Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Petition for Smarter Infrastructure

unitedslate.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: Petition for Smarter Infrastructure

#71

Post by dang »

beguiledfoil wrote: post #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 s…

> you have a technology boner that is lasting longer than 4 hours and you should see a doctor

Please don't.

Re: Petition for Smarter Infrastructure

#73

Post by closeparen »

durgiston wrote: post #32
enra wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Urbanists will continue to think we don't need more sprawl, and NIMBYs will continue to think we don't need more density, and nothing will change.

The only politically realistic way we're going to get large-scale high-density environments is through greenfield projects. Having a long but tolerable public transit journey between your greenfield high-density development and the existing job centers is one of very few plausible paths to getting there.

Re: Petition for Smarter Infrastructure

#74

Post by closeparen »

the_common_man wrote: post #68
KirinDave wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It must be cool to have no desire for stability in your life or the life of your spouse and offspring. Certainly I'd find that lifestyle less difficult to plan moves around. Of course, I'd also find it fulfilling and depressing.

What are you talking about?

In a world with effectively zero transportation possible beyond a range of a few miles, you need to move every time you change jobs (or never see your family because you're walking/biking/riding a bus for a huge chunk of each day).

Re: Petition for Smarter Infrastructure

#75

Post by [deleted] »

rdiddly wrote: post #58
bendmorris wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Based on the fact that there is now transportation available, you get mile after mile of hastily-constructed bland, dystopian nowhere suburbs that breed ennui, conformism and fascism. The level of condescension here is overwhelming. I would love to live in a "bland, dystopian" suburb where I can afford a yard, more space for my family, access to necessities and a reasonable commute. If you'd prefer to live in a crow…

I grew up in the suburbs and I live there now, that's how I know.

[deleted]

Re: Petition for Smarter Infrastructure

#76

Post by nkoren »

tmh79 wrote: post #6

> If we make it easier to quickly travel longer distances in/out of work hubs, the intense demand for housing can be diffused to communities that can handle it. Wow, just wow. Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Cupertino et al can all "handle it" they just don't want to. There is plenty of space for transit oriented housing and office space along the cal-train corridor. If Cupertino can "handle" an office space for…

This is orthogonal to the question of whether California needs new public transport infrastructure, which it unquestionably does. However that infrastructure only makes sense in the context of sufficiently dense city, such that both transit stops and basic goods and services can be found within a short walk of one's home. That's how you beat congestion. Sprawling further out just makes public transport less sustainable, and causes more congestion.

So while I agree with the basic premise that California should spend more on its infrastructure, the rationale given makes this something I can't support. It's like somebody wanting to get coronary bypass surgery so that they can eat a LOT more cheeseburgers.

Re: Petition for Smarter Infrastructure

#77

Post by hobarrera »

thecombjelly wrote: post #31

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…

This is definitely the future, but it's too controversial to be done at once -- it'll probably happen slowly over the years.

Re: Petition for Smarter Infrastructure

#79

Post by friendzis »

thecombjelly wrote: post #31

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…

Sorry, but your ideas seems extremely narrow minded. Yes, there are areas designed from the ground or evolved over time to be used without personal vehicles, but that is by no means the general case.

Firstly, if doing without personal vehicle works for you, it is great. I do see many situations where it could work. But remember that Uber drivers use personal vehicles, they are by no means part of public transit. Hourly car rent services are not public too.

Secondly, we do not live in corporate owned factory-cities, layout with well defined living quarter areas and workshops. I see no way to arrange efficient public transport system for everyone in organically grown areas, though we can probably make it work for majority. We have much more job varieties than factories - large concentrations of workforce. Take kindergartens and primary schools for example. As a parent, you want them to be as close to home as possible. You want the best educators there. Unless you assume that the best educator-children fit will be with educators from your district (for which you must assume that there are educators in your district in the first place), you need transportation for them. There are travelling salesmen, home deliveries, non-peak (home-work, work-home) traffic to theatres, eating out, hospitals, friends. Unless you want army of robots, I see no way to do without personal transportation altogether. Without personal vehicles altogether, places several kilometres away from public transport stops will be out of reach for less mobile: disabled, elderly, families with babies, etc..

-------

As for vacant properties... I do not even know where to begin. This idea has already been tried in Soviet Union, except they took it even further - there was per person space quota and space exceeding that quota would be taken away. Like one room in a flat would be given to someone else. Your children moved away? Say bye-bye to half of your property. Your family member passed away and you inherited their property? Better do something with it quick or risk losing it. Residents moved from you rental property? Better find anyone to rent it for any sum or risk losing it. I just don't think these are the values of democratic republic. It may be me, though.

Post reply on HN