Is this true or a misleading observation?
I can see some argument about it, increasing traffic in areas that aren't equipped for it if the building is large enough. But it might just be market forces, too: in larger cities, it's often more desirable to be near a major artery. Earplugs (if the noise bothers you) vs a longer commute.
https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/senate-passes-senator-wiener...
Residential land area = land you can build housing on
https://belonging.berkeley.edu/single-family-zoning-californ...
The satellite view shows many units in multiple buildings directly next to this highway with no noise protection: https://maps.app.goo.gl/JA4jMPSSYsDBq5my5
Years ago I lived near a busy four-lane road with what seemed like a reasonable 60km/h speed limit. However, when it rained, the noise from the car tires on the wet road made it difficult to hear music from my radio. It was very unpleasant to leave the balcony doors open, as the constant din starts to work its way into your brain and make it very difficult to focus.
They will be allowed by right near any type of transit stop if SB79 goes through!
Compared to the city it's so quiet and peaceful. My sleep is much better
I’m all for better construction but I still want to be able to open my windows without having to let in tons of noise and car exhaust
I *almost* feel like it should be illegal to build them next to the freeway like
Those ones just north of SFO next to the 110: https://maps.app.goo.gl/sAkUMhmnutZ1jFd27
The ones in downtown LA next to the 110: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4mBVLo12hLR4EwU16
The ones north of LAX at Howard Hughes: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Z8bnB7wR5jDBddhg6
I don't actually think I think they should be illegal but dang it, I wish there were more options for new apartments. In LA there are lots of older apartment buildings in quiet residential neighborhoods built 50+ years ago.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/KMLav1zLiQZK6T8L6
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aUH52rBAbaHExjzB6
They are no longer allowed to be built AFAICT.