News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by majormajor on Friday October 27, 2017 @12:59PM (#15570168)
Much of the infrastructure was built when (1) the country was so rich that most of the people with any influence at all had cars and (2) the country was less populated so traffic and parking were less severe problems.

Everybody builds the infrastructure that the then-state-of-the-art calls for. That was roads and freeways for most of the US. It's an accident of history, not an idiotic mistake. Not doing anything about it for the past ten years is the possible mistake, but from the perspective of the people who already live somewhere, and like having relatively lower density, they have just as much right to doing things how they want as the new tech crowd interlopers do.

Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by Johnny555 on Friday October 27, 2017 @02:30PM (#15570992)
Much of the transit infrastructure was torn down and replaced with roads. The bay area had a great rail system, but it was removed.

The Key System is one notable example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_System

The new Bay Bridge span was specifically not designed to carry rail, so rail over the bridge is not coming back.

Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by archagon on Friday October 27, 2017 @01:08PM (#15570254)
I actually sympathize with the NIMBY-ers quite a bit when it comes to housing. But in terms of transportation, it depresses me to know from first-hand experience how much better things could be. Better public transit is simply a win-win for almost everyone: far fewer cars, more pedestrian areas and access, an increased number of people willing to live outside the city, and streets that don't feel like DMZs. City life is categorically improved when you no longer have to shuffle streetcar schedules or chase the bus around. (Or sit in traffic for 3 hours to go across town.)
Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by hencq on Friday October 27, 2017 @01:32PM (#15570483)
This is what bothers me whenever I hear people rave about the future that driverless cars will finally make possible. They basically list your win-win list: far fewer cars, more pedestrian areas, etc. That might all be true, but we don't to wait for self-driving cars for that! Just build reliable public transportation just like countless cities have already done.
Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by ghaff on Friday October 27, 2017 @01:48PM (#15570639)
>the future that driverless cars will finally make possible

I tend to think these are further away than most people think. But I also have a lot of trouble seeing how they don't massively increase traffic. Maybe you need less parking and maybe inter-car communications can make traffic move more smoothly. But does anyone seriously believe that people will drive less when they effectively have a personal driver at their beck and call?

Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by closeparen on Friday October 27, 2017 @10:37PM (#15573704)
>Better public transit is simply a win-win for almost everyone

No it isn't. Many neighborhoods are quiet and/or cheap because they're difficult to access. Their residents have a vested interest in keeping it that way. You don't vote for a new subway stop if you'll be priced out or have your perception fo quiet and safety ruined by the people it brings.

Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by bwanab on Friday October 27, 2017 @01:12PM (#15570295)
They only have that right if we believe that it's ok for some people to shrug off the fact that they're contributing several times the amount of carbon into the atmosphere than they would otherwise.
Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by nerfhammer on Friday October 27, 2017 @01:22PM (#15570406)
the way they want to do things causes ends up causing massive suffering for really no good reason.