 |
 |
Follow Marin Events
|
|
|
An ABAG Smart Growth conclusion is "improved air quality".
But another conclusion "considerably more housing" does not result in "improved air quality".
Whether there is less travel per capita or not, -
the more the housing the more the commuters, the greater the traffic
congestion (and MORE air pollution) not
"improved air quality". Retract this deliberately
misleading conclusion now! http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/smartgrowth/context.html#analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development http://www.bayareaalliance.org/draftcompact.html promotes a "Multi-modal Transportation System" Why did MTC lose their case for increasing transit use only 15% over a period of 10 years since 1992 ? MTC allocated billions for transit but they spent it on very costly ineffective rail that does not provide convenient transit nor generate large numbers of riders. "Multi-modal" translates to "divert much needed money away from the most cost-effective solution. - towards rail etc.. instead of freeway". Why does a search for "cost effective" on ABAG's website return nothing? (see Anti-Transit) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why does the wordage on http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/smartgrowth/context.html , ABAG Smart Growth Strategy webpage talk ONLY of increases in some development here and increases there. Example the section on Marin:- At the meetings, ALL North Bay Counties had to resist the ABAG representative's pressure to start at Alternative 2, they insisted on starting at Alternative 1, instead. Should it not be clear that this "Translates " into decreases in development growth, not Increases. The resounding message ABAG should be showing on this page is "This Translates into NOT developing x here and NOT y there" Why do I get the feeling that this webpage is trying to indoctrinate me into believing that more growth was the public's decision when it obviously was LESS GROWTH? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Round 2 Workshop fiasco (Marin):- Why should the Alternative
of least growth, Alternative1, be the one with highest multifamily increase???
There is no relationship between quantity of growth and type of growth. It is my
opinion that the workshop process, itself, controls this relationship. And that
it is a direct result of the 29 "zone-jargon" descriptions we were
constrained to use at the Round 2 workshop. So here's
what ABAG should have done (if ABAG weren't so desirous of a particular
outcome):- ABAG is frequently ADVOCATING a non-existent N. Bay railroad. Because ABAG puts it on a map the public is to believe that rail is a viable solution? To quote straight out of ABAG's Briefing (Pg16): "without development that is sufficiently intense to support the rail system, it will not succeed". We can only infer from this that more development is required and more stations needed in Marin to EVER make this railroad feasible. The Round 2 message from the public clearly requests less development. Lets no try to hide this. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
