News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on California's DOT Admits That More Roads Mean More Traffic. Parent comment

Re:California's DOT Admits That More Roads Mean More Traffic by andys627 on Monday November 23, 2015 @11:04AM (#10615303)
Increase cost of "sprawl" and car ownership - increase price of parking, add tolls, increase property tax for "sprawl". Decrease price of more dense, transit oriented (ie development where walking or taking the bus is just as convenient as driving a car) - get rid of parking minimums, make FHA loans available on condos, add bike lanes, add transit.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California's DOT Admits That More Roads Mean More Traffic by ryandrake on Monday November 23, 2015 @11:46AM (#10615535)
So, essentially, make my life and home even more expensive, pushing me further and further out into a cheaper area, making my (still car-centric) commute even longer?

I'd love it if you could wave a magic wand and simply "make" bikeable-to-work housing in the Bay Area more affordable, but good luck with that.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California's DOT Admits That More Roads Mean More Traffic by andys627 on Monday November 23, 2015 @12:54PM (#10615982)
Yes, exactly, increase cost of sprawl.

BUT also decrease cost of density... pretty hard considering the momentum behind sprawl. Sprawl looks less attractive when it's more expensive. Density looks more attractive when it's cheaper.

I'd love it if I could wave a magic wand too. This is going to be a generation long effort. But it's taken a generation long effort to build car land.

[ Parent | on HN ]