A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M • Hacker News Board

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#241

Post by dsfyu404ed » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:26 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #81

ucaetano wrote: post #52

San Francisco has more than twice the area of Manhattan, with half the population. The San Francisco Bay Area CSA has about the same population as Switzerland, with 2/3 of the area of Switzerland. Both have similar GDPs. If someone wanted to live in Germany, and commute to work in Zurich, with Swiss salaries and German cost-of-living, their commute would be about 1h15min. The housing and infrastructure problems in th…

> The housing and infrastructure problems in the SFBA are purely political, and self-inflicted. That's true, but the implication that these decisions are inarguably stupid ("self-inflicted") is unfair. It's a conscious and IMHO defensible choice by the people who already live here: we would prefer to deal with the problems caused by insufficient housing than by the problems caused by overly dense population.

>we would prefer to deal with the problems caused by insufficient housing than by the problems caused by overly dense population.

From the outside it looks like you've created the worst of both worlds.

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#242

Post by vthallam » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:29 PM UTC

QML wrote: post #221

kevinburke wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's $12000 extra on rent per year, which is a lot to someone making $80k a year.

Take the time to commute (8hrs) into consideration. Is that extra $12000 worth it?

For some people, yes.

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#243

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:31 PM UTC

SolarNet wrote: post #36

mudil wrote: post #24

Liberals like to talk big about the public transportation, but when it comes time to deliver they follow the unions' script that results in exuberant costs (to build the system and to run it) and extremely poor performance. And as a result the average folks and the poor suffer the most.

Or, traveling a 100 miles takes a couple hours even if it isn't public transit, because of things like safety, traffic, and the laws of physics. Also, a click-bait headline (she leaves at 4 am).

Physics? Trains can do a lot better than 80 miles in three hours.

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#244

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:31 PM UTC

ucaetano wrote: post #234

jacinda wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a choice. The San Francisco Bay Area is already denser than the entire country of Switzerland and has a similar GDP. However, the Swiss have incomparably better public transit. And their taxes are lower than the US. There's no need to become Manhattan or Hong Kong. Just invest in infrastructure.

> There's no need to become Manhattan or Hong Kong. Just invest in infrastructure. You're not getting the basic point with transit infrastructure: it requires density. Transit systems are only viable with enough people living and working at walking distance from the stations. Increasing density decreases traffic, increases transit effectiveness, and reduces environmental impact. It's simple geometry.

[deleted]

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#245

Post by pc86 » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:32 PM UTC

jacinda wrote: post #170

lisper wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never claimed them to be stupid. Your words, not mine. The adjective "self-inflicted" has an undeniable negative connotation. Why didn't you say, "deliberately chosen" instead? > The Bay Area housing situation is a tragedy of the commons. No, it's not. It is neither a tragedy, nor does it have anything to do with commons. Yes, it is a case of the rich making life harder for the poor, but that's only a tragedy for…

It is a choice. The San Francisco Bay Area is already denser than the entire country of Switzerland and has a similar GDP. However, the Swiss have incomparably better public transit. And their taxes are lower than the US. There's no need to become Manhattan or Hong Kong. Just invest in infrastructure.

How does the density of SFBA (or even SF proper) compare to the density of the Swiss cities that actually have the transit you're talking about?

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#246

Post by anarazel » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:36 PM UTC

scriptkiddy wrote: post #212

anarazel wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why I've always been in favor of Hybrid zoning. Hybrid structures are even better in my opinion. You can have a building where the bottom floors are commercial space and the upper floors are residential space. Interestingly in the mission bay area there's a lot of unused commercial first floor space below residential apartment buildings. Some of it empty since the buildings went up 2012/2013.

Mission bay San Diego? Why do you think that is?

San Francisco, sorry, should have mentioned that. I've really no clue, I'm kinda curious. They're still building new buildings with commercial ground level floors. Besides being empty and presumably not making money that way, they're also not particularly pretty...

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#247

Post by pc86 » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:38 PM UTC

dtech wrote: post #217

jdavis703 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a rent controlled unit and still feel we need to eliminate Prop. 13 (prevents property tax increases caused by property asset increases) and eliminate rent control. Both are removing people from having skin in the game when it comes to housing policy. If everyone can feel the pain, maybe everyone can figure out a way to stop the pain.

Are there any concrete plans on how to implement this? In the densely populated parts of the Netherlands we've had an unhealthy housing market for decades, partly because of government subsidized mortages through tax breaks. "Everyone" kind of agrees that is should be abolished, but the polical and popular will is laking, and people won't be able to pay their mortages anymore if it happened too sudden. Also it would…

That's a pretty interesting definition of "everyone." Lacking popular and political will doesn't leave many people who actually want it, does it?

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#248

Post by sulam » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:41 PM UTC

cabaalis wrote: post #152

jmckib wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is, though I'd say the average is closer to 100-120k. Not sure why that's a bad thing though.

Not really a bad thing, just maybe disappointing. I've been a professional coder for 10 years, and now am at an "executive"-level at a small startup, and I make the high end of that. In my area, that is a very strong upper-middle-class salary, though 180 would be better. It's sad at first to see that someone who is simply in a different area geographically is afforded so much for so little effort. However when you fa…

Your small startup is probably why you're making that. Startups don't actually pay well, and it's not a small difference.

Regarding cost of living here, I just did some basic research using Portland as an example and it looks like I could reduce my mortgage by anywhere from 25-50% pretty easily without giving up anything in terms of bedrooms, square footage, location, etc. In terms of rentals, it looks comparable. Of course I probably couldn't get a job earning what I do in SF either. I haven't looked at relocating because (surprise!) we actually like it here and with kids you get pinned down unless things are pretty bad.

It's worth noting that I live in Alameda, the island/town the woman in the article was living in when she got evicted. We are literally having riots (two now) at city hall when tenant-friendly changes to local law have been discussed. They keep passing the ballot, though!

Alameda passed an anti-density measure in the early 70's in response to developers demolishing old Victorians in order to build crappy apartment buildings. That measure has in turn kept high density development from being done _anywhere_ on the island, including the old naval base where there is nothing historic to be preserved (except the ships floating on the water). Current anti-density arguments primarily come from people who don't want additional commute-hours congestion and landlords who are perfectly happy to rent a 2-bedroom apartment for $2200/mo. (Cheap compared to SF!)

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#249

Post by sbov » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:42 PM UTC

ktRolster wrote: post #200

soft_serve wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact, you're benefiting through increasing home values (for which you are not taxed due to Prop. 13) This is completely untrue. I have a house in 94087 where I live about 7 months/year (the other 5 months are in Tel Aviv, where it's also very expensive!) I own the house, bought in in 1989. I don't benefit at all from increased house prices. It just makes everything more expensive. And even under Prop 13, my prop…

You aren't happy at all that your house is worth a million dollars?

Speaking personally, the value of my house means little to me. I plan to live in this region for a long time - when my house goes up, other houses in the region go up. When my house goes down, other houses in the region go down. My house may be worth $1million, but selling it and buying another will get me the same house as when it was worth $500k.

It only matters if I decide to sell it AND move somewhere else. Which probably isn't going to happen.

Re: A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M

#250

Post by WillPostForFood » Thu, Aug 17, 2017, 7:43 PM UTC

panic wrote: post #237

WillPostForFood wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of infrastructure as well. Despite the low density, it is pain to get around SF and bay area generally unless you are luck enough to have a trip that starts or ends near one of the few rail lines. Double the density, and getting around would go from bad to worse.

That's not necessarily true. More density could allow people to live closer to work and reduce the amount of traffic.

Even in dense cities (Manhattan), most people don't live walking distance to work. But they have a great public transportation system, so it works. The Bay Area has a terrible public transit system, and if you add density without improving it will get a lot harder to get around.

Also, the big tech jobs centers (apple/facebook/Google) are in the south bay, and many of their employees (especially those without kids) choose to live in San Francisco because it is a much more interesting vibrant interesting place than Mountain View, Menlo Park, or Cupertino. Someone living in Noe Valley and working at Apple could already live closer to work, for much less, if that's what they wanted.

So adding high density housing will allow some people to live closer, and some to live farther, but it will add incrementally more traffic. That's fine, but let's at least address the infrastructure in tandem, if not first.