Re:To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock mus...
by epistasis on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @10:25AM
(#16967260)
I agree, and my phrasing was imprecise; we do need to assume that roads will be used to some degree, but we also need to allow for types of living that don't use freeways, or even perhaps allow living without a car.
Right now local regulations require large amounts of parking, which means large amounts of the most valuable space devoted just to cars, and forcing people to pay for the car. If you're forced to pay an additional 10% in rent to cover the space used for parking, then you're probably going to get a car.
If people were allowed to make the decision to not have cars and reap the financial benefits, we'd see a bigger shift.
As it is, car use is regulated into the way that we build things.
Re:To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock mus...
by st26 on Tuesday May 01, 2018 @10:43AM
(#16967385)
The capacity of the road network cannot be increased forever. The Bay already has some damn big freeways, and Texas has already shown that "wider" does not mean "uncongested", with their 26-lane Katy Freeway, one of the most congested in the country...
Also, compared to most other places, traffic laws out here are ridiculously inefficient. For example, light cycles that include a “yield on left turn” step and then skip the left arrow if the lane has cleared are incredibly rare. Also, instead of “left lane fast, right lane slow”, the law is “use whatever lane you’re comfortable in”.
Simply ripping out the “improvements” made in the last decade and bringing traffic laws in line with the rest of the US would increase road capacity by double digit percentages.
(The lack of progress on public transit is also embarrassing, especially given the tax and income levels around here)