3 ms·
There were some good ideas in this one, but the requirement to force high density housing near bus stops has some serious problems in small and medium sized tow
by djrogers 9y ago
There were some good ideas in this one, but the requirement to force high density housing near bus stops has some serious problems in small and medium sized towns.
For one, bus stops are generally already near existing development, so unless property values plummet, that land won’t be turned into condos.
The second problem is that bus stops can move. Yes - one of he big advantages of busses over rail is that the location of the stops is infinitely flexible. Forward thinking cities build bus pull-outs on major streets in new neighborhoods all the time, so they can be used in the future. Requiring a specific type of zoning at all of hear bus stops will effectively freeze this type of flexibility.
OTOH, building a new train station? Yeah - put up some condos!
- astrange 9y agoThe bill was based on transit stops as they are in 2018 - it doesn't follow you around if you make new ones. The idea there was to stop suburbs from just shutting down their bus lines. I think it is difficult to get a bus line moved in California though, because of CEQA - didn't it take a decade to start a new one in SF just recently? This is why everyone does UberPool.
- djrogers 9y agoYou’re talking about SF and I’m talking about small and mid sized towns. Big difference. If a small town wants to move a bus stop 1 block, it doesn’t take 10 years...
- oftenwrong 9y agos/force/allow/
- djrogers 9y agoNope - cities are already allowed to do this, the bill would remove the option - hence force.