There's no more change to be found in the sofa - Fixing San Jose's Roads

In a recent article in our local community newspaper ("Potholes, potholes everywhere and not a financial fix any time in the near future - Chances of passing parcel tax or bond measure seem unlikely") the reporter summarized a recent presentation given by Hans Larsen, Director of the City of San Jose's Department of Transportation to the regular Tuesday meeting of the city council. His presentation repeated an earlier presentation I heard him give just three weeks earlier putting a yearly price tag on maintaining the city's roadways. I summarized many of his comments in a October 28, 2011 post titled "San Jose''s DOT Director discusses the state of the city's roadways and how to repair them".

The article highlighted several responses from local residents commenting on the proposed ways to raise funds to support a $100 million a year maintenance budget. All but one respondent was opposed to spending money to support the roads. Several had stated they believed the money is there and that we should look a little closer at departmental funds. A few would like to initiate a formal look at the department's finances. As the article states "he cautions that before anything else is done, the city council and auditor should look into how DOT money is being spent."

The comments in the article share a common thread, a belief, a wish that there is money there, we just need to look harder. Somewhere there is a sofa with just the enough road repair change, just waiting to be scooped up between the sofa cushions. And somehow it seems as though these residents feel that this is only a San Jose problem; if we could just get our house in order. I doubt most of the residents surveyed for the article or most any San Jose residents realize that this is not just a San Jose problem, and certainly not just a California problem, but a growing national problem as well. Critical lack of funding in our surface transportation infrastructure is a problem, but the biggest problem may be our collective denial that a structural problem exists.

Many of you who read this blog know that I have featured James H. Kunstler and Charles Marohn of StrongTowns.org. Mr. Marohn goes on to state that the unbridled growth in suburban development at the expense of our central cities was one big development Ponzi scheme, saddling us with unbearable infrastructure maintenance costs 30 to 40 years into the future. [Podcast: The Growth Ponzi Scheme]

During San Jose's huge post war growth spurt [San Jose Population - read-only Excel file] city development moved away from an efficient grid system to a street system of cul-du-sacs, collector roads, and homes that were built far from stores, schools, and jobs. Not only did this lead to a requirement of one car for just about every adult driver but families were driving more each year just to meet basic family needs, even to make those short trips to the store just to pick up a gallon of milk. Also a cul-du-sac style roadway systems is costly to maintain than the traditional grid system (not just for roads but sewers, tree trimming, trash pick-up etc.

Flicker:TaxiDriver

But this is not just a San Jose problem. In a recent post ("The looming showdown in surface transportation funding"), I mentioned the failure of our gasoline excise tax program to adequately fund construction and maintenance of the automobile infrastructure. The tax has never been truly effective because, on "Day One" the tax has never been adequate enough and the amount collected  is reduced with each passing year due to inflation, the increasing gas mileage of American automobiles, and the recent trend of driving less during these tough economic times.

Recently the city of Napa has passed a sales tax to cover road repair as well as reallocate construction funds for road maintenance, a rather unusual request to the MTC. The city of San Francisco just passed Measure B giving that city ability to incur $248 million of bonded debt. Also other major California cities such as Los Angles and San Diego have recently garnered media attention on the deteriorating state of local roads.

So we need to move away from past myths about our local streets, local transportation funding, and the view that the motorist is the only user of our streets. Historically cities built and maintained our streets. But with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, cities and counties which have historically used property taxes to fund roadways were now in a dilemma. With this long lasting recession impacting sales tax revenue and city budgets (along with pensions and other HR costs), less and less of the cities general fund is being used for street repair. In recent years money has also come in the form of grants, sales tax revenue from recently passed measures, vehicle license fees (VLF also which were voted in with a 2/3 vote), along with other creative means. But in Hans Larsen's recently released numbers this may only solve 15% of the problem. Very little money dedicated to street maintenance comes from user fees or gas taxes.

Typically when we speak of "mode share" we highlight whether the users are single occupancy autos, transit user, pedestrians, or cyclists, but these percentages only take into consideration commute options. Since other trips (errands, church, school, coffee shop, farmers market) typically are taken by transit, cycling or walking these numbers tend to overestimate automobiles usage. However up until now, the overwhelming amount of road funds went to add vehicle capacity and move traffic faster. Very little money was spent to make our cities streets safer, more convenient, and more accessible to pedestrians, transit users, and cyclists.

All of the local residents interviewed for the article are exclusively motorists who feel that there is money in the system somewhere; we just need to look for it. These city residents are no different from other motorists in that they are in a state of denial concerning local streets. The perception is that in the future all local roadways will continue to be in good to fair condition and it will not cost us much more than it does now, so why burden their budgets with the additional costs of gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes or any other type of tax.

In fact, San Jose's inability to find financial support to maintain roads (also known as "kicking the can down the road") has been going on for at least eight years. In a March 26, 2004 memo to the Building Better Transportation Committee then DOT director James Helmer stated that although 70 was the citywide Pavement Maintenance Index (PMI) at that time (San Jose's PMI is currently at 63) he needed over $30 million each year but only had $3.2 million from the general fund. His concern at that time was that he was going to have to rely on capital funding to support the city's maintenance program (similar to Napa's dilemma; use funds dedicated to construct for maintenance).

So just who's job is it to wake the city up from its long dream of beautiful but underfunded streets. Hans Larsen has only been in his current position for about six months but it looks like this responsibility has fallen upon his shoulders. He has a big job ahead of him, but one that is sorely needed nonetheless.

Maybe in future presentations he can wheel around that big old sofa and just show everyone that there is no change in that sofa.

Links to recent "pothole" related stories around the state (and other references):

• The Pothole Report: Can the Bay Area Have Better Roads - Metropolitan Transportation Commission

• Roads Officially Worse Under Sanders, Report Says - Voice of San Diego

• San Jose ponders where to get money to fix pothole-ridden streets - Mercury News

• Pitfalls of Mayor Antonio Villaragosa's pothole project - Los Angles Times

• Hans Larsen Presentation
• Measure B (Santa Clara 11-11)
• Measure B (Santa Clara 3-02)
• California Proposition 42