LA Times - High Desert Highway

[Plutonic Panda]

It appears trump is trying to lax the laws around tolling and interstates so maybe that won't affect this tollway that much.

[sparker]

As far as designation goes, the logical possibilities are as an extension of CA 18 (which will be the designation of the non-tollway portion east of US 395 or I-15 in any case), replacing the surface CA 18 from I-15 west to CA 138.  If not, then any unused state designation might be applicable (I'd reuse CA 30 for this one if it were my call).  An Interstate designation (x15) would be a long shot, seeing how CA mimics TX in not seeking Interstate designations for toll roads (or much of anything, for that matter!).

[DTComposer]

The time involved -- particularly given the fact that there will be a few urban stations along the single rail line, whereas the airports (particularly around L.A.) are dispersed around the metro area; a rail passenger from Orange County would either have to travel to Los Angeles or take local transportation (ostensibly Metrolink) to the HSR terminal whereas there's a local airport (John Wayne) with numerous daily flights to S.F., Oakland, and San Jose.

I feel like we've had this conversation before, but why are you implying L.A. is going to have only one station?
In phase 1 there are going to be stations at Burbank (near the airport), Los Angeles/Union Station, either Norwalk or Fullerton, and Anaheim. Phase 2 will have stations in the San Gabriel Valley, at/near Ontario Airport, Riverside and Temecula/Murrieta.

Perhaps you're misreading my comment, but I stated that there would be a few stations but arrayed along a single line -- and, at this point, that line will coincide with the present Amtrak and/or Metrolink service.  The point I was attempting to make was that this train service features little difference in traveler preparation -- including transport to the nearest station, parking as needed, etc.  It's basically Amtrak-type service but with higher speeds once away from the urban center.  But since lower speeds are planned from Santa Clarita southward, since it will "piggyback" on Metrolink or Amtrak (former UP and BNSF) tracks down to Anaheim (and LAUPT itself, as a single-ended terminal, is hardly the epitome of efficiency), being the nicest-looking and newest trainset in the bunch is hardly the rider magnet that its backers seem to think it will be.  If the high-speed concept had been extended into central L.A. (on the viaducts that were part of the first iteration) with a dedicated set of stations and possibly a "hub & spoke" feeder system other than Metrolink and LR, then I might be singing a different tune.  But, IMO, there's little to attract riders, at least from the southern end of the system (and the northern end, at least in the initial phase, will mimic its southern counterpart by utilizing the Caltrain trackage up the Peninsula to S.F.).  And since most of the projected ridership originates at the ends of that first stage (whether they'll ever get to Phase Two is TBD by the performance of Phase One; if that falls flat, then P2 likely won't see the light of day), there's little incentive to forsake Southwest and Alaska for a jaunt downtown!   

I appreciate the clarification. I think, if both phases are built, it can be successful for business travelers between downtown SF (or SJ) and downtown LA; the door-to-door time will in all likelihood be comparable, but with less logistical hassle and more time to work/relax during the trip.

I think it would also be easier for families with younger children: right now, the process of checking a car seat and stroller and getting them from baggage claim at the airport is a lot more of a hassle than doing so at the Amtrak stations; people are more free to roam the cabins on trains; and children are less likely to be afraid on trains. I know one trip I would do regularly (San Jose to Anaheim or Fullerton) would be a lot easier logistically and about the same amount of time door-to-door than the current flight (SJC to SNA or LGB).

Back on topic:

This is starting to get a little off-topic here. Any other thoughts about the highway itself? I'm trying to speculate on what it'll be designated as, an interstate or a state route; and if an interstate, either a 2di or 3di.

As mentioned elsewhere, Caltrans hasn't done any new Interstate designations since I-105 was completed. That said, since the proposed highway takes parts of the alignments of two different routes (CA-18 and CA-138), there will need to be some new number or renumbering involved.

What makes the most sense to me is truncating the west end of CA-138 at Palmdale (but having it continue on Pearblossom Highway to CA-14 rather than going north on 47th Street East, having the new highway take CA-18, and then having CA-18 take over the current CA-138 between Lancaster and Gorman.

IF it were to get an Interstate number, I'd consider I-515 since it would likely someday connect I-5 and I-15. I know I-515 exists in Las Vegas, but I think they're far enough apart (there's I-580 in both Northern California and in Reno/Carson City).

[sparker]

What makes the most sense to me is truncating the west end of CA-138 at Palmdale (but having it continue on Pearblossom Highway to CA-14 rather than going north on 47th Street East, having the new highway take CA-18, and then having CA-18 take over the current CA-138 between Lancaster and Gorman.

IF it were to get an Interstate number, I'd consider I-515 since it would likely someday connect I-5 and I-15. I know I-515 exists in Las Vegas, but I think they're far enough apart (there's I-580 in both Northern California and in Reno/Carson City).

Actually -- if the "18" number were to be appropriated for the E-220 portion of the corridor -- and the corridor were to be extended west to I-5 (either as a toll extension or a freeway), it could (fancifully?) be designated as I-18 (it kinda fits in the grid that way), with CA 18 continuing east from I-15 per common practice.  Wouldn't be the shortest 2di around by any means (about 90-95 miles depending upon the actual alignment between I-5 and CA 14) and would provide a continuous number -- which would function particularly well if previous speculations about a "metro bypass" extension around the mountains to I-10 were to reach fruition in the future.  Just a thought!   Besides, it would make more appropriate use of that nice but overbuilt-for-present-usage I-5/CA 138 junction interchange (built on original "Metro Bypass" spec). 

[mrsman]

What makes the most sense to me is truncating the west end of CA-138 at Palmdale (but having it continue on Pearblossom Highway to CA-14 rather than going north on 47th Street East, having the new highway take CA-18, and then having CA-18 take over the current CA-138 between Lancaster and Gorman.

IF it were to get an Interstate number, I'd consider I-515 since it would likely someday connect I-5 and I-15. I know I-515 exists in Las Vegas, but I think they're far enough apart (there's I-580 in both Northern California and in Reno/Carson City).

Actually -- if the "18" number were to be appropriated for the E-220 portion of the corridor -- and the corridor were to be extended west to I-5 (either as a toll extension or a freeway), it could (fancifully?) be designated as I-18 (it kinda fits in the grid that way), with CA 18 continuing east from I-15 per common practice.  Wouldn't be the shortest 2di around by any means (about 90-95 miles depending upon the actual alignment between I-5 and CA 14) and would provide a continuous number -- which would function particularly well if previous speculations about a "metro bypass" extension around the mountains to I-10 were to reach fruition in the future.  Just a thought!   Besides, it would make more appropriate use of that nice but overbuilt-for-present-usage I-5/CA 138 junction interchange (built on original "Metro Bypass" spec).

The CA 48 number, which was supposed to be used for the highway that was proposed many years ago, is currently unconstructed within the CA highway system.   It would be nice to have one number for the corridor and CA 48 is there.

I hope not to delve too deeply into fictional, but I can easily see eastern 138 (Wrightwood-Cajon-Crestline) becoming an extension of CA 2 (as it used to be part of CA 2).  The C-shaped nature of CA-18 bothered me, so I could see CA-18 limited to San Bernardino-Lucerne Valley and CA-48 taking over the main east-west portion of the routing Palmdale-Victorville-Lucerne Valley.  The remaining part of 138 could be a new number that is signed as XX west to CA-48 Palmdale and XX east to CA-2 Cajon.  The main point of doing this is keeping the main east-west bypass route with one number.

[The Ghostbuster]

Is this freeway really going to be constructed? Count me as skeptical.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm feeling the same way. Metro just decided against widening 710 for the time being. It seems people in California are content with sitting in traffic until they beleive transit will save them as that is what is being touted. Maybe soon the public will realize transit won't solve traffic problems and perhaps finally wake up to this non sense.

[The Ghostbuster]

Well, "transit as the solution to traffic congestion" has been promoted around the country since the freeway revolts of the 1960s and 1970s. I wish your last sentence prediction well, Plutonic Panda, but I do not have a lot of optimism.

[theroadwayone]

IF it were to get an Interstate number, I'd consider I-515 since it would likely someday connect I-5 and I-15. I know I-515 exists in Las Vegas, but I think they're far enough apart (there's I-580 in both Northern California and in Reno/Carson City).

The shortest distance between 3dis of the same number is 23 miles--between the I-291s in Springfield, MA and Hartford, CT.

[mrsman]

IF it were to get an Interstate number, I'd consider I-515 since it would likely someday connect I-5 and I-15. I know I-515 exists in Las Vegas, but I think they're far enough apart (there's I-580 in both Northern California and in Reno/Carson City).

The shortest distance between 3dis of the same number is 23 miles--between the I-291s in Springfield, MA and Hartford, CT.

That seems very confusing IMO.  I think 23 miles is too short to have two separate highways of the same number.  But I don't see the problem for I-515, since 1) you are well into Las Vegas before you reach the 15/515 interchange and 2) I-515 will eventually be replaced with I-11, probably befoer teh high desert highway is completed.

[roadfro]

IF it were to get an Interstate number, I'd consider I-515 since it would likely someday connect I-5 and I-15. I know I-515 exists in Las Vegas, but I think they're far enough apart (there's I-580 in both Northern California and in Reno/Carson City).

Also, there is an I-215 in Las Vegas and I-215 in California's Inland Empire region. There is no major source of confusion between these that I am aware of (being separated by about 200 miles helps).

The shortest distance between 3dis of the same number is 23 miles--between the I-291s in Springfield, MA and Hartford, CT.

That seems very confusing IMO.  I think 23 miles is too short to have two separate highways of the same number.  But I don't see the problem for I-515, since 1) you are well into Las Vegas before you reach the 15/515 interchange and 2) I-515 will eventually be replaced with I-11, probably befoer teh high desert highway is completed.

BTW: It is not yet determined that I-11 will completely replace I-515 through Las Vegas.

[Rothman]

Having grown up in western MA, it really wasn't confusing to have two I-291s so close together.  The state boundary might as well have been the Berlin Wall.

[theroadwayone]

I recall reading an article on TRN some years back about possibly building the highway as a toll road. It'll be interesting to see how that develops.

AFAIK, it was always intended to be an ORT facility between Palmdale and US 395; the PPP nature of its proposed development virtually dictates that status.  Whether there will be a transponder link with the existing toll facilities further south in Orange and possibly San Diego counties -- or the toll-lane segments in and around L.A. county -- hasn't been publicized as of yet; I'd stay tuned to see if that transpires.

FWIK there has to be; it's the law.

[skluth]

The shortest distance between 3dis of the same number is 23 miles--between the I-291s in Springfield, MA and Hartford, CT.

The I-265's in Kentucky and Indiana are maybe 5 miles apart, at least until the designation changes on IN-265 and KY-841 is changed to I-265 and the two segments are connected. 

[myosh_tino]

I recall reading an article on TRN some years back about possibly building the highway as a toll road. It'll be interesting to see how that develops.

AFAIK, it was always intended to be an ORT facility between Palmdale and US 395; the PPP nature of its proposed development virtually dictates that status.  Whether there will be a transponder link with the existing toll facilities further south in Orange and possibly San Diego counties -- or the toll-lane segments in and around L.A. county -- hasn't been publicized as of yet; I'd stay tuned to see if that transpires.

FWIK there has to be; it's the law.

California law states that ALL toll facilities utilizing electronic tolling must use a standardized system, currently called FasTrak.

[theroadwayone]

I recall reading an article on TRN some years back about possibly building the highway as a toll road. It'll be interesting to see how that develops.

AFAIK, it was always intended to be an ORT facility between Palmdale and US 395; the PPP nature of its proposed development virtually dictates that status.  Whether there will be a transponder link with the existing toll facilities further south in Orange and possibly San Diego counties -- or the toll-lane segments in and around L.A. county -- hasn't been publicized as of yet; I'd stay tuned to see if that transpires.

FWIK there has to be; it's the law.

California law states that ALL toll facilities utilizing electronic tolling must use a standardized system, currently called FasTrak.

In addition to that, they're also trying to make it interoperable with tolling systems in the south and west by 2024.

[DJStephens]

That LA Times article characterizes freeways as being old fashioned and that interest is mainly in mass transit. We're always going to need roads. I think what's going on with this mass transit vs freeways thing is a contest over where public money is being spent. It's politics. They're still promoting the fantasy of getting everyone to move into dense inner city neighborhoods and just rely on mass transit. Not everyone wants to do that for their own specific reasons. And the issue of affordability cannot be stressed high enough. Housing costs and living costs in general have grown ridiculous inside of America's largest cities, including LA. Yet the "experts" are wondering why communities on the wrong side of the San Gabriel Mountains are growing so much. I think a lot of those experts are just out of touch.

Thank you Bob5280 for the excellent post.  Recently met a retired union plumber in a Tucson KOA campground.  He had just sold his parent's home, in Long Beach, where he had lived while finishing his years on the job.   Said his parents had bought it in 1972 for 45K and that he had just sold it for 825K.  Am glad for him, that he cashed out, but what working people can afford that, even union plumbers??  Asian investors, perhaps??  Simply obscene, over three quarters of a mill for a run of the mill home?? No wonder people are locating farther out, and driving more!!   

[sparker]

That LA Times article characterizes freeways as being old fashioned and that interest is mainly in mass transit. We're always going to need roads. I think what's going on with this mass transit vs freeways thing is a contest over where public money is being spent. It's politics. They're still promoting the fantasy of getting everyone to move into dense inner city neighborhoods and just rely on mass transit. Not everyone wants to do that for their own specific reasons. And the issue of affordability cannot be stressed high enough. Housing costs and living costs in general have grown ridiculous inside of America's largest cities, including LA. Yet the "experts" are wondering why communities on the wrong side of the San Gabriel Mountains are growing so much. I think a lot of those experts are just out of touch.

Thank you Bob5280 for the excellent post.  Recently met a retired union plumber in a Tucson KOA campground.  He had just sold his parent's home, in Long Beach, where he had lived while finishing his years on the job.   Said his parents had bought it in 1972 for 45K and that he had just sold it for 825K.  Am glad for him, that he cashed out, but what working people can afford that, even union plumbers??  Asian investors, perhaps??  Simply obscene, over three quarters of a mill for a run of the mill home?? No wonder people are locating farther out, and driving more!!   

825K is relatively cheap for Long Beach; the house must have been in the northern part of town up near CA 91.  My ex-wife (#1) inherited a house in nearby Seal Beach from her grandfather -- it's right on Ocean Avenue across from the beach and about 2000sf in two floors, built in the 1930's.  She's been living there since the early '80's with husband #3; according to our daughter, the place is appraised at $2.25M.  They both retired a year or two back and are thinking of selling it and moving to Tucson, where they can get a pretty sizeable new residence for less than a third of what their house will bring.   True, she lucked out with the inheritance, but that situation is one that has been occurring repeatedly in the last couple of decades due to skyrocketing land and residence prices in coastal California.  If they actually decide to sell and relocate, they'll certainly find someone (probably in tech or finance) to purchase the place and pay asking price if not more.  When it comes to real estate, money just doesn't talk -- it yells!   

[Bobby5280]

BUMP. Only because I didn't see this a few months earlier.

$825,000 is "relatively cheap?" Are they paying fry cooks at McDonalds locations in Long Beach $200 per hour to support those kinds of housing prices? How can any city maintain a work force in all of its necessary classes even the LOWER incomes classes if only absurdly rich people can afford to live there?

At times I feel like the United States is in the same position where the Roman Empire was in its final stages before that whole damned circus tent collapsed. The simple financial mathematics of what is taking place in America's biggest, most popular cities is just plain unsustainable. I'm happy for people who can cash out on a property they bought for not much money and collect a windfall from it. Nevertheless, for our society to continue surviving people of all classes must be able to afford to survive, if not thrive. And all those rich people at the top? They can't live up there without a whole hell of a lot of little people building up the house of cards upon which they sit.

We are barely a decade past the last mezzo-scale crisis (and fraud) that infected and collapsed much of America's real estate market. And now we're making many of the same mistakes all over again, even at a bigger scale. The last time around we witnessed a new practice called "reverse red-lining." Previously a "red-lined" neighborhood on a map was a zone where real estate agents avoided. If a customer lived there (often a non-white prospective home buyer) the lender denied their home loan application. In the giant orgy of fraud that happened last decade the vulture sales people went looking for minority buyers as the bottom level of suckers for the housing pyramid scheme they were running.

10 years later: most of the laws that were passed to prevent this shit from happening again have been over-turned. But now the young adults have a new weapon at their disposal: not shitting families into existence in the first place. Single people can room-up together in apartments, couch surf and manage all sorts of unconventional living arrangements to save lots of money. Young adults will maintain a lot of freedom and living flexibility by being careful about opening their legs. But if they're not breeding a huge new tide of future Americans into existence how is that going to maintain that big-ass real estate business racket? At some point, not now, but some time years or a decade or two from now there will be a glut of homes across the country that just can't be sold without taking a serious loss.

In our last housing industry crisis our nation's birth rate of American born women was hovering near replacement rate level: 2.1 births per female. Now it's down to 1.7 and gaining down-ward momentum. Young families are already being hatefully gouged on the cost of health care, child day care and all sorts of other costs involved with parenthood. Family sized housing is rapidly being priced into the very exclusive, rich people-only luxury zone. Combine this with young adults burdened with record setting levels of student loan debt -a good amount of which is higher interest debt they'll be paying near or past retirement age. Our policy-makers are going on and on about issues like abortion. But I really have to say the extreme cost of housing in many locations, plus all those other extreme costs are one hell of a compelling birth control pill. Very loud and clear message to young people these days: don't you dare have any kids unless you are filthy rich. You'll be struggling badly otherwise.

[nexus73]

BUMP. Only because I didn't see this a few months earlier.

$825,000 is "relatively cheap?" Are they paying fry cooks at McDonalds locations in Long Beach $200 per hour to support those kinds of housing prices? How can any city maintain a work force in all of its necessary classes even the LOWER incomes classes if only absurdly rich people can afford to live there?

At times I feel like the United States is in the same position where the Roman Empire was in its final stages before that whole damned circus tent collapsed. The simple financial mathematics of what is taking place in America's biggest, most popular cities is just plain unsustainable. I'm happy for people who can cash out on a property they bought for not much money and collect a windfall from it. Nevertheless, for our society to continue surviving people of all classes must be able to afford to survive, if not thrive. And all those rich people at the top? They can't live up there without a whole hell of a lot of little people building up the house of cards upon which they sit.

We are barely a decade past the last mezzo-scale crisis (and fraud) that infected and collapsed much of America's real estate market. And now we're making many of the same mistakes all over again, even at a bigger scale. The last time around we witnessed a new practice called "reverse red-lining." Previously a "red-lined" neighborhood on a map was a zone where real estate agents avoided. If a customer lived there (often a non-white prospective home buyer) the lender denied their home loan application. In the giant orgy of fraud that happened last decade the vulture sales people went looking for minority buyers as the bottom level of suckers for the housing pyramid scheme they were running.

10 years later: most of the laws that were passed to prevent this shit from happening again have been over-turned. But now the young adults have a new weapon at their disposal: not shitting families into existence in the first place. Single people can room-up together in apartments, couch surf and manage all sorts of unconventional living arrangements to save lots of money. Young adults will maintain a lot of freedom and living flexibility by being careful about opening their legs. But if they're not breeding a huge new tide of future Americans into existence how is that going to maintain that big-ass real estate business racket? At some point, not now, but some time years or a decade or two from now there will be a glut of homes across the country that just can't be sold without taking a serious loss.

In our last housing industry crisis our nation's birth rate of American born women was hovering near replacement rate level: 2.1 births per female. Now it's down to 1.7 and gaining down-ward momentum. Young families are already being hatefully gouged on the cost of health care, child day care and all sorts of other costs involved with parenthood. Family sized housing is rapidly being priced into the very exclusive, rich people-only luxury zone. Combine this with young adults burdened with record setting levels of student loan debt -a good amount of which is higher interest debt they'll be paying near or past retirement age. Our policy-makers are going on and on about issues like abortion. But I really have to say the extreme cost of housing in many locations, plus all those other extreme costs are one hell of a compelling birth control pill. Very loud and clear message to young people these days: don't you dare have any kids unless you are filthy rich. You'll be struggling badly otherwise.

"The Rule Of Ten".  When I compare basic staples of living between the summer of 1973 (HS graduation) to the present, so many items are about 10 times what the cost in the past was.  So what were the wages like when I was young?  In Oregon, the state minimum was $1.25 an hour.  Those who qualified for the Federal minimum were paid $1.65.  Between the costs and the wages, a person working fulltime minimum state wage could make it on their own although most certainly not in the lap of luxury. 

So seeing how one could scrape by then and not make it today shows the minimum wage has not kept up with what it was worth in mid-1973.  If it did, then $12.50 to $16.50 would be needed.

How about the people who got $5 an hour in those times?  They could own a house with ease!  Want a new or newer car?  Ya' sure, you betcha!  Solid middle class indeed.  How many workers out there make $50 an hour today? 

The story of the clam being boiled alive one degree at a time comes to mind....

Rick

[Bobby5280]

It totally blows my mind when I hear people losing their tempers over big cities like San Francisco or New York City raising their minimum wages to $15 per hour. It's obvious the people throwing a fit are ignoring the economic realities of those cities. I think $15 per hour is a starvation wage for New York City. At that level take home pay after taxes is under $2000 per month. Rent alone across the 5 boroughs would eat nearly all that worker's pay unless he was lucky enough to already be in a rent-controlled apartment. Those kinds of living spaces have been vanishing fast. All the other living costs don't go away either. It costs a lot of money just to ride the subway or bus. In that living situation things like health care coverage are luxuries far out of reach.

All the people expecting service industry workers to do their jobs for next to nothing also expect plenty of fast food joints, convenience stores, coffee shops and all sorts of stuff nearby on every street corner. The people staffing those businesses have to be able to survive. The selfish hypocrisy is really unbelievable.

I really get a kick out of the argument, "these aren't career jobs." Fine! If every McDonald's location should be staffed by high school kids living at home with Mom and Dad let's make sure to close all those kinds of businesses during school hours and only open them after the kids have finished their home work. People stepping out of the office on their lunch break during the day to grab a burger or a Starbucks™ coffee are getting served by grown-ass adults. None of those adults expect those crappy jobs to be a career. But at that moment in their lives they're having to work there and try to survive on wages made there (and from any additional shit jobs they have).

[sparker]

Here in San Jose $15/hour -- which translates to about $495/week take-home -- would just cover the rent of a studio or small 1-bedroom apartment in a less-gentrified area of town -- but with no funds left for food or other items requisite for living!!!!!.  And the city-mandated minimum won't even hit that level for a couple of years!  It's not just home ownership that is driving workers here east to the San Joaquin Valley, it's basic costs of living; while steadily increasing, rents in Tracy and Stockton are hovering around $900-1.2K/month for a reasonable 2-bedroom newer apartment -- but, of course, with the increased cost in dollars and time regarding the commute.  A recent article in the San Jose Mercury-News (known colloquially around here as the Murky News) talked about the "hyper-metro" expansion that is bringing outlying areas such as Placer County and Merced into the Bay Area socioeconomic orbit -- driven, of course, by housing (owned and rental) expenses, which in the longstanding "close-in" residential areas (Brentwood, Discovery Bay, and, these days, even the western sections of Tracy along I-205) are starting to approach the outlying Bay Area (Antioch, Fairfield) in terms of monetary outlay and certainly in commute times.  Simply put -- the "unaffordable" area is expanding outward to overtake the housing locales that have in recent history served as "affordable" alternatives if one were to subsitute commute time for the convenience of living close to one's job.  And down in Southern California, where there is considerably more ocean-side living than up here (much of the coast, particularly in San Mateo and northern Santa Cruz counties -- not to mention pretty much everything north of the Golden Gate -- remains too "rugged" for massive housing deployment), pretty much any available housing areas, old or new, within 5-10 miles of the coast will have an extra element of cost attached simply for desirability -- hence my previous depiction of $825K for a 1950's 1500sf tract house in north-central Long Beach as being situated at the lower end of local cost structure.  And the L.A./O.C./Ventura County area has at least as miserable commutes as up here; what passes for "affordability" is out in the desert (Palmdale/Lancaster in L.A. County and the Victorville/Apple Valley/Hesperia/Adelanto region for the Inland Empire), entailing schlepping over Cajon Pass on I-15, which is now a commuter ordeal.

I can't recall the last time I visited any of the In-N-Outs in the San Jose area and came across anyone over 21 working there (this entails at least 3 different outlets); since my patronage has been generally after normative school hours, it's probable that older staff (maybe even collegiate) occupy those positions earlier in the day.   Folks seeking something over minimum wage have seemingly moved to other areas of the service world -- possibly retail stores or somewhere in the distribution chain, where one typically encounters employees of all ages.   The kids in the fast-food business are still likely to be living at home with parents, while the residences of the older service-sector folks would be indeterminate absent some pretty extensive surveys.   But it's likely that they, along with other lower-level jobs even in the tech industry, are experiencing the same pressures regarding housing -- and general cost of living -- that are driving folks further and further east for some modicum of affordability!     

[Bobby5280]

When living conditions get bad enough (too dangerous or too costly) residents will leave if they can afford to escape. The deplorable thing is "worldly" cosmopolitan cities like New York and San Francisco have homeless populations that are growing rapidly. What's really shocking is a bunch of these homeless people are working day jobs and trying to crash at homeless shelters or other arrangements they can find at night. Lots of young people working service sector jobs are living from one friend's couch to the next. It can be pretty difficult to move up from that cycle of living.

This absurd economic situation really tarnishes that whole "New Urbanist" Utopian ideal the proponents of mass transit keep trying to sell, all while they try their best to block any new freeway or toll road projects. Unaffordable housing in the inner city is the prime motivator for people to move out to the suburbs or distant exurbs.

What gives me even more concern nation-wide is living costs in seemingly low-cost zones, like my town for instance, are getting pretty high. Minimum wage here is still $7.25 per hour. A halfway decent one bedroom or efficiency apartment can run at least $600-$800 month. We don't have lots of high paying jobs around here. All the costs involved with parenting are ridiculous. Putting one child in day care can cost $800 per month. If a single mother working low wage jobs has no relatives around who can watch her kids during the day she'll be in an impossible situation financially. Government assistance programs go only so far.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
The problem with the utopian ideals expressed by the new urbanist activists (who, if embedded within planning departments at the city/county/MPO level, attempt to manifest) is that they have collectively identified the driving public as public enemy #1; no methodology is considered unless it contains a component that makes driving in their area of influence as difficult and even onerous as possible.  This tends to discard solutions that are doable and fair in favor of those that are punitive -- which invariably leads to political backlash that has the effect of kicking the can of urban/metro problems down the road.   Urbanist approaches are, first and foremost, a methodology; conflating them into an ideology is a fools' errand.   Unless one's head is stuck way up in the clouds (or another location that smells considerably worse!), attempting to mold a new human species based upon one's derived ideals rather than simply negotiate with the populace as encountered (i.e., playing the hand dealt to you) to arrive at a consensual solution is, in plain terms, a "bridge too far"; the feasible is ignored while the ideal either runs into a brick wall or is whittled away notion by notion until nothing workable remains (the late '60's/early '70's redux!).  It's similar to abortion opponents who also oppose contraception simply because they want to erect/maintain "speed bumps" in the path of sexual activity -- their generally unstated end game.  They want to stop certain folks from fucking; in a similar vein the more adamant urbanists want to stop most folks from driving.   The idea that vehicles could within our lifetimes be carbon-emission free isn't enough for some of them; they want a populace inured to the bounded rationality of restricted mobility.   On a side note, it must be nice to be able to look at one's self in a mirror and think "....if everyone were like me, the world would be a better place!"  Fortunately, most of us aren't that delusional -- just human!     

[nexus73]

Watch Seatlle, where a city on an isthmus cannot spread out and watch Portland OR, where state land use laws put boundaries on development.  The highways and freeways of these cities are hopelessly congested at this time.  Put enough pain into the equation and eventually someone is going to try a solution.  How long before one that works comes along?  I sure hope the answer is "Soon!".  It will be interesting to find out what the solution turned out to be, assuming one was found.

Rick