The below opinions are held by some members of the urbanism community. I think differently using a fact/reason-based mindset about some of these problems rather than an ideological one. Additionally, I think that like some of these beliefs/messaging could be hampering the goals of the movement. I share many of these critiques with the Oh the Urbanity! YouTube channel, who has made videos about some of these.
How to advocate for zoning reform
When talking to NIMBYs like political representatives or their acquaintances, urbanists/YIMBYs sometimes struggle at conveying persuasive arguments why dense housing should be allowed without potentially reinforcing NIMBY’s existing beliefs or simply failing to connect with the NIMBY.
Many YIMBYs start out with:
We need to allow density to stop home price inflation!
However, this does not connect with your average home-owning NIMBY. It is not in their interest to support properties that they view as devaluing their own or bringing lower-income people to their city who they view as criminals. You need to appeal to social benefits that they are likely to sympathize with using pathos, not just ethos.
A good example from https://neuchicago.org:
We support dense, mixed-income housing that makes room for more people to live near jobs, transit, and community life.
Having a conveniently located job, engaging in community life, and the ease of access to good transit is something that all urban (and even most suburban) homeowner NIMBYs can relate to. This kind of message helps them understand why increased density can improve their community.
There are other ways to more-persuasively phrase supporting zoning reform. Think about it. I’ll add some here if I find any more.
“Autonomous cars are bad”
Many people in the urbanist community online hold the belief that autonomous cars will hamper urbanism’s goals by reinforcing our existing social attachment and dependence on cities built solely around auto transportation.
I believe that this is true a bit, however, I think the existence of autonomous cars can remain completely independent of our advocacy for urbanism. From an operational perspective, autonomous cars are fundamentally no different than existing manual cars. Both carry passengers using a road from one place to another. The only difference is whether they’re operated by a human.
They make no change to how we currently understand how road traffic works.
- We already know that cheaper vehicle operation costs will mean more vehicle miles traveled.
- We already know that more taxis can increase congestion on roads.
Neither of these effects make any difference as to why we’re advocating for more alternatives to driving. Alternative modes of transport will continue to remain in demand, even as we see more trips by vehicle. Ultimately, induced demand catches up and road supply is a limited resource.
Many people also point out that autonomous cars are not safe. Then I ask that they please evaluate how safe they are, and determine a threshold when you think they are safe enough. For me and most people, that would be when autonomous cars are on average safer than human drivers. Waymo has already achieved that, and states and the NTSB continue to hold them and other autonomous vehicle manufacturers to a much higher standard than human drivers.
Autonomous vehicles are arguably a major win for urbanism. Much like the airline industry, they shift the burden of safety from individual humans to corporate entities, subjecting them to a standard of accountability far more rigorous than any human driver faces. Consequently, they are effectively delivering on the urbanist goal of significantly safer streets.
If anything, we should be looking to advocating for implementing safe autonomous vehicles as fast as possible. The sooner we get humans off the streets (and eventually ban them from manually operating a vehicle), the more lives we can save!
Finally, autonomous technologies are not just isolated to personal cars. These can be applied to autonomous trucking and autonomous buses as well. Wouldn’t urbanists like to reduce the number of deaths caused by large trucks and decrease the operating costs of our bus systems?
“One more lane is bad”
When urbanists frame the argument that all highway expansion is bad, or that “one more lane will just lead to more drivers”, they immaturely fail to acknowledge that induced demand happens to transit too, or the utility of road vehicles at all. This can discourage people who are used to the utility of car infrastructure from supporting the urbanist movement, and outright opposing any car infrastructure can act as a barrier towards economic and social progress as well.
What urbanists need to message for is that shared/non-vehicular mobility systems like public transit and micromobility are more economically efficient than vehicular infrastructure for cities. A train can move just as many people as a highway, but it does it in a significantly smaller space, at significantly lower cost per rider, with significantly less environmental impacts, and most importantly, it scales much better with demand. A 2 track train line can scale with a number of passengers much higher than a highway.
Ultimately, we do need roads, both rural and in our cities. Roads are key for truck-based logistics which efficiently mass-deliver goods to our society. They help people willing to pay get to destinations quickly. They support emergency vehicles. They help us access rural places. They help multiple people efficiently travel together. We need to reasonably balance these benefits with the benefits of other transit infrastructure and plan our cities accordingly. We can’t just ban it.
Also ultimately, trains can function as growth tools just as much as highways can. Both can fill up due to induced demand. Texas builds new highways to support new growth. Tokyo builds a new rail like like the Tsukuba Express to induce growth. They both try to accomplish the same goal, it’s just that the latter can support a lot more people and build a more vibrant, cheap, transit option than the former.
“This should have been a train/BRT is bad”
Parts of both the urbanism community and the North American transit planning/political community are obsessed with streetcars/light rail, and trains. They find that many BRT projects should have been light rail, or light rail projects should have been metros.
Ultimately, transit projects should be sized for what’s right for a city, and planners aim to do that.
What I conflict with personally on the planning side is North American’s obsession with building slow light rail / streetcars. Many cities build light rail lines that when compared to an electric BRT separated bus, cost an exorbitant amount more money and sometimes accelerate and travel slower. Yes, maybe the streetcar is visually-appealing, permanent infrastructure that will attract development in an area. However, at the cost it takes to build and maintain these, as well as the cost to the riders in lost time, BRT systems are much superior.
If BRT costs 5x less and travels 1.25-1.5x faster than a streetcar / slow light rail line, I would 100% take 5x as many BRT lines at 1.25x the speed in my city than 1 streetcar/slow light rail line, even if they have less capacity per vehicle. If capacity becomes an issue in the future, then you can always upgrade the BRT right of way in the future.
On the other hand, members of the urbanism community need to cool it when it comes to demanding a train for every new transit project. Yes, the streetcar suburbs of the 1920s were very cute and provided public transit for all, but many cities ultimately made the correct choice of replacing their streetcar lines with buses. Busses are faster and cheaper to operate. There’s no denying it. BRT for the above reasons is extremely effective and needs to be a solution more-commonly advocated for in the urbanist community.
Mexico City and other Latin American cities have implemented BRT with astounding success. Here’s an example of one line
Soft YIMBYs
This isn’t the worst trait to have, but if you’re a YIMBY who supports density up to a certain height, or want a neighborhood to mature “slowly”, you’re kind of drawing the same line “that’s to dense for me” that NIMBYs are.
If you hold the belief that the housing market exists and works to meet the demand of a place, then why are you constricting it? Let people build what they want on their land. Be consistent in your beliefs. It makes life a lot easier.
“Public transit should be free”
Ultimately this is a balance between what the general public is willing to pay for X amount of service through taxes, and what users are willing to pay for Y amount of service through fares. The balancing point of those is where the fare is priced.
Let’s do a thought experiment: Most transit systems charge for fares right now. But what if we lived in a world where they were free? Each year, society through its political representatives decides how much to fund public transit through taxes and that guarantees a level of service X. However, one year, let’s say someone proposed adding a fare to transit instead of raising taxes to achieve an enhanced level of service Y. Would they do that? Most societies would!(most societies have, and continue to have a fare for public transit) Even if it’s just a dollar, most people would be willing to pay for an increased level transit through a fare hike (up to a point), then rely solely on trying to convince the general populace to fund some level of service Y.
In fact, we can see this same phenomenon of balancing public spending vs user fees with toll roads and congestion pricing! Many states in the US have converted or built toll lanes on existing or new highways because they recognize that the level of service on such roads is higher than on free ones. Likewise, New Yorker’s have recognized that adding a toll for driving into Manhattan can actually improve the experience of driving into Manhattan (less cars).
Society is generally OK with fares, and I typically am too!
Additionally, some places really need public transportation fares. Take lines where public transit is at its capacity. If public transit were free, would the people who needed to be somewhere the most be able to use transit effectively to get there? No! The metro line would be too crowded. Crowded/congested lines implement congestion pricing for this reason. Once again, it makes sense to have fares. We can’t just introduce new capacity to solve this on a whim.
I’ve added a Gemini response below to give some further reasoning too:
The economic argument against free public transit is rooted in the concepts of resource allocation, scarcity, and price signaling. While the social benefits of transit are high, economists often argue that a “zero-price” model creates inefficiencies that can actually degrade the quality of the service.
Here is the breakdown of the fundamental economic arguments for a priced system.
1. The Price Signal and Efficient Allocation
In economics, a price is not just a way to collect money; it is a signal. It tells the provider how much a service is valued and tells the consumer the “cost” of the resources they are consuming.
- Preventing Over-Consumption: When a service is free, the “marginal cost” to the user is zero. This can lead to “joyriding” or using the bus for extremely short trips that could easily be walked. This crowds out commuters who have a high-value need for the space (e.g., getting to a job on time).
- The Scarcity Problem: Transit capacity (seats on a bus, space on a train) is a scarce resource. Without a price to ration that resource, the system relies on “queuing” (waiting in line or standing in packed cars), which is an inefficient waste of human time.
2. Cross-Elasticity and Competitive Pricing
You mentioned the comparison to driving, which is known as cross-elasticity of demand. The argument is that for a transportation market to be efficient, all modes should reflect their “true cost.”
- Leveling the Playing Field: Driving has significant costs (fuel, maintenance, insurance, and “externalities” like pollution). If transit is free while driving is priced, it creates a massive market distortion.
- The “Vicious Cycle” of Quality: Economists argue that most drivers don’t choose transit based on a few dollars in fares; they choose it based on utility (speed, frequency, and cleanliness). By removing fares, agencies lose a revenue stream that could have been used to increase frequency. A “free” bus that comes every 60 minutes is less economically competitive than a $2.50 bus that comes every 10 minutes.
3. The “Benefit Principle” of Taxation
This is the idea that those who benefit from a government service should be the ones to pay for it.
- Direct vs. Indirect Users: While the whole city benefits from reduced traffic (an externality), the rider receives the direct “private benefit” of being transported. Fares ensure that the individual user covers the marginal cost of their trip, while subsidies (taxes) cover the fixed costs (building the tracks).
- Targeted Subsidies: Many economists argue it is more efficient to charge a standard fare and provide direct subsidies (like low-income passes) to those who need it, rather than making it free for wealthy commuters who are willing and able to pay.
Summary of the Economic Trade-offs
| Feature | Free Transit (Universal) | Priced Transit (Market-Based) |
| Primary Goal | Equity and maximum access. | Efficiency and service quality. |
| Funding Source | 100% Taxpayer funded. | Mixed (Fares + Taxes). |
| Usage Driver | Zero barrier to entry. | Service frequency and reliability. |
| Risk | Overcrowding and underfunding. | “Transit poverty” for low-income users. |
The “Induced Demand” Counter-Argument: Interestingly, some economists argue that because driving is often implicitly subsidized (free parking, unpriced road congestion), making transit free is simply a way to “correct” the market by matching the artificially low price of driving. However, the prevailing view remains that pricing the roads (congestion pricing) is a more efficient solution than making transit free.
Here’s an Oh the Urbanity! video