5 ms·

> "I don't like the kind of people that transportation brings in to my quiet neighborhood" I see this on NextDoor whenever VTA LiteRail improvements are discus

> "I don't like the kind of people that transportation brings in to my quiet neighborhood" I see this on NextDoor whenever VTA LiteRail improvements are discussed. Possibility of a Los Gatos [or Netflix] stop? "Criminal Homeless will invade our city". Maybe, but I won't see you complaining when you go to a 49rs game in person at the stadium and take VTA so you don't get stuck in car traffic. > It is necessary to divorce employees from trying to drive (mostly) the same routes at the same times How is this possible without massive and awesome public transit? Rush hour traffic exists because "every employer" wants "every employee" at their desk at 6-9am.

closeparen 10y ago
I think the best solution is for employees to drive the unique parts of their routes (home to suburban transit stations with parking structures), and then ride fast, frequent, reasonably comfortable train service for the "trunk" part of the route. Use cars where they're the best option. Use public transit where it's the best option. Take 5 minutes to transfer in between.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Even better, ride your bicycle to the train or bus station, and take it with you. At the destination, ride to work.
  - closeparen 10y ago
    You need secure bike parking on the suburban side and bike share on the urban side. A typical commuter train car can take maybe 3 bikes per 100 passengers. Carrying your bike only works because so few people do it. Fortunately, the Bay Area already has this. If you find the Spartan lifestyle compelling, sure, bike to the train station. From a planning perspective, it's a no-brainer to put the infrastructure there to facilitate it. Just don't force it on the rest of us. (My mornings would go from pleasant and relaxing to miserable, getting in an overcrowded train car while sweaty fucking sucks, and I would have to stop running - if I'm capable of cycling the next morning, I didn't run hard enough the night before. If only my area were a little flatter). Also, you often don't need a whole car. Scooters and low-displacement motorcycles are cheap and fun. E-bikes are getting cheaper. I mostly ride my little Honda motorcycle to the train now, when the weather cooperates. BART's ample motorcycle parking is pleasantly surprising, and a very good idea.
    - drdeadringer 10y ago
      > E-bikes are getting cheaper. Just yesterday I learned of the NYC hate against e-bikes. I hope that whatever red tape there is surrounding e-bikes gets cleared up and understood.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- drdeadringer 10y ago
  > Use cars for the unique portion. Fair enough. I also like the walk//bike suggestion also made here for this consideration.
- kbenson 10y ago
  Wouldn't that just result in giant parking structures at the suburban transit stations? It seems like it's less a solution than a mitigation.
  - closeparen 10y ago
    Yes, it would. The problem stated here are traffic jams and the waste of urban land, and this has neither of those problems. What are your objections? I suppose it would be nice to build tall, dense housing around the station, but people living in the suburbs are expressing their preference for more, cheaper space per person and lower building heights, and would be extremely unlikely to authorize a microcosm of the city inside their suburb. If we can solve the "people don't want tall buildings" problem, why not put them inside the city where their occupants are in walking/biking distance, rather than relying on expensive trains?
    - kbenson 10y ago
      > Yes, it would. ... What are your objections? I'm thinking that if we look at the numbers we might actually find it makes the problem worse, but in other areas. We have very heavy traffic areas currently, but spread over at least a few square miles, which allows that traffic to route to the available spaces through all the available roads. Giant parking structures at specific points along rail would move a large chunk of that traffic to those structures, but those structures are also much more condensed points for traffic Simply put, if you think urban traffic is bad, imagine trying to get to a specific parking structure along with a couple thousand other people all at the same time. Instead of a thousand different businesses over a hundred or more roads, it's a few structures, each with limited ingress and egress routes, and limited entrances and exits. Worse than navigating the parking structure at the mall at Christmas, but every weekday as the new normal. Much better, in my opinion, would be a fleet of autonomous buses and vans with ad-hoc ride-sharing. Since they use the normal road system, they can reach much closer to peoples homes. I actually ran the numbers on this in a comment a few months back (although not very thoroughly)[1]. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13172888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13172888

closeparen 10y ago

I think the best solution is for employees to drive the unique parts of their routes (home to suburban transit stations with parking structures), and then ride fast, frequent, reasonably comfortable train service for the "trunk" part of the route. Use cars where they're the best option. Use public transit where it's the best option. Take 5 minutes to transfer in between.

mirimir 10y ago
Even better, ride your bicycle to the train or bus station, and take it with you. At the destination, ride to work.
- closeparen 10y ago
  You need secure bike parking on the suburban side and bike share on the urban side. A typical commuter train car can take maybe 3 bikes per 100 passengers. Carrying your bike only works because so few people do it. Fortunately, the Bay Area already has this. If you find the Spartan lifestyle compelling, sure, bike to the train station. From a planning perspective, it's a no-brainer to put the infrastructure there to facilitate it. Just don't force it on the rest of us. (My mornings would go from pleasant and relaxing to miserable, getting in an overcrowded train car while sweaty fucking sucks, and I would have to stop running - if I'm capable of cycling the next morning, I didn't run hard enough the night before. If only my area were a little flatter). Also, you often don't need a whole car. Scooters and low-displacement motorcycles are cheap and fun. E-bikes are getting cheaper. I mostly ride my little Honda motorcycle to the train now, when the weather cooperates. BART's ample motorcycle parking is pleasantly surprising, and a very good idea.
  - drdeadringer 10y ago
    > E-bikes are getting cheaper. Just yesterday I learned of the NYC hate against e-bikes. I hope that whatever red tape there is surrounding e-bikes gets cleared up and understood.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
drdeadringer 10y ago
> Use cars for the unique portion. Fair enough. I also like the walk//bike suggestion also made here for this consideration.
kbenson 10y ago
Wouldn't that just result in giant parking structures at the suburban transit stations? It seems like it's less a solution than a mitigation.
- closeparen 10y ago
  Yes, it would. The problem stated here are traffic jams and the waste of urban land, and this has neither of those problems. What are your objections? I suppose it would be nice to build tall, dense housing around the station, but people living in the suburbs are expressing their preference for more, cheaper space per person and lower building heights, and would be extremely unlikely to authorize a microcosm of the city inside their suburb. If we can solve the "people don't want tall buildings" problem, why not put them inside the city where their occupants are in walking/biking distance, rather than relying on expensive trains?
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > Yes, it would. ... What are your objections? I'm thinking that if we look at the numbers we might actually find it makes the problem worse, but in other areas. We have very heavy traffic areas currently, but spread over at least a few square miles, which allows that traffic to route to the available spaces through all the available roads. Giant parking structures at specific points along rail would move a large chunk of that traffic to those structures, but those structures are also much more condensed points for traffic Simply put, if you think urban traffic is bad, imagine trying to get to a specific parking structure along with a couple thousand other people all at the same time. Instead of a thousand different businesses over a hundred or more roads, it's a few structures, each with limited ingress and egress routes, and limited entrances and exits. Worse than navigating the parking structure at the mall at Christmas, but every weekday as the new normal. Much better, in my opinion, would be a fleet of autonomous buses and vans with ad-hoc ride-sharing. Since they use the normal road system, they can reach much closer to peoples homes. I actually ran the numbers on this in a comment a few months back (although not very thoroughly)[1]. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13172888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13172888