Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

chrisnorstrom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#131

Post by ChrisNorstrom »

bgentry wrote: post #121
ChrisNorstrom wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol, you failed to read my first paragraph that specifically said "I get why people (myself even) like the suburbs and cul-de-sacs but they have been taken to an extreme" btw, sorry my whole shared hosting server crashed, and is still down since yesterday. I can now say, "hacker news crashed my server", so I consider it an achievement unlocked and am very happy about it.

No, I did not fail to read it. Just knowing that people like them doesn't mean you understand that people pay substantially more for them. Or that developers are able to squeeze more houses into a development by using lots of cul-de-sacs.

From reading the comments here, I think in my attempt to bust out this article quickly I failed to emphasize that I do NOT think that ALL cul-de-sac and curvilinear loop neighborhoods are bad.

Many of the comments here are completely For or Against Grid or Cul-De-Sac street layouts. This isn't about that.

I myself live in a very moderate curvilinear loop design, just a block and a half away from a major road. I am against EXTREME and OVERDONE versions of these street designs. I would HATE living in a grid street design (for reasons I'll cover in my next article). This is about isolationist and protectionist culture taken to such extreme levels that they are illogical and add 8 miles a day to your commute.

We all know why people love the suburbs, it's more than just white flight. It's because city planners failed to listen to the needs of people. Better schools, actual lawns, nature, smaller curvier streets to give the feeling that you live far away in a cute little town where everyone knows each other. These are all legitimate emotional needs.

Still, 3 damn miles to see your neighbor. Common.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#132

Post by ryanjkirk »

dalke wrote: post #114
ryanjkirk wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portland is a poor example. I love Portland, by the way, but we're essentially talking about economics here, and Portland is skewed. In Portland, you have people that want to live this lifestyle. They don't want the burden of the car, they are environmentally conscious, they work in the city, and they don't have kids. Sure, for them, it's doable (and you sound like one of them). This isn't usually the case. Industria…

It's amazing how we had any sort of industry before the car. I live in a relatively small (500,000) city, though Sweden's second largest. One of my clients is in an industrial area. The city has extra lines for the morning and evening commute, but only about 20% of the people use them, and I think another 5% cycle. I don't know how many walk into work, but clearly over 50% do drive in. This in a city and country whic…

Yes, the corner market thing you said is true. But, they were limiting. Us Americans are used to our bigger stores, specialty stores, and more choices. It'd be hard for most Americans to adapt to that.

But, it's still not easy handling small children with groceries, whether walking nearby or taking the bus. I know because I've done it. Driving is much, much easier.

Fair point about roads not being break-even, but elsewhere in the thread I did argue for higher taxes on gas and automobiles, to internalize the costs more. I don't know what break-even would look like in America, but the idealist in me says both roads and public transportation should be break-even, if not profitable.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#133

Post by anamax »

philwelch wrote: post #130
anamax wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the gas taxes are often diverted to non-road purposes.... I'll make you a deal. Let the cities pay for the mass transit systems (capital and running costs) and let the urbs pay for their highways. Both pay for their streets.

If you implemented that completely, I think you'd see a pretty massive correction and living in the suburbs would become much more expensive. State and even federal taxes fundamentally redistribute wealth out of cities and into sparsely populated regions--correcting for that alone is probably more than the realistic urbanist can ever hope for.

> If you implemented that completely, I think you'd see a pretty massive correction and living in the suburbs would become much more expensive.

Go for it.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#134

Post by anamax »

davidandgoliath wrote: post #91
ryanjkirk wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's generalizing, of course, but it's because in the US, the suburbs incorporate into their own cities, and keep the taxes for themselves. Meanwhile, they commute into a city on a freeway paid for by the urbanites and enjoy all the benefits of city infrastructure, without paying for it. Not sure how cities incorporate in Canada but that's how it usually is here.

Certainly no disagreement that suburbanites commute. And once they arrive they spend bucketloads of money on a daily basis & tend to work for companies that spend bucketloads of money locally for office space & all the goods held therein. Communters do tend to also help support public transportation systems that are made available, in effect subsidizing them. Afterwards they leave & cost the city absolutely nothing b…

> Certainly no disagreement that suburbanites commute.

I'll disagree, because the truth is that SOME suburbanites commute. In most places, most don't.

And then there's SF, where a significant number of city-dwellers commute to the suburbs....

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#135

Post by ryanjkirk »

philwelch wrote: post #104
ryanjkirk wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone want to vote to spend money on anything that will be a net loss? Subsidizing public transportation is an economic drain on society. The correct answer is to have self-sustaining, profitable public transportation. This can only happen in cities with sufficient population density, such as NYC. Car and gas taxes? Tax the hell out of them, since the costs right now are so over-externalized. Eventually, t…

It's strange to argue against government spending on infrastructure on the premise that infrastructure should be profitable. Unless you have similar feelings about tolling the city street or privatizing the sidewalk, this isn't a consistent argument. Subsidizing alternatives to car usage reduces the externalities of car usage. You can't effectively disincent car usage in the absence of alternatives.

It's certainly not strange to argue in favor of the most efficient system. If something cannot be made to be more profitable compared to its alternatives, assuming they are all priced fairly in order to to cover external costs equally, then it is not the most efficient. What economist would argue in favor of that?

It's quite a consistent argument when I say that I am in favor of taxing gas and automobiles. In fact, I think they should be taxed at much higher rates, to internalize the costs that are currently being externalized. Ideally, the costs of roads and bridges are covered by those taxes. Thus they're usage-based and not subsidized by those not using them.

I'm not sure why you think the best way to internalize the costs of car usage is to subsidize public transportation. That's just backwards thinking.

As car usage becomes more expensive due to taxation, cities will become more dense. This is the point where we can start talking about building infrastructure for public transportation, that will then make economic sense thanks to population density. It makes no sense to have a bus meander around the suburbs for hours to pick up a few riders, all traveling to different parts of town. It's an impossible idea. You have to have density first. Tax cars and gas so that they pay for their own infrastructure and environmental consequences, and density will be a natural outgrowth, at which point public transportation will be more viable.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#136

Post by philwelch »

ryanjkirk wrote: post #135
philwelch wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's strange to argue against government spending on infrastructure on the premise that infrastructure should be profitable. Unless you have similar feelings about tolling the city street or privatizing the sidewalk, this isn't a consistent argument. Subsidizing alternatives to car usage reduces the externalities of car usage. You can't effectively disincent car usage in the absence of alternatives.

It's certainly not strange to argue in favor of the most efficient system. If something cannot be made to be more profitable compared to its alternatives, assuming they are all priced fairly in order to to cover external costs equally, then it is not the most efficient. What economist would argue in favor of that? It's quite a consistent argument when I say that I am in favor of taxing gas and automobiles. In fact, I…

Maybe it makes sense for public transit to be profitable in the long run, but it takes investment to get to that point, and to some extent you have to have public transit, at least in the cities, in order for people to move to the cities and give up their cars in the first place.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#137

Post by dalke »

ryanjkirk wrote: post #132
dalke wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing how we had any sort of industry before the car. I live in a relatively small (500,000) city, though Sweden's second largest. One of my clients is in an industrial area. The city has extra lines for the morning and evening commute, but only about 20% of the people use them, and I think another 5% cycle. I don't know how many walk into work, but clearly over 50% do drive in. This in a city and country whic…

Yes, the corner market thing you said is true. But, they were limiting. Us Americans are used to our bigger stores, specialty stores, and more choices. It'd be hard for most Americans to adapt to that. But, it's still not easy handling small children with groceries, whether walking nearby or taking the bus. I know because I've done it. Driving is much, much easier. Fair point about roads not being break-even, but els…

It's true - I like going to the "Maxi" store because it's huge and they have everything, including some American foods I can't find elsewhere. I also like going to the small specialty stores because where else are you going to find 50 different types of Hungarian sausages? The local grocery stores end up being more homogenous.

But my experience is that the bigger shock is the lack of expected items, like lack of Crisco for making pie crust, or vanilla extract, or chocolate chips, or American-style bratwurst, or August when corn goes for 8 cobs for a dollar. Not the lack of diversity.

By counter-example, I don't know what to do with all of the types of flours and sugars sold in most Swedish stores, and am only slowly beginning to understand the differences in herring sauces.

Regarding break-even, the problem is in where you define the boundaries. If roads cost 1% of the GDP to develop and maintain, but raise the economy so the overall tax revenue increases by enough to pay for the roads, then it's likely a good choice. Is it cost efficient to only charge those who use the roads directly (perhaps with some sort of GPS system)? Would that include, say, bicyclists and horse-drawn wagons? I think the current system, being a mix of gas tax and public revenue, is reasonable.

Of course revenue growth is not the only factor in deciding what happens. For example, good public transport may mean that people can visit with friends and drink a couple of glasses of wine, expecting to take the bus home instead of risking possible impaired driving. Or a scenic walking path next to a river may not be revenue generating but does serve as a place for people to interact and enjoy the city.

Re: The Great Cul-De-Sac Problem And How To Alleviate It.

#138

Post by specialist »

anamax wrote: post #129
specialist wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Ryan. Yup. Making a generalized statement about a widespread, general phenomenon: Urban centers subsidize everyone else, suburbs are freeloaders. This is really basic, uncontroversial information. Example county level: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/welfare-state/Content?oid... State level: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923084.html Same thing happens at the local level.

The vast majority of the so-called subsidy is welfare, which has been pushed by urban politicians. If you don't like the costs of the programs that you push, look in the mirror. I've no objection to making welfare a county-level thing, so cities can pay what they want (and are willing to fund) and suburbs can pay what they want (and are willing to fund). Deal?

Citation please.

This should be fun.

Post reply on HN