5 ms·

The whole point is to provide better alternatives to driving such that most people don't need to drive. Having better alternatives to driving also makes driving

The whole point is to provide better alternatives to driving such that most people don't need to drive. Having better alternatives to driving also makes driving better as you get less congestion, licensing standards can be raised, there's more money for road maintenance, well designed roads are simply better to drive on, etc.

josephcsible 5y ago
> such that most people don't need to drive I disagree that they'll accomplish this for most people. In particular, what about all of the people who live in suburbs but work in the city?
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Urbanists are extremely critical of the type of zoning that plonks suburbs in the middle of nowhere away from cities too. "R1 Zone" is practically a swear word. Mixed-use zoning is much more effective. We do this in Europe, it's pretty nice being able to cycle to work and walk to the shops (not that I cycle to work personally, but almost all my jobs have been within cycling range).
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    But those suburbs already exist. What should we do for all of the people who already live in them? (And keep in mind that there's usually a good reason that people chose to not just live in an inner city in the first place.)
    - athrun 5y ago
      Strong Town's argument is that some of these suburbs will be successful in encouraging mixed-use development and in doing so will expand their tax bases. But most of the others will fail and decline. ST are quite explicit that they mostly don't think that retrofitting suburbs should be a focus, because they believe that most of these will go bankrupt anyway, given a sufficient amount of time (because of too much infrastructure liability compared to the tax base), and indeed this is starting to happen all across the US. Hence their focus on areas with a solid core already, that should then be strengthened and encouraged to expand organically from there.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        But that's just it. If someone likes suburban living, and your family home is in a suburb, how do you think they'd feel about something like "suburbs are probably all going to fail anyway, so let's do a bunch of things that will definitely and quickly make them fail, and then await the glorious day when your house gets torn down and replaced by apartments, and your neighborhood becomes a replica of the inner city"?
        jeddy3 5y ago
        I don't understand your reasoning. The only thing ST says here is "let existing suburbs be what they are", which sounds like what you want as well.
        josephcsible 5y ago
        Even if they're not directly changing the suburbs with this proposal, the changes they want made to the city will make life worse for people who go there from the suburbs.
- copo233 5y ago
  That's what commuter light rail is for, is Strong Towns against that?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Sure, I'll acknowledge that that could fix this problem. My complaint then becomes that they want to make everywhere hostile to drivers before commuter light rail gets built, when there's a chance that it never will.
    - copo233 5y ago
      I mean, if you're in a growing city and you do nothing, things will eventually get shitty for suburban commuters. At that point, you might have a choice between expanding the road system or building the rail.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        Okay, but let's not reduce the capacity of the road system in the meantime.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  Bus systems can work well to move commuters to rail-based mass-transit that bring them into the city. If the suburbs sprawl too far out, you can also plop down park-and-rides at the terminal stations of the mass transit system. Why do you specifically need to drive and park at the exact location you're going to, especially when the land cost of the storage place of your empty car is prohibitively expensive (as they tend to be in urban CBDs)?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    In places that have good mass transit for their suburbs, sure. But what about all of the places that don't? Because sometimes I have to go to work in weather conditions like hailstorms, thunderstorms, or freezing rain.
    - danny_codes 5y ago
      I recommend watching through the "Not Just Bikes" back catalog. He has a bunch of videos that address common complaints that people who've only known car-dependent lifestyles bring up. Here's a good example of how to design functional bicycle infrastructure for a seemingly hostile climate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
      - zionic 5y ago
        That is an absolutely terrible YouTube channel. I’m not going to ride a bike 20 miles in 45 degree rain. No amount of “city planning” changes that.
    - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
      Build mass transit. It's one of the best ways to increase economic activity.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        I'm fine with this, but I don't like the plan of making it harder to drive first, and then maybe later adding an alternative.

josephcsible 5y ago

> such that most people don't need to drive I disagree that they'll accomplish this for most people. In particular, what about all of the people who live in suburbs but work in the city?

beaconstudios 5y ago
Urbanists are extremely critical of the type of zoning that plonks suburbs in the middle of nowhere away from cities too. "R1 Zone" is practically a swear word. Mixed-use zoning is much more effective. We do this in Europe, it's pretty nice being able to cycle to work and walk to the shops (not that I cycle to work personally, but almost all my jobs have been within cycling range).
- josephcsible 5y ago
  But those suburbs already exist. What should we do for all of the people who already live in them? (And keep in mind that there's usually a good reason that people chose to not just live in an inner city in the first place.)
  - athrun 5y ago
    Strong Town's argument is that some of these suburbs will be successful in encouraging mixed-use development and in doing so will expand their tax bases. But most of the others will fail and decline. ST are quite explicit that they mostly don't think that retrofitting suburbs should be a focus, because they believe that most of these will go bankrupt anyway, given a sufficient amount of time (because of too much infrastructure liability compared to the tax base), and indeed this is starting to happen all across the US. Hence their focus on areas with a solid core already, that should then be strengthened and encouraged to expand organically from there.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      But that's just it. If someone likes suburban living, and your family home is in a suburb, how do you think they'd feel about something like "suburbs are probably all going to fail anyway, so let's do a bunch of things that will definitely and quickly make them fail, and then await the glorious day when your house gets torn down and replaced by apartments, and your neighborhood becomes a replica of the inner city"?
      - jeddy3 5y ago
        I don't understand your reasoning. The only thing ST says here is "let existing suburbs be what they are", which sounds like what you want as well.
        josephcsible 5y ago
        Even if they're not directly changing the suburbs with this proposal, the changes they want made to the city will make life worse for people who go there from the suburbs.
copo233 5y ago
That's what commuter light rail is for, is Strong Towns against that?
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Sure, I'll acknowledge that that could fix this problem. My complaint then becomes that they want to make everywhere hostile to drivers before commuter light rail gets built, when there's a chance that it never will.
  - copo233 5y ago
    I mean, if you're in a growing city and you do nothing, things will eventually get shitty for suburban commuters. At that point, you might have a choice between expanding the road system or building the rail.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      Okay, but let's not reduce the capacity of the road system in the meantime.
jcranmer 5y ago
Bus systems can work well to move commuters to rail-based mass-transit that bring them into the city. If the suburbs sprawl too far out, you can also plop down park-and-rides at the terminal stations of the mass transit system. Why do you specifically need to drive and park at the exact location you're going to, especially when the land cost of the storage place of your empty car is prohibitively expensive (as they tend to be in urban CBDs)?
- josephcsible 5y ago
  In places that have good mass transit for their suburbs, sure. But what about all of the places that don't? Because sometimes I have to go to work in weather conditions like hailstorms, thunderstorms, or freezing rain.
  - danny_codes 5y ago
    I recommend watching through the "Not Just Bikes" back catalog. He has a bunch of videos that address common complaints that people who've only known car-dependent lifestyles bring up. Here's a good example of how to design functional bicycle infrastructure for a seemingly hostile climate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
    - zionic 5y ago
      That is an absolutely terrible YouTube channel. I’m not going to ride a bike 20 miles in 45 degree rain. No amount of “city planning” changes that.
  - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
    Build mass transit. It's one of the best ways to increase economic activity.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      I'm fine with this, but I don't like the plan of making it harder to drive first, and then maybe later adding an alternative.