The Politics of Urbanism and Transit

[bedstuy]

This is an oversimplification, but this is an often ignored issue at the national level, the politics of planning, urbanism and transit/transportation.

On one side, you have "liberal" "New Urbanist" "smart growth" advocates.  They tend to believe in planning high densities, using way more public transit, designing walkable cities that are bicycle and pedestrian friendly.  They are generally against building more roads and criticize the American love affair with the car.  They hate "sprawl" and rather see the city as this great social force.

Republican critics see these ideas as social engineering and a general waste of money.  They oppose public transportation and support building more highways, roads and automobile infrastructure.  In fact, many of these people hate the urban bicycle culture developing in many American cities.  Tea Party critics have further argued that the idea of sustainable development and urbanism is related to a UN plot to take away people's rights, called Agenda 21.  Rather, they like the exurban growth and single family home model. 

Which side do you fall under?  What is your philosophy when it comes to urban planning and cars vs. bicycles/transit?

[DC Al Fine]

I'm lean liberal.

Smaller homes and an effective public transit network would make life a lot cheaper for working class families. Families living in a small bungalow or townhouse, relying on transit with one small car is my ideal. The conservative vision requires relatively large income to make life "fit" in the system (larger property, two cars etc.) compared to the liberal one.

The problem with the liberal vision is that it tends to get a bit too visionary and loses sight of the everyday issues of development. For example, the liberal councillors in my city are trying to create a rail network, when a better bus system is a far better goal for a mid sized city.

[H. Ross Peron]

New Urbanism

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Polling actually shows that Republicans are less supportive of spending both when it comes to public transit and highways, though the difference is greater on transit.

I think I'm close to where DC Al Fine is on this, though perhaps a little more skeptical. New Urbanism is great where you can make it work, and for a new development it should be given priority over sprawl, but there's a tendency toward new flashy thing gets the attention instead of the more boring project that will actually make a difference to people. The transition can be hard; I see too many piecemeal awkward bike lanes that please neither biker nor motorist, which leads to conflict. And there is the risk of pricing people out of town with restrictions on growth.  One question I would always want to keep in mind in these discussions is - to what extent is it possible to achieve anything like New Urbanism on top of an existing urban geography without an aggressive displacement of the people and establishments that already exist there.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Cities designed around public transport and pedestrians are generally nice places to be around. Cities designed for cars are ghastly hellholes.

[dead0man]

While I love cars, generally dislike city cyclists and the people that make up the "new urbanists", I'm going to have to side with them on this.  We have plenty of roads in most places and urban areas should by bike and walker friendly.

[Torie]

I am definitely a hard line pinko on this one. Land use, and transit, are the land of economic externalities on steroids. If something is not internalized into the price system, that is in general a green light for government intervention. Who knew?

[angus]

I love to cycle and walk.  Try to do a little of both every day, and I prefer working withing walking or cycling distance from my house.  I like having good sidewalks and lighted crosswalks.  I'm also a big fan of maintaining a good public bus system.

Still, I like having good roads and highways.  I like it when they widen the street if a new subdivision crowds the original two-lane artery.  I having a single-family dwelling and a little yard to play in, and a street on which we can rollerblade, having only local traffic, and not much at that. 

Moderate hero.  (voted new urbanist, given the false dichotomy)

[memphis]

It depends on climate. Density and transit are fine when the weather isn't constantly hot and humid. Part of the reason nobody wants it here is that it's absolutely miserable to be outside, and having your own car offers an opportunity for an unbroken chain of air conditioned environments. After being outside for just a few minutes here, one is immediately sweaty and disgusting. It doesn't lend itself toward a logical commuting practice. All that said, my hometown is really bad about building enormous highways to nowhere even when the metro population isn't increasing much. Our new TN-385 outer loop is really stupid.

[Simfan34]

Trains, townhouses, more trains... and tyranny!

[AggregateDemand]

What is New Urbanism's signature accomplishment? Inefficient utilization of real estate resources, which leads to unsustainable cost escalation?

As I've opined before, Texas' property tax system is more efficient and progressive than anything you'll find in New Urbanism. The skyscrapers and public transportation systems are just lipstick on the underlying economic pig.

Cities have the potential to be much better (economically and socially) for the inhabitants, but we've not really made it happen.

[Kushahontas]

new urbanism

[traininthedistance]

My position on this issue should be obvious to everyone here.

[nclib]

On a whole range of issues, New Urbanism is far superior to sprawl. It promotes a greater sense of community, saves energy & resources (and thus, money), promotes healthier lifestyles (in the long-run, saves money on medical costs), and is also more aesthetically appealing.

Agreed.

[Vosem]

I love to cycle and walk.  Try to do a little of both every day, and I prefer working withing walking or cycling distance from my house.  I like having good sidewalks and lighted crosswalks.  I'm also a big fan of maintaining a good public bus system.

Still, I like having good roads and highways.  I like it when they widen the street if a new subdivision crowds the original two-lane artery.  I having a single-family dwelling and a little yard to play in, and a street on which we can rollerblade, having only local traffic, and not much at that. 

Moderate hero.  (voted new urbanist, given the false dichotomy)

[bedstuy]

I love to cycle and walk.  Try to do a little of both every day, and I prefer working withing walking or cycling distance from my house.  I like having good sidewalks and lighted crosswalks.  I'm also a big fan of maintaining a good public bus system.

Still, I like having good roads and highways.  I like it when they widen the street if a new subdivision crowds the original two-lane artery.  I having a single-family dwelling and a little yard to play in, and a street on which we can rollerblade, having only local traffic, and not much at that. 

Moderate hero.  (voted new urbanist, given the false dichotomy)

The problem with widening roads is that more cars show up, wider roads are more dangerous and they destroy streetscapes.

Here's my basic philosophy. There's some balance to be had, there will always be a range from Battery Park city density to rural areas.  But, America is waaaay out of whack in favor of cars and low density.  We highly subsidize the automobiles to the tune of billions of dollars and we get cities that are great for cars and bad for people.