MUCH OF THE DEBATE about the Association of Bay Area Governments’ Plan Bay Area centered around one core principle. That’s the contention that building high-density housing adjacent to transit lines will cause higher transit usage, in turn curbing global warming-causing carbon emissions.
It’s a grand theory that’s encouraged altruistic support for large apartment blocks clustered in transit-accessible areas. If this “new urbanism” concept truly works, Plan Bay Area makes sense.
If it’s hype and not backed by statistics, then it’s just greenwashing lucrative large-scale real estate development.
Other than the oft-heard “everyone knows” that high-density housing and transit usage are linked, proof is in short supply. It does work in big-city New York and some regional central cities including San Francisco. The dilemma is that there’s little data confirming that the claimed housing-transit nexus makes sense in suburbia or smaller cities.
If transit-oriented development can thrive in any of the less-dense metro areas, it would be in Portland. New urbanism and transit-oriented “smart growth” guide the Oregon city’s planning.
Portlanders have invested heavily in their excellent TriMet transit system.
The results are disappointing. In 1989, only 2.1 percent of Portland residents used transit. Twenty years later after creation of dense housing near bus and rail stops, that increased to only 2.8 percent.
As the pioneering Genevieve Giuliano-UC Berkeley study reported, “a large proportion of all commuting cannot be explained by job access considerations, housing preferences or other such factors.”
While frustrating to planners, proximity to transit is a minor factor when making job and housing decisions.
Unsurprisingly, this question is rarely asked. It may be that housing proponents are reluctant, fearing that the relationship may be a myth.
This claimed linkage perplexed the Marin Conservation League’s North Marin Unit.
League President Susan Stompe and former county supervisor Gail Wilhelm recently asked residents at Novato’s 124-unit, six-story Millwood apartments/Whole Foods building how they get about.
At 60 units per acre, Millwood is everyone’s definition of high density.
While replies were too limited to constitute a valid survey, anecdotal results indicate that few use transit. One factor is that a high percentage of Millworks residents are retired and use their autos to travel about.
Millwood’s apartment dwellers liked the notion of more affordable downtown living but adjacency to transit wasn’t a motivating factor.
The best method to prove whether a housing-transit connection delivers in practice is to survey suburban residents who have already moved into high-density housing.
Ask the folks living in the Mission City’s Rafael Town Center, Corte Madera’s San Clemente Place or Wyndover apartments in Novato.
It would be instructive to learn whether new residents at the now-under-construction 180-unit, four-story apartments along Highway 101 in Corte Madera will rely on buses or ferries.
We need to know if the housing-transit linkup is simply a green excuse for high-density development. If it actually accomplishes what’s promised, why not demonstrate it with hard data?
None of this argues against facilitating a wide range of affordable housing choices in appropriate locations. Nor is it a slam against transit’s acknowledged ability to prove an efficient and green alternative travel mode.
Even if professional surveying reveals that building housing next to transit for greenhouse gas reductions is an illusion, Marinites can still achieve these valid social goals.
We do it by zoning for well-designed second units plus mixed commercial-residential developments. Couple that with expanded Section 8 housing grants.
Marin can and should promote broadly agreed-upon social and equity values without building massive high-density housing blocks.
Columnist Dick Spotswood of Mill Valley now shares his views on local politics twice weekly in the IJ. His email address is spotswood@comcast.net.
