A certain poster’s dream. Merry Christmas

[FecalFace]

Part of the approvals for that project will have included various studies relating to traffic management and such. It's really common for the development of a subdivision to be required to install a signalized traffic controls at an intersection that's down the road. Or adding lanes to an existing road to handle more traffic. Etc.

Not really any different in effect than doubling the allowable density in an older neighborhood that was mapped in the 1900s and which has narrow streets which cannot readily accommodate twice the traffic and on-street parking. Either way they're adding to the traffic and parking situations. The same with urbanization along the existing traffic corridors - you're going to get more traffic overall. There's no way around that.

Well actually there is a way around that, but you are only interested in status quo.

Adding to an already significant traffic problem, is just e plain stupid.

Developers putting traffic lights is not going to fix congestion. There's no space to put more lanes.

Pure lack of foresight or more likely just not giving a sh!t. It's all about the short term gain.

 

[GDaddy]

Betting on a multi-billion dollar mass transit system in advance of its feasibility being established is a non-starter. If we can get the existing lines and bus services running at a break even THEN we can build those systems out from there, but it remains to be seen if that's even possible.

Start simple - lets see if we can get a bus system to operate at capacity. If we can't even get the bus lines running then light rail is just a waste of cash - particularly given the state's budget situation.

 

[FecalFace]

Betting on a multi-billion dollar mass transit system in advance of its feasibility being established is a non-starter. If we can get the existing lines and bus services running at a break even THEN we can build those systems out from there, but it remains to be seen if that's even possible.

Uh, building infrastructure is not meant to be for-profit business. It's paid by the taxpayer to benefit taxpayer and the economy.
It's not about "breaking even".

The existing public transportation is a joke, that's why only the desperate use it.

California will never be a Euro-style nation.

That's your loss.

You're constantly trying to drag this country back to the 19th century.

Make America Shithole Again.

 

[GDaddy]

So if the govt can't operate the existing service competently then why should we give them more of those assets to mismanage?

What the greenies need to do is sell your vision of urbanism to the people like you who say one thing but then do the opposite in your own lives. If lefties like you won't make the lifestyle adjustments it takes to use mass transit then how can you expect anyone else to do it?

Not that I expect you to actually change your lifestyle, because I know you won't. I anticipate that you're going to continue doing what you're doing because people tend to act like... people. Not like how some enlightened coastal elite would live if only they actually were "better than that" the way they say they are. IRL people will generally act in what they consider to be their own best interests on the personal level.

By definition, what "should be" generally....isn't.

 

[FecalFace]

So if the govt can't operate the existing service competently then why should we give them more of those assets to mismanage?

What the greenies need to do is sell your vision of urbanism to the people like you who say one thing but then do the opposite in your own lives. If lefties like you won't make the lifestyle adjustments it takes to use mass transit then how can you expect anyone else to do it?

Not that I expect you to actually change your lifestyle, because I don't. I anticipate that you're going to continue doing what you're doing because that's what people tend to act like... people. Not like how an idealized human would live if only they actually were "better than that".

By definition, what "should be" generally....isn't.

Back to building a straw man and non-sequiturs.

There are no living options in California where you don't have to drive for even the simplests tasks. None.
I live within a walking distance to a train, which are slow and irregular and not connected to a greater network.
I use my bike for errands almost daily. Those are my options right now.

The point that I'm making and that you're ignoring. is that this way of life in a densely populated area, like Southern California is becoming, is simply not sustainable. That's the reality that you are refusing to accept.

I'm sorry that you don't have enough foresight to see that.
Like I said, your loss.
It's just a shame that you're dragging the rest of us into your shithole.

 

[GDaddy]

Forget absolutes, and i never argued that if the first place. We can just address the disconnect between your stated values and your actual lifestyle with a simple question:

Could you make the adjustments it takes to live significantly closer to your stated values or not? Could you live closer to the majority of your employment or not? Could you live closer to your grocery shopping than you do?

I know how the Valley is set up. I know what the transit lines look like, and I know you could do a lot better that way then you are currently. So stop blaming the lack of social progress on people like me who don't believe the as yet unproven theory hype that a signifcant percentage of drivers will give up the flexibility and personal freedom of their own transportation in order to create a bike-centric community. By which I am not referring to one of the towns in Europe where most people never had that level of mobility to begin with.


You need to create the social values and sufficient rider demand for these services first. Do that and it becomes a lot more obvious that it won't just be another waste of money.

 

[FecalFace]

Forget absolutes, and i never argued that if the first place. We can just address the disconnect between your stated values and your actual lifestyle with a simple question:

Could you make the adjustments it takes to live significantly closer to your stated values or not? Could you live closer to the majority of your employment or not? Could you live closer to your grocery shopping than you do?

I know how the Valley is set up. I know what the transit lines look like, and I know you could do a lot better that way then you are currently. So stop blaming the lack of social progress on people like me who don't believe the as yet unproven theory hype that a signifcant percentage of drivers will give up the flexibility and personal freedom of their own transportation in order to create a bike-centric community. By which I am not referring to one of the towns in Europe where most people never had that level of mobility to begin with.


You need to create the social values and sufficient rider demand for these services first. Do that and it becomes a lot more obvious that it won't just be another waste of money.

Straw man.

I didn't say ban cars and freedom to drive.

I didn't say don't live in single family homes.

I said that there's no plan or foresight for when that's not possible anymore in certain areas.

Seriously, stop with chick games.

I can't live "closer to work" because my work is not in any one place. Which is not what majority of people do.

LA is not fucking countryside. Stop pretending it is.

 

[Oakleys_N_Zinka]

I'm glad I left the city. 6 acres, no traffic jams, no left turn arrows. It's great to just pee outside whenever you gotta go.

 

[manbearpig]

Lest we forget the entire premise of this post was the false one of single family homes being banned.

 

[GDaddy]

Lest we forget the entire premise of this post was the false one of single family homes being banned.

Single family zoning is what's effectively being banned retired.

The only reliable way to ensure a neighborhood of detached homes with the picket fences will stay that way will be if they're built on a condo or PUD map. If I was a developer who thought that "guaranteed to stay like this" was a marketable hook that's how I'd design the project, and then the Central Planning Bureau in Sacramento could GFY. .

 

[manbearpig]

Again, single family homes won’t be going anywhere.

those people aren’t getting kicked out.

not all new buildings will be two family.

the sky is not falling.

 

[Ifallalot]

Lest we forget the entire premise of this post was the false one of single family homes being banned.

Fecalizing still

If single family zoning is being retired, the tyrants that grant the permits won't grant new builds to be single family. This means that the existing single family homes will rise past what regular people can afford, and there will be tear downs to replace single family homes with apartment buildings or townhouse complexes like I live in.

I've learned recently that having a yard is fascist and the equivalent three coal burning plants so we must repent

 

[rts265]

The problem is we are full. People need to stop coming here. Fuck high density housing.

 

[GDaddy]

At issue here is that a lot of people bought properties that included certain rights - the existing zoning densities being one of them. The State is now stripping those protections from those property owners so instead of living in a neighborhood of similar density they are now subject to their neighbors imposing higher densities on the adjacent and nearby properties.

There might be a benefit to society for it, but that benefit comes at a cost. It's not a completely pain-free solution.

Anyone who has ever seen neighbors get into it over stupid sht like a loud back yard party running late at night or over neighbors parking on the street in front of someone else's house or tree branches hanging over a fence or a tree growing tall enough to obscure a view amenity will understand that people take their property rights seriously.

 

[rts265]

Thanks gdaddy. Man I’d be pissed if that happened to my neighborhood. We picked where we are at because it is single family homes where right across the major street it’s a different city with 2-3 on a lot and totally overcrowded. It’s just gross.

 

[GDaddy]

Just wait until the speculators get going, and buying properties in your neighborhood with the intent of adding rental units. Then the percentage of owner-users goes into decline, and with it that "pride of ownership" thing.

 

[manbearpig]

Fecalizing still

If single family zoning is being retired, the tyrants that grant the permits won't grant new builds to be single family. This means that the existing single family homes will rise past what regular people can afford, and there will be tear downs to replace single family homes with apartment buildings or townhouse complexes like I live in.

I've learned recently that having a yard is fascist and the equivalent three coal burning plants so we must repent

You’re just moving goal posts now and ignoring what you said.

tyrants Now that’s fecalizing.

 

[Ifallalot]

You’re just moving goal posts now and ignoring what you said.

tyrants Now that’s fecalizing.

Moving goalposts? Ignoring? This is all I've ever been arguing about

And any permitting/licensing process is tyranny by definition, just like taxation is theft

 

[mundus]

Moving goalposts? Ignoring? This is all I've ever been arguing about

And any permitting/licensing process is tyranny by definition, just like taxation is theft

For F sakes if you don't like living in CA move and quit your bitching.

 

[ElOgro]

The problem is we are full. People need to stop coming here. fook high density housing.

That’s what I said when I left ... in 1979.