You Don't Need Population Density to 'Justify' Mass Transit

For this video, I'll talk about a misconception that you already need an already dense city to "justify" mass transit projects. Featured cities include Phoenix, AZ, Nashville, TN, and New York, NY.

If you liked the video, then subscribe! The next one I'm planning will be as much about urban planning as it is about psychology, and I think you guys will like it a lot.

Insta: Real_Thomas_Y
Twitter: Real_Thomas_Y

FAQ:
1. Why do you like/support public transit over cars? The primary reason is because cars, while convenient, impose huge costs on society. A huge amount of our land is used for parking, a huge amount of people get injured by them every year, and most of us are effectively forced to buy one to get around. It's honestly insane just how many problems are caused by mass car usage, but they are so ingrained in our lives we hardly even think about it. Public transit requires far less space, is much more accessible, and is just a much more efficient way of moving large amounts of people.

2. What if I don't want my neighborhood to become more "urban" in character? I don't blame people who want to live a more suburban/rural lifestyle (some urbanists are against car use entirely, I am definitely not). But at the same time, if a city/neighborhood is close enough to a major city to benefit from its amenities (e.g., major sports teams, job centers, universities, etc.), then they should also have some responsibility to accommodate new residents. If you want to see what happens when cities refuse to densify/build more housing, look at what's happening in San Francisco.

3. What's up with your apartment? It's bland, I know. If any sponsors are reading this, reach out to me (and maybe I'll be able to buy some furniture).

4. What happened to your teeth? I knocked one out in a skateboarding accident when I was 10, and the dentist who fixed them didn't align them right. I haven't bothered to get them fixed.

[jalfredl]

The same people who rejected the transit proposals are the same people that will continue to complain about being stuck in traffic

[BenriBea]

Yet you never hear these people complaining about new roads and highways that "go nowhere". It's almost as if infrastructure is easier and cheaper to build BEFORE an area is highly developed.

[ulrichspencer]

Another thing I would add is that if you build the transit first, you can often build it for a lot cheaper. If the city is already all developed, you gotta spend a buttload of money tunneling or buying rights-of-way. If you build the transit first before it fully develops, you can acquire the rights-of-way for dirt cheap (relatively) for a much cheaper elevated light metro to avoid tunneling altogether.

[humanecities]

We have a new LRT being built in Calgary, Canada. One of our politicians opposed it, saying, “It’s a train to nowhere.” Nowhere meaning a stop a one minute walk from his local office… where all his constituents live. Fortunately, about 90% of Calgarians support the project, so it’s happening anyway.

[IbrahimSowunmi]

The backwards thinking around urban development is honestly baffling to me. Hopeful to see it change soon.

[Squrtie]

I think the most frustrating thing about ValTrains being disapproved was that the voters probably weren't thinking about the city's future residents, such as myself, who were born after the proposal and have to live with the consequences.

[JudyCZ]

Prague politicians were recently laughed at for lengthening a tram line to a place where no-one lives (because the houses there are only about to be built). As if we didn't used to do exactly that decades ago with all the tram lines that are now surrounded by apartment buildings. It's really rare to hear people and politicians to think ahead more than their voting period... 🤦🏻‍♀️

[ntatenarin]

My car dependent friends sometimes freak out that I don't drive. "How do you get to this place?" "What if it's cold?" I just answer that I have 2 train lines, 2 bicycle stations, and 2 bus stops next to me (I live in Chicago). I don't need a car at all. And if I need a car? There are car rental places nearby, although I keep forgetting where they are because... I don't need a car!

I recommend, if you live in a city with decent public transportation, try not driving for a week. You'll realize that you're less stressed from not waiting in traffic, can get work done on the bus, and save money on gas/insurance/repairs!

[bano]

As a European, I'm baffled by the fact that these cities need referenda to build public transit.

[Nico_M.]

Developing transit *before* the land is densified is key, because if there's no transit when people flock to the new area, they will buy a car as they would need it to move around. It doesn't matter if the transit line opens a year later, those people already commited to a car, and if they own their home, they probably won't move in decades.

[Knightmessenger]

5:00 "the free market can fix the traffic problem itself. We don't need the government stepping in..."
I agree. Abolish all funding for roads and privatize them. Make all land mixed use zoning. Abolish all mandated parking minimums. Let's see how long car dependent suburbia would last in an actual free market and level playing field.
It really astounds me how these think tanks are under the impression american suburbs were not the result of massive central planning, government intervention and subsidies.

[danielkelly]

FYI, the Koch Brothers are really the Koch Brother now as one of them is deceased (as of 2019).

[balazsdusek]

the weirdest is how when predicting what happens after the transit is built they are still talking about traffic. who cares about traffic? you can just take the metro

[SpiritmanProductions]

Jay Foreman's video about London's expansion highlights this concept well. Several rail lines were built in the last century, heading north into empty countryside, and the urban development quickly followed.

[choreomaniac]

A good example of this is the Orange line through Arlington Virginia. After it was built, the area around it has built up to pretty high density with many mid-rise and high rise apartments. The blocks around each metro station are noticeably denser than nearby areas.

[rexawrex]

"won't even consider building transit until they're already choked with traffic" we're going through this right now in Halifax NS Canada

[rexoneill]

I’m from Australia, and in my city Melbourne we have trams(light rail) trains heaps of buses and we like to make sure our system is up to date with new lines to decongest our system with more trains ect. It’s just amazing that American government/people can’t get it that pushing public transit to the side isn’t the way.

[symphwind]

Nashville resident here, sadly saw that latest transit plan get defeated with lots of outside intervention. But beyond the arguments that you mentioned, two that played an important role in the transit plan's defeat were (1) that it would hasten gentrification if light rail extended into poor/middle-income neighborhoods (those that arguably would benefit the most regarding mobility) - this was part of why Erica Gilmore turned against it in the home stretch, and (2) perception of no benefit to those living outside walking distance to a light rail stop. The massive city borders resulting from the city-county merger lump together very rural areas and the actual denser city core, with very different interests. That, and the fact that the state of Tennessee hates public transit (and Nashville in general, evidenced by their latest efforts to downsize the city council, defund the convention center, and take over the airport board and sports authority), leaving the city to have to essentially finance everything by hiking the already-high sales tax, which is the most regressive way to go about things but the only way to do it when there's no state/local income tax and some strange regulations regarding property taxes. I am not hopeful about future transit prospects (though who we select as our next mayor this year will make a difference).

[brunoleite]

America is just unbelievable sometimes

[MythicalRedFox]

I'm losing it at the "changing traffic patterns" argument. Like ah yes, Koch Brothers, those notoriously fluctuating traffic patterns. Some days you go out into rush hour and the roads are completely empty, cause you just can't predict traffic! Traffic, notoriously unpredictable -- people never simply commute to the same workplaces and shops 95% of the time, nooo. We gotta have a legion of private rideshare cars on the road to aDaPt to the ever-changing demand of traffic. It's not like people's homes and workplaces are in fixed locations or anything.

And they mention this right after saying a few LRT trains are going to increase traffic. So a few trains increase traffic, but hoards of Uber drivers on the road doesn't, got it.

These arguments are _so_ obviously contradictory, logically fallacious, and just plain stupid -- and yet they work well enough to convince voters to vote for more traffic. 🤦‍♂