Joseph Kott, who resigned as Palo Alto’s chief transportation official a decade ago, is taking a broader view these days on how people move about the region and within their communities, worldwide.
Kott survived seven years in his Palo Alto position, one of those lightning-rod posts in which the person can do virtually nothing right — in the eyes of someone in town. Ted Noguchi, who held that post in the 1970s, once said that Palo Alto has 56,000 traffic engineers — the city’s population at the time — after a particularly harsh lambasting he got in the Palo Alto Times.
Kott resigned in 2005 following several controversies, including several “traffic calming” (which someone called “driver irritating”) projects and an aborted plan to replace most signalized intersections on Embarcadero Road with roundabouts.
Since then he has been engaged in lecturing locally and internationally, consulting and doing research into a seemingly age-old dilemma of how people can best get from here to there, whether it be home-to-work-and-back, shopping trips and errands, or even delivering kids to and from school.
He founded a nonprofit organization called “Transportation Choices for Sustainable Communities” and is a lecturer in urban studies at Stanford University.
Last April he gave a lengthy presentation in Rohnert Park in Marin County on “The Emergence of Sustainable Transportation in America’s Communities.”
While “sustainable” and “sustainability” have had a vagueness about them that can be confusing, he goes by the concise but comprehensive and high-sounding definition of the federal Environmental Protection Agency: “Sustainability creates and maintains the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations.”
Well, reasonably concise, perhaps.
In essence, it’s where the economy, the environment and society (meaning human activity) overlap.
In transportation, it means it must be affordable, offer choice, support the economy, limit emission and waste, and minimize use of land and noise.
Today’s system of transportation (if it could be called a “system” and not simply “chaos”) is far from sustainable, he notes. From 1969 to 2009, statistics show that the number of private vehicles is nearly double the number of drivers. The miles of vehicle travel now exceed 3 trillion, three times higher than in 1970, and far above what roads can handle.
Private vehicles dominate transportation, with 83.4 percent in the United States; only 1.9 percent use public transportation, and 14.6 percent walk or use other means of getting around.
There is a flicker of good news, Kott notes. Since a June 2005 peak of estimated miles driven on all roads there has been a 9.34 percent drop.
Kott cites the widely known environmental and other impacts of the overwhelming dependence on the automobile, including smog and particulates, water pollution by fuels and lubricants, damage to plants and animals, damage to public and personal health and “health effects of sedentary lifestyles in young and old,” including increased risk of diabetes.
Statewide, transportation accounts for about 36 percent of emissions, far higher than industrial sources, at 21 percent, based on 2008 figures. Electrical generation accounts for about 24 percent, local or imported, and residential uses account for 6 percent, the same as agriculture and forestry practices.
Greenhouse gases, among other things, will cause “uncertain, potentially catastrophic effects — with detrimental impacts on people, economies, plants and animal life worldwide,” Kott says.
But what can be done? I personally have witnessed horrendous traffic jams in Santa Clara County, the Bay Area and statewide — including and especially in southern California — and have written about the problem as a full- or part-time journalist for more than 50 years. The British humor magazine Punch once published cartoon panels showing a clogged country road, then a clogged highway, and finally a clogged freeway covering the entire panel.
I literally saw the same thing happen in Santa Clara Valley from the 1940s and 1950s on.
I have had traffic experts tell me, as a reporter, that it is impossible to get people out of their cars. Maybe so.
But Kott’s perspective, while visionary, has some practical suggestions, including some baby steps that are already being tested in one place or another around the world. Those include “retrofitting” communities for bicycling and walking (a vision in Palo Alto that dates back to the growth years of the 1950s); integrating land use and transportation; and cleaning up motor-vehicle fleets and increasing per-vehicle occupancy rates.
Cars can also be downsized, which is also happening in the face of high gasoline prices.
Major streets and freeways should be “re-purposed” for public transit or freeway rights-of-way configured “to carry more people, not just more vehicles.”
The broader context, he says, is in “complete communities, characterized by a rich land use (housing, retail, office) in walking, bicycling and short vehicle trip distance; a generational mix; accommodation for all physical abilities; affordable housing options; and transportation choices.”
That’s a huge agenda. And skeptics are numerous. But as with anything in life, belief is a motivator, and “I think I can” may be a decisive element in success or failure.
Former Weekly Editor Jay Thorwaldson can be emailed at jthorwaldson@paweekly.com and/or jaythor@well.com. He also writes periodic blogs at PaloAltoOnline.com.
A shift from 76% SOV (single occupancy vehicle) commuting to 50% is underway in Silicon Valley.
Some bold leadership towards 50% SOV commute mode share:
1. CTP2040 Alt 3 (California Transportation Plan 2040, Alternative 3):
* 2040 transport GHG = 20% of 1990 emissions.
* Accelerate transport electrification.
* 75% increase in per mile vehicle operating costs to reduce VMT/GHG by 17.3%.
* Convert HOV2 to HOV4 – convert two-person carpool lanes to four-person
* Double transit & biking.
* “Road capacity enhancing strategies were rejected due to concerns these would ultimately increase VMT.”
While some will view California as “anti-car,” it is more appropriate to consider the state to be: pro-climate, pro-health (active transport), pro-sharing, pro-collaboration, and pro-efficiency.
2. The pioneering “Trip Cap” was the Year 2000 Stanford General Use Permit #1. It resulted in 41.9% SOV commute mode split. The cost of Stanford “A Lot” parking permits is roughly $3.60 per day. Stanford provides one of the richest sets of commute incentives, including Caltrain GoPass, Marguerite, cash for biking/carpooling. Resultant commute mode split: 41.9% SOV, 23.6% Caltrain, 13.9% bike, 8.4% carpool, 7.5% bus, 3.1% walk. Trip reduction avoided $107M in parking space construction costs.
3. Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Mountain View, and Menlo Park now have Trip Caps.
Mountain View’s adopted Feb 2015 TDM Trip Cap translates to an SOV requirement of between 30% and 45%, depending on the density of employees within buildings (the number of employees per 1,000 square feet):
4 jobs per 1,000 square feet requires 45% SOV.
5 jobs per 1,000 square feet requires 36% SOV.
6 jobs per 1,000 square feet requires 30% SOV.
One employer faces $100K fines for each one percent SOV above target. MTV trip cap: http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=15164
4. New Silicon Valley TMA/TDM efforts are forming at a rapid pace. Palo Alto’s downtown TMA and the Stanford Research Park TMA are excellent examples.
5. The City of Palo Alto / Joint Venture Mobility as a Service project (http://bit.ly/1HLwRuu ) has attracted VTA, Fremont, Mountain View, Commute.org (Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance), Google, RideScout, and Lyft as partners. The MaaS project creates a seamless, door-to-door combination of transportation modes — public and private transit, bikeshare, rideshare, carshare, vanpool, taxi, employer commute benefits, and electric scooter/bike lease — to reduce private auto usage.
6. The upcoming S/CAP “moon shot” scenario promises to move even faster than state climate policy, towards lower-than-50% SOV.
(“S/CAP” is the Palo Alto sustainability / climate action plan)
7. The 2009 “Moving Cooler” Report (by ULI, APTA, EDF, FHWA, FTA, NRDC, and EPA) has been influential in state climate-focused transport planning. The “big conclusion” is that to hit aggressive GHG reduction targets, VMT must be reduced by increasing price. Transport energy efficiency increases are not sufficient. There is a direct line between Moving Cooler and CTP2040. Moving Cooler may also influence S/CAP. A variety of VMT reduction remedies are explored, providing a path to reduce US VMT by 28%.
@Steve
Could be a good post if a human being could read it. Is there an English translation somewhere?
When Mr. Kott was the head of Transportation here in PA, he sparked a mass rebellion when he decided to try to make Middlefield a 24-hour a day bike boulevard, thus eliminating the turn lanes. Instead, sanity prevailed and Bryant became the bike boulevard.
People were incensed because Middlefield was already considered a busy road and thus unsafe for kids to bike. Still, he couldn’t admit the idea was wrong and agreed to “table” the idea and conduct another expensive study.
Just think: if he’d gotten his way, Middlefield would be backed up
Online name:
I am glad to hear you say that middlefield is not backed up now.
On another thread, someone was insisting that it was:
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/2015/08/11/residents-challenge-membership-of-new-citizen-panel
“Middlefield is often totally backed up and will get worse when parents start picking up/dropping their kids off at school and you can expect the gridlock to start at 11:30AM rather than 3:00PM.”
And
“Please take a look at Middlefield and Embarcadero from 3:00 to 6:00 PM. Middlefield is backed up practically from Oregon to Embarcadero to the south and probably to Willow to the north. “
Agenda, I’ve said repeatedly that Middlefield backs up when the commuters who are diverting from the 101 repairs end up on Middlefield, along with the Dumbarton Express buses which are also diverting from 101. The problem will get worse when the parents pick up/drop off their kids at the two nearby schools.
But thanks for catching the fact that I didn’t finish my last sentence which you’ll note is missing the final period. We ended up going to dinner when I was thinking about where Middlefield ends and to where it would have been backed up had Mr. Kott gotten his way.
To quote from the article, “Kott resigned in 2005 following several controversies, including several “traffic calming” (which someone called “driver irritating”) projects and an aborted plan to replace most signalized intersections on Embarcadero Road with roundabouts.”
Imagine that if you will.
Also, consider the fact that PA is spending $53,000,000 on bike projects (bridges, boulevards, etc.). That figure comes from this PA Online article http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/08/11/palo-alto-seeks-larger-benefits-from-2016-tax-measure
How much are we spending to improve CAR traffic??
We need to start by creating realistic alternatives to car use for larger numbers of people. Improve the capacity and frequency of public transit. Create a safer and more comprehensive bicycle route network. Reduce the distances between jobs and housing.
Many commuters are willing to adapt these changes. I see that Caltrain is standing-room-only during rush hour. Popular bicycle routes see a non-stop flow of bicycles during the morning commute. However, the public transit network and bicycle route network are seriously flawed, meaning that they do not come close to connecting many commuters to their jobs. We need to extend these networks to serve more people.
Based on what I have seen in Europe and Asia, I believe there are solutions. Whether or not Palo Alto and surrounding communities can reach these points during my foreseeable lifetime is questionable.
But it will eventually happen.
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.” -Winston Churchill
Auto traffic will not only be sustained, it will be dramatically increased if Palo Alto Forward and other pro development groups prevail. This area was designed around the automobile–retail and services are custered at substantial distances from residences per 20-th century city planning paradigms–and nobody is going to clearcut and reconstruct it. To cram in more people we must make bigger roads, which is very, very expensive in terms of direct infrastructure costs and quality of life. Visualize buying and bulldozing all the houses on one side of Middlefield and of Embarcadero.
The current software boom is neither permanent nor sustainable, kiddies.
“Sustainability” is in the eyes of the beholders. For example, I can imagine that a V-8 pickup in Cool, Ca is highly sustainable (gotta haul hay and tools)…but a Tesla in Cool would not be (chews up too many electrons from the air conditioning units). Bicycles in Cool…kinda doubt that they are big time transportation. Perhaps Jay can enlighten us, since he lives in Cool. Is there a differential definition in “sustainability”, according to where one lives? Or does Palo Alto assume that it has a right to define it for everyone?
Actually, it’s relatively straightforward to control how many cars are generated by new development: you just make a rule saying “This building can only generate so many trips”, and then you control where workers can park and measure how many do so.
It’s the approach used in Menlo Park, Mountain View, Stanford, and Redwood City. The benefit of making a rule about cars when you want to control traffic is that it’s very straightforward.
Palo Alto’s approach, on the other hand, is to prevent people from making buildings and hoping that means no new cars. Of course, that raises rents, which then leaves employers with no option but to pack all their employees into fewer buildings… meaning more cars. Or the current office cap pushes development away from train stations into SRP, where everyone drives, leading to more cars overall (some cutting through downtown).
Palo Alto should really adopt some rules on how many cars buildings are allowed to generate, like every other city on the Peninsula. Frankly, it’s kind of bizarre to see so many Palo Altans so angry about traffic and yet so focused on policies that won’t do much for traffic when there are really straightforward ways to do so that every other city uses.
I think a lot of the back-up problems would be solved, when they time the stop lights differently, and knowing what works requires observing how many cars are on Middlefield at different times. It does not make sense to make it all or nothing, with cars being prohibited at all times. There is not a constant back=up, but there are at some times, and in some places.
This ought to be something city staff could handle, and easily because much of it is Common Sense. But since common sense is in short supply, as a rule, and the city is flush with cash, they may choose to hire an expensive consultant that may suggest what I just did, and it will take 20 years of battle, to get it implemented, even on a trial basis.
“Actually, it’s relatively straightforward to control how many cars are generated by new development: you just make a rule saying “This building can only generate so many trips”, and then you control where workers can park and measure how many do so.”
The city has approved certain developments with these so-called TDM (transportation demand management) requirements, but they are never enforced or even checked. Developers don’t like them, so that’s that, but they allow city hall to pretend to impose them as feelgood tokens.
@Commentator – is there evidence for the claim that it’s never enforced? It sounds like something that would be easy to check.
Since I know that there was a big hue and cry that the Lytton Gateway development was underparked, I just did a quick check. The business registry (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/business/business_registry/) says that all the tenants together only use 12 garage spaces beyond the 88 in the building, and according to the Weekly (http://paloaltoonline.com/news/2012/05/15/palo-alto-approves-gateway-building), the developer paid in lieu fees equivalent to 33 parking spaces.
So the Lytton Gateway project, which relied the most on TDM estimates, actually paid for 21 more parking spaces than they use. And SurveyMonkey, which is the main tenant, offers free parking permits for its employees, so there’s no reason they would be using the overcrowded neighborhood parking instead. Corroborating this, SurveyMonkey did a joint survey with Palantir and RelateIQ, and reported that only 38% of their employees drive alone to work. So it really does sound like TDM works – even though there’s no enforcement! (Or is there?)
What are the other examples of recent buildings that relied on TDM? We can just check to see if they are underparked or overparked in reality. If theres no enforcement, you’d expect some at least to need more spots than they expected.
Privatize the roads and highways.
The competing bids of buyers and suppliers will, via profit and loss, approach the only objectively sustainable solution to passenger transportation.
See Walter Block, “https://mises.org/library/privatization-roads-and-highways”
People who think the government is uniquely competent to plan roads and highway need to ask why the government shouldn’t otherwise plan and control any other business? Think beyond superficial school-boy answers.
Reduce SOV trips by prohibiting all residential streets from being used to park commuter workers!
this will result in creative solutions by impacted businesses including expanded use of existing bus system, staggered work times,carpools, private busses etc…etc…etc….
Oh and BTW it will improve and retain the quality of life in all palo alto neighborhoods!
Apply some Common sense:
Public Transit for a family of 4 (w/small children)? $$ and time
Same crew on a grocery shopping trip? Oh Boy! Juggler extraordinaire
Living very far off the El Camino (22) line. Making other bus Connections off peak? OMG.
PA refuses to Electrify for cleaner local transit. Way too ugly. We would rather have Bus Diesel fumes while waiting for the ‘Walk’ light.
“SurveyMonkey did a joint survey with Palantir and RelateIQ, and reported that only 38% of their employees drive alone to work. So it really does sound like TDM works – even though there’s no enforcement! (Or is there?)”
About 38% of all downtown employees drive alone to work, so no indication of TDM effectiveness at Lytton Gateway (BTW, which of its tenants do you work for?).
But while you’re at it, why not research and report back on TDM effectiveness at 260 Homer Ave, which had a definite TDM laid on it? Be sure to ask them what reports they have to file, and what happens if they don’t, or if they come up short.
> Palo Alto should really adopt some rules
> on how many cars buildings are allowed to generate,
> like every other city on the Peninsula.
Care to share with us the names of these cities, and how they went about determining the vehicle traffic that they have mandated for the occupants of the buildings in their jurisdiction? And while you’re at it, can you share with us how they enforce their rules about vehicle traffic per building?
another author advocating bike enthusiasm–as if everyone can ditch their car by either biking or walking to work. REALLY?? what about get rid of the real problem–too much building going on in Palo Alto. the only way to sustain the traffic issue-is to stop the incessant building and additions of huge projects. where in the heck does he think this new traffic is going to go? i am sure everyone in the new projects will be riding their bikes to work, so they won’t increase the traffic jams. REALLY?? what an absolutely ludicrous article to suggest that all we have to do is get out of our cars and bike or walk. try it for a week and see what you think. going to work in all types of weather. going to the grocery store. going shopping. going to restaurants–i am sure that we want to go have a nice dinner out and show up all sweaty from riding our bikes. try going to dinner downtown on any evening and find a parking space. there simply are none. waste of gas and waste of time–why bother? try going down town during the day and do any sort of shopping–no parking. waste of gas and waste of time. try going to the grocery store and bringing home your groceries on your bike. PALO ALTO is out of control when it comes to making wise decisions for the future. gone are the days when this used to be a fun place to live. now anyone who tries to go anywhere is so stressed out by the time they get there, it simply isn’t worth going in the first place. We challenge the author to get out of his car for one week straight and try to navigate the community.
Joe, Re “share the names of cities limiting car trips into new office buildings. Explain how they count cars & enforce the rules.”
ANSWER: Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Mountain View, and Menlo Park limit car trips via “ Trip Caps.”
Mountain View’s adopted Feb 2015 TDM (transportation demand management) Trip Cap translates to an SOV (single occupancy vehicle) requirement of between 30% and 45%, depending on the density of employees within buildings (the number of employees per 1,000 square feet):
4 jobs per 1,000 square feet requires 45% SOV.
5 jobs per 1,000 square feet requires 36% SOV.
6 jobs per 1,000 square feet requires 30% SOV.
One employer faces $100K fines for each one percent SOV above target.
Details from the Mountain View program document explains the requirement for third party car counts from 7AM to 10AM. The schedule for fines is somewhere, but I couldn’t find it. I spoke directly to a major tech employer who said they faced a $100K fine. http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=15164
> Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Mountain View, and Menlo Park limit car trips via “ Trip Caps.
Thanks for the info–but this list hardly is “every city up and down the Peninsula”.
While there is a penalty associated with the limits (in the posting)-there is no evidence from the posting how these limits are computed (other than by fiat), how these limits are enforced, or if there have ever been any enforcement actions in any of these cities.
All-in-all, seems like little more than smoke and mirrors, rather than a legislative action that has actually reduced traffic.
Joe,
No, this is REALLY, REALLY BIG. I can sense your cynicism, but the politics of highway 101 traffic congestion are such that the big tech employers literally have to make this change happen to get their employees to work. There are huge, powerful forces fighting to reduce traffic.
Times are a changing. The days of complete auto-centricity are over. It’s happening in downtown PA and the research park has a new transportation initiative.
@Steve-Raney:
You (or the original poster) have failed to answer any of the questions put to you about how these rules are determined, enforced, or how their imposition has actually reduced traffic volumes in the towns where they have been applied.
Why is it so hard to get supports of these rules to answer these simple questions?
Why is it so hard to get supporters of these rules to answer these simple questions?
Well when you set an unreachable goal of “actually reduced traffic volumes” i.e. a decrease in the number of cars, then you’re just going to end up disappointed. There seems to be a contingent of Palo Altans who take issue with the inevitability of traffic issues that arise from others in the growing Bay Area having the same freedoms to travel as they do.
OK, now I get it. Employers can solve the employees late to work due to traffic problem by forbidding their employees to drive to work.
So that must mean it’s all right for employees to be late because alternative transportation is inadequate, slow, delayed by a death on the tracks, bike had a flat, etc.?
Why is that better? Late is late, ain’t it?
Joe, the Mountain View web link that I provided (twice now) has answers to the questions you asked, but it’s not something that you can magically absorb without reading. I urge you to take responsibility for learning the information via following web links yourself. 🙂
let’s keep building to make this problem even worse. you get fined for going to work? looks like we are headed towards the swedish philosophy. stay home with your feet propped up while sitting on a coach and watch tv–the government will take care of you. none of us will ever have to work again. money will be doled out to everyone who doesn’t drive to work, while government keeps building bigger buildings and offices that no one is going to show up to because we will get fined if we go to work or try to go work but are late.
now, lets work on global warming–turn off that light because the glaciers are melting–forget about what the wild fires are doing, forget about the rampant pollution in china and brazil and everywhere else, forget about the rich politicians flying around in their private jets and AF1–but, make sure you turn off your light.
a whole bunch of issues presently, that no one is really addressing the crux of the matter. it is all a bunch of hype, and it all is getting taxed.
The wonderful quality of life in Palo Alto is diminishing. Palo Alto is becoming an office park with expensive housing for foreign investors.
One approach is to limit additional office space until we meet ABAG’s required jobs to housing imbalance. The real key to reducing long commute times is to have more housing near the jobs – or more jobs near where people live. Squeezing more offices into a city such as Palo Alto that has such an imbalance, makes no sense.
In order to make sure the housing will actually be available to people who live here, Palo Alto should require far more low-moderate income housing. We have more than enough luxury housing for billionaires who want a trendy address, who frequently don’t even live here. And tearing down moderate income housing to be replaced by larger more dense luxury apartments, is the worst of both worlds. A prime example of that is the Buena Vista Trailer Park. I hope that Mr. Jisser will make the right decision and accept the offer from Caritas. This is exactly the kind of project that is needed – not more mcmansions and multimillion dollar condos used for visiting executive housing.
Oops, I meant to say, “ In order to make sure the housing will actually be available to people who WORK here”