|
Warcabbit posted:You've neglected to mention Of course we're getting some dumb gimmicky bullshit instead of putting more money into literally anything that makes sense.
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
Also speaking of Austin and San Antonio, the rail line between them that has been in planning for years is on the ropes (even more than before) because Union Pacific broke their agreement to let them use UP right of way. http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2016/03/potential-train-wreck-ahead-for-lone-star-rail/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Are any of the BRT projects in the US actual BRTs? Like with dedicated lanes and special stations? In Austin what was sold to us as BRT is a total joke - semidedicated lanes downtown and then they use normal lanes everywhere else. They run on the exact same routes as normal buses and are 3 or 4 minutes fast I think.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:In Minneapolis/St. Paul: I wonder who came up with selling BRTs like this in the US. Is this something else I can blame on Richard Florida?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Nobody came up with it. It's just American clusterfuck politics in general. I think this is pretty much how it worked out in Austin. We also just lost a rail bond election last year from a combo of people in the outer parts of the city not thinking it would benefit them and transit advocates refusing to vote for it because they thought it didn't follow the correct route  It wasn't on the route they wanted because that's the route our """BRT""" is on.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 21:52
|
|
" Then anti-government-spending conservatives come spilling out, because they just can't fathom putting actual resources into what they view as last-resort poverty transit. "Spend money on a bus station?! It's just a bus station! Gubmint wastin yer money agin! 
"
|
Funding a public transit system with traffic fines sounds like a terrible idea.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:There's always the option of not breaking traffic law to escape the "shakedown". I'm sure all those black people in Ferguson were just rampant lawbreakers.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Harik posted:What is the name of the rule that requires a gigantic desert of scalding hot parking lot between the road/sidewalk and the business? That's one of those "gently caress everyone without a car" rules, because there's no practical reason why you can't have parking in the back with the business right up on the sidewalk. A planning professor told me a lot of national retail chains still insist on big setbacks with huge parking lots because they want people to know they can park at their stores. Not sure if that's changing or not, but I do know some chains have started doing urban formats that don't fit the traditional big box look.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:The only real-time tracking my rinky-dink local bus system uses is you calling the transit department and them in turn calling the bus driver's work cell. It was the only way I could find out whether the bus skipped my stop or it was just really, really late the last time it snowed. (It skipped my stop and I was late to classes that day Holy poo poo. How many bus lines are there where you live?
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2016 22:16
|
|
)
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Let us imagine, if you would, that you is council P of a city of ~100k. Also that you loving hate buses b/c they bullshit without times telling ya when they arrive and now fixed RoW's A law banning panhandling, probably
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
The White House just put out an urbanism wet dream of policy prescriptions: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Housing_Development_Toolkit%20f.2.pdf The essential message is that heavy-handed zoning restrictions cost money, increase inequality, and exacerbate segregation. The recommendations are: -by right development -tax or donate vacant land -streamline/shorten permitting processes -eliminate parking minimums -allow ADUs -establish density bonuses -zone more high-density and multifamily -inclusionary zoning -development tax or value capture incentives (not sure what this means as I haven't read the full paper yet) -property tax abatements
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
I mean anything is too ambitious considering the federal government has very few ways to change local zoning rules (the grants mentioned in the intro). I think the biggest help from this is that now urbanists in left-leaning cities can point to this and say "if you're calling us astroturf pro-developer shills you're saying the same thing about Obama."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Is it just me or does Accenture gently caress up every government project they get?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
California's insane 66% requirement is so stupid. I imagine they can pass easily, but does anyone think they'll be able to get 66%?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
boner confessor posted:these are all state/local level referendums, the federal government can't do anything about it. USDOT does fund some transit through grants or low interest loans. If they pull a bunch of that money it won't derail (haha) these projects but it could make them a lot smaller.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 04:07
|
|