We already have the technology to solve our problems

To solve asthma, global warming, housing prices, and a host of social ills that define an unsustainable lifestyle today, policy makers and talking heads resurrect the spectre of future technologies. Electric cars that can go 100 mph for 100 miles will solve asthma, biofuels will solve global warming, 100 mpg or higher CAFE standards and High Speed Rail will connect people better and reduce that bad air travel.

These are all false choices. As the Iraq war drags on against all popular support, we know what problems technology has created, but are unable to acknowledge the problems future technologies will create, or how to solve our problem today. Electric cars will not solve asthma because battery and electricity production move pollution to other sites while tire dust, break lining and other pollutants from traffic take away any benefit for particle emission reduction after all scenarios have been studies (See graphs 24 and 25.)

Time published an excellent article on how biofuels replace established carbon reservoirs that will take 150 to 250 years to replace, much longer than the 50 year time frame we have to address GW, resulting in a more drastic GW future, while killing streams, starving people and the soil, and killing the seas. And higher CAFE standards and HSR only allow people to commute from far away places where we should keep sequestered carbon sequestered, not allow poeple to buy cheap land agricultural land in Tracy or Chico, or cheap forest land in Modesto.

The problem to solve today is how to live on 20% of our infrastructure so that 80% of our fossils fuels can stay in the ground through 2300 AD because of the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere. Policy makers instead are trying to add infrastructure in the mistaken belief that the carbon we produce today is ok; and going forward we need the latest widget that will produce less carbon than existing technology. We need to take bold steps now that benefit people, the economy and the environment while rolling back carbon in the atmosphere. Now, not in another 20 years.

So stop pushing the next frontier of technology and acknowledge that we are trying to fix the problems that technology has created and new technologies will bring more problems that we don’t have time to fix.

Reduce asthma by drastically reducing todays cars on the road, moving freight to rail AND thus reduce the need for biofuel because we reduce the need for fuel. Create twenty mile per hour high density city cores with higher speed traffic only allowed on trunk arterials outside the core, where dust and carbon and pollution have a minimal impact on fewer people. Link trails up in the dense cores to the landuses of children into an Urban Trail System that takes advantage of the expensive infrastructure in Pedestrian OverCrossings, and use Bicycle Boulevards as urban connectors to open space so that we can eliminate 50% of the trips that are under 2 miles. Create a standard for infrastructure expenditure that looks at the benefit to people, environment, and the enonomy and move projects up based on their sustainable return on investment. Reducing health care costs for reduced pollution and an active population will benefit both people and the environment and help the economy by making local business sustainable

CCAG should be vigilant on biofuels

Instead of addressing our dependence on cars with pedestrian friendly cities policy makers are rushing to subsidize ethanol. The result is that we are Starving the People To Feed the Cars.

MICHAEL GRUNWALD writes that "by diverting grain and oilseed crops from dinner plates to fuel tanks, biofuels are jacking up world food prices and endangering the hungry.
Four years ago, two University of Minnesota researchers predicted the ranks of the hungry would drop to 625 million by 2025; last year, after adjusting for the inflationary effects of biofuels, they increased their prediction to 1.2 billion. The lesson behind the math is that on a warming planet, land is an incredibly precious commodity, and every acre used to generate fuel is an acre that can't be used to generate the food needed to feed us or the carbon storage needed to save us."

Lester Brown writes that the grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol will feed one person for a year.

Biofuels like corn, which we are subsidizing, threaten streams by reducing their environmental service. As streams weaken in their ability to remove nitrogen from fertilizer, more runoff gets to the sea, where algae grows and dies, creating huge oxygen deprived dead zones.

It would be a poor tradeoff if we killed the seas to fuel our cars.

Parking cashout from or reduced parking ratios

The Grand Boulevard (and note the great library resource here) should look at a leased parking authority to enable parking cashout. My friend Mike Bullock wrote this on cashout to reduce the required parking ratio-

My proposals for private parking cashout (government allows less parking for cashout, resulting in excess land which is used to redevelop to create cash flow to offset the cashout cost) is perhaps the only way in industrial parks.

For TOD, the Redevelopment Director should buy all parking for a token amount and then operate the parking for the benefit of the potential users, such as employees, or apartment or condo dwellers, transparent to the change in ownership. The Redevelopment Director could make all on-street parking pay parking and let, for example, workers chose either free parking or monthly cash payment. All cars would be detected and charged (owners billed) or detected as a worker getting free parking (but no cashout). Owners of cars without electronic id would have to pay at a pay station, which would be a hassle but would offer the user an easy way to get a car ID. The advantages are

1.) park once, for all drivers to the TOD

2.) shared parking so less is needed

3.) Redevelopment of excess land can support cashout

4.) Cashout results in less drive alone and more of everything else

5.) unbundled parking for residents results in less car ownership

6.) Redevelopment can add to mixed use so as to reduce trips further

7.) On street parking revenue would be used to cover the cost of new technology and upgrades to the street, and then payments to owners

7.) The Redevelopment Director is in a position to coordinate all parking

Humboldt Avenue goes toxic

CA law prevents the siting of a school within 500 feet of a freeway because of the danger from pollution.

In the largest and longest study of its kind, USC researchers have found that children living within 500 feet of busy highways have significant impairments in the development of their lungs that can lead to respiratory problems for the rest of their lives.

The 13-year study of more than 3,600 children in 12 Central and Southern California communities found that the damage from living within 500 yards of a freeway is about the same as that from living in communities with the highest pollution levels.

However major roads like El Camino and Woodside were found in a Sacramento study to be just as toxic which impacts schools along these routes.

This UC Davis study on air pollution found that notwithstanding lower traffic volumes, "heavily traveled secondary highways" are just as toxic as freeways laden with diesel trucks or major rail yards.

Last week the Air Resource Board said on the effects of diesel that "diesel emissions from trucks, machinery and other sources elevate the risk of premature death, cancer, asthma and other chronic diseases for more than 3 million people living in West Oakland and the surrounding region, according to the most detailed study yet on the issue."

The analysis by the California Air Resources Board, released Wednesday night, shows that the greatest health dangers related to toxic air emissions stems from diesel trucks traversing the freeways and other roadways around West Oakland and the Port of Oakland.

The two-year public health inquiry covered a large swath of the Bay Area - an area of 3,800 square miles that is home to 3.1 million people. The residents had an elevated risk of cancer - nearly 1,200 additional cancers per million people due to long-term exposure to diesel particulate matter than people living elsewhere, the study reported in preliminary findings.

As CCAG continues to maintain capacity, neighborhood streets can become toxic. Traffic planners route increased volume onto neighborhood streets. This unfortunately is what happened to Humboldt Avenue in San Mateo.

Citizens are unable to reconcile the toxicity of their actions as this quote verifies- “I think we have acknowledged that a number of concessions have been made,” said Commissioner Alex Feinman. “We won’t please everyone."

Air quality goals can provide alternatives to cars

The San Joaquin Air Quality Board has a pdf on landuse changes for general plans for improving air quality. The air quality component update to the general plan is supposed to follow one year after completion of the housing element.

All cities in San Mateo are updating their housing elements right now. In the pdf pg 85 is on bikes and the enforcement is upfront on page 13.

One thing we hear is that we are in attainment of air quality goals in San Mateo. That's almost true. According to the Sustainable San Mateo County Air quality Indicator: For PM10 there was only one exceedance of the state 24-hour standard at Redwood City in the entire year of 2007. For PM2.5 there was one exceedance of the National 24-hour standard at Redwood City in the entire year of 2007. The state 24-hour standard for PM2.5 has not yet been implemented. There were no exceedances in 2007 at Redwood City for ozone, carbon monoxide, or nitrogen dioxide. Sulfur dioxide is not measured in San Mateo County.

However we use a much lax standard than recommended by the World Health Organization. The World Health Organization (2005) has proposed tighter standards to improve public health because “an increasing range of adverse health effects has been linked to air pollution, and at ever-lower concentrations” page 10

Particle emissions kill more people than cigarettes. PM10 needs scrutiny in San Mateobecause nothing proposed- alternative vehicles, alternative fuels, or pricing- will make a dent in targets through 2035, at least for us here in the Bay Area. Same for PM2.5 which is not the national standard till 2015.

The PM10 chart showing the lack of progress from mitigation is chart 25 page 13 chart titled Reduce coarse particulate emissions (PM10) to 38 tons per day. PM2.5 is the second chart 24 on page 12.

So the mitigations to PM10 and PM25 are to reduce VMT through Freight to Rail, transit, and shifting trips to bicycles and walking. Once we accept the challenge of reducing VMT
in our housing elements and general plans we can proceed set goals that can achieve milestones for increased bicycle and walking modal shifts from single occupant vehicles which make up 40% of total Bay Area green house gas emissions. From page 25 "This is where the Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans comes in. This document provides a comprehensive set of goals and policies that promote development patterns, site designs, and transportation systems that support alternatives to the automobile."