Sure, turning Houston into Madrid would be very hard. But this is one of the most incrementally solvable problems I've ever seen. There are hundreds of low-cost, low-effort ways to start making things better.
In the handful jurisdictions where I am familiar with zoning laws and the permitting process, low cost and low effort is not how I would describe any part of even a straightforward approval.
Lord help you if you need a variance, and I cannot even imagine what eminent domain on that scale would look like. I do not see how the change would even be possible without tearing buildings down and building new ones closer to each other, and to do it legislatively adds unimaginable legal expenses, I presume.
Edit: Also note the popular local opinion in many places is keeping a place car dependent means the population who cannot afford a car is kept out.
I meant stuff like city counsel passing a new zoning law. Maybe some concrete bollards to make a protected bike lane. Run a few more busses and trains. That kind of thing.
My point is that does nothing, because the root problem of destinations being too far from one another is not addressed.
A few more buses and trains are not going to cut it. You need to outcompete the convenience of a personal car. The bus or train has to run at least every 10min, otherwise one missed connection and you’re wasting 20min+ with your refrigerated groceries.
And that type of frequency is simply not economical without density. Chicken and egg at this point. Best case scenario is to build outwards from already dense areas, but it will involve eminent domain and demolishing buildings and parking lots to make new ones that are pedestrian friendly and hostile to cars.
> A few more buses and trains are not going to cut it.
So add more buses and trains.
> You need to outcompete the convenience of a personal car.
More buses and trains will make this happen. More bike lanes will make this happen. With the proper infrastructure people can go longer distances without a car. All these things can be done incrementally and you're trying to claim they can't be.
> The bus or train has to run at least every 10min, otherwise one missed connection and you’re wasting 20min+ with your refrigerated groceries.
No it doesn't and your groceries are fine being out in the heat for 20 minutes. They won't go bad. They could be out there for 2 hours and be fine.
> Refrigerate or freeze perishables right away. Foods that require refrigeration should be put in the refrigerator as soon as you get them home. Stick to the "two-hour rule" for leaving items needing refrigeration out at room temperature. Never allow meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, or produce or other foods that require refrigeration to sit at room temperature for more than two hours—one hour if the air temperature is above 90° F. This also applies to items such as leftovers, "doggie bags," and take-out foods. Also, when putting food away, don't crowd the refrigerator or freezer so tightly that air can't circulate.
On top of that, this two-hour thing is a general guideline for maximum safety and is overly restrictive on purpose to avoid ambiguity. Realistically you could leave things out for longer but the FDA would never admit that because it sends mixed messages.
Another note on the refrigeration issue - I get around predominantly by bike, and if I need to I have a soft cooler (like delivery people use) that I can put an ice pack in to transport frozen goods. But last night I went out with just a backpack in 80F heat and bought ice cream that survived the 20 minute trip home just fine.
[0]> But fluid and traffic are not the same thing, as shown by 60 years of governments trying and failing to road-build their way out of congestion. The idea of induced demand – more road space brings more cars – has been known for decades, and it also works in reverse. This is especially so with bike lanes, which are such an efficient use of the same space that they can often mean the same amount of space carrying more people overall.
[1]> Yes, traffic jams have worsened in some cities where bike lanes have been built, but studies show this is largely down to other factors, for example the growth in the number of Uber-type private hire vehicles and Amazon delivery vans.
I agree with you, especially because the crux of the matter is convenience of car versus public transit.
Cars are VERY convenient, so public transit needs to be on time, frequent, and very close by to compete. The other option is to make cars inconvenient, which is politically unpopular.
Zoning changes and removal of parking minimums are the first steps towards bringing things closer together though, and that can happen at the stroke of a pen. Towns can't begin to densify until they're permitted to do so.
Allow someone to build an apartment building on top of that enormous parking lot next to a shopping center, and in many cases I don't think you'd need eminent domain; it'll happen simply because the apartment building is more profitable than the surface parking lot.
(Though a good form-based code might help to nudge things in the direction of walkability too.)
Zoning is how you start to fix density issues. And getting rid of parking minimums. Charging fair market rates for existing parking can funnel more money in to public transport while also making it the cheaper option. Dedicated bus lanes and signaling changes can make busses faster than cars. All of those can be done with words written on paper or paint on roads.
Where I live the city council deliberately rezones the city on a regular basis in a manner contrary to state law. Each time, it's overturned by the same group of citizens. It's a deliberate political tactic so they can tell voters "well we're trying to fix the issue but the awful government won't let us!". This way they can campaign on the same issues until the heat death of the universe. All the NIMBYs know in practice it is safe to vote for them, as they will never rezone the city.
> In the handful jurisdictions where I am familiar with zoning laws and the permitting process, low cost and low effort is not how I would describe any part of even a straightforward approval.
At what point can we as a people say: screw it, break the laws and just get it done. it'll be worth it in the long-run.
>"There are hundreds of low-cost, low-effort ways to start making things better."
I used to think this as well, until I started sitting in on HOA and city council meetings. Good lord, even the most seemingly simple proposals are drenched in red tape and artificial barriers imposed by busybodies. I'm not sure how to get around this, sadly.
Easy: drop the public commentary portion of development. Random old people with nothing to do all day shouldn't be allowed to delay a project by months because they want to complain about the orientation of a window on a project. If you don't own the land, weren't democratically elected, and aren't funding the property you shouldn't get a say in local land use. Ridiculous that we've even set up these systems.
What if that window is looking straight into your bedroom or bathroom? I'd want to at least voice some concern over that. It's then up to officials to ignore that complaint or not. Having no way to express such concerns is faster of course, but there's downsides too
Move out of the city, or put a blind over your window
Being able to see other people's windows from your windows is an inescapable consequence of living in a city. If that's not acceptable to you, then you buy an acreage in the woods somewhere. It's not a reasonable thing to be protesting a development approval over.
Which is longer than the elction cycle in most counties, not just the US. Herein may lie part of the problem: its hard to incentivise politicians to solve long-term problems when doing so does not help them get re-elected.
Key point: all of these "low cost, low effort" ways depend on people staying where they have influence. Any change to zoning laws, or to approve funding for bike and public-transit infrastructure, etc., requires residents who support those things. People who grew up in a city because that's where their parents lived, or who run away from the suburbs to the cities (or to other countries), have zero influence over the problem where it exists and therefore have little moral standing in these debates. Don't just make things better for yourself. Don't be a coward. Stand and fight.
