- A large fraction of Cambridge and area residents do not use cars regularly.
Only 38% of Cambridge residents commute to work in their own cars
. 24% walk, 23% take public transit and 3% bike. (See the
statistics
.) Even for those who live in neighboring towns and work in Cambridge,
nearly half do not commute to work in their own cars
.
- Cambridge and the Boston area is experiencing a serious housing crunch.
Rents have nearly doubled in just 8 years. According to SAND, "over the
past decade, the city of Boston has accommodated office space development
for 125,000 new jobs, but has only zoned and approved the creation of 5000
housing units, mostly upscale condominiums." Since a car-free neighborhood
needs none of the large land requirements of the automobile, more housing
units can be constructed in the same area; roads and parking cover between
30% and 50% of the land when planning for automobile access.
"Pedestrian-oriented cities typically devote less than 10% of land to
transportation, while automobile-oriented cities devote up to three times
as much." (Litman 1999).
- The area is already served by subway and light rail (the Green
and Orange
Lines). The Green Line station will be within a very short walk of all points in the neighborhood.
This station, which will be relocated to permit its extension into Medford,
can be moved further into the center of the neighborhood, as in the proposed
by Guilford.
- Cambridge cannot afford more traffic. A pedestrian neighborhood is
a way to both limit traffic growth and construct more housing. By contrast,
reducing density in new developments limits traffic growth less, and results
in less housing. (See
traffic growth projections
, and a traffic
impact study
from the Cambridge
Community Development Department
for example.)
- Dozens of cities
worldwide
are building new car-free neighborhoods, and
hundreds of cities
have converted existing neighborhoods to be car-free with success . See
the new Vauban neighborhood in
Freiburg, Germany
for one of many examples of new carfree districts.
- A development pattern that does not require cars to get to and from
work is a boon to making housing affordable. With none of the costs associated
with building parking and means of automobile access, more housing units
can be constructed for the same money. A 1997 study for the San Francisco
Planning Department found that "housing units without parking spaces were
more affordable and sold more quickly than units with parking. Using 1996
housing price data, the study found that the average value of an off-street
parking space was $46,391 for a single family home and $38,804 for a condominium
unit." From tenants' point of view, the average car costs $5,674 per year
to own and operate (American Automobile Association, 1999), money which
can otherwise be spent on housing.