than average life for the broader class of all roads. On top of that, you might not even care that the cul-de-sac itself is in poor condition. It's usually short enough to the point where driving a bit on a mediocre/poor surface won't really damage a modern car, especially the ever popular crossover suv types. There are plenty of gravel cul-de-sacs as well which cost peanuts to construct and maintain, compared to traditional high-throughput roads. They also won't damage your car as long as your drive slowly and carefully.
- Arnt 6y ago
  "Well then, let's build a road standard that we can maintain for peanuts in this new development" sounds like something the author might actually say. The developer would protest, perhaps.

hedora 6y ago

This article doesn’t show that the total revenue for the cul de sac is less than the total expenditures for the households that live there. Instead, it shows they pay less in money earmarked for roads than is spent on them. In other news, the elderly’s ambulance fees don’t come close to covering their use of emergency medical services. People require different services during different phases of their lives. Also, income taxes exist.

psidebot 6y ago

A third way to make a low density neighborhood solvent is to decrease the cost of the infrastructure. We live in a low density neighborhood with right-of-ways along property lines, but no sidewalks, curbs, or below-ground storm drains. The roads are designed to discourage high speeds, and it's a pleasant walking environment, so the non-vehicular traffic along the roadside is higher than most suburban neighborhoods.

chmod600 6y ago

I'm a little confused. It looks like the author compares the average road expenditures to the specific road costs per resident in a cul-de-sac, and finds that cul-de-sac residents require a disproportionate expenditure. That's kind of obvious. Lower-density residents require more roads. But "disproportionate" is different from "insolvent". The analysis doesn't close the loop on tax revenues vs. expenditures.

chmod600 6y ago

I'm not sure if I like the idea of public servants joining a "movement". They are entrusted to serve the public, not their own political ideals. Of course everyone comes in with their own philosophy, but it should ultimately be responsive and accountable to what the public wants, even if it goes against the movement.

aimor 6y ago

I don't understand the reasoning for the author's conclusion: "I think no amount of bandaging with higher tax rates or user fees is going to be a long-term solution. ... With any luck, we can use a Strong Towns-inspired analysis to back up these sentiments with hard-hitting fiscal facts." Why isn't taxing an acceptable solution?

jkmcf 6y ago
Depending on your area, new taxes are hard to implement and new taxes on old infrastructure would cause a riot. It’s well known that our water infrastructure is woefully underfunded, not to mention the plethora of bridges needing important maintenance. These issues aren’t being addressed because of the legions of anti tax, pro free stuff Americans. We’ve had it so good for 70 years no one ole at to accept that “great again” will require a lot of taxes or money from trees.

throwawaybutwhy 6y ago

'I Did the Math on My Town’s Cul-de-Sacs. Here's What I Found.' --> 'Suburban sprawl should be taxed' Burying the lede is a form of clickbait and antagonizes the readers. BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front) is a reader-friendly approach.

jokethrowaway 6y ago

I'm not sure how accurate this analysis is, but the free market gives us another answer to the author's options. Why just not build the roads and let people do it when they want and can afford it, without stealing money from everyone and redistributing? Subsidising roads cost is one of the worst thing the government did to the economy and the environment. I'd much rather live in a world where people have less mobility and there is less pollution, more local products, less cars and less asphalt.