4 ms·

I lived in the bay area my entire life. You don't have to go to walnut creek to see suburbia. That ugly shit is everywhere. Public transit in Tokyo is largely

I lived in the bay area my entire life. You don't have to go to walnut creek to see suburbia. That ugly shit is everywhere. Public transit in Tokyo is largely underground. Density is irrelevant. If you have high density or low density above ground, this factor is completely orthogonal to whatever you build Underground. Understand? >I don't think I'm overstating when I say that American style suburbs with large lots and large homes are not conducive effective public transit. You, in fact, didn't say ANYTHING related to this matter. You simply stated it's not conducive without mentioning why it's not conducive. I disagree. You can still build it because what's above ground has nothing to do with what's below ground. The fact of the matter is, once you build this, barring zoning restrictions, the density should follow. Right now the bay area is a political battle ground where rich people effectively price out poor people with zoning restrictions. It's a class based war where a luxury you want is impacting the lives of people less fortunate than you. If you let the bay grow naturally and fairly then people with your "wants" should move to the country side. Suburbia is also not sustainable for the environment. It's why greenhouse gases per capita in the US is the worst in the world.

Johnny555 2y ago
You seem to be arguing that it's physically possible to build transit that serves low density housing, I agree with that. My argument is that it's economically infeasible, especially in the USA. Extending Caltrain to downtown SF is estimated at $3B/mile, BART to San Jose is $780M/mile. You can't spend hundreds of millions of dollars building transit to a neighborhood with 100 homes. It's already hard to serve those neighborhoods with buses, since bus routes are either long and slow that wind through many neighborhoods, or they are vastly underutilized.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  Right and you should’ve stated this in the beginning but you didn’t. It’s economically feasible. We have the most powerful military in the world we have the highest gdp per capita in the world. It’s economically feasible. When I say we are incapable of building mass transit I’m referring to every single type of incompetency in existence except for economic incompetency. You change the zoning laws it will be utilized.
  - Johnny555 2y ago
    >Right and you should’ve stated this in the beginning but you didn’t. I didn't think it was necessary to specify "under normal economic constraints and not a thought experiment where we can spend unlimited money on transit". I forgot where I was. Lesson learned.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      We are not under normal economic constraints when we have the most money per capita on the face of the earth. The financial capital to do this exists. I’m baffled at how you think it’s not economically possible when it completely it is. How does Tokyo even exists if it’s not economically possible?? It’s possible it’s just we can’t do it due to incompetence. Just look at the high speed rail in California. That is a framed picture of American incompetence.

Johnny555 2y ago

You seem to be arguing that it's physically possible to build transit that serves low density housing, I agree with that. My argument is that it's economically infeasible, especially in the USA. Extending Caltrain to downtown SF is estimated at $3B/mile, BART to San Jose is $780M/mile. You can't spend hundreds of millions of dollars building transit to a neighborhood with 100 homes. It's already hard to serve those neighborhoods with buses, since bus routes are either long and slow that wind through many neighborhoods, or they are vastly underutilized.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
Right and you should’ve stated this in the beginning but you didn’t. It’s economically feasible. We have the most powerful military in the world we have the highest gdp per capita in the world. It’s economically feasible. When I say we are incapable of building mass transit I’m referring to every single type of incompetency in existence except for economic incompetency. You change the zoning laws it will be utilized.
- Johnny555 2y ago
  >Right and you should’ve stated this in the beginning but you didn’t. I didn't think it was necessary to specify "under normal economic constraints and not a thought experiment where we can spend unlimited money on transit". I forgot where I was. Lesson learned.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    We are not under normal economic constraints when we have the most money per capita on the face of the earth. The financial capital to do this exists. I’m baffled at how you think it’s not economically possible when it completely it is. How does Tokyo even exists if it’s not economically possible?? It’s possible it’s just we can’t do it due to incompetence. Just look at the high speed rail in California. That is a framed picture of American incompetence.