Podcast: Remaking California's Transportation System

This week I'm publishing a audio series that I did for the NRDC Urban Solutions program that discusses California's greenhouse gas policies and their effects on transportation policy.  It's gotten some good reviews but also a bit wonky, so I know you all will enjoy it.

Going Car Free in San Francisco

Funny story, I just had a little freak out about whether my car was parked on the right side of the street or not for street sweeping in the morning.  If you don't move it, you get a ticket.  But the freak out was unfounded because then I realized that I don't have a car anymore.  

I sold my beloved Volkswagen Jetta I nicknamed "The Green Goblin" on Saturday. There have been many good times in that car that I've had for 12 years.  It's been across the country a few times, was put in a classified ad as a part of a prank war in college that had people calling and asking if my brand new Jetta was for sale for just $2,000 and been splashed by cattle poo flying from a cattle car in Colorado.  Its also served as sleeping quarters outside the four corners and been across the great state of Nevada on Highway 50 at speeds I probably shouldn't mention.

I've lived in San Francisco with the Green Goblin for 5 years and it served me well. I was able to take people around the city that came for a visit and go on day trips around the region and city to places I couldn't easily get without it and generally on a whim.  There are many benefits to owning a car, generally the mobility they provide is excellent and because i'm a city planner I like to know my surroundings, including random streets and quirky places that you might not know about otherwise. 

 

But moving my car because of street sweeping was a pain and I racked up a lot of tickets. In fact i'm sure that I more than paid for better Muni service that every citizen in San Francisco actually deserves rather than what they get.  If everyone paid as much as I did every year we could build a real subway network in this town and everyone could go car free, but I digress. The only time of the week I used the car was going to visit my Gramma in the east bay on Wednesdays.  I've been walking and biking there from BART the last few weeks and its been some really good exercise as well as an exercise in patience when dealing with BART's rules about bikes during rush hours.

 

Ultimately though, the clutch went bad and it was time for me to practice something I talk about at work all the time, living a car free lifestyle.  I've never really advocated it before but seeing all those affordability index charts must have gotten to me. To see what its actually like to go car free, and be able to see the actual costs of driving when I use a zipcar will be refreshing but certainly a little scary.  But for now, its just my legs, my bike, my Clipper Card and my Zipcard...and perhaps a taxi after a night at Polk Gulch.  I really wish someone would survey me for the census now with the long form...

 

 

Northeast Corridor Rulez!

I appreciate the Northeast Corridor and would love for us to spend more money there. But don't screw over California or other mega regions to do it. Last week Mayor Bloomberg was talking about the national investments in HSR (from Second Ave Sagas) and it seems like he's taking the attitude that investing anywhere else is silly because the NE Corridor is where its at.

With projects in Florida, California and the Midwest garnering headlines, the Northeast Corridor has taken a backseat in Washington with only one percent of federal HSR funds coming our way. “That simply just doesn’t make any sense,” he said.

Sure it makes sense, but not in the way that he wants it to. I would LOVE if we doled out money based on merit which we're starting to do with TIGER and HUD grants but then those people that are elected called politicians in places that don't have a lot of population concentrated don't want their money all sent to the Northeast Corridor. Not to mention that sometimes I feel like people don't understand geography or population of the rest of the country (not readers of this blog of course). I can't tell you how many times people say they'll be able to hop up from San Diego to visit San Francisco. When I ask them if they like 8 hour drives they say "WHAT?!"

Also, just adding up from Wikipedia CSAs and MSAs not in CSAs, along the California HSR corridor we get the following:

Los Angeles CSA - 17,786,419
SF-San Jose-Oak CSA - 7,427,757
San Diego MSA - 3,053,793
Sacramento CSA - 2,436,109
Fresno CSA - 1,063,899
Bakersfield MSA - 807,407
Stockton MSA - 674,860
Modesto MSA - 446,997
Visalia MSA - 429,668 !B9871841047192


Merced MSA - 245,321

Then there are a bunch under 200,000. But that is ~34.4 million or 11-12% of the United States population. Compare that with the NE Corridor numbers from the New Republic blog post on Mega Regions. From the graphic we can add up to about ~44.2 or 14-15% along the NE Corridor. I left out Springfield and Poughkeepsie.

In any event, I hope these loosely added numbers put some things into perspective. I wasn't quite sure what I was going to get out of it but felt like it was close. I'm guessing that the Midwest Hub HSR network probably puts together city pairs that add up to a lot of population as well. The difference between the NE Corridor and other regions though, is that the NE Corridor exists, Amtrak from San Diego to Sacramento or San Francisco does not. Again, I'm not saying don't invest in the Northeast Corridor, or that medium speed rail is a great idea (that's a whole other post) but also let's not pretend like the Northeast Corridor is the only place where HSR can exist. It is not the center of the Universe. That is the Planet Nieuw-Vennep.

Is It a Wonder How Housing Prices Are So High?

I appreciate environmental regulations and the like, but it seems like a lot of folks in California just take it too far:

Talk of any development along the rail line has raised concern in the environmental community, some of whom believe the system will act as a catalyst for growth, as developers try to build for those who want to live near a train station.

and this:

Under proposed air-quality guidelines, for the first time in the U.S., if extra cancer risk meets a specific threshold, the developer would be told to study the potential health effects of the freeway pollution on the people who would live in the homes. That would be in addition to what the developer is already required to do: study the effects of the housing on freeway traffic and the surrounding environment. If the health risk is too great, the developer might need to modify or scrap his development plan, or spend extra time persuading the city or county to approve it.

If we can't develop near transit stations or near freeways in existing urban areas, where the heck are people supposed to develop new homes that won't affect the environment? Am I missing something here?

Spinning the Dials

The state is stepping forward to do scenario plans for the State of California. It will be interesting to see what the wizards over at Calthorpe associates can put together. They've done similar work for Salt Lake City, Austin, and Portland. But I don't think anyone has seen it done at this level before.

But even if a formal state plan doesn't emerge, Vision California could affect state policy. The impetus to reduce carbon emissions is one example: State agencies eventually could draw on the studies to require local governments to allow additional high-density development near bus and train stops. "Once we build the base cases, we have a tool where we can spin the dials," Calthorpe said. "Let's just get the information together. That's a giant step forward in itself."

Ultimately the scenarios will show how much the path we are going down now will cost. My guess is that it will be shocking but educational to know how much we just toss away.

Payback Time

Looks like the State of California is finally getting nailed for stealing all that transit money from local agencies. It would be amazing if transit agencies across the state get back the over $3.4 billion that was taken over the last few years. I'm not so optimistic that they'll get all of it, but hopefully this means no more raids on the funds that should go to transit. Of course this is California and they'll probably try to take it again next year. Can we fix the state already?

Preservation & Resevations

As a former runner I appreciate trails of all kinds. It's easier on your legs and trails are a good way to get around without having to be in traffic. With that being said, the idea that we should be reserving our right of ways for trails alone instead of trails and transit seems shortsighted. While I applaud the rails to trails folks for what they've been doing, the creation of a trail while the use for rails waits for a project only encourages a permanent trail.

In the case of Whittier, the construction of a trail has likely built up political will and precluded the ROW from ever being used for transit ever again which is a real shame since it would be possible to share. It's also possible that it won't be the best alternative. Eventually though it might come in handy. The trail is on the far right alternative within the city of Whittier.


On a similar note, short term gains should not outweigh long term benefits. In the case of Buffalo, the transit authority is looking to sell some ROW that could be used for long term gain. I understand there are trying times around the country, but these types of decisions that aren't looking at the long term consequences are trouble and it points to the loss of long term thinking in how we make decisions.

CA - 10 Special Election + Smart Growth

I was looking through the candidates for the special election to replace Rep. Ellen Tauscher in California's District 10 and was struck by the amount of attention was given to "smart growth and transportation" on almost all of the democratic candidates websites.

John Garamendi has a fairly in depth transportation page that discusses TOD, HOT Lane BRT, eBart expansion (we can talk about whether this is a good idea at all later), and cycling. Anthony Woods has a page that mixes transportation and smart growth even if smart growth is never mentioned in the description. Finally Mark DeSaulnier, who helped write SB375, has large descriptions in separate sections on transportation and smart growth.

It's amazing how far the movement has come but I'm reminded by a post by Kaid Banfield at the NRDC switchboard that there is still a long way to go. Density itself has to be designed well to work, and now that the issue of smart growth is getting greater attention, we need to push the issue even further. While the talk of the above candidates is great, I'm still wondering if they actually get it.

Another Reason California is Messed Up

When someone litigates a transit vote that won by 62%. That is insane. A clear majority, 69%, in both counties voted for the SMART train. When the minority rules like it does here, things are really broken.

Former Novato councilman Dennis Fishwick - acting on his own behalf without an attorney - filed the lawsuit in Marin Superior Court against the district and SMART board, saying they stripped the right of Marin voters to reject the quarter-cent sales tax with a less than two-thirds approval. State law requires a tax increase to receive two-thirds approval from voters.

Measure Q received 73.5 percent approval in Sonoma County, but only 62.8 percent in Marin. That caused confusion among some Marin voters, who thought the measure had been defeated.

Not About Just Buildings, Cars

CNT has released another Affordability Index update that shows transportation emissions is 70% less in cities than in the suburbs. Why is this? Because people don't have to drive as much. You can see already the benefits and it isn't all about electric cars. Yet some in Southern California think that SB375, the landmark climate change bill can be addressed with electric cars alone. Sorry guys. It doesn't work like that.

Schuiling challenged the idea that land use changes are required to meet the state’s GHG reduction goals because the goal cannot be met by making cleaner vehicles, as the California Air Resources Board has suggested. “That is simply not true,” Schuiling said.

But its not just transportation, it's building as well, but we need to look at this as a complete system. This singular focus on one method is somewhat maddening. I know there are a lot of people who are hoping for a magic green car or a magic green building but we're also forgetting our water usage and population growth among other things. We can't keep building lanes on our roads and we certainly can't keep growing out over all the farmland in the Central Valley or Napa. The best thing we can do is look for solutions to all these things and I feel that is compact development and transit options.

Linkfest: A Matter of Fact

Apparently concrete ties are better than wooden ones.
~~~
CATS Cheif Keith Parker is leaving Charlotte for San Antonio (Why?). I wonder if its because they are going to do some rail building.
~~~
Can high speed rail really be called transit? And if not, is the transbay terminal a multimodal transit hub? Just a thought.
~~~
He not only lied about the bike numbers in his recent Newsweek column, he also doubled the cost in his head of the California HSR line. Apparently facts don't matter to George "Jean Shorts" Will.

Perhaps a Trend?

Looks like Arnold has stolen over $5 billion. I know a certain gubernatorial candidate who might fit as a follower to this trend. Seems some pranksters called Where's Gavin? have also called for photos of him riding Muni (not in a cable car). I wonder if these types of comparisons will matter in the general or even primary election?

Where Were These People in the Fall?

And we wonder why papers are dying. Because articles on specific topics such as transit are completely worthless and misleading. High Speed rail is not bypassing Sacramento, it is the eventual Northern terminus. If you read the article, you might think it was never coming and Sacramento was left out for good unless the train turned a magnificent profit.

It's good to see the mayor pushing for the connection, but at the same time, why are all these people trying to change the plan after the cake is in the oven. Sure there are design issues to hash out and detail stuff, but trying to open the discussion back up on the route for the first phase just makes it seem like you weren't paying attention. Which in all likelihood they weren't, which possibly goes back to the poor newspaper reporting.

Build In California Alone

So says Ed Glaeser. He states that because of the temperate climate, more people should live in density in California cities to increase environmental savings. Though this doesn't really work if the people moving here don't have water, the climate changes, and we can't grow food in the central valley.

If this is along the same lines as Randal O'Toole and Wendel Cox are pushing, build in the preserved open spaces at existing densities with limited regulation, then no thank you. However, if its building more density in greyfields and on transit corridors with better transit then sure. But people shouldn't mix the two, that would be a disaster.

Climate Change Lip Service

Actress Emma Thompson says this:

"I don't understand how any government remotely serious about committing to reversing climate change can even consider these ridiculous plans,"

What was she talking about? Well Greenpeace bought a small parcel of land that would have been a part of a new runway scheme at Heathrow Airport. They expect to subdivide it into a lot of parcels and sell them to environmentalists so that the government has to deal with hundreds of people instead of just the initial land owner. Do they not have eminent domain? This could push the issue on HSR as well which has been floated as an alternative to the next runway.

But her quote strikes a chord. It seems to me that all these people are talking big on climate change (ahem Arnold) but when it comes down to it, they won't make the tough decisions or do the right thing. Heck, California legislative leaders should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

When democratic lawmakers presented their proposal for balancing the state budget, there was one little thing they didn't mention: It would have all but eliminated funding for public transportation -- not just next year but in perpetuity.

Monday Linkage

I haven't had a lot of time to write, but wanted to share with you all what has come through the ole reader.
~~~
Arnold wants to waive CEQA to pass the budget. I like that for transit, not so much for roads.
~~~
Tom Friedman writes gas tax and Oberstar talks about it on NPR.
~~~
A Portland Architect talks about how GM should be the catalyst for a nationwide streetcar revival.
~~~
Four subway lines opened this year. Just not in this country.

Prop 13 Hangover

I feel like this makes our mobility issues worse when people are unwilling to move closer to work for fear of losing their existing low taxes.

This leads to all sorts of idiotic consequences. Back when I lived in California, one of the few ways of raising taxes available to cities and towns was to increase the sales tax by some fraction of a percent. Result? Cities and towns did this, and then tried desperately to induce people to set up car dealerships and other places where people sell big, expensive things. Did it make sense to have so many car dealerships? Who cares! It's revenue!

Likewise, people in California don't always sell their houses when it would normally make sense to do so, because as long as they stay in their existing house, the assessment will not rise much and their taxes will stay low, whereas if they buy a new house, it will be assessed at its purchase price, and their taxes will go up.

"Free markets", indeed.

H/T Yglesias

Forgetting Something?

It would be a nicer Transbay Terminal and more like Grand Central if when it opened it actually connected to some rail lines. Platforms deep under the are nice, but shouldn't they have reason to hold passengers? Perhaps a new subway line? Caltrain Extension? HSR? Here's a Fantasy Map I've shown before. The biggest white dot is the Transbay Terminal site.

Great Idea Arnold

Not. Why are we not taking money from highway projects if we must take from somewhere? Seems to me that in hard times, transit funding is rather important. Yet another strike against a Governor everyone seems to think is green, but really isn't.

The governor proposes cutting state assistance to local mass transit programs by $230 million. The Legislative Analyst's Office suggests grabbing revenue not being used by the Department of Motor Vehicles ($55 million) and redirecting some funds paid by Indian casinos for transportation purposes to the state's general fund ($62.9 million).

Local transit officials point out that the budget already diverts $1.7 billion from the state's Public Transportation Account to pay for other programs.

Auto - Centricity

I really don't like transit stations in the center of freeways. It takes away the best land for TOD, and exposes riders to the elements not to mention caters to cars and work trips rather than non-work trips. If we didn't build another freeway centered rail line I would be pretty happy. But alas that won't happen. We'll see another one soon in Antioch.