Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonman
Yes, evil conservatives cause smog, unlike liberals who do not drive.
If only CEQA was larger and more well funded, it would be free of corruption. We all know that any agency conceived and managed by liberals would be free from pandering to special interest groups. Good grief man.
|
Man, there you go putting words straight into my mouth. I never said anything about liberals not driving, or conservatives being solely responsible for all environmental ills. Both sides be pretty bad about using CEQA as a legal cudgel, I've dealt with granola munching hippies demanding I treat an industrial permit like a nature reserve because of some microscopic fairy shrimp and I've had allegedly "pro-business" republican elected officials fight me at every turn because my project might slow down their constituents' skyrocketing home values.
It's gotten to the point where I'd prefer a bunch of damn bureaucrats to our current system, at least a bureaucracy is predictable. The city and the state rarely troubles us, work with them enough and you'll know how keep them happy. But all these citizen groups man, you're pulled in a million different directions. I can't know if I'll be sued by a bunch of environmental activists because I didn't include the latest climate change tech (which btw takes so much resources to produce it still won't have paid back its carbon debt in 30 years when I need to replace it) or a set of conservative homeowners worried that we'll attract "the wrong sort of people" to their neighborhood, or even one of my competitors trying to kneecap me right out of the gate. As a pro-business, pro-development voter it's gotten to the point where I have no choice but to support policies trying to get us out of this hobbesian state of nature, if that means supporting increased regulation and taxes then so be it. Call me all the dirty names you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mello
What does "Central City" mean? If that is talking about downtown commuting only then of course Seattle will crush San Diego because it probably has 3 times the amount of jobs in its downtown. Just look at the skyline Seattle has waaay more office space. If it is talking about commuting to job centers other than downtown than that is impressive.
I know this is an urban forum and we all want to see cities have more people using transit. Maybe with SD the traffic simply hasn't gotten that bad yet? I've heard driving in Seattle can be really rough at times. Maybe San Diego is where LA traffic was in 2004 and Seattle was in 2008. We just haven't hit that breaking point yet where enough people say "Christ my commute is horrendous there must be another way!!!". Perhaps that is coming soon.
** Perfect example: LA in 2008 with Measure R. Ten years ago they said resoundingly YES PLEASE TAX US! Lol. So look at all the transit projects that came from that. Traffic in SD simply isn't bad enough for people to be willing to pay for a Measure R type thing.
|
SD is the 8th largest city in the US but has the 3rd shortest average commute. It isn't 2004 LA, it's 1980s LA, and 1980s LA was not nearly as transit friendly as today.
A lot of it has to do with the fact that SD built practically all of its planned freeways, while LA finished less than half before community concerns forced the while thing to be scrapped. Plus SD has to to have a downtown tech boom like Seattle or LA, most people living in DT actually leave the area for work (the reverse of nearly every other major city)