transpo

Land Use, the “Jobshed” and exurban corporate campuses externalizing transit costs to employees

| Emily

Just found this great, although older, article from the SPUR Urbanist, which discusses the growth in job markets outside of traditional city downtowns and the effect on transit, land use, commuting decisions, etc. I found this particularly interesting re: the discussion about commuter vanpools and so on at the TransportationCamp “Employers and Transit” session on Saturday.

The article recognizes that many jobs ARE going to be and continue to be located at various ex-urban locations. According to the authors, the key is getting some jobs back in transit and density heavy downtowns, as well as pursuing strategies to get companies to localize around suburban transit hubs, as well as densifying sprawling highway-side campuses in order to service their transit needs in a better way than single-vehicle-occupancy high-mile trips. 

Great shot of highway 101 in San Mateo from Flickr user jeroen020

I think this is a very interesting issue to look at, having a personal interest in the juncture of land use with transportation issues (as well as the attendant issues of GHG emissions, quality of life, and sprawl). Does anyone have a good resource on the potential of the California SB 375 law? I’m currently trying to learn more about this legislation, and being new here, don’t have the network and resources yet to formulate a good idea of the key stakeholders. I’d appreciate some tips on great articles or sites to check out!

Sexytransit

| Emily

After the morning session at Transportation Camp West, and a well-earned burrito from Tonayense (requiring a 10 minute wait in some very cold rain), I headed off to a session called “Sexy Transit”, with more than a few others. In fact, it was standing room only in the little gallery space!

You can spot me in the back there in a striped jersey in this picture from Richard Masoner aka Cyclelicious’ photostream above. It was a great discussion veering from “what is sexy?” to why we need to make public transit sexy! Reps from local municipal transit agencies shared their input – as a new Californian and new to the West coast in general – I was happy to learn. Apparently Santa Cruz has a fun double-decker bus and AC Transit got some “sexy” new vehicles sourced from Europe (and face the wrath of Made in Americanists … )

I think these are the buses he meant, from Flickr user longa1020

For some, “sexy” means “empowerment and mobility”, which extends from less humiliating ways to board a bus on a wheelchair to cleaner, sleeker looking vehicles that have a modern image. I made an offhand comment on bus crowding (especially in downtown areas), that make it next to impossible to consider using the luxury of possible wi-fi, let alone get on with small children. After the session, several people approached me to mention that was a big concern of theirs, to! Who wants to go on public transit if it’s always an armpit-to-armpit battle of bags, butts, and bodies, anyway?

Other key points I jotted down from the session:

  • Arguments based on cost-efficiency and environmentalism aren’t sexy
  • Signage, icons, and maps should be simpler and more “sexy”. Think about the iconic look (and easy to remember station names) in the DC Metro and London underground
  • Market public transit in new and better ways. Utilize student designers for projects. Transit can be “hidden” so make it visible to motorists on a bridge or highway with an underground train line! “You could be at your destination right now, on the train speeding along unbeknownst to you….right underneath!”
  • There are so many transit agencies in the Bay Area – what about a unifying logo like “T” or a train icon, so tourists and commuters could know there’s a station nearby when in a neighboring city
  • Take PRIDE in your public transit system – this means having attractive bus stops and subway stations (with public art, etc.) 
  • Lots of people in the group had interest in continuing the discussion!