5 ms·

In my town, not Silicon Valley, the biggest complaint about new buildings is the increase in traffic. Traffic in my area is already horrendous. I do think some

In my town, not Silicon Valley, the biggest complaint about new buildings is the increase in traffic. Traffic in my area is already horrendous. I do think some NIMBYs would be less NIMBY if improvements in transportation took place at the same time as new buildings.

chk_ur_autism 9y ago
Would you vote on raising your property taxes to support better infrastructure? What if that went to better public transportation? These things largely get voted down, particularly on the most NIMBY area of the Peninsula: Mountain View, Palo Alto, Atherton (particularly egregious), Menlo Park, Redwood City.
santaclaus 9y ago
> I do think some NIMBYs would be less NIMBY if improvements in transportation took place at the same time as new buildings. There is opposition in San Francisco [1] (and Oakland) to development directly on top of BART stations... I don't think parking is the primary concern for those opposing new construction in the bay. [1] https://sf.curbed.com/2017/8/21/16178682/monster-on-mission-district-condo https://sf.curbed.com/2017/8/21/16178682/monster-on-mission-...
davidw 9y ago
Part of the problem is the horribly messed up development patterns the US has embraced over the last 70 years https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/1/7/americas-suburban-experiment https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/1/7/americas-suburb...
r00fus 9y ago
Automobile infrastructure simply does not scale. Roads and parking are a massive waste of space and ongoing maintenance. Gas stations are superfund sites waiting to happen. The entire car-culture and the industries that profit from that culture would need to be fought to improve transportation along with new buildout, and to the large extent, car culture has won (parking is part of local building codes, and a large part of state/federal funding for roads). I'd like to hear how transport could be improved without transitions to mass-transit and increased walkability.
- chiph 9y ago
  What I see as a major part of the problem is zoning laws that require commercial buildings to be grouped away from residential areas. So you have a large number of people commuting to the same area every day and none of them are able to live within walking/cycling distance. If US zoning were more like Japan, where the intended use is a "maximum" limit not an exclusive limit. So you'll see houses and commercial buildings mixed together, so it's possible to live close to work, reducing the number of cars on the road. http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html

chk_ur_autism 9y ago

Would you vote on raising your property taxes to support better infrastructure? What if that went to better public transportation? These things largely get voted down, particularly on the most NIMBY area of the Peninsula: Mountain View, Palo Alto, Atherton (particularly egregious), Menlo Park, Redwood City.

santaclaus 9y ago

> I do think some NIMBYs would be less NIMBY if improvements in transportation took place at the same time as new buildings. There is opposition in San Francisco [1] (and Oakland) to development directly on top of BART stations... I don't think parking is the primary concern for those opposing new construction in the bay. [1] https://sf.curbed.com/2017/8/21/16178682/monster-on-mission-district-condo https://sf.curbed.com/2017/8/21/16178682/monster-on-mission-...

davidw 9y ago

Part of the problem is the horribly messed up development patterns the US has embraced over the last 70 years https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/1/7/americas-suburban-experiment https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/1/7/americas-suburb...

r00fus 9y ago

Automobile infrastructure simply does not scale. Roads and parking are a massive waste of space and ongoing maintenance. Gas stations are superfund sites waiting to happen. The entire car-culture and the industries that profit from that culture would need to be fought to improve transportation along with new buildout, and to the large extent, car culture has won (parking is part of local building codes, and a large part of state/federal funding for roads). I'd like to hear how transport could be improved without transitions to mass-transit and increased walkability.

chiph 9y ago
What I see as a major part of the problem is zoning laws that require commercial buildings to be grouped away from residential areas. So you have a large number of people commuting to the same area every day and none of them are able to live within walking/cycling distance. If US zoning were more like Japan, where the intended use is a "maximum" limit not an exclusive limit. So you'll see houses and commercial buildings mixed together, so it's possible to live close to work, reducing the number of cars on the road. http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html