 |
Re: Metrolink Question- You assume a more logical purpose than evidence would suggest
Author: BOB2
Date: 06-27-2018 - 15:22
I was at that meeting, just last night. A "workshop" to "implement" our general plan. The Gold Line is already here, and I took it, since the meeting was 100 feet from the Memorial Park Station (about the only person who did).
It was a classic "touchy feely" public planning workshop, where folks sang the praises of a quaint fantasy about European style cafes on every corner and turning all of our streets in shady Parisian bike lanes. No one explained how this new economy made up entirely of barista's and Uber drivers working for less than the cost of vehicle depreciation will provide the income or tax base to create this new urbanist fantasy..... But, what ever you do, don't break the "spell", with pesky facts about vehicle trip generation per new household of increased urban density.....
Much of this kind of "touchy feely" planning is based on completely ludicrous assumptions about how transit, or "walkability", or bike lanes will impact household vehicle trip generation in these high end "TOD" households, that we can't seem to find much evidence for in the income demographics who are able to afford to live in these TOD's. Some of these folks actually try to sell TOD significant net increase in vehicle trips (and traffic) as traffic reducing...….go figure.
Of course, our new General Plan is already out of date, in our changing real estate market, as one develop present pointed out that it prevents him from converting his office building with a 50% vacancy rate in an area with a 30% office vacancy rate to housing, even in a supposed "housing crisis", and even though it is located almost on top of a Gold Line Station.....
Thus, assuming any consistent rational basis like that for these decisions, is not based on the evidence. It has been my experience that these decisions are, on the land use side, all too often, made with little rational thinking, good, bad, or indifferent to some "bigger" "agenda", or on much analysis with, regards to the longer term transportation or traffic impacts, or even much thought as to the realities of land use economics.
There is still often a much more rigorous planning and analysis of travel demand done in making the "better" transportation infrastructure decisions, as many of the funding "processes" have had "checks and balances" which have tended to expose some of the real bad regional level turkey's.
It was a classic "touchy feely" public planning workshop, where folks sang the praises of a quaint fantasy about European style cafes on every corner and turning all of our streets in shady Parisian bike lanes. No one explained how this new economy made up entirely of barista's and Uber drivers working for less than the cost of vehicle depreciation will provide the income or tax base to create this new urbanist fantasy..... But, what ever you do, don't break the "spell", with pesky facts about vehicle trip generation per new household of increased urban density.....
Much of this kind of "touchy feely" planning is based on completely ludicrous assumptions about how transit, or "walkability", or bike lanes will impact household vehicle trip generation in these high end "TOD" households, that we can't seem to find much evidence for in the income demographics who are able to afford to live in these TOD's. Some of these folks actually try to sell TOD significant net increase in vehicle trips (and traffic) as traffic reducing...….go figure.
Of course, our new General Plan is already out of date, in our changing real estate market, as one develop present pointed out that it prevents him from converting his office building with a 50% vacancy rate in an area with a 30% office vacancy rate to housing, even in a supposed "housing crisis", and even though it is located almost on top of a Gold Line Station.....
Thus, assuming any consistent rational basis like that for these decisions, is not based on the evidence. It has been my experience that these decisions are, on the land use side, all too often, made with little rational thinking, good, bad, or indifferent to some "bigger" "agenda", or on much analysis with, regards to the longer term transportation or traffic impacts, or even much thought as to the realities of land use economics.
There is still often a much more rigorous planning and analysis of travel demand done in making the "better" transportation infrastructure decisions, as many of the funding "processes" have had "checks and balances" which have tended to expose some of the real bad regional level turkey's.
