121–130 of 228 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I wonder how Tokyo functions? I guess people just die waiting for an ambulance or in a fire. See this part of the comment you’re replying to - > Yes we need some roads, but cars driving in the heart of downtown as normal transit?
Also yes, for most large cities you can find news articles about people dying in fires or because of an ambulance getting delayed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re not incorrect per se, but it’s important to note that deliveries into downtown would be important for it to be a thriving destination for shopping, residential or business. Not to mention space for heavy equipment to come in to do repairs and construction. Minimal maintenance corridors may not be enough. You also need public transit options into it as well as transportation solutions for “out of towners” who d…
In any city that isn't hopelessly car-dependent there is some kind of rail to bring in commuters. A subway, tram, light rail, passenger rail, often a combination of all of them. Once you have a stable system to bring in commuters, adding a couple parking lots to stops on the outskirts for "out of towners" is pretty easy. The rest is just about not removing all the streets. You also need enough roads for emergency veh…
Roads in cities are such a waste of space. A long time ago I did a quick survey of SF and found something like 20% of the land was dedicated to cars. Some articles from people here that talk about this [1] [2] [3]. That is the most subsidized land on the planet but people don't think of it that way. They think roads are free so any tax to use them is wrong. That space could be helping out the city in so many ways but…
There is a reason cars, and paradoxically larger cars are being bought in increasing numbers.
You can of course force people to give up conveniences they like, you just have to contend with the fact that the modern world makes it easy for people to move or vote with their wallet.
Roads in cities are such a waste of space. A long time ago I did a quick survey of SF and found something like 20% of the land was dedicated to cars. Some articles from people here that talk about this [1] [2] [3]. That is the most subsidized land on the planet but people don't think of it that way. They think roads are free so any tax to use them is wrong. That space could be helping out the city in so many ways but…
You’re not incorrect per se, but it’s important to note that deliveries into downtown would be important for it to be a thriving destination for shopping, residential or business. Not to mention space for heavy equipment to come in to do repairs and construction. Minimal maintenance corridors may not be enough. You also need public transit options into it as well as transportation solutions for “out of towners” who d…
And it wasn't about "the will of the Outer Sunset" [1], and some (local) people there rely on car or rideshare access, plus all the rest of us from everywhere that isn't the Outer Sunset also want to be able to drive there to visit. The existing post-Covid time-shared road/park setup on Highway 1 was already incredibly friendly to bikes, pedestrian, pets, children, surfers. And SF Measure K only passed 54.7:45.3% [2].
> "increasing maintenance costs due to erosion are another huge reason it’s a good idea)"
You could argue the exact same that SF cablecars could be cut because they net lose money (federal subsidy), or about all of us constantly paying for the upkeep of Highway 1 down at Big Sur, which is regularly closed/subsided/storm-damaged, and costs $$$ to repair every winter, but the wishes of the (small population of) locals have to be balanced against the wishes of everyone else (CA + out-of-state residents, tourists) who use it.
In any case re the viability of transit at such low neighborhood densities, Seamless Bay Area [3] have for years been pointing out the ongoing insanity, duplication, waste, lack of ticket interoperability etc. of bankrolling 27 different agencies for 9 counties in a metro area of only [0]: https://www.kqed.org/news/12014573/sf-muni-dire-need-funding...
[1]: "Do voters want to close S.F.’s Great Highway? New Chronicle poll shows where they stand [Prop K - 46% in favor of closure, 44% against, 10% undecided]" 10/2024 https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1gaaj36/do_vo...
[2]: 2024 SF Measure K https://sfelections.org/results/20241105w/index.html
[3]: seamlessbayarea.org
[4]: "One journey, one ticket", key learnings from Swiss public transport" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38686115
Some numbers don’t make sense here… They’re saying a 7% reduction is 43k cars, which infers 550k daily trips into the city. But they think they can make $500M/year. At $9 per trip, that’s only 150k tolls daily. (500M / 365 / $9). In any case, I’m glad it seems to be working. Congestion pricing has the potential to do a lot of good in this country.
$500M/year was the magical thinking that applies any time the NY government wants to create a tax. The revenue projected is always huge so they can spend big somewhere else while pretending to be revenue neutral. The soda tax had the same ridiculous overestimation.
Roads in cities are such a waste of space. A long time ago I did a quick survey of SF and found something like 20% of the land was dedicated to cars. Some articles from people here that talk about this [1] [2] [3]. That is the most subsidized land on the planet but people don't think of it that way. They think roads are free so any tax to use them is wrong. That space could be helping out the city in so many ways but…
You’re not incorrect per se, but it’s important to note that deliveries into downtown would be important for it to be a thriving destination for shopping, residential or business. Not to mention space for heavy equipment to come in to do repairs and construction. Minimal maintenance corridors may not be enough. You also need public transit options into it as well as transportation solutions for “out of towners” who d…
American city centers are overprovisioned on roads by probably a factor of 10 or more. Ironically, fixing that would be excellent for local businesses, and they’re usually the ones opposing it because they think there’s no way to get customers besides having them drive directly to the business and park on their property.
[flagged]
Roads in cities are such a waste of space. A long time ago I did a quick survey of SF and found something like 20% of the land was dedicated to cars. Some articles from people here that talk about this [1] [2] [3]. That is the most subsidized land on the planet but people don't think of it that way. They think roads are free so any tax to use them is wrong. That space could be helping out the city in so many ways but…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Roads are useful, but what I really think we should get rid of is parking lots. When cars can drive themselves we should build over all the lots and knock down the garages. The cars can spend the day on the road and the night parked outside the city. There should be zero parked inside the city.
Abolish free parking, and raise prices on the parking meter until the parking spots are only ~80% occupied (if they're less than 80% occupied, lower the price). If there's not enough parking, let the market fix that problem - if private parking lots are profitable use of land, then people will build them. But people will never be satisfied with private parking lots if they could have used free public parking instead…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how Tokyo functions? I guess people just die waiting for an ambulance or in a fire. See this part of the comment you’re replying to - > Yes we need some roads, but cars driving in the heart of downtown as normal transit?
Tokyo barely makes it into the top hundred by population density. Also yes, for most large cities you can find news articles about people dying in fires or because of an ambulance getting delayed.
No real surprise, though. People love stories where you can point to a few people and say, they’re the ones who did this. It’s much less fun when it’s systemic and no one person or group can be blamed.