The bike trail from Holly to Wipple on the east side of 101 is hazardous to our health. The non stop traffic augmented by trucks create an unhealthy dose of toxins that must be equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes when walking that short stretch of one mile.
These trails need to be put at least 500 feet away from the freeway. Planners lack a perspective on how pedestrians move. The slower pace of walkers leave them in the hazard zone for much longer periods of time than is safe. People who worry about parking never even notice the smell and noise and toxicity of the freeway over the wall.
The analysis by the California Air Resources Board, shows that the greatest health dangers arises from diesel trucks on the major roads.
While accessing the trail from Holly we are exposed to diesel emission from the unregulated vehicles that are used at San Carlos Airport. These vehicles don’t have the traps that were installed as part of the Carl Moyer Program on city fleets.
Finally getting over Holly at 101 to get to the Airport Way turnoff and then Skyway to get to the trail is another adventure. San Carlos seems to forget that there are recreation opportunities east of El Camino- the Bay.
If CCAG and San Carlos included a healthy element in their general plan and airport landuse documents this type of deplorable situation would not occur. And now that we are stuck with this pack of cigarettes, a health element in the General Plan would ensure measures to reduce the risk. For example Planning for Healthy Places', Healthy General Plan toolkit,
Goal 5 says: Pursue a comprehensive strategy to ensure that residents breathe clean air and drink clean water. And then lists objectives to accomplish this goal:
Objective 5.1: Reduce residents’ reliance on cars.
Rationale: Motor vehicles are often the principle contributors of particulate matter,
nitrogen oxides, and ozone, which contribute to asthma and bronchitis. Roads and
parking lots comprise most of the impervious surface in a metropolitan area, leading
to water-contaminating run-off, with auto leaks and emissions contributing the most
non-point-source pollution in this run-off.
Policies
Adopt mixed-use residential, commercial, and office zoning
• where appropriate to encourage walkability
• Build and maintain safe, pleasant streets for walking and bicycling (see
Objective 3.3)
• Work with regional authorities to improve transit service linking residents
with destinations (such as jobs and retail), especially in underserved neighborhoods
• Prioritize new infill development near transit nodes
• Utilize parking restrictions to deter car use (e.g., parking requirement
maximum rather than minimum, congestion pricing)
Objective 5.2: Protect homes, schools, workplaces, and stores from major sources of outdoor air pollution.
Rationale: Populations in close proximity to noxious land uses are more vulnerable
to respiratory diseases and cancers.
Policies
• Locate stationary emitters (e.g., incinerators, factories, refineries) segregated
and downwind from homes and schools
• Locate sensitive uses, such as schools and family housing, at least 500 feet
from highways (and we should add trails and playgrounds in here.)
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Net Metering Bills for 08/09
Senator Leland Yee introduced a bill, SB 1447 on solar buyback and net metering. However, this bill is a spot bill, a statement of intent to do a bill on this subject. His offices intends to evaluate other bills on net metering to see if they are likely to stall; and in that case he will move this bill forward.
1447 is more specific to make it easier to pass. Yee wants to get past the Governor consumer protection of RECs and the PG&E utility's attempt to collar the credits. 1447 is only focused on local government for now, but could end up including schools if we ask. The governor's 2007 veto of SB451 message addressed AB 1969 (Yee 2005) on purchases of renewable power from agencies like water and waste which was expanded by the CPUC to include small producers. The governor suggested in the veto applying a proportional share of carbon emission reduction credits to the utility.
Conclusion- 1447 should include school districts, and maybe, in keeping with the Davis theme, the CA universities. The Davis theme is the basis of all the net metering discussion. It was the first bill by Senator Byron Sher in 2002, SB 1038, to allow UC Davis to have one generation facility that could offset their meters on all other facilities. The specific language of net metering in SB 1038 reads: This bill authorizes the City of Davis to receive a bill credit, as
defined, to a benefiting account, as defined for electricity supplied to the electrical grid by a photovoltaic facility located within and partially owned by the city (PVUSA). The bill would require the commission to adopt a rate tariff for the benefiting account.
NOTE- ONLY for Davis and ONLY for photovoltaic facilities.
Assembly member Huffman has also introduced a bill on this subject AB 1920. This bill has actual language and looks good. Its the bill that Yee is watching to see if 1447 is necessary.
Huffman's bill seems to take into account proportional credit sharing. It also seems to address AB 1223 (Arambula) 2006/7 bill on excess metering for agriculture (and note the background bills on "net metering") which would have allowed agriculture to utilize net metering; i.e. one-site production of renewable energy to offset costs at other sites. This bill stalled on T&D opposition from PG&E.
AB 1920 has a description on Huffman's web site which reads:
AB 1920 (Huffman): Renewable Energy Incentives – Net Metering
Enables residents who produce renewable energy for their homes, small businesses or farms to get paid by their utility company for any excess electricity they produce that goes back on the grid. Level of compensation to be determined by the Public Utilities Commission. Provides utilities with Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) credits for purchasing the renewable energy from their customers. Removes the “size to load” restriction in state law that limits energy customers’ ability to “supersize” their solar electricity systems.
1447 is more specific to make it easier to pass. Yee wants to get past the Governor consumer protection of RECs and the PG&E utility's attempt to collar the credits. 1447 is only focused on local government for now, but could end up including schools if we ask. The governor's 2007 veto of SB451 message addressed AB 1969 (Yee 2005) on purchases of renewable power from agencies like water and waste which was expanded by the CPUC to include small producers. The governor suggested in the veto applying a proportional share of carbon emission reduction credits to the utility.
Conclusion- 1447 should include school districts, and maybe, in keeping with the Davis theme, the CA universities. The Davis theme is the basis of all the net metering discussion. It was the first bill by Senator Byron Sher in 2002, SB 1038, to allow UC Davis to have one generation facility that could offset their meters on all other facilities. The specific language of net metering in SB 1038 reads: This bill authorizes the City of Davis to receive a bill credit, as
defined, to a benefiting account, as defined for electricity supplied to the electrical grid by a photovoltaic facility located within and partially owned by the city (PVUSA). The bill would require the commission to adopt a rate tariff for the benefiting account.
NOTE- ONLY for Davis and ONLY for photovoltaic facilities.
Assembly member Huffman has also introduced a bill on this subject AB 1920. This bill has actual language and looks good. Its the bill that Yee is watching to see if 1447 is necessary.
Huffman's bill seems to take into account proportional credit sharing. It also seems to address AB 1223 (Arambula) 2006/7 bill on excess metering for agriculture (and note the background bills on "net metering") which would have allowed agriculture to utilize net metering; i.e. one-site production of renewable energy to offset costs at other sites. This bill stalled on T&D opposition from PG&E.
AB 1920 has a description on Huffman's web site which reads:
AB 1920 (Huffman): Renewable Energy Incentives – Net Metering
Enables residents who produce renewable energy for their homes, small businesses or farms to get paid by their utility company for any excess electricity they produce that goes back on the grid. Level of compensation to be determined by the Public Utilities Commission. Provides utilities with Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) credits for purchasing the renewable energy from their customers. Removes the “size to load” restriction in state law that limits energy customers’ ability to “supersize” their solar electricity systems.
Why net metering
The lens we view the expansion of solar programs in California must be the ability to pencil out the cost of installation. How do we realign the subsidies that PG&E receives so that smaller local producers can be competitive? The model that makes sense is something simple like Germany's or a combination of all the programs, if we want to get beyond the rich and profitable. We may also want to get beyond the RECs. PG&E is just not going to get them from this governor as he said in the SB451 veto in October 2007.
Our objectives here are:
1- There is a sense of urgency to transition to clean fuels. We are over-reliant on foreign oil to the detriment of our national security, peak oil, green house gases are impacting critical infrastructure like water and fire, petrochemical in the food supply and competition with ethanol are impacting prices, cancer, asthma, pollution, oil wars, burden public health- all because of the costs of using fossil fuels. If we want to make the transition to clean sources of energy, we have to STOP obsessing about our past investments in a fossil-fuel based infrastructure. Trying to recoup rate-payer investments in T&D will only hobble our efforts to make the switch. T&D, if it remains an issue, should be based on what the market will bear.
2- The governor wants to expand solar in CA and has provided many programs to do so including SB1.
3- MPR does not pencil out. It is the COMBINED EFFECT of the present set of programs – Accelerated Depreciation, Federal Tax Credit, PGE rebate, and Retail Net Metering (32c/kWh on-peak) – and bank financing that gets rich, profitable, and creditworthy companies to install solar. If any of the subsidies are withdrawn, then the amount of solar installed will also decline because the returns on investment in solar become less attractive compared to alternate investments. We need more, not less, subsidies if we are to expand to more users. Looking at the various bill in the 2008 legislative calendar we can see that PG&E's opposition stems from their stated intent to recoup sunk costs in T&D.
4- The legislature recognizes the need to expand solar installations and the benefit of locally produced power for efficient transmission. That is why we got feed in tariffs and equal access to the grid. We copied Germany which in addition to feed in tariffs and equal access also passed a guaranteed rate of about $70c per kWh for 20 years. That made people go out and rent roofs to install solar so that they could have access to the income. Germany became the largest installer of solar in the world.
5- The legislature promotes efficiency by charging variable rates so that high users pay considerably more for making the system unstable. If a solar electricity producer is NOT compensated for his excess electricity production (beyond retail net metering), he is being discouraged from implementing energy efficiency measures as they become technically viable. This contravenes California’s loading order of paying for energy efficiency before energy generation.
Our objectives here are:
1- There is a sense of urgency to transition to clean fuels. We are over-reliant on foreign oil to the detriment of our national security, peak oil, green house gases are impacting critical infrastructure like water and fire, petrochemical in the food supply and competition with ethanol are impacting prices, cancer, asthma, pollution, oil wars, burden public health- all because of the costs of using fossil fuels. If we want to make the transition to clean sources of energy, we have to STOP obsessing about our past investments in a fossil-fuel based infrastructure. Trying to recoup rate-payer investments in T&D will only hobble our efforts to make the switch. T&D, if it remains an issue, should be based on what the market will bear.
2- The governor wants to expand solar in CA and has provided many programs to do so including SB1.
3- MPR does not pencil out. It is the COMBINED EFFECT of the present set of programs – Accelerated Depreciation, Federal Tax Credit, PGE rebate, and Retail Net Metering (32c/kWh on-peak) – and bank financing that gets rich, profitable, and creditworthy companies to install solar. If any of the subsidies are withdrawn, then the amount of solar installed will also decline because the returns on investment in solar become less attractive compared to alternate investments. We need more, not less, subsidies if we are to expand to more users. Looking at the various bill in the 2008 legislative calendar we can see that PG&E's opposition stems from their stated intent to recoup sunk costs in T&D.
4- The legislature recognizes the need to expand solar installations and the benefit of locally produced power for efficient transmission. That is why we got feed in tariffs and equal access to the grid. We copied Germany which in addition to feed in tariffs and equal access also passed a guaranteed rate of about $70c per kWh for 20 years. That made people go out and rent roofs to install solar so that they could have access to the income. Germany became the largest installer of solar in the world.
5- The legislature promotes efficiency by charging variable rates so that high users pay considerably more for making the system unstable. If a solar electricity producer is NOT compensated for his excess electricity production (beyond retail net metering), he is being discouraged from implementing energy efficiency measures as they become technically viable. This contravenes California’s loading order of paying for energy efficiency before energy generation.
The renewable energy case for net metering
PG and E's basic argument against net metering is that solar producers didn’t pay for Transmission and Delivery (T and D) and have already been subsidized by rate payers with rebates. Paying for over production is thus an unfair subsidy to producers which puts additional burden on rate payers.
This is a false argument because it starts out by assuming that solar producers materialized out of thin air instead of being rate payers themselves subsidizing the system all along until they became producers. When did PGE become this charitable institution that looked after the rate payer? The history of utility reform in California has been the ability of consumer lawsuits to force PG and E to comply with its function as a public provider of power. And within the public interest the legislature has granted PGE access to charge Californians to build the grid and land to install it on. In other words PGE functions much like a landscaper I would hire using plants and labor I pay for to install a garden on my property. The landscaper can't come back and ask a fee of my guests who are using my garden. The grid belongs to California and access to the grid means that any CA producer can use it.
Now if PGE has a maintenance cost to upgrade and upkeep, that cost should also be viewed within the confines of our objectives. Renting the grid is ok for surplus power without any division of the RECs. But let’s rent it proportionally since the surplus power is produced in the summer when the demand is largest and the need greatest. Thus PGE should pay the peak rate for surplus power and charge a maintenance rent for supplying it on the grid per kWh at the Market Bearable Rate. New Mexico pays a surplus rate of $1KWH. And Florida uses the Utility Avoided Cost by allowing producers to act as producers! Craig Morris in Truthout discusses the case of Germany with respect to CA.
Upgrades costs need to be distributed by low and high users. The goal of the legislature in requiring variable rates is to discourage high users from maintaining consumption patterns that destabilize the system. Solar producers on the other hand represent the lowest need since they offset consumption patterns elsewhere. In this case PGE should be paying, and one can argue that the rebate meets this requirement, solar installers for reducing the upgrade cost.
This is a false argument because it starts out by assuming that solar producers materialized out of thin air instead of being rate payers themselves subsidizing the system all along until they became producers. When did PGE become this charitable institution that looked after the rate payer? The history of utility reform in California has been the ability of consumer lawsuits to force PG and E to comply with its function as a public provider of power. And within the public interest the legislature has granted PGE access to charge Californians to build the grid and land to install it on. In other words PGE functions much like a landscaper I would hire using plants and labor I pay for to install a garden on my property. The landscaper can't come back and ask a fee of my guests who are using my garden. The grid belongs to California and access to the grid means that any CA producer can use it.
Now if PGE has a maintenance cost to upgrade and upkeep, that cost should also be viewed within the confines of our objectives. Renting the grid is ok for surplus power without any division of the RECs. But let’s rent it proportionally since the surplus power is produced in the summer when the demand is largest and the need greatest. Thus PGE should pay the peak rate for surplus power and charge a maintenance rent for supplying it on the grid per kWh at the Market Bearable Rate. New Mexico pays a surplus rate of $1KWH. And Florida uses the Utility Avoided Cost by allowing producers to act as producers! Craig Morris in Truthout discusses the case of Germany with respect to CA.
Upgrades costs need to be distributed by low and high users. The goal of the legislature in requiring variable rates is to discourage high users from maintaining consumption patterns that destabilize the system. Solar producers on the other hand represent the lowest need since they offset consumption patterns elsewhere. In this case PGE should be paying, and one can argue that the rebate meets this requirement, solar installers for reducing the upgrade cost.
SB451, Key existing solar programs, and proposals
2007, 2008 CA legislative summary- This is complicated. Call your legislative office for help. Senator Yee's office is one of the best. So is Simitian's.
1. AB 1969 Expansion
AB 1969 (2006, Yee) was adopted and expanded by the PUC at the end of
2007. This means that now, any customer of a utility in California may
sell renewable energy (solar, water, etc.) back to the utility at a
predetermined rate, called “feed-in tariffs”. The feed-in tariff is
offered at the Market Price Referent (MPR) to renewable facilities up to
1.5 megawatts. Customers that opt for the feed-in tariff cannot receive
CSI (CA Solar Initiative) or SGIP (Self Generation Incentive Program)
funds to subsidize the building of their renewable facilities.
2. Net Metering
“Net metering” is the process by which the collection of solar or
other renewable energy runs your energy meter backwards. It can only go
back to zero. This is the best deal for solar in California, as opposed
to other forms of renewable energy, because the customer’s meter runs
backwards at “full retail” value. PG&E after a year’s true up does not compensate producers for excess generation. This has been a major liability for school districts and local government because each building requires its own installation. Belmont, through current Vice-Mayor Dickenson and CCAG unsuccessfully carried SB 451 last year to change this- essentially allowing an authority to put solar where it would be best, for example Nesbit, and generate enough for the entire district including foggy Fox.
ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/puc/aboutcpuc/2007+final+legislative+wrap+up.ppt and search for 451
Other net metering programs in California run at the generation rate, which accounts for the utility’s transmission and distribution (T&D) charges.
3. California Solar Initiative & Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP)
Cash incentives combined with federal tax incentives to build renewable; can cover up to 50% of costs.
Legislation this year:
4. SB 451 (Kehoe, 2007). Vetoed.
This bill would have required electrical corporations to buy renewable energy from any customer at the feed-in tariff rate. This bill was vetoed and is now unnecessary due to the CPUC’s AB 1969 (Yee) implementation.
5. AB 2820 (Huffman): Excess metering
This bill will allow local public agencies to transfer renewable electricity from the public agency’s renewable energy generation meters to offset the energy demand at the public agency’s other offsite facilities. This bill requires a local public agency to pay the investor owned utilities (IOUs) for use of its transmission and distribution (T&D) facilities, as well as any applicable standby charges for renewable energy technologies that are not already exempted under current law.
6. AB 1223 (Arambula): Excess metering for agriculture
Would have allowed agriculture to utilize net metering: one-site production of renewable energy to offset costs at other sites. Issue at the core of the debate was the T&D charges.
7. AB 1807 (Fuentes): Renewable electric generation facilities: feed-in tariffs
This bill would require the PUC to develop feed-in tariffs for eligible renewable energy resources of more than 20 megawatts
8. AB 2573 (Leno): San Francisco Model: Net/Excess Metering. Chaptered.
Options for 2008 to allow compensation for excess production after the True Up:
1. Propose alternatives to AB 2820, AB 1223, or AB 1807 in case they fail. This could be legislation for excess metering for local public agencies. However, challenging points in this area will be the T&D charges and the matter of who gets to keep the Renewable Energy
Credits (RECs) which was the basis of SB451's veto.
2. Propose similar legislation to the San Francisco model provided by AB 2573
3. Change the law so that CSI and SGIP-funded facilities sell the excess energy back onto the market. This would allow them to size to capacity instead of on-site electricity load, and would increase the amount of renewable energy use in California. Key issues: ratepayer subsidies the facilities then also pays for the electricity, and who keeps the RECs.
1. AB 1969 Expansion
AB 1969 (2006, Yee) was adopted and expanded by the PUC at the end of
2007. This means that now, any customer of a utility in California may
sell renewable energy (solar, water, etc.) back to the utility at a
predetermined rate, called “feed-in tariffs”. The feed-in tariff is
offered at the Market Price Referent (MPR) to renewable facilities up to
1.5 megawatts. Customers that opt for the feed-in tariff cannot receive
CSI (CA Solar Initiative) or SGIP (Self Generation Incentive Program)
funds to subsidize the building of their renewable facilities.
2. Net Metering
“Net metering” is the process by which the collection of solar or
other renewable energy runs your energy meter backwards. It can only go
back to zero. This is the best deal for solar in California, as opposed
to other forms of renewable energy, because the customer’s meter runs
backwards at “full retail” value. PG&E after a year’s true up does not compensate producers for excess generation. This has been a major liability for school districts and local government because each building requires its own installation. Belmont, through current Vice-Mayor Dickenson and CCAG unsuccessfully carried SB 451 last year to change this- essentially allowing an authority to put solar where it would be best, for example Nesbit, and generate enough for the entire district including foggy Fox.
ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/puc/aboutcpuc/2007+final+legislative+wrap+up.ppt and search for 451
Other net metering programs in California run at the generation rate, which accounts for the utility’s transmission and distribution (T&D) charges.
3. California Solar Initiative & Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP)
Cash incentives combined with federal tax incentives to build renewable; can cover up to 50% of costs.
Legislation this year:
4. SB 451 (Kehoe, 2007). Vetoed.
This bill would have required electrical corporations to buy renewable energy from any customer at the feed-in tariff rate. This bill was vetoed and is now unnecessary due to the CPUC’s AB 1969 (Yee) implementation.
5. AB 2820 (Huffman): Excess metering
This bill will allow local public agencies to transfer renewable electricity from the public agency’s renewable energy generation meters to offset the energy demand at the public agency’s other offsite facilities. This bill requires a local public agency to pay the investor owned utilities (IOUs) for use of its transmission and distribution (T&D) facilities, as well as any applicable standby charges for renewable energy technologies that are not already exempted under current law.
6. AB 1223 (Arambula): Excess metering for agriculture
Would have allowed agriculture to utilize net metering: one-site production of renewable energy to offset costs at other sites. Issue at the core of the debate was the T&D charges.
7. AB 1807 (Fuentes): Renewable electric generation facilities: feed-in tariffs
This bill would require the PUC to develop feed-in tariffs for eligible renewable energy resources of more than 20 megawatts
8. AB 2573 (Leno): San Francisco Model: Net/Excess Metering. Chaptered.
Options for 2008 to allow compensation for excess production after the True Up:
1. Propose alternatives to AB 2820, AB 1223, or AB 1807 in case they fail. This could be legislation for excess metering for local public agencies. However, challenging points in this area will be the T&D charges and the matter of who gets to keep the Renewable Energy
Credits (RECs) which was the basis of SB451's veto.
2. Propose similar legislation to the San Francisco model provided by AB 2573
3. Change the law so that CSI and SGIP-funded facilities sell the excess energy back onto the market. This would allow them to size to capacity instead of on-site electricity load, and would increase the amount of renewable energy use in California. Key issues: ratepayer subsidies the facilities then also pays for the electricity, and who keeps the RECs.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Buses need the HOV system through San Mateo
Going north after 92 on 101 traffic is congested because the HOV system ends. CCAG favored metered onramp timing which hasn't worked. Buses like the KX are delayed as a result making one more good commute option unviable; even though this is the best option to the airport on the peninsula.
At a recent Senate hearing of the Sustainable Transportation Committee in Redwood City before Senators Leland Yee and Tom Torlakson the major points of all the transportation chiefs in the Bay Area was
1- we need to plan better to get to a jobs housing balance by taking advantage of the transportation resources that we already have
2- we already know how to build low emissions walkable cities. Now we need to incentivize people to live an alternate or low energy lifestyle.
A low cost option could be achieved for the cost of paint if special legislation allowed the fast travel lane to be converted to an HOV lane, without road expansion, completing the HOV system from the South Bay. This would be a one only case since all the other missing segments are already in the project loop with funding. I-580, I-80 in Solano, 101 in the North Bay and a few other stretches are already planned and partially funded. And such legislation would align with the goals of AB32.
According to MTC:
The 2002 HOV Master Plan Update identifies the segment between Whipple
Ave (the current terminus in Redwood City) and Millbrae Ave (near SFO)
as a Priority 2 segment. Priority 2 segments are those that appear to
have benefits from an HOV perspective but have design or environmental
challenges and for which no funding is currently identified in the
region's long range transportation plan, Transportation 2030. The
thought is that it would be even more difficult to develop an HOV lane
north of Millbrae, and this segment is not included in the HOV Master
Plan Update.
In the absence of ready HOV solutions, the San Mateo City/ County
Association of Governments has been actively pursuing ramp metering,
interchange improvements and a series of auxiliary lanes to improve
traffic operations throughout the corridor.
At this time, there are no more specific plans on the drawing board for
on HOV lane on US 101 through San Mateo County; however, it remains of
general interest since it is an obvious gap in a the regional network.
The segment between Whipple and Millbrae is being looked at a very high
level in the regional High-Occupancy/Toll Network study.
The HOV Master Plan is available on the MTC web site at:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/hov/plan.htm
US 101 through San Mateo is addressed on pp 46-47.
Background:
Caltrans tried a lane conversion at the beginning ,when HOV lanes were first proposed in Southern CA for commuters, as a means to reduce congestion for Single Occupant Vehicles. Then the concept was a novelty, widely derided and called mommy lanes because moms with child seats were eligible to drive as HOVs. Taking a lane away at that time was considered a travesty against the lone working male commuter.
Since then both multiple occupant vehicles (MOV)s and SOVs have seen the benefit of these lanes. HOV usage is up and some regions with poor transit like Santa Clara County have congested HOV lanes and are talking about adding a second HOV lane. Commuters today go out of their way to look for a second occupant so that they take time off their commutes as MOVs.
Thus today the situation is completely different than what Caltrans experienced at the beginning of the program. We are looking at closing the last piece of the HOV puzzle. The goal is to provide commuters with a credible option up and down the Peninsula. RTP 2035 has committed money to complete the HOV all around the bay except for the San Mateo section.
Without the San Mateo section drivers are left without a credible HOV system and are stuck in SOV traffic. We think that consumers will welcome a lane reassignment. They have seen the success of these lanes, recognize the need for more such lanes in Santa Clara, and are willing to tax themselves to get these benefits. Consumers recognize that just painting these lanes with lane reassignment is faster, cheaper and benefits everyone since by keeping multiple occupant vehicles in HOVs we create room for SOVs in the remaining lanes. Its the number one proposal I hear from the public whenever I talk about transportation in San Mateo.
At a recent Senate hearing of the Sustainable Transportation Committee in Redwood City before Senators Leland Yee and Tom Torlakson the major points of all the transportation chiefs in the Bay Area was
1- we need to plan better to get to a jobs housing balance by taking advantage of the transportation resources that we already have
2- we already know how to build low emissions walkable cities. Now we need to incentivize people to live an alternate or low energy lifestyle.
A low cost option could be achieved for the cost of paint if special legislation allowed the fast travel lane to be converted to an HOV lane, without road expansion, completing the HOV system from the South Bay. This would be a one only case since all the other missing segments are already in the project loop with funding. I-580, I-80 in Solano, 101 in the North Bay and a few other stretches are already planned and partially funded. And such legislation would align with the goals of AB32.
According to MTC:
The 2002 HOV Master Plan Update identifies the segment between Whipple
Ave (the current terminus in Redwood City) and Millbrae Ave (near SFO)
as a Priority 2 segment. Priority 2 segments are those that appear to
have benefits from an HOV perspective but have design or environmental
challenges and for which no funding is currently identified in the
region's long range transportation plan, Transportation 2030. The
thought is that it would be even more difficult to develop an HOV lane
north of Millbrae, and this segment is not included in the HOV Master
Plan Update.
In the absence of ready HOV solutions, the San Mateo City/ County
Association of Governments has been actively pursuing ramp metering,
interchange improvements and a series of auxiliary lanes to improve
traffic operations throughout the corridor.
At this time, there are no more specific plans on the drawing board for
on HOV lane on US 101 through San Mateo County; however, it remains of
general interest since it is an obvious gap in a the regional network.
The segment between Whipple and Millbrae is being looked at a very high
level in the regional High-Occupancy/Toll Network study.
The HOV Master Plan is available on the MTC web site at:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/hov/plan.htm
US 101 through San Mateo is addressed on pp 46-47.
Background:
Caltrans tried a lane conversion at the beginning ,when HOV lanes were first proposed in Southern CA for commuters, as a means to reduce congestion for Single Occupant Vehicles. Then the concept was a novelty, widely derided and called mommy lanes because moms with child seats were eligible to drive as HOVs. Taking a lane away at that time was considered a travesty against the lone working male commuter.
Since then both multiple occupant vehicles (MOV)s and SOVs have seen the benefit of these lanes. HOV usage is up and some regions with poor transit like Santa Clara County have congested HOV lanes and are talking about adding a second HOV lane. Commuters today go out of their way to look for a second occupant so that they take time off their commutes as MOVs.
Thus today the situation is completely different than what Caltrans experienced at the beginning of the program. We are looking at closing the last piece of the HOV puzzle. The goal is to provide commuters with a credible option up and down the Peninsula. RTP 2035 has committed money to complete the HOV all around the bay except for the San Mateo section.
Without the San Mateo section drivers are left without a credible HOV system and are stuck in SOV traffic. We think that consumers will welcome a lane reassignment. They have seen the success of these lanes, recognize the need for more such lanes in Santa Clara, and are willing to tax themselves to get these benefits. Consumers recognize that just painting these lanes with lane reassignment is faster, cheaper and benefits everyone since by keeping multiple occupant vehicles in HOVs we create room for SOVs in the remaining lanes. Its the number one proposal I hear from the public whenever I talk about transportation in San Mateo.
HOV, HOT, and BOL are commute options fundable by congestion charging
Today’s Examiner reports that: The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation board of directors voted Friday to approve a toll that would fluctuate based on the amount of traffic on the bridge, or so-called congestion pricing.
However in a disappointment to Supervisor McGoldrick “An amendment — introduced by San Rafael Mayor Al Boro and narrowly approved by the bridge’s board — specifically stipulates that no revenue generated from the variable toll increases would go toward rebuilding seismically unstable Doyle Drive.”
McGoldrick said that the amendment represented a failure of regional cooperation to use toll revenue for highway projects. However GGB traffic does more than just go down Doyle Drive. In San Mateo County cities like SSF double in population during the day while Redwood Shores sees a factor of twenty increase. And we lose bicycle access, on Ralston over 101, because traffic coming to Oracle and EA caused the interchange to be reconfigured, to allow more on ramps ramps from Oracle, so much so that the interchange has become the number one location for bicycle car collisions in Belmont. And all this associated pollution on the Peninsula could use some alternative choices like rapid bus lanes on the freeways. So what does Supervisor McGoldrick mean by regional cooperation?
On a much sillier note Bridge district Director Charles McGlashan said it’s unfair for bridge commuters to pay tolls to fund a state highway. Where would the bridge be without the highway? And what kind of fair alternative should bridge drivers be presented with? Reconfiguring one lane as a bus only lane would provide a real alternative on the Peninsula for the cost of paint. An HOT could fund additional transit options.
This is an example of how Caltrans and the CMAs like SFTA and CCAG uses regional ignorance to stay in their CarTrance.
However in a disappointment to Supervisor McGoldrick “An amendment — introduced by San Rafael Mayor Al Boro and narrowly approved by the bridge’s board — specifically stipulates that no revenue generated from the variable toll increases would go toward rebuilding seismically unstable Doyle Drive.”
McGoldrick said that the amendment represented a failure of regional cooperation to use toll revenue for highway projects. However GGB traffic does more than just go down Doyle Drive. In San Mateo County cities like SSF double in population during the day while Redwood Shores sees a factor of twenty increase. And we lose bicycle access, on Ralston over 101, because traffic coming to Oracle and EA caused the interchange to be reconfigured, to allow more on ramps ramps from Oracle, so much so that the interchange has become the number one location for bicycle car collisions in Belmont. And all this associated pollution on the Peninsula could use some alternative choices like rapid bus lanes on the freeways. So what does Supervisor McGoldrick mean by regional cooperation?
On a much sillier note Bridge district Director Charles McGlashan said it’s unfair for bridge commuters to pay tolls to fund a state highway. Where would the bridge be without the highway? And what kind of fair alternative should bridge drivers be presented with? Reconfiguring one lane as a bus only lane would provide a real alternative on the Peninsula for the cost of paint. An HOT could fund additional transit options.
This is an example of how Caltrans and the CMAs like SFTA and CCAG uses regional ignorance to stay in their CarTrance.
Friday, March 14, 2008
San Carlos Transit Village produces 3 tons of CO2 per day
At the transit village community open house neighbors expressed concern with traffic, deterioration of schools, and access to sunlight. The former two concerns are heard at every development on the Bay. Neighbors agree on a bunch of reasons for opposing traffic from air quality and carbon monoxide to danger to their kids and the unpleasantness of living in neighborhoods with too many cars. They don’t express opposition by quoting the fact that more than 50% of CO2 comes from cars.
Neighborhood issues in San Carlos have been of concern to the community since speeding dangers caused a pedestrian fatality on San Carlos Ave. After a public outcry San Carlos reluctantly found money for another signal light.
Its not just San Carlos which manages itself into a lifeless sewer for traffic to far away jobs. The expanded automotive access on 101 by CCAG creates expanded expectations. There was a letter in the paper after the fuel spill from an irate driver in Palo Alto asking for the Menlo Park city council to restore six lanes on the El Camino. This driver from Palo Alto is saying: Menlo Park needs to bantustan its transit center from downtown, by turning El Camino into a death corridor, so he can use Menlo Park as a drive through. Neighbors know that development brings traffic and reduces quality of life.
San Carlos has proposed reducing the parking requirement to 1.6 cars per unit. The transit operator is asking for replacement of the 300 spots. That means the development will have almost 800 cars. These cars will generate 3 tons of CO2 per day and 1.5 tons of noxious emissions like ozone, benzene, etc which have been linked to everything from asthma to lung cancer.
Neighborhood issues in San Carlos have been of concern to the community since speeding dangers caused a pedestrian fatality on San Carlos Ave. After a public outcry San Carlos reluctantly found money for another signal light.
Its not just San Carlos which manages itself into a lifeless sewer for traffic to far away jobs. The expanded automotive access on 101 by CCAG creates expanded expectations. There was a letter in the paper after the fuel spill from an irate driver in Palo Alto asking for the Menlo Park city council to restore six lanes on the El Camino. This driver from Palo Alto is saying: Menlo Park needs to bantustan its transit center from downtown, by turning El Camino into a death corridor, so he can use Menlo Park as a drive through. Neighbors know that development brings traffic and reduces quality of life.
San Carlos has proposed reducing the parking requirement to 1.6 cars per unit. The transit operator is asking for replacement of the 300 spots. That means the development will have almost 800 cars. These cars will generate 3 tons of CO2 per day and 1.5 tons of noxious emissions like ozone, benzene, etc which have been linked to everything from asthma to lung cancer.
Caltrain electrification and solar TODs
Electrified Caltrain would reduce diesel pollution, significantly reduce noise, and allow for TOD that spanned the track. If the transit authority kept the roof they could add panels to pay for the electrified trains.
According to my meter I have averaged 3.2 MW per year from 20 panels which equal 250 sq feet and generate 15% surplus power per year.
So 400 house roofs feeding into the grid would power the 4MW requirement of an electrified train. Working off the 15% surplus 2500 houses would suffice. Which could be translated into roof top space of 625,000 sq ft or about a 104,000 sq feet for six TODs, like the San Carlos Transit Village, each village generating power for 400+ homes from 8400 panels per village. Solar panel covered parking lot can make up for structural deficiencies in the roof area. Sierra Nevada Beer put in a nice shaded solar parking lot.
http://www.gizmag.com/solar-powered-beer-sierra-nevada/8671/
4MW is 1% of the required power at full build out. From the EIR/EIS the accurate power requirements to operate a 100 train per day Caltrain system is approx. 300 MWh PER DAY. A full build out scenario of more trains per day would require 400 MWh per day.
Would 1% from renewable sources from 6 TOD roofs, a little higher before buildout, while providing essentially free power to 2500 households, be worth the investment?
I use BP panels which are inefficient, but sufficient for me, and they are local (Sacramento.) Sanyo, Siemens, Mitsubushi and Honda make much higher efficiency panels which would reduce the roof top area requirement considerably. I also use a south east orientation and have a large oak which shades the house from the western sun, all desirable characteristics in the summer. However a TOD has none of these restrictions. Orienting the TOD to the south, and shading windows from the summer sun, can result in a 20% decrease in the number of panels.
According to my meter I have averaged 3.2 MW per year from 20 panels which equal 250 sq feet and generate 15% surplus power per year.
So 400 house roofs feeding into the grid would power the 4MW requirement of an electrified train. Working off the 15% surplus 2500 houses would suffice. Which could be translated into roof top space of 625,000 sq ft or about a 104,000 sq feet for six TODs, like the San Carlos Transit Village, each village generating power for 400+ homes from 8400 panels per village. Solar panel covered parking lot can make up for structural deficiencies in the roof area. Sierra Nevada Beer put in a nice shaded solar parking lot.
http://www.gizmag.com/solar-powered-beer-sierra-nevada/8671/
4MW is 1% of the required power at full build out. From the EIR/EIS the accurate power requirements to operate a 100 train per day Caltrain system is approx. 300 MWh PER DAY. A full build out scenario of more trains per day would require 400 MWh per day.
Would 1% from renewable sources from 6 TOD roofs, a little higher before buildout, while providing essentially free power to 2500 households, be worth the investment?
I use BP panels which are inefficient, but sufficient for me, and they are local (Sacramento.) Sanyo, Siemens, Mitsubushi and Honda make much higher efficiency panels which would reduce the roof top area requirement considerably. I also use a south east orientation and have a large oak which shades the house from the western sun, all desirable characteristics in the summer. However a TOD has none of these restrictions. Orienting the TOD to the south, and shading windows from the summer sun, can result in a 20% decrease in the number of panels.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
HOT Buslanes or complete the HOV system
The HOV lane on 101 from the South Bay ends just before 92 when traveling north bound. The result is a backup in traffic and congestion at this location at almost all times of the day. This backup is the primary cause of the delay in express bus service that uses the freeway.
Getting the HOV lane completed to San Francisco would entail a large cost because present legislation requires that HOV lanes be implemented with road expansion. Since this area is built out the cost of land acquisition is huge.
Even better would be convert the HOV lane and the fast lane to SF into an HOT lane. There is no loss for Single Occupant Drivers of lane capacity since the option to buy ones way in is still available. To balance out the equity issue the money should be used to provide enhanced express bus service in these lanes now call HOT Busway lanes.
Getting the HOV lane completed to San Francisco would entail a large cost because present legislation requires that HOV lanes be implemented with road expansion. Since this area is built out the cost of land acquisition is huge.
Even better would be convert the HOV lane and the fast lane to SF into an HOT lane. There is no loss for Single Occupant Drivers of lane capacity since the option to buy ones way in is still available. To balance out the equity issue the money should be used to provide enhanced express bus service in these lanes now call HOT Busway lanes.
Transit usage needs help from local government
Linda Koelling, a Foster City Councilperson, says “It is vital for us to implement a new wave of conservation effort and meet the challenge of getting people out of their cars in order to preserve our environment.” She makes the following points in appealing for people to use transit- The Bay Area is now one big city stitched together by urban sprawl. As a conseqence congestion impacts quality of life everywhere.
Her solution is for us try public transit in the model developed by Peninsula Traffic Relief Alliance. www.commute.org/ However Mz Kolling readily admits that congestion continues to be real despite PTRA having “pretty much covered all the bases.”
Asking people to try transit hasn't worked for good reasons. Bay Area Cities are giving away vital resources like curb side space and streets for free while bankrupting public coffers. People drive because there is no cost to pollute and endanger the public commons, there is no downside to behavior that disrupts public life and endangers public health. Similarly walkers and cyclist, who could relieve congestion, decide not risk their lives on the attention spans of drivers.
So if she really wants people to use transit Foster City should put in place measures that encourage people to use transit like charging for parking and roads. Foster City should especially look at commute times so that transit use is competive with auto usage and not designed to unfairly compete with transit.
She can be reached at lkoelling@fostercity.org.
Her solution is for us try public transit in the model developed by Peninsula Traffic Relief Alliance. www.commute.org/ However Mz Kolling readily admits that congestion continues to be real despite PTRA having “pretty much covered all the bases.”
Asking people to try transit hasn't worked for good reasons. Bay Area Cities are giving away vital resources like curb side space and streets for free while bankrupting public coffers. People drive because there is no cost to pollute and endanger the public commons, there is no downside to behavior that disrupts public life and endangers public health. Similarly walkers and cyclist, who could relieve congestion, decide not risk their lives on the attention spans of drivers.
So if she really wants people to use transit Foster City should put in place measures that encourage people to use transit like charging for parking and roads. Foster City should especially look at commute times so that transit use is competive with auto usage and not designed to unfairly compete with transit.
She can be reached at lkoelling@fostercity.org.
Alternatives to parking help transits fare box recovery
Notice the in-lieu fee of $9,000 collected for the past three years in San Mateo is insufficient for a parking lot. The city only has $1.5 million. Business wants the parking and pollution. but is refusing to pay for the parking lot.
The number provided in the article “City on quest for parking garage” in the Nov. 2 edition of the Daily Journal for a parking spot, of $30,000 is really low. A parking spot is 10 feet by 18 feet which equals 180 square feet. At $100 per square foot for unimproved land in San Mateo the spot would cost $18,000.
However a parking spot by itself is useless. You also need to be able to access it. Access lanes and street space dedicated to get to parking spots raises the size of the spot to 300-350 square feet. This is similar to the size used when building off-street parking.
You can see that with a little common sense, the $30,000 price is already at the low end for unimproved land. And we haven’t added in the percent of the $30 million publics works and planning budgets for a year for street and sewer maintenance and other issues like stormwater runoff, system overload and sewer leakage, associated with un-permeable streets and parking surfaces; or police and fire services for crashes downtown, or the markup for built structures that typically come in after the land costs exceed $1 million like the movie garage on Second and B streets. My neighbor was hit at Third and B streets and had his bike crushed and his tailbone broken. My guess is the real price is more than $44,000.
Notice the public handout for drivers to take away the fare box recovery of Caltrain and SamTrans or bike access to the downtown is closer to $35,000 per spot and the city is willing to take away local recreation access like the tennis court to get it. What price do you put on an athletic club membership? What’s the price of the quality of downtown life that has been privatized away? What is the price of asthma downtown? These are called external costs. A EU study said that they are typically two more for every one real dollar.
Instead of looking at other funding options, the city needs to put a fair price on parking — like Redwood City — to give residents real options and return their quality of life. An air quality grant from the Cities/County Association of Governments can get a delivery program started for merchant downtown, taking away the need to drive. You can maintain delivery with a parking assessment district. Such a district can also be used to get to zero traffic housing.
Do you know the price of in lieu parking in your city? San Carlos is $7,000. And the Chamber of Commerce complained to me that the cost of bicycle parking amounted to $4.55 at the Arts and Wine festival. Belmont is zero.
This article was printed in the San Mateo Daily Journal
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=83116&eddate=11/09/2007
The number provided in the article “City on quest for parking garage” in the Nov. 2 edition of the Daily Journal for a parking spot, of $30,000 is really low. A parking spot is 10 feet by 18 feet which equals 180 square feet. At $100 per square foot for unimproved land in San Mateo the spot would cost $18,000.
However a parking spot by itself is useless. You also need to be able to access it. Access lanes and street space dedicated to get to parking spots raises the size of the spot to 300-350 square feet. This is similar to the size used when building off-street parking.
You can see that with a little common sense, the $30,000 price is already at the low end for unimproved land. And we haven’t added in the percent of the $30 million publics works and planning budgets for a year for street and sewer maintenance and other issues like stormwater runoff, system overload and sewer leakage, associated with un-permeable streets and parking surfaces; or police and fire services for crashes downtown, or the markup for built structures that typically come in after the land costs exceed $1 million like the movie garage on Second and B streets. My neighbor was hit at Third and B streets and had his bike crushed and his tailbone broken. My guess is the real price is more than $44,000.
Notice the public handout for drivers to take away the fare box recovery of Caltrain and SamTrans or bike access to the downtown is closer to $35,000 per spot and the city is willing to take away local recreation access like the tennis court to get it. What price do you put on an athletic club membership? What’s the price of the quality of downtown life that has been privatized away? What is the price of asthma downtown? These are called external costs. A EU study said that they are typically two more for every one real dollar.
Instead of looking at other funding options, the city needs to put a fair price on parking — like Redwood City — to give residents real options and return their quality of life. An air quality grant from the Cities/County Association of Governments can get a delivery program started for merchant downtown, taking away the need to drive. You can maintain delivery with a parking assessment district. Such a district can also be used to get to zero traffic housing.
Do you know the price of in lieu parking in your city? San Carlos is $7,000. And the Chamber of Commerce complained to me that the cost of bicycle parking amounted to $4.55 at the Arts and Wine festival. Belmont is zero.
This article was printed in the San Mateo Daily Journal
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=83116&eddate=11/09/2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
