As we mentioned, if Richmond planners want to immediately stop sprawl and traffic, they should
1. push remote/hybrid work and
2. save farmland from being rezoned commercial/residential.
During COVID, Richmond’s traffic was immediately reduced by 45% with a 35% decrease in nitrogen dioxide. It's doable. It was done! Why is this excluded in planning discussions?
Today, Jerome Legions, Carver resident, brings up further great points as he watches noticeably more cars whoosh by (like we all do along Broad and its nearby parallel streets, observing new, constant traffic jams adjacent to Scotts Addition that, until recently, never slowed):
"Where is this rapid rise of traffic originating?
Is it from the multi-units pushed through to validate the PULSE?"
If you experience a near miss in traffic, make sure to report it in the data being collected on Near Miss!
Jerome Legions on "Richmonders are spending more time than ever stuck in traffic."
I think that some of this additional traffic is due to the rapid development of high density apartments. Having listened to the pitch that goes like this, "The people who will rent these apartments are the people who walk, ride bikes, take the bus or use ride share." Yet, when I drive west on Leigh Street past Hermitage, I see more cars parked on Leigh Street near Midtown Green. At some point those parked cars are taking the owner somewhere.
I would like to suggest that rideshare and direct to door deliveries from Door Dash to Amazon also added to the increase in traffic.
Now I wonder: how has the increase in traffic impacted the Vision Zero initiative?
As an AIMBY who supports growth through strategic density, I would suggest that a review of the potential impact that density will have on the multi modes of transportation. It should be more than a traffic study. Maybe there would be a solution for those two one way streets that meet on Roseneath in Scott's Addition."- Planning and zoning bring topics of their choice to our community conversations and culture.
- Regional planners can push protection of county farmland and the negative impacts of rezoning agricultural to residential/commercial.
- Planners tell us every day to ride the bus, why don't they promote remote work?
- If they can push people's behavior and policy to ride buses and bikes, and to recycle, then they can also push remote work - the fastest, easiest, and most affordable way to influence air quality and traffic congestion.
Remote workers have a 54% lower carbon footprint!"Analysis of responses from current RWH (remote working hubs) users shows a 31% increase in the use of active modes of transport including cycling and walking for work trips. There is a significant decrease (23%) in the use of cars for work commute and an 8% increase in the use of public transport. The average distance travelled to work by employees reduced by 31 km by shifting from office to RWH and the average travel time to work reduced by 69 min. This also led to a shift in the time at which employees need to leave their home. Previously, 58.9% of employees had to leave their home for work before 7:30 a.m. While using RWH, 69.2% of employees left for work between 7:30 a.m. and 9 a.m. Results showed that employees prefer a flexible work routine including two or three days of working from RWH and one or two days of working from home. Findings suggest that the respondents who were driving alone to work can save about 1.126 tonnes of CO2 emissions if they would work from RWHs for three days a week for a year."
