What goes up must come down or have the chickens finally coming home to roost?

For curses are like arrows

San Jose Mayor
Louis S. Solari
July 1958 - June 1960

shot upright, which falling
down light on the suters
[shooters] head.

The Lamentable and True Tragedy of Arden of Feversham - 1592

Today's Roadshow column in the San Jose Mercury News led with the headline: "San Jose pothole blamed on Reed, Brown, and Pruius drivers". Well, for those of you from out of state, Reed is San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, and Brown is California Governor Jerry Brown.

San Jose resident Joe Coughlin writes to Mr. Roadshow Gary Richards:

"Mayor Chuck Reed should be ashamed of the job he is doing regarding road repair. And we all ought to be embarrassed. We are not only the worst in California, we are the worst in the NATION."

I find this readers rant somewhat timely given that the evening before I attended the city's Planning Commission meeting. On the agenda was a study session to review the city's capital budget five-year plan. One set of figures that shocked me a bit (and after seeing these numbers for a few years I don't get shocked that easily) was the total infrastructure backlog reported at $909 million. Given that this year the city budget is $2.6 billion about 35% of the cities annual budget is represented by infrastructure backlog. Of the cities $909 million in infrastructure backlog $460 million is for transportation backlog, or just over 50%. Of that $460 million, $303 million is needed just to maintain the roadways back to normal levels.

But back to Mr. Coughlin's point. Who do we blame? Do we blame Mayor Chuck Reed, Governor Jerry Brown, or those

Population estimates used to
sell large infrastructure building progam
 in San Jose in the early 60's

high and mighty, wimpy green Prius owners. Well I have a new spin on their conundrum. Mr. Coughlin the next time you go to city hall to blame Mayor Reed; as you enter the elevator to the second floor council chamber gallery, look to your left on the wall. There you will see pictures and drawings, of most of the cites mayors going all the way back to the early days. Look carefully at those mayors from about 1945 to 1973; names such as Doerr, Solari (pictured above), Moore, Welch, Pace, and others. While were at it, let's also include A. P. (Dutch) Hamann, the city Manager from 1950 to 1969, a huge player in San Jose's expansionary history.



These mayors, and many other post-war U.S. mayors set us up with a new blueprint for the design of cities that pushed cities and their boundaries outward in a rush to annex tax generating development. In those days, it appeared that as soon as a new development was built, Dutch Hamann was out to annex it; One example routinely given is the Valley Fair shopping center. Leonard McKay told it so well in a series of two blog posts in 2006. (Dutch Hamann Part I and Part II)



Photo: wikipedia (San Jose)

 

"At that time, a sales tax was a major generator of revenue, and with the council’s approval, a program of strip annexation was set in motion.  Hamann determined where future shopping centers were likely to be located, and then the city proceeded to annex a narrow band of land out along each major road and intersection, thus ensuring that the sales tax revenue would come to San Jose. 

Along Stevens Creek Road to Cupertino, Bascom Boulevard, North First Street, and Monterey Highway to Morgan Hill—each and every area was annexed.  Prior to Hamann’s tenure—more than 100 years—only 46 annexations occurred.  During his 19 years, 1,377 annexations were effected"




If you've ever looked a map of Paris it looks by its very shape, its very design that it would be easy and relatively inexpensive to administer and maintain. Compare that with a map of San Jose (shown above) and

you ask yourself, how do you effectively police a city like this, maintain the roadway system or run an efficient library or parks system? In many areas of the city that fully enclose unincorporated county areas it even becomes more puzzling. Now try to figure out how you administer an effective police force, sanitary sewer systems, roads, streetlights, schools and water systems.

Yes it is extremely complicated. Just ask anyone living in the Burbank section of San Jose, an area where most neighbhors don't know who administers (county or city) parts of their own neighborhood.

Actually the layout of the city used to be worse. That is why 40 years ago the California State legislature created a regulatory vehicle to control crazy city boundaries that were confusing even city officials. Known by their acronym LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission), these independent regulatory commissions where created to control the boundaries of cities and most special districts (such as utility, school, sewage, vector, etc.). But more on that in a later post.

Given this willy nilly style of development and city leaders gross over-projection of population growth (see graph) infrastructure building (construction) was the real growth industry when an Apple in this valley was still something you ate. Even though California, the Bay Area, and San Jose grew at astonishing rates in the 1960's, 70's, and 80's their projections show that in 2010 San Jose's population would be at 1.8 million residents. In 2010 the city population was only 952,612 per the United States Census Bureau, or just over half what was projected.

To accommodate this overly inflated growth rate, the city built new sewer systems and water treatment plants (the current plant in Alviso), realigned roadways (Nagle Taylor, Julian and the Alameda), widened streets to nowhere (Park Ave., Minnesota at Meridian), built new railway under crossings (Park Ave. near Diridon), and new satellite libraries (West Valley branch etc. which was rebuilt several years ago), and fire stations.

What these leaders failed to realize was that the future money needed to maintain all this growing infrastructure base could not be recouped by the low yields (nowadays we call this sustainable) on a tax base reflected in the form of bedroom communities and urban sprawl. Many of these projects would not pencil out, or pay for themselves; and this was before Californians (not Mayor Reed or Jerry Brown) decided to severely restrict cities ability to maintain it all by passing Proposition 13 in 1978. So since 1978 cities have had to become very creative to tax these essentials of suburban living; investments in sewer pipe, pumping stations, wide Almaden neighborhood streets, or cul-du-sac living of the Evergreen area.

These leaders threw away the old tried and traditional rules of building cites and went on to build over 4,000 miles of municipal roadways. Now the potholes are coming home to roost (oh well I tried), or the archers arrow has returned to earth only to strike the shooter in the head.

As I have mentioned in many a post we, and many other California cities were built in the postwar era without a thought to how we would maintain these roadways. We have $303 million in unfunded road backlogs. We need around $100 million per year to maintain the system. We have no room in the general budget for repair. What funds are used to fix potholes, at about $16 million per year come from federal and state sources. We are now starting to receive the benefits of the recently enacted $10 vehicle fee but these amounts are nowhere near enough to cover the repair and maintenance of our roadways. State and federal gasoline taxes do not directly finance our maintenance program. Those funds are for building and maintaining  the federal and state highway systems.

Yes we do have a huge pothole problem, a problem that many has grown immensely in the last few years. However until residents and motorist realize how complex, how expensive, and how poorly funded our roadway system is, the problem is just not going to get any better anytime soon.

The chickens have come home to roost.



Book Review: Boomerang by Michael Lewis

Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World by Michael Lewis
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This book was classic Michael Lewis in that he deconstructs quantitatively driven scenarios and converts them into easily digestible stories albeit, with interesting characters. To imply that the author is an economic academic, rather than the journalist that he is, is stretching one's expectations.

Throughout the book he use the metaphor of what individuals or countries do with a pile of cash or credit once the lights have been turn off (left to our own private desires). In the case of the United States, we all went out and bought bigger houses. But the bigger picture he spins in the last chapter is that we wanted it all (until we were "too fat to fly"), we had grown used to having an economy of abundance that we decided to continue with the delusion even though it would have long term consequences. As he states in his last chapter:

"...And as he (Vallejo's new City Manager, Phil Batchelor) talked about the bankrupting of Vallejo I realized that I had heard this story before, or a private-sector version of it. The people who had power in the society, and were charged with saving it from itself, had instead bled the society to death. The problem with the police officers and firefighters isn't a public-sector problem; it isn't a problem with government; it's a problem with the entire society. It's what happened on Wall Street in the run-up to the subprime crisis. It's a problem of people taking what they can, just because they can, without regard to the larger social consequences. It's not just a coincidence that the debts of cities and states spun out of control at the same time as the debts of individual Americans. Alone in a dark room with a pile of money, Americans knew exactly what they wanted to do, from the top of society to the bottom. They'd been conditioned to grab as much as they could, without thinking about the long term consequences. Afterward, the people on Wall Street would privately bemoan the low morals of the America people who walked away from their subprime loans, and the American people would express outrage at the Wall Street people who paid themselves a fortune to design the bad loans..."

The last chapter also touches on the fiscal problems of San Jose, a city with the second highest level of per capita incomes in the U.S., after New York City, and yet, "is not all that far from being bankrupt".

All in all a good entertaining read which includes a globetrotting narrative into the stories and background of the European debt crisis. But if you remember to tell yourself that this is no financial thesis you enjoy the book as I did.



View all my reviews

Well I pay taxes and....

"I pay taxes and...."

At a public meeting last month a woman in the audience shouted out "Well I pay taxes, I pay taxes for the roads and bicyclists don't". Well here is a breakdown of roads and the agencies that maintain them, courtesy of the California Transportation Commision.

As you can see gasoline (excise) taxes which are collected at the pump only pay for a small amount of the roadways we drive on, about 17%. This is not counting for the fact that gasoline taxes do not cover the complete cost of maintaining our roadways.

Roadways in cities and counties are paid by property and sales taxes which are not dependent on automobile ownership or useage. Therefore cyclists, pedestrians, and transit users also pay for the roads they use.

http://www.catc.ca.gov/reports/2011Reports/2011_Needs_Assessment_updated.pdf
California Transportation System Needs Assesment.

http://www.sjcog.org/docs/pdf/media/shortfall,11-6-11.pdf


California’s 58 counties and 4,803 cities own and maintain 141,2354 miles of local streets and roads. This is an impressive 82 percent of the state’s total publicly maintained centerline miles (see Figure 2-6 below). About 146.4 billion vehicle miles are traveled on this street network annually. That’s approximately 45 percent of the total miles traveled every year in California.

Conservatively, this network is valued at $271 billion. Figure 2-6. Breakdown of Maintained Road Centerline Miles by Agency Table 2-2 shows the breakdown of lane-miles by functional classification, for local streets and roads and for unpaved roads. Arterials or collectors are categorized as major streets or roads, while residential streets and alleys are categorized as local streets and roads.

More Joe Minicozzi and the simple math that can save cities from bankruptcy

Following up on the first two videos of a presentation Joe Minicozzi made I present parts III and IV along with a link to an insightful article on the basis of Joe's research.

The article appeared online at Atlantic Cities is entitled  "The simple math that can save cities from bankruptcy".

Part III




Part IV

Introducing Joe Minicozzi; offering a new look to urban planning

Joe Minicozzi
 New Projects Director at
 Public Interest Projects

I posted a couple of videos (in the right margin) of a presentation by Ashville, North Carolina urban planner Joe Minicozzi on the state of downtown Ashville. Joe, who like Chuck Mahron of Strong Towns talks numbers. Both have looked at the revenue and costs estimates of traditional downtown development and compared it to suburban, auto-oriented retail. In almost all cases this type of traditional development captures value; in other words with minimal maintenance costs the sales and property taxes more than pay for the infrastructure.

Prior to working with Public Interest Projects in Asheville, he served as the Urban Designer for the City of West Palm Beach, Florida. He was the City’s first Urban Designer and served as the Zoning Administrator for downtown. Joe has worked in town planning with Duany Plater-Zyberk, in architecture with Zyscovich Architects, and in real estate finance with John Hancock of Boston. In addition to his private sector service, Joe has lectured across the country on Incentive Zoning, Form-based Code, Transfer of Development Rights and the role of urban design in community development.

Watch and listen and let me know what you think. I'll post the last of the videos next week.

The rules of modern politics - with a transportation spin

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

I've written many times about three main themes that seem to be running through transportation circles in the Bay Area; but believe me it also extends beyond the bay. These themes are a nationwide themes that seem to repeat and resonate with the political seasons. They are;

1. The critical need just to maintain local roads and other infrastructure
2. The need to channel money to maintain existing (not to mention new) auto-oriented infrastructure at the expense of non-auto (rail, transit, bike way, and walkways), also known as complete streets.
3. The third rail in transportation politics, the sanctity of freezing gas tax rates at 1990 levels.

The New York Times this week captured all three, in highlighting New Jersey's governor Chris Christies refusal to move ahead with a much needed tunnel linking Manhattan with New Jersey, even though the independent auditing agency the Government Accountability Office issued a 29 page report criticizing the governor's actions.

The  story first broke in October of 2010 during Governor Christies first few months in office. The tunnel would help a system that hasn't seen any new tunnels built for over 100 years.

Not only is there a need nationwide to maintain existing infrastructure; our current transportation infrastructure is inadequate to serve the needs of a growing population that continues to move to urban areas. The newly planed tunnel would have relieved congestion on the only two tunnels that connect Manhattan to New Jersey.

The need to channel money to maintain existing (not to mention new) auto-oriented infrastructure at the expense of non-auto is evident both in New Jersey and here at home (I am currently researching a post on this very issue in San Jose).

With the combination of increased average gas mileage on American cars and a freeze on federal and state gas excise taxes, the inflation adjusted amount of tax revenue apportioned to the Highway Trust Fund as been reduced dramatically and there is a unwillingness by motorists to match the expected costs to maintain existing roadways with gas taxes. From an article in yesterday's Charlotte Observer:

That's the last thing a public that's paying $4 for a gallon of gasoline wants to hear, and elected officials, from members of Congress to President Barack Obama, aren't likely in an election year to propose that motorists pay higher gasoline taxes or tolls. But many transportation experts and officials agree that if Americans want to drive on good roads, they're going to have to pay more for them, or do without.

Most of the 46,000-mile interstate system has been toll-free for its 56-year history. But pavement and bridges on the system's oldest sections are reaching the ends of their life spans and need to be replaced. A 2009 report by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials recommended an annual investment in U.S. highways and bridges of $166 billion. Charlotte Observer 4-17-2012

Until Americans understand the real cost of auto mobility there is a genuine sense of denial on the amount of funding required to keep the system going. Until then we're just kickin' the can down the road.

Additional Links:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/tunnel-of-idiocy/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/opinion/krugman-cannibalize-the-future.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/opinion/gov-chris-christie-and-the-tunnel-project.html

VTA to hold a bicycle guidelines workshop

The Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority is hosting a workshop covering updating Bicycle Technical Guidelines (BTG) with newer infrastructure topics. The Workshop is scheduled for Wednesday, April, 11, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm. The workshop will be located in the Auditorium at VTA offices; 3331 North First St., San Jose. See Map Below.

The VTA's BTG is well known in the area as being an excellent resource on bike infrastructure that many cities outside of the area refer to this excellent resource.

The (BTG) was first adopted by VTA in 1999.  In December 2007, VTA re-adopted the revised and updated version of the BTG.  The BTG manual is a set of optimum standards and best practices for roadway and bikeway design.  Typical issues covered are topics such as Sharrows, Traffic Signal Detection, and Bike Boulevards.

Topics currently under consideration are:

• Roundabouts and bike lanes
• Bollards or rather alternatives to bollards
• Woonerfs (shared bike/ped spaces), both residential and commercial and parklets
• Bike corrals
• Rural options for bike paths and shoulders
• Bulb-outs and bikes
• BRT and bike Lanes
• Contraflow bike lanes
• Cycle tracks
• Green bike lanes
• Freeway four-leaf clover interchanges

Sorry for the close up shot but the VTA auditorium is located in the middle of this embedded photo.

View Larger Map

Prioritizing our roadways - suburbs vs. city centers

In a post in November of last year titled "There's no more change to be found in the sofa - Fixing San Jose's Roads", I mentioned that San Jose's Director for the Department of Transportation went before the council to consider alternative means of funding basic road repair. The next day in a San Jose Mercury New article ("San Jose''s DOT Director discusses the state of the city's roadways and how to repair them".) highlighted the dilemma that the city faces. As I mentioned in my post of November, 18, 2012 I stated:

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.

Well the problem continues to exist but on an even larger scale. Estimates provided by SJDOT stated that if we continue down the road were on, by 2020 we will have grown our deferred maintenance liability to $860M with approximately 54% of the city's 2,400 miles of roadway in "poor" condition compared with $293M now and only 21% of total roadway in poor condition.

Mayor Reed made a comment during the discussion period that if the city was able to control its retirement costs we could have easily covered the city's estimated $100M road repair bill each year.

The proposal before today's city council was to prioritize scare funding by designating a "Priority Street Network" representing approximately 400 miles of the City's street system of 2,400 miles (16%) based on the criterion set forth in the Envision 2040 policies related to Grand Boulevards and Main Streets, economic development areas (business), transit and bicycle corridors, traffic volumes, and major roadways in residential areas.



Click on the map to see priority streets in your area.

  Additionally SJDOT seeks to secure a total funding investment of $100 M annually by considering the following:

1. Evaluation of a possible San Jose parcel tax, bond measure and/or sales tax to substantially address pavement maintenance funding needs;
2. Evaluate extending and amending the current 1/2-cent sales tax for transportation in Santa Clara County, allowing use of funds for local pavement maintenance consistent with many other counties in California; and
3. Advocate for timely approval of a new Federal transportation bill that increases overall investment for transportation with support for local pavement maintenance.

According to Hans Larsen, SJDOT's Director although $100M is needed each year to maintain the city's extensive road network on average each year the city has only been able to come with $18M, creating an ever growing liability in the form of deferred maintenance.

Additionally SJDOT plans to come to the council during the next three months with the following asks:

• April - Downtown bicycle lanes ($1M)
• May - Further refine priority street network ($6M)
• June - Apply Federal grants to use for resurfacing roadways ($6M)

 When the votes were tallied all council members approved the measure to seek additional funding sources with Vice Mayor Madison Nguyen absent.

Council member Nancy Pyle asked Director Larsen about the threshold needed for a referendum to pass. The director replied that currently tax measures require 2/3 approval to pass (Proposition 13) but that there are currently two bills in the state legislative that address this concern; one will apply to broad infrastructure measures and another that would apply to transportation measures. Each would require only a 55% approval margin.

Council member Donald Rocha asked the SJDOT director why all downtown streets were included in the Priority Street Network. The director responded that just about every street in the downtown core absorbs bus traffic as well increased wear due to traffic density serving downtown businesses. Since there is less use on low volume residential streets, these streets would not be prioritized in the new maintenance cycle.

Also in an affirmative nod to pedestrians and cyclists, Council Member Oliverio suggested a white shoulder line (also known as a fog line) or a bike lane (per the current bike plan) be painted on the newly resurfaced roadway. Council member Oliverio stated that the slight narrowing of the lanes would by a very inexpensive way to help calm traffic.

Maintenance District for the Alameda defeated on second attempt

photo: shasta hanchett
neighborhood association

The second attempt at passing a maintenance district on the Alameda in San Jose failed to gain enough support this afternoon with only 51% of  eligible property owners voting. Property owners included those with frontage on the Alameda from Stockton Ave. to Schiele Ave (see map below).

Only 42% of property owners voted in favor of creating a self-funding maintenance district. One of the biggest property owners, the San Jose Unified School District was reported by the City Clerk to have voted against the district.

San Jose's Transportation Department will now have to alter the design plans and present them to the major grantee, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for approval; so its not guaranteed the project will proceed as originally planed.

The project was to include design for a proposed Bus Rapid Transit System, a more walkable street, traffic calming measure, more pedestrian focused lighting and other features.

The problem with the Alameda compared with Japantown or Willow Glen is that those business districts are built around a traditional business district pattern. Originally, the Alameda was owned by the state of California, whose only goal for the road was to move traffic at a very high level of speed, considering the street level retail.

Also the pattern of street level retail has numerous and large gaps making it difficult for shopping or strolling. Auto oriented business such as muffler shops, truck facilities, and auto services centers detract from a pleasent shopping experience not to mention the numerous service oriented business such as law offices, finance firms, a daycare busineess, and a school. Street level retail stores find it in their best interest to fund a cleaning and maintence district, schools and services do not.



View Larger Map

Innovating our way to congestion

Valley Fair 1958

Like the greeting "Aloha" which is heard constantly in the Hawaiin Islands to inflect several meanings, here in the Silicon Valley you hear the word "innovation" so many times you just want to call a hyperbolic time out.

In almost any San Jose city function or staff presentation, the word is often used in a sentence such as, "San Jose is an innovative city', as if some of the Valley's fairy dust somehow sprinkles everything done here even if it is not tech related. At a neighborhood meeting several months back, after hearing the word proudly proclaimed yet another time, I had to stand up list examples of real civic innovation, mentioning the work on Broadway in the Times Square area of New York, Portland's Greenways , along with San Francisco growing use of "parklets". These I mentioned are real urban innovations. I have yet to see anything that I could add to the list from this area.

Valley Fair & Santana Row 2007

In Monday's  (December 19, 2011) edition of the San Jose Mercury News the "I" word was used in a front page article in both the heading and the first paragraph no less ("New York throws down the innovation gauntlet") and in the first sentence in an opinion piece ("VTA's creative solution require Caltrans' help") written by Michael T. Burns, General Manager for VTA the Santa Clara countywide transportation agency. See also last Wednesday's post, "San Jose's coming of age?"

The first paragraph sets the stage

Focus and innovation. Here in Silicon Valley, these are words you usually hear from high-tech firms, but the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is taking these principles to heart. We are looking to employ focus and innovation in a new way to accelerate highway projects and get them done more cheaply. And we need Caltrans' help.

VTA is responsible for planning, designing and, in some cases, constructing highway improvements in Silicon Valley, as well as for building and operating the public transit system. On a daily basis, we move 700,000-plus commuters along our county's highways, not including the number of commuters coming in from neighboring counties. Because of this, VTA has a close and important working relationship with Caltrans. VTA has several high-priority highway projects awaiting funding, while at the same time, local, state and federal funding sources are diminishing. Not satisfied to accept the status quo, VTA is looking for creative solutions to address our county's highway needs. (emphasis in bold is my own)

The opinion piece goes on to describe how "simple interchange improvement in Santa Clara County competes for staff time with the building of the new Bay Bridge; the reconstruction of Doyle Drive, which is the gateway to San Francisco off the Golden Gate Bridge; and the $2 billion Devil's Slide project". But making administrative and approval processes more efficient to build more congestion is like handing two large spoons to the

In addition to the 700,000 commuters mentioned above, according to MTC, there was a 47% increase in the number of commuters to Santa Clara County from surrounding areas, with over 100,000 daily commuters coming from the east.

The simple interchange improvement is one of the most congested intersections in the Bay Area handling traffic coming directly into the county from Gilroy, Los Banos and Salinas from the south valley, Santa Cruz from the coast, Oakland and the East Bay from the North East and San Francisco and the Peninsula from the northern peninsula.

The expansion of two regional shopping areas (Valley Fair and Santana Row) have now "necessitated" the expansion of this interchange. And when the construction dust has settled Valley Fair is seeking to expand the center with two additional anchor stores along with small shops. Meanwhile downtown San Jose has a Ross discount store and San Jose's small number of traditional merchant districts such as Japantown and Willow Glen find it more difficult to compete.

By concentrating the massive single use regional shopping development near a equally massive freeway interchange we have a created an auto dominated, congested, polluted gateway to the city of San Jose. While the state, with the recent passage of SB 32 and SB 375 seeks to reduce the region's congestion and auto pollution (through a reduction in VMT or Vehicle Miles Travelled) and the city seeks to do the same as stated in the recently prepared 2040 General Plan

Most recently Sam Liccardo, the council representative for the downtown and airport area also used "the word" in a Sunday, Juanuary 8 Op/Ed piece ("Redevelopment is gone, but downtown can thrive") to describe the city's Economic develoment team. The essay went on to describe all of the great improvements being made to the downtown and airport areas. I would caution however that anything that increases parking in the downtown core is not "innovative". Innovative would be tyring to bring more residents, employees, and visitors downtown without increasing the demand for parking.

I applaud the desire to make the process more innovative and efficient, however we need to realize that our innovations haven't done much to decrease our freeway frustrations. With an economy that is struggling, most Silicon Valley freeways and expressway are at a standstill at rush hour and beyond. With shopping activity having been promoted in mall and big box configurations roadways around these developments are packed during the weekends and holidays.

We can do better. But instead of wearing a false badge of innovation on our sleeve, lets look to other cities and what they have done. Long Beach has promoted the bicycle as a way for businesses in each of their four traditional business district to attract customers, Minneapolis attributes its growth in bicycling and walking to an array of new street improvements such as more bike lanes and special bicycle-and-pedestrian boulevards, and Los Angles has expand their Metrolink rail system.


So for 2012 let's just focus on tackling the big projects, the useful projects because they are right. Let's save real innovation to the tech industry with its R&D labs and rapid obsolescence. So for 2012 lets all agree that the "I" word is now officially off limits.



Online Resources

I280/880 Stevens Creek Interchange
http://bikesiliconvalley.org/content/1747

I-280/I-880/Stevens Creek Boulevard Improvements Project Website

photos: Buena Vista Neighborhood Association


View Larger Map

Comments on VTA Chair Yeagers remarks - January 5, 2012

Silicon Valley's push to lead the Bay Area

On January 5, 2012 incoming Chair to the VTA Board of Directors Ken Yeager spoke about his goals for the new year (complete text of his remarks). His three main themes of his speech was:

1. The ambitious transportation goals the county has over the next decade.
2. The innovative response by VTA towards those goals (efficiencies, cost containment, etc),and
3. The lack of political effectiveness that the county has given its population and employment size.

Ambitious transportation goals over the next decade

The county of Santa Clara has an impressive list of transportation projects over the next ten years, involving rail, transit, freeways, roads, and expressways. As Mr. Yeager mentioned the 880-280-Stevens Creek Interchange, which is one of the most congested in the Bay Area, is due for a makeover beginning in September of this year. Work is currently in progress on the Tully Road 101 interchange. At last month's VTA Board meeting the new BART extension to the Silicon Valley was formally announced.

VTA is currently in the implementation stages on a Bus Rapid Transit system through the valley as well as a new upgraded Express Bus System beginning Monday, January 9, 2012.

VTA innovations, structural efficiencies, and cost containment strategies

As Chair Yeager mentioned in his opening remarks, VTA's political and administrative efficiencies are due to its consolidated structure. Transit operations and management, which includes VTA bus and light rail service, congestion management, as well as sales tax authority are all under one roof.

VTA is not only the "bus operator" but also the name given to the umbrella organization of these three components. The transit portion is an operational entity and actually does very little construction projects. (For more detail see VTA's own description of its structure)

The congestion management (CMA, or Congestion Management Agency) portion of VTA is the bulk of the VTA umbrella organization. It acts as the local funding arm of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), while also coordinating road, expressway, freeway, bicycle, and rail projects in the area. It also works with cities in local monitoring regional guidelines such as Greenhouse Gas Emissions goals, VMT reduction goals (Vehicle Miles Traveled), and Complete Streets Guidelines. Complete Streets guidelines help to ensure that new roadway improvements also take into account pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, the disabled, and the elderly.

Congestion management agencies were formed by California State legislation. These agencies are organized to receive, administer, and fund projects that are from funds outside the area such as Federal and State funds.

Local sales, fuel, and property taxes to fund transportation projects are generally referred to "Self Help" funds in that they are voted on by local residents with the intent to tax themselves. In California sales tax measures are administered by the state's Franchise Tax Board which collects the taxes and apportions these taxes back to the city, county, CMA, or transit authority. As part of the sales tax initiative "self help" taxes usually include a watchdog group or committee associated with the funds. In this instance the CAC, or Citizens Advisory Committee serves that function.

Santa Clara County's VTA is administered by the same board for all three functions under the VTA umbrella. The board whose makeup is determined by a formula to ensure adequate representation from the big city (San Jose), smaller cities, and county representation as well. As Yeager states "this is not necessarily true for all counties".

To contrast with Santa Clara County San Mateo County has different organizations with different leadership, meeting in different locations. The Transit Operator, SamTrans (9 members) meets once a month with its own board. The sales tax authority also known as the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (7 members) meets each month with a different board, and the Congestion Management Agency (City/County Association of Governments) meets in a different city with a completely different board. (23 members) representing all San Mateo cities as well as county government.

With a CMA of over 20 members from a geographically disperse (bayside and Pacific Oceanside cities) county such as San Mateo it becomes increasing difficult to manage from a political and administrative point of view. Added to this fact that Caltrain (Caltrain JPB or Joint Powers Board) also shares staff and office space with these county agencies and you can see how unwieldy it can be. Only one individual within all of San Mateo County sits on all three agency boards.

Cyclists Frustrations - Case in Point

One of the many frustrations shared by cyclists in San Mateo County is this fractured structure and its effect on getting adequate bicycle infrastructure built within the county. Funds coming from outside sources (from the MTC) are administered out of the county's CMA, or Cities and County Association of Governments(C/CAG), however the self-help or funds originated by local sales taxes are administered out of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority. Neither organization has a bicycle coordinator that would help administer these bifurcated funds. The two agencies are even housed in different San Mateo County cities.

VTA has created a extemely useful resource called Bicycle Technical Guidline (BTG). The BTG manual is a set of optimum standards and best practices for roadway and bikeway design. VTA was able to write, adopt, and revise this excellent resource due to adequate staffing at the countywide level. It is highly unlikely that this would happen in San Mateo County given its current transportation management structure.

Alameda County Tries a Different Approach

In an effort to streamline their agencies and make them more effective, just last year Alameda county combined their sales tax authority and congestion management agency into one organization. What used to be the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) and the Alamaeda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA) is now the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC).

Santa Clara County's push for greater regional representation

The Silicon Valley, which in the past was referred to as the Valley of Heart's Delight has found it hard to shake its rural and agricultural routes vis a vis its more urbane neighbors to the north (namely San Francisco). Commerce, banking, shipping, rail, and trade along with all of the other political, administrative, and organization functions traditional found a home in either San Francisco or Oakland.

Organizations such as the regents of the University of California, ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments), BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District), BART, MTC, are all located in either San Francisco or Oakland. Civic and urban policy groups such as the Commonwealth Club, and SPUR (San Francisco Planning and Urban Research) are also located in San Francisco along with major media outlets in print, radio & television (see map below).

Similar to the passionate scene in the first Godfather movie where the older brother "Fredo" tells his younger brother Michael Corleone that he should have been chosen to be the family Don, sometimes San Jose and the Silicon Valle feel the same way. With 25% of the Bay Area's population they feel that like Fredo Corleone in the "I'm Smart" scene from the movie Godfather II, they "were passed over" and its not what they "wanted".

Now as Chair Yeager states in his remark with over one-quarter of the regions population and jobs its time San Jose got the respect it deserves; not just sent out to take care of some Mickey Mouse nightclub somewhere.


Chair Yeager is maybe the first locally elected official to publicly state that we're "smart and want some respect". If you notice the map below I have placed markers showing the offices of regional transportation and planning agencies, media offices, and leading civic organizations. With a city of over 1 million residents downtown San Jose is not home to one of these organizations. Not even the local transportation planning and transit operator is located downtown (its actually 5.5 miles to the north). Same for any media organizations. This does a city of its size a disservice. With only one major corporate headquarters based downtown the area lacks the vitality that a downtown Oakland or San Francisco has to offer.

Conclusion

So although I applaud Supervisor Yeager's plea for more political representation, somehow I get the feeling that it will only mean more more of the same auto oriented and prioritized expansion. What this area does not need is more expressway expansion (along with an increase in speed and volume), more freeway interchange expansions, which severely impact struggling neighborhoods, and more auto oriented benefits to residents who choose to live at the south end of the valley and work in the north and on the peninsula. Let's hope that this year does bring greater representation but also great wisdom at how we look at our transportation options. Happy New Year.

San Francisco Bay Area Agencies, Organization, and Media Resources

View San Francisco Bay Area Agencies and Organizations in a larger map

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

The looming showdown in surface transportation funding

Or "How I learned to stop worrying and love my car.

Although presidential candidates in the last election tried to ease the pain of the gas tax by temporarily suspending it (the federal excise tax that is), the problem is that desperately needed funds derived from a gas tax have less of an effect with each passing year. The last time the state of California raised the state excise tax was 21 years ago. Although the total miles driven by California's has begun to peak the addition of alternatively powered and fueled vehicles (hybrids and electric) on the roadways means that gas tax collection is going done far faster than our use of the roadways. 

In a recent Los Angles Times opinion column "It's time to raise California's Gas Tax" (see links below), the author highlights comments by the current state treasurer and governor.

"California's infrastructure was designed for 25 million people, but we're fast approaching a population of 40 million.We've got a lot of needs, but we're never going to be able to finance them with the General Fund," State Treasurer Bill Lockyer says. "It's too big a price tag."

"I surely didn't expect California to grow like it did," Jerry Brown told me last year as he was starting to run for governor again. "We had tremendous growth. And when you have growth, you've got to build: energy, water, roads, transit, schools, jails."

But the Democratic candidate added a caveat: "We need a design change. We can't just keep paving over. We've paved over the San Fernando Valley. We've got to use the land better. We've got to use our energy better — the natural resources, the wind, the sun, geothermal."

The big argument has always been that the huge investments required to build roadways designed mostly for solo vehicle trips are funded by the oft used term "user fees". Gas taxes and highway trust funds gave us the illusion that each mile driven was more than covering the cost of our massive expansive roadway system. But the highway trust fund is nearly insolvent, and state, regional, and local governments are finding that user fees do not even come close to building and maintaining roadways.

That gap has been cobbled together with a patchwork (depending on the funding level) of general fund revenue, sales taxes, payroll taxes, vehicle registration fees, and property taxes. Just last November, Santa Clara County residents approved Measure B, which would add a $10 vehicle registration fee to each auto. This fee would be apportioned to each Santa Clara County city passed on roadway miles and population.

In a recent post I highlighted a presentation this week that San Jose's Director of the Department of Transportation needs $1 billion over the next 10 years just to keep his city's roads at an average maintenance level. Only about $2 to $3 million of the $100 million needed each year will come from the city's general fund. Measure B funds mentioned above will only contribute about $5 million each year. The rest of the funds which will come from State Proposition 42 funds as well as other grants will only total approximately $15 - 20  each year for the next 10 years, leaving an $80 million dollar shortfall each year.

Just to maintain the city's roadways at the same levels over the next 10 or 20 years will require additional revenue. San Jose city staff have recommended a parcel tax to cover these expected roadway maintenance shortfalls. Additionally it was mentioned in the tail end of an article yesterday in several Bay Area Newsgroup papers that a regional gas tax is being considered ("Bay Area transit agencies could save $235 million a year, analysts say"). Although traditional gas (excise) taxes are raised at the federal and state level (and in Oregon at the local level), this would be the first time that a regional gasoline tax will be initiated.

All in all, you can expect the costs of our expensive and aging roadways to go up. It's just that the costs, in the form of property, sales, and other taxes will go up but those costs won't necessarily be born solely by the users.

What are your thoughts on this subjects? Any comments.

It's time to raise California's gas tax - Los Angeles Times - 10-27-2011

Bay Area transit agencies could save $235 million a year, analysts say - Contra Costa Times - 10-27-2011

San Jose's DOT Director discusses the state of the city's roadways and how to repair them - One Square Mile -10-27-2011

Transportation for America - The Fix we're in for; The state of our bridges