What a great insight on the missing middle. I also 100% agree with the opportunity of micro mobility. Even in very spread out Orange County, CA, my e-bike is a great tool. But until there is more good bike infrastructure only experienced vehicular cyclists will ride e-bikes.
Great article on the transportation dilemma most cities are facing. There is an unclear threshold in which increased density begins to support walking/biking/transit as viable alternatives to driving. As cities grow and densify, traffic may get worse approaching that threshold. Selling the public on delayed benefits in the face of the immediate and obvious cons is of worsening congestion is a tough one that planners and politicians need to navigate. I think being honest about those trade offs is important.
Curious on your thoughts about transit funding. On your first chart, I’m guessing somewhere a tad to the right of the missing middle cloud is where funding for transit (sales tax increases etc) begin to win elections. Here in the Boise ID metro area, I think we’re still a ways from there as driving is still most convenient. But it’s densifying a lot right now and parking and traffic are pretty big concerns to the point of making people just start to scratch the idea of more robust transit. But we’re light years from funding and some state legislative action will have to occur to even allow local option sales tax etc.
"Our suburban areas are specifically designed to house large numbers of people who will drive everywhere for every trip, and they achieve that goal."
There is an important exception to design, though I cannot speak to subdivisions designed over the last few decades. Most subdivisions in the 20th-c were designed according to the Radburn idea that kids would walk to grade schools and local playgrounds, and they limited ingress and ingress to eliminate outside traffic. This is an important point of advocacy, since, ironically, subdivisions are designed to limit traffic and cities are designed to take on more traffic.
What a great insight on the missing middle. I also 100% agree with the opportunity of micro mobility. Even in very spread out Orange County, CA, my e-bike is a great tool. But until there is more good bike infrastructure only experienced vehicular cyclists will ride e-bikes.
Great article on the transportation dilemma most cities are facing. There is an unclear threshold in which increased density begins to support walking/biking/transit as viable alternatives to driving. As cities grow and densify, traffic may get worse approaching that threshold. Selling the public on delayed benefits in the face of the immediate and obvious cons is of worsening congestion is a tough one that planners and politicians need to navigate. I think being honest about those trade offs is important.
Curious on your thoughts about transit funding. On your first chart, I’m guessing somewhere a tad to the right of the missing middle cloud is where funding for transit (sales tax increases etc) begin to win elections. Here in the Boise ID metro area, I think we’re still a ways from there as driving is still most convenient. But it’s densifying a lot right now and parking and traffic are pretty big concerns to the point of making people just start to scratch the idea of more robust transit. But we’re light years from funding and some state legislative action will have to occur to even allow local option sales tax etc.
I think Andrew Miller’s article here (https://www.changinglanesnewsletter.com/p/progress-and-public-transit-part-917) has a more developed and thoughtful take than I can fit in a comment. I like his ideas on transit funding.
"Our suburban areas are specifically designed to house large numbers of people who will drive everywhere for every trip, and they achieve that goal."
There is an important exception to design, though I cannot speak to subdivisions designed over the last few decades. Most subdivisions in the 20th-c were designed according to the Radburn idea that kids would walk to grade schools and local playgrounds, and they limited ingress and ingress to eliminate outside traffic. This is an important point of advocacy, since, ironically, subdivisions are designed to limit traffic and cities are designed to take on more traffic.