SB827: Difference between revisions

=== Intended or Assumed Reduction in Traffic & Increased Transit Adoption are Fallacies ===

Senate Bill 827 is predicated on assumptions that concentrating development near transit hubs and stops will lead to large scale adoption of transit, and measurable reduction in impact on traffic. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that these assumptions have not proven out in the real world.

Denise Larsen, Nextdoor.com, San Rafael, Jan 20th 2017<br/> "The idea that if housing is built near public transportation, people will get out of their cars is a pipe dream.&nbsp; All studies show that people still drive and they still have cars driving to them, whether they have a car or not (i.e. visitors, such as: deliveries, family, friends, support/medical people, boyfriend or girlfriend visits, overnights guests, Uber, etc.).&nbsp; This has only increased traffic and parking problems.

People like and often need their cars and do not give them up.&nbsp; The sheer amount of things that people use their cars for, such as work, errands, grocery-shopping, hauling things around, school/college, transporting kids, interests, a class, activities, taking a pet to the vet, doctor visits, etc often do not work well with public transportation time-wise, the need to still have to walk to where one is going, carrying items, having kids and/or pets along, and at all times of day and night and in all types of weather.&nbsp;&nbsp;<br/> <br/> For example, in a southern Calif city where affordable housing was built without adequate parking, the residential neighborhoods within a 1-2 mi radius have been overrun with people parking their cars and then walking to the developments.&nbsp; In SF, some folks have chosen to rarely use their cars or not own one but end up taking Uber everywhere, which means 4 trips for a car vs 2 if the person had driven themselves, which has resulted in more traffic and congestion.&nbsp; Another major issue involved in these laws and bills is that a town or city can no longer use things like not enough water or infrastructure to support more housing/residents as a way to prevent or reduce development.&nbsp; Too bad for you, just cram more people in."

Portland's Transit Experiment has Failed, Randal O Toole<br/> [http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=13719 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=13719]

"Back in 1980, Portland transit carried 10 percent of the region’s commuters to work. Since then, the region has increased its population density by 20 percent, spent $5 billion building nearly 80 miles of rail transit lines, and subsidized scores of high-density, mixed-use housing projects in light-rail and other transit corridors. The result is that, in 2016, just 8.0 percent of commuters took transit to work.