Showing posts with label Richard Hall. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Hall. Show all posts

Monday, October 9, 2017

The Undeclared War on Middle Class Suburbia

The Undeclared War on Middle Class Suburbia

Posted by: Richard Hall - October 8, 2017 - 2:57pm







Glancing at today’s newspapers, a reader might easily believe the only important topics are our erstwhile president and “What’s he gone and done now?”. But for those of us leading busy lives that would be a grand mistake, because we’ve taken our eye off the ball. The big changes are not only happening in Washington D.C., but also in Sacramento - and soon, right here in our own neighborhoods.

The March of the YIMBYs



Over the last few years, a new movement has formed in San Francisco - a movement made up of 20 and 30 somethings who prefer the urban environment. This movement detests middle class suburbia for its “inefficient” use of land and transportation, and for what it deems to be implicit exclusion of races and those on lower incomes through zoning decisions that maintain high property values. And that would be fine, but they not only have Sacramento’s ear, they’ve lobbied heavily for significant change.

The movement was born out of the San Francisco chapter of the Bay Area Renters Federation or SF BARF. SF BARF renamed itself SF YIMBY - that’s “Yes in My Backyard”. Their goal sounds worthy. The Bay Area, especially Silicon Valley and San Francisco, has rapidly grown the number of jobs in the region, but this thirst for fresh troops for the technology sector has far outpaced the region’s housing supply. The result, we’re all too aware of sky high costs of living and traffic congestion.

The YIMBYs want to build as much housing as possible, to address the housing crisis and their number one enemy is the suburbs. They look to the many perceived obstacles that have inhibited housing development there. With a slew of legislation just passed in September 2017, they have bulldozed and dispensed with many of these obstacles, such as:
Architectural design review
Consideration of traffic impacts
Consideration of school impacts
Consideration of impacts on infrastructure
Community input
Local Council approval
Environmental review

I met with a YIMBY for coffee - a Silicon Valley engineer in his late 20s. He was smart, informed and engaged. His concern was that the high cost of housing was hindering people from getting on the house ownership ladder in the Bay Area. He himself had benefited from an IPO stock offering and had no problem affording a home, but he wanted to demonstrate his support for many other workers without that advantage.

YIMBYs have become a powerful force in the Bay Area region. They have become highly connected to the young tech elite raising large sums in support - $100,000 from Jeremy Stoppelman, the founder of Yelp, and more from Dustin Moskovitz, a founder of Facebook. They now hold an annual conference called “Yimbytown”. The SF YIMBY organization now has a full time, paid staff pushing their agenda.

The Triumvirate of State Senate Bills


Allied with San Francisco State Senator Scott Wiener, YIMBYs were delighted when the California State Senate recently passed three housing bills:


Senate Bill 2 charges real estate documentation recording fees of $75 per document, with the funds to be used to pay for affordable housing development;

Senate Bill 3 proposes to raise $4 billion through the sale of state bonds to fund affordable housing development; and

Senate Bill 35 allows qualifying developments to bypass local and environmental review, and assume “by right” zoning for high density housing development, if those developments meet some simple qualifying criteria:
They include 2 or more units;
The developer pays “prevailing wage, which is code for union rates, if the project has 75 units or more;
At least 10% of the units qualify as “affordable” or whatever the prevailing minimum requirement is (in Marin this is typically 20%). The units that qualify as “affordable,” only includes a small number of very low income units;
The city or county must have failed to issue permits for enough new housing units to meet their requirements for each income category in the city’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment or RHNA quota.


Putting Development on the Fast Track


Typically, it takes 30 days or more for a city to identify omissions in development applications, and months and sometimes years to process and approve them. However, Senate Bill 35 puts review on the fast track, so not only review, but also approval must be given to qualifying proposals:

(1) Within 90 days, for developments with under 150 housing units.

(2) Within 180 days, for developments with more than 150 housing units.

Put another way, if a city does not grant approval within these timelines, they open themselves up to litigation, not just from the developer but from any interested third party (i.e., housing advocacy groups). Successful plaintiffs are also entitled to collect legal fees and costs.


Moving Away from Planning Commissions & Design Review Boards


Today, California’s cities and counties typically have a planning commission and a design review board. Together with their locally elected councils and supervisors they review applications and ensure architectural design conforms to local norms and codes.

Senate Bill 35 removes this local review process to ensure that developments will not be held up for long periods, while local boards apply subjective requirements. The new bill directs that only previously documented, objective requirements can be used. Few local jurisdictions in California have such documented standards in place - none in Marin do. To do so would be a sizable undertaking requiring diverting local planning teams and engaging in public outreach.

Senate Bill 35 will go into effect on January 1st 2018. Local jurisdictions now have less than 90 days to complete this process or developers will potentially be able to bypass architectural and design review, and many of the other impacts noted above.


The Irony - San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose May Be Unaffected


Certainly, a major reason for the housing shortage in the SF Bay Area has been the increase in tech jobs primarily in major cities. However, San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose may all easily meet their required permitting quotas to build, while locations such as Marin will not, simply because land is so scarce, infrastructure is inadequate, water resources are very limited, building costs are high and few developments there prove to be financially feasible.

Who is paying for All This Altruism? The Middle Class, of Course


Politicians at local and state levels have become adept at presenting legislation with highly attractive (who could possibly oppose them) names, which conceal steep increases in taxes and fees, the burdens of which fall mainly on the middle class.

For instance, who could possibly oppose SB2, “The Building Homes and Jobs Act,” an innocuous sounding $75 “documentation fee” increase. Opponents sent a letter to State legislators putting their own spin on it, but here are the fee increases without any spin:
Recording documents after the loss of a spouse: (Increase from $36 to $261)
Contractors, laborers, suppliers, and employees recording mechanics liens seeking reimbursement: (Increase from $26 to $176)
Homeowners refinancing their mortgage: (Increase from $43 to $268)
Custodial parents recording child support liens seeking delinquent child support payments: (Increase from $13 to $88)

Then there’s Senate Bill 3, the “Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018.” This bill was sponsored by Marin County state senator, Mike McGuire, who claims on his Facebook page that it will “build a stronger middle class”. However, this bill potentially saddles state taxpayers with interest and repayment of a $4 billion bond.




Together, Senate Bills 2 and 3 are estimated to raise $3.9 billion annually to assist developers in building more housing (which only includes 10% affordable units). According to a non-partisan group, the state would actually need $15 billion annually to truly address the housing crisis and even that calculation is questionable.

The Suburban Middle Class Is Now Set Up To Bankroll Silicon Valley’s Growth Boom


What is really happening is that:
Silicon Valley has been on an unrestrained growth binge;
Thousands of jobs have been added without a commensurate increase in housing or any significant increase in income to the vast majority of existing residents;
Under the guise of altruistic ideology and the new doctrine of regionalism, YIMBYs have teamed up with state legislators - eager for campaign contributions from big developers - to force middle class suburban taxpayers to foot the bill for Silicon Valley’s continued growth boom; and
With the passage of the housing bill package of SB 2, SB3 and SB35, YIMBYs have now unofficially declared war on suburbia, forcing suburban jurisdictions to pay for, plan for and accept urban style growth in “My Back Yard” or suffer legal and financial consequences.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Transit center decision needs sensible planning

By Richard Hall
POSTED: 01/26/17, 4:53 PM PST | UPDATED: 10 HRS AGO
Drivers and transit center users in San Rafael are anticipating Sonoma-Marin Area Transit rail service to commence this spring. However, the subsequent extension of SMART to Larkspur puts in motion changes to roads, and the Bettini bus transit center is likely to snarl traffic in downtown San Rafael and potentially Highway 101.
Residents and bus passengers using the center might expect appropriate foresight and planning, but as reported by IJ columnist Dick Spotswood, San Rafael “officials are waiting for SMART’s first trips to determine on-the-ground traffic impacts and only then deal with the problem.”
The impact of SMART extending to Larkspur imposes significant changes to traffic in San Rafael:
• Second and Third streets, with 50,000 daily vehicle trips, will experience delays from trains crossing four times an hour during peak hours.
• The Bettini center, serving 9,000 daily bus riders, must be moved as SMART’s tracks to Larkspur bisect bus platforms. No place has yet been identified to park hundreds of buses entering and exiting the center. The “interim plan” is to park these buses on already congested streets for several years.
• Traffic congestion caused by buses and crossing guards could prevent cars from exiting Highway 101, lengthening commute times for 217,000 daily car drivers.
Why? To make way for a train that SMART projects, in its environmental report, will serve just 231 daily riders, a number not attained until 2035.
A new grassroots organization has formed — Save Our San Rafael — to advocate more rational planning performed in advance of permitting SMART to be extended to Larkspur. This would include a full analysis of the traffic impacts.
Key questions include where to put the relocated transit center, how much it will cost and what to do in an interim period likely to persist for many years.
Exactly how many Golden Gate and Marin Transit buses will fit on city streets, how passengers will safely make connections and how this will impact traffic have not been disclosed.
The San Rafael City Council will consider alternatives at future public meetings.
How much traffic will be created?
According to city staff, the city has no plan to analyze whether trains crossing Second, Third and Fourth streets and Fifth and Mission avenues four times an hour will inhibit cars exiting the freeway. So far, nothing official has been disclosed or made available to the public.
If cars are backed into the gridlock that already exists on Highway 101, hundreds of thousands of commuters on the regional freeway will experience even longer commutes and emit more pollutants — including greenhouse gases — into the atmosphere.
San Rafael’s public works department has claimed an environmental impact analysis is not required. While it may not be legally required, it is morally required.
The City Council and the public ought to be provided the information as to whether SMART’s congestion increasing extension actually increases or decreases emissions.
The city’s wait-and-see approach comes with serious consequences. Once the train crosses Third, under federal law, there is nothing the city can do about the additional traffic.
We propose a logical alternative: Follow the successful quiet zone process implemented by Mayor Gary Phillips. The City Council held three public hearings to consider quiet zones. They were such a success that the method used by Mayor Phillips is being followed by Novato and Sonoma County.
The City Council needs to first conduct a thorough traffic analysis, then repeat this proven approach.
The current wait-and-see approach sets the city on an irreversible disaster course. Save Our San Rafael seeks to put planning on the right track to truly relieve traffic and fight climate change.
Richard Hall is a transportation and planning activist in Marin and one of the founders of Save Our San Rafae

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

All That Glitters is Not Green

As seen in the Marinpost.org and Planningforreality.org

SMART

All That Glitters is Not Green

Recently, I found myself locking horns with a SMART train believer. They had fully bought into Measure Q, which passed by a narrow margin based, amongst other wording, on the premise:
"To... fight global warming...all funds supporting these environmentally responsible transportation"
My adversary, perturbed by my failure to buy into this green train, and pointing to conclusive analysis that showed that the train will certainly increase CO2 emissions asked:
“I'm also wondering if you looked at the emissions issue pertaining to other greenhouse gasses like NOx. I just want to make sure you are not being selective about the facts you are sharing.
This seemed like a fair question. So I started to dig. Many readers may already be aware Nitrogen Oxides only represent 5% of man made greenhouse gas emissions, while CO2 dwarfs this at 82% of anthropological greenhouse gas emissions. But Nitrogen oxides are far more harmful…
Googling "Nitrogen Oxides, living near effect on health" turns up a litany of studies and articles documenting the high impact these gases have on the respiratory system – particularly on children.
How Much NOx Do Cars In Marin Emit?
Looking at EMFAC / CARB for gasoline cars (LDAs) in Marin in 2017, aggregate speed and season, emissions of NOx are 0.088g NOx per vehicle mile. A caveat – to increase accuracy one one might aggregate cars and light trucks to weight the distribution of gasoline, diesel, hybrid and electric vehicles - a mix which is steadily improving for cars and that will be unique to Marin.
How Much NOx Will the SMART Train Emit?
According to SMART, for a roundtrip between Larkspur and Cloverdale - 140 miles - emissions of NOx and NMHC would be 1,175g, which translates to 8.4g per mile. The actual number would be higher when this is translated to revenue miles to take into account deadhead miles .

Source: Page 17, table 3: SMART Vehicle Study
Compare this with car NOx emissions of 0.088g per mile (Source California Air Resources Board EMFAC data for average car on the road in Marin in 2017). That makes SMART 95 times higher NOx emissions than gasoline cars, and this gap is only widening as cars are becoming cleaner much faster than trains.
Applying the APTA mode shift factor of 42% of train riders will be former car occupants, this means SMART would need 227 average daily riders (per train) to breakeven and reduce NOx emissions. Even the New Jersey Hudson Line running alongside Manhattan in a dense urban area has an average ridership of only 33 riders. Portland’s light rail is under 25. To presume that SMART - a train serving rural and suburban Marin - would come close, let alone exceed a ridership of 227 is to be spinning a fairy tale.
It's worth mentioning some caveats in these calculations:
  • deadhead miles (positioning, maintenance) are not considered would make the SMART emissions worse;
  • SMART emissions include NMHC (non methane hydrocarbons) while the car figures do not (EMFAC does not appear to show NMHC figures or combined NOx/NMHC figures).
So once again the evidence shows that not only will SMART certainly raise CO2 emissions significantly, it will very likely do the same for the highly toxic and greenhouse gas of Nitrogen Oxide.
What if Measure Q Had Been Accurate?
If Measure Q had accurately reflected that the train is certain to increase CO2 and NOx emissions would it have passed? The old saying goes “all that glitters is not gold”. Perhaps it should be updated in a world rightly obsessed with fighting climate change to “all that glitters is not green”.

Friday, November 6, 2015

The Flawed Concept of “Workforce Housing”

The Flawed Concept of “Workforce Housing”

Listening to the Marin County Supervisors we would be led to believe there is no higher priority than to provide “workforce housing“.
 
Supervisor Kate Sears
Supervisor Kate Sears
“We can reduce the impacts of in-commuting by…building workforce housing would enable people working in Marin to live closer to their jobs.” Supervisor Sears, Feb 21st 2014 Facebook page
 
“It’s important that we build healthy and sustainable communities by allowing those who work in Marin to also live here,”  Supervisor Arnold, Sept 2011
 
“To increase the stock of affordable housing, especially workforce housing, the Marin
County Board of Supervisors enacted the Affordable Housing Impact Fee.”
This is a $5 or a $10 per square foot fee imposed on new builds and remodels. An existing 1,800 square foot house with a 700 square foot addition or conversion will be assessed $2,500. Source.
The concept of providing workforce housing underpins stated policy not just from Marin County Supervisors but also the Association of Bay Area Governments’ Plan Bay Area:
 
Plan Bay Area references "workforce housing"
Plan Bay Area references “workforce housing”
“The job growth forecast was adjusted based on the difficulties in supplying sufficient housing in the Bay Area to meet the needs of workforce housing within reasonable commute times. ”
Source: Plan Bay Area, page 15, Employment Forecast

Workforce Housing – The Premise & Alleged Benefits

The concept presumes that by building affordable housing in a county:
  • more county workers who used to live outside the county will be able to live in the county
  • traffic congestion will be reduced
  • greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced.
A quick Google search constrained to the Marin County website references the term “workforce housing” in 340 separate documents. The same term appears in 160 documents on the Association of Bay Area Governments website. Restated the premise of workforce housing is woven deeply into planning and policy across the region. It is frequently used to justify housing projects.

The Theory and the Facts

If the premise of workforce housing reduces in commuting then one would expect to see a substantial increase between these two numbers:
  • Affordable housing residents who work in the county but who previously lived outside the county and had to commute in
  • Affordable housing residents who now live and work in the county, who no longer have to commute into the county
To make the case there should be a measurable and not insignificant increase between the former and the latter.
In 2008 Marin County published a document “Affordable Housing Inventory“. The stated purpose of the document was to create a single data source for information on affordable housing in Marin establishing a platform for future tracking and analysis of affordable housing in Marin County.
On page 4 the document states:
“ approximately 90% of [affordable housing residents] lived and worked in Marin prior to living in affordable housing
Then on page 32 the same document states:
“The current employment location of working [affordable housing] residents was provided for 606 individuals. Of this sample, 91% work in Marin County.”
If workforce housing as a premise was valid one would expect to see an order of magnitude between these two numbers. Instead there is an increase of 1% – which is within the margin of error.
One might presume that affordable housing can be made available selectively only to people who work in the county – but this is not legal.

What Does This Mean?

This language is presented as if it is an indisputable fact. Yet in Marin the evidence shows that there is no  basis validating the workforce housing concept – but  there is evidence that no relationship exists. Therefore we should expect to see the following actions:
  • The term workforce housing should no longer be used by elected officials
  • The term should be dropped from all policy documents
  • If the term is used in media such as the Marin IJ the term be immediately called out as being disproven to discourage future usage
This does not mean that there should not be more affordable housing. What it does mean that we need to discard dishonest, disproven and consequently misleading concepts from the discussion.

Affordable Housing

Note that this does not mean that Marin County, or any other location should no longer provide affordable housing. The county has excellent policies requiring that new developments include 20% affordable units. Sadly many developments, such as MacFarlane’s Tamal Vista, were able to circumvent these requirements. Marin needs to uphold these well founded policies.
Marin does need to grow – but not with large concentrations of housing. Instead the county should continue it’s policy of integrating affordable units into all new developments.

Visit www. PLANNING FOR REALITY.org  for thoughtful solutions to Marin's Future Growth.

Friday, May 15, 2015

The Flawed Concept of “Workforce Housing”

The Flawed Concept of “Workforce Housing”

Listening to the Marin County Supervisors we would be led to believe there is no higher priority than to provide “workforce housing“.
 
Supervisor Kate Sears
Supervisor Kate Sears
“We can reduce the impacts of in-commuting by…building workforce housing would enable people working in Marin to live closer to their jobs.” Supervisor Sears, Feb 21st 2014 Facebook page
 
“It’s important that we build healthy and sustainable communities by allowing those who work in Marin to also live here,”  Supervisor Arnold, Sept 2011
 
“To increase the stock of affordable housing, especially workforce housing, the Marin
County Board of Supervisors enacted the Affordable Housing Impact Fee.”
This is a $5 or a $10 per square foot fee imposed on new builds and remodels. An existing 1,800 square foot house with a 700 square foot addition or conversion will be assessed $2,500. Source.
The concept of providing workforce housing underpins stated policy not just from Marin County Supervisors but also the Association of Bay Area Governments’ Plan Bay Area:
 
Plan Bay Area references "workforce housing"
Plan Bay Area references “workforce housing”
“The job growth forecast was adjusted based on the difficulties in supplying sufficient housing in the Bay Area to meet the needs of workforce housing within reasonable commute times. ”
Source: Plan Bay Area, page 15, Employment Forecast

Workforce Housing – The Premise & Alleged Benefits

The concept presumes that by building affordable housing in a county:
  • more county workers who used to live outside the county will be able to live in the county
  • traffic congestion will be reduced
  • greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced.
A quick Google search constrained to the Marin County website references the term “workforce housing” in 340 separate documents. The same term appears in 160 documents on the Association of Bay Area Governments website. Restated the premise of workforce housing is woven deeply into planning and policy across the region. It is frequently used to justify housing projects.

The Theory and the Facts

If the premise of workforce housing reduces in commuting then one would expect to see a substantial increase between these two numbers:
  • Affordable housing residents who work in the county but who previously lived outside the county and had to commute in
  • Affordable housing residents who now live and work in the county, who no longer have to commute into the county
To make the case there should be a measurable and not insignificant increase between the former and the latter.
In 2008 Marin County published a document “Affordable Housing Inventory“. The stated purpose of the document was to create a single data source for information on affordable housing in Marin establishing a platform for future tracking and analysis of affordable housing in Marin County.
On page 4 the document states:
“ approximately 90% of [affordable housing residents] lived and worked in Marin prior to living in affordable housing
Then on page 32 the same document states:
“The current employment location of working [affordable housing] residents was provided for 606 individuals. Of this sample, 91% work in Marin County.”
If workforce housing as a premise was valid one would expect to see an order of magnitude between these two numbers. Instead there is an increase of 1% – which is within the margin of error.
One might presume that affordable housing can be made available selectively only to people who work in the county – but this is not legal.

What Does This Mean?

This language is presented as if it is an indisputable fact. Yet in Marin the evidence shows that there is no  basis validating the workforce housing concept – but  there is evidence that no relationship exists. Therefore we should expect to see the following actions:
  • The term workforce housing should no longer be used by elected officials
  • The term should be dropped from all policy documents
  • If the term is used in media such as the Marin IJ the term be immediately called out as being disproven to discourage future usage
This does not mean that there should not be more affordable housing. What it does mean that we need to discard dishonest, disproven and consequently misleading concepts from the discussion.

Affordable Housing

Note that this does not mean that Marin County, or any other location should no longer provide affordable housing. The county has excellent policies requiring that new developments include 20% affordable units. Sadly many developments, such as MacFarlane’s Tamal Vista, were able to circumvent these requirements. Marin needs to uphold these well founded policies.
Marin does need to grow – but not with large concentrations of housing. Instead the county should continue it’s policy of integrating affordable units into all new developments.

Monday, April 20, 2015

Planning for Reality: Disenfranchised by an Ecosystem


See Richard Halls Blog in the Patch: Planning for Reality: Disenfranchised by an Ecosystem

The "fast growth" ecosystem
The "fast growth" ecosystem
Many of us have been attending community meetings objecting to high density housing near transit for a year or more  -  yet we find ourselves facing  highly organized, well-funded opponents who have controlled the conversation for years - before we ever showed up. These groups helped usher in designations of many Marin neighborhoods as Priority Development Areas – hot-spots where 80% of new housing growth is targeted by Plan Bay Area. 

While we learned about neighbors wanting to build kitchen extensions somehow our elected representatives overlooked telling us about their far more radical development plans. Finally when we did show up we found ourselves dismissed as a nuisance as anything from “johnny come latelys” to NIMBYs and racists.
The outcome despite a near 10 to 1 ratio of opponents to proponents is that fast growth and high density is going through in Marin:
  • Civic Center is going to be turned into a 5-story Northgate City metropolis. Its "Transit Town Center" PDA designation signals MTC’s target to pack in 7,000 housing units within ½ mile of the SMART train station where there are currently only 1,165 units. (Read this MTC guide to understand PDA designations)
  • Marinwood and Lucas Valley face absorbing 546 high density housing units. This has the potential to cause significant impact on schools - it is estimated to place a burden of $4.9m year on local taxpayers if schools are to maintain their quality due to subsidies and tax exemptions provided to low income and affordable housing developers and residents.
  • Strawberry and Marin City face similar fates, Marin City’s situation is especially perplexing as high density affordable housing could displace the black population of Marin, many of whom are low income and cannot by definition afford affordable housing
Most of us returned from meetings where opponents outnumbered proponents dumbstruck by how this could have happened – and was continuing to happen. So we started to research - and we followed the money…
Plan Bay Area – Following the ABAG Money
Plan Bay Area and the associated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) are the two major tools being used by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to drive our cities and county to embrace high density housing.

ABAG claims there is no loss of local control, but if the planning numbers aren’t met then city and counties open themselves up tolegal liability. Those locations that embrace development via Priority Development Areas receive lucrative transportation and housing grants.
The Ecosystem of Advocacy Groups
Plan Bay Area started its conception years ago in conjunction with a number of housing and transportation advocacy groups. These groups formed strong relationships with ABAG, MTC and have also endeared themselves to counties, cities and businesses.
Here in Marin an organization calling itself the Grassroots Leadership Network was formed, it evolved to become Marin Grassroots. Receiving donations of over $634,116 in 2011, with plush offices located amongst Marin County offices, and employing multiple full time staff it doesn’t quite align with the definitions of Grassroots on Wikipedia
Like other housing and transportation advocacy groups, Marin Grassroots embedded itself in the committees involved in planning. They showed up early and often while most of us slept unaware of the radical change that was planned for us.
In March 2013 Marin Grassroots along with other housing advocacy groups was paid by MTC to conduct focus groups to capture feedback from minorities and low income residents on  their needs (see page 4). A laudable goal, but paying a political organization with a strong agenda to increase high density housing and switch residents from cars to transit was surely unlikely to produce unbiased conclusions.
But these groups weren't treated just as vendors, they are partners of ABAG  with Marin Grassroots awarded a $56,000 grant by ABAG.
These groups would attend community meetings, not disclosing their relationships to ABAG and MTC and cheer on ABAG and MTCs Plan Bay Area, holding up signs promoting the plan.
When finally accused of derailing conversations and failing to disclose that they were funded by taxpayer , ABAG and MTC contributions they claimed not to have taken a position on Plan Bay Area . Yet even the most glancing visit to the Marin Grassroots' website proved otherwise as they strongly advocated not just the enactment of Plan Bay Area, but it’s most severe variant – the Environment, Equity and Jobs alternative (EEJ) - even going so far as to create a petition advocating adoption of this alternative . The EEJ option diverts a further $2.5bn from maintaining and expanding highways towards transit.

Consider also that these advocacy organizations are non-profits (501(c)(3)s) where donations are not taxable.

Marin County Connections

Marin County through the supervisors has become heavily intertwined with Marin Grassroots. Between 2009 and 2011 the county paid Marin Grassroots $115,000(see item CA-4 (d)(ii)).

The Marin County supervisors are very involved with Grassroots, involving them on committees and attending and supporting their "We are Marin" party.

The Billion Dollar Community Foundations

The other way that these groups raise money is through bequests made typically by wealthy individuals to Community Foundations such as the Marin Community Foundation (MCF) or the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. MCF has assets of $1bngathered initially through bequests such as Mrs Beryl Buck and subsequent donors many of whom made donations in their wills. It is meant to direct funds to improve the quality of life and diversity for the people of Marin. However of late it has donated $250,000 to Marin Grassroots and $75,000 to Stand Up for Neighborly Novato - both housing and social equity advocacy groups that have supported Plan Bay Area.
Where Does this Leave Us Marinites?
Now we know what’s occurring Marinites can better understand how we got to this fast growth situation. Plan Bay Area was conceived and promoted by a network of political patrons. What we can do about this is vote out officials that let this patronage occur, especially those who supported it:
  • Supervisors Steve Kinsey , Katie Rice Judy Arnold voted to make Marin Grassroots Director, Ericka Ericsson , a Marin County Planning Commissioner despite a perceived lack of experience.  
  • All the Marin County Supervisors are “host sponsors” of Marin Grassroots upcoming “We Are Marin” picnic event at Civic Center Park. 
  • San Rafael city council candidate and fast growth proponent Greg Brockbank, alongside Marin County Supervisor Kinsey have both regularly attended and shown their support for Marin Grassroots events such as the declaration of the state of emergency where fast growth opponents were labeled a racist lynch mob. Supervisor Kinsey spoke with the Marin Grassroots and Concerned Marinites protest outside the Citizen Marin town hall.
Elected officials need to be on notice that their patronage and support of these organizations is unacceptable. Voters in Marin should demonstrate the ramifications of this behavior at the ballot box starting by voting for Randy Warren in the November San Rafael city council race and supervisor candidates Carol Brandtand Toni Shroyer. Businesses and individuals can also help offset the imbalance by donating to their campaigns.

Marin needs a major reform - voters need to send a clear message – this political patronage is unacceptable and we do not want Marin overrun by fast growth.

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

The “Transportation Cloud” is Coming

The “Transportation Cloud” is Coming

The “Transportation Cloud” is Coming
Many are familiar with “the cloud” – that imaginary place up there in Internet “heaven” where companies and people can access file storage, computing power, movies or music instantaneously – on demand – whenever they need it. The computer cloud has disrupted conventional computing:
  • Companies no longer need commit to buying dedicated servers that they may only fully utilize a few times a year.
  • People no longer need to buy bigger disk drives to store their email – we have services like Gmail that seem to offer endless storage for mails we never seem to get around to deleting.
  • We no longer buy movies or music, instead we subscribe to on-demand services capable of instantly gratifying us like Netflix and Spotify
The Internet cloud, while seemingly imaginary and ethereal has transformed the computer industry – and the number are staggering:
  • Research firm IDC estimates that businesses spent over $100 billion on cloud computing in 2014 (Source: The Economist)
  • Amazon’s cloud services report year on year growth of 90%
  • Netflix is estimated to use 34.9% of all downstream Internet traffic during peak periods on North American Broadband networks, closely followed by YouTube with 14% (Source: Variety, Nov 2014)
Just as “the cloud” has disrupted and revolutionized business computing, communications and media consumption – so the coming “transportation cloud” will have similar radical impacts on the world around us.

What is the Transportation Cloud?

The Transportation CloudThe short version: think Uber, add car-pooling then throw in Google self-driving cars.
The longer version – imagine next time you need to leave your house to go shopping, go to work, get to the airport you’ll click on a mobile app. Your location and intended destination will be transmitted to a central service and a self-driving car, that may already have passengers traveling along a similar route, will be sent to collect you.
While today average car occupancy for commutes is 1.13 this number could dramatically be increased, reducing congestion and increasing road capacity.
Just as many now scoff at those who waste money and storage space on a CD or DVD collection – in 15 years time many will hold car owners in similar disregard. Of course there will be many who will insist on owning cars – perhaps for collecting or driving for pleasure at weekends – just like there are still die-hard vinyl record and DVD collectors.
There may be economy and premium car services. Executives may use an app to summon a personal  Mercedes or Tesla, while the rest of us bundle into the latest Toyota Prius with some fellow travelers going the same direction.

How Far Away is All This? 

The scary part is the technology is already here!
In December Uber launched Uber Pool. Claiming to already undercut taxis by 40%, Uber Pool suggests that by sharing an Uber with other passengers you can cut the fare by another 50%. Uber has clearly already developed the routing software necessary for directing cars to pick up passengers with common routings.
A great additional step would be to incorporate Google Waze traffic routing technology – Waze as many may already know crowd-sources insight into road congestion and directs users to the quickest route, bypassing congestion in real time.

The Self Driving Car is Already Here

Google Self Driving Lexus SUVSince mid 2012 a Google X software engineer, Anthony Levandowski has been commuting from Berkeley to Mountain View in a self-driving Lexus, taking highway 880 at speeds exceeding 70mph. Google X is the company’s top secret lab for experimental technology.
At this year’s CES Audi and Mercedes unveiled self-driving cars. Mercedes’ offering actually drove itself to Las Vegas:
While the technology may be here already legislation still has to catch up, but there’s now sufficient market pressure that the dam will surely burst soon.
Nevada opened up its’ roads to autonomous vehicles as far back as June 2011California issued 25 DMV permits to self driving cars in 2014. Other states have been watching to see how this plays out. The most significant issue is who pays the bill if a self-driving car gets into an accident. The big picture is that self-driving cars are sure to have accidents, but on average they will be more safely driven and will be in fewer accidents, so allowing them is for the greater good. However car and software manufacturers are not going to sign up for major liability without a fight.

Suburbia is Our Enemy: The Planners Mindset

Conventional wisdom, conceived before the advent of the “transportation cloud” is that we must adhere to the ideology of“transit oriented development” conceived by UC Berkeley Professor, Robert Cervero where new development should be high density and focused around transit corridors.  This is woven deeply into the fabric of planning – it appears in many cities’ general plans.
The thinking goes that by marshaling new development to locations where it is easiest to provide public transit – major arterials – that people will be more likely to use public transit.

Reversing The Sin of Suburbia

Suburbia presents a fascinating quandary for planners. Some feel it is a mistake that should never have happened. Spread out with low population densities, suburbs are poorly suited to transit. Planners would sooner reverse trends and have the population conveniently move to a more urban configuration.
In order to be cost-effective with significant ridership transit generally needs to serve denser, more urban populations. The Sonoma Marin “SMART” train was proposed first and foremost to voters as a means “to relieve traffic” (Source: Measure Q).
In reality the “SMART” train was really about enabling development – and once that development occurred the train would become justified. This is outlined in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transit Oriented Development Policy –Resolution 3434. This directed significant high-density growth within ½ mile of train stations the length of the line. To qualify for funding cities along the line had to plan for at least 2,200 housing units adjacent to each train station. This is of course back to front. It overlooks that many, likely most, of the new residents will drive adding to instead of relieving already acute traffic congestion.
With the transportation cloud cars will retain their crown as the most popular and common mode of transit outside of cities. Imposing needless, expensive rail projects will prove even more unnecessary.

What Does this Mean for Future Planning?

The General Motors Autonomous Car, 1962
General Motors’ Firebird III on display at the Century 21 Exposition, Seattle, 1962.
Self-driving cars in “the transportation cloud” are much better suited to spread out suburban environments.  With a capacity of 5 instead of a bus seating 50 or a train seating over 200, self driving cars in the transportation cloud can be much more efficient, traveling nearer full capacity. Cars already emit far less CO2 per passenger mile than transit – in suburban environments. But with the transportation cloud car occupancy can be increased further lowering car emissions.
New transit projects in suburbs will be rendered needless, and those recently launched will be recognized as being short-sighted.

The End of Traffic Congestion?

The Future of TransportationPerhaps the greatest benefit has to be traffic congestion – the transportation cloud means:
  • With higher average occupancies fewer cars are needed to transport the population
  • Congestion caused by overtaking and unnecessary acceleration and deceleration can be minimized
  • Self driving cars can chain together closer than conventional cars, communicating wirelessly when they are accelerating or breaking, so the capacity of a freeway lane can be significantly increased. They become a convoy that acts as a single unit.
With diminished traffic congestion, existing suburban and conurbations will be able to support higher populations – but the populations need not be driven by “transit oriented development” adjacent to arterial roads and rail networks. Instead they can be distributed – still within the suburban footprint, without sprawling. The pressure to build up around “transit corridors” will be diminished and towns will be able to preserve a more low-rise character.
Provided population growth isn’t radically accelerated surpassing the additional capacity, such as by ambitious long range plans like Plan Bay Area, feasible commute ranges should increase. More people should be able to commute longer distances relieving the pressure on cities and more proximate city suburbs.  People who settled for living in a small house in Mill Valley due to long commutes will instead find it practical to move to a larger, more comfortable house in Petaluma. Silicon Valley workers will be able to commute from much greater distances.
If we drive longer distances – such as driving from Marin to Los Angeles, the local traffic will be diminished, but the Interstate traffic between cities may remain at similar levels.

What Does this Mean for Transit?

Transit will remain – we will still depend on transit in cities just as we will use planes for longer journeys. Transit may also work in conjunction with the transportation crowd. Now you can be dropped off at the station or bus that takes you into the city, instead of having to park your car at the transit hub.

Car Ownership

While car ownership is likely to slowly diminish over time there are good reasons it won’t go to zero. Cars are just too great a part of America’s 20th and now 21st century DNA. While a more progressive crowd may fully embrace the transportation cloud and go car-less, many, especially the older generation will cling to their 4 wheeled dreams.
For some journeys we may still want privacy, or to be able to travel together just with family members. We can either select an option when we summon a transportation cloud vehicle not to share it, or continue to own a car that we may not commute with, but use for weekend trips or family vacations.
Car companies that spend billions on advertising won’t go down without a fight. The characteristics of private cars may change. The need for utilitarian cars used for commuting and shopping should be diminished – so remaining car models may focus more on pleasure trips.

Diminished Need for Parking Spaces

The need for car parking spaces should diminish. This has significant implications for malls and town centers. Fewer people will drive to these locations and park. The need for parking to make a business successful will diminish (but won’t disappear entirely).
Malls will likely remain – they will now be even easier to get to – but the necessity of sprawling car parks will diminish. Instead there will be drop off points as you exit your transportation cloud vehicle.

The Commercial Transportation Cloud

If you buy a heavy item while shopping you may not need to drag it to your cloud vehicle. The commercial transportation cloud will take care of that. The store assistant will note your address and dispatch it via a parallel commercial cloud that is picking off and dropping off items.
The commercial cloud may also act like an accelerated delivery form of Amazon.com. Let’s say you discover you need to fix something in your home and you need a part – you will order it and it will be dispatched via the commercial transportation cloud.
It will work like present day vehicle parts services offering “just in time” delivery for almost anything.

The Impact on Jobs

One of the downsides of this kind of disruption is going to be on jobs:
  • Uber drivers will be displaced (just as Uber drivers are displacing taxi drivers today)
  • Bus routes may no longer be needed so bus drivers may be replaced; some buses may be computer driven
  • Car manufacturing jobs will be reduced
There is not much that can be done about this. The commercial pressures to adopt the transportation cloud will be impossible to hold back as the population recognizes how much they could save by not owning a car any longer, and if anything they may gain convenience.

What does this Mean for how we Plan for Our Future?

This presents a conundrum for big planning and transportation agencies such as the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Their traffic modeling systems aren’t set up to acknowledge the transportation cloud’s disruptive shift affecting not just how people travel – but how and where they live. Agencies making major planning decisions need to be careful making long-term investments or plans that place too many assumptions that current patterns will continue.
History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes – attributed to Mark Twain
The ramifications of the transportation cloud will be far-reaching and likely unclear for some time. The old transportation planning rule books will need to be thrown out of the window. The change may be uncomfortable at first – there may some parallels with transit oriented development such as reduced need for parking, but roads and cars will preserve their dominant roll well into the 21st century.