Alternate proposal that would not destroy more of the earth, make a big impact on lessening climate change, and improve people's health: ban personal vehicles from urban and suburban areas. Then reallocate the resources from maintaining roads and sprawling infrastructure to mass transit, biking, walking, and new housing. Roads and suburban infrastructure take up an absurd amount of space that could be reallocated to housing or even more open space. It would also help tremendously if property owners were not allowed to have any vacancy. A ridiculous number of housing units are sitting empty that could be used.
Petition for Smarter Infrastructure
31–40 of 79 posts
Re: Petition for Smarter Infrastructure
#32The reason that there is a housing crisis in the Bay Area is that there is a lack of housing in the Bay Area. We don't need to make it so you don't need to live in SF to work in SF, we need to make it so that there are enough homes for the people that want to live there. And this means one thing, ZONING. The reason that more housing isn't built in the Bay is that the people living there don't want developers to build…
I agree that we need to build in the city as well, but many major cities have good transportation inside and outside of the city too. Currently it's almost an hour to get to downtown from Ocean Beach to Financial district with a bus, and its only 7 miles away. That is 7mph, almost a walking speed. For example, back in Helsinki (where I'm from) you could easily get to the downtown anywhere in the 12mile radius in 10-2…
You walk really fast! But seriously, revitalizing existing public transit and making it function properly should be a priority. No disagreements there. But we don't need to build new trains and bus lines that go further out.
Re: Petition for Smarter Infrastructure
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
denser, 10 - 20 story tall transit oriented development in caltrain and bart station parking lots.
Can you clarify what you mean by "transit oriented development"? As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore. I don't think it makes sense to make things denser if it's going to be so ugly that no one wants to live there.
> As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore
That isn't a rule of thumb at all, just your opinion...
I don't think it makes sense to make things denser if it's going to be so ugly that no one wants to live there.
Very rarely, if ever, are buildings "so ugly that no one wants to live there", especially when places to live are as scarce as they are in SFBA.
also, transit oriented development: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development
Re: Petition for Smarter Infrastructure
#34>If we unclog our infrastructure we can spread out to more of the state and increase the supply of developable land.
Really amazing to read that people that live in low density clusterfuck think that the solution is to expand the low density clusterfuck.
Also, being against high speed rail but being for a hyper loop is an indication that you have a technology boner that is lasting longer than 4 hours and you should see a doctor.
Re: Petition for Smarter Infrastructure
#35[deleted]
Re: Petition for Smarter Infrastructure
#36Totally agree 100% and wrote about this in 2015 but on a different tack. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/americas-disastrous-mass-tran...
Reality is California is terrible at the mega projects - look at LA metro as an example. We are out of practice and the graft level is through the roof. Any public funds are likely far better spent on smaller projects that are chosen for the outsize benefit.
SF to LA is already solved by airlines and the freeway. The benefit of a rail will be marginal and temporary when cars become good at driving the freeway autonomously.
Re: Petition for Smarter Infrastructure
#37I recently moved to San Diego from the east coast and I really agree with petition. The Trolley here seemed idealistic to be at first, "I can take the train downtown from my apartment in 40 minutes!" I thought. I love driving as much as most people but parking downtown is not fun to find. So I took the train twice, but after being on the train, I won't do it again. There are several people shouting odd things and no police in sight addressing that. Along with an recent armed robbery of 16 year old on the train, I'm thinking that this well designed system totally flopped its daily execution. If California could invest some one time resources (make the platforms gated and require paid fares to ride, maybe some tech to know if people are riding the train with no destination) and recurring resources (heavier police presence on trains) towards the Trolley in San Diego they could pull some cars off the highway.
Public transit options are most beneficial if people feel safe and confident riding them.
Re: Petition for Smarter Infrastructure
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
denser, 10 - 20 story tall transit oriented development in caltrain and bart station parking lots.
Can you clarify what you mean by "transit oriented development"? As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore. I don't think it makes sense to make things denser if it's going to be so ugly that no one wants to live there.
> As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore.
Just FYI, people saying things like this is definitely a key part of why us New Yorkers think the Bay Area has literally gone insane.
Re: Petition for Smarter Infrastructure
#39Somehow hyperloops are better than high speed rail. In actuality they are the same thing except a hyperloop has a pointless tube protecting it. The original hyperloop concept and the 'hyperloops' being worked on are completely different.
Hyperloop is a rebrand. This is a terrible idea, instead of opting for urban sprawl and more roadways, increase density, increase public transit facilities, and actually PLAN development projects.
Re: Petition for Smarter Infrastructure
#40>We should double our annual infrastructure budget. We can fund this by stopping the high-speed rail, and spend the $68+ billion we are planning to spend on that on better local rapid transit systems, improved bus lines, and new roads instead. This will allow people to live in more affordable housing and have a better quality of life. Bad idea. More roads does not mean less traffic, More roads = more cars. And more i…
If you don't build roads, people will still come. Instead of having more roads = more cars you end up with same road = more cars, which is not ideal.
Personally, I think California's HSR project is stupid and the money could be better spent on regional light rail plus conventional rail between metro areas. But allowing CA to become a shitty place to live so as to force people from their cars is the least attractive option.