Comments on: Yes on A, No on H: “Transit, Not Traffic” Around the Internet

By: The Final Push for “Yes on A, No on H” « Transbay Blog

The Final Push for “Yes on A, No on H” « Transbay Blog — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:44:36 +0000

[...] garages, and more pollution. I’ve already written about Prop A and Prop H several times before. Regular readers already know my position, but any new readers are encouraged to click through [...]

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:42:32 +0000

We get into circular reasoning there, though. A big part of the reason why buses are so slow is because key transit corridors are choked with traffic. The “negative” strategy is an important component of the “affirmative” strategy.

There is some threshold of transit improvement that needs to be done before drivers will be won over, but ultimately, I think the two strategies would realistically have to be more or less concurrent. I don’t think, for instance, that we should be enforcing 1:1 parking ratios in housing until Muni gets “good enough.”

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:33:14 +0000

That’s fine, but we have to be careful with the negative. Think about the extremes of the situation – making driving undesirable without increasing the quality and ability of MUNI (or equivalent transit agency) makes life miserable for everyone – including those who were happily riding MUNI before. I think we have to improve Bay Area public transit significantly before we can say that the main reason people aren’t using it is the car-first mentality. All I’m saying is that if you want to use both affirmative and negative strategies I think there needs to be a sequential order with the affirmative coming before the negative.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:24:22 +0000

It’s not that the purpose of transit is to “chip away” at the car-driving population (I don’t think I said that anywhere); the big point is that as the city and regional populations increase, growth patterns should be orchestrated so that they are essentially creating a transit-riding population, rather than a car-driving population — which means building housing that discourages car use/ownership when the resident doesn’t truly need a car — i.e. with easy transit access, and no 1:1 parking. Prop H, however, advocates a style of growth that will have adverse effects on the city and the region, and the pattern it perpetuates is not sustainable. People can choose to have a vehicle and bear the extra cost burdens associated with the purchase, use, and upkeep of that vehicle — but we should not be gearing future development to serve car drivers, as Prop H would instruct us to do.

I realize that this post comes off as staunchly anti-car, but part of the reason for that is because transit share around here is still too low. Driving is still the Bay Area’s default mentality. I’m advocating an “extreme” position knowing that we’ll likely get something in the middle. The key here is to redress the balance between transit and car shares. Part of the strategy needs to be “affirmative”, in the sense that people are encouraged to switch to transit because they see improvements in reliability, travel time, and comfort. But, as a dose of realism, another part of the strategy needs to be “negative” in the sense that driving is made less desirable. The two should be used in combination. We’re not going to get rid of all cars, but we can and should shift the balance.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:33:43 +0000

I have to say I strike a somewhat middle ground here – I don’t think the purpose of transit should be to chip away at people who could be using public transit but choose not to (Rather it should be to provide an easy and efficent way to get around a metropolitan area). What I do object to is requiring that parking be included with housing and the mentality that a car is a neccesity. You should be able to choose if you want a car, and all the expenses that come with it, or not. If you decide to own a car that will incur extra costs, but you’ve decided to pay them. Requiring parking to be bundled with housing means that either you’re forced to incur a cost you didn’t want to (i.e. paying for a spot – and sure you can’t rent it out, but why should you have to do all that management/extra leg work?) or you just park a car there and rarely use it, which is actually even worse for serious car owners. Now these car users will find former street parking occupied by cars parked in spots by people who barely ever drive those cars.

Actually, maybe this will help MUNI in the end as no one will want to drive around SF since street parking will be even worse…thereby making them use MUNI to get around while parked cars rot in the street.