I'm not sure how these do in relation to the ASHRAE standard but the energy and water saving numbers for these multi-unit buildings are pretty impressive:Originally posted by Cismontane
http://www.enermodal.com/pdf/West-Village-1pg.pdf
http://www.enermodal.com/pdf/Chapelview-1pg.pdf
They are both low-cost housing (one student, the other social).
I think the most effective means of moving people's mindsets towards "commons thinking" is to show them how they can benefit personally with modest outlays of money/time/effort. The "we need to change our life-styles to save the world" arguments just don't cut it for most people. Show them how they can save some $$$ by installing a high efficiency furnace, a programmable thermostat or even turning the thermostat down a few degrees at night or when nobody's home, and they'll do that.
Yes, I've had the opportunity to work on planning strategies for a couple of the Waterfront masterplans, TODs around the proposed Toronto subway extension (Vaughan, Spadina), and masterplans for several suburban areas of Toronto (mainly in the Region of Durham). I've also worked on a couple projects in the Ottawa area.
Toronto has a much more favorable attitude toward density than the US, and home sizes (including single family homes) tend to be much smaller than their US counterparts, which means that much more can be done in Toronto (although I don't know what I think of the wisdom of putting up two 28 story point towers on the lake, 40 km east of the city). Suburban development tends to be more clustered, and underground structured parking seems to be ubiquitous (either that or the economics of parking work differently than it does in the US). Toronto planners also seem to use a different approach in terms of measuring density (for example, y'all seem to like a ratio which adds up all people, residents and workers and divides the sum by the unit area). Finally, home prices per square meter relative to household incomes tend to be more affordable than in many US metros.
I like Toronto and Ottawa a lot, from a planning perspective. Unfortunately, most US municipalities would freak out if I were to propose what is routinely done in Ontario. Frankly, we'd be able to solve most of the planning problems we debate endlessly here, if only we adopted more Canadian planning standards. This being said, with the mortgage finance and GSE system collapsing in the US, I think Canadian development patterns are probably where we're heading, irrespective of the NIMBYs.. the economics are driving that way. It's no coincidence that the Vancouver developers are showing up in force in San Diego and Portland, now that higher densities are being permitted in those cities. Beginning in the mid 2000s, Canadian developers have accounted for a majority of the multi-unit housing starts in San Diego! Y'all are taking over my country!
Yes.. and this is an excellent point. The greatest possible gains to energy performance and carbon emissions reduction can sometimes be achieved by simply improving commisioned performanced standards on buildings... even just by bringing them up to current code. The gains possible from doing the obvious - such as better weatherization - can sometimes exceed gains from costly infrastructure-centric solutions like new transit systems or trying to retrofit an area for the Smartcode. If your criteria is energy use, and you have to choose between modest building demand reduction measures and, say, a new mass transit system, any reasonable cost benefit assessment usually favors the reduction measures. Many architects and developers find this message very difficult to accept, however. 'cause things like the Smartcode and fancy new railed transit systems bracketed by highrise towers are frankly sexier.
Yes, of course. The argument ignores shared walls. We have plenty of measurable outcomes that show shared wall dwelling units are more efficient than SFD.
Sometimes being the operative word, I agree that minimum IBC standards are required to lower energy consumption for building conditioning.
I'd like to weigh in on the original question on commons-based thinking in public involvement. I think the idea of a wiki for getting suggestions (not necessarily making changes) to plans is interesting, but, like anything else, subject to undue influence depending on who participates. I completely agree that access to knowledge is very important for people to provide meaningful input. Focus group sessions that combine education and input have often succeeded in reaching consensus in other areas of politics. In this vein, other formats such as scenario planning can be very effective. I agree with the suggestion that keeping planning front and center in the local news (by being proactive with the editorial staff and educating the city reporter) is important to build understanding slowly and over time - but it is difficult as a city employee, particularly if you work for an anti-planning municipality and particularly if your city management does not understand land use planning (the most important thing a city does!) When your population can talk intelligently about things like growth management boundaries, connectivity, etc., they are probably less likely to latch on to sloganeering. (I recall the Planning Director of Vancouver being impressed at the planning sophistication of the criticism for his plans!) Simply informing people - many in my educated community had not idea that trends showed 1 million more people moving to our metro area, and when this was presented, it did shift the discussion to more TOD, etc. Where people are online, we're also seeing more "YIMBY" groups and blogs emerging. This is how we can avoid having "conservatives" come out against market-based housing choice; and avoid "environmentalists" coming out against density near transit - two things I see often in suburban communities. I think ultimately we cannot go against the values of a community, but we can show how current policies and trends are not in keeping with these values, or are leading to fiscal, environmental, or QoL train wrecks.
I would guess there are many good examples out there of new technologies for commons-based thinking. I can't say I know a lot. (I don't think introducing "keypad polling" and so forth into conventional public outreach really get at what the OP is talking about.) Grand Junction, CO is an example of a fairly conservative community that did some scenario planning and chose one of the "less bad" scenarios, with some smart growth elements. Sonoran Institute is trying to facilitate public involvement around smart growth in several communities. Denver's Blueprint Denver seems to me a good example of getting buy-in, but I am not sure if they used innovative public outreach, or used more typical outreach methods, but used them well. Wish I knew more good case studies that go towards "commons based" thinking.
Last edited by docwatson; 04 Jun 2011 at 3:33 PM.
I agree with the GJC. Denver Blueprint leading to the suboptimal "FBC" in Denver is an error in my view. Blueprint Sacramento much better example.
Nonetheless, these examples aren't really about "infusing" "commons thinking". They merely reflect that some motivated people participated.
The implication in the original is how do we change people's minds to make them less selfish? That would be magical indeed, and the person who figures that one out will be spoken in the same breath with a very, very, very few individuals indeed. A handful at most.
There would have to be a sea change in our cultural values that would rank the group over the individual, and I just don't see that happening, especially in the US. In fact, blind individualism, which easily translates into selfishness, seems to almost have run amok among some groups and in some areas. Other western cultures, even in Canada, seem to value the group high enough to sacrifice at least a little individual good for the good of the entire group, but not this country these days.
A big part of many of our ills today stem from our misguided attempts to carry on a series wars without raising taxes or resorting to the draft. The idea of sacrifice for a cause -- a key factor in the US war effort in WW II -- has gone missing in at least the last 50 years, and that's especially true among the upper and middle classes who wield the power in this country. Even in Vietnam, anti-war/anti-draft sentiment didn't fire up until more and more upper and middle class students faced the prospect of being sent there.
While I personally agree with the critiques of the increasing selfishness of our culture and our demands for subsidies (and hope no one tells me "go to Canada!"), I think what the OP is really getting at is involving more people meaningfully in the planning process using new techniques similar to crowd-sourcing, etc. I'm thinking of ways to move up on Arnstein's ladder of public participation. Will this necessarily result in more smart growth or responsibility? I suppose that if your area is characterized by anti-smart-growth, anti-corporate, and anti-development views expressed by the VA Tea Party (yes, their website is an interesting read in self-contradiction), then perhaps that is what will come thru via greater public participation, whether it be a wiki, focus group processes, selection of scenarios, etc.
But I think in more moderate places, we're not so much talking about changing world views (which would be nice) as much as helping people understand the consequences of choices we make - environmental, fiscal, etc. - and why current development patterns may not reflect their values. (Just as a professional doctor or investment analyst has to be honest with their clients, about the likely consequences of their lifestyles or investment choices.)
I think scenario planning can be a powerful tool in this regard. I was surprised that in an educated community, for example, many participants in a public process had no idea that our metro area was projected to grow by 1 million people, or that land use decisions that had been made in our county were resulting in much car commuting - something that our community claimed to oppose. Focus groups have also been particularly useful to help determine areas of consensus - which are often larger than areas of disagreement - because they combine education with participatory decision-making.
I think it comes back to resisting the least-common-denominator thinking of our mass media and focussing the discussion and public process on larger values - do people value open space, fiscal responsibility, housing choice, mobility options besides gridlocked highways? Do they think having something to walk to or a trail nearby is a good thing? When people perceive a "threat" to quality of life, or an opportunity to create something good, they may be stirred to act. How can we move forward from the HOA thinking of controlling my immediate environment through stoppign what we don't want; to thinking about the larger good and about what we do want? In my metro, 38 mayors endorsed, and voters supported, a 0.6 percent sales tax for rail expansion - clearly they were willing to pay for the commons. And this is in a "purple" state. Perhaps its just a case of things getting bad enough that people are willing to take action?
I do know a number of firms and foundations - Orton, Sonoran Institute, Fregonese, Winston Associates - are doing the type of outreach and scenario planning work that can help in this regard? Then there are new venues to involve people in supporting - not just opposing - something via the budding "YIMBY" movement.
Last edited by docwatson; 05 Jun 2011 at 5:34 PM.
I think this is a misapprehension of the New Urbanism and Smart Growth. Yes, transit-oriented development increases land-use intensities close to a transit station, but the pedestrian shed should actually contain a variety of transect zones in order to create a complete community.
The objective should not be to shoehorn a consistent level of population density into every square inch of the pedestrian shed. Heterogeneity, instead, is really the point of the New Urbanism. Moreover, of the examples you cited, several were built around train stations and streetcar lines when automobiles and airplanes weren't dominant.
Additionally, high levels of population density are entirely possible within the development pattern of suburban sprawl, but these places are neither livable nor sustainable. The Inland Empire of southern California has comparatively-high population density, for example, and, yet, the region is almost entirely auto-dependent. So, one should really be judging "sustainability" and "Smart Growth" not on density but on the relative lack of transportation choices since the adverse impacts of population increases mostly relate to greater numbers of cars and to the loss of open space.
Last edited by Pragmatic Idealist; 05 Jun 2011 at 9:22 PM.
Two public design charrettes for a Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District relating to my neighborhood are happening next week, and a community group I co-founded several years ago is holding next month a "Brainstorming Party" that is purely the product of civil society and not of the public sector.
The Brainstorming Party, which will have music, food, and other niceties, is a chance for people to identify shared goals, to develop strategies to reach said goals, and to create programs to implement said strategies.
Actually, part of the appeal of the New Urbanism is its prescriptive nature that really empowers citizens to make creative decisions that can express a shared identity and that can give developers a clear sense of what aesthetics and amenities the community wants. These things should really be a collaboration. The residents have to live with good buildings and bad buildings, good public art and bad public art, good streets and bad streets, etc.
Private property in an urban environment should never be disconnected from that sense of community and that spirit of collaboration.
IdeaScale.com is another way we are soliciting ideas and input.
The site allows people to post ideas and to discuss them.
Users are also able to vote ideas up or down in order for the community to set priorities in a democratic way.
The TODs in Portland and San Diego and Denver were developed along either trolley or rapid bus/BRT lines, and some reflect transect applications. The question to ask in the context of this question is not whether or not they met the formal requirements of the NU Smartcode but why they did not achieve the desired density bumps as a consequence of the failure (on the part of city planners and their developers) to "sell" the density aspect of their stated design intentions to the public. TOD designs in all three cities started out with clear densification intentions. Those densification intentions (which were clearly expressed in the original plans and declared planning intentions) fell by the wayside during the public process.. which is my point and why I thought that point was relevant to this particular discussion.
This is certainly true but the converse is not. The success of the smartcode from an urban design perspective IS supposed to be measured by density, compact development, pedestrian-friendliness AND increased transit use, not just the last one.. (or in some cases the last two). AND, by the way, studies show questionable outcomes on any increase in transit use in Denver, LA and the South Bay in the Bay Area, and that statistically significant observed increases in transit use in Portland and San Diego may correlate primarily to the negotiated limitation in parking spaces per unit and for guest parking, as opposed to any other single factor, casting doubts on even the last item (since you can limit parking spaces statutorily without actually implementing a smartcode).Additionally, high levels of population density are entirely possible within the development pattern of suburban sprawl, but these places are neither livable nor sustainable.
In fact, study after study shows that the only thing that correlates positively with smartgrowth-type planning is decreased affordability and inflated property prices, reflecting, to my mind, more the bubble-era hype that often accompanies these projects, as opposed to any real benefit. There may also be some correlation with somewhat lower foreclosure rates, but this likely has more to do with the fact that these projects tend to have a higher proportion of multi-unit and attached single family development than projects at large, and those typologies may be nationally observed to have lower foreclosure rates than SFD product.
Again, NU/Smartcode intentions simply don't match with their performance in reality and given the realities of public process.
I thought I'd share a funny smartcode story. A dear friend of mine has been living quite happily in one of the vaunted Peter Calthorpe San Diego Green Line NU TODs since 2004. She picked the location because of the pleasant riverwalk behind her condo (she's an avid runner), because of the security features of her building, and because of the proximity of her garage entrance to an interstate interchange that could take her (by her not particularly fuel efficient sports coup) straight to her office east of Centre City.. an eight minute door-to-door commute (at, say, 60 mph, without stops, or whatever she averages going to work). For her, the fact that she lives in an NU TOD, has done nothing to modify her transportation behavior except, perhaps, in that she tends to host her friends at her parents' mcmansion in a 'burb north of the City because of her development's limited guest parking (parking is the one item of NU design that is consistently correlated in the literature with changed behavior).
She was shocked when, last year, I told her that she was a mere four minute walk to a trolley stop at the heart of her TOD's retail area (which, by the way, she doesn't shop in, since she, as well as every other suburban-bred local I can think of, prefers the malls), where the train could deposit her within a one minute walk of her office.. a 30 minute door-to-door commute, given the required transfer at Old Town including the 9 intervening stations between her residence and her place of work. It simply never occured to her to even check on transit availability when she bought her place, and now that she knows, she simply refuses to sacrifice 44 minutes of her day in additional travel time to use it. She vaguely knew that there was a nearby transit stop of course, it just never occured her to look into how it actually works or how close it actually was, and, for reasons that probably extend to her preconceived (and not entirely inaccurate) notions and standards of convenience, safety, comfort, and even, perhaps, social class, she's still (now that she's aware) disinclined to give transit use even the briefest consideration.
If I were her, I'd use transit, but that's just because I hate driving. Frankly, I'd use - and do use - transit even if I didn't live in an NU development (which I don't, even though I do live in a very high density setting). But my point is that, for all the Smartcodish planning her neighborhood got, it was all pretty much lost on her, and her own behavior was in no way changed. And the studies show that she is the norm, not the exception. The Green Line TODs show increased transit use for their residents (relative to baseline non-NU suburbia in their immediate environs) from 7% of trips to around a mere 16% according to one study I saw, and regression studies have shown a significant and consistent correlation only to parking availability (average spaces per unit in and out of TODs in the same areas). In other words, the numbers show how you could've achieved the 9% bump in transit use through more restrictive parking regs alone, without needing to impose the transect, change the unit typology mix, ground floor retail, or require smaller blocks and diagonal streets, etc.
Sure, New Urbanism is a great idea, but it won't rise to anything more than a great idea (even after it's built, by administrative dictat) without people changing their minds and their lifestyle expectations. To justify the additional cost and convenience burden of NU, you first have to explain how you're going to accomplish those cognitive and lifestyle changes, and all I'm saying is that this is an uphill battle that I, for one, don't really find to be worthwhile fighting when so much else can be done without full adherence to NU. Sure, you can build Smartcode communities and people will live in them, just as they will live anywhere else they can afford.. but without unlikely behavior modification they won't achieve tangible outcomes, and they come at a high cost.
Last edited by Cismontane; 06 Jun 2011 at 1:05 PM.
There's some conflation, confusion, and erroneous assumptions in here. Nonetheless, I'm not sure what "study after study" you're reading, but every single recent paper I've read disagrees with your assertion in that narrow choice of developments.
Hasty generalization dangers notwithstanding, I bet having location-efficient development already built when gas goes permanently over 5.00 might go a long way toward creating impetus to modify behavior... Call me crazy, I know. And I bet the more that are built will result in less bidding up to obtain the desired dwelling.
Full disclosure: I'm not really a NU fan per se.
Colo, if you are aware of peer reviewed studies (or any studies not actually written by NU partisans) that show a massive bump in transit use in smartcode or NU-based TODs relative to comparable typologies or densities in local (non-NU) baselines, please do share. Seriously, you'd save my neck on half a dozen projects if I can find anything resembling real evidence out there.. of more than a few percentage points.
To quote the classic Lund, Cervero, Willson study:
"In terms of changes over time, there is not conclusive evidence that transit mode choice increased among TOD residents in the 1992 to 2003 period. Small increases in transit trips were measured, but they were not large enough to establish a statistically valid difference. Survey results did show that transit use is positively related to length of residency. Resident respondents indicated that housing attributes (cost or quality) were generally more important than rail transit accessibility in their decision to move to a TOD,"
Hendricks et al's superb review of the literature concluded:
"Land use may be less important than other factors in affecting mode choice, number of vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled." They pretty much concluded that income is the primary driver of modal choice, although they did allow for the fact that there is some statistically significant relationship between land use and urban design and modal choice.. just not a big one.
In fact, the only good news relates to the studies I cited (Jonnalagadda et al) that found a relationship between parking availability and transit: where there are more workers than automobiles (or room for autos) available per household, transit use goes up significantly, but that's kind of like saying, water boils at 212 degrees.
I think this anecdote is important because it illustrates a fundamental idea. The urban form, along with the provision of high-quality transit, is the sweetener that makes restricting parking palatable to people accustomed to using cars for every trip.
Restricting parking may increase transit ridership, but can these restrictions be imposed if improvements aren't also made to the urban form and to the transportation systems, themselves? People are making decisions based on the existing conditions. If parking is freely available and if transit is slower and less convenient, then why would your friend care to use it to go to work? She's already paid the bundled cost for her parking space, in addition to the price she paid for the coupe, itself, as well as its insurance.
Getting a day pass on the San Diego Trolley is actually a fun way to spend time in the city. I've done so myself, even on a date, although I will admit that the system's aesthetics are a little too utilitarian for my tastes. Have you proposed anything similar to your friend?
What are her preconceptions, and are they inaccurate?
Does she like walking in her neighborhood in addition to running?
Why does she prefer the retail in a mall versus that close to her home?
Does the transit system need to be made faster in order to compete with the car?
Is the transfer exceptionally inconvenient?
Would she use the trolley for errands and leisure?
As a suburban-bred city dweller, does she still stigmatize urban public transport?
Is she at all interested or involved in the community or in the street life of the city?
How extensive does the San Diego transit system need to be in order for her to see it as a way to get rid of one or more of her cars?
Would she use car sharing?
Would she use bicycles?
Would she use a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle?
Is the automobile traffic in her neighborhood too fast or obtrusive?
Would she ever consider cashing-out the parking space at her workplace?
Would she cash-out the parking space at her residence?
Would she use pay-as-you-drive insurance?
Do her friends hold the same preconceptions about transit, and do these friends also live in the city?
Your original claim was no positive correlation, which I quoted. Now you are stating "massive bump". Which is it?
I agree I mistated there.. I should have said material bump... not massive bump.. there are several studies that show barely significant jumps ( I still quote that 9% jump from San Diego, which I did in the same post, even though I actually can't prove it.. but I have to defend TODs after some measure or I really look stupid)... so yes, I'm exaggerating the benefits of TODs beyond that which I can prove. The reality is likely grimmer.
Look.. if you want a significant jump in transit use, either be poor or live in a CBD.
Frreals. Everyone should have their fraydum limited by being stuck in a car, comrade!
I think, though, in this example its important that the urban form has changed - someone born and bred to love driving and malls may not change behavior until incentives change (such as more congestion on the highway, or higher gas prices {until they go electric, I suppose} but that won't happen, will it?). A change from 7% to 16% transit seems like a good start. And if its anything like TOD areas in Denver, perhaps it is not near buildout yet? But I do agree transit needs to compete on travel time - 30-40 mins. door to door is probably the most I'd do before deciding to carpool, or move somewhere where I can bicycle. There's also the larger spatial question - when there's just a couple of lines, many people who live in the TOD would not be in your friend's position of having a choice - they may work in an auto-oriented office park. As the system builds out, not just the hub-and-spokes, along with the development of TOD residential and office, I think more people will be in a position where both home and office are within reasonable distance of transit and where the transit time and cost is not undoable. Fixed rail has always been good at serving downtowns and other areas with dense employment. Overall, rail transit and land use strategies are very long term strategies to influence the future of our metro areas. After all, how many decade did it take before all the farms and small towns along highway interchanges were built out with 'burbs and we went back in to widen highways?Sure, New Urbanism is a great idea, but it won't rise to anything more than a great idea (even after it's built, by administrative dictat) without people changing their minds and their lifestyle expectations.
Going back to public participation, voters in our metro have endorsed the vision of transforming over time. We know one trend - the addition of 1 million more residents in 30 years - is probably going to happen no matter what.
This is a great example, I think. Part of a broader YIMBY movement, perhaps? This could be a nice case study. I do know of a non-profit that is convening residents for TOD charrettes in their city to try to influence policy, and will watch for the results. I think these movements are important b/c city staff have neither the clout, or sometimes the leeway or managerial support, to make this a priority.The Brainstorming Party, which will have music, food, and other niceties, is a chance for people to identify shared goals, to develop strategies to reach said goals, and to create programs to implement said strategies.
Last edited by docwatson; 07 Jun 2011 at 12:48 AM.
Note that I'm not embracing automobile communities. I don't own a car myself and seldom drive one. I'm just pointing out that I do not believe land-use changes are effective in shifting behaviors away from the private automobile, especially on the scale we're suggesting here. $8+ a gallon gas prices might do the trick. Or the provision of no parking. Or another great depression and 30% area unemployment rates. I also don't believe that education and optimistic YMBY block parties are going to the trick either. Maybe I'm just too much of a realist, but I think that without catalysts for disruptive change, the potential to really shift behavior is limited. I guess that I feel that "commons thinking" linked to behavior is y'all are putting it isn't something that just emerges organically or as a result of empassioned pleas and "education." That magnitude of dramatic change - except at the margins - will probably require a war or famine or flood. I believe that people won't change until they have to struggle to eat or survive.
A long time ago, I used to be a conductor for a short-line railroad around a little place, called Disneyland. You may have heard of it. It was there that I became enamored with being in a walkable place with good transit every day. And, I noticed just how important the experience of walking among other people is to southern Californians who are literally being starved of that social interaction because so few places exist where people can spend time that way.
People want and need walkable places, even if these people have to drive to such environments. But, why is it such a leap in thinking to assume that these same people might want to live in such environments, instead of only driving to them? The demand is there. It's just not getting met.
The problem there, PI, is that Disneyland first debuted many of those prototype models in July, 1955. Now.. just shy of 61 years later - three generations - there still hasn't been real uptake of his ideas. You've sort of just made my case for me, haven't you?
In answer to your questions of my TOD-dwelling friend, I don't know the answer to all of them, but here's a few:
What are her preconceptions, and are they inaccurate?
Accurate or not, they are deeply engrained, culturally-speaking.
Does she like walking in her neighborhood in addition to running?
I'm sure she does, but that doesn't mean she likes getting onto a bus or trolley to get to destinations not immediately in her neighborhood.
Why does she prefer the retail in a mall versus that close to her home?
Cost, breadth of goods available, convenience (everything one place), and maybe she likes shopping at Saks and Nordstroms and Macy's or Target or Home Depot or whatever else isn't available in the storefronts that Peter Calthorpe tucked under the apartments in her neighborhood. You will NEVER get enough retail within walking distance of every TOD because there just isn't enough demand for retail space. Figure 4 m2 per person in the US (which is already way too high), and then figure how much of that is taken up by bigger footprints given the way our society's supply chains are structured (about 2/3rds).
Does the transit system need to be made faster in order to compete with the car?
Yes, but the MTS is already one of the nation's faster systems - and one its deadliest in terms of the number of people who get in front our fast-moving trolleys and streetcars. There's only so much faster you can make mass transit and it will still not be able to compete with point-to-point private auto in a relatively low traffic congestion city like San Diego.
Is the transfer exceptionally inconvenient?
No.. it's painless for me, but you and I both know that people don't like to transfer at all.
Would she use the trolley for errands and leisure?
No. In the minds of too many people, poorer people use mass transit. It's a class issue.. When I made my case to her for using her nearby transit stop, she also expressed a safety concern.. that concern may be unfounded statistically (or maybe it does have a basis in fact, I don't know), but try convincing a 30-something woman who doesn't have to use mass transit of that alleged safety.
As a suburban-bred city dweller, does she still stigmatize urban public transport?
Yes. I'm sure she does. And that's the bit you can't really get over. There are unspoken class and ethnic issues involved here and nobody has easy solutions for them.
Is she at all interested or involved in the community or in the street life of the city?
As far as I know, she is involved in a variety of neighborhood functions. She can drive, walk or jog to them.
How extensive does the San Diego transit system need to be in order for her to see it as a way to get rid of one or more of her cars?
When we talked about it, she didn't cite convenience as her concern. She only has one car.
Would she use car sharing?
She sometimes carpools.
Would she use bicycles?
Yes, she bicycles, but you'd have to be a pro to commute to work in Centre City from Mission Valley daily. Some of those grade changes are 300+ feet.
Is the automobile traffic in her neighborhood too fast or obtrusive?
Not to my knowledge. When I visit, I take the trolley. But I'm weird.
Do her friends hold the same preconceptions about transit, and do these friends also live in the city?
Most San Diegans I know, raised in the 'burbs, have the same preconceptions about transit. So do most Americans I know.
Quote