A Relic from San Francisco’s Freeway Revolt

In today’s Chronicle, there’s a great Letter to the Editor about the freeway revolt from Phillip Richardson, a San Francisco highway planner in the 1960s from Tiburon.

Thank you for the interesting article about the city taking back control of regional highways in its usual self-centered way (“Freeway Revolt set S.F.’s course,” Insight, Oct. 11).

The result transportation-wise is that there are congested streets – Oak, Fell, 19th Avenue and Lincoln Avenue – that would now be free of all through traffic and livable again. The two routes that you mention, Park-Panhandle and Golden Gate, were the only serious programs ever put forth by the state. They both were underground or depressed and would not have been noticed by city residents.

However, the Division of Highways was not set up to sell such a program, and the NIMBYs, as you call them, were totally ignorant of what they were contesting.

The result is serious regional highway disconnect and a quite reduced level of livability for the city.

PHILIP RICHARDSON,

Division of Highways planner

1961-69, Tiburon

There’s so much good stuff to dissect here.  Richardson’s core argument rests upon the belief that San Francisco’s freeway revolt was led by a group of “self centered” NIMBY residents “totally ignorant of what they were contesting.”  Richardson argues that some of San Francisco’s busiest streets–such as the 19th Ave, Lincoln, and the Panhandle–would be “free of all traffic and livable again” with “underground or depressed [freeways that] would not have been noticed by residents.”  Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Richardson fails to recognize his own self-centeredness as a suburban Marin driver, believing that San Francisco should completely change its cityscape to fit his desires.  Maybe he should actually go to Hayes Valley or the Embarcadero and ask residents if freeways made their neighborhoods more livable (I suspect the answer will be a “HELL NO!”).  The notion that residents would not even notice freeways is nonsense–imagine a depressed freeway in place of the Panhandle, or the surrounding traffic impacts of offramps and onramps along 19th Avenue.  The current situation on Fell/Oak, 19th Ave, and Lincoln is nothing near ideal, but it still beats bulldozing victorians and businesses for a traffic aquaduct (a really big traffic sewer? I tried).

Richardson’s backwards logic is a true relic of the postwar freeway boom in which central cities were expected to bend over backwards for the desires of their suburban residents.  If Richardson had his way, San Francisco would be split with freeways and even more gridlocked due to induced demand and insufficient capacity.  The most important lesson we can learn from is the arrogance implicit in Richardson’s argument–his assumption of the infallibility of the freeway plan and his dismissal of local objections as ignorant and irrational.  San Francisco’s freeway plan was not a fundamentally sound plan doomed by a poor marketing strategy; it was a selfish attempt by power-hungry suburbanites to fashion San Francisco into their own image at the expense of the city’s residents (especially the working class and Black populations).  The Freeway Revolt was one of the most pivitol moments in San Francisco’s history and the history of urban planning as a whole.  Without it, San Francisco would be an awful city to live in.

“Cash for Clunkers” Does Not Decrease Oil Consumption

The Toyota Rav 4, one of the many SUVs to qualify for the "Cash for Clunkers" program

It is frustrating to see the Obama administration support an additional $2 billion dollars in funding for the $1 billion dollar “Cash for Clunkers” program under the facade of increasing efficiency and decreasing emissions.  A recent study confirms what anyone could have seen coming–”Cash for Clunkers” has done nothing for reducing our emissions and oil consumption.  For $3 billion dollars and 250,000-750,000 new cars, a .05 to .15 percent decrease in oil consumption (yes, that’s between 1/20th and 1/6th of a percent) is completely insignificant.  Obama and the Democrats should at least quit the environmentalist and conservationist rhetoric and be straightforward with the true intentions of “Cash for Clunkers”–another ineffective bailout of the automobile industry.

If Obama and the Democrats really wanted to reduce oil consumption and emissions, there’s a wide range of measures they could take that would have an effect more than ten times as great as “Cash for Clunkers.”  At a fraction of the cost, lowering the speed limit from 65 to 55 and encouraging regular tire inflation could cut gas consumption 2-3% apiece.  I’ve also discussed the potential benefits of a moderate investment into pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in reducing our emissions and oil consumption while making us a healthier nation, and $3 billion could increase bicycling’s mode share at least 2-3% nationwide.  $3 billion could go a long way in assisting struggling transit agencies nationwide, while still having money left over to develop a streetcar, light rail, and DMU manufacturing industry so cities could stop buying European-made transit vehicles.  And, if the Democrats still cannot escape the political lobby of the automobile industry, at least mandate the purchasing of hybrids and other highly-efficient vehicles, rather than subsidizing more SUVs and gas guzzlers that get as little as 22mpg for passenger vehicles and 15mpg for trucks!

So Obama, Lahood, and the Democrats, please stop wasting taxpayer money with a greenwashed second bailout of the automobile industry.  There’s so many better things that we could do with $3 billion dollars.

More info here.

No Surprise: California Spends Stimulus Funds on New Roads and Highways, Not Repairs

Calprig and Smart Growth America recently released a report that, following national trends, California has spent 96% of the initial 2.1 billion from the stimulus bill on roads and highways, and just 1% on public transit.  By itself, this is pretty pathetic, but to make matters worse, 900 million (42% of the 2.1 billion) has gone into new highway capacity (widenings, new starts, etc.).  Let me make this clear: we are using stimulus money to expand highways and encourage driving when we cannot afford proper maintinence on our current system that is already esponsible for 1/3 of our emissions and 2/3 of our oil consumption. That’s like adding another room to your house while the roof is caving in!

As I’ve argued before, dumb projects–be it highway widenings or the Oakland Airport Connector–are not justified simply because they’ll generate temporary jobs.  The Calprig/SGA report basically supports what I had feared when I first analyzed the stimulus bill in my essay Practical or Pork Barrel: The Potential Impacts of Bicycle Infrastructure in America: throwing money at road infrastructure without clearly defined goals to reduce sprawl, emissions, and oil consumption will merely exacerbate our problems.  Backwards Stimulus spending is wasting valuable transportation money and putting America further in the hole.

Where is the Public Transit Bailout?

One of the hardest hit Bay Area transit agencies, Caltrain will likely declare a fiscal emergency to cover its 10 million dollar shortfall

Public transit agencies across the country are being hit extremely hard by the economic downturn, especially at a time when ridership is at an all-time high.  Here in the Bay Area, the problem is compounded by the loss of 55 million dollars of State Transit Assistance funds in the California state budget.  As a result, every single agency faces massive shortfalls, with Muni, Bart, AC Transit, VTA, and others raising fares and cutting service to cover million dollar deficits.  In fact, Caltrain will likely become the first agency to declare a fiscal emergency, allowing it to cut service and raise fares without an environmental review.

With 85 agencies cutting service, this is the beginning of a nationwide crisis.  Yet, while the federal government has given the automobile industry 17+ billion with the potential for more in the future, public transit has recieved nothing.  Nobody has put a figure to the shortfall, but I’d speculate that if you provided funds to cover one years worth of a shortfall, it would be around one billion.

Maybe its just me, but one billion for a years worth of support to agencies which reduce our emissions and oil use, provide mobility for millions of carless Americans, and help foster more livable communities sounds a lot better than 17 billion for a couple month toward an industry which has gone out of its way to perpetuate our dependence on oil and has provided no practical means to become a viable company geared toward the public interest.  One thing is for sure: the 2009-2010 fiscal year will be one of the toughest for public transit agencies in recent memory.

Public transit agencies across the country are being hit extremely hard by the economic downturn, especially at a time when ridership is at an all-time high.  Here in the Bay Area, the problem is compounded by the loss of 55 million dollars of State Transit Assistance funds in the California state budget.  As a result, every single agency faces massive shortfalls, with Muni, Bart, AC Transit, VTA, and others raising fares and cutting service to cover million dollar deficits.  In fact, Caltrain just became the first agency to declare a fiscal emergency, allowing it to cut service and raise fares without an environmental review.

With 85 agencies cutting service, this is the beginning of a nationwide crisis.  Yet, while the federal government has given the automobile industry 17+ billion with the potential for more in the future, public transit has recieved nothing.  Nobody has put a figure to the shortfall, but I’d speculate that if you provided funds to cover one years worth of a shortfall, it would be less than one billion.

The True Cost of Driving

How much does each one of these drivers spend per mile?

When I was researching for my last project (see last post), I stumbled across this calculator for the true cost of driving created by Santa Cruz County’s “Commute Solutions” program.  This is the best attempt I’ve seen to fully quantify the multitude of costs associated with driving, since it factors in not only the cost of the car, fuel, insurance, maintenance, and fees, but also infrastructure, congestion, pollution, parking, accidents, land value, and other indirect costs.  According to this model, the average cost on an individual driving 10,000 miles per year is somewhere in the range of $12,000-13,000, and the average cost for 20,000 miles per year is $26,000 (AAA determines that about 8,300 of this is direct costs).

While actual costs vary from place to place and depending on fuel prices, after some analysis I’ve arrived at some staggering conclusions.    When multiplying the average cost per mile of $1.28 (by default assuming current prices of about $2.25/gal) by 240 trillion yearly vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which is a rough estimate of the current total, and America’s total yearly cost of driving is $3.7 trillion , or a whopping 25% of our GDP (the actual yearly figures are likely in the range of $3.25-4 trillion).  Just pause and think about that for a second: one out of every four dollars in America is spent on driving.  Should Americans have to spend that much on transportation?  What does this mean for lower income Americans?  Also, a 10% reduction in driving would save up to 400 billion per year, and a 25% reduction would save almost one trillion per year.

That’s a lot of money.

A Truly Progressive Transportation Policy: Invest 5% Of Our Highway Budgets In Bicycling

During the stimulus debate, a controversy developed over a provision to allocate 3%, or 825 million, of the 27.5 billion dollars worth of highway funding to “Transportation Enhancements,” of which approximately 500 million would go directly to bicycle and pedestrian projects.  Here are just a few examples of the backlash which continues to occur:

“To give you just an example [of wasteful stimulus spending], $3 million went to the District of Columbia. You know what they did with that money? They’re going to go build bike paths, and they’re going to increase the number of bike racks in neighborhoods like Georgetown. I don’t think that that’s a stimulative move.”-House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R, Virginia), March 26th, 2009

“I cycle. I like bike paths. I love to see them out there…This is not the time to build these kinds of things. If we are going to invest in infrastructure, invest in infrastructure that actually makes the economy more efficient, such as roads that are needed.”-Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada), February 7th, 2009

“When people see bike trails and hiking trails and golf courses, they know this is not designed to stimulate the economy and create jobs,” Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), February 2nd, 2009

“I think there’s a place for infrastructure. But what kind of infrastructure? Infrastructure to widen highways to ease congestion for American families?…But if we’re talking about beautification projects or we’re talking about bike paths, Americans are not going to look very kindly on this.”-House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), January 11th, 2009

When I read these comments, I was stunned by the ignorance and arrogance with which our congressmen approached the 3% funding provision, and how they backed their claims up with no substantial evidence and simply assumed (minor) investments in bicycling to automatically be a complete waste of money.  34 pages later, I completed my research paper entitled Practical or Pork Barrel: The Potential Impacts of Bicycle Infrastructure in America (which was recently nominated for the Boothe Prize for outstanding first-year research at Stanford).

To sum up my findings:

Investments in bicycle infrastructure are among the most cost-effective and beneficial investments that the government can make.  We pour over 175 billion dollars into roads and highways every year, yet our automobile infrastructure is still insufficient to meet demand, causing traffic throughout America.  Factoring in costs from depreciation, fuel, insurance, parking, fees, maintenance, congestion, and pollution, we spend as much as 4 trillion every year, or 1/4 or our GDP, on driving.  In addition, 40% of our oil use and 20% of our emissions come from private automobiles, and increases in driving has been directly linked to America’s growing obesity epidemic.  Most importantly, to believe the solution to these problems can come by increasing efficiency and investing in alternative fuels alone is just plain nonsense.  America has 250 million registered vehicles, of which less than one million are hybrids.  So, to make any sizable reductions in emissions and oil use would take decades and trillions of dollars from consumers, and even then, vehicle miles traveled is predicted to increase 48% by 2030, which would likely wipe out any reductions and even increase our energy use.

If Obama wants to stay on course for an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 and a 17% reduction in oil use by 2020, American’s must drive less.

Bicycling has a huge potential for success in America.  Nearly half of trips in America are less than 3 miles; yet, 90% of these trips are taken by car.  If just 1/4 of these trips were taken by walking or bicycling, we would reduce emissions and gas use by about 8% apiece, equivalent to 50 million new hybrids on the road (if you haven’t read it yet, Active Transportation for America is a great study).  This is merely a starting point, and with volatile gas prices leading many Americans to seek alternatives to driving, this could be done within 5-7 years with targeted investments in bicycling.  If mode share for under three miles could be bumped up to 40%, we’re looking at a 18-19% reduction, along with a healthier, less congested America.

The best part: cities such as Portland, Davis, and Boulder have already shown the potential of bicycling with just a modest investment–Boulder has achieved a 21% mode share with just 15-20% of their transportation going toward bicycling.  Portland’s bicycle coordinator, Roger Geller, estimates that for his city to raise its bicycling mode share from 8% to 25% would cost just 100 million dollars (50 for the city and 50 for the region), making the total investment for the city alone just 105 million dollars, equivalent to less than one freeway interchange.

So what would it cost the nation to reach a 20-25% total mode share? I have arrived at a figure of 9 billion dollars per year, or 5% of our national highway budget.  Of this, 5 billion would likely need to come from the federal government.  With targeted investments, America could dramatically reduce our energy use and emissions while becoming a healthier and less congested nation within 10 years.  Given rising gas prices, cash-strapped governments, and ailing automobile infrastructure which requires immense investments to meet future demand, we need to start thinking about simple, cost-effective alternatives which will yield positive short and long term impacts.  Integrating bicycle use into our daily lives, just as residents of Amsterdam and Copenhagen have, will have more of an impact than tens of millions of new hybrids.

Is Obama “progressive” enough to follow through with his goals and make this investment? I’m not sure.

To read my research paper, click here.