3 ms·

Denser housing is more expensive than less dense housing. I personally believe we should work on making commuting from farther distances more reliably fast. In

Denser housing is more expensive than less dense housing. I personally believe we should work on making commuting from farther distances more reliably fast. In some cities this would mean building more highways, but that solution has been villified recently. In more densely built out cities perhaps dedicated bus lanes that can help flip the equation from car based travel to bus based travel being the faster option. I'm not opposed to loosening codes to encourage organic growth of denser housing, but in summary I suppose I'm asking that we also take a serious look at extending and densifying the transportation network as well.

ceejayoz 3y ago
> Denser housing is more expensive than less dense housing. I personally believe we should work on making commuting from farther distances more reliably fast. Is your housing cost comparison factoring that in? The cost of lengthy commutes and the infrastructure to support them? > In some cities this would mean building more highways, but that solution has been villified recently. For good reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
- SomewhatLikely 3y ago
  Your first point is a good one, at some point the costs aren't worth it. Perhaps the solution there is toll roads instead of freeways because then a large portion of the costs are imposed on the users. Your second point relates to your first because induced demand doesn't say that increasing road capacity isn't useful. It tells us that now instead getting coffee one exit away, maybe you go to the better place two exits away. Was that extra capacity worth it? You'd have to tally a lot of intangibles to answer that. My premise is that the more rapidly people can get around the city the better demand can meet supply, reducing costs and improving quality. Maybe one way to answer the question would be to look at comparable cities where one has built their transportation routes out heavily and another where they haven't and compare various costs and quality of life measures.
davidw 3y ago
The cheapest housing in a lot of places is low-rise apartments because they're still cheap to build, and use land very efficiently. But they're illegal in huge swathes of most cities in the US. Having better transit systems would help a lot in the US, and frankly is pretty necessary in a lot of places. You just can't squeeze that many cars around. Transit is vastly more efficient in terms of the amount of people it can carry.

ceejayoz 3y ago

> Denser housing is more expensive than less dense housing. I personally believe we should work on making commuting from farther distances more reliably fast. Is your housing cost comparison factoring that in? The cost of lengthy commutes and the infrastructure to support them? > In some cities this would mean building more highways, but that solution has been villified recently. For good reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

SomewhatLikely 3y ago
Your first point is a good one, at some point the costs aren't worth it. Perhaps the solution there is toll roads instead of freeways because then a large portion of the costs are imposed on the users. Your second point relates to your first because induced demand doesn't say that increasing road capacity isn't useful. It tells us that now instead getting coffee one exit away, maybe you go to the better place two exits away. Was that extra capacity worth it? You'd have to tally a lot of intangibles to answer that. My premise is that the more rapidly people can get around the city the better demand can meet supply, reducing costs and improving quality. Maybe one way to answer the question would be to look at comparable cities where one has built their transportation routes out heavily and another where they haven't and compare various costs and quality of life measures.

davidw 3y ago

The cheapest housing in a lot of places is low-rise apartments because they're still cheap to build, and use land very efficiently. But they're illegal in huge swathes of most cities in the US. Having better transit systems would help a lot in the US, and frankly is pretty necessary in a lot of places. You just can't squeeze that many cars around. Transit is vastly more efficient in terms of the amount of people it can carry.