4 ms·

How can we undo these consequences and promote better public transportation options? I have some ideas about zoning…

jrockway 4y ago
Zoning is a big problem. Right now, there is really no place to live but the city if you want to walk to places. In the suburbs, municipalities demand things like cul-de-sacs, mandatory front yard / back yard sizes, etc. This decreases density to the point where walking simply isn't viable. It's kind of a positive feedback loop too; nobody can walk anywhere, so stores need giant parking lots so people can drive. The giant parking lots make walking even more difficult, which means that people who don't even want a car have to have one. The question is what will the forcing function be to make things better here. Climate change is one option. I think people feel a little far removed from the consequences, nobody thinks "wow, because I drive to the grocery store twice a week, the UK is having their hottest summer on record". So I don't think it's really changing people's behavior. (Electric cars are hailed as the answer to climate change, but they aren't going to help ancillary concerns like giant roads separating people from businesses that make walking impossible, being stuck in traffic for an hour during rush hour, etc.) I think the forcing function will be running out of resources that support the suburban lifestyle. Stores and shopping are moving online, reducing city tax revenues. No income means that homeowners will have to pay for parks, roads, sewers, etc. instead of businesses. This will price some people out of their suburban lifestyle, they won't be able to afford the things they get by default (giant yards, living on a quiet cul-de-sac, etc.) I have no idea where these people will go (cities are somehow even more expensive), but at least a market of people that want to buy something more sustainable will develop (to save their own pocketbook, not because they hate cars or love the Earth). Overall, I see it as a very slow burn, and that not much will change in my lifetime. The incentives aren't there yet. What makes me sad is that financial incentives hurt the most vulnerable people first. When property taxes go up, it just means someone has to uproot their kids, force them to make new friends, and waste an extra hour per day commuting. When I see gas prices go way up because of a war, my first thought is "great, now nobody can afford to drive. RIP, cars." But these people already can't afford to drive, now they just suffer, best case work overtime to be able to afford both gas to get to work and food. Not sure where I'm going with this but we're basically doomed. The American suburb might be the greatest mistake we've ever made, because it's so hard to undo. A lot of people are going to get hurt as more dire forcing functions uproot their lives.
- lumost 4y ago
  Changing federal funding rules for suburban infrastructure would be a big head start. Right now, there is a permanent pressure for local governments to "expand". The Federal government doesn't fund maintenance, and new-urbanist expansion is not prioritized enough. If the federal government prioritizes funding for projects which increase density rather than lower it, then there would be some degree of shift.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
    > Changing federal funding rules for suburban infrastructure would be a big head start. That would be political suicide. The suburbs are the chief battle ground. The big difference between 2016 and 2020 were the suburbs.
    - lumost 4y ago
      Incentivizing dense(r) suburbs is something that could be messaged in a few different ways. In the US, low-density suburbs are only supported by federal funds for infrastructure expansion. If the federal government simply chose to not fund expansions that decreased density then local governments might take on the political burden of selling density increasing investments.
    - WebbWeaver 4y ago
      The suburbs are subsidized by banks and could be wiped out because many cant buy a house anyway.
    - NineStarPoint 4y ago
      Changing the rules so that federal funding can more easily be used to fix/revitalize existing suburban infrastructure and not just make new suburbs should be popular in the existing suburbs, I would imagine. Or at least, should be popular if sold well.
- throwtheacctawy 4y ago
onionisafruit 4y ago
How will zoning keep a companies from conspiring to gain a monopoly in supplying buses?

Zoning is a big problem. Right now, there is really no place to live but the city if you want to walk to places. In the suburbs, municipalities demand things like cul-de-sacs, mandatory front yard / back yard sizes, etc. This decreases density to the point where walking simply isn't viable. It's kind of a positive feedback loop too; nobody can walk anywhere, so stores need giant parking lots so people can drive. The giant parking lots make walking even more difficult, which means that people who don't even want a car have to have one. The question is what will the forcing function be to make things better here. Climate change is one option. I think people feel a little far removed from the consequences, nobody thinks "wow, because I drive to the grocery store twice a week, the UK is having their hottest summer on record". So I don't think it's really changing people's behavior. (Electric cars are hailed as the answer to climate change, but they aren't going to help ancillary concerns like giant roads separating people from businesses that make walking impossible, being stuck in traffic for an hour during rush hour, etc.) I think the forcing function will be running out of resources that support the suburban lifestyle. Stores and shopping are moving online, reducing city tax revenues. No income means that homeowners will have to pay for parks, roads, sewers, etc. instead of businesses. This will price some people out of their suburban lifestyle, they won't be able to afford the things they get by default (giant yards, living on a quiet cul-de-sac, etc.) I have no idea where these people will go (cities are somehow even more expensive), but at least a market of people that want to buy something more sustainable will develop (to save their own pocketbook, not because they hate cars or love the Earth). Overall, I see it as a very slow burn, and that not much will change in my lifetime. The incentives aren't there yet. What makes me sad is that financial incentives hurt the most vulnerable people first. When property taxes go up, it just means someone has to uproot their kids, force them to make new friends, and waste an extra hour per day commuting. When I see gas prices go way up because of a war, my first thought is "great, now nobody can afford to drive. RIP, cars." But these people already can't afford to drive, now they just suffer, best case work overtime to be able to afford both gas to get to work and food. Not sure where I'm going with this but we're basically doomed. The American suburb might be the greatest mistake we've ever made, because it's so hard to undo. A lot of people are going to get hurt as more dire forcing functions uproot their lives.

lumost 4y ago
Changing federal funding rules for suburban infrastructure would be a big head start. Right now, there is a permanent pressure for local governments to "expand". The Federal government doesn't fund maintenance, and new-urbanist expansion is not prioritized enough. If the federal government prioritizes funding for projects which increase density rather than lower it, then there would be some degree of shift.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
  > Changing federal funding rules for suburban infrastructure would be a big head start. That would be political suicide. The suburbs are the chief battle ground. The big difference between 2016 and 2020 were the suburbs.
  - lumost 4y ago
    Incentivizing dense(r) suburbs is something that could be messaged in a few different ways. In the US, low-density suburbs are only supported by federal funds for infrastructure expansion. If the federal government simply chose to not fund expansions that decreased density then local governments might take on the political burden of selling density increasing investments.
  - WebbWeaver 4y ago
    The suburbs are subsidized by banks and could be wiped out because many cant buy a house anyway.
  - NineStarPoint 4y ago
    Changing the rules so that federal funding can more easily be used to fix/revitalize existing suburban infrastructure and not just make new suburbs should be popular in the existing suburbs, I would imagine. Or at least, should be popular if sold well.
throwtheacctawy 4y ago

onionisafruit 4y ago

How will zoning keep a companies from conspiring to gain a monopoly in supplying buses?