Two big requests, and some background: * (1) * I strongly support the CARPC taking whatever action it can to give more Dane County residents the choice to live in a human-scaled neighborhood like those shown at this link:
http://www.smartgrowthonlineaudio.org/pdf/TISG_2006_8-5x11.pdf * (2) * In the event that the current CARPC growth-related amendments do not pass I would like to see a plan developed on how to provide more people the choice to live in a walkable nightborhood in Dane County. Many of the current government processes in Dane County act to promote automobile mobility at the expense of other lifestyle choices. Thus, the lack of a plan to provide more choice constitutes a de-facto ruling by the CARPC and other Dane county governmental units to eliminate transportation choice from the people of Dane County. No action == Dumb growth! Even if Transport 2020 comes to fruition, the MPO staff are already hard at work facilitating dumb growth in outlying areas by anticipating traffic needs as a result of that dumb growth. This actually acts to induce the growth that their models are predicting. As part of the creation of a smart-growth plan, I suggest a 75-year (lifetime of new home) estimate be done on how much local transportation spending (68% of which comes from property taxes) will be required by assuming the models that MPO staff are using are accurate. Then, I would like to see a 75-year estimate done on the transportation spending required to facilitate a scenario with 30% of the new development adhering to smart growth principles. Then, looking at the price difference between the two options, we can understand the cost/benefits to taxpayers of various development models. This caluclated difference could then be used to calculate an impact fee for a development based on how much transportation spending would be required to support it. Such a fee could be used to offset the costs of roadbuilding from property taxes, which currently punishes people who live in areas that generate less than average demand for road capacity. Alternatively, the data from road capacity demand for a development could be used to create a development-specific property tax bill that once again, more fairly distributes the transportation burdens created by less access efficient types of development. Facts: Realtor Magazine ---------------- According to studies recently published in Realtor Magazine, a large majority of Americans believe that more areas should be built according to smart growth principles: http://www.realtor.org/rmodaily.nsf/pages/News2007102502 Two choice findings from this article: "Nearly nine in 10 believe that new communities should be built so people can walk more and drive less; cars, homes and buildings should be required to be more energy efficient; and public transportation should be improved and made more available. Americans strongly disapprove (84 percent) of increasing gasoline taxes as a way to discourage driving and reduce energy use." "Eight in 10 respondents prefer redeveloping older urban and suburban areas rather than building new housing and commercial developments on the edge of existing suburbs. More than half of those surveyed believe that businesses and homes should be built closer together to shorten commutes, limit traffic congestion and allow residents to walk to stores and shops instead of using their cars. Six in 10 also agree that new-home construction should be limited in outlying areas and encouraged in inner urban areas to shorten commutes and prevent more traffic congestion." Accessibility Efficient Transportation Planning ----------------------------------------------- This article provides some great insight into how building roads creates more demand for roads: http://www.arch.utah.edu/bartholomew/Bartholomew_AccessTranspPlanning%20(2).pdf _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
