Charlottesville, Virginia, spent most of a decade revising its zoning code.
It held endless community meetings.
It gave opponents ample opportunity to make their case.
They lost.
But a handful of rich homeowners sued and have gotten the new Charlottesville zoning code overturned on a technicality
https://communityengagement.substack.com/p/june-30-2025-judge-worrell-voids?r=blgf
9 millionaire homeowners, who couldn’t persuade Charlottesville residents and couldn’t win at the ballot box, decided they would throw everything they had to nullify their defeat.
And it worked
That seems reasonable to me. Adding a lot of people without addressing how they will get around will only lead to diaster.
It’s an odd oversight though.
You don’t need to widen roads for that. In fact, it might be the worst option due to induced demand. For the curious, see:
More Lanes are (Still) a Bad Thing
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=CHZwOAIect4
https://youtu.be/CHZwOAIect4
The quote specifically mentions “widen any roads”. I haven’t read Charlottesville plans, but it could have included other options like public transport and bike infrastructure.
Induced demand is also known as latent demand. If your roads are so shit people just stay home, that’s not a good thing.
Here’s a short paper from Texas A&M university on the subject. More lanes reduces congestion. Follow the citations if you’re interested.
https://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/strategies-pdfs/added-capacity/technical-summary/adding-new-lanes-or-roads-4-pg.pdf
I think you’re misrepresenting that a little. It’s not peer reviewed, doesn’t appear to have any researchers names attached at all, doesn’t mention latent demand, and doesn’t at any point consider that there could be other modes of transport. It reads to me like someone trying to sell their road building project.
have a look at their post history, they’re clearly not here in good faith.
I literally have citations. The only reason you think I’m in bad faith is you disagree with me.
cite my balls
A white paper from a civil engineering arm of a university closely associated with TX DOT citing MDOT?
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair
I don’t know, I read it more like “I won’t be able to drive my Ranchero XL in these tiny roads!”, considering where it comes from.
I can see why you might think so, but counterintuitively, it’s simply not true. It doesn’t help and it makes the areas where they’re built shittier to exist in. The continual widening of roads is a bad idea. A lane or two is sufficient. The rest of the expansion should be for footpaths, bike paths, and rail, period. This has been proven repeatedly to be the most effective setup for getting people around and maintaining a good quality of life.
Just to forewarn you: The above is an established proven fact that’s played out repeatedly for better and worse depending on which way the city went. Ignoring that reality will open you up to ridicule so I’d encourage you to actually take time to consider the above fact. On top if not helping at all and making everything worse, it also takes up a fuckton of space and costs a crazy amount of resources to maintain.
If you’re skeptical that’s fine, go learn about it, but don’t give a knee-jerk carbrain reaction because that just makes you look like a fool. Check out Paris, France if you want to look for a recent example of changing to a more effective transportation infrastructure. Check out Hyperbad, India if you want some urban hell nightmare fuel.
They didn’t have any rail plans either. Or buses from the looks of it, but that might be a different department.
The City of Charlottesville has a master plan which includes infrastructure upgrades and expanding their business network.
https://www.charlottesville.gov/1666/Transit-Strategic-Plan-TSP
It sounds like the people suing don’t want to ride the bus.