Urban Planning Megathread - I'll NIMBY in your YIMBY

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Urban Planning Megathread - I'll NIMBY in your YIMBY

NIMBY?
	NIMBY
	YIMBY
	I can't afford my medicine.

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Speaking of Hong Kong, I was just looking around cost vs height comparisons and this is what came up:

(from this study: http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB12189.pdf)

Despite their fitted curve rising from around 60 meters, the actual data seems to be going down up to about 100m, or around 30 floors. This is waaay taller than the new constructions I see anywhere else. Here it's like 4-6 floors max with very few exceptions. Of course then everyone would have to live in this concrete paradise:

I don't know if that's actually desirable outside of extreme cases like HK or Singapore but encouraging building stuff like that could help.

Cicero posted:

The reason I don't think the geography is that much of an issue is that even where geography permits, liberal areas tend to enforce urban growth boundaries explicitly to reduce sprawl. Which is good, it's just that you can't block building outward AND upward.

To me I was thinking more that I associate Chicago and New Orleans with just being really poorly managed in general. Particularly Chicago gets a rep of being a hotbed of violent crime and corruption.

This is what I was kind of getting at... the only way to solve housing is to massively increase supply. Even if you rent-controlled everything at $200, most of the people who actually want to live there still wouldn't be able to.

My pet peeve is definitely singe use zoning or whatever it's called. I live in a fairly newly built up area slightly out of the downtown with the aforementioned 4-6 story residential buildings and a few office buildings across the road, but not a single retail business within 10-15 minute walking. Not a grocery, barber, or a pub. Really weird, this is usually not the case in some of the older districts where the ground floor are often all kind of retail. At that point rather than walking to the nearest lovely establishment, I might as well drive to a good one.

mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Aug 24, 2018

# ¿ Aug 24, 2018 18:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 04:17

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

I love roundabouts but they absolutely do suck if there's unequal traffic. If most of the cars go the same particular route, it will slow them down a bit while keeping everyone else waiting anyway, because they have to give way to the vehicles from the heavier route that are constantly on the roundabout.

There's an absolutely idiotic one just completed nearby where they replaced an ugly but perfectly well functional intersection with a roundabout, and now traffic comes to a crawl 500m away because 90% of the cars that would just keep left here have to come to an almost complete stop. :downsbravo:

It's not on streetview or even satellite yet but that's roughly what they did:

# ¿ Oct 21, 2018 14:50

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

If you want to to rely on public transport you just have to accept that some trips will take way long than driving (yes, sometimes several times longer), and either keep a car for those trips or just suck it up deal with it. If the standard for acceptance is "can't take longer than driving", it'll never take off.

Yesterday I went to see a movie with some friends and had to cross the whole city for it during the evening rush hour. My starting point was literally on a metro station and the destination was a few km from one too, so the perfect use case, right?

The stop and go was a bit annoying but even with the evening traffic driving took just about 35 minutes, returning at night was under 20. Google suggests the bus because the metro would take about 45 minutes to dump you like 4 km away so it'd take another 20 to get there. This is in a city with one of better public transport systems too.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2018 10:42

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

I remember it being ranked as one of the top 5 systems in the world and apparently it was from this study: https://www.arcadis.com/assets/images/sustainable-cities-mobility-index_spreads.pdf
This also includes sustainability and economic factors but even on purely coverage & reliability it's like #13. Anyway I don't have much of an opinion personally.

The thing is though, in this example even if they dug one more station next to my destination, it would still take 45 minutes. Like you literally couldn't get any better than that short of digging a direct, express tunnel. Of course with different geography and population density things could be different, and in any case I'm glad as many people use it as they do.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2018 11:25

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Lime or whatever is trying to get the shared electric scooters to take off. I wouldn't want to ride one anyway though because they look sketchy as gently caress.

It's weird bikes aren't more popular because it seems that's all everyone does on weekends.

# ¿ Oct 25, 2018 22:55

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Of course, I didn't mean to imply otherwise, but just to help set expectations. Public transport might seem like magic that just teleports you to your destination if you're not actually using it, and sometimes it is. But even in a good, widely used network many routes might take longer than driving, and if they don't, you might be spending a half-hour being pressed into a door/windshield by a fat smelly neckbeards on your way to way to work. See also: Tokyo, Moscow, etc. So if you'd like it to take off, some sacrifices on time and/or comfort might be necessary.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2018 10:40

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Are there already bus-only lanes? Because I can't see how this would work unless the bus always happens to be the first at lights.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2019 19:05

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Thanatosian posted:

What the gently caress are people doing in their backyards that they don't do in parks?

Is there some, like, backyard orgy trend running throughout suburbia that just nobody talks about?

Yeah, sorry, I guess your invitation got stuck I'm the mail.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2019 20:49

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

There are also way too many buses (at least in the same places with a lot of traffic) to make that practical. Letting through emergency vehicles often requires stopping, pulling over and even jumping curbs so if that starts happening on a regular basis, any savings in time will be more than offset by the increased fatal road rage incidents.

# ¿ Aug 15, 2019 23:17

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Yes the local governments

# ¿ Oct 2, 2019 12:02

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

^^^
OTOH, it helps keep the riff-raff off the roads so that's good

Cicero posted:

You can't, really. I mean you could avoid improving the areas where poor people live, but for obvious reasons this isn't the greatest idea either.

Best you can do is spread out the improvements. And then bigger picture public housing (and maybe even some form of rent control, though I don't think the way it works in the US usually is great).

Yes, but that problem gets all the focus, when it's economic segregation that's as big, if not a bigger problem. In many nicer school areas you can't live without a minimum amount of land, due to strict zoning requirements, which effectively keeps out most people who are poor or working class. If apartments were possible to build in those areas, they wouldn't be able to stay nearly as economically segregated.

Most Americans are aware of this on some level, that there's a reason why poor families don't just choose to live in better school areas which would then even things out, but because SFH-only zoning is so common, even most people left of center seem to just shrug and accept it. "Yeah, the local government enforces gated communities for schools for some reason, oh well."

One of the striking things about moving to Germany is that how rich or poor a neighborhood is, is much, MUCH less obvious almost all the time. Of course there's still some variation, but it's far less drastic, you usually have to actually pay close attention, whereas in most US neighborhoods I would nearly always notice how rich an area is even without thinking about it. And it seems pretty obvious that this is because there isn't any SFH-only zoning, anywhere, so you can always build at least, like, some 'missing middle' type housing that working class people could afford.

Those property taxes are probably also making gentrification worse in America directly too. I was pretty shocked when I learned my relatives in NJ were paying over 10 grand a year in property taxes. That's nuts and I can see how increasing property prices can drive out someone who otherwise would be able to afford living there. In contrast I got the annual property tax bill a couple of weeks back and it was less than $100.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2020 00:29

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Cugel the Clever posted:

Aren't property taxes a lagging indicator, though? They're paying a lot in property tax because property values in their area have gone up a lot.

I'm not sure how best to address that beyond being sure that freezing property taxes in any way is a terrible idea that only produces a bunch of old fucks who bought in when things were 50x cheaper and are intolerant of any change in their neighborhoods. Abolish all private land ownership, imho?

Well yes but they can also accelerate it since people can be forced out by having to pay higher taxes in addition to their mortgage or rent. During the bubble here my grandfather's apartment could've been worth $300-400k and it would be mathematically impossible to pay even a 1% tax on his pension and he'd have to move from the place he lived in since the 70s.

I'd exempt the primary residence from property taxes altogether. It's pretty weird that the one wealth tax that's somehow acceptable is literally on the only thing that's separating us from being homeless. It'd also have the extra benefit of decoupling tax revenue from real estate prices.

# ¿ May 1, 2020 14:24

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Good news!

https://mobile.twitter.com/Acosta/s...ber%3D3513pti28

# ¿ Jul 23, 2020 21:57

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Cugel the Clever posted:

For lighter content, even though there's been a million of these graphics and they rarely contain anything new, I still like them:

https://twitter.com/saraklind/status/1346161721162014721?s=19

Hmm seems like bicycles are a problem

# ¿ Jan 6, 2021 11:55

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Check out the video from the blog posted earlier:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XgucvsVEigA

There are hardly any cars there of course, and yet the main road is huuuge. Like way wider than what you'd see elsewhere. Private horse carriage ownership ruined everything :argh:

Also I think if you talk to people outside of the urbanist bubble, most will be happy with the current suburban situation, so of course changing that would be next to impossible due to their objections.

# ¿ Jan 18, 2022 23:15

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Cicero posted:

https://twitter.com/cafedujord/status/1488977555520589824?s=20&t=R3VICxbZSixonKiqP8oKzQ

NIMBY�s are the worst.

Street view in a random spot:

Lol. I could see cougars running wild around there being a problem though.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2022 15:39

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Maybe they're in Japan? Apparently it's a thing there to just demolish poo poo every 10-20 years.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2022 17:34

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Mooseontheloose posted:

This Boston Globe article is the perfect encapsulation of planning.

The yes guy is a experienced town manager explaining the benefits and why this is a good thing and why its necessary to create dense projects.

The second is a guy who says gently caress you no from a wealthy community.

In order to read it I had to sign up some poor bastard for a newsletter so here it is so you don't have to:

quote:

YES

Adam Chapdelaine

Former Arlington town manager; president, Metropolitan Area Planning Council; Dedham resident

Growing up in a three-decker in Fall River, I was fortunate to experience the benefits of life in a community with mostly multifamily housing. It is my hope that the new law requiring MBTA communities to zone for multi-family housing near transit stations can expand opportunities like this throughout Greater Boston.

There are three reasons the new law�s requirements make good public policy.

First, it is a clear acknowledgement of the scope of the housing crisis facing Greater Boston, which to meet demand needs 300,000+ new units over 2010 levels by 2040. The region is growing due to continued economic expansion, and with that comes jobs and the people who fill them. Providing housing options for these families, along with ensuring that families currently living in Greater Boston are not displaced, will require the creation of new units. As this is a regional challenge, the solutions must be broad-based, and opportunity must be provided throughout the region. The new policy recognizes this and provides a regional framework for addressing the projected housing shortfall.

Second, the new policy is not a construction mandate, but a mandate for zoning allowances that can offer expanded opportunities to build homes. No municipality would be forced to build units on any specific timeline � or even build them at all. Instead, MBTA communities would need to remove existing zoning � such as large lot or single-family requirements � that are a barrier to multifamily housing near transit facilities, and replace them with zoning allowing for that development. Any changes resulting from the law would occur over many years, allowing communities to grow and change along with the region.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the new law makes it clear that housing policy is climate policy. If the region grows as projected, it cannot sustain a corresponding number of vehicles added to local roadways. That would only exacerbate already challenging congestion, and increase carbon emissions at a time we are desperately trying to reduce them. Building housing in reasonable proximity to transit will provide residents lower-carbon transportation options and help the region meet its climate goals.

The new law provides a starting pathway for addressing our burgeoning housing crisis at a time when action can no longer wait.

NO

Randall Block

President of the community organization Right Size Newton

The state has developed a deceptively simple strategy to solve the housing crisis � just require MBTA communities to build denser housing. Guidelines developed by the state Department of Housing and Community Development apply a one-size-fits-all formula for determining the increased number of housing units required of each of the 175 MBTA communities. This approach shows a total lack of understanding of the issues facing cities and towns.

Let�s consider two examples.

Chelsea has 40,787 residents living in 14,554 housing units on 2.2 square miles of land. One of the most crowded cities in Massachusetts, Chelsea is also an �environmental justice� city facing rising sea level and urban heat-island effects. How many more housing units do our brilliant policy makers think Chelsea should add? 3,639, for an increase of 25 percent. Did they stop to think for a moment that Chelsea has little or no vacant land that can be developed? Did they stop to think that perhaps Chelsea is already overcrowded? Instead of making it even denser, we should help the city create open spaces to cope with climate change impacts.

Now let�s consider the small town of Nahant, which has 3,334 residents living in 1,680 housing units on one square mile of land. The experts at DHCD decided the minimum number of additional housing units required for any MBTA community would be 750. This would be a 45 percent increase in housing units in Nahant. Not only would that destroy the town as we know it, but the terrain is such that it�s probably not feasible. Fortunately, such a zoning change would never be approved at Town Meeting � more proof that DHCD policy makers are out of touch with reality.

The current administration has misdiagnosed the problem. The �housing crisis� is really a �housing cost crisis� which will not be remedied by building more market-rate housing that happens to be near an MBTA station. To help families with below-average income, we need more housing in communities where land is available and affordable. And we need to raise revenues to subsidize the housing that is built. The only sensible course is to throw out the state�s mandatory zoning scheme and start over.

quote:

Did they stop to think that perhaps Chelsea is already overcrowded? Instead of making it even denser, we should help the city create open spaces to cope with climate change impacts.

The gently caress does this even mean? Create open space how? I was in Boston this May so I have a general feeling for the area, but had to check out the map

Maybe demolishing the oil terminal and airport parking to build a few more SFHs?

mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Jul 19, 2022

# ¿ Jul 19, 2022 14:19

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

I posted this in the curse images thread a few days back but I kind of got more upset about it since then. There's some feel-good backstory there about the owner of that McMansion refusing to sell this part of the land to greedy developers (but they probably owned the area around it too) but just looking at it:

https://goo.gl/maps/oABdWAo8eM2CA4Bg9

You've got terrible sprawl and a giant house with an enormous grass lawn and 200 meter long driveway. The small houses are stand-alone but most don't even have a backyard worth mentioning. Half of the ground floor is the garage:

Why aren't they row houses? Not to mention apartment buildings. You could fit 6 buildings like the one I'm in, which have 4 floor x 3 apartments x 4 entrances, so space for 288 families in the space of just the lawn:

There are underground garages, ground floor has backyards, top floors have large roof access, everyone else has terraces. And there's still enough space between the building for a common area for children to play or to walk your dog or something. My area is frankly quieter than the more suburban type place where my parents live, as someone isn't constantly using a pressure washer or vacuuming their car in the driveway etc.

Frankly that's probably my biggest gripe with that sort of place, you end up with dense residential areas with nothing to do there, and I think City Beautiful actually did good job of highlighting how the Soviet city district planning worked here, which, despite all the other issues, I think was a good idea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGVBv7svKLo&t=411s

I actually lived in a place like this:

There's a tram stop on the left edge, two kindergartens, a school, a pond, a football field, several playgrounds, gyms, a few shops and cafes. The main problem was that everyone was poor as gently caress but the actual planning was very cool imo.

# ¿ May 8, 2023 13:22

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Greg12 posted:

was it difficult living in a gravitational vortex

did you hang out with mc escher

Falling from my bed directly into the school was pretty convenient. Haven't met Escher unfortunately.

Greg12 posted:

https://goo.gl/maps/oABdWAo8eM2CA4Bg9

I should probably watch that movie

# ¿ May 9, 2023 22:56

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Greg12 posted:

https://twitter.com/ajlamesa/status/1660006734172127233

this will be the end of "planning as a process" inshallah

Somehow it's not in the thread but someone shared a budget breakdown for this thing and the consulting team spent like $500k traveling around the world to learn how bus shelter design impacts gender inclusion and diversity. And then suggested that fuckin thing.

# ¿ May 21, 2023 17:04

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

They convert factories and other industrial spaces into residential all the time, I'm sure it'll be possible to convert offices just fine with sufficient (financial) motivation. It always seemed weird how the downtown in American cities become completely empty which is kind of a waste of real estate, hopefully this will help with more mixed-use areas.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2023 08:57

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Shrecknet posted:

How do you square this with the fact there are more vacant homes than homeless people currently? Are we discounting every home that isn't in an A-tier city? Are the homes in West Plattsburg, PA (pop 436) just not viable as housing to put people in?

(FWIW this is my take, we need more people living on less land closer together rather than suburban sprawl and blight. Close down towns and revert control to the counties, unincorporate these places and tell people they no longer get services. Buy out their homes, eminent domain them and get them to move in to the cities.)

The North American sprawl is of course a nightmare but just sticking everyone in cities doesn't solve affordability or homelessness, unfortunately. In fact this would probably make that worse by increasing demand in already in-demand places.

Nitrousoxide posted:

Yeah, I agree. They've made some really incredible changes to their zoning recently and probably have some of the best biking infrastructure in the country. They also have a reasonably well-developed BRT network that's actual BRT with dedicated lanes. This is unlike a lot of places which just slap "rapid" on a regular line. I think they have between 4-6 new BRT lines going up in the next few years too which should help in ton in connecting St. Paul and the other outlying communities to Minneapolis.

Rail would have better throughput and reliability than BRT I'm sure, but the latter can get up and running wayyyy faster with less red tape and has the existing rights of way through the highways.

If someone was a remote worker and could choose to move anywhere in the country Minneapolis would be in my top 3 list of suggestions to them.

Isn't it cold as gently caress though

# ¿ Aug 1, 2023 16:35

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Ol' Musky is now going to (pretend to?) dig a 68 mile almost-nice tunnel in LV lol. That's certainly going to solve transportation.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/08/musks-boring-company-gets-ok-to-dig-68-miles-of-tunnels-under-las-vegas/

# ¿ Aug 2, 2023 19:02

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

VikingofRock posted:

Most Americans that I know hate driving, and they want to live close to things (see e.g. how much people complain about their commutes). But we design our cities to maximize unpleasantness, so most Americans have never experienced density that is pleasant to exist in. That's why they worry that you are going to try to turn their suburb into a loud, stinking, cramped, and dangerous city — that's the only kind of city they've ever seen.

Are people going to give up their lawns and McMansiosn to live closer to civilization though? These are mutually incompatible and while everyone hates driving (for commuting), I kind of doubt many would make that trade voluntarily.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2023 19:45

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Ham Equity posted:

When does this start? Because as of now, it's the most gas-guzzling vehicles that continue to be the best-selling.

From the energy thread:

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

https://twitter.com/colinmckerrache/status/1696482907538264353?s=20

While the energy transition isn't happening as fast as we'd like... it is happening.

so hopefully within a few years

# ¿ Sep 1, 2023 20:49

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

cat botherer posted:

With this stuff, it's best to focus on the second derivative or higher if you want to remain optimistic.

That's why I exclusively look at the third derivative, jerk.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2023 15:49

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Cicero posted:

That said I'm not sure it really makes sense to mandate that every apartment block have ground level retail. That seems like it would probably be too much retail; even somewhere like Tokyo you're not gonna find retail at the ground floor of every single aparment/condo building. Along major streets though, sure.

Maybe not every single building but some of them for sure. Lack of this mix-use is something that I dislike about the area I live in, I have to walk for at least 10 minutes before I get to anything that's not residential. That's porbably not bad by NA subub standards but it makes the area completely dead and not even worth going outside unless you're actually going somewhere else.

This is something both new and old commie residential developments generally lack. The older ones at least had a bunch of other useful facilities mixed in and not just endless apartment blocks. So here there's a bunch of sports fields, kindergartens, schools, and a doctor's office. But otherwise nothing going on, after exploring street view for a bit, the only business I could see on the ground floor is a... custom bathroom designer? I'm sure it's great but not something that could liven up the area for local residents like a cafe or a bakery.

poo poo like that woks great in the olderer downtowns so it's a bummer these developmetns are so lifeless.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2023 23:19

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

The ground floor apartments in my building have little backyards which seem to be more than most people really need, based on how they're actually used. But could be a good option to convert people too used to mowing their suburban backyards

# ¿ Sep 21, 2023 09:13

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Jaxyon posted:

Depends what your goals are.

If you want to reduce rubber waste, yeah go for internal combustion.

If you want to reduce carbon emissions, go for EV.

Nothing is perfectly sustainable in every way.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2023 23:18

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Cicero posted:

There's also the issue of fire trucks that comes up sometimes. Ones in the US are humongous and need big roads. Yes, other countries make it work with smaller fire trucks, I'd like to see that too, but there's definitely a lot of cultural momentum that makes it hard, since smaller fire trucks aren't standard here. You gotta convince the fire department or whoever to get smaller vehicles, and they may not be happy about it.

edit: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-20/fire-departments-are-standing-in-the-way-of-good-street-design

Post by former SF supervisor and current CA state senator Scott Wiener discussing this issue

Sounds like San Francisco should order some Japanese fire trucks

Cicero posted:

This is something I loved in Munich, compared to the US. Even small apartment complexes there, like a dozen units or less, had underground parking instead of street level. Makes neighborhoods SO much nicer all around.

I understand part of why people describe apartment complexes going into previously single-family neighborhoods as ugly in the states: they're usually little island buildings surrounded by a sea of asphalt. It really is super ugly...but it's fixable! You don't have to make apartment buildings that way.

Yeah it kind of sucks you have to buy your garage spot with the apartment but obviously it's the "correct" thing to place the cost where it belongs. It really does improve the streets by not being like 50% parking, and as a plus you have an actual guaranteed spot and don't have to drive around in circles looking for a place in return for it.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2023 12:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 04:17

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Badger of Basra posted:

Apropos of the impact of NEPA on project timelines - maybe it's not NEPA but there is definitely a lot of unnecessary (and not even legally required) process BS going on

https://twitter.com/numble/status/1557525354788577282

https://twitter.com/numble/status/1557525425110278145

I was just looking for another post of mine and at some point I must've quoted this one.

It's 2024 now so let's see what's happening!

quote:

L.A. Metro awards Vermont Transit Corridor Planning and Environmental Study to Vermont Corridor Partners
The study calls for a comprehensive BRT and rail improvement strategy along Vermont Avenue, the second busiest transit corridor in L.A. Metro�s bus portfolio

The Los Angeles County Transportation Authority (L.A. Metro) has awarded the Vermont Transit Corridor Planning and Environmental Study to the Vermont Corridor Partners (VCP), an AECOM-led joint venture with minority-owned small businesses Terry A. Hayes Associates Inc. and RAW International, Inc.

The study calls for a comprehensive bus rapid transit (BRT) and rail improvement strategy along Vermont Avenue, the second busiest transit corridor in L.A. Metro�s bus portfolio, stretching from Hollywood Boulevard to 120th St. The joint venture will play a central role in its planning, design and implementation, with an emphasis on mobility access, equity and community priorities.

https://www.masstransitmag.com/mana...rridor-partners
The announcement doesn't make it super clear but it's either the "environmental study for medium term BRT project" in which case it's only a year late, or the "lon-germ rail study", in which case it's right on schedule.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2024 00:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Urban Planning Megathread - I'll NIMBY in your YIMBY