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.



Congress, we can do better than this

Here in the San Francisco Bay area I, like many other employees have the opportunity to purchase transit passes (although we are slowly moving towards the Clipper Card payment system). Depending on your commuting needs these passes can be purchased for BART, Caltrain, several ferry lines, light rail, or one of the many bus systems in the Bay Area.

Three things are great about the program (in my case the administration is handled by WageWorks);

1. My company will pay half of the cost of my pass or Clipper Card purchases.
2. My contribution is deducted from my income over the year reducing my taxable income.
3. It's all handled through my paycheck. No need to make a separate payment.

Although I only purchase $70 in transit passes each month through my employer, there is a limit on the amount the IRS will allow an individual to reduce their income. Car commuters are also allowed to deduct car parking expenses from income but I was completely floored when I found this note included with my monthly statement from WageWorks.

Important Note: The temporary $230 monthly pre-tax transit limit set by Congress in 2009 will expire at the end of 2011. Beginning with the January 2012 benefit month, the pre-tax transit limit will decrease to $125 a month and any election amount over $125 will be deducted from your pay on an after-tax basis. Beginning with the January 2012 benefit month, the monthly pre-tax limit for parking will increase from $230 to $240.

So beginning next month solo (or not) vehicle drivers will have a greater tax advantage to use our streets, bridges, and freeways than public transit users

Contact your congress member today to tell them how wasteful this policy is, while also increasing traffic congestion and air pollution. Better yet go to this link on the Transportation for America website

Another Bay Area transportation agency to push for more pothole funding

In what has become a domino effect around the San Francisco Bay area, another transportation agency has decided to put a ballot measure to the voters to help fix crumbling roads along with a package of transit improvements, pedestrian, and cycling projects, and in this case a $400 million contribution to bring BART to Livermore. The proposed measure plans to double the current county sales tax portion dedicated to transportation from .5% to 1%, making it the second county in the state, after Los Angeles to seek a 1% solution.

Like other local agencies, the concern is that a failure to act will create an ever escalating backlog of projects while road deterioration accelerates with each passing year. The measure is expected to raise over $7.7 billion in new

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

San Francisco Begins On-street Car Sharing Pilot

11 on-street spaces to be tested during six-month pilot starting today.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), which manages transportation in the City, today joined Mayor Edwin M. Lee and Board of Supervisors President David Chiu to announce an on-street car sharing pilot program. Through this pilot, eleven on-street parking spaces will be dedicated to car sharing, enabling members of City CarShare to pick up and drop off car sharing vehicles in convenient locations. The six-month trial will include nine neighborhoods citywide.




“Placing car sharing vehicles on-street can make them more visible and accessible,” San Francisco Board of Supervisors President David Chiu. “Making car sharing more convenient supports the City’s Transit First policy by reducing dependence on private automobiles.”

The SFMTA is implementing this pilot under the SFpark umbrella of parking management using an agreement with the City Administrator’s Office and City CarShare. The pilot will test the feasibility and effectiveness of on-street car sharing spaces.If successful, the SFMTA will implement a citywide expanded program.

On-Street CarShare Pilot Locations

The following on-street locations were launched today:

Polk and Greenwich streets (Russian Hill)
Taylor and Pacific streets (Russian Hill)
38 Harriet Street (South of Market)
Valencia and 17th streets (Mission)
Clay and Fillmore streets (Lower Pacific Heights)
The SFMTA also plans to launch the following six spaces in November:

Carroll and 3rd streeets (Bayview)
3rd and 22nd street (Dogpatch)
Bosworth and Brompton (Glen Park)
Judah & 12th Ave (Inner Sunset)
Judah & 43rd Ave (Outer Sunset)
Judah & 44th Ave (Outer Sunset)
According to the agreement with

City CarShare, the SFMTA will receive $150 per space per month during the pilot. This includes the median cost for a reserved car sharing space in SFMTA parking garages along with all costs involved with implementation, including the cost of signage. The locations were selected in coordination with each district supervisor and area merchants. City CarShare continues to reach out to neighborhood and merchant groups about the pilot.

In June joint legislation was introduced at the Board of Supervisors by Mayor Lee and Supervisor Chiu to make the necessary changes to the Transportation Code. The SFMTA Board of Directors authorized the changes at their August 2 meeting. The public hearing regarding the placement of the on-street car sharing spaces took place in July.

Car sharing can help the SFMTA achieve its goals for parking management and overall goals for transportation by reducing parking demand and greenhouse gas emissions while improving mobility. While car sharing trips are still vehicle trips, car sharing can reduce private vehicle ownership rates and vehicle miles traveled. The new parking zones created by the changes in the Transportation Code will encourage car sharing by increasing the visibility, making it more convenient and increase the number of location options.


- Posted from my iPhone

Powerful auto dealers flex muscles, White House blinks



Hayward, CA
One of the many abandoned
auto lots I encountered on
 a recent bike tour in the East Bay.

 In a September 15, 2011 Wall Street Journal article titled "Dealers Oppose Gas Rules, the author describes a renewed sense of power from a recent backdown from the White House. The article opens by stating,

The nation's politically influential automobile dealers, emboldened by the Obama administration's recent retreat on tougher smog regulations, are revving up a lobbying effort to block fuel-economy rules proposed by the administration

This week over 400 automobile dealers will descend upon Washington to block and delay the introduction of rules seeking to improve the nation's fuel efficiency standards on automobiles for at least one year. Congressional member Steve Austria (R., Ohio) sponsored legislation that has already been approved by the House Appropriations Committee that would delay the drafting of the new rules for another year.

The Republicans claim that proposed Obama regulations will burden business at a time when unemployment continues to hover above the 9% level. Democrats although seeking to increase fuel efficiency standards while improving air quality through the new regulations have seen the administration back down twice before. NADA (National Automobile Dealers Association) has previously succeeded twice in getting congressional Democrats defy Obama on key automobile related legislative votes.

Toyota's Mea Culpa - fund industry safety research

Toyota announced on Wednesday that they will be partnering with leading universities in automotive safety studies. Toyota is stepping up research partnerships with several U.S. universities to study increasingly important safety issues facing the auto industry. This was prompted by public and congressional backlash after series of deadly accidents caused by stuck accelerators (later proven to be caused by poorly designed floormats). Toyota's Collaborative Safety Research Center (CSRC) announced that they will spend $50 million over the next five years to "better protect the most vulnerable traffic populations, including children, teens, seniors and pedestrians."

This announcement comes after congressional, media, and public scrutiny on the heels of the widespread safety and quality issues during 2010. Toyota has vowed not only to take on the cost of the research but also to share it with others in the auto industry. It is interesting to note the new found willingness on the part of Toyota to not only bring their research out in the open but their willingness share it with the industry after spending $50 million for the academic partnerships. Given Toyota's previous reluctance to share safety data this is a big departure from the past.

In the Wall Street Journal version of this story reporter Neil Boudette picks op this gem of a quote;

"Twelve teens die each day in accidents," said Tina Brunetti Sayer, an engineer at Toyota's Collaborative Safety Research Center, the group set up to work with outside institutes in North America. "That's 5,000 a year. This is a group that really needs help in learning to drive."

Did you catch that, "this is a group that really needs help in learning to drive." The engineer assumes that all teenagers drive and secondly that these deaths could be stopped or mitigated by giving driving education "help" to these teens.






Here is an abbreviated list of the universities that Toyota will be collaborating with allong with the reasearch outline.

The Transportation Active Safety Institute at Indiana University/Purdue University Indianapolis

· Pedestrian Pre-Collision Systems (PCS) Test Scenarios

A five-year study to develop testing protocols for automotive PCS designed to prevent pedestrian-related car accidents. The study will draw on available crash data in NHTSA databases and original vehicle testing to develop more sophisticated and realistic test scenarios for PCS with the goal of improving pedestrian safety.

Note: In the Wall Street journal article the author additionally states that; "Indiana University and Purdue University also are developing radar and camera technology to prevent collisions with pedestrians"

University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute

· Posture, Body Shape, and Seatbelt Fit in Senior Drivers
An 18-month project to study the relationship between age and seated occupant posture, body shape, and seatbelt fit. The project seeks to determine if senior drivers and passengers sit differently in the vehicle, to characterize exterior body shape changes that occur with age, and to understand how these factors influence seat belt fit. The statistical models resulting from the study can be used to better understand senior occupant kinetics and injury patterns in a crash event.

Wake Forest School of Medicine

· Advanced Automated Crash Notification

A one-year partnership to develop vehicle computer systems that not only notify first responders in the event of a collision, but also predict the likelihood and severity of occupant and driver injuries.

Note: This sounds like an medical engineering nightmare. Sensors in your car will determine the extent of your injuries and relay this information to the first responders. This however will not be avaiblable to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists.

Wayne State University School of Medicine

· Driver Distraction: Cognitive Model & Validation

A three-year collaborative study to better understand the cognitive aspect of driver distraction. Combining research in the fields of driver behavior, cognitive psychology, and cognitive neuroscience, the project will advance the auto industry’s understanding of a phenomenon that has been widely blamed for many accidents and injuries on U.S. roads and highways.

Toyota Collaborative Safety Research Center Announces 10 New Projects and Six New Partnerships With Leading Academic and Research Institutions

Totyota Teams Up For Safety Studies - Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2011

Fatality Statistics - NHTSA FARS National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration - Fatality Analysis and Reporting System

Location:Civic Center Dr,Santa Clara,United States

Cash For Clunkers Approved!

Had to take a photo of this car while riding


by this morning. The sign on the windshiel says "Cash For Clunkers Approved.

The car was parked at a Shell station at the corner of Stelling Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. in Cupertino. Can't figure out what the direct connection to the Shell Station.


-- Post From My iPhone

In Memory of Paul Benabides, 20

In was only just over a week ago, Saturday, that Paul Benabides was killed in a car "accident" near my house. This morning I went to go find any evidence, of the spot where he was tragically killed. I though I might spots flyers, posters, flowers, or candles. Since the newspaper report listed only Lois Ave., which runs North/South for about a mile, I peddled through the neiborhood slowly trying to find something that would remind neigbors ofthe tragic incident.

Peddling at a slow 5 mph I found no evidence of any accident.

Paul Benabides RIP

August 10, 1988 - May 15, 2009

Tragedy in the South San Francisco Bay This Weekend.

This weekend the Bay Area lost two 16 year olds to tragic traffic accidents this weekend; one in Union City and One in Half Moon Bay. Not only is the coincidence of the events striking, but the young age that they were taken from us should not go unnoticed.

Juan Rodelas Jr . was killed and his passenger was injured after Rodelas lost control of his speeding Corvette on Central Avenue in Union City.

An unidentified 16 year old male was struck by a car while crossing Highway 1 in Half Moon Bay just before midnight on Friday (Google Maps ).


View 2009 Fatal Vehicular Accidents in South San Franciso Bay in a larger map

Santa Clara County Sheriff Pleads Guilty in the Death of Two Cyclists

Sentencing Set for June 25

Deputy James "Tommy" Council pleaded guilty yesterday (May 8, 2009) in the deaths of two local cyclists Matt Peterson and Kristianna Gough. 

Car Wash for Car Crash Victims

This isn't the first time I have seen car washes held to raise funds for car crash victim's. The article states that the young victims loved cars, only to die in a car.
Friends, family pitch in to aid young San Jose crash victims-San Jose Mercury News

with permission from A. Singer

2008 State of the Valley - Traffic Safety

A while ago I asked a friend why they drive to the gym to "spin" instead of cycling and experiencing all of the joy and fun that comes along with it. They responded that cycling is dangerous. So that got me thinking if cycling is dangerous, just how dangerous is it compared to other modes of transportation. At the time one of my favorite authors, David Halberstam was killed in a local traffic accident near the Dumbarton Bridge in Menlo Park, CA. I also had 3 high school classmates (those that I have heard about) killed in separate traffic accidents. Strangely enough one was killed in New Zealand and the other in South Africa. Additionally two family members have been severely disabled due to car accidents.


When I was 17, I started studying for my private pilot's license and I always heard the reply, "Why do you fly? Its so dangerous". I began to notice that an aircraft accident; even if it only resulted in one or two fatalities, the event would make regional or national news headlines. Conversely, automobile accidents where usually buried on the 4th page of the local section, sometimes only involving one or two paragraphs.

So after the tragic accident involving Mr. Halberstam, I wondered - what if I monitored the news using new internet tools to highlight and document the tragic nature of auto accidents. After keeping track of such grim statistics, it made me conscious of just much, we as a society tend to ignore the violent costs of automobile traffic.

However it is not just vehicular fatalities that are sobering but the sheer number of pedestrian fatalities highly skewed to the most vulnerable part of the population; those due to age or financial circumstances that must walk in a culture designed for high speed auto traffic. In looking at the many cases of pedestrian casualties, three key characteristics stand out. Pedestrian casualties generally victimize the elderly, occur in the poorer areas of the valley (where massive arterial roads are not uncommon), and generally fall upon victims who were born outside the United States and its culture of cars.

To memorialize those that we last last year.

Silicon Valley Youth who died tragically in 2008.
6-13-2008, Breanna Slaughter-Eck, 12 (pictured)
1-9-2008 12:20am Jessica Stevens, 16
2-28-9 Alexander Moran Cabrera, 2
4-22-2008, 9:38 PM, Trieu Dinh, 19
8-2-2008, 4:50 AM Chrishtiana Acevedo, 18
10-10-2008 6:00 PM Moses Florez, 5 (killed on Razr Scooter)
10-12-2008, 9:15 am, Fernando Valencia, 18
10-12-2008, 9:15 am, unidentified passenger of Fernando Valencia, 12
12-18-2008, 12:05 PM, Matthew Mikaelsson. 17


See Map Below
Cyclists (Green)
1-10-2008 6:25PM, Hsien Tsun Wan, 77
2-28-08 Andrew Hale, 54
3-9-2008 Matt Peterson, 30 of San Francisco
3-9-2008 Kristy Gough, 31 of Oakland
6-13-2008, Breanna Slaughter-Eck, 12
10-5-2008, 9:45AM Bruce Finch, 58


Pedestrians (Red)
1-10-2008 as Estella Manalo Bacong, 50
1-4-2008 Randy Walke, 50
1-22-2008 1:55 AM, Leonardo Par Tzoc, 29
1-23-2008 2:40am Unidentified Hispanic Male 35-40
2-8-2008 Guoliang Chen, 76
2-15-2008 Douglas Carr, 61
2-21-2008 6:20 PM unidentified female
3-26-2008 Panfilio Prado, 51
2-21-2008 6:20 PM unidentified female
4-1-2008 6:30PM, Souang Athetsanathip,66
4-25-2008 11:30 Jose Del Carmen Cauigh-Medina, 51
8-2-2008 5:20 PM, Kenneth Stewart pedestrian, 69
8-10-2008, 8:45 PM, Oralia Puga-Ramirez, 73 of San Jose
8-10-2008, Enedina Oliva, 70
8-30-2008 8:40 AM, Maria Dolores Acosta Dereyes, 69
9-9-2008, 2:15 PM, unidentified male pedestrian, Capitol Exp. San Jose
9-13-2008, 9:30, unidentified pedestrian, 91, McLaughlin Ave. & Spokane Dr., San Jose
9-14-2008, 8:45 AM, Rodolfo Escurial, 68
9-14-2008, 8:45 AM, Aproniano Siruno, 71
10-10-2008 6:00 PM Moses Florez, 5 (killed on Razr Scooter)
10-11-2008, 1:20 PM, Margaret Garza, 45
10-26-2008, 7:00AM,Gary Ray Hedges, 66
12-2-2008 3:15 PM, Phyllis Seidman, 66
11-27-2008 7:40 PM , Jose Perez Rivera, 39
12-12-2008, 8:15 PM, Manuel Velasquez, 73


A noticeable but disturbing trend is evident in Pedestrian fatalities in the valley, with regard to age, ethnicity, and location.


Pedestrian Fatalities Age Breakdown (only those whose age is known)
Amt. %
Under 18 years of age 1 - 5%
18 - 30 years of age 1 - 5%
31- 40 years of age 2 - 9%
41- 50 years of age 1 - 5%
51- 65 years of age 5 - 22%
65+ years of age 12 - 54%

Note: These are not audited or verified traffic statistics but just a compilation of traffic casualties that have been reported in local newspapers.



View Larger Map

Beyond the automobile: The road to sustainability has lanes for more than just cars

Transportation is the linchpin of sustainability. Fix the transportation system, and almost every other aspect of the city's ecological health improves: public health, conservation of resources, climate change, economics, and maintaining our culture and sense of community.

The region's unsustainable transportation system is the biggest cause of global warming (more than half the Bay Area's greenhouse gas emissions come from vehicles) and one of the biggest recipients of taxpayer money. And right now, most of those public funds are going to expand and maintain freeway systems, a priority that exacerbates our problems and delays the inevitable day of reckoning.

It's going to have to change — and we can do it the easy way or the hard way.

"We'll get to a more sustainable transportation system. The question is, are we going to be smart enough to make quality of life for people high within that sustainable transportation system?" said Dave Snyder, who revived the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and founded Transportation for a Livable City (now known as Livable City) before becoming transportation policy director for the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association. "People will drive less, but will they have dignified alternatives? That's the question."

That notion — that transportation sustainability is inevitable, but that it'll be painful if we don't start now in a deliberate way — was shared by all 10 transportation experts recently interviewed by theGuardian. And most agreed that needed reform involves shifting resources away from the automobile infrastructure, which is already crowding out more sustainable options and will gobble up an even bigger piece of the pie in the future if we continue to expand it.

"Yeah, it'll be more sustainable, but will it be just? Will it be healthful? Will it be effective? Those are the questions," said Tom Radulovich, director of Livable City and an elected member of the BART Board of Directors. "You can't argue against geology. The planet is running out of oil. We're going to have a more sustainable transportation system in the future. That's a given. The question is, is it going to meet our other needs? Is it going to be what we need it to be?"

And the answer to all those questions is going to be no — as long as politicians choose to fund wasteful projects such as a fourth bore in the Caldecott Tunnel and transferring $4 billion from transit agencies to close California budget deficits accruing since 2000.

"Our leaders need to be putting our money when our collective mouth is and stop raiding these funds," Carli Paine, transportation program director for Transportation and Land Use Coalition, told us. "I'm hopeful, but I think we all need to do more."

TRANSIT AND BIKES

There is reason to be hopeful. With increased awareness of global warming and high gasoline prices, public transit ridership has increased significantly in the Bay Area. And one study indicates that the number of people bicycling in San Francisco has quadrupled in the last few years.

"Look at what's happening on the streets of San Francisco: you have biking practically doubling every year without any new bike infrastructure. I think the demand is out there. The question is, when is the political leadership going to catch up to demand?" Jean Fraser, who sits on the SPUR and SFBC boards and until recently ran the San Francisco Health Plan under Mayor Gavin Newsom, told us.

But the political leadership and federal transportation spending priorities are behind the times. Of the $835 million in federal funds administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the nine Bay Area counties in 2006-07, 51.4 percent went to maintain and expand state highways. Only 2.5 percent went for expansion of public transit, and 2.4 percent for bike and pedestrian projects. Overall, Paine said, about 80 percent of all transportation funding goes to facilities for automobiles, leaving all modes of transportation to fight for the rest.

"Historically we favor the automobile at the expense of all those other modes," Radulovich said at a forum of experts assembled by the Guardian (a recording of the discussion is available at sfbg.com). "It's been given primacy, and I think everyone around this table is saying, in one way or another, that we need a more balanced approach. We need a more sustainable, sensible, and just way of allocating space on our roads."

Yet the Bay Area is now locking in those wasteful patterns of the past with plans for about $6 billion in highway expansions, which means the MTC will have to spend even more every year keeping those roads in shape. Highway maintenance is the biggest line item in the MTC budget, at $275 million.

"We can't pay for what we have now — to maintain it, repair it, seismically retrofit it — so why we're building more is kind of beyond me," Radulovich said. "We continue to invest in the wrong things."

The experts also question big-ticket transit items such as the Central Subway project, a 1.7-mile link from SoMa to Chinatown that will cost an estimated $1.4 billion to build and about $4 million per year to run.

"There are 300 small capital projects we need to see," Snyder said. "That's really the answer. The idea of a few big capital projects as the answer to our problems is our problem. What we really need are 100 new bike lanes. We need 500 new bus bulbs. We need 300 new buses. It's not the big sexy project, but 300 small projects."

The most cost-efficient, environmentally effective transportation projects, according to renowned urban design thinkers such as Jan Gehl from Denmark, are those that encourage walking or riding a bike.

"I think Jan Gehl put it best, which is to say a city that is sweet to pedestrians and sweet to bicyclists is going to be a sustainable city," Fraser said. "So I think focusing on those two particular modes of transportation meets the other goals of the financial viability because they're the cheapest ways to get people around — and the healthiest ways — which I submit is one of the other criteria for sustainable transportation.... And it helps with the social justice and social connections."

IT'S GOOD FOR YOU

In fact, transportation sustainability has far-reaching implications for communities such as San Francisco.

"I think of sustainability in two ways," Fraser said. "The first is sustainability for the environment. And since I have a background in health care, I think of a sustainable transportation system as one that's actually healthy for us. In the past at least 50 years, we've actually engineered any kind of active transportation — walking to work or to school, biking to school — out of our cities."

But it can be engineered back into the system with land use policies that encourage more density around transit corridors and economic policies that promote the creation of neighborhood-serving commercial development.

"If my day-to-day needs can be met by walking, I don't put pressure on the transportation system," Manish Champsee, a Mission District resident who heads the group Walk SF, told us.

The transportation system can either promote that sense of community or it can detract from it. Champsee said San Francisco needs more traffic-calming measures, citing the 32 pedestrian deaths in San Francisco last year.

Almost a third as many people are killed in car accidents as die from homicides in San Francisco — but murder gets more resources and attention.

"There's a real sense in the neighborhoods that the roadways and streetscapes are not part of the neighborhood, they're not even what links one neighborhood to another. They're sort of this other system that cuts through neighborhoods," said Gillian Gillette of the group CC Puede, which promotes safety improvements on Cesar Chavez Street.

Radulovich notes that streets are social spaces and that decisions about how to use public spaces are critical to achieving sustainability.

"A sustainable transportation system is one that allows you to connect to other people," he said. "Cities have always thrived on connections between humans, and I think some of the transportation choices we've made, with reliance on the automobile, have begun to sever a lot of human connections. So you've got to think about whether it's socially sustainable. Also economically sustainable, or fiscally sustainable, because we just can't pay for what we have."

So then what do we do? The first step will take place next year when Congress is scheduled to reauthorize federal transportation spending and policies, presenting an opportunity that only comes once every four years. Transportation advocates from around the country are already gearing up for the fight.

"We've built out the freeways. They're connecting the cities — they're pretty much done. So what do we need to do to make streets more vibrant and have more space for people and not just automobiles?" asked Jeff Wood, program associate for the nonprofit group Reconnecting America and the Center for Transit-Oriented Development.

Then, once communities such as San Francisco have more money and more flexibility on how to spend it, they can get to work on the other sustainability needs. "The key component is having all the transportation systems fully linked," Paine said. That means coordinating the Bay Area's 26 transit agencies; expanding on the new TransLink system to make buying tickets cheaper and easier; funding missing links such as connecting Caltrain from its terminus at King and Fourth streets to the new Transbay Terminal; and timing transfers so passengers aren't wasting time waiting for connections.

And the one big-ticket transportation project supported by all the experts we consulted is high-speed rail, which goes before voters Nov. 4 as Proposition 1A. Not only is the project essential for facilitating trips between San Francisco and Los Angeles, it takes riders to the very core of the cities without their having to use roadways.

Paine also notes that the bond measure provides $995 million for regional rail improvements, with much of that going to the Bay Area. And that's just the beginning of the resources that could be made available simply by flipping our transportation priorities and recognizing that the system needs to better accommodate all modes of getting around.

At the roundtable, I asked the group how much a reduction in automobile traffic we need to see in San Francisco 20 years from now to become sustainable — with safe streets for cyclists and pedestrians, free-flowing public transit, and vibrant public spaces.