What tech, policies, city designs, etc, can be used to alleviate traffic congestion in the U.S. of A? I've seen some people suggest that we need to essentially obliterate The current car centered transportation networks we have in favor of stuff involving buses and trains (a ridiculous pipe dream Yes I know but I would also like to know if fixing the traffic issues is actually possible)x.com/the_transit_guy/status/1849965574513983784?t=LnWnXPGzOCHpUBPjXa30pQ&s=19
>>2023278Give companies that let employees work from home tax breaks
>>2023278>population of metro areas keep going up>highways aren't able to keep up because most of them were built in the 1960s when population was a fraction of what it is now>some municipalities try to expand the infrastructure but its less effective because population keeps expandingWhy do the supposed "transit enthusiasts" immediately jump to "cars bad" and never stop to consider growth patterns?
>>2023279Give money to anyone moving into a new residence less than 5km from their workplace.Could be the company doing it, could be a level of government.
House workers in the same location as thier job maybe in some kind of camp so they can concentrate at work
>>2023278Unironically privatize all forms of transportation.Trains: privatizedFreeways: privatizedbusses: privatizedThen go ahead and remove zoning restrictions to let the free market decide if a neighborhood needs a business or not. Why should the government or neighbors tell a bakery to get out of the neighborhood because of abstract zoning rules. Finally, dramatically reduce setback requirements just to fire safety minimums. If you desire privacy, stop being a poorfag and buy more land. You should be able to maximize the usage of your property, not be required to have 20' in front of the house for a driveway.Rate my plan anons. Poorfags need not reply.
>>2023373>Why should the government or neighbors tell a bakery to get out of the neighborhoodBecause residents voted to have zoning
>>2023278rule of thumb is that if you see teslas you need pack your shit and leave because you're in one of those shitty upper middle class areas.
You MotherFuckers made the California High Speed rail Fucking fail! We don't need you assholes trying to fix Fucking anything!
>>2023384I have very nice bike trails here, but yeah I am not getting on the light rail that ships druggies.
>>2023373>>2023381Do deed restrictions still exist in your fantasy world, or can we not have that because it's an absolute plutocracy?
>>2023278Communism solves traffic. Only the bourgie generate traffic.
>>2023278Make everyone poor and inacapable of making long-term financial decisions, securing the position of the nanny state as the sole provider of services in more and more areas by importing and promoting people and lifestyles that are incapable of tending to themselves on their own.
>>2023316Contests, you instantly raised rent by that same amount in urban areas
>>2023381Something can supercede the residents vote. They can't vote to keep browns out for example.
>>2023297Freeways take up a ton of space, and the places more lanes are most needed are almost always the places which are densely populated. There will always be places where you can't add more lanes, and thus traffic will always be a problem.
Honestly, massive amounts of bike and bus lanes coupled with upzoning for denser housing. Our downtowns have so many car lanes we have tons of room for bike and bus lanes and still room left over for cars and on street parking.
>>2023431Sounds to me like the root problem is density. Reduce density, everything else falls into place.
>>2023431Freeways fuck up urban cores irreparably. We need a federal program for replacing urban freeways with housing and trams.
>>2023621Yep, they completely screw up urban cores irreparably, which is why we need to repair them, Chang.
>>2023415I was picturing once-off moving allowances, to offset the reluctance to move for the sake of work (things like selling house and getting hit with the transaction costs). So it's not like it's permanent income.Transaction costs are a fucking bitch. If moving between apartments was as simple as "find someone willing to trade," then there would be fucking apps for that to min-max you and your partner's commute. But since moving is such a PIA, people put up with bullshit commutes that they wouldn't otherwise.But even if it was permanent income, it's only for people living close to work. So even if prices go up commensurately, we're effectively raising the cost for commuter-residents and that's a good thing since they'll be more likely to move elsewhere if they aren't working directly in the area and free up that space for a working resident.Like, your retired grandma is the one who should move out to a rural area, rather than sit on the family house in the city.
>>2023278If you want to improve public transit, you need a generational effort to improve its perception, not by taking down the perception of cars, but by elevating the status of taking the train. That means making it a better experience.
>>2023278Zoning needs to be fixed first. Only when higher density is legalized and people are allowed to live near the places they work will density be high enough to make public transit viable for more people
>>2023668Density seems to be the root of the problem
>>2023669It's only a problem if you assume that every person needs to use a car to get anywhere. Density makes it possible to live without relying on a car all the time
>>2023685Density makes it impossible, as the pre-requisite high real estate prices that make ultra high density worthwhile also displaces the low-profit services that are needed to live, such as grocers, or otherwise makes their products and services unaffordable.
If you’re going to fund better transit you need decent density, occupied by people with disposable income. So luxury apartments in/near city centers. Also bike lanes.
>>2023701And just like that, you either price people out of operating in the urban center, thus defeating the point of urbanization, or you stratify people by income and they have to live all over the city in such a wide spread that the only transportation network that can service everyone's needs in a timely manner are personal automobiles on roads.
>>2023702Um everyone can just ride their heckin bikes my dude??
>>2023705Out of what housing units that cost less than the entirety of what they earn in a month? Pricing pressure makes sprawl inevitable.
>>2023702Building more housing reduces the prices of housing. So in the post you were replying to, housing would become cheaper.
>>2023702> thus defeating the point of urbanizationWhy would an urban center having high-end housing “defeat the point of urbanization”? In 99% of the world, housing in the middle of town is the priciest. Americans have such a stupid concept of cities.
>>2023734This scenario is avoided by real estate developers because it crashes the market, and most people aren't wealthy enough to force the issue in this way. Regulations stifle the possibility further.>>2023736Try to find a major population center where people are gainfully employed in order to live the place they live in, and isn't experiencing population collapse.
>>2023702>building new housing prices people out of the city!!!>>2023738>building new housing makes housing so cheap it crashes the market!!!It’s like you’re trying to contradict yourself as much as possible. You’re a lolcow.
>>2023741You're missing the point. Cities happen because real-estate is expensive. Expensive real-estate attracts development, but the guys who can afford to develop real-estate want those investments to pay off, so they limit the amount of development they actually do to keep those attractive prices high. The people who live in those cities are their cash cows, and they are not going to willingly price themselves out of more money by over-building housing.
>>2023741>>2023742Furthermore, most people can't actually afford the resulting urban housing, and this has knock-on effects like people moving out to places that have less valuable real-estate, such as the suburbs, and also creates lifestyle pressures like staying single or not having enough children to avoid population shrinkage.
If you’re going to fund better transit you need decent density, occupied by people with disposable income. So luxury apartments in/near city centers. Also bike lanes.Just how it works all over the world outside of the US (though, increasingly so in the US lately, which is seeing a lot of nice urban infill and densifying its city centers). For starters we can just build housing over the empty parking lots that plague our downtowns. (the kid with a learning disability will have a meltdown when confronted with reality)
>>2023741Not that anon but it doesn't contradict anything.>adding new housing on the edge of town in undeveloped areas (i.e. suburbs) doesn't price anyone out>adding enough new housing could crash the market because there's a floor to how cheap apartments get; builders aren't going to build an apartment building if the rates are so low it's unprofitable or marginally profitable, and no one is going to operate any apartment complex if they can't make money on it; this is how slums develop
>>2023744Once again, the people who work in your urban center are not guaranteed to live in the urban center. A lot of the people who work there are going to have no choice but to commute.
America is finally getting the right idea, building new apartments in downtown areas so people can live near work instead of having to sit in the car for 2 hours a day.They can also live near entertainment/parks/shopping/friends/gym etc.
>>2023747Terms and conditions apply.>You need to make enough money where you work to pay for an urban house>Units need to be available at the time you are house hunting>Your demand needs to match their supply well enough to accept the living conditions offered
>>2023278add a bajillion roads, but put them underground or inside buildings. (or otherwise build buildings on top of highways buy having an arch or an elevated hole for cars to go through)that way the city can be both walkable AND car friendly without congestion. boston and chicago put some roads underground and it made it a lot better
>>2023744open car parks are very silly and uneconomical, you can have a 8 story building that's literally just concrete and have 8 times the car parks, then use the other land for actual development
>>2023750Open car parks happen because the land isn't worth enough money to pay for a permanent building on top of it.
>>2023750>open car parks are very silly and uneconomicalyet they exist, so how are they uneconomical?
>>2023750Right, in America we just built an assload of parking because we had a retarded policy called “parking minimums” that did irreparable damage to city centers. These days most cities have been getting rid of parking minimums because they realize it’s a retarded policy.
>>2023755That's not why cities have surface l lots in them
>>2023754it just takes a bit of concrete to add a second floor and a ramp, now you have all those car parks, but 90% less space!
>>2023755I should add: we built a ton more parking than necessary because the government forced people to build it. Now that we don’t have that stupid policy, much of the parking space is being allocated/repurposed to higher and better uses.
>>2023758>because the government forced people to build itThey did not
>>2023755>Right, in America we just built an assload of parking because we had a retarded policy called “parking minimums” that did irreparable damage to city centers.>These days most cities have been getting rid of parking minimums because they realize it’s a retarded policy.Downtown Houston had parking lots before the parking minimums, and downtown is explicitly exempt from parking minimums anyway. Do you think parking lots didn't exist prior to 1960?
>>2023758>>2023755Parking lots exist because they produce revenue while representing minimum investment on the land while its owners wait for the opportunity to turn that lot into a more productive property. Think of it like trying to figure out when to sell a stock: yeah, you bought it at $10, but you can sell it for $20 now, or wait until it hits $200. It's not a perfect analogy, but that's more or less what's going on.
>>2023747I live in a place like that and it’s great. A lot of them have been built in my city the last several years and it’s led to more restaurants and stores opening up downtown. Obviously it funds infrastructure upgrades too.
>>2023783>Oh boy, more opportunities for consumerism!
>>2023764Downtown parking lots exist because the government forced people to build them for 80 years. Now that we removed that law, the lots are frequently being redeveloped to a higher and better use.No amount of your spin can change that simple fact. Cope.
>>2023747>instead of having to sit in the car for 2 hours a day.I never know if this is an exaggeration or if urban advocates actually believe this.
>>2023787>simple factIf you actually knew what you were talking about, parking minimums aren't enforced in new downtown developments and aren't retroactive (as in, only new development). Downtowns have been empty because no one wanted to live in them or work in them for years.
>>2023787>Downtown parking lots exist because the government forced people to build them for 80 yearsNot true
So much obvious carbrain strawgrasping in this thread. Lol.
There is no way to make public transportation more viable in America because it is a car-addicted culture and this will never change. And the land is too spread out for public transportation to be viable. No one will ever view public transportation as anything but a way for poor people to get around and transporting homeless drug addicts.I’m in the Bay Area California (I know you all hate me etc) and we have a pretty nice subway system that I use extensively to get around the region without a car. The system is probably going to be bankrupt and shut down within a few years because even in this area that you’d think is some commie car-hating culture, it isn’t. The subway was mostly used for work commute, and since Covid and all the working from home for worthless tech workers, ridership has cratered and will never recover, no matter how much people say “oh well you need to make it safer, have fare gates that keep bums out, use police to throw them out if they get in, etc”. That does not matter, because the fact is that the ridership will not be there regardless. People will not just randomly start using public transit subways and buses instead of their car because “it’s safer to use now”.Nothing will ever change in America. People will complain about the traffic, about nature being destroyed by more and bigger freeways, but then refuse to even give up their cars and ridicule and insult anyone who doesn’t own one or wants to be more biking/public transit, and spew hatred at cyclists who make them 30 seconds slower to reach their next red light or stop sign.
>>2023804Blaming people for "car addiction" doesn't make public transportation not shit.
I’m glad to see California getting more transit ridership support. Even in the super car-centric parts of America, transit ridership is significantly increasing.
>>2023806https://www.masstransitmag.com/management/press-release/55135970/los-angeles-county-metropolitan-transportation-authority-metro-la-metro-ridership-increased-for-20th-straight-month-in-julyhttps://la.streetsblog.org/2024/09/19/metro-ridership-keeps-growing-august-boardings-set-pandemic-era-weekend-records
>>2023805So you think the reason people don’t use public transit is because it’s shit? Well then I guess there’s not really a way to fix it. What do you think they could do to do that? There’s nothing. Because even if public transportation got much better Americans are too car centric to even want to think about abandoning their cars regularly. So there’s no point
>>2023812The way to make it not clean is to make it fast, efficient, clean, and safe.
>>2023814Cleanliness and safety will not make people ditch their cars for it, so those two are out. As for speed and efficiency, it will never be as fat and efficient as driving a car, so what impetus would people have to ditch their cars for it?
>>2023806>>2023807I'm also glad to see that. You have no idea how pervasive the carbrain conditioning is here, Chang. I wish we could be more like China. Thanks for the links to those recent articles, btw. Keep 'em coming.
>>2023816Your choice of verbiage is suspect and self-defeating.
>>2023446Theres no getting around the fact that people will cluster in desirable places, anon - be they for reasons related (but not limited to) culture, education, economics, natural resources, friends and family - to say nothing of the fact that, much like how NJB often suggests North America is doomed because we're not bulldozing cities to make everywhere Amsterdam, spreading out a population in flux to a homogenous level of density would be completely impractical.
>>2023800Those 'carbrains' are making points while you just repeat mantra like a broken record.
It’s pretty simple: build more housing downtown and you can fund better transit. The transit also gets more ridership, which likewise increases funding.
>>2023827>It’s pretty simple: build more housing downtownSounds like a gross oversimplification
>>2023794The post you replied to literally says parking minimums are no longer enforced. Looks like you have a learning disability.
>>2023830They were never enforced in downtown. Did >>2023787 really think that parking lots downtown existed because of parking minimums?
>>2023824>Theres no getting around the fact that people will cluster in desirable places, anon - be they for reasons related (but not limited to) culture, education, economics, natural resources, friends and familyOkay, there's practical reasons for density and the reasons cities exist in the first place...>to say nothing of the fact that, much like how NJB often suggests North America is doomed because we're not bulldozing cities to make everywhere Amsterdam, spreading out a population in flux to a homogenous level of density would be completely impracticalNJB hasn't said anything about demolishing skyscrapers, tall buildings, and ultra-dense housing. The typical YouTuber of that ilk just wants to densify suburbia and/or punish people who live that way.
>>2023839The guy you’re responding to is a schizophrenic troll who tries to incorporate misinformation into every one of his posts.
>>2023904as someone who has been called a schizophrenic troll on this board more than a few times, I'd just like to mention that this person thinks everyone he doesn't fully understand or completely agree with is a "schizophrenic troll"
>>2023905If you claim NJB advocates demolishing cities, you’re definitely a schizophrenic troll.
>>2023936>everyone I don't like is one personseems like you might know a thing or two about the 'phrenia
>>2023278I've seen a couple new rail projects in the New York tristate, so I don't think it's a dead dream. A transcontinental highspeed rail is far off, but you can definitely do coastal highspeed and possibly a Great Lakes project. Best way to do it in my opinion is for the federal government to build as much of it on the leftmost lanes of interstate highways by offering states a lease they couldn't refuse and build a train line that would connect at least from Boston to Atlanta and another from San Diego to Seattle.I'd also do a slightly narrower gauge so as to not take up as to minimize the road use.
>>2023764Almost like land speculation is the root of the problem, and antithetical to modern capitalism (modern economies of any type, really).
>>2023958>Best way to do it in my opinion is for the federal government to build as much of it on the leftmost lanes of interstate highwaysBad idea
>>2023694not a problem in japan, you can get an affordable place in tokyo and it's one of the densest places in the world. only extremely geographically limited (hong kong) or extremely underbuilt (LA) places experience such insane housing problems.
>density bad>transit bad >you are chang!>bike lanes badwhat exactly makes this the "transportation" board when it seems like 90% of the posters want to do nothing but drive cars? (maybe talk about bike frames and groupsets only?)
>>2023992>in japanI don't live there and there are so many differences in real estate between there and the US that they're not comparable.
>>2023992Where do you draw the line for affordable?
>>2023999obviously not everyone can afford a nice place in tokyo but pretty much any job can afford some kind of living, usually a small place, but even bachelors are too expensive in many US and canadian cities for people on lower wages, often forcing shared living in smaller and smaller units. you can go look at the rents now, there are 1 bedrooms available under 1000, which even accounting for lower wages in japan is still totally viable.
>>2023984Why? Where else are you going to put it?
>>2024055That's the runoff area for vehicles in emergency situations.
>>2024055Expressways have gradients and curves that were designed for cars to go ~80mph or less (usually less than 60 in urban areas), not trains going 150mph or more. There's also the issue of eliminating roadway capacity since urban freeway medians have normally been completely filled with vehicular lanes.Additionally people don't go to freeways, they are just the conduit we use to get where we want to go. There are youtube videos of bus & light rail stations built in freeway medians in LA and they're extremely unpleasant places for a person to be. That's on top of scrapping expensive highway infrastructure that's already been paid for and replacing it with more expensive infrastructure.Even in rural areas, Interstate medians normally function as drainage areas so building a rail line in them means the drainage will need to be handled with its own infrastructure (instead of letting it run into a ditch), plus there are overpasses with pylons that will have to be completely rebuilt to eliminate obstacles and provide additional vertical clearance.Putting rail down the middle of a freeway isn't the money and time saver people think it will be. New rail lines are just going to be expensive any way you slice it, so you might as well do it right instead of spending so much money on a rail line with many negative tradeoffs.
>>2024060>>2023984The pylons in overpasses is perhaps the biggest issue in freeway medians. Plus, trains can't take the same elevation climbs rubber-tired vehicles can without massive expenditures of energy. It would require complete re-engineering.
>>2024060So the alternatives are to cripple the existing rail rail network for at least a decade or be held up in court for years over eminent domain lawsuits?
>>2023278at a national level, we should nationalize the freight and passenger rail network. Make it exactly like the roads that cars drive on. The government owns all the right of ways, but freight and passenger companies pay to use the rails. Would both prevent maintenance issues like in Palestine Ohio and would allow America to finally have a robust passenger rail network free from being sidelined by freight rail companies.at a local level we eliminate parking minimums, single family zoning, and single use zoning. We stop widening highways and start building commuter rail and light rail services and put all our new development around them. Then we pad the gaps in between out with a bus lane and bike lane network. Not easy, but worth it>>2023297>never stop to consider growth patternsIf you've read your Strong Towns, then you'd know that car-centric growth patterns are literally the main thing urbanists never stop bitching about. To fix it, we need to Kill Sprawl and start focusing our growth on infill development
>>2024087I don't know how an HSR network would cripple the existing rail network, but yes, if you want to take land then prepare to pay people for it. Lawsuits get filed because the government only wants to pay for its assessed value, which is often much lower than the market value. If the government paid the market value + 15% (or whatever), they would save time, money, and legal resources in the long run by eliminating most of the heel-digging from property owners.
>>2024095>Would both prevent maintenance issues like in Palestine OhioThe tracks weren't the issue.>a robust passenger rail network free from being sidelined by freight rail companiesLegally, Amtrak has precedence for rail use, but the freight train lines still take control anyway.>we need to Kill Sprawl and start focusing our growth on infill developmentSprawl keeps growing cities affordable, and the high land value of the inner city means that every new development basically has to be a luxury apartment to be profitable.>If you've read your Strong Towns, then you'd know that car-centric growth patterns are literally the main thing urbanists never stop bitching about. Strong Towns is full of bullshit. Charles Marohn cannot even come up with a consistent definition for what a "suburb" is, cannot come up with a consistent definition for a "road" or a "street" is, and cannot come up with a clear, compelling case about how suburban growth is a money sink without making things up. However, since Strong Towns is the Bible for urbanists, any questions about it are treated as a religious zealot would--that you are an unbeliever and are objectively wrong.
>>2024118>The tracks weren't the issue.You're not allowed to drive on a government road if your car can't pass an inspection. If the government owned the rails, the same would be true about the trains' brakes. Trains should be required to follow the same kind of inspections that cars do>but the freight train lines still take control anyway.Well maybe we shouldn't leave it up to the freight rail companies to enforce the US government's laws. If the Federal government owned the tracks, then we wouldn't be at the mercy of the freight rail companies>Sprawl keeps growing cities affordable,It literally does the opposite because in order to sprawl, we need all new sewage, lighting, law enforcement, road and road maintenance, and schools. It is the most expensive way to grow a community from both a municipal level and a housing cost level>high land value of the inner city means that every new development basically has to be a luxury apartment to be profitable.No it does not. If we legalized dense housing and got rid of parking minimums as I suggested, we could affordably mass produce homes in the heart of the city, raising supply and increasing affordability. Works in every other country, it can work here. The "Luxury apartment" problem is literally the result of housing regulations being so strict that the most expensive apartments are the only one that is financially feasible for a business to build>definition for whata "suburb" isI'm not going to bother typing up a response for this because it's clear you don't bother reading anything. If you think I'm wrong, click here: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/9/20/the-suburbs-are-a-one-life-cycle-product>Describes the suburban style of building, with single-story malls and shops, wide streets and winding subdivisions—all of which will likely fall apart within a few decades, with little money or plan in place to fix them.
>>2024096why should the government have to pay market value to build HSR but when it comes to building a highway they can just eminent domain the land away?
>>2024144>If the government owned the rails, the same would be true about the trains' brakes.Nta but the brakes weren't the issue either>Trains should be required to follow the same kind of inspections that cars doThey have more stringent inspections and rules than automobiles>Well maybe we shouldn't leave it up to the freight rail companies to enforce the US government's laws.The FRA has inspectors that do that, many states have their own inspectors tooAlso>StrongtownsIt's like thinking Free Republic or Democratic Underground is still relevant today. Can't believe you'd fall back on them lol
>>2024147yes it was the brakes>have more stringent inspections and rules than automobilesthat's cool man but if there's no mechanism for forcing them it's kind of like there's *no* rules, right?>The FRA has inspectors that do that, many states have their own inspectors tooAgain, if the freight rail companies own the rails, then any federal or state inspectors are really just a suggestionNationalize the railroadsIf you don't like the idea that making a whole new sewage system, lighting system, road network, basically build a whole new town whenever you want to build a house isn't economically feasible, it doesn't matter who it is telling you that. Infill development >>> suburban sprawl: https://campuspress.yale.edu/ledger/urban-sprawl-a-growing-problem/
>>2024149>yes it was the brakesNo, it was a failed journal. Electro-pneumatic brakes wouldn't have prevented the accident.>that's cool man but if there's no mechanism for forcing them>federal or state inspectors are really just a suggestionClueless. The FRA can enforce its mandates. They can and do fine railroads and even railroad employees. No railroader (management or craft) wants to get popped by a surprise FRA inspection, but they happen all the time. Btw, railroads have their own 'stealth teams' that show up unannounced to see if everyone's in compliance with their rules - rules which meet or exceed federal standards.You're raging against something you haven't taken any time to understand, very typical behavior among college communists.>making a whole new sewage system, lighting system, road network, basically build a whole new town whenever you want to build a house isn't economically feasibleYes it is. How do I know? It's been going on for the better part of a century. If it wasn't "economically feasible," it wouldn't have been happening for so long.
You’ve got to build more apartments and mixed-use buildings downtown to make it easier to walk around and fund transit upgrades. In most cities we’re already doing that but there’s still a ways to go.
>>2023993That’s not 90% of the board, it’s just a few hyperautistic spammers.
^ the hyperautistic spammer emerges again
>>2024144>Trains should be required to follow the same kind of inspections that cars doIt's called the Federal Railroad Administration. If they weren't doing their jobs then derailments would be much more common.>If the Federal government owned the tracks, then we wouldn't be at the mercy of the freight rail companiesUnless there are government agents stationed at every junction to ensure Amtrak trains go through that's not happening either way.>It literally does the opposite because in order to sprawl, we need all new sewage, lighting, law enforcement, road and road maintenance, and schools. It is the most expensive way to grow a community from both a municipal level and a housing cost levelThose aren't all fixed costs, and actual suburbs (not part of the "host" city) have lower costs of living. The most "car dependent" city in Los Angeles metro area, Huntington Beach, has a calculated fire department cost (as a point of example) per resident (budget vs. per capita) of $243, while NYC has $235. Comparing the densest city in the U.S. to one of the most "car-centric" suburbs of one of the most "car-centric" metro areas has only a MARGINAL difference.
>>2024144(Continuing from >>2024176)>The "Luxury apartment" problem is literally the result of housing regulations being so strict that the most expensive apartments are the only one that is financially feasible for a business to buildSo you're admitting that urban areas like Portland, Seattle, and New York are too strict in housing regulations? Okay. In all seriousness, though--this "apartments can't be built in the suburbs" is bullshit anyway because they're being built there all their time.>it's clear you don't bother reading anything. If you think I'm wrong, click here:https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/9/20/the-suburbs-are-a-one-life-cycle-productYapping about "suburban ponzi schemes" is meaningless without evidence. The infrastructure cost in most city budgets is negligible, and the two "studies" I've seen with Strong Towns--Ferguson and Lafayette, are complete junk. Ferguson he either misread the budget or lied about it, and Lafayette he claimed was "going bankrupt" by pointing at a few theoretical stats and they have yet to declare bankruptcy. In fact, the cities that have declared bankruptcy is due to pensions, a result of a bloated administration.
>>2024178Doesn’t matter if suburbs are a Ponzi scheme or not, you need more upscale apartments in city centers to fund public transit and give it more ridership. More upscale apartments downtown also means more businesses downtown.
Houston is incredibly sprawled but they achieve good light rail ridership because they build a lot of new housing near the train stations. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/14/book-lost-subways-north-america-jake-berman
>>2024586True, Houston is sprawled out. Have you seen the picture of downtown from 50 years ago? Thanks for the link to a foreign media outlet's year-old article btw, Chang.
>>2024586>>2024586I don't think it's that simple. If you look at the original 7.5 line it worked well because it hit up a lot of the major employment centers and places where people actually went. A park-and-ride just off the freeway, the Reliant Energy (now NRG) venues, the Medical Center, the zoo, and downtown, as well as another neighborhood south of downtown, Midtown.Midtown's apartment growth--the same type of "mixed-use" buildings popular with urbanist types, were being built more and more, and by 2017, directly off the light rail line (so effectively 13 years of growth).However, the other lines haven't done nearly as well. In December 2013, the line was extended another 5.4 miles, followed by another 10 miles between two other lines.According to the American Public Transportation Association, in 2012 the rail ridership of Houston METRO was 38,800 with daily ridership (weekday) and by 2016 after the new lines had been built that number only increased to 56,600, so even though the number of miles tripled they couldn't even double the ridership. Those numbers are a lot better now (182k according to APTA) but the other lines well underperformed their original projections, so I assume that the high ridership is on the original Red Line segment which always did well and is doing better.The other lines have well under-performed estimates (like 20-40% of what they were supposed to be) and even over 10 years later hasn't had anything close to transit oriented development. A few mid-rise apartment buildings, maybe, but those are going up everywhere and not near train lines...and while Midtown has seen mixed-use apartments right up near the train line, it also has full parking garages for residents.
>>2024597You’re claiming ridership isn’t good unless it’s doubled, which is hilariously retarded. You’re also using 2016 figures at the latest so you’re just embarrassing yourself.Houston’s made massive improvements in rail ridership by building lots of multifamily housing near the stations.
>>2024687>You're claiming ridership isn't good unless it's doubled, which is hilariously retarded.Mass transit advocates are always going on that mass transit is good because it is more efficient. Why should a mass transit system triple in size if the ridership won't go up anywhere near those numbers? (Not to mention how many of those are just bus numbers that got turned into train numbers).>You're also using 2016 figures at the latest so you're just embarrassing yourself.182k is modern numbers. Where did you get "2016 figures at the latest" from?>Houston’s made massive improvements in rail ridership by building lots of multifamily housing near the stations.They're building multifamily housing literally everywhere. The point is, if the light rail was a big factor in that, where's all the mixed-use and apartments specifically near stations built in the less affluent areas? Is it possible that the light rail had little to do with the new apartment buildings and it was gentrifying anyway? The world may never know...
>>2024597Eh I’d trust a transit historian over a schizophrenic faggot on the internet (you).
>>2024745>EhOpinion discarded.
>>2024745>he wrote a book, therefore he's more credible and everyone else is a crackpotWith that mindset, why aren't you extolling the virtues of Randal O'Toole over any given "transit" YouTuber?
>>2024586>” American cities do not make particularly good use of the land near their transit systems. For instance, many stops on [the Bay Area’s Bay Area Rapid Transit] Bart is surrounded mostly by strip malls, or single-family homes or gigantic parking lots.”> While Dallas may conform to stereotypes about gas-guzzling Texans and their lack of good mass transit, the neighboring city of Houston proved to be one of the locations that is doing transit right. As Berman explains, Houston’s light rail within the city’s core took advantage of reforms in laws reducing mandatory parking lots and increasing housing density – the result is that transit in the city’s core functions far better than similar light rail in places like Dallas and Los Angeles, which don’t give access to major infrastructure and employment hubs, and which don’t supply adequate housing.Makes sense. LA needs to build a lot more apartments.
>>2024752In our country, people prefer buying rather than renting, Chang.
>>2024757>you can't own an apartmentThis shit again, I appreciate your changposting because the yimby spammer does nothing but shit this place up but sometimes you say some dumb shit. Sabio en cada campo
>>2024763>you won't own an apartmentftfyno sane, non-homosexual married person would willingly choose an apartment for his family
Building more apartments makes homeownership more attainable because it reduces the price of housing. Win-win for everyone. Also the obvious fact that it funds infrastructure upgrades and boosts local businesses.
>>2024791>Apartments>Increase home ownershipCondos increase home ownership. Apartments are the opposite of that.
>>2024791>>2024799To elaborate on the point a bit, apartments use up finite real-estate in an environment where there is enough pricing pressure that multiple dwelling units can pay off in a quick time frame, and people looking to own their own property will have to live further out. This brings us right back to the eternal problem that public transportation only exists for urbanites who rent to live and live to eat at urban restaurants.
>>2023993All you want is endless threads about walkable city fantasies and throwing heaps of money at vaporware rail projects. I'm here to look at pictures of cool planes, ships, trains, and bicycles.
>>2023993the yimby spammers can't seem to talk about anything except cars, houston, cars, dallas, and cars, it's almost like they have nothing to talk about because cars are the only thing they know or care about
>>2024799Apartments and condos both reduce the cost of housing and make homeownership more attainable. If you’re worried about “finite space” in a city just make sure to build lots of multifamily because it uses space wisely.Off-topic point anyway. Building more multifamily helps revive the downtown core and fund public transit upgrades, which answers OP’s question.
>>2024808>Building more multifamily helps revive the downtown core and fund public transit upgrades, which answers OP’s questionI don't think it does. Funding public transit is kind of a moot point since everyone in the region contributes to it. Reviving the downtown core adds people, which is useful for creating a retail base, but nearly all of those multifamily apartments have parking garages for residents, most of which have cars, and cramming more people in means more vehicles, which contributes to the problem in OP's picture to begin with.
>>2023278>How to fix US public transportation?Abolish all zoning lawsRevoke all federal govt support for transport infrastructure in the USIf a city/state wants to add roads/fix roads, cool, they can pay for it/thread>t. an American
>>2024808Forgot to add: the people living in these apartments will steadily replace more of their trips with walking and transit because the distance for trips is shorter. So even if they have cars, it contributes to better transit in the city.
>>2024808The efficiency of multi-family dwellings becomes inefficiency if you start planning on a wife and kids, which makes the development planning a lot more difficult. Nobody's managed to hit a good balance there, and the result is that apartments are for singles or couples with no kids, who need to change their lifestyle immediately and permanently if they have any kids, and they lose the benefit of whatever transportation system you've built for urban commuting.
>>2024831>Forgot to add: the people living in these apartments will steadily replace more of their trips with walking and transit because the distance for trips is shorter.Almost no city has better transit times than driving and that completely breaks if you're interested in going anywhere other than a straight line.
>>2024843My family spent a chunk of my youth in apartments.Also had a ton of friends who grew up in apartments.You just keep a slightly smaller life, and take advantage of city amenities for the kids rather than stuff close to home.Once the kids can catch a city bus, then they're golden. Just zip all over town and do whatever the fuck they fancy.Parents used to give us annual passes for the amusement park and we'd find our own way there.3 bedroom apartments are a little underbuilt these days, though, if you have more-than-2 kids.
>>2024852>Once the kids can catch a city bus, then they're goldenNo responsible parent is letting their kids go anywhere alone on public transit in 2024
>>2024831Classic example of this is Brickell in Miami. Miami’s been a car-dependent city but with all the new towers going up it’s becoming much more pedestrian-friendly. Brickell’s actually a beautiful place. A friend of mine just moved there from NYC.
>>2024843Build lots of apartments and condos so more families can afford single-family detached houses (if that’s what they truly prefer to buy). Win-win.
>>2023446It's a combination of density and location of jobs. Even low density areas can have terrible traffic if everyone in those areas has to drive at the same time to get to and from work.
>>2024854>No responsible parent is letting their kids go anywhereAnd they wonder why the kids are turning out broken after the pandemic...
>>2024855I hope your friend Xiang has settled into Miami nicely, Chang.
First off, gas tax needs to be raised significantly and most highways need to be tolled to cover their massive costs to the taxpayer. Any leftover funds can be sent towards public transit and bike lanes.
>>2024951>Duhhh this won't increase the cost of goods and services I useSo tiresome
>>2024855>yimbys hate cities and love maga shit hole theocraciesin other news, water is wet
>>2024855Love seeing sprawled places become more city-like. If we raised the gas tax and tolled more highways we would see even more progress.
>>2025012People always have the choice to just leave, and if it gets too frustrating, expensive, or unpalatable to be there, they often will. You're seeing what you want to happen, don't beat people with sticks to try and make it happen faster, because they'll probably just quit instead.
>>2023278give elon musk moar money and cut government spending
>>2025014Totally agreed. Therefore there’s no reason to force parking minimums or single-family zoning or deliberately cripple transit and pedestrianism anymore. Level the playing field and raise that gas tax so drivers finally pay their fair share and transit gets its fair share of funding. Based.
>>2025042>Level the playing field and raise that gas tax so drivers finally pay their fair share and transit gets its fair share of fundingTransit does get its fair share of funding, its riders benefit from generous subsidies. If highway users have to pay full price, so should public transit riders.>Well actually they shouldn't have to becau-No.
Dedicated bike lanes and bus lanes throughout all the downtowns would be a huge help, and would spur more transit-oriented development.
>>2023792>Every US city is New York, Dallas, Chicago or LA
>>2025092Yep, dedicated bike and bus lanes would be a huge help and definitely increase transit oriented development, Chang. But I recommend linking a recent article to make the carbrains melt down, lol.
>>2023356imagine living between two L pieces
>>2025094Atlanta, Houston, Miami, Nashville and DC also have really bad car traffic.
>>2025135>conveniently cropping out the streetcar company name which ran the adThis is like using a Ford ad as "proof" of automobile superiority
>>2025189Not really, I knew it was an ad for a streetcar. The content in the pic is still true: streetcars are a way better improvement for traffic than private automobiles. Thanks for finding the original for me though, fukken saved.
It's Trump time now MotherFuckers! Your Fucking cries and shrieks for better public transit is about to get it's Shit kicked in! We building more suburbs you Cocksuckers!
>>2025200>The content in the pic is still true: streetcars are a way better improvement for traffic than private automobiles.The funny thing is that the streetcars were the ones that facilitated the city's first sprawl and WFTC in particular profited from real estate development. Worshipping streetcar companies is literally the "it's okay when we do it".Besides, a full-page ad at that point was desperation and they switched to buses in 1933 on their own volition.
>>2025095Hey little buddy. Is Chang in the room with us now?
