[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/n/ - Transportation

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 74 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.


[Advertise on 4chan]


Over the past few years, the Bay Area has grown into one of the most valuable real estate areas in the world due to Silicon Valley and other booming businesses. More people keep moving in and the mountainous area keeps expanding to meet housing demands. It seems that the transportation infrastructure is not keeping up and traffic is getting worse and worse every year. How do we solve this?
>>
Increase housing prices to reflect limited supply
>>
same as you solve most problems: by leaving
>>
>>1595619
Price people out to stop them from moving in. With less lower income residents, the city will be cleaner, with less crime, and public transit and public areas will be safer. The city will have less people, so there will be less traffic, transit will be less crowded, and the city will have a more community-like feel, making it harder for people to slip through the cracks into drug addiction and mental illness. The tax revenue from the higher income residents, unencumbered by thousands on government benefits, will allow the city government to vastly improve the publicly owned parts of the city, putting it leagues into the future. There will even be enough money to create a liked and not feared high-quality homeless shelter and rehabilitation center thousands of miles away from the city, for the current homeless residents to be taken to.
>>
>>1595625
>>1595622
Rent has been going up dramatically
>>
>>1595626
Good.
>>
Nuke it from orbit
>>
>>1595619
I don't see a problem. There are many ways to get around the bay. Just use the one that you like the most, simple as.
>>
napalm
>>
Dam the bay and drain it. Creating more land for detached single family homes and expressways.
>>
>>1595619
Kill all the “environmentalists” who stand in the way of every project that would actually alleviate pollution and traffic congestion and then round up the trust fund NIMBYs and put them in concentration camps and last but not least hang Elon Musk from the top of the new Bay Bridge suspension beam and leave his body to rot like British colonial pirate punishment so the seagulls can nibble his useless corpse away

TL;DR I’m leaving this fake and gay simulacra of a state
>>
>>1595633

And nothing of value was lost. If you brought anything valuable to this state with your presence, you wouldn't be able to leave.
>>
>>1595636
the bay is the entire state?
>>
>>1595633
not sure why you think building fuckloads of new houses allowing for hundreds of thousands of new residents would ease congestion but go off
>>
>>1595638
Sorry, back to flyover for you!
>>
>>1595636
My family has been here since before it was a state you degenerate transplant resource sucking shit eater
>>1595640
Uhhh how about fucking fake enviros and NIMBYs fuck off and let multi family housing and a complete rail infrastructure with high speed rail go through instead of stalling and increasing project costs every step of the fucking way? You fucks are so stupid and then you’ll turn around and suck Elon’s dick for championing inherently more resource intensive projects.

It’s whatever you neolibs are crashing the state so hard with no survivors that even UHaul can’t keep up with the people fleeing the disaster. Enjoy your diminished tax base and upside down house value before 2024. I’ll be laughing my ass off from my 100 acre farm innawoods
>>
I'm saying this 100% unironically. Total economic collapse of the United States. The Chinese and Hispanics will go home. the bay area is too small and has way to many people, I remember as a kid we'd walk down El Camino and there was alot of cars but not as many as there is now. Option 2 or 3 are more unlikely
>>
>>1595645
I just don't see how growing the population will decrease congestion.
>>
>>1595638
politically and culturally, the North and the Eastern Sierra have nothing in common with the Bay Area and LA
>>
File: asdfdas.jpg (50 KB, 488x545)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
With Northern California Unified Rail Service, of course. Also known as Prop 1A.

The Bay Area will continue sprawling out in all directions, but especially eastbound towards Stockton as the area between Livermore and Sacramento fills in. To the south Gilroy, Santa Cruz and Watsonville will become the new periphery and to the north it'll be Santa Rosa and Fairfield. Everything will be based around San Jose, as Oakland won't rebuild their train terminal (or at least not within a reasonable amount of time) while SF is increasingly a dead end compared to the opportunity in the Central Valley. ACE ridership will explode and surpass Caltrain, eventually leading to electrification somehow. Already ACE has enough political patronage to support Valley Rail (their Sacramento extension) and Valley Link (formerly ACEForeward), both of which will be leveraged when the time comes for a much larger upgrade. The Stockton Diamond removal is the first step in all this, as is getting San Joaquins onto HSR tracks south of Merced.

This has been coming for a decade, if not longer, and SF leaders have chosen to sit on their ass and not do anything about it. Since 2008 they could have built a Caltrain tube to Oakland and a Dumbarton bridge to alleviate congestion and housing issues, but this didn't happen and the former is mired in red tape and feet dragging.
>>
>>1595662
Yeah i don't think so. I mean congestion literally just means "too full" the city is just too full. It need less people.
>>
File: unnamed.jpg (47 KB, 308x328)
47 KB
47 KB JPG
>>1595638

No. Even a town like Modesto went hard for Trump and Hollister (immediately outside the Bay Area) might as well be NRAville given the amount of firearms there. But despite this they are all integrating into one unified system, largely because it happens in a way that allows them to retain local control over their affairs without some larger entity like the MTC getting involved.

Here is a truly ancient powerpoint slide demonstrating the change: ACE is the entity that will do most of this.
>>
>>1595665

And? San Jose isn't full. There's plenty of opportunity for development especially in the eastern parts where the BART tunnel will go. Same for parts to the south in Cupertino and Los Gatos, around the existing VTA line and abandoned train tunnel to Santa Cruz.
>>
>>1595667
Yeah it isn’t full and that’s why San Jose is a better place to live than SF
>>
>>1595650
>growing the population
Not how that works. It’s about condensing the pop and making walkable communities that don’t rely on traffic. The fact that you’re too thick to get it is why I’m leaving you’re all irredeemably stupid
>>
>>1595671
Keep telling yourself that brining more people into the city will ease congestion LMAO
>>
>>1595670

yes, that's my point
>>
>>1595672
>meanwhile people keep coming regardless but there’s nowhere for them to live so they keep spreading out further and further and driving farther and farther and congest the freeways in a hundred mile radius
And that’s why the Bay Area is how it is today. Your method was tried, it failed miserably and now working class people can’t even own homes in the area and congestion gets worse and worse and more cars are on the roads than ever and the roads run at capacity all the time even though SF proper is still under a million people. You’re thick and stubborn and won’t move off failed policy and lack all ability for abstract analysis or understanding cause and effect. Enjoy your massive homeless pop and designated shitting streets
>>
>>1595675
Bruh putting a bunch of people in an even smaller area is just going to make congested worse, hell the sidewalks are gonna have traffic if you do that enough

More people = more congestion no two ways about it man
>>
>>1595676
Not if you have trains connecting a network of more densely organized communities. You lower traffic because you eliminate the necessity to drive a car.
>>
>>1595676

so remove onstreet parking for full size sidewalks or better yet let people walk in the street again and ban cars
>>
>>1595678
You’re living in fantasy land, man. Adding hundreds of thousands of new residents will make congestion worse no matter what.
>>
>>1595678
You also have more open green space instead of urban sprawl. You should really research how actual functioning urban communities work and broaden your horizons beyond California’s failed policies. You know what the definition of insanity is right?
>>
>>1595679
And have free money for everyone and free food for all the homeless and robots that do all your chores for you!
>>
>>1595681
Building multi family housing =! Adding hundreds of thousands of new residents! It equals affords housing for existing residents who can now afford to buy and take an ownership stake in the community instead of renting and combining it with a well funded rail system will eliminate at least half of vehicle traffic
>>
>>1595683
Hmm I think you’re out of arguments friend you’re resorting to baseless assumptions for the intent of ad hominem! Better luck next time!
>>
>>1595684
>more homes means less residents

Oh, it makes so much sense now.
>>
>>1595691
You lost pal all you got left is misrepresenting people’s positions.
>>
>>1595699
Every new home is at least one new resident.
>>
>>1595619
Strafing run twice daily by an A-10?
>>
>transportation infrastructure
De-trunk and downgrade the Bay Bridge (convert to bus lanes, and for shits and giggles back to a tramway; add dedicated footway and cycleway to the west span, and segregate the east span's sidepath), I-80, and US-101. Build a Southern Crossing, the circumferential Cross-town and Park Presidio freeways. Dynamic toll on all the bridges; a larger congestion pricing zone bordering around Presidio, Panhandle, Mt Sutro, Twin Peaks, Glen Canyon and Islais Creek (restore the waterways to open channels while at it) for simplicity. Peak fare and off-peak discounts.
San Francisco city focused. Fuck Silicon Valley and the rest of the Bay Area. (read: Only some ideas about SF, don't want to write about regional planning)
>>
>>1595700
Proof?
>>
Tax credits for telecommuting. Both the employer and employee get them.

If tens or hundreds of thousands of people don't need to regularly go to the office. Then it reduces rush hour traffic. If they move out of the Bay Area because they go to the office infrequently. Then it reduces demand on housing. While also making demand for express train services.

Now of course local government won't care for this. As it means less spending and smaller tax bases. As huge numbers of people won't be in their areas anymore. They prefer cramming as many people in as possible. Even when it starts becoming a negative drain.
>>
>>1595626
over half of all units in SF are still rent controlled, there's massive market distortion going on. It would be probably be reasonable for people making <100k to live in SF if rent control were abolished and prices stabilized across the board.
>>
>>1595726
Also people with extensive land portfolios will flip their shit
>>
>>1595633
if you wanna go this route, why not simply reinstate the chinese exclusion act and free up the Sunset for white people?
>>
>>1595622
agreed
step 1: change the law so that property tax stops being artificially low for boomers.
>>
Shoot anyone that blocks housing development on the grounds, of it not being minority owned or gentrification.
>>
>>1595734
Qbolish property taxes and have a city/County income tax.
>>
>>1595662
>Everything will be based around San Jose
Ew, SJ is probably the single worst example of an American city, it's more of an amalgamation of suburbs labelled as a city. San Francisco has a lot going for it, namely that it's an actual city.
>>
>>1595736
not a bad idea, but a land value tax would be better still.
>>
>>1595734
this would make sense in a context without mass migration and millions of pajeet and asian foreign workers filling up every nice corner of the state.
>>
>>1595737
Well, San Jose consistently ranks in the top 3 happiest cities in the US on every list. So clearly they’re doing something right.
>>
>>1595747
>measuring a subjective qualities
Ishygddt
>>
>>1595619
the only solution for the bay area is nuclear hellfire
>>
>>1595755
Emotional & Physical Well-Being - Total Points: 50
Life-Satisfaction Index: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
Depression Rate: Double Weight (~7.27 Points)
Suicide Rate: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
Adequate-Sleep Rate: Double Weight (~7.27 Points)
Physical-Health Index: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
Sports-Participation Rate: Double Weight (~7.27 Points)
Share of People Aged 12 or Older Who Used Marijuana in the Past Month: Half Weight (~1.82 Points)
Retail Opioid Prescriptions Dispensed per 100 Persons: Quarter Weight (~0.91 Points)
Illness & Disability Index: Double Weight (~7.27 Points)
Life Expectancy: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
Food-Insecurity Rate: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
Income & Employment - Total Points: 25
Income-Growth Rate: Double Weight (~3.33 Points)
Share of Households Earning Annual Incomes Above $75,000: Full Weight (~1.67 Points)
Poverty Rate: Full Weight (~1.67 Points)
Job Satisfaction: Full Weight (~1.67 Points)
4+ Star Job Opportunities per Total People in the Labor Force: Full Weight (~1.67 Points)
Job Security: Full Weight (~1.67 Points)
Unemployment Rate: Double Weight (~3.33 Points)
Underemployment Rate: Double Weight (~3.33 Points)
Bankruptcy Rate: Double Weight (~3.33 Points)
Weekly Work Hours: Full Weight (~1.67 Points)
Commute Time: Full Weight (~1.67 Points)
Community & Environment - Total Points: 25
Strength of Social Ties: Full Weight (~3.57 Points)
WalletHub’s Most Caring Cities Ranking: Full Weight (~3.57 Points)
Separation & Divorce Rate: Full Weight (~3.57 Points)
Hate-Crime Incidents per Capita: Full Weight (~3.57 Points)
Ideal Weather: Half Weight (~1.79 Points)
Acres of Parkland per 1,000 Residents: Half Weight (~1.79 Points)
Average Leisure Time Spent per Day*: Full Weight (~3.57 Points)
Well-Being “Community” Rank: Full Weight (~3.57 Points)
>>
>>1595769
>Non-Hispanic Whites were 28.7% of the population in 2010
yeah it's a gang-ridden pajeet infested shithole all right
t. marinfag
>>
>>1595737
San Jose is fucking based. I lived there for 2 years and would honestly move back in a second. It's one of the few big cities in the country that have retained some modicum of community and conservatism.
>>
San Jose """""downtown"""""
>>
San Francisco downtown
>>
>>1595769
Yes, and none of those things point to an objective happiness. Happiness is subjective, it cannot be measured via the scientific method. Do you even continental philosophy?
>>
God damn starting this thread started a shit storm
>>
>>1595797
Sd is the human waste capital of the world. Since pajeet only shits on designated streets.
>>
>>1595737

Same applies to LA yet LA is the largest city in the whole country. It's just how things go.

SF is a better city but unfortunately the city government is retarded, and has decided to continue to be retarded. This makes it very easy for SJ to steal their lunch, while SF figures out if it wants a second BART tube or Caltrain tube SJ is having the whole menu and will have it before 2030.
>>
>>1595811
I dream of a second transbay tube carrying an electrified capitol corridor.
>>
>>1595797
I guess this is the most /n/ place in the country after NYC? I've had many lively discussions on the state of CA rail here.
>>
Build more multifamily housing in all parts of the Bay Area. That way you can run more trains around the Bay and more people will use bikes as well.
>>
Build a high speed rail line to Portland , Sacramento and LA to take highway drivers off the road.
>>
>>1595818
Implying the affluent will let you build near there victorian townhouses and post war bungalos.
>>
>>1595820
Long distance drivers are causing the traffic.

Its the commuters and shoppers. Doing all those short distant drives.
>>
>>1595619
I used to shill intelligent traffic light control, it stalls or releases traffic flows to avoid congestion and I know at least Germany has it.
Maybe it's already being used, I don't know.

And use the waterways and ocean for public transportation.
>>
>>1595824
Housing prices got so bad in the Bay that commuters moved out to Sacramento.

Thanks NIMBYs.
>>
>>1595662
Based post.
>>
>>1595820
>to Portland
Hello fellow NWP chad.
>>
>>1595820

Caltrans is werkin' it, you can see them work towards San Joaquins going as far north as Chico in the most recent state rail plan and SJRRC business plan. Building into Oregon largely depends on what Oregon is wiling to do on their side, the closer to CA's border Cascades (or similar) services get the more pressure on Caltrans to do something north of Redding.
>>
File: 50megatons.jpg (7 KB, 300x168)
7 KB
7 KB JPG
>>1595619
A final solution to the Bay Area problem.
>>
>>1595818
>cramming more people into a smaller area will reduce congestion

Unless you destroy an old house for every new house you build, this will result in thousands of new residents in the city, increasing congestion.
>>
>>1595887
Nah, the transportation will trickle down from the areas with no congestion.
>>
>>1595662
I think the monstrous gub'ment should only reclaim land for tracks and stations according to some coherent plan, and together with existing infrastructure lease it to many private companies without tax gibs and many possibilities of them getting kicked out or fucked (this can be used for temper tantrums and insanity by the gov't, unfortunately).
Maybe the technology evolved enough for private companies to do the rest by themselves.
How the service would be split among companies is also hard to decide, if one would manage tracks, other one stations, other one the cars, or each segment of the system would have its own company. how each one would pay the others, ...
>>
>>1595913

separate private companies operating rail, stations, and procurement seems like a bad idea and would just lead to a british tier system

also, Caltrans is perfectly competent for the role anyway
>>
Traffic will improve as companies relocate and other companies tell employees to work from home.
But they really need to build more multifamily if they’re ever going to solve their housing crisis.
>>
>>1595917
You being too poor to live in SF isn't a crisis.
>>
>>1595933
Kek, based.
>>
>>1595933
Engineers with grad degrees from Stanford making 6 figures and not being able to afford to live in the Bay is a crisis.

The Bay added one new housing unit for every 19 new jobs they created between 2010 and 2016, they really need more multifamily.
>>
What are some good sites to follow development in the Bay Area?
Ever since Curbed went back to being NYC-focused I’ve lost touch with what’s going up in NorCal.
>>
>>1595952
>Engineers with grad degrees from Stanford making 6 figures and not being able to afford to live in the Bay is a crisis.
They can live in the bay area, they just think they deserve a ranch in portola valley with a helipad because of toxic tech bro culture

It's the same as YIMBYs in NYC who think they deserve a $10m town house on a six figure salary and if they don't get it, it's probably the fault of the doordash guy who brought them a $13 bottle of organic celery juice
>>
>>1595822
If we build more townhouses and bungalows, instead of mcmansions, we would have much more walkability
>>
File: soi.webm (2.71 MB, 640x358)
2.71 MB
2.71 MB WEBM
>walkability
>>
>>1595917
>>1595961
How are bigger townhouses going to solve any of the traffic issues? The space is limited so almost all the shit getting built is high density. You deluded Europeans don’t understand that the problem is inadequate freeways and poor transportation. Bart helps, but piling more people into narrow valleys is not a solution
>>
>>1595961
SF is already walkable that’s partly why it’s so expensive
>>
>>1595963
Ok then, stay fat.
>>
>>1596003
Thanks for reminding me that walking is the only method of staying in shape
>>
>>1596006
Staying active throughout the day is much healthier than going to the gym for one hour and then spending the rest of the day sitting on your ass
>>
>>1596007
Tell my boss that
>>
There’s never going to be a “traffic solution”: as long as you have cars, you have bad car traffic.
The key is to increase access to other modes of transportation, via expanding transit systems and allowing transit oriented development.
>>
>>1596024
>There’s never going to be a “traffic solution
How about not building for traffic with too much housing?
>>
>>1596026
You can only sprawl so far. Metro Atlanta sprawls 50 miles with its suburbs and exurbs and yet traffic is still horrible. Did you learn nothing from 50 years of boomer planning?
>>
>>1596039
Sprawl isn't the problem, the problem is not knowing when to stop building housing. Did you not read my post correctly?
>>
>>1595830
Base Redwood Route fan
>>
1. Restore most Streetcar and abandoned branch-line routes
2. Some density at transit stops
3. Additional BART lines as true urban transit, not commuter rail
4. Electrified regional rail like Paris RER
5. Freeway tunnels under SF (Fuck you 19th Ave.)
6. Rebuild CA-17 to Interstate standards
7. Seize Chinese investments
>>
>>1596039
This. Spreading things out with single-family everywhere makes traffic the worst.

Cities built around cars always have the worst traffic.
>>
>>1596064
Well if there were less people there there wouldn’t be any traffic
>>
Also I agree that sprawl is just as bad as mid-rise for creating traffic. Every new home means one new resident.
>>
>>1596064
Single family bungalows only have about half the sprawl of mcmansions. Just build more modest sized houses and stop building wal mart parking lots the size of whole neighborhoods
>>
>>1596085
SF already has tons of bungalows and townhomes, they really help give it its chill vibe. Bungalows are based af.
>>
>>1596092
More in suburbs and exurbs is the key
>>
>>1596095
Probably, but they just fit so well in cities. A little bungalow with a liquor store next door is classic California surf town vibes, maximum comfy.
>>
>>1596085
I know plenty of bungalows with big yards so that’s a retarded opinion.
The key is multifamily.
>>
Cagetrolls realize they lost all the logical arguments so at this point they’re just saying we shouldn’t build any new housing.

Lol.
>>
>>1596114
F U C K O F F W E ‘ R E F U L L
>>
>>1596039
Atlanta traffic is only bad if you stick to main roads during rush hour.

A little map reading and you can bypass a lot of it.
>>
>>1596147
I’ve known multiple people who left Atlanta because driving there was such a nightmare.
When you build your city around cars driving in it becomes hell. There’s never going to be a “traffic solution” as long as most people are dependent on cars for transportation.
>>
build up in city centers with 6-10 story buildings. make the main stretches along san pablo ave into walking/train/bike areas like new york. if you want a big suburban home, then work from home or be ready for hell commute that already exist. this is the bugman future,, we cant all have big giant fucking backyards that are all lawns.
>fuck what if suburban neighborhoods were microfarms, that would be so cool

.... but yeah if you build up walkable city then bart would need a big fucking boost. build that second bridge from alameda to south city and put a bart line on it.
that will also alleviate a huge crowd of workers that need to work in the SF area but dont need to be passin through downtown oakland and downtown sf traffic. that would alleviate a lot for those forced to drive like contractors and trucks doing deliveries to all the rest of the city.
>bonus points, that would speed up the trip into the city from suburban folks below the crowded and slow oakland area

build up neighborhoods around bart lines
I think its bs they jacked up carpool to three people per car but allow a single driver to pay, bullshit bullshit bullshit, better be like $20 a trip. especially since that area is super suburban and its already a time sink for two neighbors (who happen to work together) to get to each other to carpool and the ods of you living very close to a coworker is not that high
>>
>>1596201
>I think its bs they jacked up carpool to three people per car
They killed carpooling for money, nobody carpools in 3's
>>
>>1596212
>They killed carpooling for money, nobody carpools in 3's
actually i think theyre following the hwy80 model. theres no bart along there so people are forced to carpool or drive an extra 30+ min.
basically each little town has a parkinglot people drive to, and then they wait in line to hop into someone elses car. i wonder if this is still happening during covid. i remember seeing a thread or image about it somewhere

yeah hwy 80 is so congested that even the carpool lane that you cant pay to get into AND is 3+ is also stuck bumper to bumper during peak 4:00-6:00
>>
Light Rail on El Camino and Stevens Creek

>t.408
>>
>>1595629
Its the only way to be sure
>>
>>1596182
I grew up in Atlanta. Anyone who leaves because of traffic is an idiot.
>>
>>1595773
yeah because there is an airport literally 2 miles away from the downtown area you retarded cocksucker.
>>
>>1596302
Atlanta traffic is a nightmare. Atlanta has some of the longest commutes in the country.
>>
Increase train access and frequency by building denser development in the South Bay (Menlo Park, San Jose, Cupertino etc.)
>>
>>1596360
Can you be specific about "building denser development"
>>
File: RadiatetheBaydiate.jpg (269 KB, 2000x1333)
269 KB
269 KB JPG
>>1595619
Pic related is the only acceptable answer
>>
>tfw only 30% of SF is single family homes

But apartments are supposed to help how?
>>
Crazy how much of the Bay is zoned single-family-only.
>>
>>1596408
Desperately clinging to your beloved propaganda when you start to have ideas that aren’t approved, so sad. Trapped in your little ideological jail.
>>
>>1596355
Atlanta is nothing compared to driving around Tokyo or Yokohama.


40 to 60 minutes to go 40 miles in Atlanta. Versus 40 to 60 minutes to go 18 miles in Japan. If it really snarled up in Atlanta. It was 30 minutes more snaking through side roads. In Japan it would be hours.
>>
>>1596362
Mixed use high rises with in blocks of rail stations.
>>
>>1596436
So how is bringing more volume of people to an area and providing them with rail stations going to help traffic? How can you be sure they WILL use transit and not just drive making the problem worse?
>>
>>1596438

not him but remove parking requirements for buildings and give the local uhaul an overflow lot
>>
>>1596402

30% of all units, but over half the land is for single family detached housing exclusively. 80% of the city is subject to the 30' height ban. Both of these have to go.

San Jose has the same problems but the height ban is permanent due to Mineta Airport, hence the attempts to encourage development away from the flight paths and in Berryessa and South SJ. Oakland has neither problem, but Oakland also has black people.
>>
>>1596483
This seems like more wishful thinking
>>
File: whyisitcalled1.jpg (117 KB, 959x720)
117 KB
117 KB JPG
>>1596484
removing the height ban would completely ruin the city and that's why it will never happen.
>>
>guys we have a problem with flooding what do???
>add more water
This how stupid people ITT are
>>
>>1596408
Yeah I’d say the South Bay more than anything needs upzoning.
>>
>>1596438
As long as you have people and cars, you have traffic problems. There’s never been a way to “solve traffic” besides getting folks into other modes of transportation.
Since Americans pay more to live near transit networks and bike lanes, we know there’s market demand for them.
>>
>>1596522
But why do they keep building multi family housing when traffic is begining to get problematic? It'd like they don't think things through and build housing up the ass without thinking about the volume it brings
>>
>>1596522
>Americans pay more to live near transit networks and bike lanes
This is not always the case btw
>>
>>1596525
Silence, everyone knows increasing a city’s population reduces traffic
>>
>>1596402
that is SF, which is just a small portion of the bay area and the housing is very different
>>
>>1596438
>So how is bringing more volume of people to an area and providing them with rail stations going to help traffic?
it will get people riding public transit which would -at the very least- help traffic from getting much much worse if you continue to just build out.
>>
>>1595619
>solution
I have a solution in mind. A final solution, if you will.
>>
>>1596492
taller buildings in the non-senic valleys
>>
>>1596543
>Silence, everyone knows increasing a city’s population reduces traffic
so whats your fucking solution? sterilization? genocide?
>>
As long as you have people and cars, you have traffic problems. There’s never been a way to “solve traffic” besides getting folks into other modes of transportation.
Since Americans pay more to live near transit networks and bike lanes, we know there’s market demand for them.
>>
>>1596614
It's gonna be hard to do that until someone creates a form of transportation people enjoy more than cars.
>>
>>1596617
The majority of people aren't emotionally invested in "commuting by car" if there where decent transit options, we would take them. But tens of millions of americans live in "urban" environments where a car is still a requirement
>>
>>1596614
>As long as you have people and cars, you have traffic problems.
we can still dicscuss how to kep traffic from getting significantly worse as local population continue to rise
>>
>>1596612
Not him but maybe stop building more housing where congestion is starting to be problematic? ?
>>
>>1596623
>The majority of people aren't emotionally invested in "commuting by car"
Source? I mean yeah sure if we could sprout wings and fly to work sure.
>>
File: butthole4444.jpg (101 KB, 720x539)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
this bridge would connect industrial parts of oakland to industrial parts of SF
the northern bridge will take office workers in northern-east bay directly to downtown.

vart tunnel is soon going to be at capacity so this route would alleviate that. you could have a bart train run on the southern bridge and possibly cnnect to the catrain station?
or connect to one of the south-sf bart stations.

that way people in the east bay (south oakland-hayward-freemont) could have a quicker ride to silicon valley on public transit. i imagine its a 60-90minute ride as is. you could probably cut like 20minutes off that commute with a soutth bart/ road bridge

are there big reasons not to have a train and road shar the same bridge?
>>
>>1596632
>Not him but maybe stop building more housing where congestion is starting to be problematic? ?
the way out suburbs are becoming the new ghettos. theyre moving all the poor people to antioch/pittsburg and over the hill into the central valley.
>>
>>1596633
It's a leftist trick, they word it in their favor. People that deal with bad traffic are asked and they say sure if there a better alternative, the thing is not too many people around the US live around heavy traffic and you got bullshit claims like everyone wants to ditch their cars. If there wasn't as much traffic they would take the car over those other options every damn time.
>>
>>1596640
How familiar are you with the eastbay? In Hayward specifically there's so much multi family housing being built that mission boulevard cannot sustain. Within 3 years traffic will be so damn bad.
>>
File: 1610418403153.png (347 KB, 612x612)
347 KB
347 KB PNG
>>1596633
I enjoy transit/walking/biking, and millions of young people who are moving to walkable "gentrified" neighborhoods dont seem to mind taking transit, all while suburbs become ghettos.
>>1596641
Not a leftist by any means. Imagine being this much of a brainwashed retard that thinks any criticism of suburban sprawl equals le leftism.
>>
>>1596641
Nobody needs to ditch cars, just build multiple options of commuting and transport so a car isn't needed every single time you step outside your door.
>>
>>1596644
People will always pick the car, I can walk some other time but not when I'm heading to work. How can you insist that many if any think like you especially in a time of covid?
>>1596647
Here's the thing, they make traffic really bad by densifying adding so much volume of new people that they HAVE to deal with traffic or maybe (if you're lucky save a few min using BART) albeit crowded. Why do we HAVE to have traffic for public transportation to thrive? Because very few prefer public transportation when traffic is minimal.
>>
>>1596650
>people will always pick a car
Sauce?
>why do we have to have traffic for transit
Because running transit in a town of 100 people makes no sense! You need to have reasonably dense neighborhoods to get enough people to justify a train line. Trains are just more efficient in a city environment
>>
File: download (19).jpg (188 KB, 1232x677)
188 KB
188 KB JPG
>>1596652
>sauce
*generic pic of LA traffic is posted*

So let me get this straight, in order to "give people options" you have to fuck over car drivers with induced traffic just so that few more take public transportation? In all seriousness, if Americans REALLY wanted high speed rail we'd have it but it would seem not enough people are vocal about wanting it
>>
>>1596653
You dont have many transit options in places like LA or Atlanta. Not really a choice.
>>
>>1596656
What about bicycle? They have protected bike lanes
>>
they sold off the freeway onramp/offramp properties they could have used to build a freeway. that area is fucked cuase its too far from bart to get to compared to places like san pablo ave or along e14th
>>
>>1596650
>Why do we HAVE to have traffic for public transportation to thrive?
because we cant keep widening the freeways
>>
>>1596660
What if we don't widen freeways and not add huge volumes of new residents?
>>
>>1596661
>and not add huge volumes of new residents?
that would be unamerican to restrict them from coming in and even if people didnt move in, population continues to grow.
>>
File: EnNWD1OXcAYG-Vw.jpg (208 KB, 960x1200)
208 KB
208 KB JPG
>>1596661
Just design cities better so you can walk, bike or ride comfy trams, like the rest of the world does. Why do we keep building soulless strip mall "cities"
>>
>>1596663
They can come to America, sure. But why do we have to build for them where they can't afford or where traffic is just getting bad? There are better places to live...
>>1596664
I like a mix of all that but the high volume of people thrown in ruin it all
>>
>>1596663
>>1596664

>le rail meme

Guess what, having way too many fucking people makes that suck too. Stop. Building. Homes.
>>
i know rent has gone down a lot for massivley overprices single studios in SF
but what about oakland?
does anyone know of lots of rooms for rent going up in oakland? are people leaving oakland? i havent heard of any of my friends moving out of oakland spots, or renegotiating thier rent, but i have heard of lots of people finding super cheap rooms in sf.

anyone have any info? im in the market for a $500 or less room in oakland near bart.
5 years ago they were easy enough to find in a punk house
>did all the punk houses dissapear???
and i remember lots of $250-$500 warehouses spaces until ghost shit. fuck

my ideal situation is parking a short school bus in someones locked yard and using bathroom and kitchen as i please.
>>
>>1596666
>Guess what, having way too many fucking people makes that suck too. Stop. Building. Homes.
how am i supposed to live where i grew up if prices of homes go up but wages and job opportunities do not. basically your telling me i have to move out if i dont become rich?
>>
>>1596668
Yes
>>
>>1596668
Adapt or die, chud.
>>
The Bay Area’s so expensive the police, firemen and teachers can’t live there. At that point you’ve got a housing crisis.
>>
>>1596668
So because you got priced out everyone should suffer with traffic? Get in where you fit in nigger
>>
>>1596673
Or just build more train lines. The gov can't force people not to live somewhere, but they can build more transportation infrastructure
>>
>>1595647
95% of the traffic is indians and chinese. They don't care about it because they will put up with anything being from a 3rd world country. They don't value standard of living at all.
>>
>>1596696
the bay will never be liveable unless we get rid of all the indian and chinese H1B's.
>>
>>1596667
you need to man up and gentrify some local POC out. And remember to frequent coffee shops in revitalized neighboorhoods, black twitter hates them.
>>
>>1596663
>population continues to grow
not here, young urban millennials don't have kids at replacement rate. Our neoliberal politicians sell us out and refuse to let our population stabilize at a sustainable level.
>>
>>1596638
no more road bridges, that traffic will just spill onto already congested city streets. I assume a second transbay tube would lie somewhere along that span, it should have been built yesterday.
>>
File: transbay_cross_section.jpg (143 KB, 800x603)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
some day bros.....
>>
>>1596670
>Adapt or die, chud.

>moves into RV in front of your house
>pisses into storm drain every morning because someone at an antimask rally told me its my freedom to do so
>>
>>1596695
>Or just build more train lines
where?
>>
>>1596707
>no more road bridges, that traffic will just spill onto already congested city streets.
it would aleviate congested trafific on bay bridge which already has people re-routing along richmong/goldengate bridges. It would connect people in oakland to work south of downtown san francisco
>>
>>1596713
true, I hate that the poors cut through Marin to avoid tolls and bypass the bay bridge. Northbound on GGB and eastbound on Richmond bridge are toll free. There is a literal mile long line of wagies waiting to transfer from 101-N onto 508, there isn't a direct connector.
>>
mind you driving fucks that all you congestion slows down the speed of commerce and trucks, construction vehicles, work work work. cost everyone more $$$
>>
There’s no way to “solve” car traffic so it’s a pointless and incredibly expensive endeavor. Just focus on better modes of transport.
>>
Make sure you've got enough bike lanes and sidewalks, and expand the transit systems so people use cars less.
>>
>>1596695
>The gov can't force people not to live somewhere

Uh yeah they can it’s called not allowing new homes
>>
>>1596776
People are lazy as shit and cars are a status symbol, especially for all the richies here.
>>
>>1596984
>cars are a status symbol
Only for poors and fly*vers
>>
>>1596986
>>cars are a status symbol
>Only for poors and fly*vers
Cope, europoor
>>
Make sure you've got enough bike lanes and sidewalks, and expand the transit systems so people use cars less.
>>
In my experience the best way to make traffic worse is to listen to Cagers and their impulsive “decision-making”.
>>
>>1597011
You’re right, listen to the geniuses that think increasing the population will reduce traffic.
>>
>>1595619
A ton of different things, most of which will either not get done or will take a stupidly long time to get done.

>Electrify and completely grade separate Caltrain and add passing tracks, extend underground to Transbay Center
>2nd transbay tube via a torn down 980 and Alameda, landing near Mission Bay, out Geary, and down 19th Ave
>Add Caltrain tube to new transbay tube, extending from Transbay center over to Oakland and linking with existing heavy rail line over there
>Finish BART phase 2 extension to downtown San Jose, and ideally send it out Stevens Creek to De Anza
>Build TOD around every station possible on all rail lines and upzone wherever possible

Those are just a few big ones. I have a long list of other things that would help.
>>
>>1595626
Rent in SF is down almost 30% on average. Big drops in Oakland too. It's suburban rent and purchase prices that are increasing.
>>
>>1595662
Weird that you blame SF for a lot of these things that it has absolutely zero control over and others that it only has some control over. The city can't unilaterally build a Caltrain tube to Oakland, just for example.
>>
>>1595666
Wrong. Stanislaus County voted for Biden. So did Merced County. So did San Joaquin County. San Benito County, where Hollister is the largest city, voted overwhelmingly for Biden. Just fucking verify shit before you spout of and end up being so fucking wrong.
>>
>>1595667
You can't rebuild a train through the Santa Cruz Mountains using the old alignment of tunnels. They literally bombed them out and the route is wildy inefficient by modern standards.
>>
>>1595773
The airport limits the height of buildings in downtown San Jose. Nothing can be done about it.
>>
>>1597031
>. Big drops in Oakland too.
is this only in yuppy studios?
it seems like all my friends who rent $850 rooms in shared houses are still paying the same and no one has really moved out.

I havent heard of people getting their rents reduced. my rooommates wanna ask or ours reduced. or at least to not fill in the back room which is supposed to be means of eggress. there is a tennant renting it out who is not home and leaves that exit locked. illegal?
>>
im looking at craigslist and rooms in a shared house are all still $900-1100

looks like only studios and whole apartments are going down?
>>
Build an actual real metro with stops every quarter mile, like the Paris or Singapore metros. Build big-ass sidewalks.

Eliminate all zoning restrictions and let the developers turn everything into Manhattan tier density.

Bam, problem solved.
>>
>>1597241
>Eliminate all zoning restrictions and let the developers turn everything into Manhattan tier density
Thank goodness idiots like you aren't in charge
>>
>>1597241
Pure autism
>>
>>1597241
The zoning restrictions are not the problem gullible randroid, the problem is nobody wants to do the hard work of making a transit system that isn't hot garbage
>>
File: depth_scraper_0.jpg (1.86 MB, 2384x3329)
1.86 MB
1.86 MB JPG
>>1596484
you can't be stopped by a height limit if you just build everything underground
>>
>>1597264
>put everything inside shifting walls of rock being pushed by entire continents floating on magma
What could go wrong
>>
>>1595773
Cupertino and Menlo Park need serious upzoning. They have the headquarters of the world’s largest corporations but zone like they’re small suburbs. But I agree San Jose can use infill.
>>
>>1595735
That would unironically help. Left-NIMBYs are probably the biggest threat to transit use and urbanism because they block all the urban infill.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/anti-growth-alliance-fueled-urban-gentrification/617525/
>>
>>1597283
As they should, why make traffic worse? Building more transit doesn't guarantee the new residents will use it.
>>
>>1597279
>this new idea sucks until the propagandists I trust approve of it
>>
>>1597241
We could double density with gentle upzoning with rowhomes, duplexes etc. We really dont need soulless skyscrapers in MOST cases.
>>
>>1597329
But think of how many new people moving into the city would bring their cars
>>
As you clean the shit from the street just dump it in driveways and doorsteps of politicians and millionaires.
>>
>>1597305
>muh anime cities
>>
>>1597237
No, it's across most segments, not just studios.
>>
>>1597290
It increases the chances they will if you don't subsidize and make driving hyper-convenient. Don't provide as much parking anywhere and don't have free parking in public.
>>
>>1597408
So by the sounds of it, you HAVE to MAKE the driving experience hell so that """"hopefully""""" people use public transportation.
>>
>>1597410
yeah, its very convient to drive
>>
>>1597376
>But think of how many new people moving into the city would bring their cars
increase density around train and bus lines and flat areas that are easy access on bike. ive seen a couple people here move in with cars then not replace them when they died cuase they didnt need them anymore
>>
>>1597376
Puic long term parking decks outside the city. Keep your car outside the city and safe. Use it when you need to. Otherwise use other transportation in the city.
>>
>>1597424
Ah the pleasures of youth
>>
With that many cars in an area you’re always going to have bad traffic, which makes it a pain in the ass to use a car. They need to ramp up their train services. Fortunately, they are building new stations but they need more multifamily around the stations to keep things running and avoid insane price hikes.
>>
>>1597410
Proven to work. And not just transit but other methods.
>>
Motorcycles.

Lane filtering is already legal in Commiefornia. So just get people who commute in cars by themselves, on bikes.

Single digit conversions of cars to bikes. Will yield double digit congestion reduction
>>
I wonder if all of these stupid posts about how “rail is the only solution” that no one replies to are the same guy
>>
SF is so beautiful.
>>
SF is a beautiful, unique city, and truly a gem of America. Why ruin it with upzoning just so that some developers from other cities can make some short term profit?
>>
>>1597541
It's my work phone.
>>
Hnnng so comfy
>>
>>1597546
Love those multifamily houses. The Bay Area needs comfy stuff like that all over to increase transit access.
>>
>>1597569
It already has it though. It doesn’t need more. Only 30% of homes is SF are single family anon.
>>
Autistic Charlie Kirk lovers treat the city as a commodity, as just numbers on a screen. They can’t realize that cities have a soul. SF is one of the cities that has a soul, and it’s part of a dying breed. That’s why it’s so magnetic, and so magical when you’re there. That’s why people pay so much. If you want to destroy that with what are essentially giant room vending machines to line developer pockets, you’re anti-human.
>>
>>1597528
Upzoning won't ruin anything you fucking troglodyte. It's already the 2nd densest city in the country and replacing 2 story buildings with 5 or 6 story ones along major streets and transit routes won't detract from anything.
>>
>>1597589
Last thing SF needs is more residents
>>
>>1597524
Rail is the main solution. Nothing else works without rail to move massive traffic quickly over distance.

You certainly aren't cycling or walking. Not with those hills, feces, and drug needles
>>
>>1597589
So why is it so overcrowded if it’s so dense? I wonder if it’s because it’s the best city in the US. Not that it matters. Believe it or not, there’s more to life than letting the supply and demand chart dictate everything that happens in the world.
>>
I wonder why cagetrolls spend so much time repeating the same arguments that have already been disproven in other threads, or earlier in the same thread.
>>
>>1597612
At least we’re not like the rail trolls, they don’t even have any arguments just

> duh duh upzone and rail

>just upzone and rail

>upzone and rail good. upzone and rail fix everything

>duh just upzone it and add rail

They don’t think, just repeat the same line they heard from some propaganda podcast or news outlet over and over. Absolutely zero critical thinking or problem solving about the subject, but we know why that is.
>>
>>1597614
I’m glad you admit your statements get repeatedly disproven. Thanks for that.
>>
>>1597615
Oh really? So how did you disprove this?
>>1590790
>>
>>1597616
A statement that is true is that public transit is antiquated in its current form of trains on rails and buses on routes. For it to be viable and able to not slowly die out in the future it needs a complete rethink and reconstruction.
>>
>>1597579
he said Bay Area, not SF.
>>
>>1597589
San Fran doesn’t need a ton of replacing buildings, they can just build over parking lots and the occasional single-family house.
It’s the Bay Area as a whole that needs to loosen zoning requirements.

>>1597638
Notice how much the cagetroll relies on strawmanning and lying.
>>
>>1597614
We offer solutions to the problem, you offer nothing.
>rail trolls
Where the fuck do you think you are, douchebag? Its a transit board
>>
>>1596703
I remember pre vocid at 6pm in 2019 there would literally be gridlock in all the arterial roads filled with shitty crossovers and teslas being driven alone.
>>
>>1597687
Well, the first step is disallowing any new multi-family in the bay, and allowing a special property tax break for converting a multi-family into a single-family building (while keeping the historic exterior, of course) The population will fall, and congestion will reduce as well. When your nose is stuffed, you don’t get a nose job. You blow out the snot.
>>
>>1597807
>When your nose is stuffed, you don’t get a nose job. You blow out the snot
Based
>>
In the long term the Richmond bridge will need replacing, and the new one would likely carry a rail line. It would probably take SMART over to the east bay to connect with Capitol Corridor. Of course it will take decades and cost gorillions. I guess the problem is that Marin isn't that populated (250k) and I would like it to stay that way, but if you're gonna spend billions on a bridge they'll probably demand we move in more beaners and pajeets from the east bay.
I don't think that the Bay should become a megalopolis, but it's probably gonna be forced onto us regardless by globalists.
>>
>>1597811
Globalism has nothing to do with the land use policies on a single metro region you poltard faggot.
>>
>>1597610
It's not overcrowded you illiterate nigger.
>>
>>1597620
Thousands of cities all over the world would prove otherwise.
>>
When upzone and allow mixed-use, people don’t need to travel as far to get to stores, offices, restaurants etc. and when they do travel they have they density to support rail.
Also, building more housing makes housing cheaper and the Bay Area is ridiculously expensive. My friend bought a house in the bay, and the sellers told him “If you bring a home inspector here we’ll sell it to someone else” because the sellers can just take you for a ride in that market.
How are you supposed to buy a house and start a family in a market like that? Millennials will never be homeowners if we don’t fix this shortage.
>>
>>1597893
Lmao, I'm a zoomer and some of my friends own homes already, its called not living in san francisco
>>
>>1597816
Globalization has everything to do with the fact that the Bay Area has been turned into a playground for the global rich, and a target for the mass migration of pajeets and asians.
One of the trendiest concepts of the 2010's was that of the re-emerging City-State, and to rethink our model of governance around cities rather than States. There's a reason the Electoral College and States' Rights make liberals seethe so hard
>>
File: HDB-flats-in-Singapore.jpg (214 KB, 820x410)
214 KB
214 KB JPG
>>1595619
traffic solution? urban density duh.

hypocrites in bay area with their teslas. meanwhile some poor shmuck is super commuting 4 hours a day from stockton burning god knows how much CO2

godamn white people are fucking retarded some times.
>>
>>1598132
but muh real estate value..

not like its a speculative market you can virtually place anywhere with stiumlus and production and it grows itself..

literally next few valleys over and start again.

you made it in the shittest possible spot origianlly so everything from here on out should be cheaper aside from the impossible inflation/stagflation situation.
>>
File: SFEarthquake.jpg (1.57 MB, 4216x2813)
1.57 MB
1.57 MB JPG
>>1595619
Best solution.
>>
>>1595625
>Price people out to stop them from moving in.
They'll live in the parks and poop in the streets.
>>
>>1598511
Not if you have an effective police force. How many homeless people are shitting in Greenwich, CT? Zero.
>>
Why would anyone in their right mind care about car traffic? It’s not a problem you can ever solve. Just build better modes of transportation and let the cagers enjoy their self-induced harm.
>>
>>1598511
>They'll live in the parks and poop in the streets.
Only because YOU LET THEM
>>
>>1596984
>>1596986
>>1596991
Then fuck them
Then there is no solution. Let them rot in that actual shithole
Millionare homeless, love it
>>
4 or 5 story buildings with enough of green surfaces,
narrower roads,
less parking spaces,
weider bike lanes so people can use those bicycle trailers,
every street is one way, every crossroad is 3 way or a roundabout,
no strict zoning but a lot of mixed zoning,
to buy property yoi need to be a citizen otherwise pay 20% xtra,
no property tax for locals,
no rent controls,
less large blocks and build stuff to be walkable,
public transport always has enough space in it for people with bikes,
build down underground as well - bike parks or whatever,
fuck nimby latinos,
those green spaces are filled with trees and every building can take care of its own with flowers or do barbecues or whatever
>>
>>1598698
Lol thank goodness idiots like you aren't in charge
>>
Was hearing on radio this morning that congestion pricing is being talked about for san Francisco and could end up being up to 14 dollars per toll because traffic is getting so bad. How about we stop with building so much housing if it's becoming such a problem.
>>
Fill the bay up
>>
Fill the gay up
>>
>>1599967
Congestion pricing has been a big success everywhere it’s been implemented. The Bay Area has a massive housing shortage and no matter how many times you spam /n/ you can’t change anything. Shrug.
>>
>>1599987
I just can't see the logic in adding more volumes of people when traffic is starting to become a problem and nobody has explained why. Is there a housing shortage or did people get priced out because I find it strange that the housing that is in need is always built where it's not needed. Why aren't they building up in the valley? Bay area is already overcrowded as fuck
>>
>>1595619
Outlaw cars
>>
>>1599999
Lol keep dreaming, it'll never happen in your lifetime
>>
As long as you have that level of car-dependency you’re going to have bad traffic. I can get in an Uber and zip around NYC quite fast even though the city wasn’t built for cars.
>>
>>1600009
>as long as you keep allowing more residents you're going to have worse traffic
FTFY, don't compare Jew York to the bay area
>>
>>1599988
LeftTards purposely make traffic unbearable in hopes people ride a bike,bus,or train. In the end its worse for everyone because people will sit in traffic polluting the air even more because of the added volume of people bringing their cars too.
>>
>>1599988
>I just can't see the logic in adding more volumes of people when traffic is starting to become a problem
where is the logic on prohibiting people from moving in. how would you do that? you cant prohibit americans from moving anywhere unless its black people in oregon 70 years ago

>and nobody has explained why.
population growth, dumdum
>>
>>1600018
you write like a moron.

I know plenty of who switched to public transit because driving was unbearably slower.
how about this one? i moved from a suburb to a dense urban area to cut my commute from an hours of driving to 20minutes of bicycle riding.

>In the end its worse for everyone because people will sit in traffic polluting the air even more because of the added volume of people bringing their cars too.
this sentence is atrocious. what are you trying to say? "as traffic becomes worse, more and more people switch to driving anf further congestion?"
youre a moron.
>>
>>1600030
>where is the logic on prohibiting people from moving in
We're overcrowded, people prefer cars, roads can barely fit more cars and more people that come in will still pick the car. When is enough, enough? How overcrowded does the bay area need to be, yeah sure a very small amount might take bus,train,or bike but that won't help with majority of new residents picking the car.
>population growth
Yeah, that's to be expected but we can't keep building housing when we're already feeling the effects of overpopulation.
>>
>>1598543
>Why would anyone in their right mind care about car traffic?
because 4/5 the voter base is care drivers
>>
>>1599988
>Why aren't they building up in the valley? Bay area is already overcrowded as fuck
they are in fact building up tons of giant houses in all that open valley space, but guess what. everyone there wants to work in the bay area and the huge 12 lane wide 580 freeway going into the bay is slowed to a crawl every morning from 4am to 9pm. i wonder if they would ever take bart out to stockton, lmao

building homes in the valley creates more traffic in the bay are because thats where the jobs are, retard.

ha. im listening to public radio and they just started a program on solving atlanta traffic
>>
>>1600036
What's your solution? Do you honestly think building more housing in the bay will solve anything? Companies need big incentives for working from home
>>
>>1600034
>We're overcrowded, people prefer cars, roads can barely fit more cars and more people that come in will still pick the car.
i know a number of people who let go of their vehicles when they moved into my dense urban neighborhood because it was too inconvenient and public transport was goof enough. you demand you need to be able to drive in this city for your convenience. i feel bad for the drivers who actually have to haul equipment around and are forced into this shit traffic.

>When is enough, enough? How overcrowded does the bay area need to be, yeah sure a very small amount might take bus,train,or bike but that won't help with majority of new residents picking the car.
as traffic and population increases, more and more people find it convenient to take public transit over driving.

>>population growth
>Yeah, that's to be expected but we can't keep building housing when we're already feeling the effects of overpopulation.
youre a fucking moron
>you "i dont like crowded freeways so people need to stop moving into where i live even though the jobs and weather is nice, that stuff should only be for me "
guess what, other people want to live here too and that is their american freedrom to do so.
people are gonna continue to move in and price out the locals if more homes arent build
>you "well im not poor, so that not my problem"

we clearly cannot
1. build more freeways
2. prohibit people from moving in
well we can still focus on
3. building up alternatives forms of transport
yes, people prefer cars, people prefer high paying jobs, people prefer big houses over small houses, but im sorry little baby, we cannot accommodate to everyone, so those who are forced into traffic are gonna have to suffer cause we cant make bigger freeways and we cant limit population. driving is one hell of a convenience.
>>
>>1600034
just curious. what part of the bay do you live in and where do you commute too (for work)
>>
>>1600044
Beyond retardation, sooner or later sidewalks would be overcrowded if we followed your little dick plan.
>>1600046
Hayward, I commute to milpitas. 25 min drive to and from. Before pandemic it was 35min in morning and worst case scenario 40min in afternoon.
>>
>>1600044
>hey, our family is really poor
>let's have 5 more kids
>>
>>1600037
>What's your solution?
build up dense housing along bart lines and a 2nd transbay tube between alameda/collosium area to south san fransico
maybe even a 2nd bridge there to carry train, industrial truck traffic, commuter traffic to south SF without having to pass directly through downtown.

im wondering if post corona virus, will SF see an exodus of tech companies, an exodus of wealthy residents and then housing prices and then traffic aleviates into SF because
1. cause theres less work to drive towards
2. local residents can afford to move back into the city
>>
>>1600049
yeah, people do this. were not china, we dont have baby limits.
>>
>>1600047
>Beyond retardation, sooner or later sidewalks would be overcrowded if we followed your little dick plan.
like in many big walkable europeon cities. yes, that would be nice.

why dont you move out to bum fuck new mexico if light traffic and open space is soo important to you? you cant control people moving into the bay but you can decide where you go!
>>
File: 1605670974697m.jpg (98 KB, 1008x1024)
98 KB
98 KB JPG
>>
>>1600052
>like in many big walkable europeon cities. yes, that would be nice.
How is living like ant colonies trampling eachother nice?
>why dont you move out to bum fuck new mexico if light traffic and open space is soo important to you?
Because it's not so bad, "yet"
>>
>>1600053
this country was built on refugees
i dont want them coming in and using our resources but fuck, i know i sure didnt work very hard to get this comfy life i am living.
>america
>>
>>1600054
>How is living like ant colonies trampling eachother nice?
pros:
1. i dont have to drive to get anywhere/everywhere (grew up in suburbs)
2. dont have to sit in a car in traffic for an hour to get to work.

cons.
1. i dont have a fuckoff huge house and yard.

sounds like a big urban metropolis is not the right place for you to live.
>>
>>1600058
Where did you grow up and where did you move to?
>>
What can be done about firetrucks/ems getting stuck in urban traffic?
>>
>>1600060
Motorcycle paramedics and air ambulances. The motorcycles get there first and stabilize. Then radio in the evacbird.

More fire stations and trucks. So shorter distances and multiple choices for getting a truck to a fire.
>>
>>1600062
LOL what a shit deal for our old boomer parents, response times tripled
>>
>>1600062
Fires in apartments are far more deadly than fires in homes.
>>
>>1600058
Enjoy your city life dude lmao
>>
>>
We got a little lebowski urban achiever over here
>>
>tfw living in a city literally fucks up your brain

This explains so many of the dumb ass posts I see on here.
>>
>>1600072
Those types of studies/claims are only true when it helps their narrative
>>
>>1600059
>Where did you grow up and where did you move to?
hill locked suburb away from anything and everything void of public transit. you must have a car or suffer to get out of there to anywhere. no amenities beside grocery stores, mcdonalds, little shops and parks. 30-60min to get into city notrafic/traffic
1hr via public transit. 1:45hr on the weekends

i moved to downtown oakland where every amenity is less than a 5minute bikeride away. i am a 20minute bart/train ride to downtown sf. i drive my van about once a week,
>>
File: scub.jpg (25 KB, 216x299)
25 KB
25 KB JPG
>hill locked suburb away from anything and everything void of public transit
Where
>i moved to downtown oakland
LOL
>>
>>1600078
will be so funny when a jogger sucker punches you and takes your wallet, get a nice taste of urban lifestyle.
>>
>>1595619
a nuke would fix it. a nuke would fix a lot of things. five nukes to be safe.
>>
File: 1604892262466.png (256 KB, 1072x859)
256 KB
256 KB PNG
>>1595645
>neolibs
spotted the seething communist faggot who watches vaush.
>>
File: 1611297983479.png (51 KB, 656x407)
51 KB
51 KB PNG
>>1595711
you are truly retarded. just downright brain dead.
>>
>>1600086
>will be so funny when a jogger sucker punches you and takes your wallet, get a nice taste of urban lifestyle.
"its not safe to go outside"
>>
>>1600123
Not in Oakland when you're not black or brown and even then they kill/rob eachother. Sounds like fun.
>>
I’m a “cager” and I support all the public transit possible. Getting people into bikes/busses means less cars and traffic on the road.
Especially an intercity fast rail network, to take travelers off the highway.
>>
>>1600164
Here's the thing, expanding public transportation (example) BART is very expensive to expand/maintain so they add a fuckton of new residents with housing thrown in everywhere traffic ends up way worse than it was before, sure a few more will take the train but not enough to make it better than before.
>>
bay area needs to be like new york; it needs to have dense mixed use housing to be a dynamic thriving place

or else people just waste all their money on rent whilst a few lucky people will save shit ton on taxes because of Prop-13 just like in feudalism. and now you have a class of made-its/rentiers(lords) and wagies/peasants at the bottom.
>>
>>1599999
checked and basepilled
>>
>>1595647
I went into SF yesterday and had to drive on Fell St. I remember when I was younger you could just cruise all the way past the pan handle hitting the timed lights. It was the best way to get west. Yesterday it was bumper to bumper and you would hit EVERY red light. You move a block, hit a red. It fucking sucks getting around SF. I hate san francisco
>>
>>1595667
>lets keep making it more crowded until it's just like SF and oakland
>>
They're gonna have to allow a lot more of those high-end condos to fix their budget problems.
>>
>>1600231
SF should have fully manhattanized in the 70s and 80s, now we're stuck with disgusting glass towers in soma. Oh and it's never gonna get better unless somebody with balls in DC ends the mass importation of pajeet H1B's and other """"""skilled""""" laborers.
>>
>>1595625
And who exactly will do all the menial and other poorly paid labour?
It's already across the pond in Munich (most expensive large city here in Germany) a problem for hospitals to find nurses because can no one can afford the rents anymore.
>>
Giant Fucking Catapults





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.