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

90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 302 posts

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#171

Post by bluGill »

timr wrote: post #64
sampo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it'll only stop when everyone says enough is enough and leaves Or, alternatively, when enough people start voting in politicians who would allow building lots of new homes in central locations. Manhattan has 3.9× the density of San Francisco. At Manhattan density, the City of San Francisco could house 2.5 million more people.

This is such a tiresome argument. Even if you could suddenly build all of the housing required to reduce prices on a short timescale, you'd have to solve the infrastructural problems that come with it (roads and transit), and convince developers to build into a massive loss (i.e. I am a developer, and you expect me to build and finance at today's costs, and pay for it with tomorrow's lower rents). Construction is a s…

Fortunately for developers it won't be suddenly. Most land in the city is already occupied: even if the construction and banking industry could rebuild the entire city in two years it takes longer than that to get the current land owners to agree to sell their current house which works just fine for them right now.

Companies only build new offices quickly because they are willing to locate to any new suburb that currently has land. Downtown areas that are already well developed might be more desirable but it takes time to get the land rights. (note they are always re-building something downtown in nearly any city, but it wasn't an overnight thing to decide to do that)

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#172

Post by [deleted] »

d1zzy wrote: post #156
sampo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if you could suddenly build all of the housing required to reduce prices on a short timescale, you'd have to solve the infrastructural problems that come with it The value of new multi-story units along good commute in the most expensive housing market in the world would be so high that some taxation of that profit would be more than enough to fund building the required commuter rail or subway lines and also n…

And that's why we can't have nice things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...

[deleted]

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#173

Post by nerfhammer »

timr wrote: post #64
sampo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it'll only stop when everyone says enough is enough and leaves Or, alternatively, when enough people start voting in politicians who would allow building lots of new homes in central locations. Manhattan has 3.9× the density of San Francisco. At Manhattan density, the City of San Francisco could house 2.5 million more people.

This is such a tiresome argument. Even if you could suddenly build all of the housing required to reduce prices on a short timescale, you'd have to solve the infrastructural problems that come with it (roads and transit), and convince developers to build into a massive loss (i.e. I am a developer, and you expect me to build and finance at today's costs, and pay for it with tomorrow's lower rents). Construction is a s…

how was population growth ever possible before?

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#175

Post by sushisource »

eloff wrote: post #117

If you're doing this, your almost certainly choosing a suboptimal career path. I think most of the times you could optimize your job and location and come out ahead economically. That's not the only consideration, but it's tough to imagine the 90 minute commute winning on quality of life factors.

Yeah, that's one of the pieces that's never made sense to me. Like the woman in the article. There really isn't a closer Red Lobster or similar restaurant you could work at?

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#176

Post by bluGill »

moultano wrote: post #83
timr wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a tiresome argument. Even if you could suddenly build all of the housing required to reduce prices on a short timescale, you'd have to solve the infrastructural problems that come with it (roads and transit), and convince developers to build into a massive loss (i.e. I am a developer, and you expect me to build and finance at today's costs, and pay for it with tomorrow's lower rents). Construction is a s…

Building more housing decreases traffic as people move to shorten their commutes. Building offices without housing is what increases traffic, which is what most cities in the bay are currently doing.

Not really. It changes things, but in the location of the new housing things get busier. The major hiways elsewhere see less traffic and the average is probably better, but the local situation needs to be fixed to handle it.

Of course ideally the local situation would be everybody works within a couple blocks and so the elevators and sidewalks can handle it. Most zoning boards hate this idea though.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#177

Post by sizzzzlerz »

sudouser wrote: post #4

traffic sucks, people leave their office at 3:30 just to avoid traffic, but _everyone_ is doing it , so they still get stuck in traffic...

I live in Milpitas and work in Sunnyvale, commuting the 10 miles to my workplace on the infamous Highway 237. Having done this commute for 34 years, I can track the state of the economy by the time it takes to get home in the afternoon. During the recession, it was a breeze, 20 minute average. Today, even leaving around 3, 30-40 minute commutes are typical. Trying the same commute an hour or two later can add another half hour. I truly feel for people who have those longer commutes beyond Milpitas on 880, 680, and 580. Those are truly nasty.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#178

Post by d1zzy »

hesdeadjim wrote: post #141
jarjoura wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few places on the planet are as temperate and offer so many options to escape into nature as the Bay Area. I agree that something has to change, but trying to convince people that the only answer is to move away is a non-starter for the majority of the population, especially those who want to live here.

If they tried Colorado they’d change their mind quick. I always thought I’d end up in the valley, but after ten years here and seeing how bad the Bay Area has gotten, there isn’t enough money to convince me to make the switch.

It's highly subjective, I personally cannot stand temperatures below 15C or so, it's "painful" (yes, I'm a wuss).

I haven't lived in Colorado but I did live in Europe and recently looked at the climate/temperature tables of Boulder to compare to Bay Area. It rather seems to me that it has weather similar to where I lived in Europe (hot summers, cold winters) with a large variation of daytime/nighttime temperature and a bit drier climate (in Boulder at least) because of the nearby mountains. All in all, lots of days in Boulder where temperature average would be <15C so not that good.

Re: 90-minute ‘super commutes’ more common as Bay Area housing shortage intensifies

#180

Post by wil421 »

_m8fo wrote: post #37
wil421 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren’t busses going to contribute to the problem? A city close to mine wants to extended the light rail a few miles to do hub and spoke. I would think a tunnel or railway alongside a highway would reduce traffic.

How would buses contribute to the problem? Assuming every person who takes the bus would otherwise drive, a single bus would wipe out dozens of cars on the roads.

I have more confidence in people riding light rail than taking a bus. From what I’ve read about SF, private busses funded by big tech companies are already an issue.
Post reply on HN