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.