Josh Smith • 6 years ago
A partial solution is no more massive job growth until the infrastructure can begin to catch up. But most don't want to hear that.
Eamonn • 6 years ago
And I ask again how you propose to stop job growth. If a company wants to hire more people, how is anyone supposed to stop them?
Mike Smith • 6 years ago
So you suggest we completely abandon all attempts at urban, regional and environmental planning? Allow unrestricted development and growth?
I suppose it makes sense. We already gave up on any transportation planning save for the occasional band aid.
If you thought sprawl was a problem... you ain't seen nothing yet!
Eamonn • 6 years ago
As you know I've always advocated smarter and more sustainable urban planning so that job growth (which is inevitable) doesn't cause massive traffic headaches.
Josh Smith • 6 years ago
Don't want to stop ALL job growth, but cities have the power to deny new construction.
Eamonn • 6 years ago
Don't tell me. You only want to stop job growth that adversely affects you personally?
Bob Richards • 6 years ago
A tax imposed on every "employee day" an employee spends at, or is assigned to appear at, a Bay Area work location would likely encourage some employers to leave the area and others to reduce the number of employees locally. That could help.
A moratorium on new office building, conversion to office space, or increasing capacity for employees in existing office space would also help.
Neither would completely solve the problem as telecommuters still use roads directly (for shopping etc) and indirectly (by buying products shipped to their market), but the big congestion problem is during commute hours.
Myth Dispulsion • 6 years ago
The lefty-left government of Seattle recently rejected a tax like this, 5-4. They heard about it from businesses. (They're likely to try again sometime later, if they think they can succeed.)
http://www.king5.com/news/p...
It should be added that there was an activist-style head tax in earlier years in Seattle. The more recent attempt was a tax to pay to assist the homeless and other Good Causes. The earlier tax was part of a set of measures to pay for transportation work. Those who commuted by politically favored means weren't taxed.
There's a lot going on between Treat and the 680 South-24 West split. I deal with this area all the time.
In order:
1. The on-ramp from Treat by the CHP truck scales.
2. Another on-ramp from Treat just south of that one.
3. An off-ramp for Main Street.
4. Just past that the right lane ends.
5. An on-ramp from San Luis Road (Main St.)
6. The 24 East split.
7. Just past that the right lane ends again.
8. The on-ramp from Ygnacio Valley Road
9. The off-ramp for Olympic Blvd., that requires getting over into the on-ramp lane from Ygnacio Valley Road.
10. Exacerbated by people who enter 680 at an of the on-ramps along there having a very short span to get over if they want to continue on 680 South.
11: Let's throw in slow moving trucks entering when the scales are open.
All this in about 2 1/4 miles. It seems a design nightmare but decades ago there wasn't this level of traffic. It appears to me there would have to be some real major changes to improve this any and I can't say it would be worth it.