Reason #2. There are more effective ways to fight traffic congestion. This method is like using a chain saw to do heart surgery.

One of the things I learned in high school art class was that skilled craftsman know what tools to use for a particular task. The more tools in one's tool-box and the more skillful one is in using those tools, the more likely it is that one would consider a variety of ways to craft an object. By the same rule, "if the only tool in your box was a hammer, every problem would look like a nail."

It is pretty clear to me that if the well intentioned folks who crafted Proposition T had spent the time constructing a truly effective traffic reduction methodology, they would not have chosen such a blunt instrument. Their tool is the product of a methodology born in the 1960's and refined slightly, over the next several decades, until its ossification in publications put out by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), that have been, dare I say it, fundamentally discredited by contemporary practitioners of the art and practice of City and Town Planning.

The ITE's methodology, based on empirical data from the suburbs, required every 250 square feet of office space and every 200 square feet of retail space to require at least one parking space and to generate two or more car trips. As I've stated in previous posts, no mitigating factors were assumed (such as the fact that someone might walk between stores, or from home to work, etc). As a result, statistics like those displayed below, which are national averages were also assumed to apply to all areas equally. It also assumed that all parking would be free to the driver (at least seemingly free. See, The High Cost of Free Parking, by Donald Shoup, for a complete disputation of that assumption).
Given the ITE's logic, it stands to reason that reducing the amount of commercial space would reduce car trips, no? Well, no, actually. It's not that simple. It wasn't then and it isn't now. Yet, so mindless was this characterization that it became a self-fulfilling prophecy that was codified nearly identically in zoning manuals from Portland Maine, to Portland, Oregon. You'd think there would be regional differences, but no, there is a surprisingly similarity. The reality is that the amount of "internal capture" (a planner's term for those within a study area who stay in the area) within cities varies widely. For example, Annapolis, MD enjoys upwards of a 50% capture rate between jobs and housing. Having lived there one summer, I can tell you I saw lots of folks walking from home to work. (And you thought I was going to use New York as the example, didn't you?). To achieve that kind capture, you must have a very robust mix of uses within close proximity.

This obvious little fact is one of many tidbits of reality that transportation planners have learned (well I should say, relearned) over the last couple of decades. There are indeed a lot of things that affect "trip generation rates," not the least of which is density and land-use mix, among others. I would call such urban form-making strategies, "naturally occurring Transportation Demand Management Techniques." However, urban form (which not only includes such considerations as land use and density, but also walkability, block size, roadway width, and at least a couple of dozen other considerations), constitutes only one set of tools within the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) toolbox (an important set, to be sure, but not the only one). What are some of these other techniques? Simply put, TDM includes a variety of strategies that change travel behavior, for example by encouraging more efficient travel patterns, such as shifts from peak to off-peak periods and parking "cash-out" offers which encourage shifts from automobile to alternative modes (e.g., shifting from riding alone, to car-pooling, bicycling and/or walking). The Victoria Transport Policy Institute in Victoria, BC has an extraordinary website called the TDM encyclopedia that has more than you'll ever want to know about this subject http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm12.htm. From the website:

Many factors affect people’s transport decisions including the relative convenience and safety of travel modes (such as whether streets have sidewalks and bikepaths, and the quality of transit services available), prices (transit fares and the price of parking at destinations); and land use factors (such as whether or not schools, parks and shops are located close to residential neighborhoods).

There are numerous TDM strategies using various approaches to influence travel decisions. Some improve the transport options available; some provide incentives to change travel mode, time or destination [i.e. parking "cash-outs where employees are paid not to bring their car]; others improve land use accessibility; some involve transport policy reforms and new programs that provide a foundation for TDM.

Municipalities that have successfully utilized TDMs have done so by negotiating with developers prior to a project's approval. In such cases, the developer commits to a percentage of employees that will arrive in something other than a single-occupancy vehicle, and posts bonds to guarantee compliance, which is checked annually by the municipality. Jurisdictions have been able to achieve a reduction of 50 to 60% or more, of ride-alone commuters.

So now I hear you say, "Gee, utilizing TDM sounds like a good idea. Why not pass Prop-T and use TDMs," as many have written to me, privately? The simple answer is because RIFT's arbitrary and capricious cap on commercial development makes the the use of TDMs much more difficult. While LUCE does include a fairly strong set of recommendations for TDMs, it also assumes a certain amount of traffic reduction through that "naturally occurring Transportation Demand Management" that occurs as a result of land-use mix and density. RIFT represents a strategic and tactical blunder of the highest order by disregarding that careful balance. Put another way, if one utilizes a chain saw to perform heart surgery, regardless of how skillful the heart surgeon is, it will be very difficult to sew the patient back up again.

Reason #5. This measure, will effect the ability to redevelop abandoned industrial sites in the city particularly along Olympic Avenue

Santa Monica has 400-acres of industrial land, some of it with vacant and rusting buildings occupying its terrain. The largest chunks of that land are along Olympic, a verdant, yet otherwise, pedestrian unfriendly thoroughfare, where among other things a “Paper Mate” factory once operated. Opened in 1958, it housed the company’s large stationery products operation where they made, among other things, ball-point pens, and those ubiquitous, “Flairs.”* At its heyday, its work force numbered more than 1,000, but at its closing in 2005, that number had dwindled to 214. The factory was the last significant remnant of our “beach town’s" industrial past (of the type which produced a utilitarian object), which also included Louver Drapes and Merle Norman cosmetics (and of course, the big kahuna, Douglas Aircraft, which I’ve written about in a previous post).

So what should happen to that land along Olympic? Well, for a city that prides itself on sustainability, nothing short of a street that accommodates pedestrians and cyclists as well as cars would seem appropriate. And if you look at LUCE, the land use component of the City’s new General Plan, http://www.shapethefuture2025.net/PDF/luce_docs/LUCE_districts.pdf, developed after a long, arduous and highly transparent process, and turn to pages 40-50, you’ll see a very thoughtful set of policies and strategies on everything from the mixing of uses, to the “graining” of the street grid (more on that below) as well as to the character of the streets and public realm. And while LUCE’s vision for Olympic doesn’t sound very beachy, heck, this area isn’t on the beach, and never was part of that scene.

Now some of the proponents of RIFT argue that with amount of existing commercial space already in the area, and the credit that RIFT provides for re-use there should be no problem providing enough local serving retail and services on the ground floor of residential uses. Well first of all, that assumes that a residential - only district (with local serving retail) is smart policy on a site within walking distance of a new light rail stop. As I’ve argued earlier, I don’t agree. Nor do I think it is smart from a market perspective to have so much of one use (housing) on any one site (too many eggs in one basket) and that fact alone will discourage most developers capable of taking on such a redevelopment.

But here’s the other rub even if a housing only policy was thought to be wise, RIFT won’t even allow for significant local serving retail unless the housing that is built is exclusively “affordable.” Look at what Proposition T says about the re-use of commercial space:

Projects that are subject to the limit but replace or remodel existing buildings could receive a “credit” for some or all of the existing building’s floor area. This credit would reflect the fact that the site already generates traffic. Availability of this credit would depend upon a comparison of traffic to be generated by the new building and traffic generated by the existing building. The measure establishes the formula for comparison.

So the details are in the formula, eh?

“Using the most recently available trip generation methodology and data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE)…” [So right there we start off with a whopping problem. As we’ve seen previously, in Reason #10, this methodology has been the subject of serious, if not fatal, critiques], “or a comparable source used by jurisdictions of comparable size to Santa Monica…” [I can just hear that debate now,] “…the city shall ascertain the number of vehicle trips per week (on a gross basis without adjustments for trip generation) [So right there, we establish that such things as Transportation Demand Management techniques, or credits for mixing uses, etc. will not be counted – sort of the opposite of an incentive]…associated with (a) the buildings to be remodeled or replaced (based on the size, design and primary use of the building for the past two years), and (b) the new building (based on the approved size, design and all conditions of approval affecting the use of the building). Each number shall be divided by the square footage of the building to ascertain for the purposes of this policy only, the projected trips per square foot for each building”

For more go to: http://www.smclc.net/PDF/RIFT/RIFT-filing.pdf

In other words, for the purposes of this ordinance, a factory of 2,000,000 square feet that once employed over 1,000 people, but that has sat vacant for 3 years is considered to have never existed! If by some bizarre set of occurances, the owners wanted to start making things there again, say films or video games or some other creative activity, they’d have to go through this ITE formula to see how much credit they could secure, which is probably about 12% of what’s there now. And as I said earlier, all this is assuming that this land should be utilized exclusively for housing. But why does that make any sense when it is only blocks from a transit stop? Why shouldn’t the city benefit from the asset by achieving the increased tax revenue that the commercial uses would provide, even while providing ample space for affordable, work-force and market rate housing. Why shouldn’t someone be able to walk to work? For example, LUCE spells out a vision for the Paper Mate site and surrounding area that reads in part:

Creative arts uses and spaces for artists to work shall be preserved and enhanced. This includes, but is not limited to, the development or adaptive reuse of small, flexible and affordable performance venues and visual arts spaces.

Sounds like a good idea, no? But as we’ve seen, the adaptive re-use of existing spaces, would count as new space, which will compete against medical office, and fast food restaurants.

Further to the east in what is now, essentially a set a distribution centers, composed of warehouse spaces and small manufacturing spaces:

The Mixed Use Creative District is envisioned as a mixed use commercial / residential neighborhood where opportunities for creative arts jobs are balanced with a variety of market and affordable housing and neighborhood serving retail and services. These uses will provide support for the Exposition light rail line by bringing jobs and housing closer to high-frequency transit service. [Note that] Land intensive uses, such as automobile dealerships and their associated operations, are not appropriate for the District.

Note that LUCE makes a distinction between commercial uses, because different uses are, well different, something that RIFT does not.

Part of the neighborhood vision is a new retail “Main Street” along the western end of Nebraska Avenue and northward along Stanford Street. This area should contain local serving retail and services on the ground floor of mixed use buildings or in stand-alone retail buildings.

Oh my God, stand alone retail!!! But read the rest of the document to discover that such retail will be of the urban type. So let’s say a Target store, or its ilk (one that doesn’t sell merchandise produced by abused or underpaid workers) were to come into the mix (which we’ve seen from examples throughout the nation can fit quite comfortably in an urban environment)? Think of the traffic that would generate. To which I would ask, how much traffic currently originates in Santa Monica and leaves in order to find such services? If you’re a Santa Monican, where do you go now to get to a store like that?

One of the things the pro-RIFTers, like the Friends of Sunset Park, complain about is a proposed 200,000 additional sq ft of commercial/office proposed for the area claiming 2,000 additional daily car trips through Pico neighborhood and Sunset Park. Well, 200,000 square feet of office may sound like a lot, but it's chump change compared to what’s at the old factory. What device will be used to clean that old factory site up? Who will pay to haul that scrap metal away? In addition, 2,000 car trips a day, is a ridiculous, suburban one. Given that this is near the future expo line, and given various TDMs, I can easily imagine, that number being halved, (without breaking a sweat).** My gosh, how did the workers at Paper Mate get to work? With creativity, I can see the overall number of car trips to be kept at near zero. You don't believe me...Stanford University was able to add 2,000,000 sf of R&D, and office space without adding one car trip!!!

But let’s face it, if the 200,000 squre feet of space that were added were anything like the Water Gardens site immediately adjacent to the west, that would be a crime. That project, a stand-alone single-use, office park, with no internal street grid, is the very epitome of what NOT to do.

And look what LUCE has to say in that area:

Affordable and workforce housing are highly desirable in this area. …Clear edges are envisioned for the northeast portion of the district to assure an appropriate interface with the adjacent existing residential neighborhood.

Key to the success of this neighborhood will be the creation of new streets to provide ninterconnectivity with the existing grid. The grid will connect to the new street system in the Bergamot Transit Village District and streets such as Stanford Street, Berkeley and Franklin Street should extend to the south and intersect with Olympic Boulevard….The combination of increased connectivity and local-serving retail and offices within walking or biking distance will tie into an overall trip reduction strategy for the neighborhood.

Earlier, I wrote of the LUCE’s strategy for the graining of the streets. One of the big advantages for the redevelopment of these lands as as an urbane, mixed use redevelopment is that it allows for a fine grained street grid to replace what is now a very coarse grained network of thoroughfares. This finer grain, allows multiple routes to any destination thus relieving the burden on any one street, like Cloverfield. It also allows narrower, more pedestrian friendly streets. Moreover, a fine grain is more pedestrian friendly (a number of studies have proven a link between small block size (fine grain) and "walkability," and allow for a much easier way to distribute a hierarchy of uses. This is a key element in the traffic reduction strategy, but it won’t happen without such a redevelopment, and RIFT will likely set that back decades. Proposition T is really bad policy.

* Paper Mate was owned by Gillette until its sale in 2001. If for some reason you’re interested in reading more about the Paper Mate factory (though not much more) see Gordon McKibben, Cutting Edge: Gillette's Journey to Global Leadership, Harvard Business Press, 1998.

** A detailed analysis of RIFT versus the status quo and LUCE can be found at:
https://exchange.tortigallas.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=2d513188f4ef46248f5b06e8905ff904&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww01.smgov.net%2fcityclerk%2fcouncil%2fagendas%2f2008%2f20080624%2fs2008062403-A-2.pdf

Reason #7. This measure will impact the likelihood of the Wilshire Boulevard subway from ever getting to Santa Monica.

When Antonio Villaraigosa was elected Mayor of Los Angeles, he also became Chair of the Board of Directors of MTA or Metro as it has rebranded itself. In that capacity he announced his intention of completing the Purple Line subway, also known as the Wilshire Boulevard extension, or the “Subway to the City.” At present the Purple Line extends from Union Station to Wilshire at Western (yes L.A. does have a subway) while a longer branch known as the Red Line, extends through Hollywood to North Hollywood. Now that Congressman Waxman has overturned the prohibition on constructing the Wilshire Blvd. subway, Metro is busy studying the feasibility of the Purple Line extension, holding community meetings in West L.A., Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, and Santa Monica, while contemplating the details of the best route and attempting to precisely define station locations -- all this as they go about the task of estimating costs and ridership.* This effort is, in part, preparation for an application to the federal government to help fund the project to the tune of…, well who knows yet, let’s say many billions of dollars. This application will go into a pool of other deserving proposals where it will compete under the “New Starts” program. Applications that offer the most riders for the least cost per rider will tend to rise to the top.

Estimating the potential ridership is a key part of this funding application. The feds have to believe the applicant’s numbers. Applications for systems where the employment and housing densities surrounding the proposed stations are already in place are the easiest to support. However, “transit supportive” land-use policies (e.g., zoning, general plans, specific plans, etc.) surrounding proposed stations can also be compelling to federal government reviewers, particularly where there is a robust mix of uses provided for in those policies (with emphasis on employment, I would add).

Wilshire Boulevard, outside of Santa Monica, is the most densely populated corridor in the nation not currently served by high quality rail transit (i.e., a subway). And as you look at the Wilshire corridor, it is pretty obvious that the busiest station along this alignment would be in Westwood, though Century City and Beverly Hills probably provide some pretty good numbers on their own (yes I know Century City is not along Wilshire – but planners are contemplating a bit of a detour so as to incorporate that employment rich area). It is easy to imagine that a “new starts” application with those stations in the application would provide a cost per rider ratio that would hold its own against applications from New York City (the 2nd Avenue line) or Washington, DC (the Dulles Airport extension through Tyson’s Corner), among others that are being prepared.

However, west of Westwood, densities begin to drop off, particularly as Wilshire moves into Santa Monica. It is true that a stop in the vicinity of Wilshire and 4th Street would seemingly deliver a good cost/rider number particularly as there is not only a large employment base, but also a significant tourist and destination retail draw in that location.

But there is a lot of tunnel and track and several potential station locations in between Westwood and 4th Street that wouldn’t look as compelling today from a cost/rider point of view, as the rest of the system, but with transit supportive policies in place might still be projected to look good, or good enough, in the future. And when I say transit supportive, I'm not talking Century City scale of development, I'm talking Miracle Mile density of development. However, given a 75,000 square foot annual cap on commercial development in the entire city of Santa Monica, as is proposed with Proposition T or RIFT (with no priority given as to where those square feet can be built) it is pretty doubtful that the cost/rider ratio can be anticipated to be any better in the future than it is today. The tunnel and stations between Westwood in L.A. and 4th Street in Santa Monica would simply be unlikely to deliver the ridership to justify the cost. The cost/rider equation would be so low as to bring down the overall average weakening the application for the entire project.

If you’re a member of the Metro Board (which consists of 12 voting members, most of whom are elected officials with, but one member from Santa Monica) then you have a big decision to make. You have to triage the application, decide what to save and what to jettison in order to have the best chance of success. Should you submit an application with absolutely boffo numbers that extends the line to a terminal station in Westwood, or submit one with what is likely to be a weaker cost/rider ratio that extends under a 20-to 25-block stretch of corridor with an unsupportive RIFT land-use policy? As sexy as it sounds to say “subway to the sea,” I think the choice will be obvious.

How ironic it would be, if a land-use policy such as RIFT, aimed at reducing traffic were to wind up being responsible for negating the possibility for high quality transit in Santa Monica along its most significant commercial and employment rich corridor.** It would be tragic enough if such unintended consequences could not have been foreseen, but in this case, they’re in plain sight if we just open our eyes.

*For more on the public process visit: http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/meetings.htm

** Yes, I know the Expo line, a light rail, which for the most part will run on grade, may one day also get to Santa Monica if a route through Culver City can be negotiated and funding secured, but its potential impact on traffic reduction while not insignificant is in my opinion simply no where near what the Wilshire line’s would be. Ideally, Santa Monica should be fighting for both lines (as they go to different places) plus a third line running south on Lincoln to the LAX and El Segundo.

Reason #8. This measure will hurt our city's efforts to halt global warming.

Now you might ask how could a measure aimed at reducing traffic by capping commercial development contribute to global warming? Well, as suggested in previous posts, it’s because this measure simply won’t reduce traffic, not one little bit. Indeed it will more than likely increase it.

How can this be you ask? Isn't it a given that less commercial development= less traffic? Isn't that what RIFT's supporters confidently argue on their own web site?

“Despite what the opposition claims, traffic engineers agree that new development creates more traffic.”

Well, no it isn't a given. The fallacy is evident when one asks the question, what traffic engineers are they talking about? Not one competent traffic engineer I know (and I actually know at least 50 working in small towns to large cities--and in universities) would ever make such a bold claim. Most traffic engineers will tell you the effect on traffic depends on factors including: what kind of development, what's in the area, what the context is, how much parking is provided, what sort of Transportation Demand Management programs are part of the project, if congestion pricing part of the equation, etc. So the question remains: What kind of development are those traffic engineers talking about? Not all new development creates new traffic.

But supporters continue:

“And the city itself has said that commercial development creates far more traffic than any other kind.”

As we’ve seen from Reason #9 below, this comment is unsupportable. It was made by one traffic engineer with the City who is using outdated ITE standards (for more on ITE Standards see Reason #9 published below). But the argument goes on to say:

“Without some limits on commercial growth, traffic will continue to worsen every year. Developers know it, the city knows it, and so do residents.”

Now this is the kind of argument worthy of Sarah Palin (okay, I couldn’t resist). If proponents of RIFT say it over and over, than I must know it? Is this a faith-based initiative? Developers don’t necessarily know it, because it’s not necessarily true. The arguments sound so much like the Republican Vice Presidential nominee: circular reasoning, no specifics, and a proponent who doesn't really understand the complexities inherent in the issues.

“Our only hope for curbing traffic growth is to slow down the type of development that generates the most traffic.”

Well, on this point I do agree, but that type of development, the kind that generates the most traffic, is the low-density, single-use development that got us here in the first place. Unfortunately, that development is precisely the opposite of what Proposition T aims to accomplish.

So let’s get back to global warming. We know that 40% of carbon emissions come from transportation, so every effort to reduce single-occupancy vehicle use should be the highest priority. Yet when Terry O'Day, Executive Director of Environment Now, claims that RIFT will actually cause global warming, his comments are met with a patronizing dismissal by the Prop-T proponents. The pro-RIFT website features the comment that "he's a reasonable young man," as if to say, but totally naive. Well since Mr. O'Day can hardly be considered a tool of the developers, and doesn't strike one as naive, there must be another explanation for his assertion.

Let me attempt to provide it by asking these questions: Does anyone really think that putting a cap on commercial development in Santa Monica will somehow make the demand go away? Does anyone  think that the demand will not simply be satisfied somewhere else, like West L.A, Venice, Marina D.R or Culver City? From a tax revenue point of view, our loss is their gain. But wait a minute, people will still have to drive there. Santa Monicans will drive further, and folks coming in will cut through Santa Monica to get there. Moreover, the possibilities for true mixed-use development here in S.M. will be diminished, and we will return to making housing-only bedroom communities. What do you think that will do to the traffic? That's what O'Day means by arguing that true mixed-use development adjacent to transit is an ESSENTIAL part of the project to reduce, and ultimately reverse global warming. We do not live in a little cocoon here in Santa Monica

Wouldn’t it make sense, therefore, to locate a mix of jobs and housing at, say the future light rail stop at Bergamot Station, so folks could take public transit to work? Walking, bicycling and using public transit to get to jobs and retail services are effective at doing reducing global warming. Minimizing Vehicle-Miles-Traveled (VMTs) is another method. That is, even if you have to drive in your car, if you drive less, you burn less fuel and emit less carbon. Proposition T, will clearly have the opposite effect. Santa Monicans will drive further to get to services outside of the city.  Medical office workers and patients will drive between hospitals and doctors’ offices where they could have otherwise walked. Employees will drive through Santa Monica on their way to new jobs in Venice and Marina Del Rey, where they would have previously stopped in Santa Monica.

But maybe you're thinking: Look, I get what you saying, but don't we have to do something? Yes, and there's plenty the city could do. We could emulate cities like Belleview, WA, or Boulder, CO, cities that, like Santa Monica, lack rail transit, but have made serious inroads into traffic congestion without mindless development caps:

In downtown Bellevue, utilizing Transportation Demand Managment techniques, the drive-alone commute rate fell by 30% from 1990 to 2000, falling from 81% driving alone to 57%.

In Boulder, since 1995, the drive-alone rate for employees working downtown has fallen almost 30%, from 56% driving alone to 36%, while the transit mode share (busses) has more
than doubled from 15% to 34%.

Finally, in downtown Stockholm, Sweden, six months into the trial of a "congestion pricing" experiment, the average traffic reduction across the control points between 6:30 AM and 6:29 PM has been 22% -- IN SIX MONTHS.

Where do I get these examples? Well Santa Monica is hardly the first city in Southern California to wrestle with these issues. A traffic reduction strategy report compiled for the City of Pasadena pointed me in this direction. It's available at:

http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/trans/ARCHIVE/20070421_Workshop/Pasadena_Traffic_Reduction_Strategies_11_2_06_DRAFT.pdf

So, once again I'm not arguing for the status quo and for doing nothing. I am arguing for a more thoughtful land use strategy that combines a mixing of uses with robust Transportation Demand Managment techniques that allow us to create a much more vital, equitable, convenient, and sustainable city than we have today. Proposition T takes us in the opposite direction.

Reason #9. RIFT is biased against lower income folks

Wow, you say, that's a fairly bold assertion. Especially in light of the fact that a cap on commercial development is likely to result in even more opportunities to build housing, which should bring down the cost of housing, and therefore make life more affordable no? In short, No.

When we look at affordability, the cost of housing is just one part of a larger equation. Folks who purchased housing way out in Apple Valley in San Bernardino County or Santa Clarita under the rubric, "Drive till you qualify" learned that lesson fairly recently with the rise in gas prices. I implicitly learned that early in my own career, when I moved from New York City to Charlottesville, VA. You would think that my quality of life would have improved by that move, since housing in the latter is considerably cheaper. But in New York I didn't need a car, while in Charlottesville, I did. The savings in rent were more than eaten up in the expense of automobile ownership. With the cost of automobile ownership estimated to average $8,000/year (after taxes),* working families who don't need two cars, or even one, are simply better off then those who do. Those families can afford to have their children participate in after school activities because they don't need to take off work to schlep them to those events. Note that the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) views affordable housing,

"...within the context of neighborhood design, where pedestrian quality, the provision of public space, and walkable access to services [and jobs] become an essential part of the affordability equation. ...the emphasis is on mix rather than any one form of housing by itself. New Urbanism elevates the principle of urbanism, within which the quality of diversity is seen as essential." http://www.cnu.org/node/936

So building affordable or work-force housing that is not intimately connected with jobs and services is simply not a very good strategy. Again you might argue, "Hey, Santa Monica already has plenty of jobs, and plenty of retail. What we don't have is adequate housing for the people who staff those jobs." All of this is true. We certainly need housing at all price points, and I would hope that housing grows at a faster rate than job growth specifically for that reason. At the same time, however, the most robust mix of jobs, services and housing is probably the best prescription to ensure an adequacy of car-reduced and car-free options for both residents and employers alike. That's a more equitable equation for lower income families.

So again, I'm not arguing for the status quo. The machine is broken, that's clear, but the tools required to fix it are are more varied and more precise in their nature, more like those of a surgeon, than those of say a rough carpenter installing plywood. In other words the building of "housing-only" areas strikes me as a really bad idea.

*estimate of cost per year from http://carsharingus.blogspot.com/2008/05/aaa-cost-of-car-ownership-for-2008.html

Reason #10. Proposition T-RIFT, will not stop development, just commercial development. The increased housing will generate even more traffic.

Really, you might say, how is that? Well land has value based upon what someone can use it for. So, if I'm a landowner, and I've got an underutilized asset, (such as a lot of parking, and an unused building on my land) what can I do with it? Since the only thing available is to build housing, I'll build, guess what? housing. Won't that be better you ask, since that housing will help to equalize the jobs to housing inbalance that Santa Monica currently, "enjoys?" Moreover, doesn't housing generate less traffic than commercial development? Indeed the pro-Measure T web site asserts:

"According to the city's own traffic engineer, commercial development brings in 3 to 4 times the amount of traffic as new residential development. Therefore, by slowing the pace of commercial development, Prop T will reduce the future growth in traffic congestion."

But if you're a traffic planner or engineer and you buy this argument, than I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you. Here's what two of the nation's premier traffic planners, Adam Millard-Ball and Patrick Siegman, have to say in, Planning Magazine, about the "traffic generation" methodology behind this assertion.

The [traffic generation] methodology has long been seen as a routine process, undertaken by traffic engineers based on Institute of Transportation Engineers manuals. Increasingly, however, planners are realizing that conventional traffic impact analysis creates serious hurdles for compact, transit-oriented development.

The problem is simple: Traffic study methodologies are designed to analyze single-use, auto-oriented suburban development proposals. Although thousands of pedestrian- and transit-friendly traditional neighborhoods exist —indeed, this was the predominant pattern of development before World War II— the most commonly used manuals contain virtually no data on them.

In fact, the recommended procedures for preparing a trip-generation report declare that such places are not proper candidates for study.

ITE's Trip Generation is the customary reference for figuring the number of vehicle trips likely to be produced by a given amount of development.... However, as the companion Trip Generation Handbook reports, "The data contained in Trip Generation are, by definition, from single-use developments where virtually all access is by private automobile and all parking is accommodated on site."

Why is this true by definition? ITE's recommended site-selection procedures for a trip-generation study declare that it should be possible to isolate the site for counting purposes. Therefore, selected sites must have "no shared parking...; limited ability for pedestrians to walk into the site from nearby parcels; [and] limited transit availability or use.."

"These procedures rule out counting the traditional mixed use neighborhood, which, for ITE, has too much shared on-street parking, too much walking from place to place, and often too much transit.

As a result, although millions of Americans live, work, and shop in traditional streetcar suburbs, mixed use neighborhoods, and downtowns, Trip Generation's 1,822 pages offer no insight into their travel habits.

(to read the entire article go to: http://www.stanford.edu/~adammb/Publications/Millard-Ball_Siegman_2006_Playing_the_Numbers_Game.pdf

Well, using the out of date formulas of the traffic engineering industry each housing unit generates 8-12 car trips a day. Let's say, for this exercise, a new housing unit is 1000 square feet (a teeny bit small for an average, but easier to do the math). By the same industry standards, each new 1000 square feet of office space would generate 8-16 trips a day, more or less the same. Retail space would generate about 10 trips per 1,000. But those are the most suburban standards assuming, everyone drives for every trip. The reality is however, that buildings per se do not generate traffic in themselves. It is the position of these buildings within the urban environment that determines the traffic load. Retail space in downtown Santa Monica generates only 40% of the traffic that the same amount of space would generate in the suburbs. The reason being that the City uses a "park-once" strategy, so each car trip is more efficient. Moreover, there are Transportation Demand Management techniques that office building owners utilize that easily reduce car trips by 50%, (incentives for car pooling, biking, walking or utilizing public transit) and possible more (like having a mix of service retail uses near the office space minimizing lunch hour trips).

But why, you ask, is the housing number as high as it is? Well, again this is a number generated primarily from single-family suburban houses, which are on average considerably larger than 1,000 sf and occupy considerably more land. However in high value communities such as S.M. the unit sizes are smaller, and the density greater, but the amount of cars don't go down very much UNLESS the housing is in a mixed-use neighborhood, where residents can walk, bike or transit to shopping and work, precisely the kind of development Measure T prevents. But the pro-Proposition T forces assert that the:

Lantana Entertainment expansion on Olympic/Exposition near 28th/Stewart... will bring 200,000 additional sq ft of commercial/office space and 2,000 additional daily car trips through Pico neighborhood and Sunset Park...

But what if the project were not to be built? We'd no doubt get 200 or so residences, with somewhere around 8 -12,000 car trips per day generated (using the same methodology), with considerably less tax revenue for the City. But you could argue, with the housing we're no worse off, so maybe it's worth taking a chance on this. Except there's a third possibility: why not split the difference? Why not work toward on a one-to-one jobs to housing ratio in every major project, or within a specified geographic area so that a true reduction in traffic could be achieved? Imagine the sheer pleasure of being able to walk to work? That would require a progressive land use policy, that granted, we haven't achieved in this City. However, one thing's for certain. We we will never achieve that kind of enlightenment if this RIFT comes into being.

Why this blog

I've started this blog in order to share my thoughts on Proposition T, known as RIFT, that will appear on the November ballot in Santa Monica. I believe the measure to be naive and it will not accomplish what it proposes, namely to reduce traffic. But if it were that harmless, i.e., it simply won't work, that might not be such a big deal. However, I also believe that this measure will, ultimately, cost the City significant revenue, which will impact the quality of services our City delivers as well the revenue to our schools. In other words, it won't reduce congestion, and it will cost the City money, a Lose-Lose.

Like many of you reading this, I have been frustrated by organizations like the Friends of Sunset Park that send out mass emails with erroneous information, but provide no opportunity for rebuttle or intelligient discourse. I hope this blog provides an opportunity to rectify that situation.

However, I want to establish some rules for commenting. Personal attacks will not be permitted. Questioning anyone's motives either for or against the measure are not part of an informed debate. I want an intelligient discourse, not one filled with name-calling. I am interested in excerpts of scholarly articles if you'd like to send them. Hopefully, we can make lemonade out of this lemon of a measure by having a more robust discussion than is provided elsewhere in this community.

My next posting will list the reasons why I am against the measure.