zip1234

23 ms·

301.
by zip1234 5y ago
> You need rules for what kind of buildings can go together, but the historic mistake (intentional or not) was to zone retail away from housing and force everybody to drive to get to anything that isn't a single family home. Yes, su
302.
by zip1234 5y ago
Cars are highly subsidized right now. I think it would be good for everyone, car lovers included, if all the externalities would be priced into car ownership. Noise, pollution, space taken up, and road damage should be priced into use of ca
303.
by zip1234 5y ago
Zoning means someone that owns a property cannot do with it as they see fit. How does allowing individual people to make their own decisions about their land have anything to do with forcing people into high density?
304.
by zip1234 5y ago
Yes--basically a tech like Bluetooth will come out and then a bunch of dumb patents will come out for 'controlling a microwave with bluetooth' and 'controlling refrigerator with bluetooth' and the patent will be approved
305.
by zip1234 5y ago
Why would they be any harder to clean? A city can just have one of their sweepers be a much smaller, cheaper, sweeper. Likewise for snow clearing. A much smaller and cheaper machine can often be used.
306.
by zip1234 5y ago
A more dangerous overtaking than someone trying to 'squeeze' through without even going into other lane?
307.
by zip1234 5y ago
Is there actual enforcement of people stopping their car or parking in those lanes? Doesn't happen for the most part in the US.
308.
by zip1234 5y ago
In regards to painted lines--they mostly do not pass the 'would you let your kids ride on them?' test. Drivers treat them as additional car lanes or a place to drift off into while texting.
309.
by zip1234 5y ago
I disagree that the food was better for them previously. For as 'bad' as the foods are that we eat today, we have access to plenty of vitamins and nutritional issues in childhood are much less prevalent. Read about iodine deficien
310.
by zip1234 5y ago
Traffic enforcement using police officers is just not very effective. People are bad at judging the risk of driving, especially as environment changes (highway to city) and as such do not very well self enforce. Speed traps only slow driver
311.
by zip1234 5y ago
Great, let's charge people for the environmental cost and negative externalities that their method of transportation causes. A driver will be paying 1000x that of a cyclist.
312.
by zip1234 5y ago
If there was any enforcement of traffic laws in the US I might agree but it is so laughable in its current state that I don't mind this.
313.
by zip1234 5y ago
No--society is ridiculously lenient towards any driving offense.
314.
by zip1234 5y ago
You realize speed bumps are not there to 'ruin driving'--they are mechanical means to stop drivers from speeding as signs are useless and as soon as people are past the cops they speed again.
315.
by zip1234 5y ago
If driving demand can be induced by massively subsidizing it with billions as is currently done, so can other forms of transportation.
316.
by zip1234 5y ago
Burying power lines is a thing. I don't think it is cost effective to bury the big high voltage lines though.
317.
by zip1234 5y ago
Forced air natural gas furnaces need electric power for ignition and the blower motor that moves hot air out of the combustion chamber.
318.
by zip1234 5y ago
The NSA and CIA are both foreign focused. The FBI is internally focused within the US.
319.
by zip1234 5y ago
Tax/price the negative externalities.
320.
by zip1234 5y ago
When people talk about density, everyone has a different idea what it means. That said, you can have density without having crowding. Crowding is something that everyone agrees is bad, but density is neither bad nor good--it totally depends
321.
by zip1234 5y ago
A better short term and long term solution is to prioritize EV micromobility such as E-Bikes and Scooters for short trips. This may mean reconfiguring roadways and investing money differently. Half of trips are 3 miles or shorter, which is
322.
by zip1234 5y ago
> I would argue that neighborhood character is prioritizing people. It's prioritizing the ones who live there already, who have built their town into a desirable location, and want to protect what they have. No. It is prioritizing t
323.
by zip1234 5y ago
If you are interested in this topic, a good follow on Twitter is Marco Chitti--he compares reasons for high costs of infrastructure in US to other countries: https://twitter.com/ChittiMarco One of the things he mentions is
324.
by zip1234 5y ago
My point is not about rural vs urban. Most of American lives in urban areas (4/5). My point is that it is illegal in most of the populated places in America to increase density at all. The end result is getting high rises in central pl
325.
by zip1234 5y ago
Even if that is the desire, it should not be mandated by law. Also, the framing of 'low' vs 'high' density is bad way to frame the issue. For most places where this is an issue the question is 'medium' density
326.
by zip1234 5y ago
The infrastructure is not the problem. Cities can build this easily with increased tax base. Most roads are way overbuilt anyways.
327.
by zip1234 5y ago
Yes, it the only fair way is to allow density everywhere. If it is spread out, it becomes much less.
328.
by zip1234 5y ago
This is not the reason. The reason is a supply shortage caused by bad policy that restricts building. This might have some tiny impact on it, but is not the root cause. In Vancouver they did a tax on property speculation. Prices continue to
329.
by zip1234 5y ago
No, both have gotten much faster. This is just one release of performance improvements: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/performance-improvemen... It is worth noting that WPF can run on this latest version of .NET
330.
by zip1234 5y ago
For all the faults of the US system, one can get some of the best medical care in the world in the US. It is very clear there is a lot of waste and excess cost due to the reasons you mentioned, but it isn't so bad as it is made out.

More ›