Ug. I'm a 'yimby' and a Weiner voter. But his take on San Francisco transit is just like really bad. Pokey streetcars and buses, doomed to fail. You build out there in those blue areas, and they are mostly all driving.

My take is you build it, and THEN they come. Put in some GOOD transit. Make sure the utilities are in place. Developers will then flock to the place. This whole thing is using inside-out logic. Have a real plan first.

▲ lacker 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

We DID build good transit. It takes 15 minutes to get from the MacArthur BART to downtown San Francisco! But the walkable area around that station is full of single-family housing. It's a huge waste building all of this incredible public transit and then not allowing apartment buildings near it.

The same is true for so many of the East Bay BART stops. Amazing transit but apartment buildings are banned so it's much more expensive to live there than it should be.

▲ dlite90 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nah, if you build high-density housing near transit stops the transit will definitely get more ridership (and ergo more funding). You're painting with broad strokes saying "they'll drive anyway!" but really a lot of car trips will get replaced with transit or walking, and that trend will only increase as more dense housing gets built.

▲ reducesuffering 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How are developers going to flock to the place if it’s zoned for Single Family Homes? The whole point of the bill is to upzone

▲

flomo 2 days ago | parent [-]

Because developers are going to include the parking so everyone out there can drive where they are going. Which is my point. The "transit" aspect of this bill is total bullshit. If you like cars, and want more traffic, this is for you.

▲

wongarsu 2 days ago | parent [-]

Those areas are fairly small, and their number is limited. That might drive more space efficient solutions like underground parking or selling spots in a parking garage that serves multiple buildings

	▲	flomo 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲ inferiorhuman 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

  But his take on San Francisco transit is just like really bad. Pokey
  streetcars and buses, doomed to fail. You build out there in those blue
  areas, and they are mostly all driving.

One of the best parts about where I lived in San Francisco was that I was around the corner from a streetcar stop. Pre-pandemic the streetcar was absolutely packed during commute hours because people absolutely do take advantage of "pokey streetcars and buses".

  My take is you build it, and THEN they come. Put in some GOOD transit.

What is GOOD transit? The Bay Area's spent a fortune building out BART (yuck) and every extension has only succeeded in siphoning money away from other transit.

▲ flomo 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yep, me (and my politician Weiner) have some great public transit, so that's certainly true of some places.

Those folks that he is up-zoning out in the avenues, they are driving. Different culture out there. Downvote reality to the left.

GOOD transit it obvious, and it certainly is not a gigantic tunnel deep under downtown San Jose which is 400% over budget. Do not claim there is a lack of money for any of this. The political machine is just totally malfunctional.

▲ inferiorhuman 2 days ago | parent [-]

  Those folks that he is up-zoning out in the avenues, they are
  driving. Different culture out there. Downvote reality to the left.

To be clear I was out in the avenues.

▲ flomo 2 days ago | parent [-]

Just curious exactly what neighborhood and how long did you live there? (duboce triangle, a long time)

I know a bunch of people who live/d out there, they take muni downtown but mostly have a car. Perhaps you could regal in tales of your car-free lifestyle in the Sunset, but i'm not seeing it. Weiner wants condos out there and he does not give a shit about your bus ride.

▲ inferiorhuman 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

  he does not give a shit about your bus ride.

As I pointed out earlier streetcar, not a bus ride.

  but i'm not seeing it

Look harder.

Pre-pandemic the L and N were the two busiest rail routes (and the busiest lines systemwide) even considering they share most of the underground portion with four other lines. Somewhere around 75,000 daily trips.

	▲	flomo 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, I know, I take the N, it goes downtown, everywhere else you need a bus (or practically, a car). Sorry if that was confusing.

▲ smugma a day ago | parent | prev [-]

e-bikes seem to have been invented for SF. They solve the hill problem and long lines at school drop offs. I see their growth continuing to reduce car needs in SF.

Sadly, I say this as someone who lives in Duboce Triangle and owns two cars.

▲ mschuster91 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> My take is you build it, and THEN they come. Put in some GOOD transit. Make sure the utilities are in place.

The problem is, that costs money that, for a few years at the very least, will not be recouped. Not many politicians have the ability to push such efforts through regardless of profitability, especially not when the topic in question will be abused by the opposition in their usual culture war bullshit.

	▲	theluketaylor 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It costs a lot less to build transit infrastructure before or at the same time as everything else compared with adding it later, even if the line is underused as density is added. The best alternative is a well-planned phased line with carefully protected right-of-way and a dedicated source of long term funding. Bonus points for it being a combination of value capture taxes and the transit agency being a property developer in their own right around stations. The early phase can be inside the boundary of current development so there are people to ride right away. Developers can build and market using the upcoming line, and prospective residents can be confident it will happen with funding secured.
	▲	flomo 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I was posting about specifics.