The reason that there is a housing crisis in the Bay Area is that there is a lack of housing in the Bay Area. We don't need to make it so you don't need to live in SF to work in SF, we need to make it so that there are enough homes for the people that want to live there. And this means one thing, ZONING. The reason that more housing isn't built in the Bay is that the people living there don't want developers to build it, not that it can't be built. This is much easier and cheaper to change than public transit infrastructure (or maybe, the fact that it isn't is a sign that SF is screwed?).
It's going to require all of those things. The densest cities on the planet still have far-flung transportation systems. That's out of necessity, even when you're building up dozens of stories at a time, there just isn't enough space for everyone.
You need sensible building policies coupled with aggressive transit expansion to get us out of the mess we're in. Not just in San Francisco, but across the whole country.
Evaluating this proposal by itself, I agree that local infrastructure spending would likely be more useful, sooner, to more people than a high speed rail corridor. I don't think anyone believes or claims it will single-handedly solve the housing crisis.
I agree that we need to build in the city as well, but many major cities have good transportation inside and outside of the city too.
Currently it's almost an hour to get to downtown from Ocean Beach to Financial district with a bus, and its only 7 miles away. That is 7mph, almost a walking speed.
For example, back in Helsinki (where I'm from) you could easily get to the downtown anywhere in the 12mile radius in 10-20mins with a bus, light rail or train. I know the numbers are similar in many European cities.
Generally in Europe public transport is usually the easier and faster option than driving or at least the same time. If driving in a city is multitudes faster then you're not doing to public or other transportation systems very well.
You walk really fast! But seriously, revitalizing existing public transit and making it function properly should be a priority. No disagreements there. But we don't need to build new trains and bus lines that go further out.
Urbanists will continue to think we don't need more sprawl, and NIMBYs will continue to think we don't need more density, and nothing will change.
The only politically realistic way we're going to get large-scale high-density environments is through greenfield projects. Having a long but tolerable public transit journey between your greenfield high-density development and the existing job centers is one of very few plausible paths to getting there.
>We should double our annual infrastructure budget. We can fund this by stopping the high-speed rail, and spend the $68+ billion we are planning to spend on that on better local rapid transit systems, improved bus lines, and new roads instead. This will allow people to live in more affordable housing and have a better quality of life.
Bad idea. More roads does not mean less traffic, More roads = more cars. And more infrastructure begets more infrastructure - You build more roads and buses and light rail lines, now you need all the staff to maintain these things, now you need somewhere for these staff to live, now you need more infrastructure to get the staff to work to maintain the infrastructure...
Stop the madness! The answer is not to transit at all. Live near your job, walk or bike to work. Build more housing dammit! Why the fuck does a software company need to be in the middle of big city? All you need is electricity and internet, move out to the country!
Can you clarify what you mean by "transit oriented development"? As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore. I don't think it makes sense to make things denser if it's going to be so ugly that no one wants to live there.
You New Yorkers have a unique perspective of your own on such matters! It's a great town, and you folks up there do a wonderful job of making a body feel welcome. But there's too many tall buildings and not enough tall trees for me to ever want to live there, and I can see why people who like SF for what it is wouldn't want it to follow your example, any more than I want Baltimore to.
Short term - more buses, alternate day driving, increase incentives for no car ownership (tax rebate), increase penalties for car ownership (increase parking fees/fines, increase number of no-parking tow-away zones).
Medium term - Build bike lanes, convert streets to promenades, build light rail, build traffic calmers (narrow streets, speed bumps, lane bollards)
Long term - Marketing programs to encourage different business lifestyles (city vs. country, remote vs in-person). Tax incentives for moving out of the city.
In a world with effectively zero transportation possible beyond a range of a few miles, you need to move every time you change jobs (or never see your family because you're walking/biking/riding a bus for a huge chunk of each day).
> Stop the madness! The answer is not to transit at all. Live near your job, walk or bike to work. Build more housing dammit! Why the fuck does a software company need to be in the middle of big city? All you need is electricity and internet, move out to the country!
> Stop the madness! The answer is not to transit at all. Live near your job, walk or bike to work. Build more housing dammit! Why the fuck does a software company need to be in the middle of big city? All you need is electricity and internet, move out to the country!
The average time of employment in the tech sector for people under 40 in tech is under 4 years. Your plan is untenable because it involves frequent personal relocation to make feasible.
If you don't build roads, people will still come. Instead of having more roads = more cars you end up with same road = more cars, which is not ideal.
Personally, I think California's HSR project is stupid and the money could be better spent on regional light rail plus conventional rail between metro areas. But allowing CA to become a shitty place to live so as to force people from their cars is the least attractive option.
> If you don't build roads, people will still come. Instead of having more roads = more cars you end up with same road = more cars, which is not ideal.
That's empirically not as true as it intuitively seems; induced traffic is a thing.
> Personally, I think California's HSR project is stupid and the money could be better spent on regional light rail plus conventional rail between metro areas.
But, the HSR project is spending money on regional light rail and conventional rail between metro areas.
>That's empirically not as true as it intuitively seems; induced traffic is a thing.
It's definitely empirically true. I've watched it happen for decades. There are certainly new cars on the road, but they would have been there anyway, for the most part. If you have a growing economy people immigrate in search of jobs whether the infrastructure is ready or not.
Now, I'd rather we had enough rail to handle all those people and more, but the problem with rail is before your network is built out completely it's not very useful.
>But, the HSR project is spending money on regional light rail and conventional rail between metro areas.
Great. Then all we need to cancel is the HSR itself.
My "vague anecdote" is California has more than twice the population it had in 1970. That's not a question of induced driving. That's running to stay even.
> It's definitely empirically true. I've watched it happen for decades. There are certainly new cars on the road, but they would have been there anyway, for the most part.
Your unsupported speculation of what you expect would have been true in a counterfactual situation is not support for a claim of empirical truth.
> If you have a growing economy people immigrate in search of jobs whether the infrastructure is ready or not.
People are not the same thing as the car trips; whether the same number of people would have been present with less road capacity is a different question than whether the number of car trips would have been.
> If we make it easier to quickly travel longer distances in/out of work hubs, the intense demand for housing can be diffused to communities that can handle it.
Wow, just wow. Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Cupertino et al can all "handle it" they just don't want to. There is plenty of space for transit oriented housing and office space along the cal-train corridor. If Cupertino can "handle" an office space for 14k workers, they can "handle" building housing for 14k workers too.
There is absolutely no reason the peninsula and south bay should remain majority single family home cities, especially wiht the crazy jobs/housing imbalance they have willingly created for themselves.
I think it's a stretch to say that the peninsula will remain majority single family home cities. Everywhere I look all I see are new apartment complexes being built.
I live in Mountain View, and I've lived here for 20 years and followed local politics all this time. I'm also, unlike most of my fellow residents, pro development and think that increasing density is the only way out of this housing debacle, but maybe I'm biased by having lived in NYC and seen that high density can work.
Where we are today is that your basic crappy 2/1 or 3/1 starter home is over a million dollars here. They're $2 million in a better neighborhood. The majority of higher density housing is rentals, not owner condos. We're losing everyone except families with dual high income workers due to housing costs here.
One big part of the problems is that residents who already own property resist change and want Mountain View to remain as it was when they moved in. It's a selfish mindset, commonly likened to pulling up the ladder behind you when you get on a ship to keep others out. Whenever there's a development proposal, a vocal group of generally older and retired folks show up to try shouting it down. The anti-development people constantly say that the character of the city will be ruined by more housing, but are blind to the character of the city being homogenized on high income tech workers.
Another big part of the problem is ridiculous zoning. It's basically illegal to build anything anymore given the land that's left and the density limits. Every development requires variances from the city council, so even though zoning code isn't meant to give the council the power to meddle in individual developments, it's become so overbearing that the city council effectively dictates what can be built and where, down to the type of food a restaurant will serve. This is no different than communist central planning. These code variances are attained by renovating parks, or contributing to schools, or whatever else the council wants to extort. Permit fees are well into six figures for new housing developments, per unit. Most of these are impact fees for infrastructure and parks. With the high cost of housing here, permit costs, and extortion costs, it's simply impossible to build affordable housing. This is fine, since expensive housing takes the load off the older, affordable stock, but the pace of housing growth isn't keeping up with population growth.
The local cities here belong to a larger organization called the Association Of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). ABAG sets minimum building quotas on towns, and they have to approve that many units, but where they approve the units is up to them. Here in Mountain View, the downtown area is mostly owner occupied single family homes, and these people are against increasing density at all, and probably the most vocal anti-development neighborhood. The downtown area is also the one closest to transit, which is where high density makes sense. Due to this NIMBY attitude, the new developments happen mostly along the El Camino and 101 corridors, which don't have good public transit.
It's a giant mess, basically. The same people who resist density will also resist and kind of better local transit if it means building more tracks near their house, or digging tunnels under their house.
This is orthogonal to the question of whether California needs new public transport infrastructure, which it unquestionably does. However that infrastructure only makes sense in the context of sufficiently dense city, such that both transit stops and basic goods and services can be found within a short walk of one's home. That's how you beat congestion. Sprawling further out just makes public transport less sustainable, and causes more congestion.
So while I agree with the basic premise that California should spend more on its infrastructure, the rationale given makes this something I can't support. It's like somebody wanting to get coronary bypass surgery so that they can eat a LOT more cheeseburgers.
So build more roads because we will use more cars? Not sure i get it.
Instead of a high speed rail between 2 cities how about a higher speed rail running in all directions around the major hubs and suburbs.
I'm not in SF or CA by that matter, but trains work good if the rails are designed with specifics in mind. SF to LA high speed doesn't solve much of a problem, nor is more car lanes/highways.
If you were going to go the suggested route of building more roads, the only sane thing to do would be to make them bus only lanes and then to invest into that category heavily in regards to efficiency / automation / capacity. I can't see any other scenario that makes sense in terms of building more roads, unless this is premised on autonomous driving 20 years out improving the traffic patterns & congestion.
Longer travel is inherently less efficient. It's much better to build denser close to existing transportation hubs.
Proposal: Pass a law that cities can't prevent permitting of mixed developments up to 8 stories within 1500 feet of existing trail r stations or freeway exits, and see where that takes us!
(Also, doubling down on BART, Caltrain, SMART and the boats would be quite helpful.)
The deeply ironic thing about California HSR is that it's basically going to be most useful for business travelers. Who the hell else needs to go from SF to LA on any regular basis? If you spent that money on regional rail instead, you might actually help out working class people.
In cities like New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, tons of middle class people ride the train to/from what used to be streetcar suburbs. Caltrain/BART is a joke in comparison, and $68 billion would go a long way towards making that not the case.
The stupid thing is that those business travelers won't use the rail line, they'll happily chug along in their self-driving Teslas and ultra comfy Audis/Mercedes/BMWs.
Toronto just dealt with this. We built a rail line that goes from our international airport right into the heart of the downtown. The plan was that business travelers could get off the plane, get on the train, and go right into the city without a car. Nobody uses it. They forgot about the comfort of the taxi and limo - you don't have to carry your luggage and you don't have to share the car and listen to screaming children.
Or not. That seems like an awfully large generalization based on one city whose airport rail service hasn't had much time to establish itself.
Counter examples: In London I'll take the Heathrow Express over the alternatives because it is a much more compelling option to get to downtown London. Recently in Johannesburg the airport rail took me to the airport in 14 minutes where as a car would take 90 minutes in commuter traffic. In Germany, I've seen people commute half way across the country every day on high-speed rail because it opened up opportunities to work that didn't exist before.
The Toronto line failed because it basically only catered to rich business travelers. By only having two stops — downtown and airport — it significantly constrained its TAM just to shave a few minutes off of its travel time.
California HSR goes to San Francisco, Millbrae, San Jose, Gilroy, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Hanford, Bakersfield, Palmdale, Burbank, Los Angeles, and Anaheim. It provides frequent single-seat rides between every origin-destination pair of these cities. Many of these routes don't currently have any similar commercial air service (or the air service that does exist has very high fares due to low competition and scale), so HSR is providing new connectivity that didn't exist before.
The San Jose to Bakersfield segment is scheduled to begin operating in 2021. It will provide 1 hour travel time between Fresno and San Jose[1]. High speed rail isn't replacing regional rail -- it's providing it over a much longer distance than would otherwise be possible.
Regional rail facilitates regular trips between satellite cities and core cities, usually for commuting. Fares on Metro North/MARC/Metra/SEPTA are on the order of $5. On the California HSR, the fare from Fresno to San Francisco is estimated to be over $60. That puts it completely out of the ballpark of regional rail into Amtrak territory.
Ummmmm, where is the data to support either argument? How will and how much buses need to be added to support just the current population in the current cities? How does that follow up on expanding population? How does that match with new construction and available land close by. What is the distance and driving time for buses between work hubs and housing. While housing can be built relatively fast, work hubs take a lot more time for various reasons.
On the surface, this sounds like a great idea. The problem is that, once you look at the details, you realize there are none.
How is this going to work? Where does that $68bn get re-allocated? Who will benefit from this? What is the economic advantage of investing in transit infrastructure in dollars and cents?
I've seen a few of these proposals that sell hopes and dreams with no discussion of how it's going to work. Until I see that, I can't support this.
I'd be happy just to see traffic lights that actually factor traffic congestion. One of my peeves is when a traffic light makes me and a whole line of cars waste brakes to stop then waste gas to sit at a red light just to let one car go when the efficient option would have been to let the line of cars travelling 50mph go first, THEN let the loner who's already stopped go afterwards. It's a problem I've wanted to solve for a loooong time. Imagine the savings in time, gasoline, and environment if every intersection actively tried to maximize efficiency.
Not to mention the amount of CO2 emissions that would be reduced from drivers having to stop and re-accelerate fewer times. While I don't know if it would make much of a change during heavy traffic, I think it would make a huge difference during medium to light traffic.
I like the idea of opening up light timings for public review, however figuring out how to optimize everything would probably take a great deal of computational power, and likely out of the scope of local governments that actually make those decisions. It's also not profitable, so I don't see too many companies going after this problem. If only there was a company that had detailed maps, good traffic statistics, insane computational power, and ambitions to do stuff that may or may not be profitable. Maybe they create tools for municipalities to help time their lights.
I agree with most of your points. However, I think it would be easier to use machine learning and computer vision to solve this problem. The profit would come in the form of reduced traffic which would mean more throughput to local businesses. FedEx would profit, trucking would profit, mom-and-pop shops with prime retail locations would profit. Hence, the municipalities would profit from surge in tax revenue. As far as processing goes, the red-light cameras get recorded somewhere, right? Why not double up those servers, put an RPI with a camera on each traffic light, and then beam the data back to the server room for processing. With machine learning and a lot of patience the system would be able to improve itself over time.
I have always believed that this problem could be solved with about $200 worth of hardware at the traffic light, a cheap mobile plan, and a central server location (wherever they host the red-light footage from cameras that already exist).
Now, if anyone has a million bucks laying around I can get to work right away. ;)
San Diego has started to do this. I'm surprised it's taken so long for this kind of technology to get installed given that there's not really any revolutionary technology here.
Dashed-off in a hurry without thinking it through, just like most of the supposed high achievers and visionaries I know.
If we make it easier to quickly travel longer distances in/out of work hubs...
...the demand for quickly traveling longer distances in/out of work hubs, increases accordingly. Which leads to the same congestion problems spreading outward. You don't want to plan your land use based on what types and kinds of transportation are possible. But if you open up a transportation corridor hoping for the best, that is exactly what you're doing. Based on the fact that there is now transportation available, you get mile after mile of hastily-constructed bland, dystopian nowhere suburbs that breed ennui, conformism and fascism. Meanwhile all those people shoulder extra "friction" in their lives in the form of traveling around pointlessly.
Instead you should plan land use deliberatively. Build the destination. And then connect destinations. The answer is the exact opposite - have a strong urban growth boundary that keeps growth compact, and remove barriers to high-density housing construction in the city. Because this leads to less demand for travel, everyone saves on transportation costs - not only the costs of infrastructure but of using it. And they get to live in a dense, interesting city where their genitals can be located near the genitals of many others of their preferred gender for mating. Which is great for software companies that hire young people.
>Based on the fact that there is now transportation available, you get mile after mile of hastily-constructed bland, dystopian nowhere suburbs that breed ennui, conformism and fascism.
The level of condescension here is overwhelming. I would love to live in a "bland, dystopian" suburb where I can afford a yard, more space for my family, access to necessities and a reasonable commute. If you'd prefer to live in a crowded city, do it, but don't think it makes you superior to anyone else.
Alternate proposal that would not destroy more of the earth, make a big impact on lessening climate change, and improve people's health: ban personal vehicles from urban and suburban areas. Then reallocate the resources from maintaining roads and sprawling infrastructure to mass transit, biking, walking, and new housing. Roads and suburban infrastructure take up an absurd amount of space that could be reallocated to housing or even more open space. It would also help tremendously if property owners were not allowed to have any vacancy. A ridiculous number of housing units are sitting empty that could be used.
Sorry, but your ideas seems extremely narrow minded. Yes, there are areas designed from the ground or evolved over time to be used without personal vehicles, but that is by no means the general case.
Firstly, if doing without personal vehicle works for you, it is great. I do see many situations where it could work. But remember that Uber drivers use personal vehicles, they are by no means part of public transit. Hourly car rent services are not public too.
Secondly, we do not live in corporate owned factory-cities, layout with well defined living quarter areas and workshops. I see no way to arrange efficient public transport system for everyone in organically grown areas, though we can probably make it work for majority. We have much more job varieties than factories - large concentrations of workforce. Take kindergartens and primary schools for example. As a parent, you want them to be as close to home as possible. You want the best educators there. Unless you assume that the best educator-children fit will be with educators from your district (for which you must assume that there are educators in your district in the first place), you need transportation for them. There are travelling salesmen, home deliveries, non-peak (home-work, work-home) traffic to theatres, eating out, hospitals, friends. Unless you want army of robots, I see no way to do without personal transportation altogether. Without personal vehicles altogether, places several kilometres away from public transport stops will be out of reach for less mobile: disabled, elderly, families with babies, etc..
-------
As for vacant properties... I do not even know where to begin. This idea has already been tried in Soviet Union, except they took it even further - there was per person space quota and space exceeding that quota would be taken away. Like one room in a flat would be given to someone else. Your children moved away? Say bye-bye to half of your property. Your family member passed away and you inherited their property? Better do something with it quick or risk losing it. Residents moved from you rental property? Better find anyone to rent it for any sum or risk losing it. I just don't think these are the values of democratic republic. It may be me, though.
>If we unclog our infrastructure we can spread out to more of the state and increase the supply of developable land.
Really amazing to read that people that live in low density clusterfuck think that the solution is to expand the low density clusterfuck.
Also, being against high speed rail but being for a hyper loop is an indication that you have a technology boner that is lasting longer than 4 hours and you should see a doctor.
Reality is California is terrible at the mega projects - look at LA metro as an example. We are out of practice and the graft level is through the roof. Any public funds are likely far better spent on smaller projects that are chosen for the outsize benefit.
SF to LA is already solved by airlines and the freeway. The benefit of a rail will be marginal and temporary when cars become good at driving the freeway autonomously.
I recently moved to San Diego from the east coast and I really agree with petition. The Trolley here seemed idealistic to be at first, "I can take the train downtown from my apartment in 40 minutes!" I thought. I love driving as much as most people but parking downtown is not fun to find. So I took the train twice, but after being on the train, I won't do it again. There are several people shouting odd things and no police in sight addressing that. Along with an recent armed robbery of 16 year old on the train, I'm thinking that this well designed system totally flopped its daily execution. If California could invest some one time resources (make the platforms gated and require paid fares to ride, maybe some tech to know if people are riding the train with no destination) and recurring resources (heavier police presence on trains) towards the Trolley in San Diego they could pull some cars off the highway.
Public transit options are most beneficial if people feel safe and confident riding them.
Or maybe we could invest more in mental health care and public education and the like instead of shunting off the poors somewhere else so you don't have to see them.
Somehow hyperloops are better than high speed rail. In actuality they are the same thing except a hyperloop has a pointless tube protecting it. The original hyperloop concept and the 'hyperloops' being worked on are completely different.
Hyperloop is a rebrand. This is a terrible idea, instead of opting for urban sprawl and more roadways, increase density, increase public transit facilities, and actually PLAN development projects.
Imagine thinking that "high-speed self-driving cars, electric airplanes, and maybe even Hyperloops" are viable solutions for transit problems of today when none of them exist in any real viable form and have major obstacles to overcome in order to exist. Reminds me of the craze with pneumatic transport in the past. It too was the way of the future and NYC even had a model pneumatic subway line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beach_Pneumatic_Transit. Lost out to the normal train by a long way.
> We can fund this by stopping the high-speed rail, and spend the $68+ billion we are planning to spend on that on better local rapid transit systems, improved bus lines, and new roads instead
This proposal would replace a real and coming solution (HSR) with vague proposals ("improved bus line") and tech that may not pan out for years if ever ("electric airplanes"). I'm skeptical.
The HSR will provide a significant improvement for the Bay Area->LA route, and provide rail service to places that currently don't have it at all (eg. Fresno->San Jose). If we kill HSR, it's entirely likely that we'll end up with both no HSR, no hyperloop, and no super-speedy self driving cars. I'd rather keep chugging along on HSR, and build the hyperloop (or whatever comes next) when it's ready.
Yeah, there's some magical thinking that it'll take several decades to fully roll out "yesterday's technology", but somehow, by the time hyperloop technology is production ready, it won't take several more decades to actually get one built.
Since this is a topic I'm studying/researching heavily at the moment (it's at the heart of my new startup), I'd like to comment on some of Sam's passages:
> If we unclog our infrastructure we can spread out to more of the state and increase the supply of developable land. There is lots of land in this state, but only a small amount is close to jobs.
I disagree. The trick is not to simply increase the supply of "buildable" land. That way, the main effect would be to increase sprawl. Jobs are usually in already-dense areas, in which most land has already been developed.
A different, perhaps smarter plan could be to do what some small companies are doing in Barcelona: allow buildings to add 1-2 floors at the top. It increases density, and housing supply.
> If we make it easier to quickly travel longer distances in/out of work hubs, the intense demand for housing can be diffused to communities that can handle it.
I don't see how this passage is related to the previous one. Alleviating traffic? Good luck. Until we have 90% or more driverless cars, traffic is not going to change.
> We should double our annual infrastructure budget. We can fund this by stopping the high-speed rail, and spend the $68+ billion we are planning to spend on that on better local rapid transit systems, improved bus lines, and new roads instead. This will allow people to live in more affordable housing and have a better quality of life.
Yes, $68 Billion can be spent much better, I agree. But investing them in a generic "infrastructure" is not going to solve the problem at all.
I'll give you one of many possible examples: when you build an additional highway lane, traffic temporarily goes down. On average, after 6.5 years, traffic is back to the original level (everything else being equal).
You can actually reduce traffic by REDUCING the amount of roads available, as long as the resulting roadmap is "simpler" to navigate for human drivers. Sometimes, you get less traffic accidents by REMOVING road signs. Etc. Etc.
> A lot more people need this more than they need a train from LA to SF. In any case, the train is yesterday’s technology. By the time it’s completed, we will have new and much better technology, like high-speed self-driving cars, electric airplanes, and maybe even Hyperloops.
We already have one of the best transportation systems that could be invented, in terms of price-performance: bicycles. We don't need to trouble HyperLoops and the like.
But I agree that investing in trains is not the right thing to do.
In essence, what Sam is suggesting is to divert that $68B to something smarter: on this, I wholeheartedly agree.
reply