|
Baronjutter posted:But how do you change it? When a city is already built up with only cars in mind it's extremely hard to break this cycle and politicians just don't have the political capital to do it. Like so many issues, things will have to get really bad to the point that the middle class are effected before there's the political capital needed to change things, and at that point it's 10x as expensive to do. I think as much as everyone in D&D rolls their eyes at Uber/Tesla/Google/etc. self-driving car tech, that is the best long-term solution. Infrastructure is already built for cars, and if we make the cars way better at transporting people, run solely on clean energy, and not have to park anywhere for extended periods of time, we'll have solved a lot of the issues. At least for the urban core. I dunno what you do for suburbia and rural places.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Why, because I started defending the poor instead of the disabled? If you don't like what I posted quit being so loving lazy and respond to my points rather than whatever the gently caress this is. Ever hear of most all other cities that 1) don't suffer from 2) and 2) have plenty of parking downtown.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
xrunner posted:Do they not have buses in Denver? They don't have a bus system that works for a lot of people's commutes, unless they were to move quite a bit from where they are. And of course the poor are least able to do that. It is being improved slowly, but there was very little investment in public transit until into the 2000s, so it's all still catching up. axeil posted:Yeah if you rank the cities by public transit infrastructure the only ones where it's even remotely viable to go carless are probably: Boston's mode share for commuting works out to about 39% driving alone, 33% transit, 22% biking/walking. The other inner suburbs (which should/would have been annexed long ago the way NYC annexed brooklyn, the bronx and queens) are very similar. Cambridge has 22% walking share just on its own, before you count the like 7% bike share. There's a ton of people that are carless here, I'm one of them simply because our car's engine blew a cylinder in the middle of Vermont and we couldn't be bothered to replace the car. There's a Zipcar lot like 100 yards away though. axeil posted:I think as much as everyone in D&D rolls their eyes at Uber/Tesla/Google/etc. self-driving car tech, that is the best long-term solution. Infrastructure is already built for cars, and if we make the cars way better at transporting people, run solely on clean energy, and not have to park anywhere for extended periods of time, we'll have solved a lot of the issues. The typical infrastructure built for cars in a city tends to be nice and wide, pretty straight streets. That actually works very well for running bus lines and retrofitting light rail down the middle if you are willing to actually shell out the money to start. Places like LA used those very sorts of streets for exactly that in the first place, after all. Also Uber doesn't have a real self-driving car program or business model. The self-driving car project they have is being completely destroyed because they stole Google tech and are getting massively sued.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
axeil posted:Yeah if you rank the cities by public transit infrastructure the only ones where it's even remotely viable to go carless are probably: Miami is...doable, but only in certain living/working situations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Your solution for the "problem of San Francisco retail", is to 1) build more parking downtown and 2) create low income housing downtown. Go post in the prop 13/california thread you dumb poo poo. You're really presuming a great deal just because I pointed out that things are a little more complicated than you first believe. I believe none of these things - the first is dumb and the second could easily be solved by higher density and rules mandating low income housing within city limits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:No need to make this personal, but you're really presuming a great deal just because I pointed out that things are a little more complicated than you first believe. Your weak "but actually" examples are tiresome and do not point out that things are "more complicated." Please expand on how San Fransisco's or Seatle's downtown is a retail wasteland.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Your weak "but actually" examples are tiresome and do not point out that things are "more complicated." Please expand on how San Fransisco's or Seatle's downtown is a retail wasteland. You're angry at me for no reason and once again you're demanding I defend things I've never claimed before. Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
PT6A posted:How would there be any space for people to rent if people cannot own property they aren't living in? I agree with you in concept, that it's bad to have empty dwellings at all, but especially in desirable areas, but it's not too easy to solve. You could impose a punitive tax on any unoccupied dwelling, but then you have the issue of how to define "occupation" and how to determine if a given dwelling is occupied or not. I'm obviously not talking about landlords owning multi-family dwellings, nitwit. axeil posted:I think as much as everyone in D&D rolls their eyes at Uber/Tesla/Google/etc. self-driving car tech, that is the best long-term solution. Infrastructure is already built for cars, and if we make the cars way better at transporting people, run solely on clean energy, and not have to park anywhere for extended periods of time, we'll have solved a lot of the issues. The problem is "not parking anywhere for extended periods of time" = "driving around aimlessly looking for a fare and contributing to congestion." Uber and Lyft have already made traffic observably worse in some places. Having a transportation infrastructure that relies on empty cars zipping around is a disaster, even if you ignore the environmental impact. The best long-term solution is to re-urbanize, which is already happening naturally because suburban inefficiencies are incompatible with rising prices and falling wages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:They don't have a bus system that works for a lot of people's commutes, unless they were to move quite a bit from where they are. And of course the poor are least able to do that. Throw in things like shift work or on call/ac hoc/"just in time" scheduling, and it becomes even more difficult for mass transit systems to meet the needs of the working class. Of course, the easy answer is to just ban those sorts of scheduling practices, but why do the easy thing, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
axeil posted:Yeah if you rank the cities by public transit infrastructure the only ones where it's even remotely viable to go carless are probably: Not sure how long NYC will be on top there, there was another derailment today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:You're angry at me for no reason and once again you're demanding I defend things I've never claimed before. Why is that?  you want me to defend prop 13.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Throw in things like shift work or on call/ac hoc/"just in time" scheduling, and it becomes even more difficult for mass transit systems to meet the needs of the working class. Of course, the easy answer is to just ban those sorts of scheduling practices, but why do the easy thing, right? Australia does a neat thing where that kind of schedule ("casual" jobs) necessitates paying the workers more to make up for the inconvenience. Shift work really isn't too hard on mass transit though, it's actually better to spread commuters out vs. trying to fit the entire city's population into rush hour.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:
What's your problem? You keep putting words into my mouth then going on a tirade about it. I've never once mentioned Prop 13. Either post coherently or take a break. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Australia does a neat thing where that kind of schedule ("casual" jobs) necessitates paying the workers more to make up for the inconvenience. Shift work really isn't too hard on mass transit though, it's actually better to spread commuters out vs. trying to fit the entire city's population into rush hour. Sorry with shift work, I was referring more to swing/graveyard shifts where transit in many places isn't even running. You're right of course, if they are running however.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
axeil posted:I think as much as everyone in D&D rolls their eyes at Uber/Tesla/Google/etc. self-driving car tech, that is the best long-term solution. Infrastructure is already built for cars, and if we make the cars way better at transporting people, run solely on clean energy, and not have to park anywhere for extended periods of time, we'll have solved a lot of the issues. This is a nice fantasy and all but I'd advise against posting it in the climate thread unless you want to get very depressed very fast. Point is cars is a non-solution for the future in almost any form. The US infrastructure problem needs to resolved, there is no band-aid large enough in the world to make the current zoning idiocy in the US work in a world with less cars. Like mass scale eminent domain pushed from a federal level is what is necessary here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Not sure how long NYC will be on top there, there was another derailment today. I just think we stay number one because of track miles. There's really nothing else like the NYC transit system anywhere in this country, especially once you take the reach of the commuter rail systems into account (Path, MNRR, NJT and LIRR).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:What's your problem? You keep putting words into my mouth then going on a tirade about it. I've never once mentioned Prop 13. Yeah, good point. That's a situation where, depending on the details, a specialty solution like a company shuttle might make the most sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:What's your problem? You keep putting words into my mouth then going on a tirade about it. I've never once mentioned Prop 13. Solkanar512 posted:Ever heard of places like Seattle or San Francisco? These aren't poo poo hypotheticals, these are real people being priced out of homes near their jobs and having to commute in. I'm sorry if you just want to poo poo on rich assholes, but don't do it at the expense of the working class. Solkanar512 posted:You're really presuming a great deal just because I pointed out that things are a little more complicated than you first believe. I believe none of these things - the first is dumb and the second could easily be solved by higher density and rules mandating low income housing within city limits. Glad you didn't say the magic words though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:You can't talk about California housing without prop 13. What are you talking about? Los Angeles has a huge low-income housing initiative right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:What are you talking about? Los Angeles has a huge low-income housing initiative right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Bay area Prop 13 exists here too, man, so obviously it's not impossible. The bay area's problem isn't that dumb bad tax law (though it is dumb and bad) but that it's run by the most godawful sociopathic nimbys to ever exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Prop 13 exists here too, man, so obviously it's not impossible. The bay area's problem isn't that dumb bad tax law (though it is dumb and bad) but that it's run by the most godawful sociopathic nimbys to ever exist. Would you agree with Solk that more parking lots is the solution? And good for LA, I though tit was still a renter's hell post recession.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Would you agree with Solk that more parking lots is the solution? No, I'm anti parking lots, especially in a city that's relatively dense and gridded like SF. That entire island could go car-free if people were motivated about it. LA's rental market is really bad, but the government is at least trying to make it better. Live/work development is great, they just need to do it well, dense and easily accessible on foot, instead of what developers are mostly doing and slapping together bloated suburban condoplexes priced for millionaires and only allowing weekend shopper type retail instead of the necessities of daily life. gently caress the candle stores, give me a goddamn hardware store
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:The best long-term solution is to re-urbanize, which is already happening naturally because suburban inefficiencies are incompatible with rising prices and falling wages. Reurbanization is happening but pretty much only in the north and california. Major cities in the south are still sprawling at an unsustainable rate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:You can't talk about California housing without prop 13. TB already schooled you on the bullshit prop 13 stuff, but even if it's a true fact that one cannot speak about one without the other, you presume that I posted knowing and intending and agreeing to this. I did not and nothing I've posted indicates this, so you anger is still misplaced. Calm down. Submarine Sandpaper posted:Would you agree with Solk that more parking lots is the solution? I never said nor implied this either, so serious take a loving break. If you're so confused about what my points actually are, you can ask nicely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Not sure how long NYC will be on top there, there was another derailment today. So? The subway is massively redundant through Manhattan for a reason. There's also all the buses too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So? The subway is massively redundant through Manhattan for a reason. There's also all the buses too. Come on, man. A train derailment is a pretty big deal. People can get hurt. Please don't let your pathological need to be right turn you into a sociopath.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:No, I'm anti parking lots, especially in a city that's relatively dense and gridded like SF. That entire island could go car-free if people were motivated about it. I think SF is actually a peninsula
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:I think SF is actually a peninsula For now
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Come on, man. A train derailment is a pretty big deal. People can get hurt. Please don't let your pathological need to be right turn you into a sociopath. No one was talking about the minor injuries, it was about the threat that NYC would end up like DC. DC's big issue with transit is that there's far less redundancy both in separate lines and within the line with express tracks. When a derailment happens in the DC metro - and it happens fairly frequently - it fucks way more things up than in NYC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:I think SF is actually a peninsula Haha I legit did not know that.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OwN7eYZseI fishmech posted:No one was talking about the minor injuries, it was about the threat that NYC would end up like DC. DC's big issue with transit is that there's far less redundancy both in separate lines and within the line with express tracks. When a derailment happens in the DC metro - and it happens fairly frequently - it fucks way more things up than in NYC. idgaf how you're defending it, you still said "So?" to a fuckin' train derailment. Be a human.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:
A train derailment that ended without anyone needing serious medical treatment. It really, truly, wasn't a big deal. We get far more deadly car incidents on daily commutes, that ain't stopping people from driving. And I'm not sure why you think I'm defending bad rail maintenance or possibly bad brakes on the train, the two things they're currently suspecting caused that? fishmech fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
fishmech v. Tiny Brotosaurus.... * lights cigarette, opens beer * You're both good posters 90% of the time but goddamn can y'all be crazy as gently caress the other 10% of the time
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
PT6A posted:fishmech v. Tiny Brotosaurus.... I don't care what you say about me, at least I've never tried to trivialize human suffering just so I could feel smarter than somebody who thought it was a bad thing. And what's fun about fishboy is you can wait a month and then post "train derailments are no big deal" and get the full force and fury of wikipedia thrown at you in dissent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
call to action posted:I'm so glad parking requirements exist, so many people move to my city into new "parking exempt" structures and then just leave their lovely Jeep on the street all week waiting for the weekend. And you'd better believe these people call themselves "car free" What? Nobody who owns a car calls themselves car-free. That's absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You are giving way too much credit to European and Asian cities for being well designed and not sprawl, because tons of them are poorly designed and sprawl like crazy. They're sustainable as long as we keep hurling subsidies into them: https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ Unsustainable means, literally, financial liabilities that outweigh tax collection potential in the given development. As long as we're all willing to engage in the shared delusion that this growth pattern is not a major government project that we spend billions of dollars on, and we never for even a second contemplate about stopping, sure. It's fine. This is fine. The Oldest Man fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:They're sustainable as long as we keep hurling subsidies into them: Hey guess what genius? The city also relies on massive subsidies. The rural areas rely on massive subsidies. Of course suburb areas will too, but it is nothing special to them. That's how the entirety of civilization works. Also lots of places have had plans with varying levels of effectiveness to control growth. Red states tend to do it weaker and suck harder, blue states do it well generally. Even with all the so called sprawl, less than 4% of the country is suburb and city - and that holds 81% of the people. The Remaining rural areas are over 96% of the land but just 19% the people. On the whole, American sprawl does not tend to go far for any one area, leaving a lot of pockets few to zero people between there. Realistically to continue sprawling in a major way, you need to either abandon existing cities all together, or import millions on millions to go live there. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I don't care what you say about me, at least I've never tried to trivialize human suffering just so I could feel smarter than somebody who thought it was a bad thing. No one trivialized human suffering here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I don't care what you say about me, at least I've never tried to trivialize human suffering just so I could feel smarter than somebody who thought it was a bad thing. He is saying one particular train derailment was not a big deal, because nobody was seriously injured in that specific instance. This is not the same thing as saying that train derailments are, in general, not a big deal. I'm not really sure why you're conflating the two ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:And where do you think those poor persons commuting actually work? Who do you think staffs those bars and restaurants? Tiny Brontosaurus posted:But that just means that parking's only available to people who can afford the high fees, regardless of how much they need it. A poor person used to have at least the chance of getting lucky and finding a space, but now they're shut out of parking entirely. Also even if parking is too expensive at the exact location you're going, that doesn't mean you're blocked from using your car entirely. Due to a certain horrible freeway exit, I used to sometimes commute to work split car/bike, parking a couple miles away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The inner cores, sure. But once you leave that, a whole ton of cities now have suburbs that might as well be copy-pasted out of the LA or Atlanta or Boston suburbs. Vast swathes of cookie cutter houses slapped up in a field outside Paris or Madrid, say, within easy access to the motorway. In some countries these primarily attract the middle/upper-middle class, in others they're a further pushing out of the low income classes from the cities. And in tandem there's car usage growing faster, and the cars already in use being driven more. If the outer regions are packed with traffic it matters much less than if the core is. If suburbanites take the car to big box mall to buy toilet paper that's fine, the problem is if all of them are going to try to drive to work in the inner city core because that will necessitate huge infrastructure to store all their cars. I don't think anybody things we can kill the car, but we can encourage going car less and build our infrastructure towards that goal. That's why many European city's is expanding public transport while trying to limit the number of cars on the road through congestion fares. The alternative is to build more highways and parking spaces. Basically the rule is to make cars LESS friendly to drive, and more options for leaving the car behind. This can include parking spaces next to public transport, but better yet is just public transport to public transport.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
White Rock posted:If the outer regions are packed with traffic it matters much less than if the core is. The cores are already packed with traffic, and have been for decades. Particularly in cities like Brussels and London. White Rock posted:The alternative is to build more highways and parking spaces. They've been building a ton more highways and motorways all across Europe, especially because of the ongoing growth of truck-based shipping, due to lack of suitable freight railroad options (unlike the United States) and there are certainly a ton more parking lots built in the outlying areas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 12:18
|
|