Comment by ericmay
10 days ago
> That's because subways are a dead end. They need to be removed entirely,
I certainly agree subways aren't the way of the future, at least in America. Too expensive and, frankly, unnecessary. We are already de-densified (which is why I find your below comment bizarre)
> and the dense cities need to be de-densified. That's the long-term plan.
Can you point to a single elected official in an American city that has a plan of reducing density in their city? I'm curious.
> Can we PLEASE just stop with the "saving money" and "off the road" nonsense? Please.
> Adding transit does NOT reduce congestion (see: .https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/1/7/does-buildi... ). And it is NOT cheaper than owning a car.
Well, no, I won't stop because it's true and arguments to the contrary are faulty for various reasons. For example, suggesting that transit doesn't reduce congestion misses the fact that you can't count future growth that didn't occur. Every single person riding transit would be driving, if there was no transit. It's just logically false. It's also ignoring the fact that growth and congestion and transit typically go hand-in-hand.
> And it is NOT cheaper than owning a car.
The only way for this to be true is to ignore all of the factors of car ownership. Even then it's probably still false.
> If you dream of rail going to every city block like in NYC, then you should think about its other side effects: toxic densification, unaffordable housing, depopulation.
No I don't. Also NYC is the most populous city in America so depopulation here as an argument yet again makes 0 sense. Housing is unaffordable precisely because of the density and demand, which go hand-in-hand.
> We are already de-densified (which is why I find your below comment bizarre)
The US is rapidly densifying, and this will get _worse_ as the population starts shrinking in earnest. Japan leads the way here, its population has been going down for a while. Yet Tokyo now is in a real estate bubble.
> Can you point to a single elected official in an American city that has a plan of reducing density in their city? I'm curious.
Plenty of cities are resisting the density increases, NIMBYs are holding the line.
> Well, no, I won't stop because it's true and arguments to the contrary are faulty for various reasons. For example, suggesting that transit doesn't reduce congestion misses the fact that you can't count future growth that didn't occur.
Again. Transit does NOT reduce the congestion. This is a simple observable verifiable fact.
You can say that transit enables more density (true), but it does NOT reduce congestion.
> Every single person riding transit would be driving, if there was no transit.
And there would be fewer of these people.
> The only way for this to be true is to ignore all of the factors of car ownership. Even then it's probably still false.
In Seattle, I'm going to end up paying $150k in taxes/fees for the failrail line that will go nowhere near me. This is literally more than a lifetime of owing a cheap car.
But even if we just look at operating costs of transit, a single trip on transit is about $20. This ends up being about equal to the IRS deduction for car depreciation for the average trips.
> No I don't. Also NYC is the most populous city in America so depopulation here as an argument yet again makes 0 sense.
Look at the fertility rate for people in dense city cores vs. suburbs.
> Housing is unaffordable precisely because of the density and demand, which go hand-in-hand.
Indeed. Now think about this: the total US population is shrinking. NYC is growing. What is happening?
Hint: look at Japan.
> The US is rapidly densifying, and this will get _worse_ as the population starts shrinking in earnest. Japan leads the way here, its population has been going down for a while. Yet Tokyo now is in a real estate bubble.
There are a lot of factors that go in to real estate prices, and I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to compare Tokyo to any city in America besides New York in just about any aspect.
> Plenty of cities are resisting the density increases, NIMBYs are holding the line.
Name one. That's not the same thing as NIMBY. No city is actively against growth.
> Again. Transit does NOT reduce the congestion. This is a simple observable verifiable fact. You can say that transit enables more density (true), but it does NOT reduce congestion.
It's the same thing, and it goes very well with your thesis that the US is rapidly densifying. As it densifies congestion gets worse, adding transit takes away additional cars that would otherwise be on the road.
In Seattle whatever transit exists is gone, now those people would drive cars, ergo congestion increases. This seems very obvious.
> In Seattle, I'm going to end up paying $150k in taxes/fees for the failrail line that will go nowhere near me. This is literally more than a lifetime of owing a cheap car.
Ok and do you not see what the problem is with this argument? I could just say, I'm paying $150k more in taxes for a new highway being built somewhere that won't go anywhere near me or I won't drive on.
Second, you're not including the costs for highway construction, maintenance, insurance, gas/oil (why do you think we're in Iran) &c. that goes into car ownership.
Third - Most Americans aren't buying cheap cars.
> But even if we just look at operating costs of transit, a single trip on transit is about $20. This ends up being about equal to the IRS deduction for car depreciation for the average trips.
Weird. I took a "single trip on transit" and it was less than $5 in New York. See I can just pull numbers out of my ass and apply them without any good reason too.
> Look at the fertility rate for people in dense city cores vs. suburbs.
What about them?
> Indeed. Now think about this: the total US population is shrinking.
The US population is not shrinking.
> NYC is growing. What is happening?
People want to live there - that's my best guess.
> There are a lot of factors that go in to real estate prices, and I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to compare Tokyo to any city in America besides New York in just about any aspect.
Yes, it absolutely makes sense. The trend is simple: you build rail transit, you get unaffordable housing. Go on, try to find a counter-example.
> Name one. That's not the same thing as NIMBY. No city is actively against growth.
Princeton, Texas.
> It's the same thing, and it goes very well with your thesis that the US is rapidly densifying. As it densifies congestion gets worse, adding transit takes away additional cars that would otherwise be on the road.
No, it does NOT take cars off. A car that is on the road, stays on the road. Cars are _vastly_ superior to any transit mode on average, so people almost never give them up.
You basically need to make your streets impassable before people start switching from cars to transit.
> In Seattle whatever transit exists is gone, now those people would drive cars, ergo congestion increases. This seems very obvious.
Then people would out-migrate, companies will close dense offices, and congestion will relax.
> Ok and do you not see what the problem is with this argument? I could just say, I'm paying $150k more in taxes for a new highway being built somewhere that won't go anywhere near me or I won't drive on.
Except that I'm _also_ paying for all the highway construciton and maintenance in direct user fees ( https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-infrastructur... ). A transit user does NOT pay for my use of highways, I do.
And to give you some perspective, one mile of this failrail will cost about the same as construction of 1000 miles of modern 6-lane freeway. The entire project will cost about the same as the total highway spending for entire WA for 15 years.
> Third - Most Americans aren't buying cheap cars.
As I sa
> Weird. I took a "single trip on transit" and it was less than $5 in New York. See I can just pull numbers out of my ass and apply them without any good reason too.
That's because transit riders in the US (or Europe for that matter) never pay the full fare cost, it's always subsidized.
And the ~$20 number is easy to get. For example, MTA: 1.15 billion annual rides (2023), total _operating_ budget $19.2B. Divide one number by another. And this does not include all the new subway construction cost, which is harder to account for.
> The US population is not shrinking.
It will within 1-2 years: https://www.prb.org/news/u-s-population-growth-is-slowing-to...
And even before that, the rate of growth for large cities has been outpacing the population growth for the last 2 decades.
> People want to live there - that's my best guess.
They don't. Most people would prefer to live in suburbs, but they HAVE to live in dense cities.
5 replies →