From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Taxes, Development, and Transit
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:52:09 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <po1ssrs@sgi.sgi.com> jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
>In article <18qe6aINNdkj@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven) writes:
>You misread.  It has to be *in planning*, before transit is built.
>I.e. zoned for such.  Unfortunately, building a rail line down the
>middle of a freeway is going to limit what can be built around it.
 
You are right; I misunderstood.  Moreover, until yesterday I hadn't 
gone down to the Almaden Light Rail extension and seen exactly how 
they are building it.  I am extremely disappointed that pedestrian 
access is not built in to stations like Capitol.  Having seen the 
walled subdivisions to which you refer I can certainly understand your 
frustration at this.  Indeed, high density *doesn't* magically appear 
whenever a transit station comes.  It depends on local conditions, on 
zoning, and so on.  Of these, only designing the stations is 
controllable by SCCTD.  
 
I am intensely disappointed that they felt that the transit line 
should be in the middle of a freeway.  I feel this is a great mistake 
and will indeed reduce ridership tremendously.  Even so, I wouldn't 
write the stations off.  Rockridge BART in North Oakland, although in 
the median of Highway 24, nonetheless has a good deal of high-use 
development around it.  The Oakland Tribune reports in tomorrow's 
paper that North Oakland has gone from being the second-worst-off part 
of Oakland to having average incomes just under the well-off hills 
(and this is pre-fire data).  
 
I don't know which lines the new Measure A will fund.  I certainly 
understand your frustration at having *this* line built incorrectly.  
I seem to remember reading that new lines will be along a railroad 
spur, not on a freeway, which usually (not always!) yields better 
results.  But even if new lines are to be mistakes like this one, and 
are built along freeways or what have you, they are nonetheless not 
insalvageable.  I'd much rather have the line built now to be salvaged 
later than try to build it later at much higher cost.
 
>I disagree that high density development will automatically happen
>when a high capacity transit system is put in place.  In fact,
 
I didn't mean to imply that it was automatic.  Transit is a necessary 
but not sufficient condition.  Unfortunately, transit agencies are not 
under the same authority as the cities which they encompass.  I don't 
know the story behind Fremont, but I can guess: pedestrian access is 
limited by acres of parking through which pedestrians would have to 
walk, and zoning regulations probably require lots of parking and open 
space around buildings anyway.
 
>Sure.  I have no problem with a developer saying, "build the rail line,
>and then I'll build the shopping center around it."  Also, some of the
>things necessary to make the South Bay more transit friendly don't
>require transit.  One would be to require store fronts next to roads,
>instead of parking lots.  This makes it a lot more pedestrian friendly.
 
Absolutely.  I had to go on Bascom Avenue yesterday.  Yuck.  Even if 
the parking lots existed, just as large, *behind* the stores, it would 
make a great improvement.  But I suspect few people would want to walk 
that far even if the streets were nice.  Where would they walk from?  
Where would they walk to?  (Of course, if you put the stores in front 
and then but lots of transit on the street, it might convince 
landowners to build on the back parking lots -- apartment buildings or 
something.)
 
>Right.  Don't build the transit system while there is NIMBY zoning.
 
Maybe *this* is where we disagree.  There are two fights here: getting 
the transit and getting the zoning.  In an ideal world the zoning 
would come at the same time, so that developers could get a head start 
on building for the transit, but I see city planning bodies that are 
totally disconnected from transit planning bodies.  Cities revise 
their general plans only every ten years or so and even then it 
becomes a political dogfight to get high-density zoning in the plan.  
I think it's a much easier task to get the transit built when we've 
got the political will for that and then when the transit is actually 
beginning construction to convince city council people.
 
>> Santa Clara's 13% farebox recovery is definitely too low, and this is
>> unfortunate.  But it is not necessary for SCCTD to make a profit.
>> SCCTD's purpose is to provide transportation services to the community,
>> not to make money off of transportation.  
>
>I believe there is a requirement for fiscal responsibility.  Of course
>it doesn't have to make a profit (where did I say that?)! 
 
You didn't.  I shouldn't have argued that, and I apologize. You're 
right, there is a requirement for fiscal responsibility.  I just take 
a very-long term view of when it should start to stop losing money so 
badly; and I'm also inclined to blame the cities, not SCCTD, if they 
don't use the transit as a catalyst for development.  Cities, not 
transit agencies, are supposed to be responsible for this stuff.
 
>> Providing the infrastructure
>> that allows high-density development to exist is precisely what SCCTD
>> should be doing.  It is also, however, incumbent on them and on the
>> cities through which SCCTD lines will run to zone correctly to allow
>> and encourage that kind of development.
 
>I have no problem with your
>paragraph above, taken by itself.  I don't think that SCCTD and the
>communities have done enough to encourage successful transit to make
>me vote to keep the current 1 cent sales tax for transportation.
 
Well I'm not in the position to vote for or against A, since I'm a 
registered Santa Cruz County voter.  I certainly agree that SCCTD and 
the communities have been lax.  I just feel that it is SCCTD's job to 
provide the transit and the cities' to decide what they want to do 
with it.  I'm not terribly happy with this division of labor, but 
I don't see a way around it.  Seems to me the immediate question is 
"do we build the transit or not?"  Maybe it is right to say "I don't 
think San Jose has done enough with the transit it has to be worth 
building any more," but I just think the more we wait, the more 
expensive we'll be and the worse off we'll be down the road when we 
finally change our minds.
 
>> You know, Vancouver is *not* the transportation paradise that's been
>> pictured here.  
>
>Well I disagree.  Having spent time on both transit systems and examining
>schedules, transit is far more competitive with the auto in greater
>Vancouver than in the greater Bay Area.  It may not be a paradise, but
>it's not Hell, either.
 
The advantage of Vancouver, it seems to me, is not so much that it's 
great for transit patrons as that it's really bad for cars.  Thus, 
there's enough ridership to justify decent frequency.  But other than 
frequency I don't think there's really that much to commend BC Transit 
itself.  
 
>But Vancouver does have a lot of single family houses, especially in
>the western section between downtown and Richmond.  Buses run on a
>grid, and almost all the routes are at 15 minute or smaller frequencies
>all day long, and most are at 20 minute or less, well into the evening.
>Santa Clara county does not compare.  It is more pedestrian friendly,
>too.
 
I looked up my Vancouver BC Transit map and I stand corrected about 
the frequency; even crosstown grid lines are at 15 minute headways 
within the city of Vancouver.  Still, I think the lack of freeways and 
so on is the greatest advantage to buses in Vancouver.
 
Another consideration about the "western section" (Point Grey, 
Kitsilano, Kerrisdale) is that the University of BC is out there, and 
UBC is the second most important generator of trips in the region next 
to downtown Vancouver (according, as I recall, to the "Buzzer", BC 
Transit's little newsletter).  A lot of the buses serve the 40,000 UBC 
students. 
 
If they destroyed all the freeways in San Jose a lot more people would 
ride the light rail...
 
 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron Priven, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu
  Bring in the workers, and bring up the rails;
  We're gonna lay down the tracks, and tear up the trails. 
  Open her heart, let the life-blood flow,
  Gotta get on our way 'cause we're movin' too slow.
    -- Gordon Lightfoot, "Canadian Railroad Trilogy"