Anonymous user
SB827: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
||
Line 28:
=== Transit could be cut back to circumvent the bill requirements ===
@MarketUrbanism [https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/949747494371643394 6 Jan 2018]. <br/> "As for stopping cities from cutting bus routes, I would say do it based on current service *or* service that existed on Jan. 1, 2018."
▼
=== ===
=== Could lead to demolition and displacement in low-income areas ===
Line 48 ⟶ 50:
=== Setback and lot coverage rules make the height limits weak. ===
@MarketUrbanism [https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/949747033795153921 6 Jan 2018]. <br/> "Setbacks and lot coverage rules that make the height limits weak. I would recommend forcing cities to accommodate FAR 2 within 45' zones, FAR 2.5 in 55' zones, and FAR 4 in 85' zones.
== transit frequency needs to be better defined ==
@MarketUrbanism [https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/949747331099918338 6 Jan 2018]:<br/> "15-min headways needs to be defined more specifically. I would recommend defining it as total service along a route (so interlining is okay), and define it as, say, four buses within the 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. hours."
Bjorn @Zmapper [https://twitter.com/Zmapper/status/949777447456772096 6 Jan 2018]: <br/> "Suggestion: Count frequency by number of buses per stop per day (set to equal roughly 15-min/hour frequency) to minimize political service cuts."
Sandy Johnston<br/> <br/> <br/> @sandypsj<br/> "This would treat frequent peak service+infrequent off-peak equally, whereas we should probably be incentivizing frequent all-day service."
@alon_levy<br/> Counterpoint: it's easier for NIMBYs to cut off-peak than peak frequency, because their own transit use is very peaky.
@alon_levy<br/> "The transit agency isn't run by NIMBYs, and 8-story density naturally fills more buses at low subsidy."
removing parking requirements will be infeasible or unacceptable
@MarketUrbanism [https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/949747942856019974 6 Jan 2018]: <br/> "I love zeroing out parking requirements, but it seems like it might be a bit hard for some to swallow. Could permit requiring up to 0.5 spaces/bedroom, up to 1 space per unit, along the bus routes (not rail though) if there's pushback."
Tony Jordan @twjpdx23 6 Jan 2018: <br/> "How about they can only require parking if they have robust parking demand management in place first?"
"Basically, if they're not attempting to manage on street demand through permit pricing, then they shouldn't be complaining about zeroing out parking requirements, imo."
▲
Does, could, or would this lead to mixed-use development
=== Pending nuclear holocaust makes planning exercises like this pointless ===
from @BelmontRenters (Kevin Burke).
=== thread from Brian Hanlon (@CAyimby) calling for issues ===
some of above, and possible more issues noted in thread: <br/> @hanlonbt 11:36 AM - [https://twitter.com/hanlonbt/status/949726260128899073 6 Jan 2018]<br/> "Please send me common objections to SB 827, thinks like concerns about demolition, reduction in bus service, etc... Thanks!<br/>
== References ==
| |||