AN OPEN LETTER TO DALE FRANCISCO

Dear Dale,

Before your recent election victory, you and I had a little debate regarding alternative transportation. I was for it; you -- while not against it -- didn't really see the value. Here is a quote from your rebuttal to my comments in which I referred to you as defeatist:

It is not "defeatist" to note that private transportation's overwhelming popularity is due to the choices and convenience it provides. It is far more realistic to work on technologies that improve private transportation--i.e., making it more green--than to continue in a policy of "encouraging" people to "get out of their cars," when there is little empirical evidence that such measures work.

I don't know if you read it or not, but I responded this way:

Why not do both? And what's the evidence that such measures don't work? I've been to Toronto, Paris, London, and Amsterdam in the course of the last few years, and public transportation is just awesome -- and highly utilized -- in those cities. Would you tell them it doesn't work? I might agree with you that a strategy to "get people out of their cars" would be a hard sell "today," but we're not talking about today; we're talking about the future.

Well, it's beginning to look like the future might just be here. In case people may not have noticed, the average price for a gallon of gas just surpassed the $4 mark for the first time in history. And this unfortunate benchmark got me thinking about an article I read a few weeks ago titled Gas Prices Send Surge of Riders to Mass Transit. Here's part of it:

With the price of gas approaching $4 a gallon, more commuters are abandoning their cars and taking the train or bus instead ... Mass transit systems around the country are seeing standing-room-only crowds on bus lines where seats were once easy to come by. Parking lots at many bus and light rail stations are suddenly overflowing, with commuters in some towns risking a ticket or tow by parking on nearby grassy areas and in vacant lots.

Now, I wouldn't imagine that Santa Barbara is to this point yet, but it doesn't seem as if gas prices are going down any time soon. Thus, it might be in Santa Barbara's best interest to continue strengthening our public transportation infrastructure rather than going in the opposite direction. Your recent positions, however, don't encourage me. For example, The Daily Sound quoted you as saying the following about dedicated transit lanes:

To me, any practical implementation of the idea of dedicated transit lanes is going to be astonishingly expensive … This would not be the time to be spending upwards of half a million dollars that we don’t have.

When is the time, Mr. Francisco? Should we wait until gas is $8 a gallon? I would ask that -- in light of recent events -- you reevaluate your hard line positions on this issue and consider the changes going on around the country. The NYT article I referenced earlier ends this way:

"Nobody believed that people would actually give up their cars to ride public transportation," said Joseph J. Giulietti, executive director of the authority. "But in the last year, and last several months in particular, we have seen exactly that."

Hmmm, I wouldn't say nobody believed it.

Sincerely,

The Average Man

YOU DRIVE ME CRAZY - TAKE 2

I suppose the risk of writing a blog is that someone might actually read it. In Tuesday's post, I took Frank Hotchkiss and Dale Francisco to task for their comments regarding transportation in the Santa Barbara Daily Sound. Since Dale Francisco took the time to compose a detailed and thoughtful rebuttal, I felt it only fair to repeat his letter in a separate post and then respond to the response ...

Average Man,

As you said, where to begin?

First, I agree with you that congestion pricing is one potential means of reducing traffic congestion. It makes sense to reward people for traveling in off-peak hours. But of course that's not an "alternative" form of transportation, it's simply making better use of the automobile and the road infrastructure.

It is one thing to point out that there are alternatives--cycling, walking, mass transit--to automobile travel. Who could disagree? It is quite another to show how a significant percentage of Santa Barbara's traffic in people, goods, and services is going to be shifted to those transportation modes.

It is not "defeatist" to note that private transportation's overwhelming popularity is due to the choices and convenience it provides. It is far more realistic to work on technologies that improve private transportation--i.e., making it more green--than to continue in a policy of "encouraging" people to "get out of their cars," when there is little empirical evidence that such measures work.

When I told the reporter at the Sound that our local transportation planners were stuck in the 1970s, I spoke of a very specific example. Our planners are still focused on commuting trips, which were a majority of all automobile passenger miles back then. Now they constitute around 25% of all trips. What that means is that automobile ownership and usage have expanded to encompass trips to school, trips to music lessons, shopping trips, and endless other variations--a highly individualized web of trips ill suited to mass transit. Private transportation is deeply embedded in people's lives.

Those are the choices that people have made. If we're serious about reducing pollution, then the solution will likely come from cleaner technologies, not forced behavioral changes. In a democracy, if you want to promote an alternative, then people must willingly, indeed eagerly embrace it.

It's fine to set an example by renouncing the use of cars, and I have nothing but admiration for those who live their beliefs in that way. And I have nothing against alternative transportation. I originally came to Santa Barbara partly because this is one of the world's best places for biking and hiking, and because it has a walkable downtown. If I never had to drive a car, I'd be delighted. My own car typically spends days at a time parked at home.

I've spent a great deal of time studying and thinking about transportation planning. You may disagree with some of the conclusions I've reached, but I came to them in good faith, and like you I'm interested in the good of our community.

I'd be happy to talk over any of these issues with you in person, or by phone (I'm in the phone book).

Best regards,
Dale Francisco

Let me start off by saying that I do very much appreciate your comments, and your letter definitely leaves me with a different impression of Dale Francisco than I received from the Sound story. Having said that, however, I'm in this game to fight for a better country, and it seems to me that you didn't really address the spirit of my argument. I'd like to begin by looking at this quote:

It is not "defeatist" to note that private transportation's overwhelming popularity is due to the choices and convenience it provides.

It may not be defeatist to note the popularity of automobiles, but it is defeatist to say that nothing can or should be done about it. Your overall argument is that cars are here, they steer, so get used to it. To me, this is defeatist in the same way that some feel global warming is too big to address. Just because something is popular or convenient, doesn't mean it's good for the health and well being of the community. You continue:

It is far more realistic to work on technologies that improve private transportation--i.e., making it more green--than to continue in a policy of "encouraging" people to "get out of their cars," when there is little empirical evidence that such measures work.

Why not do both? And what's the evidence that such measures don't work? I've been to Toronto, Paris, London, and Amsterdam in the course of the last few years, and public transportation is just awesome -- and highly utilized -- in those cities. Would you tell them it doesn't work? I might agree with you that a strategy to "get people out of their cars" would be a hard sell "today," but we're not talking about today; we're talking about the future. As someone who wants to be a leader in this community, I think it is your responsibility to look past the current state of affairs and help to guide us in the right direction. You go on to say:

In a democracy, if you want to promote an alternative, then people must willingly, indeed eagerly embrace it.

Exactly! But it's not going to happen on its own. Let's not call it punishment; let's call it incentives. You say that Mayor Bloomberg's plan is not an "alternative" form of transportation. I disagree. If you have to pay $8 to drive into the city, less people will do it. Granted, that's a stick. So, then you use carrots as well. Carpool lanes, for example, are a carrot. More buses with more routes is a carrot. Making it difficult to park is a stick. The point is that you use every tool at your disposal to move the city where it needs to go.

In summary, I admire your commitment to green energy, and I'm happy to see you embrace cleaner technologies. But that's only half the picture ... taking any discussion of getting people out of their cars off the table is not in our long term interests.

Now, let's talk about The Light Blue Line Project :)

YOU DRIVE ME CRAZY

For well over a decade, my morning commute consisted of the 101 southbound stretch between Santa Barbara and Carpinteria. Granted, I haven't seen all the beauty this great country has to offer, but I can't imagine there are many nicer sites than the big blue ocean I had the luxury of viewing out the right side of my car. The left side, however, was a completely different story ... year after year, I watched with sadness as those poor people from Ventura had to endure more and more congestion in their simple quest to make a living each day in SB. Today, that scene can only be described as a traffic nightmare. If you don't leave your house before the rooster crows in the morning, you better hope to have a good audio book to pass the time.

That's where we are today, and it certainly shows no sign of slowing any time soon. So, what is one to do about this traffic quagmire? That's easy: just expand the freeway, right? Maybe; maybe not. For me, widening the 101 may seem like a quick and easy solution, but it is ultimately short sighted and doesn't really address the main issue ... The fact is that you can keep widening roads until the cows come home, but we all know deep down that this strategy is a short term one. The California Department of Finance recently projected that there will be some 60 million people living in the California by 2050. If you don't really comprehend what that means, I think Verlyn Klinkenborg did a good job of outlining the implications in his July 18th New York Times Editorial:

Somehow the numbers in themselves don’t really suggest the sobering weight of this projection. To say that for every three Californians now there will be five in 2050 doesn’t capture the scale of change. If you said that for every three houses now there will be five in 2050, or for every three cars, ditto, you might be getting a little closer to the visceral feel of the thing. But when it comes to houses and cars, California is a land of loaves and fishes, always multiplying in the most unexpected ways.

Now, let's think locally. Like many of you, I am still evaluating the candidates for the upcoming Santa Barbara City Council race and have not yet made up my mind as to who should get my vote. I will, however, say this ... Frank Hotchkiss and Dale Francisco should be voted off the island. Last week, the Santa Barbara Daily Sound interviewed all the candidates for their thoughts surrounding transportation. There were many interesting ideas thrown around on this important subject, but let's just focus on those two guys. First, here's what the Sound had to say about Hotchkiss:

While Hotchkiss admitted he is not an expert in transportation and traffic circulation engineering, he said his stance on how the city needs to address congestion concerns is fairly straightforward ... "Clearly I'm a car guy," Hotchkiss said ... Reiterating a statement he made earlier in his campaign, he said Santa Barbara needs to prepare for a future with cars, instead of trying to force them into alternative forms of transportation ... "At least let's not plan on someone not having a car..."

And here's part of the article regarding Francisco:

Traffic planners in Santa Barbara are stuck in the 1970s, clinging to the idea that automobiles are inherently bad, Francisco said ... "I would like to see some realism," he said. "...There is no question that there are downsides to automobiles. But what is the alternative?"

Um, where to begin? If you've been paying attention at all, Santa Barbara is doing some great things in the transportation arena. From electric buses to more bike lanes; from increased MTD routes to biodiesel in city fleets, we are more than committed to being a green city. All these solutions may not be perfect -- and there is clearly work to be done -- but the defeatest statements by Hotchkiss and Francisco are just plain backwards. Reading these quotes, I was immediately reminded of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to make NYC the greenest big U.S. city by reducing the city's global warming emissions 30 percent by 2030. As I quoted in that blog entry:

... Bloomberg's first (and toughest) sell may be congestion pricing for Manhattan, which he reluctantly embraced out of fear the economy of the city could be paralyzed by a projected 20 percent increase, by 2030, of traffic on the already clogged island ... The $8-a-day fee for cars and $21 for trucks ... would pay for vast subway improvements and expansion, plus increased commuter connections into the city.

Doesn't it feel a little silly to say that the answer for Santa Barbara is "At least let's not plan on someone not having a car" and "What's the alternative?" when New York City is coming up with solutions like that one? And speaking of Bloomberg, Thomas L. Friedman (you know, The World is Flat guy) wrote a great New York Times Op-Ed piece recently on this subject. Here's a part of it:

On May 22, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the greenest mayors in America, decided to push even further, insisting on a new rule, which the taxi commission has to approve, that will not just permit but require all cabs — 13,000 in all — to be hybrids or other low-emission vehicles that get at least 30 miles a gallon, within five years.

"When it comes to health and safety and environmental issues, government should be setting standards," the mayor said. "What you need are leaders who are willing to push for standards that are in society’s long-term interest." When the citizens see the progress, Mr. Bloomberg added, "then they start to lead." And this encourages leaders to seek even higher standards.

This is how scale change happens...

He couldn't be more right. So, Santa Barbara, let's elect leaders who actually lead in November and not entertain people who are truly stuck in the 1970s.