BookBlog

Glad to be in California, #53

The first time I heard the radio ad on the network news radio station, I was driving in traffic and wasn't sure I heard what I heard. The next time I listened closely. "We've been planning this day for a long time" says the woman's voice. Kathy and I want the day to be special. "Rick and I wanted to a symbol of our love and commitment" says a man's voice. The radio-dignified voiceover: "Shreve and Company. A San Francisco tradition." Schmaltzy, yup. Consumerist, check. An every day sign of culture and values. Also yes.

Mountain Charlie Challenge

I went to Scotts Valley today to pick up my bike, and headed over to a local bike shop for some ride recommendations, since it's rumored to be fine biking territory.

I was thinking about maybe heading toward the coast and riding 25 miles or so. For the month or so before the Danskin triathlon I'd been focusing on shorter, somewhat flatter rides followed by runs, so I hadn't been doing lots of hills.

I asked the friendly bike store guy what he recommended. He got out a map, and drew a magic marker route from central Scotts Valley up Mountain Charlie Road. He said it was about 20 miles. Now, he looked at me, and looked at my bike, and made the recommendation. I figured that if he thought I could do it, I ought to be able to do it.

So I had some lunch at Scotts Valley Falafel, changed, and headed uphill. The ride was absolutely gorgeous through redwood forest, with spectacular views on both sides of the road. When I got home I mapped it. The hill had about 1500 feet of elevation gain over 4 miles. The steepest parts had a grade of 17, most of the ride was about 5.

When I got to the Bay Area, I was pretty out of shape. Wherever I went, I would look up at the hills and wonder if I'd be able to ever climb them on a bike. Being able to reach a miscellaneous Santa Cruz range summit is a pretty big thrill.

Absurdly bad bill in CA Assembly threatens to close public GIS data

A ridiculously bad bill in the California state assembly threatens to exempt Geographic Information System (GIS) data from the California Public Records Act. AB1978, sponsored by Assembly Member Jose Solorio (D-Orange County) was in response to a court ruling that declared that Santa Clara County's base map information is public data.

Government GIS data is a valuable source of information for planning, environmental action, and many other areas of public interest. Closing this down is a step entirely in the wrong direction. The availability of public data in the internet age is creating amazing new opportunities for public participation. We need to be making more data accessible, not less.

If you live in California, call your member of the state Assembly. If you happen to live or work in Mountain View, you can be especially helpful. Your rep, Sally Lieber is on the Local Gov't Committee where this bill is being reviewed.

For more information, see this blog post from the California First Amendment Coalition

GreenDevCamp is back on

After a few days of seeking new sponsorship, GreenDevCamp is back on, at the Green Building Center in Redwood City. This will be for brainstorming, exploring, producing and launching technology and practices aimed at Green Technology and Policies. Looks like a lot of fun.

El Camino planning session lost in the weeds

On Thursday, I went to a meeting of the Menlo Park El Camino citizen advisory board. The consultancy hired by the city presented the material they were planning to use in the community feedback meeting this upcoming Thursday. It is supposed to be about defining a vision for Menlo Park. It skipped the vision stuff, and dived down into the details of implementing development plans. To the extent that there was any vision, it was concealed and coded. People were far to polite or politic to describe the visions that were implied by the plans.

There were two parts to the presentation. The first showed three different development scenario - minimal change, moderate change, and maximum change.

The "change" in the pictures, though, was new development and density. The first scenario showed a handful of new buildings, the second a few more, and the third showed more new, taller, bigger buildings, with a bunch of new parking lots too. There was nothing about the character and purpose of the buildings, the design of the buildings, and the way people at ground level will get around among the buildings.

And there was no supporting information to help people make these choices.There was no additional information about the impact on the number of residents, number of workers, how people would be travelling and getting around, impact on tax revenues, impact on schools.

The second part showed different plans for increasing sidewalk width, in three segments of El Camino. Should sidewalks be widened by taking space out of the building lot or the street?

What are the underlying assumptions in this presentation?

There are a bunch of empty and underutilized lots, and the open question is how much community approval there will be to build big buildings on them -- not what sorts of buildings, and the character of community created by the buildings.

People want sidewalks. But sidewalks alone don't make a neighborhood walkable! For a walkable neighborhood, you need a bunch of destinations that are close enough that people care to walk from place to place. And you need people who live and work close enough to walk, or to have a destination that is compelling enough that people will drive there and get out of their cars and walk around.

Community input is not being framed to solicit a vision for the city. Instead it is being framed to get citizen input on implementation details.

And even this input is missing a few important things. There was a Stanford representative on the panel. He said, "some of the lots are going to be occupied soon." He didn't say by whom and for what purpose. Ok, thanks.

What's missing from this picture? The kinds of input we citizens can have on the process, other than being "pro-development" or "anti-development."

Fortunately, several people on the panel raised the concern that the things that citizens we being asked to weigh in on were at the wrong level level of detail, and missing key information that will help people formulate opinion. I don't know whether the consulting firm got the point, or if they did, have time to make the changes that would spark a more meangingful public conversation.

There were also some interesting clues about the points of view in the community. One man on the panel scoffed at the idea to add more sidewalks, since El Camino is noisy and nobody wants to walk anyway. A man in the audience talked about improving nightlife in Menlo Park, and creating more of a village.

There are at least three contrasting visions for Menlo Park:
* maximal suburbia. Minimal new development, maximal new parking lots, and expand the roads for faster traffic. Pay homage to the needs of pedestrians by adding flyover bridges and walkways, but don't make anything anybody would walk to
* urban village. Add mixed use, transit oriented development that draws people to live, work, and play, and walk or bike when moving around town. Be a place that people want to come to.
* whatever developers can get away with. Build buildings, as big as possible, wherever they will fit, however you can get approval for them.

It would be interesting to have this conversation, but it's pretty well hidden in the cross-section diagrams of sidewalks.

What are the barriers to a connected transit system?

I talked to a board member of one of the Bay Area transit agencies who had some interesting insights into the situation. From his perspective, the path toward improved connectivity starts very small.

The technical reason for poor connectivity in his region is that the buses are not on the same schedule as the train. For example, trains run every 20 minutes and buses every 15 (it could be the other way around, I don't remember) But in order to synch up, the bus agency would need to run more buses, and that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. They can only cost-justify that with additional ridership.

How to get additional ridership? They went to their marketing person and asked her to run a marketing campaign. She said, "what can I market, the buses are always late. The best thing you could do would be to improve on-time performance." So they sent trouble-shooters to the branches, to understand the reasons buses run late and fix the problems.

So, from his perspective, the single biggest thing the agency can do to build constituency for better connectivity is to get the buses to start running on time.

So what's this peripheral canal thing, anyway?

The reason I read up on California water history was to understand the background of this past season's political debate. Fine geeky recreation. Radio programs said that Governor Schwartzenagger's proposal to restore the delta was a recap of the "peripheral canal" project which was politically defeated in the 1980s. Ok, so what was the peripheral canal. Why was it defeated. Was it good or bad then? Is it good or bad now? Would it restore the delta, and why is the delta in such terrible shape, anyway?

So, here's my summary attempt to answer these questions. Bear in mind that I just got to California and read a few books. These opinions reflect that highly imperfect knowledge.

Why is the Delta in terrible shape? Largely because fresh water is being siphoned off in massive quantities. On an average year (using 1980 to 92 to calculate the average), about 26 million acre-feet of water flowed from the Delta's sources, and 5 million of that gets diverted to farms and cities in central and southern california. Take that much fresh water out of an estuary evolved for a shifting mix of salt and fresh water, and the ecosystem declines. Other reasons include pollution from farm and city runoff, and the "flood prevention" system that keeps the area from being regularly recharged by spring floods, and keeps houses dry for the two million people who currently live in the region.

So, would the peripheral canal restore the delta? Well, the governor's version did have funding for some environmental restoration, but in sum, it takes more water out of the delta. Taking more water out doesn't seem like the right direction.

Why did the peripheral canal fail in the 80s? For the most part, Southern and Central Californians were in favor of it and Northern Californians were opposed. But the dynamics of the fateful 1982 election were more complicated. Some supporters stopped fighting for the canal, because the initiative also included protection for some wild rivers. The water lobby got greedy and opposed the wild river measure as a bad precedent.

Why are California water politics so stuck, and so environmentally destructive (This is my own inference based on spotty information and could be horribly wrong). Agriculture, which uses 80% of the state's water, is a large, $30+ billion dollar industry with very large players, and seems to have the legislature well bought. Through a combination of federal and state programs, farms get subsidized water at 1/100th the the price paid in cities, and so agriculture has minimal incentive to conserve. There is a historical alliance between southern california's cities and central california's agricultural districts to take more water than the environment can bear.

So, why has Arnold's plan failed so far? It is described as a partisan issue, with democrats opposing the plan to build a peripheral canal, plus dams and reservoirs. But how did the dynamics map to the North/South, urban/rural divides? Hard to say without doing some more looking into the issue.

Is there any way to get agriculture to waste less water? Much of the farm water subsidies are federal, and the structure of the Senate makes that equation politically tough. State incentives to transition from wasteful methods would be helpful, but not as much as needed. In California, would it be possible to break the historical alliance between Southern California cities, which have done a spectacular job of conservation in recent decades, and probably lean more blue and green, agriculture, which continues to waste? Has this happened already, and is this dynamic contributing to the woes of Arnold's water plan? I have no idea.

pls. After I read a few long, juicy books, I found this cogent summary, which provides the big picture view of California water use and water troubles. If you're curious and don't want to read long books, start here.

Doctors with Email

I wanted to get my first medical checkup since arriving in California, so I asked a friend for a referral. The doctor herself seemed fine, but:
* they required two appointments to get a checkup, since so many patients bail before the appointment (this in retrospect was a bad sign)
* they required a second visit for routine blood tests, and there was a 45 minute wait to get blood drawn
* when I called to make the real checkup appointment, I spent over 30 minutes on hold, and then gave up

That was enough. After some research, I found that the Palo Alto Medical Foundation has a service where you can make appointments and review test results online. That sounds perfect -- no time on hold. They also have a nice online physician lookup service so you can find doctors who are taking new patients.

Thank you PAMF, this is customer service for the 21st century.

Tour de Menlo

So, I'm signed up for the Tour de Menlo, and I'm a little nervous about it. I'm planning to do the "tame" 30 mile route, not the 50 mile killer-hill route. Pluses:

• Local community races are fun (have been to many 10K running races, this is the first bike race I've been to).
• I know I can do the route: I biked a superset of it last weekend.

Minus:

• Maybe I'll be the slowest person on the course.

I ride on some popular routes in the area, and oodles of people pass me. The worst case scenario is that it's a fun ride on a beautiful day, I get a t-shirt. Not so bad.

Update: I finished the race, climbed the biggest hill without walking (but did stop a few times), got to the rest stop and finish before they closed, and got the t-shirt.

Consumer environmentalism or system change?

Are Menlo Park willing to make the changes required to really mitigate global warming and peak oil? The city has signed onto the US Mayor's Climate Change agreement, vowing to reduce greenhouse gases, and has city staff and community members engaged in efforts to identify ways to get greener.

It seems like the most popular tactics are green buying on behalf of households, businesses and the city. It's a fairly wealthy community, and people seem excited by the prospect of solar roofs and pools, greener lighting, cars and driveways. These things aren't trivial. New technologies and processes need early adopters. It's great to be in a community that's willing to experiment.

But will people really get behind the lifestyle and land use changes needed to make the biggest dent in fossil fuel use? As in, drive less. Cars are the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and the biggest consumers of oil. In order to really mitigate global warming and peak oil, people need to drive less, and that means less sprawl and better transit.

Infill development and public transit are much more controversial. For a newcomer, it's hard to tell how much is sincere concern that useful changes won't be a bad deal for neighborhoods, and how much is just plain nimbyism.

How to tell you're in California

Where the State Assembly just just based a bill to incent solar hot water heaters, and the state senator met constituents at the farmer's market.

The bridge across the bay

Last week, I went to the Menlo Park city council meeting that covered Caltrain's plan to extend commuter rail across the San Francisco Bay. Trips to the East Bay represent the largest share of miles that I drive. I probably go to SF more often, but take Caltrain a decent share of the time. I never take public transit to the east bay, because of the "you can't get there from here" factor. It's physically possible to do it, but it takes about twice as long, so someone who has another option wouldn't do it. A good proportion of Bay Area Socialtexters who have convenient access to public transit get to work by train or bus, or bike, and we have a couple of employees who live in the east bay who might take public transit if it was more convenient. So a train across the bay sounded like a pretty good idea to me.

The council meeting was educational. Dozens of people came out from the neighborhood that would be affected by the train, who were either concerned or adamantly opposed. They didn't want a train through their backyards; and funding for features like grade crossings and sound barriers weren't clearly available. People were seriously worried that the plan was a stalking horse for freight rail. Apparently, Southern Pacific has the legal right to take freight trains across the bay if the tracks are upgraded to handle freight. For people who live near the tracks, a freight trains running all night long would be horrid. The projections of commuter ridership didn't do a lot to dispel the fear that commuting wasn't the main purpose of the program.

The ridership estimates were low -- only about 6,000 passengers per day, about 10% of the car traffic across the bridge. The Caltrain did not seem to have end-user benefits as clear priorities, with only six rides per day. Options to cut costs in various ways would cut connectivity as the first resort to cutting costs, dumping passengers in Newark, without a train connection. It was not clear why the ridership estimates were so low; perhaps because the proposed service is not very convenient.

Some city council members and community members are pushing for a bus rapid transit option instead of the train. This could be more convenient, cheaper, and less noisy. I got up and spoke in the interest of people who would benefit from better cross-bay commuting, even though it was scary to speak amid the parade of people arguing vehemently against the route.

The meeting was an excellent education on the the difficult dynamics of regional transit in the bay area. The transit agency representatives sounded more interested in upgrading their trains than serving commuters, or making sure that people who lived by the tracks would still have livable neighborhoods. The room was full of people who didn't want a train in their back yard; and there was only one speaker (me) providing personal testimony about benefits.

Given the risks to the oil supply and global warming, I think we are going to very badly need improved regional transit. Right now, organizational dynamics make it harder to do.

p.s. As far as I could tell, the Almanac and the Palo Alto Daily didn't cover the session. There is no local media to be found.

Menlo Green

Last Wednesday I went to the first meeting of the Menlo Park Green Ribbon Citizen's committee, a group convened by mayor Kelly Ferguson to help Menlo fight global warming. The group will present recommendations to city council later in the year. One role model is Palo Alto, which organized a similar task force which issued a Report last December with propsoals for Palo Alto.

Attendees at the Menlo meeting included people involved in green businesses, environmental organizations, developers, chamber of commerce folk, neighborhood group reps, and others. At the first meeting, the group brainstormed dozens of ideas, ranging from the practical and locally focused -- accelerated permitting for solar, efficient street lights, improve bike paths, solar thermal for the town pool to the, er, ambitious, "ban the internet", and "ban lawns". I'm curious about how the group will take the brainstorming start and turn it into practical proposals. And to see how bringing together folks with common interests might catalyze civic organizing outside of the structure of this groups.

The Bay Area with climate change: drowning and thirsty

At the first meeting of the Menlo Park Green Ribbon Commission, city council member Heyward Robinson showed slices from a presentation on the impact of global warming on the Bay Area. I'd already seen the picture where SFO is under water, and the neighborhoods east of 101 swim with the fishes. Another dramatic slide showed the impact of global warming on the snowpack that feeds the Hetch Hetchy reservoir. With a 3-5 degree increase in average temperature, we could lose 30-60% of the snowpack. And that's the optimistic scenario.

Slide sharing courtesy of Slideshare. Thanks Rashmi and Jon!

Tree maps and bike paths

Spinning Crank is 12-page newsletter published by the Silicon Valley and Peninsula bicycle coalitions. Town by town, the newsletter reports on actions to build bridges and bikeracks, expand trails, and improve intersctions for cyclists and pedestrians. The members attend meetings, dog the details, and make sure that cyclists are represented in road design.

Another artifact of local culture: this map of a neighborhood I bike through on the way to work has native Redwood, Coast Live Oak, Alder, and adopted Hawthorne, Magnolia, and Mayten trees.

Coast Redwood (Native)	Mayten Tree (Chile)

The city of Palo Alto clearly values its trees enough to have a complete inventory of them; residents value them enough to go on "tree walk" tours, and there was enough interest to publish the tree walks on the net.

Hmmm... this really wants to be a Google mashup for a walking map or gps tour, with added photos.... So many hacks, so little time.

Welcome to camellia country

I'd never noticed Camellias, because I've never lived in Camellia country before. The northeast got too cold and austin was too hot. Camellias are pretty, hardy, and popular garden flowers have networks of fanciers like roses. It's february, which is the local season for apple and cherry blossoms, magnolias, dogwoods and camellias. The magnolia blossoms are already past their prime.

Yesterday, I cycled to the Elizabeth Gamble gardens to see how Palo Alto interpreted the February spring. Turned out that Camellias were the main attraction.