Here is a link to a court case that might of interest to some, Wisconsin App: Two Parcels Can Be Treated As One For Regulatory Takings Purposes, If They Are Contiguous.
I have always wondered whether the common lot merger provision would pass the regulatory takings test. I know there have been cases challenging the provisions of merger altogether, Pearson v Hull, but I have not seen one that addresses regulatory takings quite so directly.
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Monday, May 5, 2014
This Transit Battle Caught My Eye
Google sued over buses
It has been a few years since I have exclusively worn a transportation planners hat. Then again, most local planners delve into this area time and again.
The goal of every transportation planner, especially those working with transit options, is to provide the lowest cost transit option possible. Face it, it is nearly impossible to drag people out of their private automobiles. The idea of a free ride as a job perk just might.
So, in the land of the worst air pollution, and some of the worst traffic congestion, a group of private employers have gathered together to offer employees fair free transit. And entities that should be applauding this are taking to the ramparts.
MASCO, serving the Longwood Medical Area, is a prime example of employer paid for public transportation that works. MASCO shuttle buses serve MBTA transit stations, bus stops and their own park and ride facilities. Creating a fully integrated set of transit options - fare free to employees - for the medical facilities in the Longwood area of Boston.
If anything, there is one strange aspect of California law that needs to be changed. Not allowing private buses to use "bus stops" seems quite strange. The more buses that meet at a particular location, the more opportunity for passengers to decide to catch a transfer. So, even though the passenger of the private bus, on the free leg of his trip, may not be a fare paying customer of the regular transit system, it does not mean that some portion of these riders may not be enticed to make connections on fare supported systems. Moving them away from these stops eliminates all such possibilities.
I cut my planning teeth promoting a transit option that offered NH Seacoast residents a free ride, it's good to see this returning.
It has been a few years since I have exclusively worn a transportation planners hat. Then again, most local planners delve into this area time and again.
The goal of every transportation planner, especially those working with transit options, is to provide the lowest cost transit option possible. Face it, it is nearly impossible to drag people out of their private automobiles. The idea of a free ride as a job perk just might.
So, in the land of the worst air pollution, and some of the worst traffic congestion, a group of private employers have gathered together to offer employees fair free transit. And entities that should be applauding this are taking to the ramparts.
MASCO, serving the Longwood Medical Area, is a prime example of employer paid for public transportation that works. MASCO shuttle buses serve MBTA transit stations, bus stops and their own park and ride facilities. Creating a fully integrated set of transit options - fare free to employees - for the medical facilities in the Longwood area of Boston.
If anything, there is one strange aspect of California law that needs to be changed. Not allowing private buses to use "bus stops" seems quite strange. The more buses that meet at a particular location, the more opportunity for passengers to decide to catch a transfer. So, even though the passenger of the private bus, on the free leg of his trip, may not be a fare paying customer of the regular transit system, it does not mean that some portion of these riders may not be enticed to make connections on fare supported systems. Moving them away from these stops eliminates all such possibilities.
I cut my planning teeth promoting a transit option that offered NH Seacoast residents a free ride, it's good to see this returning.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Housing Affordability, a bad sign for compact development
Here we go again:
1 in 3 homes is unaffordable and a bubble is forming
As the economic recovery staggers along, the return of the housing bubble can only bring in a gray cloud. People cannot afford to live in the metro areas and, once again are looking for housing further from the walkable neighborhoods. Long term "savings" on a more affordable home, outpaces short term costs such as travel costs and hours spend commuting.
Not sure how we change the thinking, somehow we need to get commuters to understand that $300 a month spent on fuel, off-sets that extra $300 a month on a mortgage in a more dense, transit and walking, setting.
As fuel prices continue to climb, that next bubble burst may not be that far away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)