5 ms·
Sorry but you are totally naive if you think a 50% increase is possible in that time frame. You just can’t, or don’t want to do the math. What you are suggestin
by DataWorker 8y ago
Sorry but you are totally naive if you think a 50% increase is possible in that time frame. You just can’t, or don’t want to do the math. What you are suggesting amounts to jail cells with no infrastructure.
- epistasis 8y agoJail cells? It's not polite to put rude words in others' mouths. There are limitations on current build rates though; we'll have to massively increase the construction work force to do anything like this, as it's already not quite able to meet demand here.
- DataWorker 8y agoYou’re suggesting these people won’t drive anywhere. There’s no way to support that growth given the limitations in our roadways. Traffic is already terrible, imagine 4 or 5 hours to get from oakland to San Francisco.
- epistasis 8y agoThis is a big change of topic. I had a different topic about allowing people to live without cars, if you'd like to talk about that, let's do it on that other comment thread.
- ninkendo 8y agoI don't think wklauss was expressing an opinion either way on whether a 50% increase is feasible, only what the effects would be with respect to transit.
- DataWorker 8y agoHe said the freeways can support 50% growth over 20 years. That’s lunacy. Look at the history of our freeway system. Ok, if you want to insist that flying cars will come in the next 10 years maybe. But to say congestion pricing is to say, roads for rich people, everyone else stays in their cubicle like happy inmates. Just unreal to see putatively intelligent people engage in such a discussion.
- mistermann 8y agoBuses could easily do it.
- mdc2161 8y ago26 years and 100% in Shanghai https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/08/26-years-of-growth-shanghai-then-and-now/100569/ https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/08/26-years-of-growth...