Sustainable Land Development Today - September 2008 - (Page 23)

the tendency of narrow or “skinny” streets to encourage pedestrian use and contribute to a sense of neighborhood. Another culprit in feeding auto demand is parking. Local agencies require that new projects provide zoning-required parking, but sustainable design calls for reduced parking to discourage driving and encourage use of public transit. Antiquated code standards setting the ratio of parking per employee, dwelling unit, or square footage fly in the face of sustainable standards. If parking is, inconvenient, expensive, and less plentiful, it encourages people to change their habits and turn to public transportation or other alternatives. Of course we cannot ignore market demand. The demand for parking is very strong and will affect the marketability of a project. This will not change until there is a behavioral change in how we get around, with more convenient and plentiful transit alternatives to support that behavioral change. Another obstacle to Smart Growth is environmental regulations that fail to define different thresholds of adverse environmental significance for infill development. After all, one would expect current residents’ views to be impacted by dense, high-rise development in downtown cores; like-wise shade/shadow impacts would be unavoidable. Planning agencies that want to encourage Smart Growth need to distinguish between greenfeld and infill developments in terms of degree and types of impacts. Transportation funding policies Historically, federal transportation funding has been targeted at projects that facilitate auto use and vehicle miles traveled, leading to inefficient use of the transportation network and negative environmental consequences. Unfortunately, these policies have been mirrored at the state and local levels, promoting the movement of vehicles rather than people. These investment decisions were not based on land use and environmental policies that promote multi-modal transportation choices, sustainable energy use, and access to jobs and affordable housing. Instead, these decisions were made in order to provide “catch-up” infrastructure that was necessary to connect outlying communities to urban centers. The allocation decisions and criteria to make those decisions have not yet caught up with the greenhouse gas issue. It is not being addressed in the methodology used in making transportationfunding decisions. In California, the environmental community wants bond funds earmarked for transportation subject to AB 32. Not surprisingly, transportation interests are balking at that. Forces for change Spurred by the passage of AB 32, efforts are underway in California to reconcile environmental regulations and zoning requirements with Smart Growth Circle 119 • or www.SLDTonline.com/webcard www.SLDTonline.com 23 http://bigrmfg.com http://bigrmfg.com http://www.SLDTonline.com/webcard http://www.SLDTonline.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Sustainable Land Development Today - September 2008

Sustainable Land Development Today - September 2008 Contents Our Voice The Bottomline Editorial Board SLDT Resources Digging Deep Oases of Capital Build a Better Business on an Interactive, Virtual Landscape Regulation SLDI in Focus �� SLDI Sponsored Summit �� Workshops �� Bookstore Tee’d Up for Sustainability Retention Solutions Wastewater Redevelopment Industry News Marketplace Products/Services Showcase Advertiser Index The Last Word

Sustainable Land Development Today - September 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.