4 ms·

California rejects SB 50, a push for denser development near transit

15 points by ed 7y ago

neonate 7y ago
http://archive.md/VRvXh http://archive.md/VRvXh
rsync 7y ago
Californian (Bay Are) here. Denser development near transit sounds fantastic - it's just the kind of Jane Jacobs future I hope we can build for ourselves. However, I strongly disliked SB50 - and other measures like it - because they consider American-style busing to be transit. Buses in the United States, for the most part, are throwaway, afterthought breadcrumbs that planners and political leaders cram in to soften the blow of overwhelmingly automobile-centric transit design. This results in poorly scheduled, infrequent, usually empty buses bonking their way around infrastructure that has no place for them. There are exceptions, of course, some of which exist here in the Bay Area, but for the most part in the United States, busing is the lame, pathetic stand-in for real transit investment - like subways and commuter trains. What does that mean for a policy like SB50 ? It means that any old bus stop, which is completely dysfunctional and derelict, counts as "transit" around which to build denser housing. This could be anywhere. I don't want denser housing built anywhere some planning afterthought put a bus stop that nobody uses. Further, I don't want to continue to enable busing to exist as a viable policy option - because it isn't.
- diebeforei485 7y ago
  > It means that any old bus stop, which is completely dysfunctional and derelict, counts as "transit" around which to build denser housing. I don't know where you're getting your information. Let's look at the actual text of SB50[1], which is fairly clear: it has to be within one-quarter mile radius of a stop on a high-quality bus corridor, which is defined as: “High-quality bus corridor” means a corridor with fixed route bus service that meets all of the following criteria: (1) It has average service intervals for each line and in each direction of no more than 10 minutes during the three peak hours between 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., inclusive, and the three peak hours between 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., inclusive, on Monday through Friday. (2) It has average service intervals for each line and in each direction of no more than 20 minutes during the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., inclusive, on Monday through Friday. (3) It has average service intervals for each line and in each direction of no more than 30 minutes during the hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., inclusive, on Saturday and Sunday. (4) It has met the criteria specified in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, for the five years preceding the date that a development proponent submits an application for approval of a residential development. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
  - chrismcb 7y ago
    You don't know where the op gets his information from... But then you agree? He says he didn't like sb50 because it treats busses as transit. You then basically agree and point out that the density had to be within a certain distance of bus stations... Busses are not the best mass transit
    - diebeforei485 7y ago
      Well, OP talked about empty buses and bus stops that nobody uses, and claimed this bill would result in housing development there. That is misinformation, because the actual bill only applies to strictly defined high-quality bus stops.

15 points by ed 7y ago

http://archive.md/VRvXh http://archive.md/VRvXh

Californian (Bay Are) here. Denser development near transit sounds fantastic - it's just the kind of Jane Jacobs future I hope we can build for ourselves. However, I strongly disliked SB50 - and other measures like it - because they consider American-style busing to be transit. Buses in the United States, for the most part, are throwaway, afterthought breadcrumbs that planners and political leaders cram in to soften the blow of overwhelmingly automobile-centric transit design. This results in poorly scheduled, infrequent, usually empty buses bonking their way around infrastructure that has no place for them. There are exceptions, of course, some of which exist here in the Bay Area, but for the most part in the United States, busing is the lame, pathetic stand-in for real transit investment - like subways and commuter trains. What does that mean for a policy like SB50 ? It means that any old bus stop, which is completely dysfunctional and derelict, counts as "transit" around which to build denser housing. This could be anywhere. I don't want denser housing built anywhere some planning afterthought put a bus stop that nobody uses. Further, I don't want to continue to enable busing to exist as a viable policy option - because it isn't.

diebeforei485 7y ago
> It means that any old bus stop, which is completely dysfunctional and derelict, counts as "transit" around which to build denser housing. I don't know where you're getting your information. Let's look at the actual text of SB50[1], which is fairly clear: it has to be within one-quarter mile radius of a stop on a high-quality bus corridor, which is defined as: “High-quality bus corridor” means a corridor with fixed route bus service that meets all of the following criteria: (1) It has average service intervals for each line and in each direction of no more than 10 minutes during the three peak hours between 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., inclusive, and the three peak hours between 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., inclusive, on Monday through Friday. (2) It has average service intervals for each line and in each direction of no more than 20 minutes during the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., inclusive, on Monday through Friday. (3) It has average service intervals for each line and in each direction of no more than 30 minutes during the hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., inclusive, on Saturday and Sunday. (4) It has met the criteria specified in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, for the five years preceding the date that a development proponent submits an application for approval of a residential development. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
- chrismcb 7y ago
  You don't know where the op gets his information from... But then you agree? He says he didn't like sb50 because it treats busses as transit. You then basically agree and point out that the density had to be within a certain distance of bus stations... Busses are not the best mass transit
  - diebeforei485 7y ago
    Well, OP talked about empty buses and bus stops that nobody uses, and claimed this bill would result in housing development there. That is misinformation, because the actual bill only applies to strictly defined high-quality bus stops.