Comments on: Leaving the “Transit” Out of Transit-Oriented Development http://transbayblog.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/ Transportation and urban planning in the San Francisco Bay Area Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:43:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: November 2008 Election: Results and Reflections « Transbay Blog http://transbayblog.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-6233 November 2008 Election: Results and Reflections « Transbay Blog Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:50:48 +0000 http://transbay.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-6233 [...] the response should be to the bayshore Cargill salt flats development, which I wrote about briefly last year. In the end, both measures failed. Unsurprisingly, Measure W’s more stringent charter [...] [...] the response should be to the bayshore Cargill salt flats development, which I wrote about briefly last year. In the end, both measures failed. Unsurprisingly, Measure W’s more stringent charter [...]

]]> By: Zig http://transbayblog.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1266 Zig Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:25:34 +0000 http://transbay.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1266 Same story with development in Brisbane and South City and on and on The wrong stuff is going in the wrong places and I am not hopeful Same story with development in Brisbane and South City and on and on

The wrong stuff is going in the wrong places and I am not hopeful

]]> By: Chris http://transbayblog.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1091 Chris Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:49:03 +0000 http://transbay.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1091 Very true on the parking policy. Taking a look at that plan...I chose the wrong word with "ambitious". Twenty years and 2500 units? Ugh. Very true on the parking policy.

Taking a look at that plan…I chose the wrong word with “ambitious”. Twenty years and 2500 units? Ugh.

]]> By: Steve http://transbayblog.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1074 Steve Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:23:49 +0000 http://transbay.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1074 Although, Redwood City is the proud owner of the most progressive parking policy in the Bay Area. No, seriously. Although, Redwood City is the proud owner of the most progressive parking policy in the Bay Area. No, seriously.

]]> By: Eric http://transbayblog.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1066 Eric Fri, 02 Nov 2007 02:49:32 +0000 http://transbay.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1066 Here's a map (<a href="http://www.redwoodcity.org//cds/planning/pdf/Neighborhood%20Maps/DOWNTOWN.pdf" rel="nofollow">PDF link</a>) of the planned uses for the downtown Redwood City area. Downtown is basically the area between Sequoia and Middlefield, that isn't labeled on the map. The Caltrain station is right near Sequoia High School. The downtown plan, which was approved this past spring, calls for about 2500 units of housing downtown, but those will be added over the course of years, and it doesn't seem as though the city actually has that many units lined up yet. I believe that the <a href="http://www.villamontgomery.org/" rel="nofollow">Villa Montgomery</a> project (just 58 units) is the main (only?) addition this year. According to the plan, buildings could be as high as 12 stories in the central zone, tapering off to 4-5 stories at the edges. There's quite a bit of residential parking, though. Here’s a map (PDF link) of the planned uses for the downtown Redwood City area. Downtown is basically the area between Sequoia and Middlefield, that isn’t labeled on the map. The Caltrain station is right near Sequoia High School.

The downtown plan, which was approved this past spring, calls for about 2500 units of housing downtown, but those will be added over the course of years, and it doesn’t seem as though the city actually has that many units lined up yet. I believe that the Villa Montgomery project (just 58 units) is the main (only?) addition this year. According to the plan, buildings could be as high as 12 stories in the central zone, tapering off to 4-5 stories at the edges. There’s quite a bit of residential parking, though.

]]> By: Chris http://transbayblog.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1060 Chris Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:26:25 +0000 http://transbay.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1060 Ok, yeah it is farther than I was thinking. How is Redwood City's downtown plan progressing? I know that they had some delays regarding parking issues (what else?), but I also remember that it was a pretty ambitious plan to add several thousand units of housing downtown. Ok, yeah it is farther than I was thinking.

How is Redwood City’s downtown plan progressing? I know that they had some delays regarding parking issues (what else?), but I also remember that it was a pretty ambitious plan to add several thousand units of housing downtown.

]]> By: Eric http://transbayblog.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1059 Eric Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:48:02 +0000 http://transbay.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1059 A ferry terminal would help slightly, though it will take time for ferries to elevate in status as a universally viable transit alternative, and the Caltrain crossing wouldn't really be that close. But my real question here is if there would be the will to build truly high-density housing -- and enough of it, so that you would have a critical mass of transit riders to justify frequent-enough bus service to be a convincing alternative to driving to a population that will likely be 100% car-owner. If Redwood City is so interested in more housing (and they should be), I'd rather see it near downtown, easy walking distance from shops, jobs, and Caltrain -- and not in the form of the "likely compromise" Chris mentions, low density suburban housing. A ferry terminal would help slightly, though it will take time for ferries to elevate in status as a universally viable transit alternative, and the Caltrain crossing wouldn’t really be that close. But my real question here is if there would be the will to build truly high-density housing — and enough of it, so that you would have a critical mass of transit riders to justify frequent-enough bus service to be a convincing alternative to driving to a population that will likely be 100% car-owner. If Redwood City is so interested in more housing (and they should be), I’d rather see it near downtown, easy walking distance from shops, jobs, and Caltrain — and not in the form of the “likely compromise” Chris mentions, low density suburban housing.

]]> By: Steve http://transbayblog.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1058 Steve Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:45:18 +0000 http://transbay.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1058 Just to clarify, the Dumbarton (Caltrain) East Menlo station would be nowhere near this site, really--over a mile at the closest (assuming it's built). Given service levels and direction of travel, the most convenient major transit option would be Downtown Redwood, also about a mile away from the closest corner of the site. The ferry would be closer but service would be limited and as the man mentioned, highly subsidized. Just to clarify, the Dumbarton (Caltrain) East Menlo station would be nowhere near this site, really–over a mile at the closest (assuming it’s built). Given service levels and direction of travel, the most convenient major transit option would be Downtown Redwood, also about a mile away from the closest corner of the site. The ferry would be closer but service would be limited and as the man mentioned, highly subsidized.

]]> By: Chris http://transbayblog.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1056 Chris Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:04:42 +0000 http://transbay.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1056 Is this not relatively close to where a potential Caltrain Dumbarton crossing would be? I agree with your skepticism, Eric, but I think that if this development was say 50% of the area (with the rest converted back to bayshore), high density walkable residential/commercial with new bus service and potentially a new Caltrain crossing close by - this could be a good spot for development. What I don't want is the likely compromise - low density residential on half the land. Is this not relatively close to where a potential Caltrain Dumbarton crossing would be?

I agree with your skepticism, Eric, but I think that if this development was say 50% of the area (with the rest converted back to bayshore), high density walkable residential/commercial with new bus service and potentially a new Caltrain crossing close by – this could be a good spot for development. What I don’t want is the likely compromise – low density residential on half the land.

]]> By: Aaron http://transbayblog.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1055 Aaron Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:52:44 +0000 http://transbay.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/leaving-the-transit-out-of-transit-oriented-development/#comment-1055 Redwood City wants to put in a ferry terminal at their port, which is very close to this location. While I doubt it would be enough to justify expensive ferry service, it would improve things slightly. Redwood City wants to put in a ferry terminal at their port, which is very close to this location. While I doubt it would be enough to justify expensive ferry service, it would improve things slightly.

]]>