|
Sydin posted:The light rail is fairly comprehensive in terms of transit service, it's just slow as hell. There's a station not even two minutes away from my front door, and a station more or less on the doorstep of my workplace. The problem is that despite this it still takes about an hour all told for me to commute to work by light rail, because the thing has to slowly lurch its way through downtown and all the way up 1st Street. It also comes at pretty awful intervals (15 minutes even during peak commuter hours) so if you miss your train you're waiting a while when most metro subways run every 5-7 minutes or so. It's also amusing to me all the bizarre things BART did such as using non-standard rail gauge and also designing the trains with inadequate brakes in each car so they never are run to their max speed. quote:The system uses a 5 ft 6 in (1,676 mm) Indian gauge and mostly ballastless track instead of the 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge and railroad ties used on United States railroads. So all maintenance and support equipment must be custom built.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Elevated rail is also incredibly more expensive. But still cheaper than tunnels (usually). Of course it is. Though when you account for existing municipal easements and right-of-way concerns, it's quite viable if you turn around and decommission the surface rail service once elevated construction is complete. Comparatively, subway is outrageously expensive, particularly in a seismically active area like SF that also happens to have plenty of garbage subgrade strata like bay mud and engineered infill. Though I wouldn't be at all surprised that the much higher pricetag of subway would go over better with the public, due to the necessarily obtrusive nature of elevated rail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Elevated rail would be easier to integrate while maintaining existing service and surface streets, but lol at that ever happening in the land of height-restricted zoning Eh, as long as you didn't build it too massively high you could probably get away with it, at least through the downtown. Once it hits 1st Street and the Milpitas area you're skirting dangerously close to the airport & take off paths, so it would probably face bigger concerns there. It is still expensive to do though, and am sure what few residents SJ still has would be pretty pissy about what a giant elevated rail platform snaking through downtown would do to the view & property values.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
I'm surprised that there aren't more elevated structures in the BART/Caltrain system as it is, seeing all of the elevation changes that it's gotta negotiate. They must've been really pressured not to gently caress up anyone's view/property values back when it all went in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:I'm surprised that there aren't more elevated structures in the BART/Caltrain system as it is, seeing all of the elevation changes that it's gotta negotiate. Huge segments of BART are either at-grade or elevated:  Since there aren't at-grade crossings of the BART, I imagine the sections that are elevated would have been at-grade if it wasn't for crossings or existing rail lines (e.g. the Fruitvale-Bayfair section is directly over a UP rail line). Caltrain is basically an existing commuter service that has been running in one form or another since steam trains.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Huge segments of BART are either at-grade or elevated: Yeah for elevated BART's around a quarter of the total mileage and about a third of the stations. But about half of it is also surface track, and Muni Metro as well could stand to be much more elevated/subterranean. Not that that's going to happen any time soon, of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Yeah for elevated BART's around a quarter of the total mileage and about a third of the stations. But about half of it is also surface track, and Muni Metro as well could stand to be much more elevated/subterranean. Not that that's going to happen any time soon, of course. But the big difference between Muni and BART is that BART doesn't have at-grade crossing. So Muni gets slowed down by stupid cars blocking the muni N train, but that doesn't effect BART. There's basically no reason to elevate BART tracks that are already laid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But the big difference between Muni and BART is that BART doesn't have at-grade crossing. So Muni gets slowed down by stupid cars blocking the muni N train, but that doesn't effect BART. There's basically no reason to elevate BART tracks that are already laid. Of course there are. Pushing your grade-separated off of the surface allows for greater residential development in the area, particularly at surface-grade stations. It's not all about level-crossings, though that is a large factor in the operation of municipal-level services like Muni Metro which desperately needs it for this reason. And Caltrain does have quite a few at-grade crossings which are quite disruptive to peak traffic periods (not to mention fatal to peds) due to pre-empting at major arteries. I would love to see more of the area's transit facilities pushed off of the surface; it would be an improvement anywhere. Being a licensed transportation engineer, I know what I'm talkin about here (though admittedly some of this stuff falls into urban planning territory).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Of course there are. Pushing your grade-separated off of the surface allows for greater residential development in the area, particularly at surface-grade stations. It's not all about level-crossings, though that is a large factor in the operation of municipal-level services like Muni Metro which desperately needs it for this reason. I'm not that sure that you can build closer to elevated BART tracks than you can at-grade BART tracks, and I'm not sure how much of the at-grade is placed where its otherwise useful land (e.g. the Castro Valley to Dublin section) or doesn't have co-located transit-centric development. Caltrain is a different beast of course and has several at-grade crossings. Usually the community they are in isn't willing to pay to remove them. At least the way the discussion works in the Palo Alto Online editorials.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm not that sure that you can build closer to elevated BART tracks than you can at-grade BART tracks, and I'm not sure how much of the at-grade is placed where its otherwise useful land (e.g. the Castro Valley to Dublin section) or doesn't have co-located transit-centric development. Hm probably, yeah. Also, any work on BART existing lines would probably be a total clusterfuck, even if you were just going in to add elevated lines to improve capacity. I'm more excited about stuff like the BART extension to the VTA, which the planning looks totally solid on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Sydin posted:I swear it's like they want the student loan bubble to burst so hard it tanks the economy again. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/the-wageless-profitable-recovery/?_r=0 quote:In their newly released study, the Northeastern economists found that since the recovery began in June 2009 following a deep 18-month recession, “corporate profits captured 88 percent of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1 percent” of that growth. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/30/258388/corporate-profits-recovery/ quote:Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Sydin posted:The light rail is fairly comprehensive in terms of transit service, it's just slow as hell. There's a station not even two minutes away from my front door, and a station more or less on the doorstep of my workplace. The problem is that despite this it still takes about an hour all told for me to commute to work by light rail, because the thing has to slowly lurch its way through downtown and all the way up 1st Street. It also comes at pretty awful intervals (15 minutes even during peak commuter hours) so if you miss your train you're waiting a while when most metro subways run every 5-7 minutes or so. I wouldn't call two lines that share 1/3 of their stops comprehensive. There is zero coverage in West/SW SJ, and going north from South SJ, through downtown, to Milpitas and then SE to Alum Rock is stupid. The "northern" terminus of the Alum Rock line is 3-4 miles east of downtown but it takes 35-40 minutes because it detours to Milpitas first. The buses do better work of it but even they are a poorly timed disaster. When I lived in the SW corner of SJ (SJ proper, but on the Saratoga and Campbell borders), it would take me an hour to get downtown (not terrible since it would have been a 45 minute drive in traffic) but 90 minutes to get home in the evening due to very poorly timed transfers and 30 minutes between buses. Now that I live in Campbell, I walk 15 minutes to the light rail and it's a quick zip downtown, but as you said... if I miss my train I'm looking at a 15-30 minute wait depending on the time of day. I actually love the light rail in SJ, but I wish it really were a bit more comprehensive. Running a line up Lawrence Expressway from West Valley to Mission College (and on to Mountain View on the existing track) would be HUGE, especially with properly timed transfers for the Limited 323 bus at Stevens Creek and the Express 522 at El Camino.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
How about you two post some explanation or at least a title for those?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:How about you two post some explanation or at least a title for those? Its the unemployment rate, and the change in the unemployment rate respectively.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
Sydin posted:4. Banks are suddenly getting far less money from their student loans. Yes, in the long term they will theoretically get it all back since the debt can't be discharged, but with $1 trillion or whatever it is now tied up in student debt, even having 10% of that return nothing for 2-5 years would be debilitating to a lot of banking institutions and could potentially tip us into another 08' style crash. Banks have actually been a relatively minor part of the student loan issue since the ACA passed. Non-federal loans are up but a large number of those are state loans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:And Caltrain does have quite a few at-grade crossings which are quite disruptive to peak traffic periods (not to mention fatal to peds) due to pre-empting at major arteries. I would love to see more of the area's transit facilities pushed off of the surface; it would be an improvement anywhere. Being a licensed transportation engineer, I know what I'm talkin about here (though admittedly some of this stuff falls into urban planning territory). Caltrain is often fatal to pedestrians, yes. Most of that is due to the fact that they chose a lovely selfish way to commit suicide though: http://www.ble-t.org/pr/news/pf_headline.asp?id=5460 http://www.wnyc.org/story/286064-caltrain-engineer-talks-about-coping-with-track-fatalities/ http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,1669149 Every time the train hits someone the tracks are closed for a police investigation while the guy is scraped off the tracks. I did notice though that the part north of mountain view gets TONS of delays but since I moved to the south bay and take MV - SJ it is almost never delayed or affected by the suicides (Which are mostly in redwood city, gunn high) ... loving lol. As I post that I google 'gunn high caltrain suicide' and another happened 3 days ago. Jesus christ, Gunn High. gently caress you! http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_26862231/palo-alto-teen-killed-by-caltrain-early-tuesday <-- This week http://abcnews.go.com/US/palo-alto-struggles-rash-teen-train-suicides/story?id=8881813 http://www.quora.com/How-many-Gunn-High-School-suicides-have-there-been-each-year
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
redreader posted:loving lol. As I post that I google 'gunn high caltrain suicide' and another happened 3 days ago. Jesus christ, Gunn High. gently caress you! Caltrain deaths are about 75% suicides and 25% dumb people trying to take a shortcut and welp. The latter has gone down since they really began expanding their efforts to put tall fences along the tracks. I remember reading an article about commuter train drivers/engineers, it said that it's a matter of when, not if, you'll see someone kill themselves in front of you. Goes with the job. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
FMguru posted:That's weird because it's Paly that pretty much abuts the Caltrain tracks. They're a pretty far trek from Gunn. Gunn high (say my colleagues) is full of kids who are pushed extremely hard to achieve. All of their parents get super mad if they don't get a+++ in all of their classes. The academic competition 'forces' them to commit suicide. Also I read a while ago (re: car accidents and caltrain) that caltrain was designed for fewer trains. The crossing alarm gives you all of about 10 seconds before a train arrives in some cases. Sometimes you don't see the train coming even if you pull right up to the tracks and look along the tracks, because it rounds a corner and is on you in 2 seconds. So if your car stalls on the tracks you might be screwed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
I'm sure the ridiculous pressure to succeed is the same at Paly, I just found it odd the school right next to the train tracks is the one that doesn't have a train suicide problem. I suspect the real explanation is that these things happen in clusters (as the unthinkable suddenly becomes thinkable once someone near you does it) and it's just ill luck that Gunn is dealing with it right now instead of Paly. And yeah, you really have to be careful at level crossings to not get stuck on the tracks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
redreader posted:Gunn high (say my colleagues) is full of kids who are pushed extremely hard to achieve. All of their parents get super mad if they don't get a+++ in all of their classes. The academic competition 'forces' them to commit suicide. I went to high school around the same area, so that isn't too far off. People have described the high school environment like a 'pressure cooker'. One time when my high school history teacher was going to be writing letters of recommendation on a first-come-first-served limited basis, kids stayed overnight by her door. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
kurona_bright posted:I went to high school around the same area, so that isn't too far off. People have described the high school environment like a 'pressure cooker'. Shallow Alto is a pretty horrible place in general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
redreader posted:Gunn high (say my colleagues) is full of kids who are pushed extremely hard to achieve. All of their parents get super mad if they don't get a+++ in all of their classes. The academic competition 'forces' them to commit suicide. My old high school had a case like this literally a year ago. I remember the vast majority of my classmates were horrified by it, but I still saw some fuckers on my feed saying "heh, guess she was too much of a pussy to handle the pressure  "
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Children have some hosed up ways to deal with death Jerry, no doubt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
I knew Prop 45 was going to fail when I began receiving "No" brochures in the mail on a weekly basis. loving old people. It's their fault, I believe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Telesphorus posted:I knew Prop 45 was going to fail when I began receiving "No" brochures in the mail on a weekly basis. Old People for being fearful and spiteful and Younger people for being apathetic and lazy. The American Electorate is poo poo, really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
We have a representative democracy for a reason, yet we still have these initiatives that show up on the ballot that you can't expect the layperson to actually understand. Hell, I abstained from voting on 45 because I had no idea what it actually meant to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:We have a representative democracy for a reason, yet we still have these initiatives that show up on the ballot that you can't expect the layperson to actually understand. Hell, I abstained from voting on 45 because I had no idea what it actually meant to me. I guess reading short voters guide that's mailed out to everyone in the state was too hard for you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Just saw this incredibly depressing graphic:
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Just saw this incredibly depressing graphic: It blows, places like NYC are also expensive but at least it has more housing options/better mass transit. For SF there's literally nothing to be found with a $1500-$2000 rent range search except for rentals in the famous tenderloin district or bunk bed in someone's garage. Florida is a weird case in which the rents are pretty hight but on the flip side the cost of home ownership is much lower thanks to the real estate bubble. etalian fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Just saw this incredibly depressing graphic: Richmond supremacy. We even beat Chevron.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
I always wonder how much maps like that are influenced by them being made based on prices from non-Craigslist rental listings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
withak posted:I always wonder how much maps like that are influenced by them being made based on prices from non-Craigslist rental listings. Well given that my recent rent was on par with most actual listings in the Sunnyvale/San Jose region (~$2k) either they're using inflated prices of class A's not on Craigslist or the prices of 2BR+ apartments. Also what sort of map are they using that puts Santa Clara on top of Cupertino and Cupertino on top of Los Gatos? ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Median rent regardless of home size is a weird statistic. Wouldn't $/sqft be more useful in comparing cities? It also seems like the median alone would hide a lot of interesting multi-modal distributions. A city could have a ton of affordable housing, but also some very wealthy neighborhoods, but the median would hide this fact and make it seem comparable to a city that had no affordable housing, but little high end housing as well.
Hog Obituary fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Los Gatos has apartments?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Los Gatos has apartments? Hah. Probably renting out rooms, or maybe even couches, as that's how friends of mine have afforded to continue to own houses after the 2007/2008 bust (although prices are now getting back up to those levels). I've never run in to basements here unlike in the midwest otherwise I'd say that's an option. Median rent vs median income would probably be a more interesting metric. It'd still show that rent is stupidly expensive as a % of income, but there's definitely a demand component along the peninsula where 6 figures is common if not normal, and everyone else is likely commuting in from somewhere more sane. I'm not sure how many much more rental stock has been built in the last decade though - at least in Mountain View it felt like the vast majority of places for rent were along/near Central and were built in the mid-70's or earlier, and lightly refurbished to be "luxury" and could charge massive amounts. Townhouses (and I guess sorta rowhouses?) were most of what I've seen built recently in old industrial areas, as well as condos and actual high end apartments, but very little low/mid-end rental stock, and not very dense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
That's the problem all over the Bay Area - new apartment construction has been at the high/luxury end (fewer studios and 1BRs, more condos and townhouses). The SF skyline is full of construction cranes building giant apartment towers...that they'll sell you for seven figures. Things like the Blu tower right near the Bay Bridge onramp - 21 floor tall skyscraper, with six condos on each floor. Not exactly easing the demand for housing in the area.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
FMguru posted:That's the problem all over the Bay Area - new apartment construction has been at the high/luxury end (fewer studios and 1BRs, more condos and townhouses). The SF skyline is full of construction cranes building giant apartment towers...that they'll sell you for seven figures. Things like the Blu tower right near the Bay Bridge onramp - 21 floor tall skyscraper, with six condos on each floor. Not exactly easing the demand for housing in the area. It sounds like the Bay Area is trying to be Manhattan without the public transportation infrastructure and affordable surrounding suburbs. Cool. Also, is there a way to get someone fired for this: http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/11/13/48034/lausd-argued-middle-schooler-can-consent-to-sex-wi/
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:07 |
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Well given that my recent rent was on par with most actual listings in the Sunnyvale/San Jose region (~$2k) either they're using inflated prices of class A's not on Craigslist or the prices of 2BR+ apartments. 2k$ for what? There is huge variation in price between older and new buildings. I've also always wondered how those prices are generated because you can also get articles like this one: Rents are rising 10% Year-over-year? This is only one article and one year, but you can find similar articles going back years. http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/09/09/yikes_bay_area_rents_are_up_almost_15_percent_since_last_year.php http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_21099947/bay-area-apartment-rents-soar-average-monthly Looking at the descriptions it looks like some of the analysis only looks at buildings with over 50 units. So only the new mega-corporate-whatever buildings. I'm not sure what to make of rental prices at that rate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 18:05
|
|
