Saturday, September 25, 2004
BART to San Jose
Friday, September 24, 2004
Sierra Club Position on BART to San Jose
Published September 24, 2004
Letters to the Editor Silicon Valley Business Journal
Sierra Club View of Bart to San Jose
The Sierra Club in a letter to Representative Tauscher, member of Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, recommends that no federal funds be allocated to extend BART south from Fremont.
The San Francisco Bay Chapter, which includes the three original BART counties, joins the Loma Prieta Chapter in Santa Clara County, home of VTA, in opposing BART to San Jose. It delivers too little and costs too much. The ridership forecasts are deceptively optimistic and are really wishful thinking.
We advocate off-the-shelf alternatives like buses and trains between Fremont and San Jose. They can be implemented quickly and gradually expanded as demand increases and technology improves. They would meet traveler needs at a fraction of the cost of building and operating BART and most importantly, without sacrificing the rest of VTA's light rail and bus service.
We are also concerned that the recent report by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury to VTA is being disregarded. The Grand Jury also recommended that VTA delay expenditures for BART to San Jose.
The Sierra Club, an environmental organization, is naturally very engaged in transportation issues.
=================================
Lowell Grattan Also ADC member
Sierra Club Transportation Committee
Letters to the Editor Silicon Valley Business Journal
Sierra Club View of Bart to San Jose
The Sierra Club in a letter to Representative Tauscher, member of Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, recommends that no federal funds be allocated to extend BART south from Fremont.
The San Francisco Bay Chapter, which includes the three original BART counties, joins the Loma Prieta Chapter in Santa Clara County, home of VTA, in opposing BART to San Jose. It delivers too little and costs too much. The ridership forecasts are deceptively optimistic and are really wishful thinking.
We advocate off-the-shelf alternatives like buses and trains between Fremont and San Jose. They can be implemented quickly and gradually expanded as demand increases and technology improves. They would meet traveler needs at a fraction of the cost of building and operating BART and most importantly, without sacrificing the rest of VTA's light rail and bus service.
We are also concerned that the recent report by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury to VTA is being disregarded. The Grand Jury also recommended that VTA delay expenditures for BART to San Jose.
The Sierra Club, an environmental organization, is naturally very engaged in transportation issues.
=================================
Lowell Grattan Also ADC member
Sierra Club Transportation Committee
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Greenbelt vs Openspacee
Greenbelt vs Openspace
Greenbelt vs. Openspace.
We all desire openspace. Some of the great cities in Europe such as Frankfurt are one-third public openspace with forests near downtown. We want openspace near our homes, for daily use by our families as parks, golf courses, etc. Many prefer openspace as part of their own private backyards.
Greenbelt on the other hand is different and is part of the Urban Growth Boundary, a central part of Smart Growth Planning along with the second part Light-Rail transportation. The Greenbelt Plan puts a limit of development belt around San Jose, which ends up squeezing the city inhabitants and forcing them close together with the hope they will become light-rail riders, thus denying the residents usable openspace.
The result is a shortage of development land directly effecting housing costs. During the last 25 years housing prices in San Jose have gone up by a factor of nine, more than any US city. Families demanding a home with a swing set and a sandbox skip over the San Jose greenbelt and instead look to Stockton or Hollister to purchase their home which results in sprawl, pollution, and waste of resources. Housing prices have resulted in exiting of the poor and minorities, which is a phenomenon some call economic cleansing. Houston, the fourth largest city in the U. S., has no zoning and few restrictions, resulting in some of the lowest housing prices.
Greenbelt landowners with builder's eager to build for enthusiastic buyers must continue to wait for approvals. During these recent years San Jose home purchasers have paid two to three times more for their homes than they should, compared to cities without a greenbelt. High housing prices and a congested highway system resulting from exaggerated funding of light-rail and neglecting roads also impacts urban joblessness. Portland, OR and San Jose are one two in urban joblessness in the US. They are also one two as the first US cities to implement Smart Growth planning. It should be evident to all that Smart Growth Planning negatively impacts cities housing, roads and the environment.
We do not permit racial profiling; we support equal pay for equal work. We do not permit discrimination in race, religion, etc. However, when we get to property rights there are no fairness or reason. Can private property be reserved or held as greenbelt or a viewshed for the benefit of the community with out the community paying for it? This law is still evolving.
The community should purchase privately owned lands designated greenbelts along with environmentally sensitive lands, wetlands, lands with endangered species.
However, designating privately owned land as greenbelts, has a tremendous cost that is not fully understood or taken into account as to its effect on housing costs, jobs, livability, and the environment.
Lowell Grattan is a local businessman born, raised and educated in the valley.
He can be reached at lowell_grattan@prodigy.net
This was just published in the Silicon Valley Biz Ink 9/17/04
Greenbelt vs. Openspace.
We all desire openspace. Some of the great cities in Europe such as Frankfurt are one-third public openspace with forests near downtown. We want openspace near our homes, for daily use by our families as parks, golf courses, etc. Many prefer openspace as part of their own private backyards.
Greenbelt on the other hand is different and is part of the Urban Growth Boundary, a central part of Smart Growth Planning along with the second part Light-Rail transportation. The Greenbelt Plan puts a limit of development belt around San Jose, which ends up squeezing the city inhabitants and forcing them close together with the hope they will become light-rail riders, thus denying the residents usable openspace.
The result is a shortage of development land directly effecting housing costs. During the last 25 years housing prices in San Jose have gone up by a factor of nine, more than any US city. Families demanding a home with a swing set and a sandbox skip over the San Jose greenbelt and instead look to Stockton or Hollister to purchase their home which results in sprawl, pollution, and waste of resources. Housing prices have resulted in exiting of the poor and minorities, which is a phenomenon some call economic cleansing. Houston, the fourth largest city in the U. S., has no zoning and few restrictions, resulting in some of the lowest housing prices.
Greenbelt landowners with builder's eager to build for enthusiastic buyers must continue to wait for approvals. During these recent years San Jose home purchasers have paid two to three times more for their homes than they should, compared to cities without a greenbelt. High housing prices and a congested highway system resulting from exaggerated funding of light-rail and neglecting roads also impacts urban joblessness. Portland, OR and San Jose are one two in urban joblessness in the US. They are also one two as the first US cities to implement Smart Growth planning. It should be evident to all that Smart Growth Planning negatively impacts cities housing, roads and the environment.
We do not permit racial profiling; we support equal pay for equal work. We do not permit discrimination in race, religion, etc. However, when we get to property rights there are no fairness or reason. Can private property be reserved or held as greenbelt or a viewshed for the benefit of the community with out the community paying for it? This law is still evolving.
The community should purchase privately owned lands designated greenbelts along with environmentally sensitive lands, wetlands, lands with endangered species.
However, designating privately owned land as greenbelts, has a tremendous cost that is not fully understood or taken into account as to its effect on housing costs, jobs, livability, and the environment.
Lowell Grattan is a local businessman born, raised and educated in the valley.
He can be reached at lowell_grattan@prodigy.net
This was just published in the Silicon Valley Biz Ink 9/17/04
Your gas tax dollars at work
Once upon a time, gas taxes were a user fee, dedicated to improving the highways used by the people who paid the fee. Now they are a tax, with an increasing share diverted to anything but projects that would improve highways and reduce congestion.
Which is a long way of introducing a story that Eugene, Oregon, spent $3.5 million in gas tax money renovating an old train station. A former mayor of the city foolishly predicts that the renovation will lead to increased rail ridership. Meanwhile, Amtrak's unsubsidized competition, Greyhound, has massively cut back on its services because it can't compete with billion-dollar annual subsidies to Amtrak.
The above link goes to a newspaper story that doesn't specify where the $3.5 million "federal grant" came from, but a Eugene city council newsletter says it was from the Federal Highway Administration. Just what train stations have to do with highways is not clear, except that since 1983 Congress has frittered away more and more gas tax money on non-highway projects -- thus putting the lie to the name "highway trust fund."
The news story also notes that "virtually all the train stations" between Eugene and Vancouver, BC "have been restored, or are in the process of being restored." No doubt all with gas tax money.
Which is a long way of introducing a story that Eugene, Oregon, spent $3.5 million in gas tax money renovating an old train station. A former mayor of the city foolishly predicts that the renovation will lead to increased rail ridership. Meanwhile, Amtrak's unsubsidized competition, Greyhound, has massively cut back on its services because it can't compete with billion-dollar annual subsidies to Amtrak.
The above link goes to a newspaper story that doesn't specify where the $3.5 million "federal grant" came from, but a Eugene city council newsletter says it was from the Federal Highway Administration. Just what train stations have to do with highways is not clear, except that since 1983 Congress has frittered away more and more gas tax money on non-highway projects -- thus putting the lie to the name "highway trust fund."
The news story also notes that "virtually all the train stations" between Eugene and Vancouver, BC "have been restored, or are in the process of being restored." No doubt all with gas tax money.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
"Environmentalists" back 60-unit-per-acre housing project
A developer has proposed to put in 170-unit housing project on 2.8 acres near a major Portland arterial. So-called environmentalists think it is a great idea, but local residents, who have opposed densification of their neighborhood for years, oppose it. "Because of the density, we think it's going to cause substantial harm to neighborhood livability," said one of the residents. But a watershed group loves the project because a it would restore part of a creek that has been submerged in pipes underground.
The project manages to fit 14 row houses, a 100-unit, four-story apartment, and a 56-unit, "affordable" apartment, plus 165 parking spaces, on just 2.8 acres. The Portland Development Commission and a non-profit group would end up owning or managing the two apartment buildings, so no doubt the project involves large subsidies.
The project manages to fit 14 row houses, a 100-unit, four-story apartment, and a 56-unit, "affordable" apartment, plus 165 parking spaces, on just 2.8 acres. The Portland Development Commission and a non-profit group would end up owning or managing the two apartment buildings, so no doubt the project involves large subsidies.
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Portland-Opposition group tries to derail transit mall plan
A coalition of downtown property owners has launched a last minute attack against a proposed $24 million local improvement district to help pay part of a $160 million dollar Portland transit mall renovations.
Opponents of the assessment district contend that "public transit on the mall is actually a burden on the value of adjacent property rather than a special benefit." Among drawbacks,the opponents listed noise, congestion, vandalism, panhandling and "other nuisances associated with Portlands public transit system."
The $160 million mall renovation is part of a $494 million light-rail project that also would add new tracks in the Interstate-205 corridor between Clackamas Town Center and the Gateway Transit Center.
The 205 corridor has no bus service now, I asked Tri- Met a few years ago why there was no bus service along the 205 corridor and was informed that there was no need because there was not enough transit users to run a bus. I then asked why Tri-Met was planning to build Light rail along the 205 corridor. I didn't receive an answer.
A coalition of downtown property owners has launched a last minute attack against a proposed $24 million local improvement district to help pay part of a $160 million dollar Portland transit mall renovations.
Opponents of the assessment district contend that "public transit on the mall is actually a burden on the value of adjacent property rather than a special benefit." Among drawbacks,the opponents listed noise, congestion, vandalism, panhandling and "other nuisances associated with Portlands public transit system."
The $160 million mall renovation is part of a $494 million light-rail project that also would add new tracks in the Interstate-205 corridor between Clackamas Town Center and the Gateway Transit Center.
The 205 corridor has no bus service now, I asked Tri- Met a few years ago why there was no bus service along the 205 corridor and was informed that there was no need because there was not enough transit users to run a bus. I then asked why Tri-Met was planning to build Light rail along the 205 corridor. I didn't receive an answer.
