Anonymous user
SB827: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
||
Line 184:
Adina Levin @alevin<br/> “the challenge several years ago with some of the walkability conditions is that banks wouldn't finance mixed-use or less parking; presumably legal requirements helped loosen bank financing (?). dunno if still needed for that reason."
=== Intended or Assumed Reduction in Traffic & Increased Transit Adoption are Fallacies ===
[from Richard Hall @rhallix]<br/> 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.
People like and often need their cars and do not give them up. 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. <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. 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. 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. Too bad for you, just cram more people in."▼
▲*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. 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.). This has only increased traffic and parking problems.<br/> People like and often need their cars and do not give them up. 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. <br/>
*"Portland's Transit Experiment has Failed," by Randall O Toole. [http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=13719 http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=13719]<br/> "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.<br/>
=== Would or could this support good mixed-use development and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) ===
| |||