10 ms·

>We should double our annual infrastructure budget. We can fund this by stopping the high-speed rail, and spend the $68+ billion we are planning to spend on tha

by jbob2000 9y ago

>We should double our annual infrastructure budget. We can fund this by stopping the high-speed rail, and spend the $68+ billion we are planning to spend on that on better local rapid transit systems, improved bus lines, and new roads instead. This will allow people to live in more affordable housing and have a better quality of life. Bad idea. More roads does not mean less traffic, More roads = more cars. And more infrastructure begets more infrastructure - You build more roads and buses and light rail lines, now you need all the staff to maintain these things, now you need somewhere for these staff to live, now you need more infrastructure to get the staff to work to maintain the infrastructure... Stop the madness! The answer is not to transit at all. Live near your job, walk or bike to work. Build more housing dammit! Why the fuck does a software company need to be in the middle of big city? All you need is electricity and internet, move out to the country!

throwanem 9y ago
Okay. And without boiling the ocean, what have you got that's better?
- tmh79 9y ago
  denser, 10 - 20 story tall transit oriented development in caltrain and bart station parking lots.
  - brwr 9y ago
    Can you clarify what you mean by "transit oriented development"? As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore. I don't think it makes sense to make things denser if it's going to be so ugly that no one wants to live there.
    - Zigurd 9y ago
      You get a heck of a view from above the 10th floor. I'd live there. Opposing dense development near transit seems close to the ultimate NIMBYism.
    - tmh79 9y ago
      > As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore That isn't a rule of thumb at all, just your opinion... I don't think it makes sense to make things denser if it's going to be so ugly that no one wants to live there. Very rarely, if ever, are buildings "so ugly that no one wants to live there", especially when places to live are as scarce as they are in SFBA. also, transit oriented development: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development
    - CPLX 9y ago
      > As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore. Just FYI, people saying things like this is definitely a key part of why us New Yorkers think the Bay Area has literally gone insane.
      - gozur88 9y ago
        You couldn't pay me enough to live in NYC. Those big urban canyons are my idea of hell, and I would really not like to see SF go that direction.
      - throwanem 9y ago
        You New Yorkers have a unique perspective of your own on such matters! It's a great town, and you folks up there do a wonderful job of making a body feel welcome. But there's too many tall buildings and not enough tall trees for me to ever want to live there, and I can see why people who like SF for what it is wouldn't want it to follow your example, any more than I want Baltimore to.
- jbob2000 9y ago
  Short term - more buses, alternate day driving, increase incentives for no car ownership (tax rebate), increase penalties for car ownership (increase parking fees/fines, increase number of no-parking tow-away zones). Medium term - Build bike lanes, convert streets to promenades, build light rail, build traffic calmers (narrow streets, speed bumps, lane bollards) Long term - Marketing programs to encourage different business lifestyles (city vs. country, remote vs in-person). Tax incentives for moving out of the city.
  - brwr 9y ago
    Giving away money is not generally an effective solution. Where is that money going to come from?
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    It must be cool to have no desire for stability in your life or the life of your spouse and offspring. Certainly I'd find that lifestyle less difficult to plan moves around. Of course, I'd also find it fulfilling and depressing.
    - the_common_man 9y ago
      What are you talking about?
      - closeparen 9y ago
        In a world with effectively zero transportation possible beyond a range of a few miles, you need to move every time you change jobs (or never see your family because you're walking/biking/riding a bus for a huge chunk of each day).
yahna 9y ago
> Stop the madness! The answer is not to transit at all. Live near your job, walk or bike to work. Build more housing dammit! Why the fuck does a software company need to be in the middle of big city? All you need is electricity and internet, move out to the country! I don't want to commute out to the country.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
KirinDave 9y ago
> Stop the madness! The answer is not to transit at all. Live near your job, walk or bike to work. Build more housing dammit! Why the fuck does a software company need to be in the middle of big city? All you need is electricity and internet, move out to the country! The average time of employment in the tech sector for people under 40 in tech is under 4 years. Your plan is untenable because it involves frequent personal relocation to make feasible.
- dbloom 9y ago
  Not to mention people whose spouses/partners work at a different company!
gozur88 9y ago
If you don't build roads, people will still come. Instead of having more roads = more cars you end up with same road = more cars, which is not ideal. Personally, I think California's HSR project is stupid and the money could be better spent on regional light rail plus conventional rail between metro areas. But allowing CA to become a shitty place to live so as to force people from their cars is the least attractive option.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > If you don't build roads, people will still come. Instead of having more roads = more cars you end up with same road = more cars, which is not ideal. That's empirically not as true as it intuitively seems; induced traffic is a thing. > Personally, I think California's HSR project is stupid and the money could be better spent on regional light rail plus conventional rail between metro areas. But, the HSR project is spending money on regional light rail and conventional rail between metro areas.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    >That's empirically not as true as it intuitively seems; induced traffic is a thing. It's definitely empirically true. I've watched it happen for decades. There are certainly new cars on the road, but they would have been there anyway, for the most part. If you have a growing economy people immigrate in search of jobs whether the infrastructure is ready or not. Now, I'd rather we had enough rail to handle all those people and more, but the problem with rail is before your network is built out completely it's not very useful. >But, the HSR project is spending money on regional light rail and conventional rail between metro areas. Great. Then all we need to cancel is the HSR itself.
    - mallaidh 9y ago
      It's definitely empirically true, and you've got a vague anecdote to prove it.
      - 9y ago
shados 9y ago
> Why the fuck does a software company need to be in the middle of big city. > Live near your job Hmm.....

throwanem 9y ago

Okay. And without boiling the ocean, what have you got that's better?

tmh79 9y ago
denser, 10 - 20 story tall transit oriented development in caltrain and bart station parking lots.
- brwr 9y ago
  Can you clarify what you mean by "transit oriented development"? As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore. I don't think it makes sense to make things denser if it's going to be so ugly that no one wants to live there.
  - Zigurd 9y ago
    You get a heck of a view from above the 10th floor. I'd live there. Opposing dense development near transit seems close to the ultimate NIMBYism.
  - tmh79 9y ago
    > As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore That isn't a rule of thumb at all, just your opinion... I don't think it makes sense to make things denser if it's going to be so ugly that no one wants to live there. Very rarely, if ever, are buildings "so ugly that no one wants to live there", especially when places to live are as scarce as they are in SFBA. also, transit oriented development: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development
  - CPLX 9y ago
    > As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore. Just FYI, people saying things like this is definitely a key part of why us New Yorkers think the Bay Area has literally gone insane.
    - gozur88 9y ago
      You couldn't pay me enough to live in NYC. Those big urban canyons are my idea of hell, and I would really not like to see SF go that direction.
    - throwanem 9y ago
      You New Yorkers have a unique perspective of your own on such matters! It's a great town, and you folks up there do a wonderful job of making a body feel welcome. But there's too many tall buildings and not enough tall trees for me to ever want to live there, and I can see why people who like SF for what it is wouldn't want it to follow your example, any more than I want Baltimore to.
jbob2000 9y ago
Short term - more buses, alternate day driving, increase incentives for no car ownership (tax rebate), increase penalties for car ownership (increase parking fees/fines, increase number of no-parking tow-away zones). Medium term - Build bike lanes, convert streets to promenades, build light rail, build traffic calmers (narrow streets, speed bumps, lane bollards) Long term - Marketing programs to encourage different business lifestyles (city vs. country, remote vs in-person). Tax incentives for moving out of the city.
- brwr 9y ago
  Giving away money is not generally an effective solution. Where is that money going to come from?
- KirinDave 9y ago
  It must be cool to have no desire for stability in your life or the life of your spouse and offspring. Certainly I'd find that lifestyle less difficult to plan moves around. Of course, I'd also find it fulfilling and depressing.
  - the_common_man 9y ago
    What are you talking about?
    - closeparen 9y ago
      In a world with effectively zero transportation possible beyond a range of a few miles, you need to move every time you change jobs (or never see your family because you're walking/biking/riding a bus for a huge chunk of each day).

yahna 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

KirinDave 9y ago

> Stop the madness! The answer is not to transit at all. Live near your job, walk or bike to work. Build more housing dammit! Why the fuck does a software company need to be in the middle of big city? All you need is electricity and internet, move out to the country! The average time of employment in the tech sector for people under 40 in tech is under 4 years. Your plan is untenable because it involves frequent personal relocation to make feasible.

dbloom 9y ago
Not to mention people whose spouses/partners work at a different company!

gozur88 9y ago

If you don't build roads, people will still come. Instead of having more roads = more cars you end up with same road = more cars, which is not ideal. Personally, I think California's HSR project is stupid and the money could be better spent on regional light rail plus conventional rail between metro areas. But allowing CA to become a shitty place to live so as to force people from their cars is the least attractive option.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> If you don't build roads, people will still come. Instead of having more roads = more cars you end up with same road = more cars, which is not ideal. That's empirically not as true as it intuitively seems; induced traffic is a thing. > Personally, I think California's HSR project is stupid and the money could be better spent on regional light rail plus conventional rail between metro areas. But, the HSR project is spending money on regional light rail and conventional rail between metro areas.
- gozur88 9y ago
  >That's empirically not as true as it intuitively seems; induced traffic is a thing. It's definitely empirically true. I've watched it happen for decades. There are certainly new cars on the road, but they would have been there anyway, for the most part. If you have a growing economy people immigrate in search of jobs whether the infrastructure is ready or not. Now, I'd rather we had enough rail to handle all those people and more, but the problem with rail is before your network is built out completely it's not very useful. >But, the HSR project is spending money on regional light rail and conventional rail between metro areas. Great. Then all we need to cancel is the HSR itself.
  - mallaidh 9y ago
    It's definitely empirically true, and you've got a vague anecdote to prove it.
    - 9y ago

shados 9y ago

> Why the fuck does a software company need to be in the middle of big city. > Live near your job Hmm.....