Hacker News Reader

Comment by BrissyCoder | Hacker News Reader

I'm pro-roads personally. Most of this article seems fairly unsubstantiated to me. Where are the citations?

Its not just anti-road. Its non-dense development. The more spread out services the more resources it takes to maintain them.

The fact of the matter is that we've been accumulating "debt" to build suburbs by ignoring the costs of C02 emmisions and letting the gov subsidise construction w/o plans for upkeep

You should watch (Growth Ponzi Scheme)[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0] from not just bikes

This is precisely why San Francisco is so expensive relative to the rest of the country. SF's infrastructure seems expressly designed to prevent people from commuting from cheaper, outlying areas. This effectively limits the housing supply by forcing everyone to live in the city proper. There is a tradeoff to be made here, which I feel is being ignored.

Sorry for the late response. I think the solution is clearly to make more places like San Francisco. Not to make SF more like everywhere else.

As someone who has lived in places where you really don’t need a car, it’s hard to explain how fundamentally different they are.

I don’t live in one anymore, and it was awkward when friends visited (hardly any parking), but some aspects of it were profoundly pleasant in ways that I couldn’t have understood before I tried it.

Selling my car to live in London for a bit was a welcome relief! The downside is mile for mile it takes longer to get somewhere on public transport even in London where the services are regular enough you tend not to plan a trip.

There are very few routes in Switzerland that aren't faster by train. Likely it's all by design to some degree (and we'll our train network is just kinda brilliant)

Over all scales? 2km trip, 5km trip, 20km trip, 100km trip, from/to any destination (e.g. from my house to friends house).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com