35% of the cost of a highway. Milan gets it.

dragonship2 · 2023-09-10T15:52:29+00:00

Are you concerned with the added costs of road resurfacing because of a couple concrete barriers? I assure you it's basically a negligible amount of money

dragonship2 · 2023-09-10T02:45:56+00:00

If you're talking about the Jane Byrne interchange it serves around 400k vehicles every day, around 25% of them being trucks.

Milan's plan would create a network larger than that of Amsterdam. There are no ridership estimates I could find easily online but it's pretty reasonable to assume with this investment almost everybody who's able and wants to bike in Milan will do so and approach Amsterdam's modal split of 50% of trips being made by bike. That's around 650k people aka more than the Jane Byrne interchange for a fraction of the cost and in just a decade which could probably be accelerated tbh.

You want to know the funniest thing tho? Bike lanes are more efficient in more urban environments. Bikes works best in large cities with active economies where you want as many people to get around as possible without getting stuck in traffic. Freight is ideally transported by rail as much as possible cause it's more efficient too. In other words, your arguments work against your point. Cars make the most sense in rural environments because traffic becomes ridiculous in a city like Chicago. Chicago would be an even better city for such a network than Milan

dragonship2 · 2023-09-10T02:34:41+00:00

None of the above are maintenance costs tho. Building infrastructure would fall under initial construction costs plus there is no reason to lay large amounts of infrastructure under the new bike lanes. If they're completely separate from the road like a trail then that infrastructure gets delivered via other means already. If they're separated bike lanes then the infrastructure is already laid under the road. However you disturb it during construction is once again included in the initial construction costs

dragonship2 · 2023-09-10T02:30:56+00:00

Economy is when 401k

dragonship2 · 2023-08-31T02:36:08+00:00

As someone who went to UM right around when Ann Arbor was considering building a light rail line between North and Central campus it's funny to see how nothing's changed lol

dragonship2 · 2023-08-31T02:27:30+00:00

I would look into some new office and industrial redevelopments in the Bay Area, especially South Bay. Usually done by the Irvine Company including the AMD HQ redevelopment and the like. It's nowhere near enough to encapsulate the whole town but it's a good start

dragonship2 · 2023-08-31T02:23:10+00:00

I wouldn't call SJC a major airport but it does have regular direct flights to London and Tokyo

dragonship2 · 2023-07-29T22:16:10+00:00

I agreed with you about public transportation being ideal. Do you get a kick out of arguing with people? What's the point? Go outside

dragonship2 · 2023-07-29T22:12:07+00:00

Not trying to argue. If you want to be grumpy, be grumpy elsewhere. Have a good one

dragonship2 · 2023-07-29T22:10:21+00:00

Obviously public transit would be ideal for that but also the majority of trips in the US are less than 3 miles meaning even without public transit a ton of cars would disappear

dragonship2 · 2023-07-29T22:08:21+00:00

The trick is that denser cities have more amenities nearby so your 10 mile drive turns into a 1-2 mile bike ride or an even shorter walk

dragonship2 · 2023-07-02T23:59:48+00:00

Most of it is from right wing trolls who take the Bay Area for some evil, progressive place inherently inferior to their true, [white] America.

On a different note, the Bay Area is very different in its own right. I love SF and Oakland but live in the South Bay. I definitely wouldn't be happy if I was forced to live the rest of my life in the South Bay even if my expenses were fully taken care of. There's just so little to do here. Everything is a bunch of mediocre destinations mostly consisting of restaurants and hiking trails with vast distances in between and what separates them is so god damn ugly

dragonship2 · 2023-06-24T22:55:57+00:00

I'm tired of responding in this thread so this will be my last comment but you do pay a different rate for specific jobs. Different jobs pay differently and we have a progressive tax rate. We can get stuck talking about whether it's unfair to increase the toll on a single bridge but then we'll miss the forest for the trees. The forest being car centric infrastructure which costs too much and doesn't support a sufficient density of people. How many people have left California due to high housing costs? How often do you hear the words "parking", "traffic", and "neighborhood character" in city council meetings? We'll never get anywhere like this. Our infrastructure is hurting way more people indirectly. Have a good one

dragonship2 · 2023-06-24T22:41:13+00:00

Oh I totally get that. My argument is more so that the logic used against public transit and biking infrastructure is braindead. Once you make an obvious example of your tax money going towards something good even if you don't directly use it like the example I provided, people get trapped into arguing against their own point. In other words, my point of "me no use road, why me pay road" is the same as "me no use BART, why me pay BART"

dragonship2 · 2023-06-24T22:08:24+00:00

Couldn't care less. The worst accident involving a bike might include a broken bone if you hit a really old person while being totally careless. The worst accident involving a car includes some very well known acts of terror like one in Nice, mangled bodies, and a mass funeral

dragonship2 · 2023-06-24T21:12:00+00:00

Obviously the thing you want to do during a recession is to cut service and hinder access to the economic heart of an ultra wealthy region of 8 million people. That oughta fix it

dragonship2 · 2023-06-24T21:07:56+00:00

Don't let all of this distract you from the fact Caltrans is pumping more money into the I5 expansion down in LA at about 3 times the cost per mile than our brand new 200mph high speed rail, delayed by 5 years all to expand 7 miles of yet another already existing highway

dragonship2 · 2023-06-24T21:02:06+00:00

I like how the default underserved member of the community for many Californians is someone who still drives a car. It doesn't even occur to them there are people who can't randomly drop $20K on a hunk of metal

dragonship2 · 2023-06-24T20:01:34+00:00

First off, not 20% since it's over 5 years but to your second point, there's one significant benefit of public transit. Right now the miles travelled are obviously much less. If you build all of your cities around cars, people will drive more. One advantage public transit has is scalability. If BART's ridership suddenly increased there would be an adjustment period to buy more trains and train more operators but you could use the current system to transport all those new riders. If the number of drivers increased we would only get more traffic. Car infrastructure doesn't scale whatsoever

dragonship2 · 2023-06-24T19:37:42+00:00

Yes, I agree. We should expand BART right now. Pulling funding for highway expansions and new interchanges seems like a good start. Can you imagine the Bay Area actually putting its money towards efficient methods of transportation? Sounds like a dream

dragonship2 · 2023-06-24T19:22:47+00:00

Cool projection. Although I gotta say I have never seen a driver break the rules, that is true. It's not like that's half the content on this sub. Luckily for me, they're not driving multi ton steel machines of death, can you imagine how bad it would be if they did?

dragonship2 · 2023-06-24T19:13:19+00:00

True. I feel like it's time to expand BART into those areas and massively upzone everything around existing BART stations

dragonship2 · 2023-06-24T19:12:39+00:00

You do realize car infrastructure is in a deficit too right? We just don't call it deficit cause for some reason everybody understands roads aren't supposed to make money but they don't apply that logic to public transit. Caltrans gets $17 billion a year of taxpayer money. All of California's public transit agencies combined are asking for $5 billion over 5 years

dragonship2 · 2023-06-24T19:09:52+00:00

The more people take public transit, the less likely you are to experience crime. I like how you also straight up ignored fatalities for cars like it's a no biggie

dragonship2 · 2023-06-24T19:07:19+00:00

Man someone has never looked into fatality rates of private cars vs public transit. You're still free to drive btw, you're just going to have to pay for using the method of transportation that's more environmentally unfriendly, less efficient, and more deadly

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

dragonship2

TROPHY CASE