M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Not “The Great Transit Oriented Development Swindle?â€
March 4, 2010
By Marc Salomon
Read More: http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordp...-transit-oriented-development-supposed-to-be/
#######################################################
Over the past ten years, the San Francisco Department of City Planning has rezoned much of the east side of San Francisco [0] for greater densities of market rate housing based on the theory of Transit Oriented Development:
- TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT is the exciting new fast growing trend in creating vibrant, livable communities. Also known as Transit Oriented Design, or TOD, it is the creation of compact, walkable communities centered around high quality train systems. This makes it possible to live a higher quality life without complete dependence on a car for mobility and survival. Transit oriented development is a major solution to the serious and growing problems of peak oil and global warming by creating dense, walkable communities connected to a train line that greatly reduce the need for driving and the burning of fossil fuels.
- Under a cursory examination of the concrete realities on the ground, in San Francisco, Transit Oriented Development is a Green bait and switch designed to promote developer profits [1.5] while exacerbating the very conditions which lead to increased emissions, climate change, congestion and slower, less reliable surface transit. Simply because desirable aspects of a policy appear to work on paper does not mean that they work that way in reality, or that other aspects of the policy don’t actually work against preferred aspects. Compact urban development can lead to denser more walkable communities, but only with sufficient investment in regional infrastructure to discourage auto ownership by making transit more attractive. In the absence of that level of investment, the economic characteristics of this type of development in San Francisco will most likely diminish transit reliability by increasing auto trips–the precise opposite of TOD’s stated goals.
- Current acute and active structural disinvestment diminishes transit as an attractive alternative by making service less reliable and increasing trip time. As government retrenches from funding commitments to transit, the existing condition of Muni in the neighborhoods slated for TOD today are actually worse than when the Eastern Neighborhoods and Market Octavia EIRs which gave TOD the green light were approved.
- In order for TOD to check sprawl, prospective home buyers would be expected to make the choice between purchasing a $300K unit in Brentwood or a unit costing twice that much in San Francisco. Further, in order to check motor vehicle commutes, the assumption would be that someone paying that urban location premium would more than double their commute time by taking transit.
- Although San Francisco has a superior investment in public transit, that investment is not sufficient to tip the balance in favor of lengthy commutes by those well heeled enough to be able to afford to purchase housing in San Francisco. The “last mile†problem remains, where jurisdictions in the periphery near sprawled job sites will need to make a transit investment similar to that of San Francisco in order to balance the equation and make transit attractive to commuters. The City’s own studies demonstrate that under a previously under-invested system, Transit Oriented Development will slow down most Muni lines in the plan areas. Under subsequent disinvestment, these numbers only will get worse.
#######################################################
March 4, 2010
By Marc Salomon
Read More: http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordp...-transit-oriented-development-supposed-to-be/
#######################################################
Over the past ten years, the San Francisco Department of City Planning has rezoned much of the east side of San Francisco [0] for greater densities of market rate housing based on the theory of Transit Oriented Development:
- TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT is the exciting new fast growing trend in creating vibrant, livable communities. Also known as Transit Oriented Design, or TOD, it is the creation of compact, walkable communities centered around high quality train systems. This makes it possible to live a higher quality life without complete dependence on a car for mobility and survival. Transit oriented development is a major solution to the serious and growing problems of peak oil and global warming by creating dense, walkable communities connected to a train line that greatly reduce the need for driving and the burning of fossil fuels.
- Under a cursory examination of the concrete realities on the ground, in San Francisco, Transit Oriented Development is a Green bait and switch designed to promote developer profits [1.5] while exacerbating the very conditions which lead to increased emissions, climate change, congestion and slower, less reliable surface transit. Simply because desirable aspects of a policy appear to work on paper does not mean that they work that way in reality, or that other aspects of the policy don’t actually work against preferred aspects. Compact urban development can lead to denser more walkable communities, but only with sufficient investment in regional infrastructure to discourage auto ownership by making transit more attractive. In the absence of that level of investment, the economic characteristics of this type of development in San Francisco will most likely diminish transit reliability by increasing auto trips–the precise opposite of TOD’s stated goals.
- Current acute and active structural disinvestment diminishes transit as an attractive alternative by making service less reliable and increasing trip time. As government retrenches from funding commitments to transit, the existing condition of Muni in the neighborhoods slated for TOD today are actually worse than when the Eastern Neighborhoods and Market Octavia EIRs which gave TOD the green light were approved.
- In order for TOD to check sprawl, prospective home buyers would be expected to make the choice between purchasing a $300K unit in Brentwood or a unit costing twice that much in San Francisco. Further, in order to check motor vehicle commutes, the assumption would be that someone paying that urban location premium would more than double their commute time by taking transit.
- Although San Francisco has a superior investment in public transit, that investment is not sufficient to tip the balance in favor of lengthy commutes by those well heeled enough to be able to afford to purchase housing in San Francisco. The “last mile†problem remains, where jurisdictions in the periphery near sprawled job sites will need to make a transit investment similar to that of San Francisco in order to balance the equation and make transit attractive to commuters. The City’s own studies demonstrate that under a previously under-invested system, Transit Oriented Development will slow down most Muni lines in the plan areas. Under subsequent disinvestment, these numbers only will get worse.
#######################################################