To consolidate, disseminate, and gather information concerning the 710 expansion into our San Rafael neighborhood and into our surrounding neighborhoods. If you have an item that you would like posted on this blog, please e-mail the item to Peggy Drouet at pdrouet@earthlink.net
Caltrain capped off Rail Safety Month with a film festival featuring student-produced films about rail safety.
In August, student filmmakers from Fresh Takes, a youth digital arts
program, received rail safety awareness training and toured the property
with Caltrainstaff
to learn about the challenges faced by commuter rail systems operating
through a densely populated service area. Caltrain has worked for more
than 20 years to educate the Peninsula community about how to stay safe
while living, working and going to school near an active rail corridor.
“Working
with these students to produce rail safety messages is a powerful way
to help us connect with the next generation of Peninsula residents who
share their communities with our tracks,” said Chuck Harvey, Caltrain’s
deputy CEO, operations, construction and engineering. “These videos are a
powerful tool for reminding our youth that nothing is worth more than
their lives.”
The messages in the videos
were consistent — when near an active railroad, be aware, be cautious,
and be safe. The delivery of these core messages covers a wide range,
from powerfully emphasizing the tragedy of inattention to a more light
hearted approach to keeping kids away from the tracks. To view the
videos, visit Caltrain’s blog Peninsula Moves.
The
short video vignettes were produced and paid for through a rail safety
grant obtained by Caltrain from Operation Lifesaver and the Federal
Transit Administration.
Caltrain is committed to the three “E’s” of safety outreach: education, engineering and enforcement.
As
a partner with Operation Lifesaver, Caltrain’s certified staff
presenters spend time out in the community educating groups about rail
safety and reminding residents of the importance of awareness when
living and working near an active rail corridor. Caltrain’s engineering
team enhances railroad safety through fencing projects, grade
separations such as the one nearing completion in San Bruno and
pedestrian crossing and station design improvements.
Transit Police also play a pivotal role in enforcing safe behaviors
along the active corridor. In the past year, more than 600 people have
been removed from dangerous locations along the corridor. More than 50
people who were reportedly “in crisis” were escorted to safety, some of
whom had expressed thoughts of suicide.
The majority of deaths
on Caltrain’s tracks are ruled to be suicides. To address this sensitive
issue, Caltrain works with local mental health and suicide education
and awareness organizations to raise awareness and money to combat
mental health issues and prevent suicide.
The Seattle-area fire department that extinguished the Tesla Model S
blaze after the car crashed into some debris released more details
tonight on the fire, saying a battery pack at the front of the car was
burning and adding water made the flames worse.
The following reports from the Kent, Washington Regional Fire Authority published by International Business Times and corroborated by the Associated Press confirm what a Tesla spokeswoman told Jalopnik about the crash, which occurred around 8 a.m. Tuesday on State Route 167.
According
to the report, firefighters arrived at the scene and found the car
ablaze with an apparent "engine compartment fire," which they then
extinguished. When they broke a window to gain access, the fire
re-ignited.
"The application of water seemed to intensify the fire activity," the report said.
Firefighters
ended up putting out the blaze with dry chemical extinguisher. When
they took apart the front end, they found a battery pack still burning.
The firefighter "had to puncture multiple holes in the pack to apply
water to the burning material in the battery," the report said.
Firefighters also used a jack and cut into the frame of the car to spray
water on the pack.
This Is What Fiery Tesla Model S Death Looks Like (UPDATED)
Yeee-ouch. We don't know what happened here exactly, but one of our readers captured some stunning photos of a Tesla Model S that apparently caught fire this week on Washington State Route 167 outside of Seattle. (Update: Tesla officials say the fire was caused by a crash. See more details below.)
At the
moment we don't know whether the fire was caused by a mechanical issue
or some kind of crash (although that front end looks pretty trashed),
nor do we know if anyone was injured. I couldn't find anything in area
news about it, so I'm hoping it wasn't too serious. If you have any
insights, drop them in the comments.
It's no
secret that the Model S is a very impressive performer. Maybe it was
just trying to compete with Ferrari in the wrong ways.
Update:
Here is a statement from officials at Tesla, who say the fire was
caused by a crash that luckily injured no one and did not enter the
car's cabin.
“Yesterday, a Model S collided with a large metallic object in the
middle of the road, causing significant damage to the vehicle. The car’s
alert system signaled a problem and instructed the driver to pull over
safely, which he did. No one was injured, and the sole occupant had
sufficient time to exit the vehicle safely and call the authorities.
Subsequently, a fire caused by the substantial damage sustained during
the collision was contained to the front of the vehicle thanks to the
design and construction of the vehicle and battery pack. All indications
are that the fire never entered the interior cabin of the car. It was
extinguished on-site by the fire department.”
The California Department of Transportation
must quickly sell some of the nearly 500 properties it owns in Los
Angeles, South Pasadena and Pasadena, according to a bill by Sen. Carol
Liu (D-La Cañada Flintridge), which was signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Jerry Brown.
The
homes are located in the so-called 710 gap, where transportation
officials are studying a 4.5-mile tunnel that would connect the Long
Beach (710) and Foothill (210) freeways.
Brown vetoed a similar bill last year.
The
bill adds a change to existing law so that the homes may be sold “as
is,” at prices set according to their condition, as opposed to having to
be repaired and sold at market value.
Almost 400 homes are
occupied by tenants, but many others remain vacant and in disrepair,
according to a statement released by Liu's office.
“It is really a
recognition from Caltrans that they really do not want to be in the
rental business,” Liu said via phone on Wednesday. “Based on whatever
the house is worth, somebody can buy it, as-is, and we'll get Caltrans
out from under the obligation of having to maintain the house.”
The bill also states the current tenants of the homes will get the first chance to purchase them.
Lauren Wonder, public information officer for Caltrans, said specifics about the home sales will be announced in the future.
“We
will know how many properties will become surplus and subject to sale
once a project is determined,” she said. “We are seeking approval of
regulations that would govern how the properties would then be sold.”
The
properties were acquired by Caltrans over the past several decades in
anticipation of the possible construction of a surface freeway to close
the gap between the 710 and 210 freeways.
The new law also
states that the surface freeway route will be taken off the table as an
option in any state environmental documents on the project.
Liu
said ruling out the surface freeway meant Caltrans would be able to
sell many more homes than had been considered previously.
“[Caltrans]
was identifying those homes that wouldn't be in a surface route's way,”
she said. “Now they don't have an excuse, because the surface route
isn't happening.”
--
Caltrans has been put in their place The 10% rent increases are now illegal according to the bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown.
Senate Bill
No. 416
CHAPTER 468
An act to amend Sections 54236 and 54237 of, and to add Sections
54237.3, 54237.7, and 54237.8 to, the Government Code, relating to
surplus residential property, and making an appropriation therefor.
[
Approved by
Governor
October 01, 2013.
Filed with
Secretary of State
October 01, 2013.
]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 416, Liu.
Surplus residential property.
Existing
law declares the intent of the Legislature to preserve, upgrade, and
expand the supply of housing to persons and families of low or moderate
income, through the sale of specified surplus residential property owned
by public agencies. Existing law establishes priorities and procedures
that any state agency disposing of that surplus residential property is
required to follow, and defines relevant terms for these purposes,
including “fair market value.”
This
bill would revise the definition of “fair market value” for purposes of
the sale of this surplus residential property, to reflect the existing
“as is” condition of the property, taking into account any needed
repairs.
Existing law requires
specified single-family residences to be first offered to their present
occupants, at an affordable
price, as defined. Under existing law, the selling agency has the
option of making repairs to the property required by lenders or
government assistance programs, or providing the occupants with a
replacement dwelling, pursuant to a specified provision of law.
This
bill would revise the procedures applicable to the sale of these
surplus residential properties not otherwise sold pursuant to existing
procedures, to be offered to current and former tenants in good
standing, respectively, and to purchasers who will be owner occupants.
The bill additionally would require the selling agency to offer tenants
in good standing of nonresidential properties to be given priority to
purchase the property they occupy. The bill would authorize the
Department of Transportation to offer a residence or property in an “as
is” condition, at the request of a person with priority to purchase the
residence or property in accordance with existing law.
This
bill would require proceeds from sales of surplus residential property
to be placed in the SR-710 Rehabilitation Account, created by the bill,
and would continuously appropriate these funds for the purpose of
providing specified repairs to the properties until the last of the
properties is repaired, at which time the funds, less any reimbursements
due to the federal government, would be transferred to the State
Highway Account, for allocation by the California Transportation
Commission, as specified.
This bill
would provide that the preliminary project alternative referred to as
Alternative F-6 in the December 2012 Alternative Analysis Report of the
Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority shall no longer be
deemed a feasible alternative for consideration in any state
environmental review process for the Interstate 710 North Gap
Closure project, as specified.
Digest Key
Vote:
2/3
Appropriation:
YES
Fiscal Committee:
YES
Local Program:
NO
Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
Section 54236 of the Government Code is amended to read:
54236.
(a) As
used in this article, the term “offer” means to solicit proposals prior
to sale in a manner calculated to achieve a sale under the conditions
specified, and to hold the offer open for a reasonable period of time,
which shall be no more than one year, unless the time is extended by the
selling agency at its discretion, for a period to be specified by the
selling agency.
(b) As used in this
article, the term “affordable price” means, in the case of a purchaser,
other than a lower income household, the price for residential property
for which the purchaser’s monthly payments will not exceed that portion
of the purchasing household’s adjusted income
as determined in accordance with the regulations of the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development, issued pursuant to
Section 235 of the National Housing Act; and, in the case of a purchaser
that is a lower income household, the price for residential property
for which the purchaser’s monthly payments will not exceed that portion
of the purchasing household’s adjusted income as determined in
accordance with the regulations of the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development issued pursuant to Section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937.
(c) As
used in this article, the term “single-family residence” means a real
property improvement used, or intended to be used, as a dwelling unit
for one family.
(d) As used in this
article, the term “surplus
residential property” means land and structures owned by any
agency of the state that is determined to be no longer necessary for the
agency’s use, and that is developed as single-family or multifamily
housing, except property being held by the agency for the purpose of
exchange.
Surplus residential
properties shall only include land and structures that, at the time of
purchase by the state, the state had intended to remove the residences
thereon and to use the land for state purposes.
(e) As
used in this article, the term “displacement” includes, but is not
limited to, persons who will have to move from surplus residential
property that they occupy when it is sold by a state agency because they
are unable to afford to pay the price that the state agency is asking
for the residential property.
(f) As
used in this article, the term “fair market value” shall mean fair
market value as of the date the offer of sale is made by the selling
agency pursuant to the provisions of this article and shall reflect the
existing “as is” condition of the property, taking into account any
repairs required to make the property safe and habitable. This
definition shall not apply to terms of sale that are described as
mitigation measures in an environmental study prepared pursuant to the
Public Resources Code if the study was initiated before this measure was
enacted.
(g) As used in this
article, the term “affordable rent” means, in the case of an occupant
person or family, other than a person or family of low or moderate
income, rent for residential property that is not more than 25
percent of the occupant household’s gross monthly income, and in
the case of an occupant person or family of low or moderate income, rent
for residential property that is not more than the percentage of the
adjusted income of the occupant person or family as permitted under
regulations of the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development issued pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing
Act of 1937, but not in excess of the market rental value for comparable
property.
(h) As used in this
article, the term “area median income” means median household income,
adjusted for family size as determined in accordance with the
regulations of the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development issued pursuant to Section 235 of the National Housing Act,
as amended (Public Law 90-448), for the standard metropolitan
statistical
area (SMSA), in which surplus residential property to be disposed
of pursuant to this article is located, or the county in which the
property is located, if it is outside an SMSA.
(i) As
used in this article, the term “persons and families of low or moderate
income” means persons and families who meet both of the following
conditions:
(1) Meet the definition
of persons and families of low or moderate income set forth in Section
50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) Have not had an ownership interest in real property in the last three years.
(j) As used in this article, the term “lower income households” means lower income households as defined in
Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
SEC. 2.
Section 54237 of the Government Code is amended to read:
54237.
(a) Notwithstanding
Section 11011.1, any agency of the state disposing of surplus
residential property shall do so in accordance with the following
priorities and procedures:
(1) First,
all single-family residences presently occupied by their former owners
shall be offered to those former owners at the appraised fair market
value.
(2) Second, all single-family
residences shall be offered, pursuant to this article, to their present
occupants who have occupied the property two years or more and who are
persons and families of low or moderate income.
(3) Third,
all single-family residences shall be offered, pursuant to this
article, to their present occupants who have occupied the property five
years or more and whose household income does not exceed 150 percent of
the area median income.
(4) Fourth, a
single-family residence shall not be offered, pursuant to this article,
to present occupants who are not the former owners of the property if
the present occupants have had an ownership interest in real property in
the last three years.
(b) Single-family
residences offered to their present occupants pursuant to paragraphs
(2) and (3) of subdivision (a) shall be offered to those present
occupants at an affordable price, which price shall not be less than the
price paid by the agency for original acquisition, unless the
acquisition price was greater than the current fair market value,
and shall not be greater than fair market value. When single-family
residences are offered to present occupants at a price that is less than
fair market value, the selling agency shall impose terms, conditions,
and restrictions to ensure that the housing will remain available to
persons and families of low or moderate income and households with
incomes no greater than the incomes of the present occupants in
proportion to the area median income. The Department of Housing and
Community Development shall provide to the selling agency
recommendations of standards and criteria for these prices, terms,
conditions, and restrictions. The selling agency shall provide repairs
required by lenders and government housing assistance programs, or, at
the option of the agency, provide the present occupants with a
replacement dwelling pursuant to
Section 54237.5.
(c) If
single-family residences are offered to their present occupants pursuant
to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a), the occupants shall
certify their income and assets to the selling
agency. When single-family residences are offered to present
occupants at a price that is less than fair market value, the selling
agency may verify the certifications, in accordance with procedures
utilized for verification of incomes of purchasers and occupants of
housing financed by the California Housing Finance Agency and with
regulations adopted for the verification of assets by the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The income and asset
limitations and term of residency requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3)
of subdivision (a) shall not apply to sales that are described as
mitigation measures in an environmental study prepared pursuant to the
Public Resources Code, if the study was initiated before this measure
was enacted.
(d) All other surplus
residential properties and all properties described
in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subdivision (a) that are not
purchased by the former owners or the present occupants shall be then
offered to housing-related private and public entities at a reasonable
price, which is best suited to economically feasible use of the property
as decent, safe, and sanitary housing at affordable rents and
affordable prices for persons and families of low or moderate income, on
the condition that the purchasing entity shall cause the property to be
rehabilitated and developed as limited equity cooperative housing with
first right of occupancy to present occupants, except that where the
development of cooperative or cooperatives is not feasible, the
purchasing agency shall cause the property to be used for low and
moderate income rental or owner-occupied housing, with first right of
occupancy to the present tenants. The price of the property in no case
shall be less than
the price paid by the agency for original acquisition unless the
acquisition price was greater than current fair market value and shall
not be greater than fair market value. Subject to the foregoing, it
shall be set at the level necessary to provide housing at affordable
rents and affordable prices for present tenants and persons and families
of low or moderate income. When residential property is offered at a
price that is less than fair market value, the selling agency shall
impose terms, conditions, and restrictions as will ensure that the
housing will remain available to persons and families of low or moderate
income. The Department of Housing and Community Development shall
provide to the selling agency recommendations of standards and criteria
for prices, terms, conditions, and restrictions.
(e) Any
surplus residential properties not
sold pursuant to subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, shall then be
sold at fair market value, with priority given first to purchasers who
are present tenants in good standing with all rent obligations current
and paid in full, second to former tenants who were in good standing at
the time they vacated the premises, with priority given to the most
recent tenants first, and then to purchasers who will be owner
occupants. The selling agency may commence the sales of properties that
former tenants may possess a right to purchase as provided by this
subdivision 30 days after the selling agency has done both of the
following:
(1) Posted information regarding the sales under this subdivision on the selling agency’s Internet Web site.
(2) Made a good faith effort to provide written
notice, by first-class mail, to the last known address of each former tenant.
(f) Tenants
in good standing of nonresidential properties shall be given priority
to purchase, at fair market value, the property they rent, lease, or
otherwise legally occupy.
SEC. 3.
Section 54237.3 is added to the Government Code, to read:
54237.3.
Notwithstanding
the requirement to provide repairs in subdivision (b) of Section 54237,
the Department of Transportation may offer a residence or property in
an “as is” condition at the request of a person given priority to
purchase pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a) of
Section 54237.
SEC. 4.
Section 54237.7 is added to the Government Code, to read:
54237.7.
Notwithstanding
Section 183.1 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Department of
Transportation shall deposit proceeds from sales pursuant to this
article into the SR-710 Rehabilitation Account, which is hereby created.
Notwithstanding Section 13340, funds in the account are hereby
continuously appropriated to the department without regard to fiscal
years for the purpose of providing repairs required pursuant to
subdivision (b) of Section 54237. The total funds maintained in the
account shall not exceed five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). Funds
exceeding that amount, less any reimbursements due to the federal
government, shall be transferred to the State Highway Account in the
State Transportation Fund to be used for allocation by the California
Transportation Commission
(commission) exclusively to fund projects located in Pasadena,
South Pasadena, Alhambra, La Cañada Flintridge, and the 90032 postal ZIP
Code. Projects shall be selected and prioritized by the affected
communities in consultation with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, pursuant to guidelines developed by the
commission. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority shall
submit a proposed program of projects and the commission shall have
final authority to approve the projects. Eligible projects may include,
but are not limited to: sound walls; transit and rail capital
improvements; bikeways; pedestrian improvements;
signal synchronization; left turn signals; and major street
resurfacing, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. The funds shall not be
used to advance or construct any proposed North State Route 710 tunnel.
Any funds remaining in the SR-710 Rehabilitation Account on the date
that final payment due for the last of the properties repaired has been
made, less any reimbursements due to the federal government, shall be
transferred to the State Highway Account in the State Transportation
Fund, to be used exclusively for the purposes described in this section.
SEC. 5.
Section 54237.8 is added to the Government Code, to read:
54237.8.
Notwithstanding
any other law, for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act
(Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources
Code), the preliminary project alternative referred to as Alternative
F-6 in the December 2012 Alternative Analysis Report of the Los Angeles
Metropolitan Transportation Authority shall no longer be deemed a
feasible alternative for consideration in any state environmental review
process for the Interstate 710 North Gap Closure project, State
Clearinghouse number 1982092310.
What do two-by-fours and iPhones have in common? They’ve both been
sold on the stretch of roadway seen here. Now home to upscale Old Town
retailers like the Apple Store, Pasadena’s Colorado Boulevard had a
decidedly more rustic feel when the above photograph, courtesy of the California Historical Society Collection at the USC Libraries, was taken around 1880.
Ever since merchant L. D. Hollingsworth opened a general store and
post office at the road’s intersection with Fair Oaks Avenue in 1876,
Colorado Street (as it was originally named) has been Pasadena’s main
commercial corridor. The three-story Ward Block, visible on the photograph’s left side, was among its first landmarks.
The street also gained notoriety for its traffic congestion, an
inevitable result in a booming city where automobiles, trolleys,
pedestrians, and bicyclists shared a main street only 72 feet wide.
After decades of false starts, Pasadena finally widened the street to
100 feet between 1929 and 1930, a process that cost nearly $3 million
and forced property owners to slice 14 feet off the fronts of their buildings. Many structures lost their original Victorian facades and instead acquired an Art Deco or Spanish Colonial Revival character.
The road first found nationwide fame as the Tournament of Roses Parade
route and between 1926 and 1940 it was signed as U.S. Highway 66. In
1958, Pasadena redesignated it as a boulevard, signaling that
Colorado—once home to lumber yards and carpenter shops—had come of age.
California has more electric vehicles per capita than any other state
in the nation, in part because policymakers seem to love them. Gov.
Jerry Brown recently signed a whole sheaf of bills intended to hasten
their adoption, and the city of Palo Alto — home to Tesla Motors — will
require every new home to be wired for EV charging hardware.
The Palo Alto city council voted 9-0 in favor of a proposal that
would require new single-family homes to come pre-wired for an EV
charging station. It’s a nominal requirement, considering most homes
already are wired for a 220-volt line — which is needed for a so-called
Level 2 charging station that can charge most cars in about eight hours —
because that’s the voltage needed to power a washer and dryer.
The decision came
own to money (and politics, natch), with an eye
toward “future-proofing” new homes for EVs. It costs just $200 to wire a
new home for an EV charger, but can cost upward of $1,000 to retrofit
an existing home. That’s on top of the cost of the charging station,
which can run anywhere from $600 to $2,000. Not that it really matters
to Palo Alto residents — the average home cost is $1.5 million.
“The thing that caught me is how simple and easy and fairly
inexpensive it is to rough-in the wiring,” Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd told the San Jose Mercury News.
Monday’s vote was followed by the governor’s signing six bills to commemorate National Plug In Day
on Saturday, part of California’s ongoing campaign to get 1.5 million
EVs on the road by 2025. California has long led the nation in promoting
the development and adoption of electric vehicles through the Zero
Emissions Vehicle Program, which aims to have new cars emit 34 percent
fewer global warming gases, 75 percent fewer smog emissions, save
consumers over $6,000 over the life of the car, and bring more efficient
vehicles — from hybrids electrics to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles — to
market.
To that end, the legislature approved, and Brown signed, a cadre of bills meant to further spur the use of EVs. Assembly Bill 1092
requires state agencies to set standards to instal charging outlets in
apartment and commercial buildings. The bill aims to address one of the
biggest hurdles for city dwellers who want to go electric, since it’s
hard (and dangerous) to run a 100-foot cable out your window to charge
your EV on the street.
Bills AB 266 and SB 286
extend the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane sticker program through
2019, giving drivers access to carpool lanes no matter how many people
are in the car. AB 266 allows 40,000 vehicles that are ultra-low
emission plug-in hybrids and even hydrogen-fueled vehicles with internal
combustion engines to receive a green sticker, while AB 286 extends the
eligibility of pure zero-emission vehicles — those powered by battery
electric, hydrogen fuel cell, or natural gas — to receive a white
sticker for HOV lane access.
AB 8
provides $2 billion to fund a range of environmental initiatives,
including $20 million to build 100 hydrogen fueling stations and a “Cash
for Clunkers”-style program that allows low-income vehicle owners to
trade in their gas guzzler for a $2,500 incentive. SB 359
funds four programs that encourage green vehicle purchases, including
$20 million for the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project, $10 million in
incentives for hybrid and zero-emission trucks and buses, and $8 million
for the Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program.
The final bill, SB 454,
could have the most impact on current EV drivers, requiring all
charging station providers to allow any vehicle to plug in and pay with a
credit card. Currently, several charging station companies require
users to be registered, pay a monthly fee, or both to access their
network of stations. SB 454 would eliminate that requirement, making
charging stations more like gas stations by allowing anyone to top off
using a standard method of payment.
Laura Scott of the blog The Locals met
this charming couple while biking from Paris to London. They’ve been
biking around the world together for more than five years, covering over
60,000 miles and 84 countries. And they’re hoping to keep traveling for
at least a few more years.
Scott spoke to the male half of the couple, Ryohei Oguchi. He said he
was living his longstanding dream of throwing in the towel as a
financial planner to travel the world by bike. “I kept holding it in my
heart and it happened,” he said. No word on what his companion thinks,
but she looks pretty happy.
What’s next for this intrepid pair? Ireland, the south of France,
Spain, Morocco, and hopefully one day West Africa and North and South
America. Good luck, you two, and we hope you have really comfy saddles.
Tesla roadsters charging at the company’s Palo Alto headquarters.
If you build a new home in Tesla Motors’ hometown, your electrician
is going to need to wire it up for an electric vehicle charger.
The Palo Alto, Calif., City Council recently endorsed a building-code
change that would require builders to include wiring in new homes that
can easily be connected to a charger. The council also directed city
staff to figure out how to make it easier and cheaper to obtain permits
for new EV chargers.
To wire a new house for an electric vehicle charger, it costs under
$200 — a quarter of the price tag for installing a charger at an
existing home, Palo Alto Mayor Greg Scharff told the San Jose Mercury News.
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd said she received a phone call from a
resident who had installed a curbside charger for public use. The
electric-bike fanatic said the charger was a big hit in his neighborhood
— but that obtaining the permit cost him hundreds of dollars. The
council also heard that a Unitarian Universalist Church paid $459 for a
permit needed to install its electric vehicle charger. Ouch. That “seems
like a lot,” Council Member Liz Kniss deadpanned.
“Let’s figure out as a council what we can do to remove the obstacles
to owning electric vehicles in Palo Alto,” Scharff said. “I think what
we really need to do is make it convenient, easy, and economical.”
The council then voted 9 to 0 to endorse the changes, and sent a memo
directing city staff to rewrite the building code and permitting rules
accordingly.
As construction workers build the next leg of the Gold Line, from Pasadena to Azusa,
San Gabriel Valley officials are keeping up the pressure to build the
once-certain extension to Montclair--the $950-million light rail project
has been in jeopardy since Metro pulled funds last spring. The Gold Line Construction Authority's
recent newsletter notes that this month they'll host a meeting with
city staff members along the route to discuss moving the project to the engineering phase--the last step before construction. "The [Advanced Conceptual Engineering] work, which is expected to begin next year,
will advance the design and engineering for the 12.3-mile, six-station
project to a point where it will be ready for a future design-build
procurement." As far as money goes, the Construction Authority continues
"to work with Metro to identify potential funding opportunities." If
money become available in 2015 or '16, the project could open in 2021 or
'22, according to the Authority
What Happened? Many cities such as New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and
Copenhagen are reintroducing car-free zones to provide common areas for
pedestrians and cyclists to maneuver safely, without exposure to
fast-moving vehicles. Car-free zones have been known to enhance tourism,
boost engagement between residents and local businesses, and reduce
auto-related accidents.
The Goal The quality of life for residents is arguably improved when car-free zones
are incorporated into city designs. Pollution is reduced in areas of
high foot traffic, while outdoor activities and exercise opportunities
are greatly increased when automobiles are prohibited in certain areas.
Copenhagen Copenhagen’s Stroget
area is a world-renowned car-free zone that was created in the 1950s
during the Christmas holidays to protect pedestrians during their
shopping and festivities. The four-block area was officially labeled a
car-free zone in 1962, and quickly evolved into a popular destination
spot for tourists and local shoppers alike. After the vehicles were
eliminated in the space, nearby businesses reported a 40 percent jump in
sales.
U.S. Follows Suit In the United States, New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles are
all exploring car-free zone designs to accommodate pedestrian activity
and outdoor recreation.
In San Francisco,
the eastern half of JFK Drive is void of cars on Sundays, allowing for
cyclists, runners, walkers, roller bladders and other active residents
to explore the local parks.
In New York City,
the city closed down seven miles of streets from the Brooklyn Bridge to
Central Park to vehicle use. The public was able to set up live music
shows, group exercise classes, light installations and other
recreational activities.
Los Angeles has experimented with a pop-up car-free zone effort in
the Sunset Triangle when streets are temporarily closed for farmers
markets, neighborhood concerts and other cultural events. When the
streets are closed down, residents and visitors feel safe to wander
through the happenings and learn more about local cuisine, businesses
and culture.
Make It Work According to Metropolis Magazine, there are a few considerations that must be made for a car-free zone project to be successful, such as:
Existing pedestrian presence
A city considering a car-free zone should focus on areas where there is
already a high volume of foot traffic. This will indicate a demand for
increased safety and accessibility, as walkers and shoppers are already
drawn to the area’s amenities.
The street is not an essential part of the city’s street grid
Shutting down a few blocks during weekends or permanently must be a
doable change to accommodate pedestrians. The adjustment should not,
however, force a drastic disruption to major throughways that enable
easy transit through the community.
The community is informed of the plan
To ensure the car-free zone is a favorable change, decision makers must
gather public feedback and criticism. Residents must be aware of what
the changes entail and on board with the plan to make good use of the
common area.
The location is unique and offers a tourism appeal
The area that is turned into a car-free zone should not only be
convenient to city planners but also be a desirable spot for tourists
and pedestrians to frequent. As they are the main target for the
revamped area, the locale must include walker-friendly amenities and
attractions.
The appropriate amount of space is selected to optimize the area
When selecting a spot to go car-free, consider how the common pedestrian
will feel in the area. If the space is too large, it may feel
uncomfortable. Likewise, too small of a locale will limit opportunities
for the public to optimize the space.
For a long time in the United States, driving activity
moved in step with the economy. Since economic growth was fairly steady,
consistent growth in driving was built into all the traffic modeling
the engineers used to plan and build streets and transportation
infrastructure.
Annual,
per-capita vehicle miles traveled by Americans have been declining for
eight years. Image: State Smart Transportation Campaign
But now per capita driving has declined eight straight years in
America. Total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) hasn’t really budged in
five years, and remains below its peak. A number of things have
fundamentally changed since the time when you could chart driving
behavior into the future using an upward line, according to a new paper by the State Smart Transportation Initiative, a think-tank based out of the University of Wisconsin which counts 19 state DOTs among its partners.
SSTI rejects the idea that driving declines reflect the recent
recession, noting that the current slump began in 2004, well before the
recession started. Driving activity actually began to decouple from
economic growth in 2000, SSTI says, and today they do not appear to be
strongly related.
The reasons for the current decline, SSTI reports, are broad cultural
and economic trends that are likely to be “permanent,” or “remain in
effect for a generation or more.”
In the decades prior, driving increases were triggered by factors
like rising household income and auto ownership rates, increasing
participation in the workforce by women, and the swelling ranks of Baby
Boomers in their most active driving years. Today, however, those trends
have abated or are moving in the opposite direction.
Baby Boomers are beginning to retire, and entering a stage in their
lives when they will drive less and less. The American market for car
owners is mostly saturated. Meanwhile, the growth in women’s workforce
participation leveled off more than 10 years ago.
Another big factor is the financial calculus of driving. The cost of
owning a car has been increasing, and not just because gas isn’t dirt
cheap anymore. Maintaining, storing, and insuring a car has become more
expensive too. High levels of congestion in many cities have also
increased the delays and aggravation associated with driving.
Attitudinal shifts among younger Americans are playing a role. Mounting evidence suggests an increasing preference for transit, biking, and walking among the Millennial generation.
Finally, SSTI notes that for years driving was stimulated by policies
that discouraged walkable, mixed-use development: single-use zoning and
parking minimums, for example. But in some places, those policies are
now being reformed.
The upshot is that driving may never increase the way it once did,
SSTI reports. It’s important that public institutions adjust
accordingly.
As the authors say, “these trends suggest a serious need for a new
approach to travel demand forecasting and transportation system design
in the 21st century.”
This week Amtrak released "Track a Train"
— an interactive, Google-powered, real-time-ish status map of its
300-plus daily trips. America's passenger rail provider says it created
the feature because checking train status is the second most-popular
action on its website, after buying tickets. Now travelers and train
enthusiasts alike can see how slow fast a particular Amtrak train is moving at any given time.
Requisite snark aside, the service looks both polished and useful. (You can find it in the lower-left corner of Amtrak's main site.)
The base map gives a national overview of Amtrak's service at the
moment. Active trains are indicated by a blue arrow pointing in the
direction they're traveling. Stations are shown as smaller white dots. A
purple circle enclosing a number shows how many trains are in
high-traffic areas and lets users zoom in with one click.
A status window for each individual train gives the train number,
direction, origin, final destination, and speed. There's also a status
flag: green indicates on-time trains; amber, late trains. One check this
morning found a gray flag to indicate a route with a service
disruption. The most handy feature is a scrollable history that gives
the local times every arrival a train has made (or will make) on that
route.
Yes, that is an Acela moving at 134 miles per hour — just a glimpse of what Amtrak trains are capable of doing when proper track configuration allows.
There are plenty of basic Google Maps features, too, including a
traditional zoom feature, a search window that auto-fills for stations
or route names, and a satellite viewing option. (You can't zoom in close
enough to see the actual track, however, perhaps for security reasons.)
There's even a nifty national "reset" button that takes you take back
to the base screen that the original Google Maps would be wise to steal.
So there it is: not groundbreaking, of course, but functional, clean, and customer friendly. Amtrak's management is always being criticized
for its shortcomings. That's the way it should be for a
taxpayer-subsidized service, and indeed sometimes the flaws are glaring
(as in the case of its inefficient food service). But Amtrak's
innovations deserve some credit, too.
At times it's even been ahead of the technological curve. Amtrak has taken the lead implementing positive train control safety upgrades, and it was using mobile ticketing well before transit agencies started doing the same in major U.S. cities (if anything, it made the shift too quickly,
confusing some older customers). Its WiFi service is a mess, of course,
but private-sector in-flight Internet providers haven't exactly
perfected that system, either.
Anyone interested in learning more about the "Track a Train" system might turn to a Q&A that Amtrak conducted
(if you will) with Google Maps product manager Dylan Lorimer. It's
mostly vanilla stuff, but one of Lorimer's answers is entertaining:
As you know, our trains go to a lot of places. If you could go to any of our 500 destinations, where would you go?
Remember that train robbery scene from Breaking Bad (season 5, episode
5), where they steal the supply of methylamine? Maybe there? Just
kidding. For sure, I’d take the Empire Builder through Glacier National Park! I can’t wait to do that one day.
Two things. One, he's so obviously not just kidding. Two, let's just hope he doesn't hop that Empire Builder during a government shutdown. If he does, though, at least he'll be able to see whether or not he'll arrive at that closed park on-time.
Buy a coffee, and we’ll lend you a free bike. This is the idea behind a
novel kind of bike-share scheme in the Czech Republic, where group of
cafes in Brno, the country’s second-largest city, have come together to
offer customers free biking. Dropping in for a drink, all users need to
do is put down a deposit of 300 Crown ($16) and they get a lock, a
folding bike and a request to turn it in at the end of the day at any of
the participating centers. Amazingly given some bike-share schemes' growing pains, organizers have had no problems with abuse or theft since the project started last year.
Brno’s project is small – so far only five bike points are involved –
but the city’s alternative and apparently unique model still has some
very useful lessons for other cities looking to get more citizens
biking.
Firstly, Brno shows that you don’t always have to go big, either in
bike numbers or in sponsors. Major bike-share schemes typically involve
major enterprises like Citibank and Barclays, but Brno’s participants
are all small, local businesses – its hub is a café, bar and arts venue
in Brno’s old city called Kavarna Trojka.
While participants like Trojka need to take a long view, they clearly
believe they can recoup their investment in a few bikes by encouraging
more customers to buy drinks, by developing user loyalty and creating a
city-wide publicity platform for themselves and the events they host.
Secondly, micro-schemes mean you don’t necessarily need to invest in
new infrastructure. Brno has no docking stations, specially designed
vehicles or bike redistribution system. All it relies on is
participating venues having enough space to store some fold-up bikes.
Brno's city center.
Thirdly, Brno proves that you can have private bike-share start-ups
even in cities lacking the cash or political momentum to create larger
public schemes. With 385,000 citizens, the city isn’t huge and, while
much of it is very attractive, it’s not really a major tourism magnet
either. But while no municipal bike-share scheme has been set up there
yet, Brno is still highly suitable for cyclists. Its largely 19th
century center is already semi-pedestrianized and its street plan is
often too narrow and twisting to accommodate cars easily. The scheme is
no solution for commuters, but picking up a bike after breakfast or
coffee to run around town on is both easy and cheap.
Brno’s plan has clear and self-imposed limitations of course. Run by
volunteers, its plan is to expand only gradually, while its users are
more likely to be the sort of people who frequent artsy cafés than a
broad cross-section of the city’s population.
This could, however, have the effect of creating a more conscious
biking community that feels it has a stake in the scheme. Scheme
organizer Pavel Baďura told Czech site iDnes.cz:
I’ve been very pleasantly surprised by the fact that those who borrow
the bikes are so responsible. I expected that all of the cafés involved
would have to keep a closer eye on things and put more effort into
getting people to return the bikes and to treat them well. But so far
it’s been quite the opposite.
In assessing Brno’s possible relevance to the future of bike-sharing,
the spread of public Wi-Fi is perhaps a good model. While ubiquitous
Internet access may well be on the way, cafes the world over have long
been making up for coverage gaps by attracting customers with free
broadband. With bike-share taking off globally, we may likewise be
working towards a world where many more cities have some form of cheap
or free cycling scheme. But in the meantime, initiatives like Brno’s can
help plug gaps. By feeding an enthusiasm for urban cycling, they
demonstrate that even in places with little political might backing
bike-share, the public appetite is still out there.
The Long Beach City Council decided not
to support the SR710 tunnel resolution. File & receive to be
discussed another time was the result. Barbara Messina was called 'out
of order' under the 'Brown Act' for jumping up in a desperate attempt to
salvage the resolution after public comment section was closed.
Barbara Messina
NO710 Joanne & Dr. Bill.
Tom Williams after the resolution is tabled for another time.