dogtown commons

You just never know what you’ll bump into on Youtube:

(This was created by Bob Franklin, one of BART’s Directors. His website is www.bobforbart.com)

If you need an example of the mindset that public transportation supporters are up against, all you have to do is look at today’s San Francisco Chronicle article on parking around city schools. The gist of the story is that teachers and school staff around many SF schools park in public spots on streets near the school, and since most of those parking spaces are in one-hour residential-parking zones, they end up running out to their cars between every class, moving their cars to new spots, and then running back in time for the next class. Many end up getting tickets because they don’t move their cars in time.

Everyone seems to recognize that this is completely insane, yet the only solution anyone takes seriously is increasing the availability of parking, by distributing more city permits which allow teachers to park all day in residential zones for a small annual fee. Public transportation is mentioned only once in the article, in this paragraph reproduced in its entirety:

City and school officials encourage everyone to take public transportation, walk, ride a bike or carpool whenever possible. Teachers said that such options are often impossible or inconvenient with bags full of lesson plans, books, students’ homework and art supplies.

This is, frankly, ridiculous. It might shock the Chronicle reporter to hear this, but there are many teachers in cities all over the country — and in San Francisco — who get to work just fine without cars, lesson plans and all. And I would bet that a lot of the students in these San Francisco schools also get to school just fine without cars, often carrying more than a fifth of their body weight in textbooks on their back. Yet in two short sentences, the notion of mass transit, walking, or bicycling is dismissed as “often impossible or inconvenient” for teachers.

To get an idea of what lengths people will go to in order to avoid “inconvenient” public transit, here is one choice bit from the article:

On a recent morning, Buena Vista school secretary Judy Diaz abandoned the phones and the photocopier to run out to her van - again.

She stopped in her tracks just outside the building’s front doors.

“Where did I park?” she mumbled to herself before seeing the vehicle up the hill.

She then drove down up and down side streets where there are a limited number of all-day spots, but every one was taken. Some teachers arrive by 6:45 a.m. to get one of those spots before they fill even though classes start at 9:30 a.m.

Diaz grudgingly pulled into another one-hour space around the corner and checked the time.

Think about that: Some teachers arrive by 6:45 a.m. to get one of those spots before they fill even though classes start at 9:30 a.m. Yet these same teachers think that carrying homework and lesson plans on a bus or a bike would be too inconvenient? And Judy Diaz (who as a secretary probably doesn’t need to schlep lesson plans, art supplies, or homework to work with her) would rather run to her van and search in vain for a better parking spot several times a day, instead of finding an alternative to driving?

I don’t mean to pick on the teachers or other staff in San Francisco schools. They are surely no sillier than anyone else when it comes to transportation alternatives, and that is the most depressing aspect of this. No one — not the teachers, not the reporter who wrote the article, and not the city officials quoted in the article — seems to be able to break out of the mindset which assumes that the only possible solution is to increase the availability of parking, rather than to reduce the need for it.

This lack of imagination about transit options actually manages to take an advantage of urban life and twist it into something negative. For example:

School board members admitted this is a long-standing problem with no easy solution.

“In a neighborhood with crowded parking, we can’t expect them to put the teachers’ interests above all others,” said board member Jill Wynns. “This is just an ongoing problem of an urban school district. It’s a conundrum.”

This is exactly backwards. It is precisely in urban school districts where parking should be less of a problem, because unlike in suburban or rural areas, people in urban districts have access to buses and trains, or may be able to live close enough to walk or bike to work. One task that proponents of mass transit must work on is to reframe discussions over transportation, so that urban density is seen as an opportunity to eschew use of cars, rather than a problem of where to park them. The lack of vision shown by every single person involved in this Chronicle story demonstrates just how tough that task will be. If these teachers in San Fransisco can’t comprehend the possibility of getting to work without cars — and the benefits, personal and global, that would ensue — then the odds of getting people in most other parts of the country to leave their cars behind seem long indeed.

How much would I have to pay you to get you to push a Honda Civic about 30 miles on a flat surface?

Since pushing a small sedan is exhausting work, and it would take all day (at least!), I’m guessing that I would have to pay you more than 4 bucks to push the car a mile, never mind 30 miles. I think I’d be really lucky to find someone willing to push a Honda Civic 30 miles for 50 bucks, and if I had to pay minimum wage, it would surely cost more than that.

This thought experiment illustrates (I hope) just how energy-rich petroleum is, and how inexpensive. Just think — for a bit over $3 at street corners all over America, you can buy a gallon of fuel that will easily accomplish in half an hour what it would take a hard-working human being all day to do. It’s no wonder we’re addicted to fossil fuels, given how much energy they manage to store in such small packages. I don’t have any grand point here, but it’s something to think about next time someone says that gas is really expensive. You get a lot of bang for your buck even at 3 or 4 bucks a gallon. And when you think about it that way, it’s no longer a surprise that we are having trouble finding energy sources to replace hydrocarbons like oil — there are very few things, at least on this planet, that can pack as much punch into such a small, portable package.

The New York Times reported on Thursday that Chinese officials are expected to cut Beijing’s automobile traffic in half during the summer Olympic Games, as part of their strategy to reduce the pollution that pervades the city’s air. (A separate article describes plans by athletes and their coaches to cope with the pollution, including doing their preparatory training outside the area and possibly even wearing masks during competitions.) Beijing did a test of this anti-smog tactic last August, when cars with license plates ending in odd and even numbers were only allowed to be driven on alternating days. Traffic delays were dramatically reduced, but it is not clear that there was much short-term effect on pollution levels.

The Beijing plan got me daydreaming earlier today about what would happen if for some bizarre political or environmental reason, all motorized vehicles were suddenly removed from roadways forever. (Yes, I know this is an absurd fantasy, and no, I am not proposing this as a goal.) What would become of our urban geography, if all those millions of acres of pavement were suddenly available for carfree use?

(An empty Bay Bridge shown during the closure of labor day weekend 2007. Flickr photo by The Artist™ used under a creative commons license.)

One model for imagining new uses for old spaces is the conversion of abandoned rail lines. Nationwide rail-to-trail conversions like the Iron Horse trail in Contra Costa county are one example, but more exciting, at least to me, is the high line project in New York. The high line is an abandoned elevated rail line that snakes for well over a mile down the far West side of Manhattan, where it used to bring freight to and from the area’s warehouses and factories. It marches unperturbed over busy surface streets and passes right through several buildings as it makes its way through 25 or so blocks of the city.

(The high line shown passing through a former Nabisco factory — now the gourmet Chelsea Market complex — at West 16th Street and 10th Avenue. Flickr photo by Zantony used under a creative commons license.)

(more…)

Depressing:

“If I’m driving all over the place, I’m going to buy the biggest car I can get,” said Senate minority leader Dick Ackerman, R-Tustin, as he drove out of Anaheim in “the gas guzzler” — a 2005 Ford Explorer that gets 16 mpg.

“Anybody can pick whatever car they want. I pay for part of this,” he said

So he believes that the more miles someone travels, the more justified they are in driving a large SUV that gets terrible gas mileage. And by extension, I suppose that means we should leave relatively high-MPG cars like hybrids and Toyota Corollas and Ford Focuses to people who don’t drive them very much. Makes a lot of sense! (At least, it would make a lot of sense if our goal was to maximize our petroleum consumption and our auto emissions, instead of minimizing them.)

But of course that’s not exactly what he was trying to say. What he really meant was that he spends a lot of time on the road, therefore he wants to spend that time in a commodious SUV instead of a perfectly functional but slightly less spacious midsize sedan or smaller SUV. That is at least a comprehensible rationale, but the obvious unspoken implication is that his personal comfort is the only factor he considers when he chooses a vehicle, because he don’t really care about our reliance on oil from the Middle East and Venezuela, and he doesn’t care about reducing the pollution and greenhouse gases that he emits when he drives “all over the place.”

His second sentence drives the point home. His logic seems to be that since he pays for “part of” his SUV, he has no responsibility to consider anything except his own comfort. This is like someone changing the oil in their car, then dumping the used oil into the nearest public park, and justifying it by saying “I paid for this motor oil, therefore all I need to consider is what is easiest for me, not whether my waste oil is polluting the park or draining into the bay.” Just because he pays for “part of it” doesn’t mean that he has no responsibility for the long-term consequences of his decision.

What is depressing is not just that one state Senator doesn’t “get it” — no surprise there at all. What is so depressing is that his me-first-and-me-only mindset is probably representative of most of his constituents, and perhaps even most Californians. And what is really depressing is that his attitude illustrates a major problem we have: The people most likely to take action to reduce oil consumption and tailpipe emissions are generally the people who are already causing the least damage, and the people least likely to take action are also the people who are causing the most damage, by driving less fuel-efficient vehicles and driving them more often.

In other words, the people choosing to commute by BART, bus or bicycle, or leaving their cars in the garage, or switching to hybrids, tend to be people who already spent less time in their cars, or who were already driving relatively fuel-efficient small sedans. This isn’t to say that it’s not helpful for these people to drive fewer miles and drive more fuel-efficient cars, but you don’t gain as much by switching from a Corolla to a Prius — even if the Prius gets 20 MPG more — as you would gain by convincing a 16-MPG SUV driver to switch to a 26-MPG midsize sedan. Even though the MPG differential between the Corolla and the Prius is twice as large as the MPG differential between the SUV and the mid-size sedan, when you calculate the actual amount of fuel saved, you gain more by the switch from a gas-guzzling truck to an average-MPG sedan. This is a bit counterintuitive, but when you do the math, it is not even close.

Where does this leave us, aside from being more depressed than we already were about the possibility of reducing our dependence on oil and our auto emissions? Well, for me it drives home the need for mandated action on fuel-efficiency, rather than relying on purely market-based solutions and voluntarily conservation to do the trick. In general, I favor policies that give people market-based incentives to change their behavior, rather than regulations that limit choice or artificially manipulate prices. Whenever possible, I would like to see policies that encourage housing density and carfree commuting, such as reforming the zoning and approval processes in order to encourage development closer to where most people work, even if a particular project isn’t perfect in everyone’s eyes (hello, Oak to Ninth!) or even if some neighbors have aesthetic issues with a project (hello, Emerald Views!).

But markets have limitations. In my opinion, one major limitation is that markets are lousy at factoring long-term costs into near-term prices, so even though almost everyone agrees that we are likely to face energy shortages and significant climate-related problems in the next 100 years, the price of oil reflects mostly nearer-term factors such as whether Saudi Arabia will increase production in the coming year, or how much petroleum central Asia will yield in the next decade. Like it or not, I think our policy-makers need to be more foresighted than the commodities markets about what the actual long-term costs of our current lifestyle is.

It’s important to face facts: No matter how much we encourage housing density in urban areas, or increase funding for mass transit, or raise consciousness about the adverse ramifications of oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, some people will still not be willing to sacrifice their “comfortable” SUV’s no matter how high gas prices get. So even if we could convince everyone within walking distance of a bus stop to give up their cars, it probably wouldn’t make an enormous difference unless we could also get drivers of incredibly-gas-guzzling vehicles to switch to to somewhat-less-gas-guzzling vehicles. That’s just not going to happen voluntarily, so I don’t see any choice but to pursue even more draconian fuel-efficiency mandates even stricter than those that California is already fighting with Washington to get implemented.

Contrary to the widespread myth that Americans will never get out of their cars, behavior does seem to be changing as people start to accept that high gas prices are here to stay. From the Oakland Tribune:

Commuters are turning to public transportation in record numbers as gasoline prices seem to have gotten comfortable at or above $3 a gallon.

Unlike past surges in transit ridership, this one doesn’t have the help of a major freeway disruption like the Labor Day weekend closure of the Bay Bridge in August or the collapse of a MacArthur Maze ramp in April.

On Nov. 14 and Dec. 7, BART had its second and third biggest days, with 382,865 and 381,499 people inserting tickets on their way out of the system, respectively.

“This year’s going to be our biggest year ever,” said BART spokesman Linton Johnson, adding it would be on the heels of breaking the barrier of 100 million trips for the system’s last fiscal year, which ended June 30.

The jump has been noticed at other transit agencies, too, especially those that carry longer-distance commuters who have the choice of driving.

Caltrain’s ridership jumped 9.3 percent last month over November 2006. The Gilroy-to-San Francisco route hit a record for that month of 36,454 rides. The Capitol Corridor, which runs from the Sierra foothills to Sacramento, Oakland and San Jose, was up 13 percent from the previous November, to 136,650 riders for the month. Ferry ridership was also rising.

The fact that many people actually will switch from automobile to mass transit given the right combination of incentives and disincentives has been pointed out here several times before, but unlike the previous occasions when the switch was caused by highway or bridge closures, the trend outlined above seems to be driven only by high gasoline prices and perhaps growing awareness of the environmental benefits of public transportation compared to car commuting.

Oddly, the author of the above Tribune article, transportation reporter Erik N. Nelson, doesn’t mention that BART recently announced that it is increasing fares more than 5% starting next month. If, as the figures cited above suggest, people’s transportation choices are guided to some degree by rational cost/benefit analyses, rather than warm and fuzzy attachment to their cars, then you would think that an imminent hike in BART fares would be worth mentioning. I hear people complain all the time that BART is too expensive to make it worth giving up the convenience of their cars, and I would rather see BART pursue increased revenue by further boosting ridership instead of by hiking fares. Thankfully, BART’s fare hike is being accompanied by increased service, so there is reason for some optimism that the disincentive created by the higher prices will be offset by the allure of more frequent trains.

Contrary to predictions of gridlock, mass confusion and worse, Bay Area residents coped just fine with no Bay Bridge over the long weekend. As the SF Chronicle says:

This weekend’s closure tested people’s ability to get around without the major connection between San Francisco and the East Bay. Although there were scattered traffic backups, people appeared to heed the call to stay off the roads and take public transit.

Caltrans officials mounted a nearly $1 million publicity campaign warning motorists as far away as Southern California of the closure and urging Bay Area drivers to take public transit or expect delays along alternate routes. The agency also subsidized overnight BART service and extra ferry runs.

While official ridership figures are not yet available, it’s clear that transit was popular. BART carried huge loads all weekend, and large crowds were reported on ferry systems as well.

“We’ve pretty much shattered every ridership record we have,” said BART spokesman Linton Johnson. “Weekday, weekend, all ridership records we have look like they’ve been broken.”

The past record for daily ridership is 381,200, which was set June 13 when there was a Police concert at the Coliseum in Oakland. The previous Saturday mark was March 3, when 229,583 people rode. The Sunday record was June 24, when 196,000 showed up, many drawn by the gay pride parade in San Francisco.

None of this should come as a surprise.

This passage from a Washington Post article speaks volumes:

Unlike federal highway funds, which states receive based on a formula and may spend as they wish, money for new transit projects is awarded at the discretion of the FTA. The agency doesn’t have much to dole out. The FTA has proposed spending about $1.4 billion on new transit projects next fiscal year, compared with $42 billion that states will receive for highway maintenance and construction, according to federal figures. More than 100 transit projects across the country are expected to compete for federal money in coming years, according to a federal report.

In deciding which projects deserve funds, FTA officials consider primarily which would attract enough riders and save them enough time to be worth the investment. They also consider the state and local governments’ ability to help pay for construction, maintenance and operating costs. Other considerations include impact on air quality, development around stations and the ability to move lower-income workers to jobs.

FTA evaluations can take years, because it rates a project — and grants permission for it to move forward — at several different points, controlling it from preliminary engineering through construction. The process has grown so complicated and time-consuming that, across the country, many local officials have begun to forgo federal money if they can secure enough local or private funds to build a project, according to a recent U.S. Government Accountability Office report.

So not only does the federal government fund highways at 30 times the rate that it funds transit projects, but they add so much red tape to the transit funding that some local officials don’t even bother to apply for it. Meanwhile, the highway money just gets doled out to all states regardless of merit, with no strings attached and regardless of the environmental impact. Because everyone knows we need more and more highways, right? And everyone knows that existing highways need to be made wider and wider to accommodate all the drivers who choose to live 40 miles away from their workplaces, right?

Of course it’s not really the federal government’s fault. The funding discrepancy is just a reflection of the perverse incentives and feedback loops that have been built into our entire system, in which people are lured to ever-more distant suburbs with promises of cheap home ownership, safe “neighborhoods” and small backyards of their own. As the housing tracts and strip malls metastasized, and large swaths of our cities become poorer, politicians naturally responded to the new reality and catered even more to the richer, more politically connected suburbs while neglecting the depressed urban cores. The criminal neglect of the people of New Orleans is just the most dramatic example of a decades-long and nationwide phenomenon.

With gas prices rising and commuters realizing that spending 90 minutes in a traffic jam every day is no fun, even in a climate-controlled SUV, perhaps interest in sensible transit is growing again. In California, the recent construction of light rail and subway lines in Los Angeles, the plans for expanded BART service in the Bay Area, and the nascent plans for high-speed rail are signs of revived attention in sustainable transportation alternatives. The Post article notes that federal funding are “rooted in outdated thinking”:

Transportation experts say the disparities between highway and transit-system funds — and how money is awarded — are rooted in outdated thinking. Highways have traditionally received more federal money because they have been viewed as connecting the country, while transit systems have been seen as serving individual cities.

“There’s still a lack of understanding of how fundamentally broken the transit program is,” said Robert Puentes, a Brookings Institution fellow.

Meanwhile, competition for that money is increasing rapidly. Many booming areas — including such traditional highway-loving cities as Phoenix, Denver and Houston — are turning to transit to curb air pollution and control their car-dependent sprawl.

“The demand for transit has never been higher,” Puentes said. “At the same time, the federal government substantially underfunds transit, so it’s very competitive to get those funds.”

Just can’t get enough talk about transportation, land use and climate protection? Or just want a free lunch?

Bay Area on the move
Connecting transportation, land use and climate protection
A forum joining ABAG’s Fall General Assembly with discussions on MTC’s Transportation 2035 Plan
October 26, 2007 • 8:30 a.m - 2:00 p.m.
Oakland Marriott City Center

About the Conference
Bay Area residents will review some of the major decisions anticipated as part of an update to the metropolitan Transportation Commission’s long-range transportation policy and investment blueprint, known as Transportation 2035. The Association of Bay Area Governments also will showcase results of its FOCUS effort to identify priority development areas.

Highlights
* Prominent local and national leaders
* Sessions on transportation, land use, and the link to pricing, equity and climate protection
* Keypad-style electronic voting by participants

Who Should Attend?
Everyone who cares about the future of the Bay Area! Join elected official, community and business leaders, planners, and transportation and smart growth advocates in this lively regional dialogue.

Lunch and refreshments will be provided

Details here at the ABAG website.