I wanted to jot down some of the takeaways from yesterday’s collective intelligence session, partly for my future self, partly for anyone else thinking through these ideas:
- More bus lanes
- Fewer stops (more spaced out)
- More EV buses
- More routes (to offer alternatives when one isn’t working)
- Clearer, better-designed signage (like the old style) and bus numbers
- Greater traceability: which drivers show up vs. who cancel, to boost accountability and allow riders to adjust routes accordingly
- Paid parking
I’d love to see what the other group came up with too.
Thank you for spotlighting this low-hanging fruit. Improving buses really could make a huge difference, not just in transit, but in unlocking more housing options and ultimately helping stabilize rent prices across the city.
That said, I still believe rent control and stabilization remains essential to counter disparities in purchasing power and prevent the displacement of lower-income communities.
It’s exciting to imagine how the city could expand inward and eventually outward. I’m looking forward to exploring how feasible that really is from a zoning perspective with Chris Mann and others in the Abundance group.
P.S. After our meeting, I felt newly inspired and hopeful about buses, so I waited for the B69 at 9:40 PM (it was the closest after errands). To my surprise, it showed up, thus making it the fastest and most comfortable option too! 😄
This isn't quite as short as your time-frames, but one of my big arguments for elevated rail is that it can be built and completed in the space of a single political term in office
Thank you for sharing Shaked! This is actually probably as fast as some of my proposals and we should absolutely advocate for elevated lines where they make sense.
Insightful post! You make a great point about mobility improving affordability in the near term.
How does the rise of hybrid/remote working fit into this conversation? Housing availability and transportation capacity affect the supply side of the equation. On the other hand, reducing the need for physical presence and commuting would theoretically soften the demand side. Yet, NYC traffic seems unimproved from pre-pandemic levels, and housing prices are still rising fast.
I'm curious about your thoughts on this apparent paradox that might suggest the existence of complex factors limiting the effectiveness of the short-term improvements you proposed.
Thanks for raising this excellent point about remote / hybrid work! You've identified something I should have addressed in the article, and you're absolutely right that remote work theoretically reduces commuting demand, yet we're still seeing significant congestion and housing pressure. My take is that, while office occupancy has declined below its pre-pandemic levels, traffic has largely returned because (at least prior to congestion pricing) more people were choosing to drive rather than take transit when they do commute. I also think remote work has actually increased housing demand in certain NYC neighborhoods as some of my friends have looked for larger apartments to accommodate home offices, while simultaneously reducing demand in areas directly adjacent to business districts due to hybrid work. Another issue is that I think NYC's tax base depends significantly on commercial real estate and business activity. As this shifts, the city will face budget pressures that could affect transportation funding. I support remote work and view it as a positive development that can reduce congestion and give people more choice. I just hope the transition can happen gradually enough for city finances and transportation patterns to adjust (and that the city recognizes this reality and plans accordingly). The mobility improvements I've suggested become even more important in this context - they help make transit more competitive with driving for the reduced but still substantial number of commuters, while also supporting non-work trips that remain essential regardless of work patterns.
For those interested, there will be a meetup to discuss these topics on Tuesday, May 27th in Fort Greene Park in Brooklyn. Here are the meeting details:
I apologize in advance for my ignorance as I have only been recently thinking of solutions to the housing crisis in NYC. Most abundance movements are trying to create more housing within NYC through rezoning without thinking about the limits of that abundance. This is specially true when making 500,000 new apartments available doesn’t solve the affordability issue that should be controlled through state laws capping rent increases, as new individuals with higher buying power have been displacing local communities for decades now. NYC is slowely but surely becoming the new SF.
So I appreciate an idea that takes into account affordability of housing and I agree that expanding transportation is the only solution but what I am struggling with is how to achieve that and if on its own it is enough to provide more housing access.
1 - Congestion pricing alone will buy shiny new subways but won’t be enough to cover the expansion of the transit system.
2 - Long Island without queens and brooklyn has a population of 3 million and a density of 2300 people per square mile. Brooklyn has a population density of 37,399 people per square mile. So it seems pretty obvious that NYC should be growing externally not internally.
My two questions are why is LI so expensive when there’s not enough demand?
Shouldn’t the main co-solution be caping rent everywhere in the state (like in Canada increase of 3% per year)?
Unfortunately I have another event on the same night as maximumnewyork’s, but I will be attending yours. And I met Ryder at their last Abundance happy hour. I told him the same thing and he referred me the good cause eviction law, which would cap the rent increase this year at 8.82% it looks harmless at first glance. But that’s equivalent to doubling (x2) one’s rent after a decade whereas with a 3% cap (like in some Canadian provinces) it would take 23 years for the rent to double (x2). It’s all very scary but with the national and international mass migration that’s coming up because of climate change better prepare than be sorry. Will gladly continue the discussion here or on Tuesday. Many thanks!
Thank you for engaging with the article! There's a lot in your comment I'd like to dig into more deeply if I get the time, but for now, I'll share a quick take on your second question about capping rent.
My best guess is that this largely comes down to whether you're more focused on affordability for existing renters or increasing access for new ones. On aggregate, caps should help people who are already renting, but I’d expect them to reduce new construction in the long run, which makes things harder for newcomers. It’s a difficult trade-off.
Personally, I lean more toward improving affordability for newcomers, but I think most New Yorkers currently prioritize affordability for existing residents.
Interestingly, Maximum New York (the blog that inspired this post) is hosting an event on rent regulation soon, if you're interested in diving deeper into that topic:
Caution is warranted here. When the cost of transportation drops, it can lead to higher housing costs. In cities, distance is measured in minutes, not miles.
In many European cities with fast, well-connected metro systems and very affordable monthly passes, rent increases across all neighborhoods — not just the central ones — because more areas become "accessible" and desirable.
That said, it's still a much better outcome than congestion and car-dependence. But we shouldn't overlook how improvements in mobility can unintentionally reshape housing markets.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I agree that transportation improvements don’t automatically lead to lower housing costs. As you noted, they can increase demand for newly accessible neighborhoods, which often raises value and rent in those areas more than it reduces pressure on central ones.
That said, I think it’s important not to treat all rising prices as inherently negative. Rising rents can reflect increased livability and access, which are things people actively want. As a thought experiment, if we imagined our only goal were to reduce rents, we could let public services like trash collection deteriorate, and prices would likely fall, but that’s clearly not the kind of affordability anyone is aiming for.
The real goal is to increase the value people get for what they pay. Mobility improvements can do that by expanding opportunity and access across the city. They are also often faster and more politically tractable than long-term housing reforms.
It’s also worth noting that rent stabilization protects many existing tenants in New York. While not perfect, it helps buffer against the worst displacement effects and reflects the city’s commitment to balancing affordability with livability.
In short, increasing demand shouldn't be seen as a failure. It often means we are doing something right. The challenge is to match that demand with thoughtful policy that helps ensure the benefits are broadly shared.
Hey Jonathan,
I wanted to jot down some of the takeaways from yesterday’s collective intelligence session, partly for my future self, partly for anyone else thinking through these ideas:
- More bus lanes
- Fewer stops (more spaced out)
- More EV buses
- More routes (to offer alternatives when one isn’t working)
- Clearer, better-designed signage (like the old style) and bus numbers
- Greater traceability: which drivers show up vs. who cancel, to boost accountability and allow riders to adjust routes accordingly
- Paid parking
I’d love to see what the other group came up with too.
Thank you for spotlighting this low-hanging fruit. Improving buses really could make a huge difference, not just in transit, but in unlocking more housing options and ultimately helping stabilize rent prices across the city.
That said, I still believe rent control and stabilization remains essential to counter disparities in purchasing power and prevent the displacement of lower-income communities.
It’s exciting to imagine how the city could expand inward and eventually outward. I’m looking forward to exploring how feasible that really is from a zoning perspective with Chris Mann and others in the Abundance group.
P.S. After our meeting, I felt newly inspired and hopeful about buses, so I waited for the B69 at 9:40 PM (it was the closest after errands). To my surprise, it showed up, thus making it the fastest and most comfortable option too! 😄
Some more thoughts which I did not see in the post, although I may have missed them.
(1) Block Waze from rerouting traffic onto neighborhood streets.
(2) Traffic calming devices - increases pedestrian mobility.
(3) Eliminate minimum parking requirements.
(4) Repurpose parking spaces. Outdoor dining, a park, a flea market. the latter could be just on a Saturday.
(5) Relax restrictions on small shops in residential areas.
Thank you for these suggestions Bob! We'll discuss them at the meetup!
This isn't quite as short as your time-frames, but one of my big arguments for elevated rail is that it can be built and completed in the space of a single political term in office
https://open.substack.com/pub/shakeddown/p/elevated-rail-is-an-urbanism-cheat?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=f8id0
Thank you for sharing Shaked! This is actually probably as fast as some of my proposals and we should absolutely advocate for elevated lines where they make sense.
Insightful post! You make a great point about mobility improving affordability in the near term.
How does the rise of hybrid/remote working fit into this conversation? Housing availability and transportation capacity affect the supply side of the equation. On the other hand, reducing the need for physical presence and commuting would theoretically soften the demand side. Yet, NYC traffic seems unimproved from pre-pandemic levels, and housing prices are still rising fast.
I'm curious about your thoughts on this apparent paradox that might suggest the existence of complex factors limiting the effectiveness of the short-term improvements you proposed.
Thanks for raising this excellent point about remote / hybrid work! You've identified something I should have addressed in the article, and you're absolutely right that remote work theoretically reduces commuting demand, yet we're still seeing significant congestion and housing pressure. My take is that, while office occupancy has declined below its pre-pandemic levels, traffic has largely returned because (at least prior to congestion pricing) more people were choosing to drive rather than take transit when they do commute. I also think remote work has actually increased housing demand in certain NYC neighborhoods as some of my friends have looked for larger apartments to accommodate home offices, while simultaneously reducing demand in areas directly adjacent to business districts due to hybrid work. Another issue is that I think NYC's tax base depends significantly on commercial real estate and business activity. As this shifts, the city will face budget pressures that could affect transportation funding. I support remote work and view it as a positive development that can reduce congestion and give people more choice. I just hope the transition can happen gradually enough for city finances and transportation patterns to adjust (and that the city recognizes this reality and plans accordingly). The mobility improvements I've suggested become even more important in this context - they help make transit more competitive with driving for the reduced but still substantial number of commuters, while also supporting non-work trips that remain essential regardless of work patterns.
For those interested, there will be a meetup to discuss these topics on Tuesday, May 27th in Fort Greene Park in Brooklyn. Here are the meeting details:
https://lu.ma/event/manage/evt-VuVHWOrqe1JPEa0/overview
Some more thoughts which I did not see in the post, although I may have missed them.
(1) Block Waze from rerouting traffic onto neighborhood streets.
(2) Traffic calming devices - increases pedestrian mobility.
(3) Eliminate minimum parking requirements.
(4) Repurpose parking spaces. Outdoor dining, a park, a flea market. the latter could be just on a Saturday.
(5) Relax restrictions on small shops in residential areas.
I apologize in advance for my ignorance as I have only been recently thinking of solutions to the housing crisis in NYC. Most abundance movements are trying to create more housing within NYC through rezoning without thinking about the limits of that abundance. This is specially true when making 500,000 new apartments available doesn’t solve the affordability issue that should be controlled through state laws capping rent increases, as new individuals with higher buying power have been displacing local communities for decades now. NYC is slowely but surely becoming the new SF.
So I appreciate an idea that takes into account affordability of housing and I agree that expanding transportation is the only solution but what I am struggling with is how to achieve that and if on its own it is enough to provide more housing access.
1 - Congestion pricing alone will buy shiny new subways but won’t be enough to cover the expansion of the transit system.
2 - Long Island without queens and brooklyn has a population of 3 million and a density of 2300 people per square mile. Brooklyn has a population density of 37,399 people per square mile. So it seems pretty obvious that NYC should be growing externally not internally.
My two questions are why is LI so expensive when there’s not enough demand?
Shouldn’t the main co-solution be caping rent everywhere in the state (like in Canada increase of 3% per year)?
Unfortunately I have another event on the same night as maximumnewyork’s, but I will be attending yours. And I met Ryder at their last Abundance happy hour. I told him the same thing and he referred me the good cause eviction law, which would cap the rent increase this year at 8.82% it looks harmless at first glance. But that’s equivalent to doubling (x2) one’s rent after a decade whereas with a 3% cap (like in some Canadian provinces) it would take 23 years for the rent to double (x2). It’s all very scary but with the national and international mass migration that’s coming up because of climate change better prepare than be sorry. Will gladly continue the discussion here or on Tuesday. Many thanks!
Thank you for engaging with the article! There's a lot in your comment I'd like to dig into more deeply if I get the time, but for now, I'll share a quick take on your second question about capping rent.
My best guess is that this largely comes down to whether you're more focused on affordability for existing renters or increasing access for new ones. On aggregate, caps should help people who are already renting, but I’d expect them to reduce new construction in the long run, which makes things harder for newcomers. It’s a difficult trade-off.
Personally, I lean more toward improving affordability for newcomers, but I think most New Yorkers currently prioritize affordability for existing residents.
Interestingly, Maximum New York (the blog that inspired this post) is hosting an event on rent regulation soon, if you're interested in diving deeper into that topic:
https://www.maximumnewyork.com/p/nycs-government-and-rent-regulation?utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2
Thanks again!
Caution is warranted here. When the cost of transportation drops, it can lead to higher housing costs. In cities, distance is measured in minutes, not miles.
In many European cities with fast, well-connected metro systems and very affordable monthly passes, rent increases across all neighborhoods — not just the central ones — because more areas become "accessible" and desirable.
That said, it's still a much better outcome than congestion and car-dependence. But we shouldn't overlook how improvements in mobility can unintentionally reshape housing markets.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I agree that transportation improvements don’t automatically lead to lower housing costs. As you noted, they can increase demand for newly accessible neighborhoods, which often raises value and rent in those areas more than it reduces pressure on central ones.
That said, I think it’s important not to treat all rising prices as inherently negative. Rising rents can reflect increased livability and access, which are things people actively want. As a thought experiment, if we imagined our only goal were to reduce rents, we could let public services like trash collection deteriorate, and prices would likely fall, but that’s clearly not the kind of affordability anyone is aiming for.
The real goal is to increase the value people get for what they pay. Mobility improvements can do that by expanding opportunity and access across the city. They are also often faster and more politically tractable than long-term housing reforms.
It’s also worth noting that rent stabilization protects many existing tenants in New York. While not perfect, it helps buffer against the worst displacement effects and reflects the city’s commitment to balancing affordability with livability.
In short, increasing demand shouldn't be seen as a failure. It often means we are doing something right. The challenge is to match that demand with thoughtful policy that helps ensure the benefits are broadly shared.