4 ms·

Investment now saves money later in many cases. For example, climate change denying Florida will be halfway under water by the time the people give up on their

Investment now saves money later in many cases. For example, climate change denying Florida will be halfway under water by the time the people give up on their state government and elect some people who will install pumps, barrier islands, etc. to mitigate the effects. The water is already noticeably higher in coastal areas. Another good example is trains. They cost a ton upfront but they will shape entire communities for generations.

tomcam 9y ago
> Another good example is trains. They cost a ton upfront but they will shape entire communities for generations. In California? Which entire communities? I lived there for 30 years and know of only a few very, very narrow definitions of community for which that is true. A strip in downtown LA and some of the BART constituency. California does not have the density of NYC or Paris. I do not understand how the trains will affect more than .05% or so of the population.
- mixmastamyk 9y ago
  The reason it doesn't have that density is because of NIMBYs and train opponents like yourself. But the tide has already turned, measure S and skyrocketing rents show that everything has changed. I see cranes all over the place, trains will follow. The nature of that kind of long-term infrastructure investment won't show itself for ten years.
  - tomcam 9y ago
    Please speak for yourself. NIMBY doesn't describe me very well. I grew up with trains, love them, and was literally a block away from a busy line. I still miss the horns.
    - mixmastamyk 9y ago
      Then perhaps you'll want to refrain from making anti train construction arguments that are now out of date. We're quite behind because of them.
- FooHentai 9y ago
  Chicken/Egg conundrum. LA's low-density sprawl exists for three (maybe four/five) reasons: Geological (quake shake = low rise makes sense), availability of land, and lack of suitable transport infrastructure. (Possible forth reason is the overall history of the place, maybe we're just at the apex of that time when various disparate towns come together to form the city and we're not quite done with that process yet). I guess there's a tenuous fifth reason which is LA's road infrastructure is at the extreme end of feasibility, including but not limited to the inhabitant's seemingly infinite patience for rush-hour gridlock. If you believe the earthquake risk, land area, and roading are reasons enough that urban intensification has not occurred, then adding (more) rail doesn't really make sense. On the other hand, you could regard lack of rail as being the only thing holding back urban intensification, and the lack of it being the very reason for LA's current sprawl. Providing you don't regard the other factors as hard limiters, of course. So in one school of thought: there's nothing really stopping the rest of LA intensifying in the same way as downtown (and the airport area), other than a lack of suitable transport infrastructure to facilitate it. So assuming intensification is a thing you want, there is the argument to invest and deploy the trains; in a few years you should see a great intensification of the new corridor areas of LA where it previously didn't make sense. Personally, I'm not on board with the idea - The quake hazard alone is reason enough to keep things flat and wide. I might be somewhat conservative in that regard of course - Continually echoing in my mind is that statement from 'the really big one' article a few years back that said 'everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast', as far as how I judge LA's realism on earthquake risk.
  - kalleboo 9y ago
    Although I wouldn't be surprised if large, expensive buildings held up better to earthquakes than low-density homes people build as cheap as they can and where inspections are more lax. For instance Japan holds up very well to earthquakes.
    - rangibaby 9y ago
      Re: Japan all houses built since 1981 are earthquake safe. Before then houses were built with heavy roof tiles which would not blow off in a typhoon. Tiles falling off or the roof causing the entire building to collapse were responsible for many deaths in the Kobe earthquake.
- jonathankoren 9y ago
  >California does not have the density of NYC or Paris Neither do New York State or France.
- flachsechs 9y ago
  > A strip in downtown LA LA has a fairly extensive and rapidly expanding network now, including expo line which goes all the way to santa monica. like most people who don't actually live here, you're working with decades-old information.
  - tomcam 9y ago
    Nope, the description was entire communities. Name the entire communities.
    - flachsechs 9y ago
      nah, because you'll just redefine 'community' to mean something else.
- mrgordon 9y ago
  Well I wouldn't personally say that California has invested too much into trains compared to a lot of the world like Malaysia, Japan, China, Thailand, the EU, etc. The Mission in San Francisco is a great example of a neighborhood with many transit connections that supports a large number of residents who do not own cars. The need for things to be walking friendly creates the charm of the neighborhood. You mention BART, but not Caltrain. Cities with stops (e.g. Mountain View) end up being much more vibrant than communities a bit further away (e.g. Sunnyvale, Cupertino) as more of the restaurants and other businesses congregate where there is an influx of people. I don't know which areas of California you're thinking of but you seemed to acknowledge that the cities that invested in trains benefit from them so maybe the problem is that the other areas just didn't invest and are now strips of fast food restaurants and chain retail in strip malls built for cars.
criddell 9y ago
Florida is super porous. Will pumps and barrier islands even help?
- mrgordon 9y ago
  It wouldn't be my top choice for land to try to save due to it being on limestone as you mention. But regardless they are building more fancy housing as we speak, so it seems the least they could is plan a bit to mitigate the effects. Miami Beach has put in some pumps but overall no action is being taken.

tomcam 9y ago

> Another good example is trains. They cost a ton upfront but they will shape entire communities for generations. In California? Which entire communities? I lived there for 30 years and know of only a few very, very narrow definitions of community for which that is true. A strip in downtown LA and some of the BART constituency. California does not have the density of NYC or Paris. I do not understand how the trains will affect more than .05% or so of the population.

mixmastamyk 9y ago
The reason it doesn't have that density is because of NIMBYs and train opponents like yourself. But the tide has already turned, measure S and skyrocketing rents show that everything has changed. I see cranes all over the place, trains will follow. The nature of that kind of long-term infrastructure investment won't show itself for ten years.
- tomcam 9y ago
  Please speak for yourself. NIMBY doesn't describe me very well. I grew up with trains, love them, and was literally a block away from a busy line. I still miss the horns.
  - mixmastamyk 9y ago
    Then perhaps you'll want to refrain from making anti train construction arguments that are now out of date. We're quite behind because of them.
FooHentai 9y ago
Chicken/Egg conundrum. LA's low-density sprawl exists for three (maybe four/five) reasons: Geological (quake shake = low rise makes sense), availability of land, and lack of suitable transport infrastructure. (Possible forth reason is the overall history of the place, maybe we're just at the apex of that time when various disparate towns come together to form the city and we're not quite done with that process yet). I guess there's a tenuous fifth reason which is LA's road infrastructure is at the extreme end of feasibility, including but not limited to the inhabitant's seemingly infinite patience for rush-hour gridlock. If you believe the earthquake risk, land area, and roading are reasons enough that urban intensification has not occurred, then adding (more) rail doesn't really make sense. On the other hand, you could regard lack of rail as being the only thing holding back urban intensification, and the lack of it being the very reason for LA's current sprawl. Providing you don't regard the other factors as hard limiters, of course. So in one school of thought: there's nothing really stopping the rest of LA intensifying in the same way as downtown (and the airport area), other than a lack of suitable transport infrastructure to facilitate it. So assuming intensification is a thing you want, there is the argument to invest and deploy the trains; in a few years you should see a great intensification of the new corridor areas of LA where it previously didn't make sense. Personally, I'm not on board with the idea - The quake hazard alone is reason enough to keep things flat and wide. I might be somewhat conservative in that regard of course - Continually echoing in my mind is that statement from 'the really big one' article a few years back that said 'everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast', as far as how I judge LA's realism on earthquake risk.
- kalleboo 9y ago
  Although I wouldn't be surprised if large, expensive buildings held up better to earthquakes than low-density homes people build as cheap as they can and where inspections are more lax. For instance Japan holds up very well to earthquakes.
  - rangibaby 9y ago
    Re: Japan all houses built since 1981 are earthquake safe. Before then houses were built with heavy roof tiles which would not blow off in a typhoon. Tiles falling off or the roof causing the entire building to collapse were responsible for many deaths in the Kobe earthquake.
jonathankoren 9y ago
>California does not have the density of NYC or Paris Neither do New York State or France.
flachsechs 9y ago
> A strip in downtown LA LA has a fairly extensive and rapidly expanding network now, including expo line which goes all the way to santa monica. like most people who don't actually live here, you're working with decades-old information.
- tomcam 9y ago
  Nope, the description was entire communities. Name the entire communities.
  - flachsechs 9y ago
    nah, because you'll just redefine 'community' to mean something else.
mrgordon 9y ago
Well I wouldn't personally say that California has invested too much into trains compared to a lot of the world like Malaysia, Japan, China, Thailand, the EU, etc. The Mission in San Francisco is a great example of a neighborhood with many transit connections that supports a large number of residents who do not own cars. The need for things to be walking friendly creates the charm of the neighborhood. You mention BART, but not Caltrain. Cities with stops (e.g. Mountain View) end up being much more vibrant than communities a bit further away (e.g. Sunnyvale, Cupertino) as more of the restaurants and other businesses congregate where there is an influx of people. I don't know which areas of California you're thinking of but you seemed to acknowledge that the cities that invested in trains benefit from them so maybe the problem is that the other areas just didn't invest and are now strips of fast food restaurants and chain retail in strip malls built for cars.

criddell 9y ago

Florida is super porous. Will pumps and barrier islands even help?

mrgordon 9y ago
It wouldn't be my top choice for land to try to save due to it being on limestone as you mention. But regardless they are building more fancy housing as we speak, so it seems the least they could is plan a bit to mitigate the effects. Miami Beach has put in some pumps but overall no action is being taken.