Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Honestly, I'm tiring of reading about big projects in SF Biz coming to Oakland at some point who knows when in the future. Let me know when the cranes start rising.
I've provided lots of references to peer-reviewed studies (data). You have provided none.
I've been busy, and just noticed this. Went back and read your reference to what you call studies. Maybe there's one study in your comment, but mostly its reasoning. Some of your reasoning is impeccable. Of course, if you want to discourage a behavior, make it difficult. But, it is also true that unless you make it flat out impossible, people can (and will) do it anyway, they just encounter and create more problems as they do the thing you made difficult.
So, for example, you think living near BART solves everything. BART shuts down at midnight. I routinely catch flights that arrive back at SFO at 11:35pm, too late to make it off the plane and onto the last BART train. Living in Oakland, what does that make the easiest, safest, way to get from (and thus likely to) SFO? You guessed it--a car (someone's: mine, a friend's, someone's).
Much of the new housing development in Oakland is for singles and young adults. How many of them are going to be able to return home from nightlife via a BART that shuts down around midnight. Lots of nightlife is spontaneous--too spontaneous for Zipcar. You push them to Uber? What about that vaunted public transportation?
Anyway, I think we should just bookmark this discussion. In 2035 an urban historian can see which vision of how people would behave was most accurate. Frankly, I hope I am wrong and you are right. Alas, I fear your vision is built on hope, while mine, built on hope, is also seasoned with an understanding of how people actually behave.
We'll see.
PS--As far as we know, Jade??? still has her car. She doesn't "really" need it, she says. Yet, there it sits, in her possession, ready for use just the same. Wonder what that might mean for any prediction of people's behavior around the new developments in Oakland.
I've been busy, and just noticed this. Went back and read your reference to what you call studies. Maybe there's one study in your comment, but mostly its reasoning. Some of your reasoning is impeccable. Of course, if you want to discourage a behavior, make it difficult. But, it is also true that unless you make it flat out impossible, people can (and will) do it anyway, they just encounter and create more problems as they do the thing you made difficult.
So, for example, you think living near BART solves everything. BART shuts down at midnight. I routinely catch flights that arrive back at SFO at 11:35pm, too late to make it off the plane and onto the last BART train. Living in Oakland, what does that make the easiest, safest, way to get from (and thus likely to) SFO? You guessed it--a car (someone's: mine, a friend's, someone's).
There are these weird things called taxis. There are also airport shuttles. Both work after hours!
Quote:
Much of the new housing development in Oakland is for singles and young adults. How many of them are going to be able to return home from nightlife via a BART that shuts down around midnight. Lots of nightlife is spontaneous--too spontaneous for Zipcar. You push them to Uber? What about that vaunted public transportation?
You don't know that many of these "young people." Many aren't going to SF for nightlife. They are staying in Oakland. I am single and young-ish. I rarely go to SF to go out these days. I prefer to stay in Oakland. And I can ride my bike there!
There are also all sorts of options to get home: taxis and ubers. You don't want to drive after a night of drinking.
Quote:
Anyway, I think we should just bookmark this discussion. In 2035 an urban historian can see which vision of how people would behave was most accurate. Frankly, I hope I am wrong and you are right. Alas, I fear your vision is built on hope, while mine, built on hope, is also seasoned with an understanding of how people actually behave.
There has been a shift over the past 10 years. And the way our climate is changing, it require more behavioral changes. Hopefully we can build infrastructure to keep up!
We'll see.
Quote:
PS--As far as we know, Jade??? still has her car. She doesn't "really" need it, she says. Yet, there it sits, in her possession, ready for use just the same. Wonder what that might mean for any prediction of people's behavior around the new developments in Oakland.
Take care.
I have driven a couple times this month. It turned out to be pretty far -- Brentwood and beyond. I clocked about 100 mikes this month so far, all on that one trip out to the exurbs. My car has otherwise been hanging out in the garage. My bike on the other hand has been quite busy! I've pedaled more miles than I have driven in the last 4 weeks or so. I've flown twice this month, and I did not take my car, I took transit.
Honestly, I'm tiring of reading about big projects in SF Biz coming to Oakland at some point who knows when in the future. Let me know when the cranes start rising.
Amen to that. Sprouts is making progress, but the CVS on 30th/Broadway will be open in a few weeks, I already started to see shelves and signage inside.
There are also apartments being built up on 51st and Broadway that is actually making progress across from the Chase bank up there. So ya know, that's something.
There are also apartments being built up on 51st and Broadway that is actually making progress across from the Chase bank up there. So ya know, that's something.
There are these weird things called taxis. There are also airport shuttles. Both work after hours!
I guess you've never arrived at SFO too late to make the 11:54 last train out. I have. Once I anticipated such a late arrival and booked a shuttle to head to Oakland. They book you, but if there aren't enough people, they just keep telling you they'll be there. But they don't arrive until you may as well take the first train out.
Taxis to the east bay (last time I checked, about 5 years ago) were over $100. Those are not options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
You don't know that many of these "young people." Many aren't going to SF for nightlife. They are staying in Oakland. I am single and young-ish. I rarely go to SF to go out these days. I prefer to stay in Oakland. And I can ride my bike there!
There are also all sorts of options to get home: taxis and ubers. You don't want to drive after a night of drinking.
Granted. I rarely head to SF nightlife, too, Oakland and the east bay has lots! However, who wants to bike ride home at 2am? Maybe you do, but I doubt most do.
Further, it is best not to drink and drive. There are these things you MAY have heard of--designated drivers. Many people use them. Kind of hard to have a designated biker be of any use to the person who was drinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
There has been a shift over the past 10 years. And the way our climate is changing, it require more behavioral changes. Hopefully we can build infrastructure to keep up!
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
I have driven a couple times this month. It turned out to be pretty far -- Brentwood and beyond. I clocked about 100 mikes this month so far, all on that one trip out to the exurbs. My car has otherwise been hanging out in the garage. My bike on the other hand has been quite busy! I've pedaled more miles than I have driven in the last 4 weeks or so. I've flown twice this month, and I did not take my car, I took transit.
If you look at my original post, that was my point. You drove when you had to go far. That's my situation. I basically walk, bus, and bike most places. I flew twice last month, once to Chicago, once for two weeks in Europe (i.e., more luggage than usual). I used BART to get to SFO. Yet, I still have a car. I won't get rid of it. Few will. Why? For me, when I need it I need it. (And when I want it--for a spur of the moment trip to Napa with my honey, for example--I want it]. Its nice to have a car one can use when one wants; its better to not have to figure out how to get to zipcar or whatever, what the timeframes are, and all, or rent a car that has been who knows how horribly driven and maintained.
The original issue of my note was parking, and parking isn't about whether the person might bike, ACTransit, or BART, the issue is whether the people who will take those new places in that parking-impacted neighborhood will have a car, even if they rarely use it. You're proving my point, Jade. You said you had no need for your car. Great! Your bike miles vs. car miles support your claim of not needing car. Great! So, when do you plan to get rid of the car? Or, at least, what are you waiting for? We're all waiting to see you put up. Or, well, . . ..
Granted, yours is parked in a garage. Most people in that neighborhood park on the street. Building a building with less than one space per unit almost assures more people will be parking on the street. And those cars will sit there even if (especially if) they take BART to work. That was my point. Everything you've said about the lack of need of a car coupled with your continuing to own one suggests my concerns are valid.
The original issue of my note was parking, and parking isn't about whether the person might bike, ACTransit, or BART, the issue is whether the people who will take those new places in that parking-impacted neighborhood will have a car, even if they rarely use it. You're proving my point, Jade. You said you had no need for your car. Great! Your bike miles vs. car miles support your claim of not needing car. Great! So, when do you plan to get rid of the car? Or, at least, what are you waiting for? We're all waiting to see you put up. Or, well, . . ..
. . . Most people in that neighborhood park on the street. Building a building with less than one space per unit almost assures more people will be parking on the street. And those cars will sit there even if (especially if) they take BART to work. That was my point. Everything you've said about the lack of need of a car coupled with your continuing to own one suggests my concerns are valid.
Some applaud builders building buildings with less than one parking space per unit. I do not. On-street parking is impacted in the areas in question already. Pushing more cars onto those streets only lowers quality of life for everyone already there and the new arrivals, too. Yet, some of those who applaud such buildings claim that people won't buy cars. That's an intriguing hope, but when you look at it, some of the supporters of building insufficient parking claim they themselves do not need a car. Yet they have one. When asked when they plan to get rid of the car they have, what do we hear? Crickets.
The silence speaks volumes about the folly of building buildings with insufficient parking. Even the supporters of such building designs find they cannot or will not bring their behavior into line with the ideals they have for others. Owning a car is really useful for non-commute long-distance trips, some of which may not be discretionary. If one has the means to have a car under those conditions (i.e., not needing it for commuting), most (not all) people will keep the car. Instead of learning from their own reluctance to get rid of their car, and changing their policy position, what do we get? Crickets. Just crickets.
I've had getting rid of my car on the mid-term roadmap for a bit. Initially I was hoping to move to a more transit oriented neighborhood (with closer car share stops), I haven't moved yet. Hence, no push to get rid of my car. I also have a plan b, but that is about 2 years out. One of the 2 will happen in the next 2ish years, but as it stands using my deeded parking spot has no impact on anyone else.
When the time does come for me to move, a parking space isn't on my priority list. Unfortunately you think your preferences should inform all development. Most of our development assumes everyone has a car and needs a parking space. This increases the cost of development significantly. We have a housing affordability problem, and removing parking spaces does a good deal to remedy that. About 20% of Oaklanders do not have cars anyway, why should 100% of our housing be designed for people with cars?
SoSciProf seems to prefer anecdotes to statistics, so here's mine:
I'm a car-free Oaklander in a building with no parking at all. I live about 1 mile from 19th street bart, and bike everywhere. When I take a recreational trip (my girlfriend and I enjoy camping...) we get a car from enterprise... It's significantly cheaper and easier than owning a car for us. Different lifestyles are different. Not everyone needs or wants a car.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
