Comments on the CCAG agenda 7/12/08

Comments by Agenda item for CCAG 7/12/08

4.0 Pull from CONSENT AGENDA items 4.2, 4.5, 4.10

4.2 El Camino Real Incentive Program Planning Grant process.
Comments- Extend the electric buses down the El Camino from Mission St in San Francisco at Top of the Hill, Daly City. Electric buses are cheap, quiet, and zero pollution- the only zero pollution large vehicle in the mass transit choices. They are an established technology used in Seattle, San Francisco and recently designed in by numerous Latin American cities like Bogota, Mexico City and Curitiba that have attained fame for their low CO2 mass appeal in transportation. Electric ZAP buses would complement the walkable goals of El Camino by lowering noise and air pollution for the admirable housing goals in the Grand Boulevard Initiative.

4.5 An agreement with Bottomley Associates for the Context Sensitive Design Practice & Guidelines and the MultiModal Access Strategy in an amount not to exceed $140,692/-
Comments- Please consider true multimodality. Take one example at Ralston and El Camino. Fast turn lanes create unique opportunities for automobiles to collide with pedestrians. Wide streets force seniors to try and jog unsuccessfully, frequently arriving stranded in the middle of the intersection, on a tiny median, as their train or bus pulls out. Bicycles are challenged to take lanes to the left of stopped buses or vehicles parked for free in front of the multimodal station, impacting fare box recovery and ZAP accessibility. Cities in turn respond with expensive enforcement fixes like video cameras to nab offensive drivers enabled by poor multimodal designs.

4.10 List of projects for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for consideration in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
Comments -A big thank you to MTC for adopting ambitious greenhouse gas, VMT, congestion, safety, and affordability goals for the RTP-2035. Please ensure that CCAG now prioritize investments that support these goals. With transportation contributing fully half of all of the Bay Area's greenhouse gas emissions, I'm urge you to help us reduce our automobile dependence by investing in great transit, safe biking and walking, and the land uses that support these transportation choices.

Specifically, I'm asking you to:
• Increase funding to complete the Regional Bicycle Network and Comprehensive Bicycle Plan in San Mateo to $200 over the next 25 years. Make sure that CO2 intensive projects when funded, like the Ralston 101 Interchange, do not penalize bicyclist and pedestrian, by removing access today for a future project like the Ralston 101 bicycle bridge. This bike bridge has found less than 20% of its funding in the last eight years and is not even prioritized in the Comprehensive Bicycle Plan list of projects.
• Increase funding for Safe Routes to Transit by investing an additional $2 million/year for the next 25 years.
• Create a new Safe Routes to Schools grant program and fund it at $2 million/year for the next 25 years.
• Increase funding for the TLC land use program to $300M over 25 years.
• And finally develop working strategies to meet air quality goals for PM10 and PM 2.5 because NONE of your options are remotely expected to succeed by 2035.

5.0 REGULAR AGENDA
5.2 Cooperative Agreement for the County Smart Corridors project.
5.2.1 Status report on funding for the Smart Corridors project.
Comments- The smart corridor program has a negative impact on zero CO2 modes creating accessibility problems for pedestrian, transit users, the disabled, and bicycles. Please ensure that the subsequent EIR, which the attorney general has fortunately enforced, takes the water and air pollution issues from restricted multi modality into consideration.

Solar keeps future prices down

We were cash positive after one year from installing solar hot water and PV panels. However the rest of CA continues to face increased rates. Our electric rates have been fixed at 5.50 per month which is the cause of taxes to use the transmission lines. Our gas bill has averaged $15 per month mostly from December-February.

PGE wants to increase rates because of their increasing gas costs. Like fuel prices consumers are trapped by infrastructure. According to the article

"Electricity rates for all customers would rise by an average of 4.5 percent in October and an additional 2 percent in January. PG&E has different rates for different types of customers, and some would see a larger increase than others. The monthly electric bill for a typical home would rise a total of $1.30, to reach $73.43.

While it gets less public attention than oil, diesel and gasoline, natural gas has seen its own wild swings in price. The fuel now costs 63 percent more than it did a year ago, more than PG&E predicted."

Limit freeways to limit fires in CA

Freeways were known to cause sprawl in the process bring development to the next onramp. City infrastructure can barely keep with the development. At Sprawl Central in 2007, three of the ten fires in LA were caused by downed power lines.

But freeways themselves are the cause of many fires frequently when grass on the side of the road catches fire. Yesterdays Stockton fires started on Interstate 5 and blew out of control. In other blazes today the CHP had to close a lane on 680 so firefighters could get to work.

And a Glenn County blaze was caused by a tanker explosion along highway 32.

Reducing freeways will reduce our exposure to fire as the state dries out from a water shortage and changed rainfall patterns which increase the winter runoff and decrease snowmelt.

Freight to rail does more in this area

Freight to rail can reduce the PM10 from tires and brake dust that MTC does not have a handle on through 2035 and its impact on bay pollution. Caltrain should include freight to rail in its discussions with other other rail bodies on expanding passenger systems.

But freight to rail can do much more. It can free up space on existing highways thus stretching our highway dollar and allowing us to manage capacity. Adding in pricing can only help. And it takes away one more hungry source of air pollution and diesel consumption at a time of unsteady supply and pricing.

And it can take away the huge expense of Intelligent Transportation Systems that are used to route traffic through neighborhoods after a big rig crash on 101. These crashes are frequently the fault of the single occupancy vehicle cutting in and out of lanes trying to get around the traffic.

Why are commuters rioting over fuel prices?

You'd think that people would accept the price of a non food commodity. After all if the government subsidizes it the money has to come from somewhere like higher taxes which unfairly burden those who make wiser choices. So why are people upset enough to riot over high fuel costs?

Because planner have designed choice out of their lives. Government is responsible for bad planning that focused only on roads in the last thirty years. The oil shocks of the 70s were not a warning but a invitation to jump into bed with the Saudis- Bush even calls Prince Bandit his brother. And ultimately people are stupid enough to follow a bad example- Paris Hilton need I say more.

The problem is that policy associations like CCAG highlight the problems with conventional thinking in design- Place your foundation on the basis of the available fuel source, not what is sustainable. Why conserve resources for future generations when Cherney is around to ship our children for cheap oil to Iraq? Why build like Reagen when Jerry Brown forecast an era of limits? Because it was free and who doesn't want to look like a hero dolling out a free lunch.