WebDigger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On-Topic to improve awareness/knowledge, because
> BOB2 brought it up in his 09-16-2021 - 08:49 post,
> above --
> [www.altamontpress.com]
> ,230719,230802#msg-230802.
>
> Probably Off-Topic because I discerned no
> rail-relatedness about it.

Oh no, this is premised on some of the "new urbanist" (how many are really dark money developer funded "front groups"...???) "theories" about "density" reducing VMT, and density purportedly increasing transit use, which can include rail...

The problem is that it is really rising added congestion "costs" (really time, parking, vehicle operating, and opportunity costs) from more density, that will tend to reduce VMT,as the "miles" in an "hour" that you can travel will fall, as congested speeds, measured in "mile per hour" decline. So it is the cost the new demand is imposing on other users that is causing you to spend more time in traffic as density rises beyond the congestion limits of the relatively "fixed" amount of street capacity.

And, the second premise that density, in and of itself, will somehow result in increased transit use. While some studies have "correlated" "density" with higher transit use, that is an artifact of congestion costs and transit service levels. If there in no transit, and you increase density, how much mode shift should we expect? So density is not in any way, an actual "causal" factor in actual transit mode choice (including rail) by actual transit users.

>
> Here's the gsearch --
> [www.google.com]
> &q=SB+10%2C+Wiener
>
> Here's an article and discussion from the 8/23/21
> Palo Alto Daily Post -- Assembly passes
> controversial housing bill SB10 --
> [padailypost.com]
> -controversial-housing-bill-sb10/.