Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

“ let’s say we build 30 miles of subway, about what Manhattan has in that area.”

Public transportation that connects to nothing is not useful. The NY metro area has a massive public transit set of systems that extend out for a hundred miles in every direction. That’s why you can support such density.

edit: It's 665 miles of MTA track, 14 miles for PATH, 700 miles of LIRR train tracks, and 385 for Metro North tracks. Plus Amtrak and the regional buses (the new depot alone for those will cost $10 billion).



On the other hand, the fact that the Bay Area has a bunch of chronically congested freeways due to everyone driving to work is a clear symptom that we need better transportation such as rail transport or buses. For example CA 85 is clearly congested in the direction of driving towards Apple in the morning and away from Apple in the evening.


Sure but if housing density also increases then you'll just keep the existing equilibrium. NYC has the best public transit in the US with less than half the households even owning a car. Yes car traffic is famously bad.


People in Saratoga successfully stopped the development of rail in that corridor.


NYC used to be a zillion municipalities that grew into 5 boroughs over time.

The only way you could swing that kind of government heft is to reincorporate the Bay Area into a similarly singular entity.

Otherwise, as is now, all problems in the Bay are the fault and responsibility of the next city over.


> reincorporate the Bay Area into a similarly singular entity.

I really wish this would happen, the city boundaries are so small and arbitary


Yes and no. In transient oriented development you can build the transit infrastructure first and then densify around the new nodes of transit.


I agree but that's not what the article is discussing and accounting for the costs of.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: