Future Planning

[Walter Brewer]

 

National version of California's SB 375, plus a more or less coordinated transportation plan.

 

 Walt Brewer

 

Newgeography.com - Economic, demographic, and political commentary about places

---

Congress and the Administration Take Aim at Local Democracy Posted: 05 Nov 2009 08:37 PM PST Local democracy has been a mainstay of the US political system. This is evident from the town hall governments in New England to the small towns that the majority of Americans choose to live in today. In most states and metropolitan areas, substantial policy issues – such as zoning and land use decisions – are largely under the control of those who have a principal interest: local voters who actually live in the nation’s cities, towns, villages, townships and unincorporated county areas. This may be about to change. Two congressional initiatives – the Boxer-Kerry Cap and Trade Bill and the Oberstar Transportation Reauthorization Bill – and the Administration's “Livability Partnership” take direct aim at local democracy as we know it. The Boxer-Kerry Bill: The first threat is the proposed Senate version of the “cap and trade” bill authored by Senator Barbara Boxer-Kerry (D-California). This bill, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733), would require metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to develop greenhouse gas emission reduction plans. In these plans, the legislation would require consideration of issues such as increasing transit service, improvements to intercity rail service and “implementation of zoning and other land use regulations and plans to support infill, transit-oriented development or mixed use development.” This represents a significant step toward federal adoption of much of the “smart growth” or “compact development” agenda. At first glance, it may seem that merely requiring MPOs to consider such zoning and land use regulations seems innocent enough. However, the incentives that are created by this language could well spell the end of local control over zoning and land use decisions in the local area. True enough, the bill includes language to indicate that the bill does not intend to infringe “on the existing authority of local governments to plan or control land use.” Experience suggests, however, that this would provide precious little comfort in the behind-the-scenes negotiations that occur when a metropolitan area runs afoul of Washington bureaucrats. The federal housing, transportation and environmental bureaucracies have also been supportive of compact development policies. As these agencies develop regulations to implement the legislation, they could well be emboldened to make it far more difficult for local voters to retain control over land use decisions. There could be multiple repeats of the heavy-handedness exercised by the EPA when it singled out Atlanta for punishment over air quality issues. In response, the Georgia legislature was, in effect, coerced into enacting planning and oversight legislation more consistent with the planning theology endorsed by EPA’s bureaucrats. No federal legislation granted EPA the authority to seek such legislative changes, yet they were sought and obtained. There is also considerable support for the compact development agenda at the metropolitan area level. The proclivity of metropolitan and urban planners toward compact development is so strong as to require no encouragement by federal law. The emerging clear intent of federal policy to move land use development to the regional level and to densify existing communities could embolden MPOs to propose plans that pressure local governments to conform their zoning to central plans (or overarching “visions”) developed at the regional level. It would not be the first time. Further, MPOs and organizations with similar views will lobby state legislatures to impose compact development policies that strip effective control of zoning and land use decisions from local governments. Surface Transportation Reauthorization: The second threat is the Surface Transportation Authorization Act (STAA or reauthorization) draft that has been released by Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minnesota) of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This bill is riddled with requirements regarding consideration of land use restrictions by MPOs and states. Unlike the Boxer-Kerry bill, the proposed STAA includes no language denying any intention to interfere with local land use regulation authority. Like the Boxer-Kerry Bill, the Oberstar bill significantly empowers the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency and poses similar longer term risks. The Administration’s “Livability Agenda:” These legislative initiatives are reinforced by the Administration’s “Livability Agenda,” which is a partnership between the EPA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. Among other things, this program is principally composed of compact development strategies, including directing development to certain areas, which would materially reduce the choices available to local government. Elements such as these could be included in an eventual STAA bill by the Obama Administration. The Livability Agenda: Threatening Livability: Regrettably, the Boxer-Kerry bill, the Oberstar bill and the “Livability Agenda” will make virtually nothing more livable. If they are successful in materially densifying the nation’s urban areas, communities will be faced with greater traffic congestion, higher congestion costs and greater air pollution. Despite the ideology to the contrary, higher densities increase traffic volumes within areas and produce more health hazards or more intense local air pollution. As EPA models indicate, slower, more congested traffic congestion produces more pollution than more freely flowing traffic, and the resulting higher traffic volumes make this intensification even greater. There are also devastating impacts on housing affordability that occur when “development is directed.” This tends to increase land prices, which makes houses more expensive. This hurts all future home buyers and renters, particularly low income and minority households, since rent increases tend to follow housing prices. It is particularly injurious to low income households, which are disproportionately minority. The large gap between majority and minority home ownership rates likely widen further. So much for the American Dream for many who have not attained it already. The Marginal Returns of Compact Development Policies: These compact development initiatives continue to be pursued even in the face of research requested by the Congress indicating that such policies have precious little potential. The congressionally mandated Driving the Built Environment report indicates that driving and greenhouse gas emissions could be higher in 2050 than in 2000 even under the maximum deployment of compact development strategies. Local Governments at the Table? The nation’s local governments should “weigh in” on these issues now, while the legislation is being developed. If they wait, they could find themselves too late to the table when the EPA comes to bully them to follow not what the local voters want, but what the planners prefer. Local democracy will be largely dead, a product of a system that concentrates authority – and perceived wisdom – in the hands of the central governments, at the regional and national level. Even more, local citizens and voters need to be aware of the risk. Again, it will be too late when MPOs or other organizations, whether at their own behest or that of a federal agency, force the character of neighborhoods to be radically changed, as Tony Recsei pointed out is already occurring in Australia. Wendell Cox was appointed to three terms by Mayor Tom Bradley to represent the city of Los Angeles on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC), which was the principal transit and highway policy body in the nation’s largest county. As the only LACTC member who was not an elected official, he chaired the Service Coordination Committee, which established the procedures that led to the establishment of Foothill Transit. He also chaired two American Public Transit Association national committees (Governing Boards and Policy & Planning).

[Dennis Manning]

While Wendell Cox makes a good case for why SB 375 type legislation won't do much for GHG reductions his "just more roads forever" approach isn't very satisfactory either.

[Dave Petrie]

Right On.

 

When I read his book on How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens Q of L, he was actually saying that lower density (like R-4) was better, but only if the supporting infrastructure went along with that.

 

In that sense, either DM of more roads would suffice, but certainly not conventional transit. (I got the impression that he had never heard of Dual Mode).

[Jerry Schneider]

At 11:07 AM 11/6/2009, you wrote:
>Right On.
>
>When I read his book on How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens Q of L, he
>was actually saying that lower density (like R-4) was better, but
>only if the supporting infrastructure went along with that.
>
>In that sense, either DM of more roads would suffice, but certainly
>not conventional transit. (I got the impression that he had never
>heard of Dual Mode).

He has heard of it - to him it is "pie in the sky". The same for all
the other concepts I monitor. He's a "show me" guy from Missouri,
like a lot of other people on the transportation-policy discussion group.

- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

[Walter Brewer]

He has begun to agree that PRT can fit in some limited situations like colleges, office parks, etc.

 

 Walt Brewer

----- Original Message -----

From: Dennis Manning

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 1:51 PM

Subject: [t-i] Re: Future Planning

[Jack Slade]

He probably also agrees with me, now, that inflation has not kept up with the price of gasoline, which was one his arguments with me 10 years ago. He even offered to bet on it.   Jack Slade --- On Fri, 11/6/09, Walter Brewer <catc...@verizon.net> wrote:

[Jerry Schneider]

At 01:40 PM 11/6/2009, you wrote:
>He has begun to agree that PRT can fit in some limited situations
>like colleges, office parks, etc.

I'd like to see some evidence that there is considerable demand for
movement within office parks
during the day, other than at lunch time. Clearly there is a demand
for to/from movements during the
peak periods. But an office park circulator cannot serve most of this
commuter demand if the network is limited to the
area covered by the office park -- unless it provides good
connections to mass transit stations that provide access to a
relevant geographic area.

[Michael Weidler]

I would imagine the first step is to look for office parks which already use shuttle buses. Or is that considered to be a campus? One possibility for putting PRT grids in commercial areas is to promote ride sharing. If I don't have to drive a several blocks out of my way or alternatively wait for public transit once I'm dropped off to get to my destination, ride sharing may be more attractive. --- On Fri, 11/6/09, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:

From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> Subject: [t-i] Re: Future Planning To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[Walter Brewer]

I'm aware he is aware of and agrees with the Ithaca concept. Probably doesn't require DM though.

 

Regarding Jerry S's comment about office park-PRT lack of compatibility. Agree. Probably repeating, but  just north of downtown San Diego is an extensive office, light industrial development with a few nearby residences and minor malls. Nearly half of the coastal commuter rail line riders are for that complex. A subsidized shuttle was free for rail riders to get to real destinations within the complex. Shuttle lost it's subsidy, and a $1 per trip fare initiated. Use and use of coastal rail declined drastically. Riders said, a la Brad's example,  $2 worth of gas would get them to work and back, so why ride the rail/shuttle system? And most had driven to the rail station anyway. Recession reduced congestion of associated roads of course helped.

Indeed this was like a morning-late afternoon surge. Probably little intra-complex travel, and I'm not sure shuttle even ran then. Also with car handy if there were such, or to out of complex, car was available.

So yes a tough go for PRT.

There are installations on campuses, large industrial complexes, military installations, national laboratories, etc etc which would be more relevant. I've previously mention the bicycle PRT at Livermore National Lab in CA. Ride and drop for the large area. PRT would be faster, but hardly cheaper.

Such an installation for an early installation has the advantage of flexibility to experiment, correct glitches, and not initially be as much subject to public scrutiny, including fare setting. Although in the Livermore, or Los Alamos** cases for example, federal funding would be involved through the (now) U. California manager. Kirston would not be happy. But also in many cases so would municipal sponsorship. San Diego for example is more than 50% Federal funded transportation.

 

**Los Alamos hilly terrain perhaps more relevant.

 

 Walt Brewer

[Kirston Henderson]

on 11/7/09 9:36 AM, Walter Brewer at catc...@verizon.net wrote:

Although in the Livermore, or Los Alamos** cases for example, federal funding would be involved through the (now) U. California manager. Kirston would not be happy. But also in many cases so would municipal sponsorship. San Diego for example is more than 50% Federal funded transportation.

   The reason that those cities have their mass transit more than 50% Federally funded is because they insist on buying overly expensive systems that they can not afford without Federal funds.  In the case of our systems, the total cost to cities is well less than 1/2 of the cost of the typical systems and therefore easily funded by the cities with less than the 50% share that they normally spend on the more expensive systems.  In our case, they don't need Federal funds.  On top of that, we are not willing to sell systems to cities that want to use Federal funds.  It isn't worth the hassle and would only serve to greatly increase the cost of our systems.

Kirston

[Walter Brewer]

Bless you and best wishes for success.

 

 I was just relating a culture that has evolved as part of a national trend toward more federalcentric mangement.

 

 Walt Brewer

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirston Henderson

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 3:47 PM

Subject: [t-i] Re: Future Planning