Plan Bay Area - its official (Oakland, Mountain View: sales, 2013, mortgage)

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by hubbard53

considering it's nearly impossible to go anywhere after work, or on saturday, i'd say there is a definite need for more freeway capacity

me me me

now now now

[mayorhaggar]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

I like the idea of better coordination between the current balkanized mess of transportation agencies. However when I see "Smart Growth" I read it as anti growth. It surely is not pro-growth. While pro-growth may have seemed like a bad idea back when the US natural growth rate was above replacement and so called developing countries way above it, now, things have changed. The US is below replacement and most so called developing countries will fall below it soon. Different metros will have to compete in order to attract people, it will be below-zero sum. Places with an anti growth mentality will lose.

You've said before that you live up in a quiet hilly area, I think in San Mateo Co. I guarantee you that you'd complain if all the trees were torn up and you were surrounded by condo high-rises. For one thing, it would mean several years of loud construction noise.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

You've said before that you live up in a quiet hilly area, I think in San Mateo Co. I guarantee you that you'd complain if all the trees were torn up and you were surrounded by condo high-rises. For one thing, it would mean several years of loud construction noise.

Think about how things are in the Bay Area "Progressives'" beloved European benchmark.

Not everyone can afford to live in Paris or even its banlieus. They recognize the reality. They make it easy for people to get there from exurbs or even the nearest other metros. Massive infrastructure including rail and autoroutes are in place to accommodate this reality.

Meanwhile in the Formerly Golden State .... choke points and bottle necks.

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

I like the idea of better coordination between the current balkanized mess of transportation agencies. However when I see "Smart Growth" I read it as anti growth. It surely is not pro-growth. While pro-growth may have seemed like a bad idea back when the US natural growth rate was above replacement and so called developing countries way above it, now, things have changed. The US is below replacement and most so called developing countries will fall below it soon. Different metros will have to compete in order to attract people, it will be below-zero sum. Places with an anti growth mentality will lose.

The anti-growth reality comes from extreme environmentalists on one side and NIMBYs on the other.

The NIMBYs shout against any kind of densification anywhere, even when it's not nearby to them, blends with the community or when the alternative (and our reality) is absurd real estate prices. See the fight against BRT on the El Camino Real as an example.

The enviros fight against any kind of expansion beyond the UGBs, even if that growth would balance with open and natural space and relies on public, not private, transit. For this, just check out the dust-binned Coyote Valley plan in south San Jose.

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by hubbard53

Considering it's nearly impossible to go anywhere after work, or on Saturday, I'd say there is a definite need for more freeway capacity

Adding freeway capacity doesn't reduce congestion except in the super-short run. In just the short run, more locals simply do more freeway driving at times that are more convenient; before, they chose alternative routes, alternative times, or not to drive at all. In the long run, added capacity induces more people choose to drive longer distances; before, some jobs were too far from home and some homes were too far from work.

Congestion isn't bad any more than the price of gold is bad. Congestion is simply how we "pay" for driving at peak hours. If a person cannot "afford" that price, paid in time, then that person doesn't drive that route at that time. There cannot be no traffic in an urban area during peak hours any more realistically than gold can be free and desirable at the same time.

[tetka_grunya]

there is a much simpler solution here

double existing income and property taxes and there is no congestion anymore

[hubbard53]

Originally Posted by darkeconomist

Adding freeway capacity doesn't reduce congestion except in the super-short run. In just the short run, more locals simply do more freeway driving at times that are more convenient; before, they chose alternative routes, alternative times, or not to drive at all. In the long run, added capacity induces more people choose to drive longer distances; before, some jobs were too far from home and some homes were too far from work.

Congestion isn't bad any more than the price of gold is bad. Congestion is simply how we "pay" for driving at peak hours. If a person cannot "afford" that price, paid in time, then that person doesn't drive that route at that time. There cannot be no traffic in an urban area during peak hours any more realistically than gold can be free and desirable at the same time.

That's just silly. I "pay" through taxes (gasoline) and tolls to drive - I should be able to travel more than 5 miles within a reasonable amount of time. Anyway, not sure people think that Congestion is "just the price you pay" b/c I for one have no idea what I'm "paying" for.

[mayorhaggar]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Think about how things are in the Bay Area "Progressives'" beloved European benchmark.

Not everyone can afford to live in Paris or even its banlieus. They recognize the reality. They make it easy for people to get there from exurbs or even the nearest other metros. Massive infrastructure including rail and autoroutes are in place to accommodate this reality.

Meanwhile in the Formerly Golden State .... choke points and bottle necks.

Not really a great comparison, Paris is flat, not organized around a Bay, and has been lived in for thousands of years. Caltrain sucks for what it is but BART does a decent job of tying the East Bay and SF together. The mountains and the Bay really balkanize the Bay Area, especially because there's so many independent towns.

I'm not sure what you're calling for, you're fussing about "progressives" laying down mandates from above about a regional building/transit plan, then asking why the Bay Area can't be like Paris and have a regional building/transit plan.

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

Not really a great comparison, Paris is flat, not organized around a Bay, and has been lived in for thousands of years. Caltrain sucks for what it is but BART does a decent job of tying the East Bay and SF together. The mountains and the Bay really balkanize the Bay Area, especially because there's so many independent towns.

I'm not sure what you're calling for, you're fussing about "progressives" laying down mandates from above about a regional building/transit plan, then asking why the Bay Area can't be like Paris and have a regional building/transit plan.

Bay area building plan is a joke. When was the last time bay area built any significant highway or public transit infrastructure? The whole area suffers a moronic, self-infected, paralysis when it comes to expand infrastructure to accomodate population growth. When I lived in Dallas, the city was adding light rail and freeway expansion at an insane pace to accomodate growth. Not here! The highway infrastrcuture and massive traffic choke point that exists once you get off of bay bridge in SF will be upgraded and rebuilt in a matter of couple of years in TX or anywhere else in the world. Bay area planners want to build an expensive slum and nothing else!

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

Bay area building plan is a joke. When was the last time bay area built any significant highway or public transit infrastructure? The whole area suffers a moronic, self-infected, paralysis when it comes to expand infrastructure to accomodate population growth. When I lived in Dallas, the city was adding light rail and freeway expansion at an insane pace to accomodate growth. Not here! The highway infrastrcuture and massive traffic choke point that exists once you get off of bay bridge in SF will be upgraded and rebuilt in a matter of couple of years in TX or anywhere else in the world. Bay area planners want to build an expensive slum and nothing else!

So, why did you leave, andy? You're clearly not happy in the Bay Area. Have you considered moving back to TX? You might be a lot happier.

Anyway, it seems to me that A plan is better than No plan.