Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices
This makes sense only if economically viable. We have all seen examples in some suburban or small town areas of public buses driving around empty or almost empty. Is this fair to the 
taxpayer? Currently, the Amador Regional Transit cannot pay its own way and relies on subsidies from the County’s general fund. Americans certainly have fallen in love with the automobile, and the rest of the world has not been far behind. Why? It is obvious: The automobile provides the greatest amount of freedom and flexibility. Public transportation and bicycle paths in the right place do certainly make sense, but they should not be required in areas where they are either economically foolish or unlikely to be used enough to justify their cost. The Smart Growth principles ignore these realities.
And how do Smart Growth principles really impact traffic, a concern to so many people? Bruegmann states “Perhaps the most common complaint was that sprawl, by making people live farther and farther apart, meant longer commutes, more congestion and, consequently, more pollution. But if this was true, then a place like Kansas City, which is very sprawling, would have terrible commutes and congestion. But it doesn’t…. On the other side of the coin, if the anti-sprawl crusaders were correct, a dense, compact urban area with good public transportation would have short commutes and less traffic. But then how would you explain London, which has longer commutes and worse traffic than Kansas City, or Tokyo, which has some of the longest commutes and worst traffic in the affluent world?”
Next principle >>