On tonight’s State of the Bay, I’ll be speaking with Ricardo Cano, transportation reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, about why state regulators have revoked permits for Cruise’s driverless autonomous vehicles. What are the implications for the autonomous vehicle industry here in California and beyond?
We’ll also hear from Los Angeles Times environmental reporter and author Rosanne Xia about her new book “California Against the Sea: Visions for Our Vanishing Coastline.”
And finally, we’ll sit down with Emily Pilloton-Lam, founder and executive director of the Berkeley non-profit Girls Garage.
Tune in at 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live at 6pm PT. What comments or questions do you have for our guests? Call 866-798-TALK to join the conversation!
On tonight’s State of the Bay, I’ll be interviewing Steve Berman, the “Bay Area Sports Guy,” now of The Athletic, to hear his insights. Was the 49ers’ shocking loss yesterday a fluke? Will the Warriors’ intriguing new roster work? And can the new WNBA team thrive here?
Then we’ll talk housing in the Bay Area. Governor Newsom recently signed a whopping 56 new housing bills. Cities are under pressure to build more, and fast. Will these new bills help? Joining us will be:
- Sarah Karlinsky of SPUR
- Ben Metcalf of the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley
Finally, we’ll hear about a new exhibit on censorship called unBANNED, with Tamsin Smith, curator at Arion Press Gallery in the Presidio.
Tune in at 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live at 6pm PT. What comments or questions do you have for our guests? Call 866-798-TALK to join the conversation!
Being a pedestrian isn’t easy in California’s car-centric culture, so what can be done to improve walkability? I’ll be a guest on KQED Forum today at 10am PT to discuss, as part of Forum’s “In Transit” series where I’m a regular guest.
Much of the infrastructure in the state is built with cars in mind, and that means that walkers and wheelchair-users can confront serious safety risks in a state where an average of three pedestrians are killed every day. How is the state is addressing pedestrian safety issues, and what do you notice when you don’t use a car?
Joining me on the show will be Tim Weisberg, deputy director, marketing and public affairs, California Office of Traffic Safety.
You can stream live or tune in on KQED in Northern California.
I’ll be a guest on KQED Forum today at 10am PT discussing congestion pricing — where cities charge drivers to enter congested areas during peak times, as a way to limit traffic and pay for transit. The show is part of Forum’s “In Transit” series where I’m a regular guest.
London, Stockholm and Singapore all use congestion pricing, but it has yet to be adopted in any U.S. city. Los Angeles is now studying the concept, and LA Metro will soon release a report examining which parts of the city could benefit most from congestion pricing.
Joining me on the show will be Mark Vallianatos, executive officer in the Office of Strategic Innovation, LA Metro.
You can stream live or tune in on KQED in Northern California.
This morning at 10am PT, I’ll be joining KQED’s Forum to discuss how California can make our roads and pathways safer for bicyclists. Biking is a more climate-friendly and healthy way to get around, but sharing space on California’s roadways with vehicles is notoriously dangerous and sometimes deadly. What can be done to make biking safer and encourage more people to ride?
Joining me on the panel will be:
- Jared Sanchez, policy director, California Bicycle Coalition
- Darwin Moosavi, deputy secretary for environmental policy and housing coordination, California State Transportation Agency
- Anthony Molina, chair, Fresno County Bike Coalition
Stream live at 10am PT or tune in at 88.5 FM KQED in the San Francisco Bay Area!
Then at 6pm PT, I’ll be hosting State of the Bay on KALW, where we’ll start by interviewing State Senator Scott Wiener about his bill SB 58 to decriminalize psychedelics in California.
Then I’ll interview former Oakland Athletics vice president Andy Dolich, author of Goodbye, Oakland, about the future of the team and sports in Oakland, given the team owners’ apparent decision to relocate to Las Vegas. Can Oakland find a way to keep their last major sports franchise from leaving?
Finally, we’ll hear all about the San Francisco Mime Troupe’s new satire, Breakdown.
Tune in at 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live at 6pm PT. What comments or questions do you have for our guests? Call 866-798-TALK to join the conversation!
A major new piece of housing and climate legislation was introduced in California this month, and it’s been a long time coming. AB 68 (Ward) finally sets forth a powerful template for where the state should encourage new housing and where it should avoid planning for more, based on climate and environmental hazards. It represents the culmination of a long-sought alliance between major housing advocates like California YIMBY and conservation groups like The Nature Conservancy.
So where should the state build more housing, according to AB 68? It defines those places in the following “climate smart” ways:
- In a high or moderate income area, as defined by state affordable housing tax credit maps, to prioritize more housing in high-opportunity and well-resourced areas and minimize displacement of low-income renters
- Within 1/2 mile of major transit or an area where residents drive below-average distances on a per capita average, in order to reduce overall driving miles in the state
- Within a mile of a cluster of at least six types of locations like restaurants, bars, coffee shops, supermarkets, parks and hardware stores, among others, to ensure rural and exurban infill areas aren’t left out, as well as places without access to transit.
If a housing development is proposed in these areas, the project gets “ministerial” approval (i.e. exempt from environmental review), and a local government cannot limit the development beyond any of the following:
- Setback greater than four feet from any side
- Height limit less than 50 feet
- Maximum lot coverage of less than 60 percent
- Minimum parking requirement
- Floor area ratios (i.e. the building’s total floor area in relation to the size of the lot/parcel, indicating overall density) less than 1.0. to 1.5, depending on criteria met
There are additional requirements to protect existing affordable housing and ensure consistency with SB 375 plans, among others.
And where should planning for denser development in the state be limited? AB 68 describes these “climate risk lands” as within high-severity wildfire and flood zones, or having a sea level rise risk according to the latest science. They also must be not currently zoned for housing or have existing urbanized communities on them.
In these areas, local governments cannot increase existing housing densities or allow subdivisions, and they cannot approve any extension of water or sewer services, unless certain exceptions can be met, such as an approved housing element and a statement of housing necessity, among other conditions.
In short, AB 68 finally provides the much-needed, legislatively endorsed map for where the state should grow and where it should avoid putting more people into harm’s way. If successful, AB 68 will arguably be the single biggest climate bill that the state has passed in over a decade, given the centrality of land use and housing to meeting our climate goals. The fight to pass it will not be easy, but AB 68 has a powerful coalition to support it, along with a well-conceived solution to the state’s urgent and related challenges of climate and housing.
LA Metro Rail — the sprawling network of light rail and subway lines criss-crossing Los Angeles County since the first line opened in 1993 — is facing an existential challenge. Just like other transit agencies around the country, ridership since the pandemic has plummeted, still around just two-thirds of its pre-COVID peak.
What can be done to fix it? In my new Los Angeles Times op-ed today, I offer a number of fixes. Most of it involves building more apartments and compact housing within walking distance of the Metro Rail stations, which would ensure the system isn’t reliant just on white collar office workers who are unlikely to return to work full time.
But the agency also needs to address its crime and personal safety issues, which can be partly helped by having more riders. State leaders should consider these needs if they decide to take action to rescue LA Metro and other California transit agencies facing a “fiscal cliff” as federal COVID funds expire.
I’ve been documenting Metro Rail since before the publication of my book Railtown (UC Press) in 2014. And there’s no doubt that the ridership and fiscal crisis the system now faces is the greatest in its three-decade history. Hopefully these recommendations can help the region make the most of this multi-billion dollar investment, fulfilling the economic, environmental and quality-of-life promise of rail in Los Angeles.
California and other jurisdictions have been moving to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a climate solution. Yet some pro-sprawl interests question whether this is necessary, given the advent of electric vehicles. It’s fair to ask: if all vehicles are “zero emission,” do we really need to care any more about how much driving we do, in terms of the climate impact?
The answer is unequivocally yes, and here are the top five reasons:
- Gas cars will be with us for a long time. As the California Air Resources Board noted in the 2022 scoping plan appendix, even with a goal to have only zero-emission vehicles sold in the state by 2035, approximately 30 percent of light-duty vehicles on the road in 2045 will still burn fossil fuels. The less of that we burn through reduced driving, the better.
- Clean electricity generation still has a carbon cost. Even if we move to 100% electric vehicles, that energy has to come from somewhere. And if it’s large-scale solar or wind facilities, they come with their own energy inputs to manufacture, as well as land use impacts to deploy. For example, some studies conservatively estimate it takes 10 acres of solar panels to generate one megawatt of electricity, an hour of which could potentially power about 3,500 driving miles collectively. Using that land for electricity and not food production, carbon sequestration, or open space comes with significant climate costs.
- Low-VMT development patterns reduce carbon pollution from buildings. As CARB noted, infill development (as opposed to sprawl served by publicly-subsidized highways) uses an estimated 10 to 20 percent less residential energy, due to smaller unit types, sizes, and locations — not to mention reduced water use from less outdoor irrigation requirements, which come with their own energy footprint to ship and treat the water.
- Reducing sprawl and VMT preserves open space and working lands as a carbon sink. To achieve carbon neutrality by mid century or sooner, we’re going to need to bury carbon. Natural and working lands are a key part of that equation, as they provide opportunities to bury carbon in soils through natural processes. Developing these lands instead for high VMT sprawl can permanently foreclose that opportunity.
- Electric vehicles come with their own carbon footprint and pollution costs. While dramatically better for the environment than fossil fuel-powered cars, EVs still require significant energy to manufacture, and their use on the road can create particulate matter pollution through wear on the tires and brakes and by kicking up particulate matter from the road. They also require large-scale mining of lithium, graphite and other minerals, which creates local environmental and energy impacts.
I could also mention non-climate reasons for wanting to reduce VMT, such as the equity benefits of building more housing closer to jobs and services in order to reduce transportation costs that disproportionately hurt low-income residents. But I’ll stick with the climate benefits for now.
Overall, we do need to electrify 100% of our transportation modes from a climate perspective. But we also need to simultaneously reduce the demand for transportation by building better and smarter communities in walkable, affordable, and transit-friendly areas.
Without that reduced driving, our climate goals will be much harder to achieve.
Tonight on State of the Bay, we’ll talk to Emeryville Mayor John Bauters about how his city is able to meet its housing requirements, as well as about his priorities as chair of the Bay Area Air Quality Board and the Alameda County Transportation Commission.
We’ll also host a debate on whether San Francisco should ban e-collars for dogs. Are they abusive, or do they actually give dogs more freedom? We’ll hear the arguments for and against e-collars with Ren Volpe of Shock Free SF and Founder/CEO of GoDogPro.com and Michael Ellis of Michael Ellis School for Dog Trainers.
Finally, State of the Bay’s guest host Sarah Ladipo Manyika talks about her new book Between Starshine and Clay: Conversations from the African Diaspora.
What would you like to ask our guests? Post a comment here, tweet us @StateofBay, send an email to stateofthebay@kalw.org or leave a voicemail at (415) 580-0718.
Tune in tonight at 6pm PT on KALW 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live. You can also call 866-798-TALK with questions during the show.
