My webinar presentation last week on the past, present, and future of transit and personal mobility in Los Angeles is now available on YouTube:
The webinar was the inaugural event for California Green Academy and Island Press‘s new Transformational Speaker Series. Stay tuned for more webinars in the series, which will focus on sustainable transportation and feature leading thinkers in sustainability, urban mobility, and innovative transportation.
San Francisco is about to open its new $2.2 billion Transbay Terminal in downtown, current home to transbay bus service and future home to Caltrain and high speed rail. I had an opportunity to tour the facility last week ahead of its big public opening on August 12th (photos below).
The new terminal replaces a 1930s era bus depot that used to receive San Francisco’s since-shuttered intercity electric trains coming off the lower deck of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. But the eight-year construction project has been mired in controversy over the typical delays and budget-busting that you see with big new infrastructure projects. And it also has been blamed for contributing to the nearby Millennium tower sinking and shifting, based on the dewatering practices used to excavate the site.
My takeaway from the tour? It’s a beautiful building that will really help smooth bus transportation access to this growing neighborhood south of Market Street. And the other immediate benefit will be the rooftop park, which is reminiscent of Manhattan’s highly successful “high line” walkway.
But the long-term payoff will be if and when Caltrain and High Speed Rail begin service to its now empty basement level — though that may take more than a decade to come to fruition.
Below are some photos I took from above, within, and below the site.
First up, the view of the 5.4 acre rooftop garden from the Transbay Terminal project office:
Here’s a small-scale model displayed in the project office:
Once inside the “Grand Hallway” of the terminal on the ground floor, the design team planned a mosaic floor covered in bright California poppies:
In the basement, possibly the most hopeful yet depressing sight: where Caltrain and possibly high speed rail trains will arrive and depart (probably in the 2030s), serving downtown San Francisco with thousands of passengers each day (pending the funding to complete these multi-billion dollar projects):
On the second floor, you’ll find the new bus bridge from the terminal on that level, taking buses directly onto the Bay Bridge for service to the East Bay and beyond:
And on the top floor, the aforementioned 5.4 acre rooftop park. Although it’s not as convenient to access as a street-level park, the concert series in this future bandstand and other activities should attract people, plus the nice views:
The half-mile bike- and scooter-free walkway around the top feels like a West Coast high line: 
The park also features a fun access feature: a new gondola that will ferry people to the top from the street, hopefully in an efficient manner. The gondola won’t open until late August or early September:
Families with children will be welcome at this playground on the rooftop:
Overall, the terminal will be a real jewel for this part of San Francisco and a nice way to take transit. But it’s full potential won’t be realized until federal, state and local officials find the money first to extend Caltrain into it and then one day to bring in high speed rail to downtown San Francisco.
Join me on-line this Thursday at 11am PT when I serve as the first speaker for California Green Academy and Island Press‘s new Transformational Speaker Series. The series will focus on sustainable transportation and feature leading thinkers in sustainability, urban mobility, and innovative transportation.
As the first speaker this Thursday, I’ll discuss transformational change in Los Angeles transit, which once featured the world’s largest streetcar system. The region then became the nation’s automobile capital but now is undergoing expansive light and heavy rail growth and has an emerging emphasis on multimodal mobility.
Most of my talk will be drawn from my book Railtown (UC Press, 2014). I’ll cover Los Angeles’ current transit transformation – spawned by multiple ballot measures – and the region’s overall mobility future, especially thanks to the passage of 2016’s landmark Measure M.
The inaugural webinar takes place this Thursday, July 26thy, from 11:00-12:00 PST (14:00-15:00 EST). You can stream it live (registration not required) and follow the series on Twitter and YouTube. Hope you can join in!
The City of Berkeley once had a reputation as a progressive, environmental leader. But now some members of its city council seem intent on preventing new development in this transit-rich, low-carbon city — an attitude that is both exclusionary and bad for the environment. The result is fewer transit riders and homes near jobs — and more sprawl and pollution as new residents are pushed far from the city center.
This issue is once again put to the test when the city council tonight debates whether to oppose AB 2923 (Chiu), a bill to allow BART to develop its own properties near station entrances. Berkeley is barely affected by the bill, as it would only allow new land use rules at one BART station: the parking lot at North Berkeley. Still, the NIMBY forces are out in effect for this resolution tonight.
Together with my UC Berkeley colleagues Karen Chapple and Elizabeth Deakin, along with Paulson Institute senior fellow (and Berkeley alum) Kate Gordon, I submitted a letter today asking the council to support AB 2923. Let’s hope the members support this innovative bill to allow badly needed new housing adjacent to major transit, so that others may enjoy the benefits that current Berkeley residents have.
It would not only be the right policy choice but an affirmation of the welcoming and open-minded spirit for which the city of my birth was once known.
UPDATE: The City Council approved the measure opposing AB 2923. The bill heads to the Assembly floor this week for a vote.
Gas prices have been on the rise, reaching a high not seen since summer of 2015:
The price increases could have both a positive and negative effect on California and the country’s transportation politics and climate policies.
First, let’s look at the price increases, which have been volatile and uneven. As the Wall Street Journal reported last week:
“The crude complex has seen prices stall a bit near recent highs as the market weighs whether a rising tide of geopolitical risk and strong demand is enough to continue overshadowing U.S. production growth to force prices steadily higher,” said analysts at Schneider Electric.
But analysts expect price declines to remain limited: the potential loss of Iranian oil from global markets might open up extra space for U.S. exports, while the market has already tightened due to falling Venezuelan output, worldwide economic growth and production curbs from OPEC members.
If the price rise lasts, it could affect some key transportation policies and efforts to decarbonize driving. On the positive side for the environment, high gas prices could:
- Boost battery electric vehicles: higher gas prices will encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, particularly electric vehicles. That’s an all-around win for the environment and long-term efforts to transition away from fossil fuels.
- Reduced vehicle miles traveled: higher gas prices mean people will be less likely to drive as much, reducing emissions in the process and making it easier to meet our climate goals and decreasing the demand for outlying sprawl housing.
But on the negative or mixed side, higher prices could:
- Help California’s gas tax repeal measure: the California Legislature took a courageous step last year when they voted as a super-majority to increase the gas tax to pay for transportation infrastructure maintenance. Republicans have now put the tax on the November ballot as a voter-initiated repeal measure, hoping it will energize their base to come out to vote. High gas prices in November could give this measure real political life (although I’d rather see legislators investigate possible oil industry price manipulation instead).
- Possibly reduce economic output with less money for investment in clean technology: high gas prices could potentially depress sectors of our economy, which could dampen investment in clean technology generally and undermine political will to tackle environmental problems. But high gas prices in the U.S. cut both ways: while it hurts consumers, it helps oil and gas producers. And in the U.S., we’re among the global leaders in fossil fuel production, as this EIA chart shows:
So high gas prices could boost oil-producing states and the economy for those residents, which could have varied effects on those states’ willingness to pursue clean transportation policies (although admittedly probably minimal, as many of these states are dominated by Republicans and unlikely to support pro-clean tech policies anyway).
Overall, high gas prices could be a political win for most clean transportation policies and technologies, but with some potentially negative consequences as well.
SB 827 (Wiener) was the big effort to solve California’s housing shortage. When the state senate killed it in committee, the senators doomed California to more small-bore proposals. Still, it’s worth reviewing what might be possible this year to at least partially address the massive housing shortage. Here are three housing bills that could make a difference:
1. SB 828 (Wiener): This is Sen. Scott Wiener’s other big housing bill this year. It greatly strengthens the state’s regional affordable housing requirements on local governments. Under the law, cities and counties are allocated a certain number of affordable housing units they’re supposed to make available in their jurisdiction, by identifying sites where this housing could be built, in theory.
But the process is largely a paper-pushing exercise, with few real world consequences for locals that don’t ensure the new housing is actually built. SB 828 would greatly tighten the requirements. Under the proposed bill:
- Local leaders can no longer use prior underproduction of housing from previous cycles to justify a lower housing allocation from the state for the current cycle.
- The state must include past under-production numbers as part of the current cycle of requirements for local governments.
- Local leaders must identify actions to accommodate 125% of their share of the regional housing need that they could not accommodate without rezoning their identified sites.
- Local leaders must make at least 100% of their share of housing be available for multifamily housing in already-developed areas.
- Local leaders must demonstrate efforts to reverse racial and wealth disparities, including by showing a high housing allocation for households located within particular communities and for all income categories.
- The state must address the historic underproduction of housing in California, particularly in coastal and metropolitan communities, by completing a comprehensive audit of unmet housing needs for each region by 2020 and add the results to each region’s next regional housing assessment following that year.
If SB 828 passes as is, cities and counties would ultimately be required to rezone a significant amount of land for new housing, particularly to accommodate lower-income residents.
2. SB 831 (Wieckowski): Accessory dwelling units (ADUs), like granny flats, promise to add a lot of new housing units without changing the built environment much. They can be added on existing parcels quite easily and sometimes within existing building envelopes. In recognition of this potential, the state passed legislation in 2016 that preempted local restrictions on these units. But since then, anti-housing local leaders have used high fees, requirements on parking replacement, and “health and safety” concerns to block these new units. SB 831 would close those loopholes that have allowed local governments to find ways to kill ADUs.
3. SB 961 (Allen): This bill is unfortunately brought to you by some of the folks who helped kill SB 827. Move LA, the pro-transit group that is ironically opposed to much transit-oriented development (including SB 827), and State Senator Ben Allen, who voted against SB 827 in its first and only committee hearing, teamed up on an otherwise promising solution to help finance affordable housing near transit.
The bill builds on last year’s AB 1568 (Bloom, 2017), which improved infrastructure finance districts for infill projects. Using the acronym NIFTI (Neighborhood Infill Finance and Transit Improvements Act), it allowed these districts to capture future increases in revenue from sources like sales and occupancy taxes to pay for infrastructure improvements up front.
SB 961 takes the NIFTI model and would apply it specifically to areas within a half-mile of a major transit stop, with requirements to dedicate much of the funds to affordable housing. It also would expand the financing tools available by allowing the districts to authorize bonds without voter approval.
So while housing advocates mourn the defeat of SB 827, this year still offers some movement to boost housing production. And in the long run, the mobilization of YIMBY groups in California and beyond promises to bring more legislation like SB 827 to the fore. All of it will be needed as the state endures this significant — and artificially created — housing shortage.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring environmental justice should go hand in hand. After all, residents of disadvantaged communities have the most to gain from a transition to a clean energy economy — and the most to lose from climate impacts.
Yet too often climate advocates and the environmental justice (EJ) community are at odds, particularly over policies like cap and trade and efforts to site new climate-friendly development, such as clean energy facilities, rail lines, or smart growth. EJ leaders may oppose large-scale climate policies that benefit the environment overall yet fail to protect specific neighborhoods from pollution, and they may resent changes to processes that leave disadvantaged communities without a seat at the table, among other concerns.
Given the dynamics, how can attorneys incorporate climate change concerns into their practice? Is there an ethical or professional responsibility to consider and discuss with clients the climate change implications of their decisions?
Join me at lunch today starting at 11:30am at the Alameda County Witkin Law Library for a talk on these questions. More information available on-line [PDF]. The event will take place at:
Alameda County Law Library
125 12th Street
Hayward-Union City Room, 4th Floor
Oakland, CA 94607
You can purchase tickets here for $45.00, with lunch included. One hour of participatory MCLE credit is available for attorneys. Hope to see you there!
