A Texas-Sized Pavement Problem(strongtowns.org)
strongtowns.org
A Texas-Sized Pavement Problem
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/9/27/a-texas-sized-pavement-problem
11 comments
/r/neoliberal has a fantastic slogan/soundbite for you to use.
"legalize housing"
a people ideologically against government intervention should be all for removing government barriers to building what you want where you want. that includes corner stores and town houses. they naturally should be against the gov telling you how much setback you need and how tall you can build.
don't phrase it as we need to zone for corner stores. phrase it as we need to legalize corner stores.
"legalize housing"
a people ideologically against government intervention should be all for removing government barriers to building what you want where you want. that includes corner stores and town houses. they naturally should be against the gov telling you how much setback you need and how tall you can build.
don't phrase it as we need to zone for corner stores. phrase it as we need to legalize corner stores.
The corner store solution is so bogus. Plano has tons of under utilized commercial space. Practically every intersection has 4 corners of partially vacant huge strip centers. People here choose to frequent the newer nicer always hip and usually chain oriented strip centers near the freeways (shops at legacy, legacy west) at the expense of supporting the interior commercial districts.
So, I would say until traffic gets much worse people would not support the corner stores.
So, I would say until traffic gets much worse people would not support the corner stores.
"Corner store" doesn't mean a store at the corner of an intersection. It means the store you can walk to from your home, with many of the things you might need day to day.
The term implies more density, rather than just being closer.
The term implies more density, rather than just being closer.
Like Manhattan were almost every block with apartments will have a small store.
A lot places in N. Texas is like that. I see lots of unused commercial space in Tarrant County. I've seen places built with in the last 10 years that it's hard to get someone to occupy it in the first place, or for more than 6 months. With all the available commercial space in some of these cities, it amazes me to see new spaces still being built.
As someone who grew up in Collin county and now lives in SF, isn't zoning the reason there aren't more corner stores in either? I know Houston doesn't have a "proper" zoning system, but according to a developer friend of mine, their development regulations are actually much more strict than most places, with huge setback requirements for instance.
Zoning is a tool. You can use it to make anything, really. Including sprawl that looks like an absence of zoning.
I can confirm we have huge setback and parking requirements. Which is great if you think parking lots are beautiful.
Why would you have to increase taxes to let people build corner stores? They aren't proposing government-run corner stores.
Out of curiosity, why do Texans dislike state income tax, but subject themselves to 2% property tax? This was one of my family's reasons to choose against moving there.
It's about where the tax goes, local vs state, worker vs landowner. Also, as a by product, helps encourage turnover. There is also sales tax for other expenditures, but a lack of state income tax in general encourages income/business.
There are some exemptions for Texas property taxes if you are over 65, disabled, or a veteran. Sources: [0] [1] [2]
[0] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/are-you-getting-all-...
[1] https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/bud-...
[2] https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/property-tax/exemptions/...
[0] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/are-you-getting-all-...
[1] https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/bud-...
[2] https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/property-tax/exemptions/...
This tax structure simultaneously keeps housing cheap while putting more money in the hands of workers.
"Cheap"? Housing pricing in most of Texas have gone crazy in the last couple years. I'm paying 2x more in property tax than I was 2 years ago because of the "boom".
Property tax is variable from neighborhood to neighborhood. I pay 3.6%, some of my co-workers pay as high as 5.2% and some less than a fraction of a %.
> They worship [...] They brag [...] machismo [...] suspicious glances [...] hell yea brutha, we drivin [...] those stupid Californians
Sounds like it was good for everyone that you left and are not going back. The problem so many have these days is their lack of understanding towards other people's preferences, and then leveraging it to demean. Clearly, lifestyle disagreements must be wrapped up in pejoratives and stereotypes as though Texas isn't steeped in diversity.
I'm sorry your boredom on your friend's couch and other your-life-and-situation-specific anecdotes jaded you, but that doesn't mean you understand preferences of others or the general societal situations.
Sounds like it was good for everyone that you left and are not going back. The problem so many have these days is their lack of understanding towards other people's preferences, and then leveraging it to demean. Clearly, lifestyle disagreements must be wrapped up in pejoratives and stereotypes as though Texas isn't steeped in diversity.
I'm sorry your boredom on your friend's couch and other your-life-and-situation-specific anecdotes jaded you, but that doesn't mean you understand preferences of others or the general societal situations.
I'm a fan of this blog and the way it develops the simple idea of the Growth Ponzi Scheme, which is sucking the life out of towns everywhere in the US.
https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/
I also like the way this post breaks down the numbers. for example:
Okay. So we're talking about an amount [to be spend on roads] equivalent to more than the county's entire budget right now, and a really sizable fraction even if we add cities (which provide more services than the county itself, and which are responsible for maintaining local streets) into the mix.
For myself and other visual learners, it would be very helpful to see these numbers presented graphically. Graphs for other data are presented in the article, but not the numbers I reference above that clearly paint a picture of program that will end in tears.
https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/
I also like the way this post breaks down the numbers. for example:
Okay. So we're talking about an amount [to be spend on roads] equivalent to more than the county's entire budget right now, and a really sizable fraction even if we add cities (which provide more services than the county itself, and which are responsible for maintaining local streets) into the mix.
For myself and other visual learners, it would be very helpful to see these numbers presented graphically. Graphs for other data are presented in the article, but not the numbers I reference above that clearly paint a picture of program that will end in tears.
I lived in Collin County for almost 20 years. I've seen the suburban sprawl explode. I like the explanation brought forth in this article but I think its much more complex than investing locally. There are so many reasons why people choose their home, job, and transportation.
In my opinion the best way to change behavior is to make an incentive for that behavior. Reduce taxes on urban areas and housing. Unregulate businesses that promote local economy. Make small businesses more favorable instead of giving large exemptions to big corporations.
Perhaps the biggest thing you can do is to participate in the local government and municipalities. Find out who and what is driving the local economy and make reasoned recommendations for change.
In my opinion the best way to change behavior is to make an incentive for that behavior. Reduce taxes on urban areas and housing. Unregulate businesses that promote local economy. Make small businesses more favorable instead of giving large exemptions to big corporations.
Perhaps the biggest thing you can do is to participate in the local government and municipalities. Find out who and what is driving the local economy and make reasoned recommendations for change.
> There are so many reasons why people choose their home, job, and transportation [...] best way to change [...] make reasoned recommendations for change
What if the citizenry is happy and doesn't want change? This option never seems to appear in suburban sprawl discussions because so many of the discussors think clearly it's not wanted.
I think, especially compared to others, the county's situation is ideal for most.
What if the citizenry is happy and doesn't want change? This option never seems to appear in suburban sprawl discussions because so many of the discussors think clearly it's not wanted.
I think, especially compared to others, the county's situation is ideal for most.
Because after the initial debt laden spending spree results in happiness, once the bills for upkeep and debt service come due at the same time, the cuts in quality of life will then result in unhappiness. And now you have a bunch of wasted resources with not enough people to support them, and it causes more pollution.
But it’s not reasonable to expect people to not be short sighted. If people really want the future to be gated insular communities like in TX and FL, then I guess that’s what they deserve, but I’ve been to Africa and India and Brazil and the visual class divide it shows is unappealing to me.
But it’s not reasonable to expect people to not be short sighted. If people really want the future to be gated insular communities like in TX and FL, then I guess that’s what they deserve, but I’ve been to Africa and India and Brazil and the visual class divide it shows is unappealing to me.
This has not been my experience, as I've seen many-decade old suburbs continue to thrive thanks to not being so short-sighted to promote extreme density. The ability to continually rebuild/improve with continual turnover is a great benefit compared to often decaying urban sectors missing replenishment.
The Texas model has been to keep growing to the point where the old suburbs are now practically just part of their city.
Richardson (home of Texas Instruments) is literally* just another part of downtown Dallas now. In another decade, Oklahoma City will just be the newest suburb of Dallas.
*not literally. Though also not entirely a joke.
Richardson (home of Texas Instruments) is literally* just another part of downtown Dallas now. In another decade, Oklahoma City will just be the newest suburb of Dallas.
*not literally. Though also not entirely a joke.
The simpler thing would be to stop incentivizing undesired behavior. Stop giving tax breaks to everyone, start tolling all roads using license plate readers so people feel the actual costs of driving, require environmental costs to be included in manufacturing (I know this one is difficult, but at least we can attempt it and provide the environmental data openly to all to review it).
> giving large exemptions to big corporations.
I agree that giving tax breaks to large companies gets it backwards. Small companies, due to larger overhead, are probably employing more. Thus, the rational thing would be to tax larger companies harder, as they generate proportionally less wage taxes.
Giving tax breaks should be illegal altogether though. It's distorting the marketplace. It's perhaps beneficial for a town that gets the Amazon delivery center, so the legalization should be on a higher, perhaps federal level -- not sure if that's possible.
I agree that giving tax breaks to large companies gets it backwards. Small companies, due to larger overhead, are probably employing more. Thus, the rational thing would be to tax larger companies harder, as they generate proportionally less wage taxes.
Giving tax breaks should be illegal altogether though. It's distorting the marketplace. It's perhaps beneficial for a town that gets the Amazon delivery center, so the legalization should be on a higher, perhaps federal level -- not sure if that's possible.
What is the counterpoint to this argument? I feel like I'm only getting half an explanation here.
It's apparent from looking up Charles Marohn that he's contributing to a lot of pieces on the web to push this idea, but I don't buy that infrastructure expansion is a straight up ponzi scheme.
It's apparent from looking up Charles Marohn that he's contributing to a lot of pieces on the web to push this idea, but I don't buy that infrastructure expansion is a straight up ponzi scheme.
I think there isn't usually a direct counterargument to be found. One of ST's core points is, hey, you're deluding yourself because you're not accounting for eventual repair costs of all the infrastructure you've already got. There is either no reply- because, heads in the sand- or the reply is that all the new people who will move there and the growth of the tax base will make it affordable. Which, while not exactly a classic ponzi scheme, pretty much resembles one.
It's really common, the whole "ignore future repair costs" thing. I lived in an HOA a few years ago that enjoyed low dues for many years, and everyone was always really happy about that. Guess what, the roofs and siding was ten years past due for replacement, and we had nothing in the bank. I want to say we were looking at special assessments of $30-40k/unit.
It's really common, the whole "ignore future repair costs" thing. I lived in an HOA a few years ago that enjoyed low dues for many years, and everyone was always really happy about that. Guess what, the roofs and siding was ten years past due for replacement, and we had nothing in the bank. I want to say we were looking at special assessments of $30-40k/unit.
I'll try: Strong Towns' predictions of future maintenance-debt doom are already true today of the urbanist, transit-centric alternative. If any group of Americans had sufficient motivation and resources to maintain a good public transit system, it would be New Yorkers, and they empirically don't. The MTA is deteriorating rapidly despite the best efforts of one of the richest cities in the world. That's textbook "unsustainable." It may well be true that America's freeways will meet a similar fate in the future, but that doesn't tell you which one is better or worse.
The big roads Strong Towns despises have many lanes, road networks have many paths from A to B, and vehicles that are resilient to low-quality roads are readily available for purchase. On the other hand, the failure of any component anywhere in a rail network can ruin the whole system until it's fixed. If I have to live with a falling-apart transportation system, I'll take crumbling roads over crumbling trains.
The big roads Strong Towns despises have many lanes, road networks have many paths from A to B, and vehicles that are resilient to low-quality roads are readily available for purchase. On the other hand, the failure of any component anywhere in a rail network can ruin the whole system until it's fixed. If I have to live with a falling-apart transportation system, I'll take crumbling roads over crumbling trains.
New York's MTA, and the general budgetary situation, is mostly mismanaged, not impossible to keep up. And New York certainly doesn't get its fair share of the tax money raised within its city limits; not from the state and not from the federal government.
Consider that Nassau County, home of the first suburbs and one of the wealthiest counties in America by median income, has been under state fiscal control since 2000 because it simply cannot balance a budget. New York City infrastructure looks downright peachy compared to Nassau's troubles.
Consider that Nassau County, home of the first suburbs and one of the wealthiest counties in America by median income, has been under state fiscal control since 2000 because it simply cannot balance a budget. New York City infrastructure looks downright peachy compared to Nassau's troubles.
Obviously it’s possible to maintain public transit under some set of political sensibilities and structures; it works in Europe and Asia. But if any place in America would be willing to address mismanagement (meaning terminate the careers of the politicians who allow it), it would be New York. De Blasio just got re-elected by a wide margin.
The problem is that the MTA is managed by the state, not the city. De Blasio doesn't have a mandate to fix the subway; he was elected with a mandate to fix racial relations with the NYPD and get universal pre-K, and his reelection was mostly a function of there being no obvious Democrat alternative. It's why his main thing has been to promote the ferries, biking, and the BQX, because those are the only things he directly controls.
There was a gubernatorial challenger who was much more pro-subway, but she lost a campaign by basically treating it as a run for the mayor of New York and ignoring the rest of the state. (Her lack of managerial experience also didn't help.)
There was a gubernatorial challenger who was much more pro-subway, but she lost a campaign by basically treating it as a run for the mayor of New York and ignoring the rest of the state. (Her lack of managerial experience also didn't help.)
That is a good point, public transit is not immune to ignoring future costs. However-
The real doom is when people abandon the town or city because property taxes have to be hiked dramatically to pay for the bill come due. This drives people to leave, which drives taxes higher, which drives people to leave... This kills the city.
New York & the train system there has big problems. But because there are so many people paying into it, nobody is leaving New York over the cost of fixing it. It is troubled but not failed.
ST's core raison d'être is abandoned, decaying suburban sprawl. Growing up in Silicon Valley, I didn't really get ST until I was walking through vast, crumbling suburbs in the midwest.
The real doom is when people abandon the town or city because property taxes have to be hiked dramatically to pay for the bill come due. This drives people to leave, which drives taxes higher, which drives people to leave... This kills the city.
New York & the train system there has big problems. But because there are so many people paying into it, nobody is leaving New York over the cost of fixing it. It is troubled but not failed.
ST's core raison d'être is abandoned, decaying suburban sprawl. Growing up in Silicon Valley, I didn't really get ST until I was walking through vast, crumbling suburbs in the midwest.
New York isn't so much fixing it as adapting to a long-term future with fewer, slower, less predictable trains. Their only hope is a multi-decade-scale IT project (positive train control) which is to say, they have no hope.
Adapting to worse mobility is also a thing you can do with roads. Drive slower over the potholes, close the lanes that are too far gone, revert to gravel if need be.
I guess you could say that dense cities are so singular and compelling, people will be willing to put up with poor mobility in exchange for the other opportunities they provide. Whereas exurbia is so abundant and generic, people will flee to an equivalent municipality with better mobility.
Strong Towns' message is more compelling for very small towns, which could be entirely walkable. Then there's no transportation infrastructure needed. People can walk on anything. But for small and mid-sized cities, it has some weaknesses.
Adapting to worse mobility is also a thing you can do with roads. Drive slower over the potholes, close the lanes that are too far gone, revert to gravel if need be.
I guess you could say that dense cities are so singular and compelling, people will be willing to put up with poor mobility in exchange for the other opportunities they provide. Whereas exurbia is so abundant and generic, people will flee to an equivalent municipality with better mobility.
Strong Towns' message is more compelling for very small towns, which could be entirely walkable. Then there's no transportation infrastructure needed. People can walk on anything. But for small and mid-sized cities, it has some weaknesses.
> New York isn't so much fixing it as adapting to a long-term future with fewer, slower, less predictable trains. Their only hope is a multi-decade-scale IT project (positive train control) which is to say, they have no hope.
I think this is a gross exaggeration. New York's subway has pulled back from the precipice before; in the '70s the subway was literally falling to pieces on the ground, with routine derailments, trains running at 5MPH everywhere due to the state of the tracks, and record levels of crime. It got to the point where a triage plan suggested cutting out entire lines, including the L, which is now one of the most congested.
Today's issues can mostly be attributed to neoliberal City and State administrations (Giuliani, Pataki, Bloomberg, both Cuomos) that consistently cut MTA funding to tell a future national electorate that they balanced a budget. As a result the MTA took on debt, the interest of which is almost entirely responsible for all the fare hikes in recent memory.
Add in a near-crippling focus on safety in operations above all else, including speed, and it explains the current train unreliability.
I think this is a gross exaggeration. New York's subway has pulled back from the precipice before; in the '70s the subway was literally falling to pieces on the ground, with routine derailments, trains running at 5MPH everywhere due to the state of the tracks, and record levels of crime. It got to the point where a triage plan suggested cutting out entire lines, including the L, which is now one of the most congested.
Today's issues can mostly be attributed to neoliberal City and State administrations (Giuliani, Pataki, Bloomberg, both Cuomos) that consistently cut MTA funding to tell a future national electorate that they balanced a budget. As a result the MTA took on debt, the interest of which is almost entirely responsible for all the fare hikes in recent memory.
Add in a near-crippling focus on safety in operations above all else, including speed, and it explains the current train unreliability.
> property taxes have to be hiked dramatically to pay for the bill come due. This drives people to leave
This is surprising to me, although I live in Canada and property taxes are a pittance. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/residential.a... So that's like two thousand dollars a year for a million dollar home.
This is surprising to me, although I live in Canada and property taxes are a pittance. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/residential.a... So that's like two thousand dollars a year for a million dollar home.
Strong Towns is much more focused on NOT building new roads than on building new transit. Overall, the message is that new infrastructure of all kinds can be unsustainable financially.
Unless your town is so small that you can get away with purely walking, you're gonna need either roads or transit.
They don't advocate having no roads and transit...just being more cautious about expanding whatever infrastructure you already have. They are a foil to the idea that infrastructure expansion is always an "investment." Their emphasis is on maintenance and staying in good financial shape so that you can afford to replace infrastructure when it wears out. It's actually not a very radical position which is why they're able to draw crowds in red and blue places both.
But the denser you are and the more mixed-use areas you have, the less road mileage you need per resident.
The counterpoint is the status quo. Keep building more roads and expanding suburbs. To be fair, this has worked well for the second half of the 20th century. Land was plentiful and a whole generation got the American dream suburban home at very affordable prices.
The roads were built very cheaply, often with federal subsidies, but much of this infrastructure is due for repairs and that’s where StrongTowns’s sustainability critique comes in. The status quo ignored future liabilities now coming due. And the political problem is structural: politicians get far more credit for building new roads and bridges than paying the bills for old ones or balancing budgets. So the forces that be are strongly pushing back against StrongTowns, and if you want to be skeptical and suspicious, I think it’s better to target that at the system rather than the skeptics trying to reform it.
The roads were built very cheaply, often with federal subsidies, but much of this infrastructure is due for repairs and that’s where StrongTowns’s sustainability critique comes in. The status quo ignored future liabilities now coming due. And the political problem is structural: politicians get far more credit for building new roads and bridges than paying the bills for old ones or balancing budgets. So the forces that be are strongly pushing back against StrongTowns, and if you want to be skeptical and suspicious, I think it’s better to target that at the system rather than the skeptics trying to reform it.
Despite allthis, Texas roads are in much better shape than those in California despite the endless wave of bonds, Propositions, fees, and taxes that Californians impose upon themselves (monies all silently diverted into the general fund to shore up public employee pensions)
Yeah, the hijinks with the general fund are a problem. I think we need an electoral system that will allow multiple parties, because single party rule makes it hard to hold anyone accountable. But Republicans aren’t viable here and we’d need multiple left parties.
Also the general fund is starved partially because of propositions like 13 that unfairly limits taxation on people whose houses have appreciated tremendously in value.
Also the general fund is starved partially because of propositions like 13 that unfairly limits taxation on people whose houses have appreciated tremendously in value.
California liberals will never accept that the Democratic "arrangement" with unions is corruption, because only Republicans can be corrupt
Found this article to be the other half of the explanation: https://granolashotgun.com/2017/07/12/an-open-letter-to-chuc...
Tldr: Zoning isn't going away, that will take educating multiple generations.
Tldr: Zoning isn't going away, that will take educating multiple generations.
So his solution is to give up, build a "strong home", lead by example, and wait for society to catch up to your "strong home"? That's absurd.
The premise of the argument is that Collin county needs to spend $12.6 billion on roads over the next 30 years, but no citation is provided for that number. The authors managed to have found citations for most of the other numbers. I suspect the $12.6 billion figure was not calculated using the same set of assumptions about inflation as the other numbers.
Edit:
Over 30 years, $230 million / year with a 4% annual escalator is about $12.9 billion in total spending. Lets assume that Plano's $343 million / year in spending for 30% of county residents is consistent with other cities and add in the $381 million / year spent by the county. Then the required local highway spending is about 15% of the total ~1.5 billion spent by all local governments.
Perhaps it is a large amount of money, but spending 15% of the local budget on highways does not seem like an insurmountable burden on local taxpayers.
Edit:
Over 30 years, $230 million / year with a 4% annual escalator is about $12.9 billion in total spending. Lets assume that Plano's $343 million / year in spending for 30% of county residents is consistent with other cities and add in the $381 million / year spent by the county. Then the required local highway spending is about 15% of the total ~1.5 billion spent by all local governments.
Perhaps it is a large amount of money, but spending 15% of the local budget on highways does not seem like an insurmountable burden on local taxpayers.
It's in the linked Dallas News article:
> County Commissioner Duncan Webb told business leaders at a forum Wednesday that the county will need $13 billion for roads over the next three or four decades. Later Wednesday, former Commissioner Mark Reid, during a presentation to the Frisco Tea Party, said the figure is $12.6 billion.
So not malicious or misleading at all. ST is using the commissioners own numbers.
> County Commissioner Duncan Webb told business leaders at a forum Wednesday that the county will need $13 billion for roads over the next three or four decades. Later Wednesday, former Commissioner Mark Reid, during a presentation to the Frisco Tea Party, said the figure is $12.6 billion.
So not malicious or misleading at all. ST is using the commissioners own numbers.
Using arithmetic average of $420 million a year is incorrect, because inflation is exponential. Conservatively estimating 2% inflation and holding all else equal, that comes out to about $312 million for year 1, $318m for year two, etc. This comes out to about $12.6 billion over 30 years.
bmurray7jhu is right to call out this mistake, because TFA says $381m is the current yearly budget, which is actually enough to fund it. (other issues not withstanding). Messing this calculation up makes me question the rest of the TFA's integrity.
bmurray7jhu is right to call out this mistake, because TFA says $381m is the current yearly budget, which is actually enough to fund it. (other issues not withstanding). Messing this calculation up makes me question the rest of the TFA's integrity.
So is it 30 or 40 years? Constant or future dollars? Capital or operational spending? Local or Federal expense?
It’s a dumb number to quote and was cherry picked to make a point.
All local governments in New York combined spent around $3B in 2009 ( https://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/research/snapshot/... ) as a comparison.
It’s a dumb number to quote and was cherry picked to make a point.
All local governments in New York combined spent around $3B in 2009 ( https://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/research/snapshot/... ) as a comparison.
$3B a year is $90B over 30 years, in constant dollars. Your point is?
The $12.6 billion number was stated by government officials and is cited in the Dallas News article[0] linked on that page.
"County Commissioner Duncan Webb told business leaders at a forum Wednesday that the county will need $13 billion for roads over the next three or four decades. Later Wednesday, former Commissioner Mark Reid, during a presentation to the Frisco Tea Party, said the figure is $12.6 billion."
[0] https://www.dallasnews.com/news/collin-county/2018/09/13/tra...
"County Commissioner Duncan Webb told business leaders at a forum Wednesday that the county will need $13 billion for roads over the next three or four decades. Later Wednesday, former Commissioner Mark Reid, during a presentation to the Frisco Tea Party, said the figure is $12.6 billion."
[0] https://www.dallasnews.com/news/collin-county/2018/09/13/tra...
The article seems to assume the reader knows about "strong towns". If they're trying to make an argument about overspending on roads it's very poorly worded and organized.
People new to the topic should probably start at https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/6/14/greatest-hits-...
As someone who lives in Texas: I will never bike, but probably not for the reason you're thinking of. Rather, I won't because of heat. Days can hit 100 in high summer and 90% humidity. Many people supporting the "everyone should just bike" idea live in SF or New England. This means they don't realize quite how hot it is for much of the year. And though they may say it gets cold there, you can always add another coat. You can only remove so many.
Yeah I also live in Texas and can confirm this. Unless your work has a shower and everything, your coworkers will hate being around you if you bike to work. And even then it’s a miserable experience.
This is what baby wipes are for.
> $12.6 billion: The amount Collin County says it needs to spend on new roads in the next 30 years.
Why should we accept that roads should be that expensive? [1] is an article that provides a good overview of the rise in construction costs that eventually stalled new highway construction projects. One can imagine this trend in costs being reversed: in particular, 1) we should be able to reduce labor requirements through relaxation of work rules, 2) streamline community and environmental review to reduce administrative costs of construction, and 3) raise revenues with direct usage fees instead of relying on increasingly precarious fuel taxation, decreasing the amount of highway funding that needs to come from the general budget.
I feel like a lot of people are too eager to declare that new roads are no longer feasible and that we should adapt society to the degraded transit infrastructure of the future, but this attitude is defeatist and will impose a burden that will fall on everyone in society. Roads are good. Transportation is good. We should be devoting our energies to making roads cheaper, not finding elaborate ways to justify inaction.
[1] https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-1993/why-california-stop...
Why should we accept that roads should be that expensive? [1] is an article that provides a good overview of the rise in construction costs that eventually stalled new highway construction projects. One can imagine this trend in costs being reversed: in particular, 1) we should be able to reduce labor requirements through relaxation of work rules, 2) streamline community and environmental review to reduce administrative costs of construction, and 3) raise revenues with direct usage fees instead of relying on increasingly precarious fuel taxation, decreasing the amount of highway funding that needs to come from the general budget.
I feel like a lot of people are too eager to declare that new roads are no longer feasible and that we should adapt society to the degraded transit infrastructure of the future, but this attitude is defeatist and will impose a burden that will fall on everyone in society. Roads are good. Transportation is good. We should be devoting our energies to making roads cheaper, not finding elaborate ways to justify inaction.
[1] https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-1993/why-california-stop...
Labor is more expensive. Materials are more expensive. Property is more expensive. Lawsuits from poor civil engineering are more expensive. And all are getting more expensive all the time.
Your "let's make things cheaper by sacrificing quality" seems to smell of a very deep ignorance of how this stuff works.
Your "let's make things cheaper by sacrificing quality" seems to smell of a very deep ignorance of how this stuff works.
Yes, these inputs are more expensive now. The article I linked goes into some detail. I'd like us to find ways of reducing the costs of these inputs. Do you have any ideas for doing that? Suggesting that my post "seems to smell of... ignorance" is both hostile and unproductive. Thanks.
These inputs are made in the billions of tons per years. Everyone wants them to be as cheap as possible, and they are. But you neglected the other side of the demand curve. These components are in high demand. China, for example has been producing huge amounts of concrete. Demand reduction is really the only feasible way of price reduction. Reducing demand means getting people out of cars.
Are these just county roads or does it also include State and Federal highways? I’d imagine there may be multiple sources of funding available.
Usually just county roads. State roads and federal highways receive federal tax dollars.
That’s not to say you can’t get federal or state grants for some roadway related local projects, but these roads described would be primarily county roads built with borrowed money (or local tax dollars if they’re available, which they usually aren’t, hence the bond issue kicking the can down the road).
That’s not to say you can’t get federal or state grants for some roadway related local projects, but these roads described would be primarily county roads built with borrowed money (or local tax dollars if they’re available, which they usually aren’t, hence the bond issue kicking the can down the road).
Increasingly in Collin and Denton county, highways are becoming privatized. This is great for maintenance and quality, but it is definitely regressive for the poorer. However, these counties are rapidly becoming more populated by more wealthy individuals and txdot is anything but rapid.
Maybe we'll all need to have flying cars in 30 years ...
Texas is big, red, suburban, and growing.
Texas is a success despite basically doing the opposite of what New Urbanists say at every turn.
This must really burn up writers at StrongTowns.
The big problem for New Urbanists is the fact that dense cities seem to end up with more and more expensive problems than the burbs.
Looking forward to a wave of Medium posts and Atlantic articles in 2021 professing a newfound love for suburbia as Millennials get sick of paying the bills for broken boondoggles like HSR and the dead-on-arrival Transbay hub
Texas is a success despite basically doing the opposite of what New Urbanists say at every turn.
This must really burn up writers at StrongTowns.
The big problem for New Urbanists is the fact that dense cities seem to end up with more and more expensive problems than the burbs.
Looking forward to a wave of Medium posts and Atlantic articles in 2021 professing a newfound love for suburbia as Millennials get sick of paying the bills for broken boondoggles like HSR and the dead-on-arrival Transbay hub
The writers are highlighting a potential weakness with the Texas system. It’s not about identity politics or red vs blue. It’s about future costs that might be unsustainable.
NYC transit has it’s own issues, but if you look at the population there you’ll see on average they are skinnier than folks in Texas who drive around in cars. Are there costs associated with that obesity? Costs that everyone picks up instead of just those who are obese? Will that make Texas a more expensive place to live? Who knows?
As someone who lives in the suburbs and just got hit with a water rate increase to pay for the aging infrastructure i can say it’s good to have these conversations early before you rack up unexpected costs.
NYC transit has it’s own issues, but if you look at the population there you’ll see on average they are skinnier than folks in Texas who drive around in cars. Are there costs associated with that obesity? Costs that everyone picks up instead of just those who are obese? Will that make Texas a more expensive place to live? Who knows?
As someone who lives in the suburbs and just got hit with a water rate increase to pay for the aging infrastructure i can say it’s good to have these conversations early before you rack up unexpected costs.
There are dozens of articles on the web about "fittest cities"....not one even put NYC in the top five
Texas is growing in general. People, especially younger people, are moving to Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin proper, not just the ‘burbs. There have been problems with this though. Apartments are going up like crazy in these cities, but they are mostly single and two bed room (roommate style), at least slightly upscale, apartments. A lot of us millionaire are finding we have to move to the suburbs, not because we want to, but because it’s the only place where there is housing that exists at all for families.
Also Dallas has the DART rail and it’s great. I do wish there were a lot more stops, but it’s well loved by millennials.
Also Dallas has the DART rail and it’s great. I do wish there were a lot more stops, but it’s well loved by millennials.
City transportation is definitely improving, but has a long way to go. A lot of people in the burbs consider buses as something you would see in a low income city or a downtown. Some weird stigma people have.
The offered solution:
>For automobile flooding (congestion), the only way to deal with it and still have a successful economy is to address it at the source. We need to absorb those trips locally before they become a flood. Instead of building lanes, we need to be building corner stores.
I'm thinking hard about this article - I'm an ex-Houstonian. I can't go back. They worship the vehicle. They brag about their hour+ commutes one way. It's been wrapped up in machismo Texan pride. Because, inevitably when you bring up how much it sucks that no matter what we want to do, we've got a 20 minute drive ahead of us at least, instantly everyone's anti-tax hackles are raised. "Socialism" is on everyone's lips, you're getting suspicious glances.
So hell yea brutha, we drivin! At least we don't have state income tax or zoning laws like those stupid Californians, just look at all the good that did them! /s
If Strongtowns can find a way to start convincing Texans that cornerstores (which sounds to me like, need zoning) can be built without increasing taxes, I bet they could make the pitch. I remember as a real young kind in Green Bay, WI and then Charleston, SC, we could ride our bikes around and go places. I remember as a slightly older kid in Houston being tremendously bored on my friend's couch, suggesting we bike somewhere, and then realizing we had nowhere we could go. It was nothing but miles of suburbia encased in impassable freeways. Life got fun again at 16 when I finally got a car.