What If You Don’t Need ‘Development’?
One of the main arguments for rail-based solutions is ‘TOD’ - Transit-Oriented Development — i.e. if you build a nice transit system, then investors will build stuff near that transit system - that is, ‘development’ will take place - and that is good for people, the city/town, the environment, etc.
But what if you don’t need development to take place where you are trying to provide transit service?
I don’t know if this is one of the arguments for Geary BRT, but I guess it could be. It could be if folks like me who were pushing for rail on Geary were pushing for it based on the fact that it would bring new development to Geary. I’m not. At least, it doesn’t seem to be particularly important to me. San Francisco is already plenty dense, and Geary could certainly benefit from better, more efficient land use, but I’m not really arguing that to justify using real transit on Geary as opposed to buses.
TOD-type reasons could be something I use to advocate for rail-based solutions on Geary, but it would not be the primary reason.
My argument for rail on Geary, and rail anywhere, is that it offers dignified travel, and as such, it is suitable for human use. It’s kind of like that Barkley Right Guard commercial, ‘Anything less, would be uncivilized‘:
If we want folks to use public transit instead of their cars - for whatever reasons we might want that - then we need to offer them a viable alternative. Buses are not a viable alternative. (Just ask Barkley about that.)
If we want to talk about a luxury tour bus or something, then conceivably that type of bus service could be a form of civilized motor transport, but really, even that is doubtful.
There are plenty of other good reasons to support real transit - especially for us walkers and bikers. We want people to get out of their cars and re-join the human race, so we should give them the ability to do that - and that means real transit - sidewalks, bikes, rail, ferry - things like this.
But it’s a question of priorities and resources. We know rail solutions cost money, just like roads and lots of other important infrastructure like electric generation facilities and waste facilities and water facilities — it costs money to build worthwhile stuff. But what if there’s no real, short-term investment ‘payoff’ for developing rail - like has been the case with the Portland streetcar, our own T-Third line, etc.? Should we still build it?
Yes. Of course. Unless you like living among cars and all the horrors they bring.
Leave comment (2)[p.s. The Forums are open for participation.]
January 5th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
I’d say that rail combined with good TOD has a better chance of getting people out of their cars, at least some of the time, then a rail corridor that requires people to drive to the station. So TOD has a purpose beyond just better more organized development but it actually helps reducing the number of vehicle trips taken.
July 27th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Thought you folks might like to see this exploration of the City’s bike policy…
Hosted by the Guardian’s own editorial messenger, Steve Jones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a0RpfOA3kA
Enjoy!