 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||
 |
Transit villages: a smart alternative
|
||||||
|
Santa Clarita models sprawl with expensive single-family dwellings that put more cars on the roads. |
The new subdivisions sprouting at the urban fringes-in areas such as Santa Clarita, Victorville, Temecula, and Moreno Valley-promise more than just a bigger house for the money to home buyers. By following a low-density, auto-dependent suburban model, these developments also promise to aggravate some of the regional problems that affect our quality of life: vanishing open space, deteriorating air quality, increasing traffic congestion. Is this development inevitable given our growing population and shortage of affordable housing? Or is there a better way?
To grow or not to grow?
California is expected to add 11 to 16 million new residents over the next 20 years. L.A. County is expected to grow by about 30 percent in the next 25 years. That’s equivalent to adding a city the size of Chicago within the county.
So, the real question is how do we accommodate this growth and improve our quality of life? Both state and regional transportation experts have concluded that we cannot build our way out of our current traffic problems-there is neither enough money nor public support for building new freeways or expanding old freeways. Most agree that the remedy lies in giving people alternatives to driving alone, such as van and carpools, and an expanded network of rapid bus and rail lines.
|
Portland models multimodal with its mix of housing, shops and businesses close to transit. |
A new old model?
Transit villages, also known as transit-oriented development, have emerged as an alternative model to urban sprawl. Like most new ideas, there is much that is old and familiar about transit villages, because the approach draws heavily on our experience building towns and cities before the age of the automobile. The basic idea is to build shops, housing, and offices together in areas that are well served by public transportation, much like older downtown districts. In the updated transit village version, moderate- to higher-density development is directed to areas within an easy walk of subway and light rail stations as well as areas with quality express and local bus service. Special attention is given to pedestrian comfort and safety in designing streets.
The main benefits of transit villages stem from more efficient land use and more compact building. Building up uses far less land than building out and allows for growth without using open space. Building more compactly means there are more destinations at each transit stop within easy walking distance. As a result transit can run more frequently and thus be more convenient for more people.
A recent study by Caltrans spelled out 10 benefits of transit-oriented development:
A matter of style
What about the American Dream of the house with a picket fence?
Neither suburban living nor urban living is the preferred choice for everyone all the time. Many people have enjoyed one or the other at different times in their lives. For example, many people in their 20s and 30s as well as teenagers love being where the action is: in an urban environment. On the other hand, parents with young children often like to have a yard. Many older people appreciate living in a denser neighborhood because it means having a wider range of stores, services, and entertainment within walking distance.
In Los Angeles, 85 percent of the residential land is reserved for single-family homes for about 1.5 million people. The other 2.3 million Angelenos live in apartments and condominiums on the remaining 15 percent of the residential land.
Not everyone can afford a single-family house. If we are going to get a handle on sprawl, it’s critical that we improve the quality of life in urban neighborhoods so that there are good choices for people who live in the city whether by choice or by necessity. It is in all of our best interest to make city living attractive for people who prefer a balcony to a backyard and the convenience of transit to driving. This means, among other things, public investment in creating and maintaining efficient public transit and quality public parks in areas where people don’t have backyards.
Can we build transit villages in Southern California?
Locally, we have some excellent examples of transit villages, both built and in the planning stages. Along the MTA Red Line subway significant amounts of housing and commercial development have occurred at and around several stations in Hollywood. In Pasadena, the Holly Street Village apartment complex was built over 10 years ago in anticipation of the opening of the MTA Gold Line last July, and a number of other developments are in progress at several stations along the route.
Even with these successful examples, local zoning and neighborhood opposition make undertaking such transit-oriented development a lengthy and difficult process. Most cities and counties in Southern California have planning codes that require separation of residential, commercial, and industrial buildings that runs counter to the transit-village model. Local planning codes also require lots of parking, which is expensive and removes some of the incentive to use transit. Outdated zoning allows for suburban-style development to occupy land around transit stops, which undermines efforts to intensify development in areas well served by transit.
What you can do to support transit villages
The potential to create transit villages in Southern California is in areas that are already developed, usually on a low-density auto-oriented model. You can support transit villages by attending your local city or county planning commission meetings and speaking up:
