2 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

And yet, I have been part of teams who have come up with great new products only to be told by management that we cannot afford a 3-year payback.  So some great products sit on the shelf because the bean-counters wouldn't even allow us to test the market.  Maybe the market wouldn't have cared for the improvements, or maybe manufacturing would have cost more than forecast, but we'll never know.

 

Economics trumps Engineering in different ways.

 

Yes it does.  Engineering is mostly economics, but the reverse is not the case.   Not even close.

 

The good news is management is too conservative, there are economic consequences.   Just as if it is too bold.

 

For government, there are none.

Edited June 1, 20223 yr by E Rocc

3 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Completely irrelevant anecdotes are a sign of one who is more interesting in fooling people, or trolling, than getting things done.

How is it irrelevant? The people who drive the most are also the most unhealthy. Maybe we should be looking more into this correlation?  
 

https://www.safetynewsalert.com/top-10-occupations-prone-to-obesity/

 

 

21 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

 

So it was "leadership" that "forced car dependency on everyone" but "not leadership" to be "plowing over neighborhoods?"

 

I don't think I'm the one using the term leadership inconsistently here.

Yes, in the English language, words can be used in multiple ways. The first quote is referring to a group of people, aka the people making long-term planning decisions. The second is referring the principle of being a good leader. Just because someone in charge is charging in a specific direction, that doesn't make it good or acceptable.

Congress and the White House are leaders of the country but that doesn't mean that they are comprised of good leaders or are making good decisions.

Tires now produce more pollution than tailpipes -- another sign that electric cars alone are not the answer.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyres-produce-more-particle-pollution-than-exhausts-tests-show

 

^ One solution seems to be to make tires out of natural rubber, like how car tires were made from goldenrod grown in Ohio back in the day. 

Just now, ucgrady said:

^ One solution seems to be to make tires out of natural rubber, like how car tires were made from goldenrod grown in Ohio back in the day. 

And fewer tires on the roadways...a recurrent theme of this subject.

On 6/2/2022 at 9:49 AM, Dev said:

Yes, in the English language, words can be used in multiple ways. The first quote is referring to a group of people, aka the people making long-term planning decisions. The second is referring the principle of being a good leader. Just because someone in charge is charging in a specific direction, that doesn't make it good or acceptable.

Congress and the White House are leaders of the country but that doesn't mean that they are comprised of good leaders or are making good decisions.

 

Yes, but you changed both the definition and the context to suit your argument--and to deflect from my counter of your original point with the meaning and context you originally used.

 

You used leadership to mean a group of people making decisions.  I responded using the same definition.  Then you changed it and acted like I had done so as well.  That is either a bad faith argument or a lack of reading comprehension.

 

My response to your original point stands:

 

On 6/1/2022 at 11:19 AM, Gramarye said:

Here's the thing about leadership and what they force on everyone: This isn't Russia or China.  Leaders were responding to the demand for suburban living, not creating it.  I think you still have this image in your head of all these miserable people trapped in the suburbs, just as too many suburbanites have this image of all those miserable people still trapped in the cities and "glad we got out."

 

I get that you're unimpressed with the leadership provided by our leadership.  But the decisions of those political decisionmakers back then, and now, were constrained by popular will (and supported by it).  Do you think that those decisionmakers could have gotten away with saying "no" to the political demand for new suburbs back then?  Or even today?

 

34 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Tires now produce more pollution than tailpipes -- another sign that electric cars alone are not the answer.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyres-produce-more-particle-pollution-than-exhausts-tests-show

 

 

You left out an important word.  They produce more particle pollution than tailpipes.  I couldn't even find a listing of what qualifies as a particle pollutant, but there is no way that it includes CO2 and it probably won't even include most other exhaust gases.

 

And of course electric cars "alone" are not "the answer" (not to mention I think we still might even have different conceptions of the problem).  But they are a significant part of making exurbia, suburbia, and autocentric urban neighborhoods both less carbon-intense and more affordable in the long-run as the era of cheap gasoline recedes into the historical rearview.

Relevant to several threads, but this is where the discussion is currently happening, so:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

Do you think that those decisionmakers could have gotten away with saying "no" to the political demand for new suburbs back then?  Or even today?

If I understand you right, you are stating that the public was asking for auto sprawl and the elected and unelected leaders of our country just gave them what they want. I fundamentally disagree with this point. The leadership of the country was selling it to them, especially at a level that was unnecessary. There were decades of propaganda to normalize auto reliance, and attack alternatives.

Additionally, the public who were demanding auto infrastructure were not the majority.
 

8 minutes ago, Dev said:

If I understand you right, you are stating that the public was asking for auto sprawl and the elected and unelected leaders of our country just gave them what they want. I fundamentally disagree with this point. The leadership of the country was selling it to them, especially at a level that was unnecessary. There were decades of propaganda to normalize auto reliance, and attack alternatives.

Additionally, the public who were demanding auto infrastructure were not the majority.
 

 

You understand me right.  And I'm curious what your evidence is for asserting that the public who were demanding auto infrastructure were not the majority.

On 5/31/2022 at 6:23 AM, E Rocc said:

The last line is bordering on Sim City Syndrome here.   

You missed the point. 

 

On 5/31/2022 at 6:48 AM, E Rocc said:

The vast majority of Americans are not willing to collectivize their transportation.  They are willing to pay for it, at least in principle.  They are very willing to defend their ability to move around at whim.  

Public roads are a collectivized transportation system, especially with the system we have set up in the U.S.:  Build roads and little else, then subsidize the heck out of them. 

 

I would say most Americans aren't willing to pay for it.  Congress won't raise the gas tax because of the political fallout that would ensue.    The result is that Congress has been bailing out the Highway Trust Fund for a decade or so now.

 

Regarding "moving around at whim":  that's something everyone throughout the developed world can do, and many countries do a better job of it than the U.S.  Our approach limits the mobility of people who can't drive because they are too old, too young, or have physical limitations, to say nothing of those who want to drive less. 

 

On 5/31/2022 at 8:45 AM, Gramarye said:

I'm well aware that demand outstrips supply, but that's because new builds in dense, walkable, mixed-use, transit-friendly areas are probably something like 5% or 10% of total new development. 

 

And the reason it's only a small part of new development is because it's illegal to build in the vast majority of the country.  Zoning laws are preventing the market from responding.

 

On 6/1/2022 at 10:37 AM, Gramarye said:

I don't the question about where I would let a 5-year-old bike is fair, though.

I disagree.  I think it is a fair question.  There are other countries where kids can and do bike (and walk) safely at that age, and it's considered quite normal: 
https://youtu.be/ul_xzyCDT98?t=89

 

(Jason Slaughter re-did the above video recently and made it better, but that one is on Nebula, which requires a paid subscription). 

 

On 6/1/2022 at 11:19 AM, Gramarye said:

Leaders were responding to the demand for suburban living, not creating it. 

Yes, there was demand for suburban living; however, there was more than one way to deliver it, and the U.S. embarked on an entirely car-centric model.  I agree with James Howard Kunstler on this who said we went with the car-centric model "because it seemed like a good idea at the time".  But we ended up mandating it in zoning codes and the whole thing wound up on auto-pilot.   We didn't realize back then that building in this sprawled-out manner would ultimately make cities functionally bankrupt-- a reality which is covered up by state and federal aid to cities for maintaining their infrastructure.     

 

While, politically speaking, I'm all over the map, it seems to me that anyone who is a pro-market, smaller government conservative should embrace zoning changes and other law changes that would result in giving the market more power to respond to demand and make cities more self-sufficient and thus less dependent upon state and federal handouts.  One example of "other law changes" would be to require cities to list their roads, streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure as liabilities their balance sheets.  They are currently listed as assets.  The private sector already knows these things aren't assets because with very few exceptions, whenever they build a new development, they make an agreement to turn over the maintenance to the municipality-- privatize gains, socialize losses. 

On 6/3/2022 at 1:43 PM, Gramarye said:

 

You understand me right.  And I'm curious what your evidence is for asserting that the public who were demanding auto infrastructure were not the majority.

 

Where's your evidence?

 

Sprawl is a result of a variety of government policies, such as highway spending that enabled suburban commuting, school residency requirements that force city residents into poverty packed public schools while creating affluent suburban schools, and federal housing policies that favored suburbanites over city residents.

 

Sprawl was/is nothing more than a product of government engineering.

Edited June 6, 20223 yr by Clefan98

40 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

On 6/3/2022 at 1:43 PM, Gramarye said:

 

On 6/3/2022 at 1:35 PM, Dev said:

If I understand you right, you are stating that the public was asking for auto sprawl and the elected and unelected leaders of our country just gave them what they want. I fundamentally disagree with this point. The leadership of the country was selling it to them, especially at a level that was unnecessary. There were decades of propaganda to normalize auto reliance, and attack alternatives.

Additionally, the public who were demanding auto infrastructure were not the majority.
 

You understand me right.  And I'm curious what your evidence is for asserting that the public who were demanding auto infrastructure were not the majority.

 

Where's your evidence?

 

That's not how it works.  You were the one who said that "the public who were demanding auto infrastructure were not in the majority," even though they never seemed to vote out the people who gave them auto infrastructure, nor did anyone notable win office promising to stop it.  That is, to put it mildly, extremely counterintuitive.  I would like to see you provide evidence that there was widespread opposition to the construction of the interstate highway system in the 1950s, not specifically through its most controversial paths (the ones that involved bulldozing poor inner neighborhoods), but in toto, from people who believed that the construction of suburbs was per se a bad thing.  Or, if that's not the right frame of reference, then from people who believed whatever it is you want me to believe the real majority position was back then.

48 minutes ago, gildone said:

And the reason it's only a small part of new development is because it's illegal to build in the vast majority of the country.  Zoning laws are preventing the market from responding.

 

Yes, there was demand for suburban living; however, there was more than one way to deliver it, and the U.S. embarked on an entirely car-centric model.  I agree with James Howard Kunstler on this who said we went with the car-centric model "because it seemed like a good idea at the time".  But we ended up mandating it in zoning codes and the whole thing wound up on auto-pilot.   We didn't realize back then that building in this sprawled-out manner would ultimately make cities functionally bankrupt-- a reality which is covered up by state and federal aid to cities for maintaining their infrastructure.     

 

While, politically speaking, I'm all over the map, it seems to me that anyone who is a pro-market, smaller government conservative should embrace zoning changes and other law changes that would result in giving the market more power to respond to demand and make cities more self-sufficient and thus less dependent upon state and federal handouts.  One example of "other law changes" would be to require cities to list their roads, streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure as liabilities their balance sheets.  They are currently listed as assets.  The private sector already knows these things aren't assets because with very few exceptions, whenever they build a new development, they make an agreement to turn over the maintenance to the municipality-- privatize gains, socialize losses. 

 

You and I are very close to the same page here, though I disagree about characterizing roads, streets, and sidewalks as liabilities (they're depreciating assets).  However, I don't think you'll find very many comments from me on these forums supporting low-density zoning codes, whether in urban cores or in suburban municipalities and townships.  I know there are some conservatives whose deregulatory zeal has a blind spot where low-density zoning is concerned, but I'm not one of them; if someone wanted to put up a 20-story residential tower in Bath Township, I'd say go for it, if the ground can physically support it.  Similarly, I don't think historic preservation commissions in urban cores should have any material ability to block higher-density development.  There is at least some amount of sprawl that results from cities shooting themselves in the foot--exurbs and townships aren't the only placer where you'll find zoning codes that force less dense development than the market would demand.  I oppose anti-density zoning regulations equally in both cases.

 

The difference is the point I mentioned upthread: If you eliminated anti-density requirements in zoning and historic preservation ordinances, you would get more dense, walkable neighborhoods, but you could double or triple the amount of new development in those building forms and still not get to a majority (let alone near-exclusivity).  Suburbs are still popular and are going to be with us, and so I think it's important to think about what sustainable suburbs will look like, and resist the overzealous impulse to say "there's no such thing"--that kind of fanaticism basically takes you out of the conversation.  It's simply outside the Overton window of contemporary land use debates.

Mistake post.  Mods please delete

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by gildone

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

You and I are very close to the same page here,

Thanks for the clarification.  I think we understand each other better here.  I'm ok agreeing to disagree on some points.  Like I said in a post awhile back, we're all allowed to have differing opinions. 

3 hours ago, Gramarye said:

You and I are very close to the same page here, though I disagree about characterizing roads, streets, and sidewalks as liabilities (they're depreciating assets). 

When does a depreciating asset become a liability? When you can't afford to service it with your income? If that's the case, then suburban infrastructure should be largely considered a liability as the revenue collected from these delevopements does not approach the cost to maintain the infrastructure.

 

https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme

6 hours ago, Gramarye said:

Suburbs are still popular and are going to be with us, and so I think it's important to think about what sustainable suburbs will look like, and resist the overzealous impulse to say "there's no such thing"--that kind of fanaticism basically takes you out of the conversation.  It's simply outside the Overton window of contemporary land use debates.

Only because we subsidize sprawl -- if those low-density suburbs had to pay the full cost to build and maintain all of that spread-out infrastructure they would fail in a hurry.

My suburban town will not annex SFH over .3 of an acre because it knows it's a net negative. It's why the borders are so balkanized and it's been the city's policy for a long time. They will annex the crap out of commercial/industrial though. 

 

It even refuses to annex the large independent auto repair shop cluster on the NE side of town since the payroll taxes are too low.

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by GCrites80s

7 hours ago, Balkmusic said:

When does a depreciating asset become a liability? When you can't afford to service it with your income? If that's the case, then suburban infrastructure should be largely considered a liability as the revenue collected from these delevopements does not approach the cost to maintain the infrastructure.

 

https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme

 

Assets and liabilities are separate.  Your house is still an asset even if you are underwater on the mortgage; same with your car.

 

4 hours ago, Foraker said:

Only because we subsidize sprawl -- if those low-density suburbs had to pay the full cost to build and maintain all of that spread-out infrastructure they would fail in a hurry.

 

This line of argument proves too much.  Do you really think that the government should not subsidize transportation infrastructure?  That might cause suburbs to collapse, but it would do the same to cities if every urban house was assessed the full cost of building and maintaining streets, too, especially in lower-income neighborhoods.  Almost all of modern civilization would collapse without publicly funded transportation infrastructure.  Government construction of roads goes back to at least the Roman Empire (and those roads were major imperial assets).  Transportation infrastructure like streetcars, light rail, subways, and bike trails requires subsidies, too.

 

We subsidize transportation infrastructure in part because it enables economic activity that partially offsets the cost of that infrastructure when those economic activities are taxed, and in part because life is simply better with more personal mobility.

3 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

Assets and liabilities are separate.  Your house is still an asset even if you are underwater on the mortgage; same with your car.

 

 

This line of argument proves too much.  Do you really think that the government should not subsidize transportation infrastructure?  That might cause suburbs to collapse, but it would do the same to cities if every urban house was assessed the full cost of building and maintaining streets, too, especially in lower-income neighborhoods.  Almost all of modern civilization would collapse without publicly funded transportation infrastructure.  Government construction of roads goes back to at least the Roman Empire (and those roads were major imperial assets).  Transportation infrastructure like streetcars, light rail, subways, and bike trails requires subsidies, too.

 

We subsidize transportation infrastructure in part because it enables economic activity that partially offsets the cost of that infrastructure when those economic activities are taxed, and in part because life is simply better with more personal mobility.

 

I know I'll be called ableist or something for saying this - but we should prioritize bike infrastructure within urban areas before anything else, for two reasons:

 

1. Few people want to say this - but Americans are way too soft, literally. Over a third of serious health insurance claims are obesity related. If we make riding a bike as easy and safe as riding a bus or in a car within urban areas, it will have a positive overall impact on heart health and overall well being. This is especially true for low income individuals who often can't afford more nutritious food, a gym pass, et al. 

 

2. It's simply more efficient. It takes me 9 minutes on average to bike to work from my house. It takes me 9 minutes to drive (Shoreway to W.3rd to Key Garage), and it takes me 14 minutes on the 26/26A. I've done each 5+ times this summer and kept a tally for this exact purpose. Beyond that, when I park at the Key Garage, I'm paying $16 for the day - the bus is $5 for a day pass, and the bike rack at Medical Mart is free. 

 

Make bike infrastructure, and it will have staggering downstream affects. 

4 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

I know I'll be called ableist or something for saying this - but we should prioritize bike infrastructure within urban areas before anything else, for two reasons:

 

1. Few people want to say this - but Americans are way too soft, literally. Over a third of serious health insurance claims are obesity related. If we make riding a bike as easy and safe as riding a bus or in a car within urban areas, it will have a positive overall impact on heart health and overall well being. This is especially true for low income individuals who often can't afford more nutritious food, a gym pass, et al. 

 

2. It's simply more efficient. It takes me 9 minutes on average to bike to work from my house. It takes me 9 minutes to drive (Shoreway to W.3rd to Key Garage), and it takes me 14 minutes on the 26/26A. I've done each 5+ times this summer and kept a tally for this exact purpose. Beyond that, when I park at the Key Garage, I'm paying $16 for the day - the bus is $5 for a day pass, and the bike rack at Medical Mart is free. 

 

Make bike infrastructure, and it will have staggering downstream affects. 

 

Of all the "ists" that have sprung up in the last decade, "ableist" is probably the worst.    Life itself is "ableist".

15 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Where's your evidence?

 

Sprawl is a result of a variety of government policies, such as highway spending that enabled suburban commuting, school residency requirements that force city residents into poverty packed public schools while creating affluent suburban schools, and federal housing policies that favored suburbanites over city residents.

 

Sprawl was/is nothing more than a product of government engineering.

 

Not so at all.    We've talked about this on the sprawl thread.   It was a cultural perfect storm after WWII.   If government "engineered" it it was because people demanded it, for various reasons.

 

 

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by E Rocc

 

54 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Not so at all.    We've talked about this on the sprawl thread.   It was a cultural perfect storm after WWII.   If government "engineered" it it was because people demanded it, for various reasons.

 

 

 

Not entirely disagree with this notion. However, there's also an argument to be made that the government artificially created those reasons for sprawl, and then the people followed. It's all propaganda one way or the other.

35 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

 

Not entirely disagree with this notion. However, there's also an argument to be made that the government artificially created those reasons for sprawl, and then the people followed. It's all propaganda one way or the other.

 

Short version:  the soldiers and sailors came home from World War II.   They had had their fill of dense living conditions in barracks and on ships.   They had experience with using and fixing motorized transportation, and with construction.   If the formerly rural war workers stayed put (many showed an inclination to do exactly that) they were going to need places to live and things to do.  Government  was wary of them, as it turned out for good reason as they weren’t shy about employing their clout.   Their construction skills were worth preserving in case of natural disasters or more wars.   This last part continues to apply today.

 

The formerly rural workers also wanted more living space.   Suburbanization was a solution to all these issues, cars and freeways made it practical.

5 hours ago, Gramarye said:

Assets and liabilities are separate.  Your house is still an asset even if you are underwater on the mortgage; same with your car.

You are making a poor semantic argument that adds nothing to this discussion.

1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

 

I know I'll be called ableist or something for saying this - but we should prioritize bike infrastructure within urban areas before anything else, for two reasons:

 

1. Few people want to say this - but Americans are way too soft, literally. Over a third of serious health insurance claims are obesity related. If we make riding a bike as easy and safe as riding a bus or in a car within urban areas, it will have a positive overall impact on heart health and overall well being. This is especially true for low income individuals who often can't afford more nutritious food, a gym pass, et al. 

 

2. It's simply more efficient. It takes me 9 minutes on average to bike to work from my house. It takes me 9 minutes to drive (Shoreway to W.3rd to Key Garage), and it takes me 14 minutes on the 26/26A. I've done each 5+ times this summer and kept a tally for this exact purpose. Beyond that, when I park at the Key Garage, I'm paying $16 for the day - the bus is $5 for a day pass, and the bike rack at Medical Mart is free. 

 

Make bike infrastructure, and it will have staggering downstream affects. 

 

You're an ableist, elitist, urbanist snob. 🧐

 

I like it. 😎  😁

 

Bike infrastructure also has the advantage of being comparatively cheap per lane-mile both to build and to maintain.

 

However, I'm sure you're aware of the fairly obvious limitations, and not just based on physical ability (though the center-of-gravity of preferences on these boards is definitely closer to the young, childless, and male than the national average).  You can commute in like this from Detroit-Shoreway, Ohio City, or Tremont, but even with the best bike path and a laser-straight route, you couldn't do this from Westlake or Avon on a daily basis (let alone Medina or Geauga Counties)--it would take up too much of your day.  It would also be dicey if you had to wear a suit for the day, especially if the weather looked at all unpredictable.  Likewise if you were a tradesman and needed to carry a tool set or anything else bulky or heavy.  Last but certainly not least, this doesn't work if you need to drop off the kids on your way in or pick them up on your way home.

 

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

Of all the "ists" that have sprung up in the last decade, "ableist" is probably the worst.    Life itself is "ableist".

 

OT: "ableist" is up there, but the worst is "speciesist."

 

37 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

Not entirely disagree with this notion. However, there's also an argument to be made that the government artificially created those reasons for sprawl, and then the people followed. It's all propaganda one way or the other.

 

People overestimate the effects of propaganda, especially propaganda that encourages people to believe something they aren't already prepared to believe.

 

1 minute ago, Balkmusic said:

You are making a poor semantic argument that adds nothing to this discussion.

 

Actually, I'm giving you Accounting 101.

5 hours ago, Gramarye said:

That might cause suburbs to collapse, but it would do the same to cities if every urban house was assessed the full cost of building and maintaining streets, too, especially in lower-income neighborhoods. 

Something to check out... Strong Towns has about a dozen case studies that looked at what various neighborhoods of cities generate in terms of tax revenue relative to infrastructure expenses.  As it turns out, a lot of older, pre-WWII, poor areas are subsidizing car-centric sprawling areas.  It's interesting reading.  Note:  I'm trying to find the studies on Strong Towns website, but they seem to have disappeared.  The studies were done in cooperation with a organization called Urban3.   Strong Towns has posted some lectures on You Tube that incorporate some of the case studies, if you feel like searching for them.

 

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by gildone

4 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

You're an ableist, elitist, urbanist snob. 🧐

 

I like it. 😎  😁

 

Bike infrastructure also has the advantage of being comparatively cheap per lane-mile both to build and to maintain.

 

However, I'm sure you're aware of the fairly obvious limitations, and not just based on physical ability (though the center-of-gravity of preferences on these boards is definitely closer to the young, childless, and male than the national average).  You can commute in like this from Detroit-Shoreway, Ohio City, or Tremont, but even with the best bike path and a laser-straight route, you couldn't do this from Westlake or Avon on a daily basis (let alone Medina or Geauga Counties)--it would take up too much of your day.  It would also be dicey if you had to wear a suit for the day, especially if the weather looked at all unpredictable.  Likewise if you were a tradesman and needed to carry a tool set or anything else bulky or heavy.  Last but certainly not least, this doesn't work if you need to drop off the kids on your way in or pick them up on your way home.

 

 

OT: "ableist" is up there, but the worst is "speciesist."

 

 

People overestimate the effects of propaganda, especially propaganda that encourages people to believe something they aren't already prepared to believe.

 

 

Actually, I'm giving you Accounting 101.

 

I work with at least 4 attorneys, 2 of which are women, that bike downtown from Cleveland Hts and Shaker Hts, FWIW. 

11 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Short version:  the soldiers and sailors came home from World War II.   They had had their fill of dense living conditions in barracks and on ships.  

 

 

This is true. But who created the war and the poor living conditions pre-war?

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by Clefan98

12 minutes ago, gildone said:

Something to check out... Strong Towns has about a dozen case studies that looked at what various neighborhoods of cities generate in terms of tax revenue relative to infrastructure expenses.  As it turns out, a lot of older, pre-WWII, poor areas are subsidizing car-centric sprawling areas.  It's interesting reading.  Note:  I'm trying to find the studies on Strong Towns website, but they seem to have disappeared.  The studies were done in cooperation with a organization called Urban3.

 

I'll be interested in reading that, but I admit I'll do so with a skeptical eye, similar to the way I read anti-oil think tanks' "studies" on what it would mean to "internalize the true cost of fossil fuel use" to the oil companies.  I haven't read a single one yet that didn't rely on apples-to-oranges comparisons, where it was clear that the conclusion was reached well before the study was even begun.

  

5 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

Who created the war?

 

Uh, I know I just made a brief OT comment, too, but ... are you suggesting that this is on topic somehow?

 

Because "let's explore the causes of World War II" is, to put it mildly, a big topic in its own right.

 

9 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

I work with at least 4 attorneys, 2 of which are women, that bike downtown from Cleveland Hts and Shaker Hts, FWIW. 

 

And that's about a 40 minute commute each way.  From inner-ring suburbs.

 

From Westlake, it would be about 1 hr 15 m.  Just about the same from North Royalton, Broadview Heights, or Brecksville--and those are all still within Cuyahoga County.

13 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Uh, I know I just made a brief OT comment, too, but ... are you suggesting that this is on topic somehow?

 

 

 

Rules for thee but not for me? And yes, it is tangibility connected.

 

22 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

 

People overestimate the effects of propaganda, especially propaganda that encourages people to believe something they aren't already prepared to believe.

 

 

 

 

Well, I happen to believe that people underestimate the effects of propaganda. I could see why the resident suburbanites wouldn't want to admit their subsidized way of life is a bi-product of government engineering, but it is.

 

Again, don't take my word on it:

 

A Methodological Study of the Effects of Propaganda

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1965.9919605?journalCode=vsoc20

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by Clefan98

1 minute ago, Clefan98 said:

Rules for thee but not for me?

 

I fessed up to a brief OT comment there, but mine was a one-off digression and it's done already; "who created [WWII]" is a much bigger thing, especially if you're suggesting that it somehow ties back into @E Rocc's point about large numbers of returning soldiers all wanting to spread out and start families.

 

3 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

Well, I happen to believe that people underestimate the effects of propaganda. I could see why the resident suburbanites wouldn't want to admit their subsidize life is a biproduct of government engineering, but it is.

 

If propaganda is so effective, then why has pro-urban/anti-sprawl propaganda been so ineffective?  Do you think you're the first rabid anti-sprawl activist to come along?  I know you don't want to admit that your side engages in any propaganda ("my opponents spread propaganda, I only tell the truth!"--of course), but it does.  "Why doesn't everyone just agree with me?!  You must all be brainwashed!!"

9 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

If propaganda is so effective, then why has pro-urban/anti-sprawl propaganda been so ineffective?  Do you think you're the first rabid anti-sprawl activist to come along?

 

Because the pro-suburban sprawl propaganda is as strong as ever.

 

Do you ever wonder why crime in cities receive so much media attention? Some crime articles on cleveland.com get posted three times under different headlines creating the impression that crime is much worse than it is. In the same regards, cleveland.com runs their suburban crime blotter on Friday's after 5pm and Saturday when hits are 75% less than during the work week. I have hundreds of examples of this type of fear based propaganda.

 

If propaganda was so ineffective, how did Hitler and the SS rise to such power? I've interviewed people who fought for Germany when I studied abroad there in the early 2000s. You have no clue how powerful propaganda is.

Edited June 7, 20223 yr by Clefan98

2 hours ago, YABO713 said:

we should prioritize bike infrastructure within urban areas before anything else, for two reasons:

 

1. Few people want to say this - but Americans are way too soft, literally. Over a third of serious health insurance claims are obesity related. If we make riding a bike as easy and safe as riding a bus or in a car within urban areas, it will have a positive overall impact on heart health and overall well being. This is especially true for low income individuals who often can't afford more nutritious food, a gym pass, et al. 

 

2. It's simply more efficient. It takes me 9 minutes on average to bike to work from my house. It takes me 9 minutes to drive (Shoreway to W.3rd to Key Garage), and it takes me 14 minutes on the 26/26A. I've done each 5+ times this summer and kept a tally for this exact purpose. Beyond that, when I park at the Key Garage, I'm paying $16 for the day - the bus is $5 for a day pass, and the bike rack at Medical Mart is free. 

 

Make bike infrastructure, and it will have staggering downstream affects. 

Absolutely -- when I lived overseas with good transit I would walk 15 minutes to or from a transit stop or anywhere in between.  And if I could get there by bike, that 15 minutes got me a lot further.  I would bike half an hour to work, but farther than that you really need transit (or a car).  My grandmother could bike five to six miles in half an hour. 

 

We should start there -- five miles from the city center make sure we have really good separated bike lanes and sidewalks.

 

You still have snow-clearing and street-sweeping needs, but the roadway surface will see very slow wear from bicycles.   Even Gramarye agrees, so it must be true.  :-)

 

42 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Bike infrastructure also has the advantage of being comparatively cheap per lane-mile both to build and to maintain.

 

Another point not raised -- you can store a LOT of bicycles in the same space now taken up by cars.  Cars that don't move most hours of most days.

 

 

6 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

Assets and liabilities are separate.  Your house is still an asset even if you are underwater on the mortgage; same with your car.

 

I suppose an individual homeowner can let their house fall down around their ears, it happens.  But that depreciates the value of their neighbor's home, and is part of the reason why communities agree to home inspections and code enforcement in that area.

 

But if government has an OBLIGATION to maintain the roadways, that's a liability.  Ohio has thousands of bridges in poor states of repair -- how could we possibly leverage those "assets"?  Wouldn't tripling the number of bridges in Ohio decrease the state's ability to maintain them? 

 

And if Ohio sucks at maintaining its infrastructure but Pennsylvania is great at it, what would be the impact on the states' economies?

 

And even if they are assets, infrastructure assets depreciate as they age and need to be repaired/replaced.  Can/should governments be mortgaging the roadways to pay for their maintenance?  If not, are they not assets?  Do we want PNC to own five miles of I-71 -- what if they decide not to do maintenance on their five miles?

 

In the end, I'm firmly in agreement that all of a government's infrastructure maintenance obligations need to be identified as liabilities so that the planning for their maintenance can be done as efficiently as possible.  I also think that any new infrastructure built by a community needs to factor in the cost of future maintenance as part of the cost. 

 

Strong Towns would say that adding that new subdivision in the far corner of Cuyahoga County means we need to consider how much the added road and water and sewer maintenance costs the community, and does that new subdivision bring in enough tax revenue to cover the maintenance costs?

 

14 minutes ago, Foraker said:

I suppose an individual homeowner can let their house fall down around their ears, it happens.  But that depreciates the value of their neighbor's home, and is part of the reason why communities agree to home inspections and code enforcement in that area.

 

But if government has an OBLIGATION to maintain the roadways, that's a liability.  Ohio has thousands of bridges in poor states of repair -- how could we possibly leverage those "assets"?  Wouldn't tripling the number of bridges in Ohio decrease the state's ability to maintain them? 

 

And if Ohio sucks at maintaining its infrastructure but Pennsylvania is great at it, what would be the impact on the states' economies?

 

And even if they are assets, infrastructure assets depreciate as they age and need to be repaired/replaced.  Can/should governments be mortgaging the roadways to pay for their maintenance?  If not, are they not assets?  Do we want PNC to own five miles of I-71 -- what if they decide not to do maintenance on their five miles?

 

In the end, I'm firmly in agreement that all of a government's infrastructure maintenance obligations need to be identified as liabilities so that the planning for their maintenance can be done as efficiently as possible.  I also think that any new infrastructure built by a community needs to factor in the cost of future maintenance as part of the cost. 

 

Strong Towns would say that adding that new subdivision in the far corner of Cuyahoga County means we need to consider how much the added road and water and sewer maintenance costs the community, and does that new subdivision bring in enough tax revenue to cover the maintenance costs?

 

The obligation to maintain the roadways is a liability; the road itself is an asset.  Just like, from your first paragraph, the obligations to (i) maintain, (ii) insure, and (iii) pay property taxes and assessments on your home are liabilities, but the home itself is an asset.

 

I'm not sure how your Ohio vs. Pennsylvania hypothetical translates into the asset-liability accounting.  The primary economic benefits of good infrastructure are externalities, i.e., by definition external to the balance sheet.  The impact on Ohio's economy if it let all its roads return to wilderness would include, for example, the departure of all the companies that rely on road infrastructure (which at some level is most of them, but especially including things like trucking, logistics, and automotive companies and dealerships).  Those aren't factored into the strict accounting analysis, though--that would be the kind of apples-to-oranges comparison that I would oppose anyone else doing, too.  Similarly, when an ambulance drives a injured patient to the hospital, and they get there faster than they ever could by walking or waiting for the bus or train, that is not added as an accounting benefit to the road's ledger even though it's clearly a social benefit from having widely available, well-maintained roads.

 

As to your point about depreciation, I said the same thing above (responding to gildone)--roads are depreciating assets.  To expand further, the depreciation would be offset by maintenance expenses; the road might be worth $1M when it's built, then depreciate to $600k when it's riddled with cracks and potholes, then go back up to $1M when it's maintained, but that maintenance might not cost $400k--it's a separate expense.  If you spent $300k to get the road back to its initial state, great; if you spent $500k, not so great, but people will still do it, the same way that they'll spend $1000 repairing a car that won't actually add that much to the resale value.  (That said, government accounting does have some wrinkles, accounting for the reality that we aren't actually going to sell the city streets, or our stealth bombers, or the White House.)

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

However, I'm sure you're aware of the fairly obvious limitations, and not just based on physical ability (though the center-of-gravity of preferences on these boards is definitely closer to the young, childless, and male than the national average).  You can commute in like this from Detroit-Shoreway, Ohio City, or Tremont, but even with the best bike path and a laser-straight route, you couldn't do this from Westlake or Avon on a daily basis (let alone Medina or Geauga Counties)--it would take up too much of your day.  It would also be dicey if you had to wear a suit for the day, especially if the weather looked at all unpredictable.  Likewise if you were a tradesman and needed to carry a tool set or anything else bulky or heavy.  Last but certainly not least, this doesn't work if you need to drop off the kids on your way in or pick them up on your way home.

Building in Westlake or Avon and working downtown is a bad idea.  Building in Westlake and working in Westlake makes going to work by bike a no-brainer. 

 

And if there was a dedicated transit line from Westlake to downtown, you would only need to bike to the transit stop, not all the way downtown.

 

The advent of electric bikes will make some of these distances easier to manage (the EU regulates a maximum bike speed, the US does not -- so you can easily find (although not easily afford) a bike that goes 28mph with little to no pedaling -- 14 miles in half an hour). 

 

Ah, those "can't do" Americans -- everyone else in the world has figured out how to move cargo and multiple people by bike.  Cargo bikes are old hat in Europe and are getting increased notice here in the US.

 

But we also don't need to make everywhere car-free and bike-only.  If we can provide really good, safe bike infrastructure in the city core that will take a LOT of cars off the road, freeing up parking spaces for more efficient uses and make a healthier population.  

6 hours ago, Gramarye said:

This line of argument proves too much.  Do you really think that the government should not subsidize transportation infrastructure?  That might cause suburbs to collapse, but it would do the same to cities if every urban house was assessed the full cost of building and maintaining streets, too, especially in lower-income neighborhoods.  Almost all of modern civilization would collapse without publicly funded transportation infrastructure.  Government construction of roads goes back to at least the Roman Empire (and those roads were major imperial assets).  Transportation infrastructure like streetcars, light rail, subways, and bike trails requires subsidies, too.

 

We subsidize transportation infrastructure in part because it enables economic activity that partially offsets the cost of that infrastructure when those economic activities are taxed, and in part because life is simply better with more personal mobility.

 

I think the important point is that all of this infrastructure spending is government spending, a subsidization, a point that most suburbanism proponents don't acknowledge, and instead pretend that their preferred form of city building is some sort of natural phenomena built by a mythical and infallible free market.  Acknowledging that truth means that we can have an honest debate about what our priorities should be in terms of where and how to spend infrastructure dollars.

39 minutes ago, Foraker said:

The advent of electric bikes will make some of these distances easier to manage (the EU regulates a maximum bike speed, the US does not -- so you can easily find (although not easily afford) a bike that goes 28mph with little to no pedaling -- 14 miles in half an hour). 

 

I should look into electric bikes more (my bike shop has begun advertising them heavily in their e-mails).  Considering my thoughts on electric cars, I'll probably be fairly receptive to electric bikes, too.

 

I still don't see how it will be viable for families with young children, though.  At least not to the point of allowing them to completely untether from the need for a heavier passenger vehicle.  I can't paint a mental picture in my head of how my family could make something like that work.  You can call that a "can't do" mentality if you want, but seriously, I just don't see how we can do that.

 

Personally, I also wouldn't be riding a bike in a suit, but I'm aware that that's less of a hard logistical challenge and more of a softer cultural one.

  

31 minutes ago, X said:

I think the important point is that all of this infrastructure spending is government spending, a subsidization, a point that most suburbanism proponents don't acknowledge, and instead pretend that their preferred form of city building is some sort of natural phenomena built by a mythical and infallible free market.  Acknowledging that truth means that we can have an honest debate about what our priorities should be in terms of where and how to spend infrastructure dollars.

 

I'm aware that there are people who talk like this, but I'm not one of them.  I said myself above that all forms of transportation are subsidized, and have been for a long time--since long before America even existed, in fact, as well as as long as it has.  This discussion is always going to be about which subsidies are worth it, and "worth it" includes both normative and empirical components.  I'm well aware that building and maintaining autocentric suburban infrastructure requires subsidies; I sat (nonvoting) on the board of AMATS for a year, so I was there in the room when decent amounts of those subsidies were actually awarded, and for some of the number-crunching in terms of cost-per-lane-mile and likely future maintenance needs based on underlying topography.

 

I could get to a point of agreement on the direct costs (up front and ongoing) of asphalt infrastructure in all its various forms.  But the issue here is on the normative side.  Whether they mean to or not, many hardcore urbanists here appear to assign negative normative value to suburban life, i.e., their position on the "worth it" question is that autocentric development should be required to completely economically support itself because it has no further normative value, and in fact perhaps should be suppressed or retarded even if it could economically support itself, because its economic viability could not justify its other alleged evils, and people who argue otherwise are just brainwashed by propaganda.  (As a debate strategy, the "that's just propaganda" argument is always used to avoid taking an opposing argument seriously.  This kind of condescending dismissal has its place, e.g., not wasting time taking seriously Putin's claims to parts of Ukraine or specious claims of election fraud or antivax hysteria.  But you play with fire when you try to put normal middle-class preferences in the same boat as outright conspiracy theories, particularly when you're arguing about value judgments instead of empirical facts.)

 

Meanwhile, they apply such a high normative value to urban living such that even if one could empirically demonstrate that urban transportation infrastructure required even more subsidy than suburban (and to be clear, I'm aware the reverse is currently true on a per-user-mile basis), but just for the sake of saying what I'm seeing), they'd argue that we should just write the check, because urban = "good" and suburban = "bad."

1 hour ago, Clefan98 said:

 

This is true. But who created the war and the poor living conditions pre-war?

 

The residue of WWI and foreign expansionism created the war.   The living conditions weren't seen as poor, except by comparison after the fact.   A decreasing need for agricultural manpower and an increasing need for industrial manpower were already happening, the war accelerated this change tremendously.

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

 

I should look into electric bikes more (my bike shop has begun advertising them heavily in their e-mails).  Considering my thoughts on electric cars, I'll probably be fairly receptive to electric bikes, too.

 

I still don't see how it will be viable for families with young children, though.  At least not to the point of allowing them to completely untether from the need for a heavier passenger vehicle.  I can't paint a mental picture in my head of how my family could make something like that work.  You can call that a "can't do" mentality if you want, but seriously, I just don't see how we can do that.

 

Personally, I also wouldn't be riding a bike in a suit, but I'm aware that that's less of a hard logistical challenge and more of a softer cultural one.

  

….

 

Meanwhile, they apply such a high normative value to urban living such that even if one could empirically demonstrate that urban transportation infrastructure required even more subsidy than suburban (and to be clear, I'm aware the reverse is currently true on a per-user-mile basis), but just for the sake of saying what I'm seeing), they'd argue that we should just write the check, because urban = "good" and suburban = "bad."

The point isn’t necessarily to get rid of all cars, but rather to reduce the total miles driven. My brother bought a Pacifica hybrid early last year as a family vehicle. While he’s owned it, he’s driven fewer miles as a single occupant than he has ridden his bike. In other words, sure, he uses it to haul his family around, but he can use his bike for many of his individual travel needs. (For reference, he lives in Upper Arlington, works for OSU medical center, doesn’t have to go to the office much.) Proper bike infrastructure (e.g. protected bike lanes) makes it much easier for many more people to do this. Living in certain neighborhoods might even enable some couples to consider going from a two car household to a one car household. 
 

Regarding your point from a few days ago on the general public support for highway building in the 50s and 60s - my position is that focusing the vast majority of our transit dollars on roads was the mistake. You asked for an example of where highway building was counter to voters wishes. I think a better question is whether voters at the time supported a more balanced funding of transit, with a higher percentage going to rail and buses, and were overruled by people in power. We had massive example right here in Cuyahoga county. Voters here overwhelming supported the bond issue to pay for a downtown Cleveland subway three times in the 50s and 60s. One of those bond issues passed with over 60% of the vote county wide. Yet county engineer Albert Porter killed it. (There we’re also his aggressive highway expansion proposals, of which some were fortunately defeated.) When we complain about the leaders of the past failing to lead, this is prime exhibit. 
 

Regarding suburbs - there are suburban models that are sustainable. Imagine if we had proper regional rail here in Northeast Ohio, and we hadn’t enabled the job sprawl of suburban office parks. Then, suburbs built around mixed-use hubs at each rail station could be easily reached by commuters living in condos/apartments within walking distance, and by biking from points further in that ‘burb. Each town center / transit hub would have a grocery and other key stores and services. Commuters would take the trains to one of the downtowns or University Circle, and perhaps complemented with manufacturing hubs near transit stations. I think about how much better Solon (where I live) would be if regular passenger rail to downtown still passed through, of course assuming that zoning would be redone to enable a proper hub around the station. And then Harper/Cochran road (further west in Solon) could be the transit-accessible manufacturing hub. (30k manufacturing jobs are already in Solon! - imagine if it was easier to reach them from poorer parts of the county.) This is a model worth aspiring to. This is the model that works in most of the rest of the industrialized world where transit investments were more properly balanced. This would work in Hudson, Cuyahoga Falls, Rocky River, Lakewood, Garfield Heights, Bedford, and so many other NE Ohio communities. We have to keep pushing for it, and part of that is to insist on properly accounting for the externalities of car-centric community design. 
 

There is also the HUGE health improvement implications of encouraging bike use as @YABO713 mentioned. E-bikes are much more “accessible” than cars, so it isn’t “ableist” to advocate for them. Also, it’s looking like e-bike users actually get more exercise than acoustic bike users, probably because they’re so easy to use that you get out on them a bunch more.

^ Just bought an E-bike three weeks and it's been an absolute game changer so far. I really like this model because it's built for two and comes with really neat accessories to carry groceries and other items.

 

https://www.radpowerbikes.com/products/radrunner-plus-electric-utility-bike

2 hours ago, Gramarye said:

I still don't see how it will be viable for families with young children, though.  At least not to the point of allowing them to completely untether from the need for a heavier passenger vehicle.  I can't paint a mental picture in my head of how my family could make something like that work.  You can call that a "can't do" mentality if you want, but seriously, I just don't see how we can do that.

 

Here's an imagination-assist.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Regarding your point from a few days ago on the general public support for highway building in the 50s and 60s - my position is that focusing the vast majority of our transit dollars on roads was the mistake. You asked for an example of where highway building was counter to voters wishes. I think a better question is whether voters at the time supported a more balanced funding of transit, with a higher percentage going to rail and buses, and were overruled by people in power. We had massive example right here in Cuyahoga county. Voters here overwhelming supported the bond issue to pay for a downtown Cleveland subway three times in the 50s and 60s. One of those bond issues passed with over 60% of the vote county wide. Yet county engineer Albert Porter killed it. (There we’re also his aggressive highway expansion proposals, of which some were fortunately defeated.) When we complain about the leaders of the past failing to lead, this is prime exhibit. 

 

This is new and interesting to me.  I'll have to read into that.  Frankly, I didn't know that municipal engineers even had the power to overrule a bond issue that actually got to a general election and passed (though of course elected officials play all kinds of games regarding what actually makes it to the voters in the first place).

 

31 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Regarding suburbs - there are suburban models that are sustainable. Imagine if we had proper regional rail here in Northeast Ohio, and we hadn’t enabled the job sprawl of suburban office parks. Then, suburbs built around mixed-use hubs at each rail station could be easily reached by commuters living in condos/apartments within walking distance, and by biking from points further in that ‘burb. Each town center / transit hub would have a grocery and other key stores and services. Commuters would take the trains to one of the downtowns or University Circle, and perhaps complemented with manufacturing hubs near transit stations. I think about how much better Solon (where I live) would be if regular passenger rail to downtown still passed through, of course assuming that zoning would be redone to enable a proper hub around the station. And then Harper/Cochran road (further west in Solon) could be the transit-accessible manufacturing hub. (30k manufacturing jobs are already in Solon! - imagine if it was easier to reach them from poorer parts of the county.) This is a model worth aspiring to. This is the model that works in most of the rest of the industrialized world where transit investments were more properly balanced. This would work in Hudson, Cuyahoga Falls, Rocky River, Lakewood, Garfield Heights, Bedford, and so many other NE Ohio communities. We have to keep pushing for it, and part of that is to insist on properly accounting for the externalities of car-centric community design. 

 

Maybe, but I don't see this.  I grew up in Philadelphia, which does have a regional rail network (and a subway system, but I'm more focused on the regional rail here since that would be the part that reaches the communities that are more analogous to Solon, Hudson, and Cuyahoga Falls).  At the very least, when I've used that regional rail network in the past, I've not seen substantial developments around the stations (and I just did a quick Google spy satellite view to see if my memory was playing tricks on me).

 

The subway was a different story, but that was primarily within the city proper, not a suburban commuter option.  (What were the proposed termini of the subway you mentioned earlier, the one that passed?  Would they have been outside the city boundary?)

 

More to the point, at this point, we're not going to raze all those Cleveland suburbs to the ground and start over.  A sustainable suburban model starting in 2022 has to deal with a status quo of autocentric development and infrastructure that will not be substantially changeable because too much development has already happened in reliance upon it.

36 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

This is new and interesting to me.  I'll have to read into that.  Frankly, I didn't know that municipal engineers even had the power to overrule a bond issue that actually got to a general election and passed (though of course elected officials play all kinds of games regarding what actually makes it to the voters in the first place).

 

 

Maybe, but I don't see this.  I grew up in Philadelphia, which does have a regional rail network (and a subway system, but I'm more focused on the regional rail here since that would be the part that reaches the communities that are more analogous to Solon, Hudson, and Cuyahoga Falls).  At the very least, when I've used that regional rail network in the past, I've not seen substantial developments around the stations (and I just did a quick Google spy satellite view to see if my memory was playing tricks on me).

 

The subway was a different story, but that was primarily within the city proper, not a suburban commuter option.  (What were the proposed termini of the subway you mentioned earlier, the one that passed?  Would they have been outside the city boundary?)

 

More to the point, at this point, we're not going to raze all those Cleveland suburbs to the ground and start over.  A sustainable suburban model starting in 2022 has to deal with a status quo of autocentric development and infrastructure that will not be substantially changeable because too much development has already happened in reliance upon it.

I will post info on the subway bond votes and maps at a later date when I have time to look them up. (Unless @KJP beats me to it.)

 

Interesting that you mention Philly, because it has the biggest opportunity for making this step change improvement of anywhere in the US, because they did a bunch of things correct. But there are a few solve-able headwinds. 
Philly good:

-Electrified commuter rail! (Substantially more efficient, faster acceleration/ deceleration improves total travel time)

-Multiple downtown stations on commuter rail lines!

-Towns originally built around rail, therefore already having “good bones” for this transit mode (think compact, walkable “downtowns”)

 

Philly bad:

-Scheduling for commuters / peak times model. Schedule needs to be replaced with much more frequent, all-day service. 15 minutes should be the longest wait, ideally more like 5-10 minutes between trains. Fundamentally this is replacing the “commuter rail” model with a “regional rail” model (but the underlying infrastructure is mostly the same)
-Stations surrounded by parking. Car parking does not generate good rail ridership. (Once someone is in their car, they are much more likely to just drive the whole way to their destination.) Parking lots should be replaced with quality mixed-use development, which generates significantly more transit usage. Will require zoning changes to accommodate. Anything beyond walking distance should be served with secured bike parking, local protected bikes lines, and high frequency buses. (Cleveland RTA desperately needs to make the same updates. A Van Aken District-like development at a few more stations would be hugely impactful on ridership.)

 

And back to Cleveland, my main point is that we wouldn’t have to “raze the suburbs” to do it. Replacing some parking lots and maybe a strip mall or two would accomplish all these goals. (Heck, Hudson just built a new “downtown” right next to its old downtown and it’s all within walking distance of where a rail station could be.) When you look at satellite images of the suburbs, it is quite eye-opening when you realize how much space parking (and highways) take up. Take a quick glance on Google maps at downtown Cleveland - notice how the highway interchanges consume nearly half the land area of the entire Central Business District. For another example, 41% of Los Angeles county is covered by parking and roads! 
 

And for @YABO713’s health comments:

 

21 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Philly bad:

-Stations surrounded by parking. Car parking does not generate good rail ridership. (Once someone is in their car, they are much more likely to just drive the whole way to their destination.)

 

This was my primary memory of using that system as well (and what I went back to the Google Maps satellite earlier today to confirm before I posted), and the source of my general discomfort with the park-and-ride model that was briefly discussed upthread, though I didn't respond to it directly at the time.

 

6 hours ago, Gramarye said:

This is new and interesting to me.  I'll have to read into that.  Frankly, I didn't know that municipal engineers even had the power to overrule a bond issue that actually got to a general election and passed (though of course elected officials play all kinds of games regarding what actually makes it to the voters in the first place).

 

@KJP has posted lots of information on various subway Cleveland proposals in the Cleveland Transit History thread. The closest we got was in 1953 (this is the vote I was thinking of).

 

Here's a detailed article on the proposal and Albert Porter 's actions.

https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/361#.VmHi6fm-1cY

 

Subway proposals of the 40s and 50s:

This was another crazy one - proposal from 1919 to bury FOUR streetcar turnarounds and through-running under Public Square (incoming from West Superior, East Superior, Euclid, and Ontario)

And finally, most recently, RTA was working on a "Dual Hub" proposal in the mid-90s to run a subway through downtown on Euclid, rising up to streetcar around CSU and continuing on the University Circle and reconnecting with the Red Line, with a possible direct rail connection from University Circle to Shaker Square. This eventually devolved into the Heathline BRT, which is simultaneously the best BRT in the country, while missing some key necessary provisions to increase speed (specifically activated lights so that a bus never has to wait longer than a few seconds for a light to change, and Proof-of-payment fares to speed up loading, which they are about to start doing again), and is a horrible disappointment compared to what could have been if the suburban leaders hadn't undermined the efforts to make it a rail project.

 

 

Animated gifs are great explainers 

 

 

21 hours ago, Gramarye said:

The obligation to maintain the roadways is a liability; the road itself is an asset. 

I think this is Strong Towns' point.  And whether we argue about the semantics of liability vs. depreciating asset doesn't matter, because it doesn't change the end result:   infrastructure maintenance liabilities due to our car-centric development patterns is bankrupting most American cities.  Tampa, as an example, pays more each year for debt service on its water system infrastructure than it does on maintaining it.  That's not a healthy financial picture.  

 

If changing municipal accounting laws to take into account the huge infrastructure maintenance liabilities cities have on their books that are currently being ignored would push cities to do things differently, it may not be a bad thing.  

 

I would also add that that while there are social benefits to roads as you've described, the development pattern we've chosen to provide them is, as I've already said, bankrupting most cities and making them dependent upon state and federal handouts. 

 

We have a huge problem.  The Infrastructure Bill is only going to address 12% of our infrastructure backlog for roads and less than 25% for bridges--over 10 years.  During that time we will also build more lane-miles and our net maintenance backlog will grow.