6 ms·

So increase traffic now, to MAYBE build more public transit later? Sounds wonderful

by hart_russell 7y ago

ivalm 7y ago
Increase density now so people can live closer to their workplaces and thus decrease traffic NOW.
- pseudosavant 7y ago
  San Diegan here. Why is it that companies only want to be in UTC, downtown, or maybe Carlsbad? Part of the problem is that we don't distribute where people work like we do where they live. Enticing more businesses to operate outside of these 3 locations could do wonders. Even for facilitating public transit. SD's public transportation issue is that SD is just so spread out and public transportation is typically slower than cars due to stops, waiting, etc. Oceanside to downtown (~38 miles) takes ~75 minutes, or just over 30 mph. The only places where public trans works well is when people don't have to travel that far.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    Nonsense. People in london regularly commute to the city via train from similar distances.
  - sd_dev 7y ago
    >The only places where public trans works well is when people don't have to travel that far. This simply is not true. A lot of people in SD think this is true, but it is not. There is nothing structurally unique about SD that makes it a nightmare for transportation. It's just that SD as a city lacks the will and the leadership to make the necessary changes happen. Civic planning is on autopilot from the 1960s: build condos everywhere, and widen roads whenever possible. This is a recipe for continued nightmares.
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  This is such a ridiculous statement. Increasing density now does not decrease traffic now (or even in the near future). Grocery stores, outdoor recreation, nightlife, and dining are among the things that need to be within walking distance to get people to give up cars. If the office is the only space that anyone desired I'd set up a hammock by my desk and stop paying a mortgage. Increasing density on its own increases traffic and the parking burden.
  - ivalm 7y ago
    That's the beauty of mixed zoning. They can now build grocery stores, nightlife, dining, etc next to the high density housing. One Paseo is an example development in Carmel Valley that does this. Hillcrest has these developments as well.
    - ilikehurdles 7y ago
      They can, but this moves slow, and there's no guarantee they will do so unless the "mixed-use" code requires it. Grocery stores are also generally not very lucrative -- the margins are small and the lot sizes needed are usually pretty big, and they almost always need parking accomodation. Grocery store owners can't afford high rents. Meanwhile, developers can make a lot more money by stuffing a bunch of tiny condos in a high-rise box compared to accomodating an average market catering to the middle-class family. These kinds of businesses often need special rules in the zoning code to protect their land from being rebuilt as yet another beige/sheet-metal faux-luxury condo complex. I'm speaking from experience. The developers in Denver are chomping at the bits to buy up another grocery store property in Capitol Hill (a centrally-located walkable dense neighborhood) and tear it down for multi-unit housing, and this has already happened in other neighborhoods (we used to have a walking-distance market before it was torn down for high-rises). I have the joy of living near a multi-unit box that is zoned as "mixed use" and has a total of 0 businesses and 0 parking spots, and they tore down a local medical office to build that. In another location, four blocks down, they're tearing down other small offices to build hundreds of apartments -- again, zoned for "mixed use" and yet, again, the ground floor in their blueprints only has more condos and lobby space. Zero local businesses. My point is it just takes a while along with quite a bit of pissed-off political willpower until folks can comfortably ditch cars in car-centric communities, and density isn't a magic pill. What would likely happen is several years of increased traffic and parking utilization before everything falls into place. We're talking about bike lanes, public transportation, and walkability.

So increase traffic now, to MAYBE build more public transit later? Sounds wonderful

ivalm 7y ago

Increase density now so people can live closer to their workplaces and thus decrease traffic NOW.

pseudosavant 7y ago
San Diegan here. Why is it that companies only want to be in UTC, downtown, or maybe Carlsbad? Part of the problem is that we don't distribute where people work like we do where they live. Enticing more businesses to operate outside of these 3 locations could do wonders. Even for facilitating public transit. SD's public transportation issue is that SD is just so spread out and public transportation is typically slower than cars due to stops, waiting, etc. Oceanside to downtown (~38 miles) takes ~75 minutes, or just over 30 mph. The only places where public trans works well is when people don't have to travel that far.
- tathougies 7y ago
  Nonsense. People in london regularly commute to the city via train from similar distances.
- sd_dev 7y ago
  >The only places where public trans works well is when people don't have to travel that far. This simply is not true. A lot of people in SD think this is true, but it is not. There is nothing structurally unique about SD that makes it a nightmare for transportation. It's just that SD as a city lacks the will and the leadership to make the necessary changes happen. Civic planning is on autopilot from the 1960s: build condos everywhere, and widen roads whenever possible. This is a recipe for continued nightmares.
ilikehurdles 7y ago
This is such a ridiculous statement. Increasing density now does not decrease traffic now (or even in the near future). Grocery stores, outdoor recreation, nightlife, and dining are among the things that need to be within walking distance to get people to give up cars. If the office is the only space that anyone desired I'd set up a hammock by my desk and stop paying a mortgage. Increasing density on its own increases traffic and the parking burden.
- ivalm 7y ago
  That's the beauty of mixed zoning. They can now build grocery stores, nightlife, dining, etc next to the high density housing. One Paseo is an example development in Carmel Valley that does this. Hillcrest has these developments as well.
  - ilikehurdles 7y ago
    They can, but this moves slow, and there's no guarantee they will do so unless the "mixed-use" code requires it. Grocery stores are also generally not very lucrative -- the margins are small and the lot sizes needed are usually pretty big, and they almost always need parking accomodation. Grocery store owners can't afford high rents. Meanwhile, developers can make a lot more money by stuffing a bunch of tiny condos in a high-rise box compared to accomodating an average market catering to the middle-class family. These kinds of businesses often need special rules in the zoning code to protect their land from being rebuilt as yet another beige/sheet-metal faux-luxury condo complex. I'm speaking from experience. The developers in Denver are chomping at the bits to buy up another grocery store property in Capitol Hill (a centrally-located walkable dense neighborhood) and tear it down for multi-unit housing, and this has already happened in other neighborhoods (we used to have a walking-distance market before it was torn down for high-rises). I have the joy of living near a multi-unit box that is zoned as "mixed use" and has a total of 0 businesses and 0 parking spots, and they tore down a local medical office to build that. In another location, four blocks down, they're tearing down other small offices to build hundreds of apartments -- again, zoned for "mixed use" and yet, again, the ground floor in their blueprints only has more condos and lobby space. Zero local businesses. My point is it just takes a while along with quite a bit of pissed-off political willpower until folks can comfortably ditch cars in car-centric communities, and density isn't a magic pill. What would likely happen is several years of increased traffic and parking utilization before everything falls into place. We're talking about bike lanes, public transportation, and walkability.