3 ms·

> There's no need to become Manhattan or Hong Kong. Just invest in infrastructure. You're not getting the basic point with transit infrastructure: it requires

> There's no need to become Manhattan or Hong Kong. Just invest in infrastructure. You're not getting the basic point with transit infrastructure: it requires density. Transit systems are only viable with enough people living and working at walking distance from the stations. Increasing density decreases traffic, increases transit effectiveness, and reduces environmental impact. It's simple geometry.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
greggman 9y ago
I don't know the details but Antwerp seems comparible. It seems to have amazing public transportation with a density only 1/6th of SF. Why they can do it an SF can't I don't know.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  The area of Antwerp includes the entire harbor and several empty areas. Looking at the map, it seems to include islands of high density surrounded by empty areas. That works very, very well for public transportation. The issue with transit and density is not about distances, is actually about the number of people living and working within walking distance of a transit stop. If you increase density by 5X, that number increases by 5X. So two cities with the same density, one spread out evenly and the other in high-density islands surrounded by low density seas, have very different viabilities for public transit.
jacinda 9y ago
If that's the point, why does Switzerland have a lower density than the SF Bay Area but a transit system that is orders of magnitude better? I lived in Switzerland for 9 months last year. They have arguably the best transit infrastructure in the world, with a passenger rail system that is 100% electric. According to Wikipedia, the density of Zurich is ~4600 people/km^2. The density of San Francisco is ~7170 people/km^2. So what excuse does SF have for being so very, very much worse?
- ucaetano 9y ago
  First, there's just the willingness to invest in infrastructure, which is nearly non-existent in the US. Swiss people LOVE infrastructure, they are proud of their tunnels, railroads, bridges, dams, etc. Take a look at the referendums over the past few years: universal basic income? No. More vacation days? No. Forbid speculation on food products? No. Define marriage as man/woman? No. Build a new tunnel across the Alps? Hell yeah! But it isn't just about density. You can have mid to low average density, but still have a viable transit system. Public transit doesn't just depend on the overall average density, but on the density of the area surrounding the transit stops. Switzerland has reasonably dense cities and towns, with very-low-density areas in between. The SFBA has evenly-distributed low density (except for a few areas). Increasing the distance between dense cores doesn't have as much negative impact on transit viability as spreading people out has. The SFBA could easily solve this by changing the zoning laws around Bart, Caltrain, VTA and Muni stations.
  - jacinda 9y ago
    > First, there's just the willingness to invest in infrastructure, which is nearly non-existent in the US. Swiss people LOVE infrastructure, they are proud of their tunnels, railroads, bridges, dams, etc. I totally agree with you here. This is the crux of my argument. Your statement about Switzerland having reasonably dense cities and towns compared with the Bay Area I'm interested in learning more about - can you cite your source? Having lived in Switzerland for almost a year and in the Bay Area for almost 4, this doesn't ring true to me, but I don't have a heat map of population density to check against; if I get more time at some point I'll try to find more data. Regardless, we do have some areas of sufficient population density that it would make sense to connect efficiently and we don't. That's the choice I'm talking about. At the very least, it should be easy to get between Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose without needing a car. Within San Francisco, you should be able to go from the east side to the west side without using a system that suffers from being delayed at least 50% of the time. Also - regarding more vacation days? The government already mandates 4 weeks of vacation (5 if you're under 20) and you are supposed to take at least two of those weeks in a row.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

greggman 9y ago

I don't know the details but Antwerp seems comparible. It seems to have amazing public transportation with a density only 1/6th of SF. Why they can do it an SF can't I don't know.

ucaetano 9y ago
The area of Antwerp includes the entire harbor and several empty areas. Looking at the map, it seems to include islands of high density surrounded by empty areas. That works very, very well for public transportation. The issue with transit and density is not about distances, is actually about the number of people living and working within walking distance of a transit stop. If you increase density by 5X, that number increases by 5X. So two cities with the same density, one spread out evenly and the other in high-density islands surrounded by low density seas, have very different viabilities for public transit.

jacinda 9y ago

If that's the point, why does Switzerland have a lower density than the SF Bay Area but a transit system that is orders of magnitude better? I lived in Switzerland for 9 months last year. They have arguably the best transit infrastructure in the world, with a passenger rail system that is 100% electric. According to Wikipedia, the density of Zurich is ~4600 people/km^2. The density of San Francisco is ~7170 people/km^2. So what excuse does SF have for being so very, very much worse?

ucaetano 9y ago
First, there's just the willingness to invest in infrastructure, which is nearly non-existent in the US. Swiss people LOVE infrastructure, they are proud of their tunnels, railroads, bridges, dams, etc. Take a look at the referendums over the past few years: universal basic income? No. More vacation days? No. Forbid speculation on food products? No. Define marriage as man/woman? No. Build a new tunnel across the Alps? Hell yeah! But it isn't just about density. You can have mid to low average density, but still have a viable transit system. Public transit doesn't just depend on the overall average density, but on the density of the area surrounding the transit stops. Switzerland has reasonably dense cities and towns, with very-low-density areas in between. The SFBA has evenly-distributed low density (except for a few areas). Increasing the distance between dense cores doesn't have as much negative impact on transit viability as spreading people out has. The SFBA could easily solve this by changing the zoning laws around Bart, Caltrain, VTA and Muni stations.
- jacinda 9y ago
  > First, there's just the willingness to invest in infrastructure, which is nearly non-existent in the US. Swiss people LOVE infrastructure, they are proud of their tunnels, railroads, bridges, dams, etc. I totally agree with you here. This is the crux of my argument. Your statement about Switzerland having reasonably dense cities and towns compared with the Bay Area I'm interested in learning more about - can you cite your source? Having lived in Switzerland for almost a year and in the Bay Area for almost 4, this doesn't ring true to me, but I don't have a heat map of population density to check against; if I get more time at some point I'll try to find more data. Regardless, we do have some areas of sufficient population density that it would make sense to connect efficiently and we don't. That's the choice I'm talking about. At the very least, it should be easy to get between Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose without needing a car. Within San Francisco, you should be able to go from the east side to the west side without using a system that suffers from being delayed at least 50% of the time. Also - regarding more vacation days? The government already mandates 4 weeks of vacation (5 if you're under 20) and you are supposed to take at least two of those weeks in a row.