Transit Politics: The Little Engines That Could Get Federal Funding

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Transit Politics: The Little Engines That Could Get Federal Funding

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

I want to make the sidewalks wider. I want to make the roads narrower. I want to replace vacant parking lots with affordable housing. Is it easier to do as head a city's zoning department, as mayor, or as state senator for the area? Serious question.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2016 17:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 22:19

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Combed Thunderclap posted:

My impression is that if it's federally funded it's getting an environmental impact statement no matter what, yee haw and say thanks to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

EDIT: And yeah that's definitely a good thing, no way to know what kind of environmental impact you're going to have without one and these big infrastructure projects tend to interact with the environment in novel and exciting ways we'd like to know about in advance.

Maybe the issue is that modifications of regulations governing environmental impact statements are required, so as to better represent externalities which ultimately must be paid for with tax revenue such as obesity?

# ¿ Apr 9, 2016 03:02

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Combed Thunderclap posted:

Amtrak woes continue, with a cameo appearance by Philly's similar traincar troubles:

In happier news, Paris continues to make itself increasingly pedestrian oriented:

Pretty

From the talk around the union hall, the issue with Amtrak's rolling stock is Japanese management styles.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2016 10:04

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Greatbacon posted:

On a similar path to this comment, there's a movement in urban planning called Transit-oriented development. The core tenets of which (from my brief readings) are

1.) more public transit
2.) zone for mixed used near transit hubs &
3.) zone for higher density near transit hubs.

God I love transit orientated development. So much opportunity for contracting poo poo out --- Why the gently caress ain't communities already doing this poo poo? Why do I gotta start up and revive these initiatives?

# ¿ Apr 13, 2016 05:08

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Greatbacon posted:

Can't build stairs when your primary market is 60+

Maybe if your primary market aged 60+ had loving walked more during their life, they would still be able to climb stairs.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2016 19:16

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Cicero posted:

Here are some common complaints about bike share:

- It loses money! Yes, just like every form of transit in the country. Not to mention that the same is true for infrastructure/maintenance/operations for cars.

- Hardly anyone uses it. It's definitely a niche, but it's a pretty cheap one. The number of trips is tiny compared to transit, but the cost is tiny too.

- It's used disproportionately by the affluent/white people! Since when is getting affluent white people out of their cars a bad thing? By this logic, we should have avoid building any transit stations in affluent neighborhoods, wouldn't want any of that government money going to the filthy rich! Besides, there are ways to fix this: cheaper passes for lower-income residents, a way to check out bikes that doesn't require credit cards, more outreach and stations in poorer communities, etc.

here is my issue with bikeshare: if you gonna spend money on something, spend it on part of a comprehensive plan. if you got a bikeshare and all your bikes have to cross highways like 20 times to get anywhere worth going, you got deeper issues than bikes.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2016 20:30

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

computer parts posted:

Housing prices right now are because people want to move to the cities and we're not building places fast enough (either apartments or houses). Something is eventually going to give, and it will probably be the NIMBYs sooner or later.

We are building places. The problem is that we all want the same things, yet there is only political will within very narrow areas to provide them.

Therefore, any community which provides the political will for it will be utilized and may increase its human capital capture rate.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2016 22:03

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

RuanGacho posted:

This made me realize busses are actually a really good viable solution, IF you builds their support right.

But most people just want to throw them into regular traffic or convert existing roads, causing more disruption of passenger movement than actually relieving congestion.

The issue with buses is perception. You can move a route at any time; you can't move rails at any time.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2016 19:52

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Ardennes posted:

Plus, the whole idea of throwing in a bunch of high density housing there is that people who live < 1 mile away probably aren't gonna drive. Yes, ultimately Google is limited in what they can do if the surrounding local governments don't get their act together with decent transit, but they're clearly trying very hard.

Fine the shuttles make a difference, but the they are an issue on their own and ultimately the issue is that really nothing around that area but that housing is conductive to that life style and if you want to "get off campus" you probably are going to need a car. Now it may help limit commutes, which is a good thing but it is far from actually constructing any type of real urban environment. Basically, it is company housing that exists to serve the needs of its owner, which is fine, but it doesn't really mean any dramatic shift here.

The difference is Amsterdam is an entire city that has had its infrastructure built around public transit and bike use, you can get across almost all of Amsterdam very easily with a bike and public transportation. It really isn't the case of the Santa Clara valley, especially since the distances are comparatively vast. More bike lanes is fine, and I am sure a few people are going to use them but ultimately the mistakes of the fifties are still going to guide the future of the valley. It is a situation that is hosed in a way that will take generations to be fixed if ever, and is only compounded by being wanting to live in SF [which tried to resist those mistakes].

To be clear, I don't think any of these improvements are really bad at all, but rather you have to be realistic about how far behind California is and if anything any improvement will probably be balanced out by companies that don't give a poo poo [Apple]. If anything, LA [I know] seems more serious about infrastructure investment at this point and even then it is going to be a very very long time.

If you are a tech company, why would you want your employees to go off-campus?

# ¿ Apr 23, 2016 06:10

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

CopperHound posted:

I'm trying to read between the lines here. Should I start running over kids for some greater good?

You should start quantifying the 1, 5, 10, 20, and 50 year costs of running over a kid versus pedestrian focused transit policies.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2016 06:02

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Ardennes posted:

One thing to be clear about though there was no way to really stop white flight, but the recovery from that period is highly variable.

Segregation halted capital flight. When that could no longer be done at the housing level, building walls around neighborhoods in the form of roadways slowed the rate of capital flight.

My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Apr 25, 2016

# ¿ Apr 25, 2016 00:57

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

computer parts posted:

Here's the Houston "Skyline" from 1920, note that it really doesn't differ from that picture from the 1970s:

Are you technically correct that there were 2-3 story buildings in some of the areas (that didn't even fill out the whole lot) where there were then parking lots? Yes. Does that mean Houston tore down a bunch of buildings because they love cars so much? No.

e: Here's the same area from the 1930s:

A city is more than its skyline. It is the green space which has health benefits; it is not the grey of concrete.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.02.008

# ¿ Apr 25, 2016 01:34

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Curvature of Earth posted:

I'd like to point out that knocking down buildings to replace them with parking lots was never about economics. The popularity of cars does nothing to change the fact that downtown, in any city�even the dumpiest, shittiest commercial area in the dumpiest, shittiest city�is, in terms of business and government finance, too valuable to turn into parking lots. Parking lots are literally economic deadweight. Cities that knocked down buildings for parking lots saw their per-acre tax revenue go down, not up, and commercial areas with less parking produce more revenue per acre than those with more.

It is well-established at this point that parking minimums drive up the cost of rent. Businesses are not immune from these costs; every parking space is land they're paying for that isn't actively generating revenue. Smart businesses minimize their parking in order to help boost sales per store.*

Massive swathes of downtown parking were not built because of economics, any more than the federal government spent $500 billion dollars to build the national highway system because of economics. President Eisenhower did not run the numbers on highways versus rail when he proposed building a national highway system. Robert Moses did not calculate the loss of tax revenue to cities when he planned to level whole neighborhoods for highways and determine that highways grew the economy enough to outweigh the loss. These were ideologically-driven choices, and specific policies were put in place to implement them. Government and business does not exist in a vacuum, with executives and legislators robotically crunching the numbers behind every decision. All choices have an ideological bent. Governments went all-in on car-centric infrastructure. So did businesses.

*Yes, I am aware there are many ways Trader Joe's maximizes revenue compared to other stores. Small parking lots is one of them.

Look, I understand this. You understand this. How the gently caress do you effectively communicate this to the commercial establishment owner in a downtown that their business is dying because of too much parking and not enough residents immediately surrounding their location, without them just bitching about the weather?

# ¿ Apr 26, 2016 06:25

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

PT6A posted:

I think the problem is there's too much long-stay parking and too few loading zones for couriers or people who are picking something up. Ultimately, there are businesses that sell certain products which are difficult to carry on foot or on a bicycle or on transit -- liquor stores come to mind -- but they don't need huge parking lots, they just need a loading zone nearby that can hold two or three vehicles. We need more loading zones and 1-Hour spaces at the expense of long-stay spots.

Believe you me --- a motivated drinker will find a way. Take a backpack with ya, and those 4 bottles of scotch become that much easier to carry.

Came across a wonderful resource that I've been binging on this week that I thought I'd share -- bit outdated, Euro-centric, and fails to consider implications of migrant issues, still, entertaining enough to have on in the background.

https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/transport-studies-unit-podcasts

# ¿ Apr 26, 2016 19:05

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

PT6A posted:

A very large basket indeed, assuming you have a case of 12 bottles. And it doesn't scale, whereas a delivery van can carry tens of cases of wine. I do grocery shopping on foot and carry everything home on a regular basis. A case of wine is way heavier and more awkward than a few bags of groceries.

Besides which, my original point was about the fact there's good reasons for loading zones to exist when compared with parking spots in general, just like commercial vehicles are often granted access to streets that are otherwise restricted. Sometimes a motor vehicle really is the best tool for the job, and by removing personal motor vehicles as a common means of just getting from point A to point B and staying for a while, we can make those other motor vehicles even more efficient.

So make a friend and have them help you. Bring a radio flyer with you to pull back. Make two trips. Hire an Uber, but for alcohol. All of those make more money for everyone in accord with the evidence-based best-practices for community development.

Alternatively, eliminate mandatory closing hours for alcohol serving establishments and allow folk to get drunk 24/7 rather than need to purchase a cask on Thursday to keep them through shabbos and the weekend.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2016 21:18

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

PT6A posted:

A very large basket indeed, assuming you have a case of 12 bottles. And it doesn't scale, whereas a delivery van can carry tens of cases of wine. I do grocery shopping on foot and carry everything home on a regular basis. A case of wine is way heavier and more awkward than a few bags of groceries.

Besides which, my original point was about the fact there's good reasons for loading zones to exist when compared with parking spots in general, just like commercial vehicles are often granted access to streets that are otherwise restricted. Sometimes a motor vehicle really is the best tool for the job, and by removing personal motor vehicles as a common means of just getting from point A to point B and staying for a while, we can make those other motor vehicles even more efficient.

Yes, there are great reasons for loading zones. I think the issue is that businesses want a 40" semi to be able to back up to their front door, when their delivery takes up only 16 cubic feet.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2016 22:26

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

PT6A posted:

And where will the Uber for alcohol park as he is picking things up and dropping things off? I agree 100% that courier services are the better way to go, which is precisely why I want more loading zones to allow them to do their job efficiently.

Are you paying the transporter to park, or to deliver the goods?

# ¿ Apr 26, 2016 23:24

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

PT6A posted:

Well, I don't want him to throw it out the window as he drives by, nor accept the pickup by having it unceremoniously hurled into his trunk, so I consider parking (twice!) to be a necessary part of the delivery of goods. Do you have a way of avoiding this problem?

Yes. I inspect the goods upon arrival and pay for them when they are undamaged.

Why the gently caress are you trying to do the job of someone you've paid? Do you micromanage every little contractor in your life? It must be hell to work under you.

# ¿ Apr 27, 2016 17:35

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

PT6A posted:

How are they delivering things to you without stopping their vehicle somewhere, though? How are they picking the goods up without stopping their vehicle somewhere? I guess you're correct that, technically, the delivery of the goods is the important part, but I fail to see how it can be accomplished without stopping the vehicle for a time.

Why the gently caress is this your problem? It's not, so quit loving thinking every single detail and trust the transporter to deliver the goods.

Jesus loving christ, it must be hell to work with you. You sound like you micro-manage every single loving small detail. I bet you're one of those people who puts two spaces after every period, aren't you?

Like christ maybe the transporter brings his kids, has them go in to buy and carry the goods out while he circles the block. Just because you aren't creative enough to find a solution doesn't mean that someone you're paying to get some poo poo done is as incapable as you.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2016 20:53

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

PT6A posted:

Don't you see, though? Apparently we are trying to micromanage delivery people by providing them convenient ways to complete their job, or some such thing.

MIGF's proposed system of "having kids in the car to get out while the driver cruises" also suffers from the fact that, in the absence of parking, you have to stop in the middle of the street to load the kids and the cargo, which is a bad thing. But, I will concede to him, it is possible and we shouldn't mandate that couriers do things one way or the other

And if they do that, you gently caress'n fine 'em for a moving violation and make some revenue for your community. Its win-win-win all around!

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 02:56

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

PT6A posted:

Ah yes, but if moving violations and parking tickets become a "cost of doing business" for couriers, then the costs will be passed on to the consumer, decreasing the attractiveness of using a delivery service compared to driving one's personal car and finding/paying for parking.

Who gives a poo poo, when your city has a revenue stream which it can use to fund greenscaping and public transit infrastructure?

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 03:07

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

redscare posted:

Oh, shake-downs. Definitely how we want to fund infrastructure.

Don't wanna risk a shake-down? Walk more, drive illegally less.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2016 12:50

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Fame Douglas posted:

So if there's no safety benefit, why have any red lights at all?

To make some gently caress'n money, stupid.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2016 14:20

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Cicero posted:

Suburbs are okay, it's sprawly car-dependent suburbs that suck. Plenty of places in the world that have little suburban towns that are still walkable, with good commuter transit to a major city.

Commuter suburbs organized around their heavy rail to Chicago are very gently caress'n nice still.

Expand the Electric to Kankakee, I say, and bring METRA up to Madison.

# ¿ May 1, 2016 03:53

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

side_burned posted:

Honestly I don't know what hipster means any more besides something that people under 40 like. And in about five years it won't even mean that.

It means giving a poo poo about yourself, and wanting to get laid.

# ¿ May 8, 2016 21:08

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Panzeh posted:

It's not that hard to get laid in the burbs man.

Its a shitload easier to get laid when you can just walk back to your place while drunk, rather than risking DUI. Why the gently caress would you ever wanna DUI?

# ¿ May 10, 2016 00:01

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

The Maroon Hawk posted:

There are these things called "taxis"

Taxis cost money. I'd rather spend that money at the local microbrew which sources from community gardens, than I would see that money go to China and OPEC.

# ¿ May 10, 2016 19:44

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

What is the best way to communicate, 'You're driving, I don't give a poo poo if planting trees between the road and the lakefront pedestrian walkway ruins your loving view of the lake, you're supposed to keep your eyes on the loving road you loving nimbcompoop'?

# ¿ May 10, 2016 23:49

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Watermelon Daiquiri posted:

'You're driving, I don't give a poo poo if planting trees between the road and the lakefront pedestrian walkway ruins your loving view of the lake, you're supposed to keep your eyes on the loving road you loving nimbcompoop'

That is exactly what I am saying, thank you. I loving love it when I'm the only one willing to speak the loving truth as I see it.

# ¿ May 20, 2016 18:31

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

The Maroon Hawk posted:

Yeah, RTD actually discontinued a fair number of airport busses and rerouted others to Union Station for transfer to the A Line. It's definitely proven to be a more efficient system in a lot of ways that aren't readily apparent.

This is why I think having buses is stupid. If you can switch a route any time willynilly, why the gently caress would anyone want to invest around it?

Trains, now those you can rely on. You can even see the route and know where they're heading!

# ¿ Sep 17, 2016 03:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 22:19

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Let us imagine, if you would, that you is council P of a city of ~100k. Also that you loving hate buses b/c they bullshit without times telling ya when they arrive and now fixed RoW's

You the council P, what motions you wanna table in your community? What are some loving easy policies I can get implemented and win on, I'm asking.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2016 23:28

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Transit Politics: The Little Engines That Could Get Federal Funding

Combed Thunderclap posted:

Combed Thunderclap posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Greatbacon posted:

Greatbacon posted:

Cicero posted:

computer parts posted:

RuanGacho posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Ardennes posted:

CopperHound posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Ardennes posted:

computer parts posted:

Curvature of Earth posted:

PT6A posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

PT6A posted:

PT6A posted:

PT6A posted:

PT6A posted:

PT6A posted:

PT6A posted:

PT6A posted:

redscare posted:

Fame Douglas posted:

Cicero posted:

Popular Thug Drink posted:

side_burned posted:

Panzeh posted:

The Maroon Hawk posted:

Watermelon Daiquiri posted:

The Maroon Hawk posted: