3 ms·
You would also need to have better public transportation, so all those people don’t have to drive to work. As it is, it can take an hour to get to work from the
by pmiller2 8y ago
You would also need to have better public transportation, so all those people don’t have to drive to work. As it is, it can take an hour to get to work from the Sunset to SOMA. And, if the commute is going to be that long anyway, why not just live in the East Bay and pay less in rent?
- romed 8y agoYes of course you'd need to improve transportation, but the existing built environment of the Sunset is self-sabotaging. It's car-dependent and the cars are in the way of the buses and trains.
- epistasis 8y agoConverting some streets, or even lanes, to bus-rapid-transit, could greatly improve things. The BRT on Geary has been slow and horribly managed, but I have a feeling that the current mayor can push things along a lot better if she stays on.
- cbhl 8y agoFrom the fine article: "However, many citizens were rightfully growing frustrated with the department’s actions, particularly decisions to bulldoze thriving neighborhoods to better serve suburban commuters. ... [I]n 1959, citizen activists presented the Board of Supervisors with a petition with more than 30,000 signatures demanding for most of these projects to be halted."
- pmiller2 8y agoWhat does that have to do with what I posted?
- hindsightbias 8y agoI always prefer to ponder SF's failure to accomodate the current bubble when I'm jogging in the Panhandle. Could that it only have been the 8 lane freeway the suburbs at state wanted. We'd only have to take a bit of GG Park to build a commuter airport for Moffett. http://manhattanairport.org http://manhattanairport.org
- deathanatos 8y agoDenser housing in areas such as SOMA — where you're close enough to bike or walk to work if you work nearby — could actually reduce the need for better public transit, as more people now have the option to live closer to where they work. Or at the very least, they wouldn't need to transit as far. You bemoan an hour long commute, but thousands of people in the Bay Area whose commute is far worse would welcome it. And that's not to say that better public transit isn't something worth striving towards; it should be done together with housing. But currently, the area's general attitude is to have neither.
- romed 8y agoPutting either houses next to jobs, or jobs next to houses, would solve the problem.
- pmiller2 8y agoOf course it would, but I’m responding to someone saying “build up the Sunset,” and saying you also need to build up transit. Your criticism is not relevant. As far as an hour commute goes, if any part of SF could be made as affordable as places like Concord and Vallejo, where those mega-commutes are originating, then I’m sure people would flock to those areas. But I doubt it would be those same people: it would be tech workers living in the East Bay who would want to live in SF but don’t want roommates.
- BurningFrog 8y agoTrue, but I think the housing problem is much bigger than the traffic problem. If the price for housing getting better is traffic getting worse, that is a good trade IMHO.
- pmiller2 8y agoWhat makes living in SF with a long commute any better than living in the East Bay with the same commute?
- BurningFrog 8y agoIt's no better, but added housing makes it so more people can be housed. Think of it as that they didn't have to move to Arizona.