Discussing citywide rezoning

Tomorrow the City of Oakland will hold a “community meeting” on the citywide zoning update, which recently passed its Council-approved deadline to complete its work (it is nowhere near done). At North Oakland’s Peralta Elementary School (460 63rd St, entrance is on Alcatraz Ave) from 10a to noon, city planners will present their work and solicit input. Urbanists for a Livable Temescal – Rockridge Area (ULTRA) are asking supporters of Smart Growth to attend the meeting, support urban-scale building heights, and ask for mixed-use development of the Pleasant Valley Safeway. If you can’t attend tomorrow’s meeting, there’s another on Thursday Nov 12 at the Fruitvale Senior Center, in the Fruitvale Transit Village (3301 E. 12th St, Ste 201 on the 2nd Floor), from 6p to 8p.

City staff are presenting this important, and hopefully long-term, planning policy during an uncertain climate. Though many development projects are on hold, others are in progress, and downtown is seeing an uptick in retail businesses. Inclusionary Zoning, a controversial policy that has been a touchstone in Oakland’s development politics for a decade, is in legal limbo after a Los Angeles developer successfully challenged an affordability mandate as a violation of Costa-Hawkins, the state law that banned vacancy control and restricted rent control to pre-1980 buildings. With the State Supreme Court declining to hear an appeal of what is being called the Palmer decision, it seems like a major potential barrier to new development is no longer an option.

On Monday, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board will be discussing the citywide rezoning as well, but within their subject area. If you’re interested in how rezoning may impact historic preservation, check out the agenda and the staff report. There are three opportunities to attend meetings about rezoning, so a student of Oakland’s future has no excuse but to attend!

Recent reports on AC Transit are mistaken

ACT Transit produced a lot of news recently, because several important decisions were made. The Board voted for a non-binding resolution to “buy American,” service cuts were postponed while the agency sought to transfer Congestion Management and Air Quality funds from capital improvements to operations, and long-time General Manager Rick Fernandez resigned. If you learned about these decisions from the two local media outlets that cover AC Transit the most, the East Bay Express and Berkeley Daily Planet weekly newspapers, you would have read some very inaccurate statements about the agency.

The “Buy American” resolution passed by the Board (PDF) was proposed by Director Elsa Ortiz (East Oakland – Alameda) and strongly supported by new Director Joel Young (at-large). In her statement proposing the resolution, Director Ortiz called complaints about Van Hool buses “exaggerated” and made it clear that her resolution is an attempt to support local jobs rather than to stop buying European buses (“American-made” buses are actually made abroad anyway). The resolution is also non-binding. That did not stop Berkeley Daily Planet reporter Jesse Douglas Allen-Taylor from declaring that the resolution, which is not a policy, “would be the death knell for AC Transit’s recent practice of buying buses exclusively from Belgian bus manufacturer Van Hool.” East Bay Express reporter Robert Gammon says that “the board voted to effectively end the agency’s controversial relationship with Belgian bus maker, Van Hool.” Those statements are simply wrong: no contracts were changed, though obviously staff is being directed to look at alternative sources for buses. Since AC Transit has no immediate plans to buy new buses, the effect of the nonbinding resolution is unclear. And for the record, AC Transit does not buy buses “exclusively” from Van Hool, but continues to purchase other manufacturer’s buses for what is a pretty diverse fleet (ACT does not source from Hayward bus manufacturer Gillig).

Rick Fernandez proposed swapping capital funds for operating funds to stave off 15% service cuts that had been proposed and discussed in a months-long public outreach process that the agency could undertake because it had ample cash reserves (by contrast, BART cut off-peak service 20% with no outreach). The Board rejected Fernandez’s recommendation to seek a funding swap with BART for Regional Measure 2 funds, and instead only asked that CMAQ funds, already dedicated to the organization, be reprogrammed from capital to operating. Because a big source of BRT funding, the state’s STIP contribution, is already in doubt, and there is no date certain for starting construction, it made sense to take some funds away from BRT because the agency will have to rethink the funding plan anyway. This was misinterpreted by people who don’t seem to like the BRT plan, with Mr. Allen-Taylor writing that it means “at least a one-year delay in construction of AC Transit’s long-planned Bus Rapid Transit line, with a possible scaling down of the proposal or even abandonment of BRT altogether.” That is claim is wishful thinking on behalf of the anti-transit Berkeley Daily Planet.

One statement in particular, from the East Bay Express’s Mr. Gammon (who, we cannot forget, penned a wildly inaccurate article about Van Hool and AC Transit last year), stands out for its falsehood. He writes:

AC Transit has repeatedly slashed service and raised fares in recent years, while requiring loans from other agencies to stay solvent and growing increasingly dependent on taxpayer funds to keep its buses running.

Not a single phrase in that statement is true. AC Transit hasn’t substantially cut service since the last recession, in 2003, which is not a recent year. Fares went up this year for the first time since 2005, but service has not yet been cut. AC Transit has not taken out a loan from other agencies, and has no plans to do so (he must be confusing AC Transit with BART), and is not “increasingly dependent on taxpayer funds.” AC Transit did successfully seek a parcel tax hike to make up for some of the state budget cuts it and other agencies suffered, but again unlike BART, AC Transit has not received any net increase in taxpayer support. (BART has also raised fares repeatedly. Come to think of it, if you replace AC Transit with BART in the statement, it becomes true.)

Finally, the departure of Rick Fernandez was used by these media outlets, who generally don’t like AC Transit, as validation of their positions. Mr. Allen-Taylor even interviewed leading BRT and Van Hool critic Joyce Roy about it. However, had he bothered to ask any of the pro-BRT activists that have been going to public meetings and organizing to support the agency, he would have found that they are also displeased by Mr. Fernandez’s job performance. Mr. Gammon says that Mr. Fernandez “resigned abruptly,” yet two paragraphs below writes that he “came to the Board several months ago, seeking a lucrative severance package.” Rick Fernandez’s departure could just as easily be interpreted as a statement of support for BRT, since Mr. Fernandez sought to reprogram much more money away from it than the Board approved.

It is disappointing that the East Bay Express and the Berkeley Daily Planet, leading reporters of the East Bay’s largest transit agency, are so blinded by their own biases about bus service that they report remote possibilities or questionable interpretations as settled fact. AC Transit is the lifeline of the East Bay, and though it certainly needs critical oversight, the resistance to its mission that local weeklies sometimes display is inappropriate for community-based papers. BART, on the other hand, regularly screws Oakland over, but the weeklies only pay attention when something rises to the level of a riot or a billion-dollar boondoggle. Unfortunately, it’s only going to get worse: Mr. Allen-Taylor will not longer report on AC Transit, Oakland government or anything else – the Planet has laid off its reporting staff. Commentaries will continue, of course. Though the Planet’s firm editorial stances certainly colored their reporting, the loss of coverage of local issues will just make it harder for people to understand what’s going on at AC Transit or other public agencies.

Transit advocates are making progress

This blog is about decisions made today that shape the future. I often focus on transit and bike/ped issues because transportation is the fabric of Oakland, and can be the foundation of a healthier and more successful city. Last week, the Oakland City Council took on two vital and controversial transportation issues, parking pricing and the Airport Connector, and transit advocates, in which I include myself, basically lost the votes. But we transit advocates should be very proud of our recent work, because we made a significant difference in the long struggle to create more livable communities, and are poised to build on our success.

Sanjiv Handa and Clinton Killian recently said that bloggers came up with the idea of extending parking meter hours and raising prices. That’s not true, although I’ve blogged about parking for a long time; the city’s parking staff recommended those steps, as well as many more that were not approved by the Council during the many, many public hearings this Spring on parking and the budget. However, bloggers were among those urging the Council to stick to its parking regulations and ignore unfounded claims that parking meters are somehow bad for parking and shopping. But there were actually quite a few people brave enough to come speak at the Council in favor of rational parking regulation, and Councilmembers received many more emails against the meter-hours rollback than some suggested in public statements. We environmental advocates made good and rational arguments, and I am confident they will be borne out by the forthcoming parking study, just as they were by the SFMTA’s recent study. Bike/ped advocates found common cause with good-government and city-service advocates, and by pushing back against the tide of parking outrage, provided an alternative vision of a better-funded and more livable city. Like the Airport Connector, advocates may have lost a battle last Tuesday, but made significant strides and even real progress.

Transit advocates have never before come so close to stopping a wasteful BART boondoggle. BART’s backers, from the asphalt lobby (the Alliance for Jobs and state construction workers’ unions) to the regional heavy-hitters (the Bay Area Council of CEOs, the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, BART’s general manager and Board President) were forced to do the utmost to defend their pet disaster, and even came in person to persuade the City Council at midnight. I’m sure they found it quite demeaning. Though in the end the Council succumbed to a combination of political pressure and unfamiliarity with transportation planning, a large and diverse coalition forced cloistered regional policymakers to defend their project in front of accountable local representatives. The hearing brought vitally important public investments out of the proverbial back rooms of mid-morning meetings featuring unelected or unrepresentative officials. BART and its backers had to lie to and bully the Council to get their way, and the veneer of respectability covering BART and the MTC was stripped for all to see. As news coverage and comments made clear, the OAC’s opponents won the war of public opinion. Reforming the Bay Area’s undemocratic, regressive, and sprawl-supporting regional planning is a long struggle, but transit advocates exposed its worst manifestation to a big audience.

And though the Council did not stop the OAC, transit advocates won some real victories. The Council’s resolution for BART to adhere to many of its promises made over the years may indeed secure a better project and more jobs for locals, and even if it doesn’t, it will help people understand BART’s failures. More importantly, many of the Councilmembers who voted for the OAC were persuaded that it was not a good use of scarce funding, and were frankly embarrassed to admit that they had no alternative means to improve airport access or spend transit funds. According to one longtime City Hall policy aide, the OAC vote was “a major wake-up call” to the Council about Oakland’s failure to plan and advocate for transportation needs. The hearing also showed the power of a broad transit advocacy coalition uniting social justice, good-government, business, and quality-of-life activists. Council offices were flooded with phone calls and emails opposing the project, and speakers on the OAC outnumbered even those on parking. Transit advocates not only clearly communicated their position on the OAC and Oakland’s transit priorities, but also demonstrated broad-based community support. There’s now serious talk of creating a Transportation Commission, and in other ways transit advocates’ priorities are starting to move forward.

Last week Oakland announced it received a grant from the Air Quality Management District to start a downtown shuttle connecting Uptown to Jack London Square. Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan, whose election last year represented a progressive victory over the status quo, was instrumental in securing the grant. The shuttle was explicitly sold to the BAAQMD as a first step toward a fixed-guideway (eg, streetcar or BRT) downtown transit service. Uniting the three downtown BART stations, the bus hubs, the Amtrak and ferry stations, and downtown’s somewhat disconnected districts, is a long-held goal of local transit advocates. With the redevelopment of Jack London Square, and the potential redevelopment of Alameda Point, Oak-to-Ninth, and Auto Row, a downtown transit service not only solves a whole slew of planning problems but can leverage private funds. Thanks to TransForm, who persuaded the AC Transit Board to resist the General Manager’s recommendation to take every last penny of capital funds, AC Transit will only use a portion of Bus Rapid Transit funding to forestall service cuts, and will explore additional means of raising revenue both for existing bus service and for BRT. This creates an opportunity to look at places beyond than the very largest corridor (Telegraph-International) to make significant investments. With an invigorated transit movement and an engaged City Council, there’s a real possibility of planning for the transit improvements our city desperately needs.

The twentieth anniversary of the Loma Prieta earthquake reminds us how great a difference we can make. Thanks to far-sighted San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos and dedicated West Oaklanders, highways were torn down, and in their place, vibrant communities now blossom. Enormous portions of West Oakland were basically uninhabitable before Mandela Parkway replaced the cursed Cypress Structure over the strident objections of CalTrans and regional business interests. Transit and bike-ped advocacy isn’t just about getting places, it’s about creating successful, healthy, and beautiful communities. There’s a rising tide of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit activism in Oakland, and it’s not only new groups like Walk Oakland Bike Oakland, but also shares a vision with long-standing advocates in fields as diverse as social justice, public safety, business, and neighborhood preservation. We can’t expect to win huge battles against free parking or BART waste right away, but the steps we’ve made this year are meaningful and form the foundation for future progress.

Merchants are wrong about parking meter fees

This blog takes the position that high-profile claims by many merchants about parking are untrue. I mean merchants no disrespect: I have the highest regard for the entrepreneurs that give Oakland its flavor. Merchants are on the front lines of the economy, and contribute enormously to Oakland’s employment and sales tax base. Merchants deserve the city’s attention and dedication. But transportation policy is not their strong point.

While merchants are a vital and valuable part of the community, their perspective on transportation is not as well-rounded as one might assume, and, as has happened before, many merchants have taken a position contrary to the best interests of their customers. The claim that higher meter fees and longer hours are hurting business is not borne out by a careful examination of the evidence.

Some merchants argue that the new meter fees have had a direct and immediate impact on their livelihoods. They claim very frightening downturns in their business: in Grand Lake, a salon claims to suffer a one-fifth fall in revenue, a bakery says sales are down 25%, and Alan Michaan of the Theater says his sales are off by half. They attribute these huge declines in their revenue to a $.50/hr parking meter fee increase, as well as a two-hour increase in the hours of operation.

This is hard to believe for two reasons. First, it usually takes consumers a fair amount of time to change their behavior in response to price signals. For example, car driving has continued to fall after gas prices came off their 2008 highs. A less inspiring example is that consumer habit is a major barrier to establishing new retail districts in Oakland. So it seems unlikely that one trip to Grand Lake, paying more than expected for parking, would result in an immediate and drastic change in consumer habits.

Second, fifty cents an hour is not very much money. Dinners in Oakland for two often cost over $50. $4 more in evening meter fees, which many customers expect because of dining experiences in San Francisco and elsewhere, is about the same as sales tax. If $4 is crippling to one’s transportation budget, then the extra cost of driving to a restaurant with dedicated parking in Walnut Creek or Lafayette would be hurtful too (and of course there are establishments within Oakland with off-street parking). Despite what some merchants imply, street parking is not free or unlimited in Emeryville, Berkeley, Lafayette or Walnut Creek. Daytime customers who may be buying the apocryphal spool of thread are paying an extra fifty cents an hour more, which does not justify a substantially longer and less convenient trip. It’s really hard to believe that Oakland charging drivers an extra dollar would have a substantial and immediate impact on store receipts.

So what is going on? Are the merchants lying? No, they’re not, although I will point out that merchants’ business statements are held to a far lower standard than that applied to larger enterprises. It’s true that business is bad for Oakland merchants. But is that really a surprise? Merchants should have been prepared for a hot, difficult summer, given that the recession is (hopefully) hitting its bottom, and there is usually a summertime decrease in local business. Rebutting one neighborhood’s example, City Homestead writes:

It’s critical to know how much, if any, business the commercial districts are losing that’s directly attributable to the parking fees and not to the economy overall. (I’ll add that in Grand Lake’s case, my read as a neighborhood resident is that business has been down for months—it’s not a new thing. We’ve lost a number of businesses, and most of them closed well before the increased fees kicked in, so I’m wary of attributing too much to a drop in July business.)

So there are other explanations for a painful business downturn. A source reports that one large and well-known Oakland restaurant has suffered, since July, a 40% decline in business. This restaurant enjoys free dedicated parking. So it may not be true that recent decline in business can be attributed to increased parking fees.

Even the upset merchants themselves date their decline in business to before the meter fees were increased. Several say that business has declined since the beginning of July, when the Master Fee Schedule was passed. But the fees didn’t come into effect until July 11; it was only two days later that Michaan began his protest. While many merchants believe they benefit from cheaper parking for their customers, it is far from clear that meter fees have had a real business impact.

Some merchants are asking the City Council to believe that customers cannot afford an extra dollar for shopping or four dollars for dining, that they have drastically changed their weekly routines, and did so immediately after a Council meeting at which Alan Michaan was the only person to speak against the fees. It doesn’t make sense. There isn’t enough evidence that higher meter fees and longer hours are actually reducing business receipts for the Council to reopen the budget process. Merchants’ assumptions need to be challenged: is cheap street parking really that important to Oakland retailers? In conclusion, please enjoy a choose-your-own-adventure story inspired by Paramount Theater Boardmember Clinton Killian’s Oakbook op-ed.

It’s a bright and breezy summer Saturday. You’re half of a hot couple and you want to roll your Prius to Ozumo at 7pm, but are sensitive to parking problems. You could spend $10 on the valet, $2 on the meter, or go somewhere else. Emeryville’s meters are cheaper, but they run all night, so if you linger over langoustine at Town Hall you’ll lose more than a Jefferson. PF Chang’s at Bay Street will let you park for free for two hours, but mediocre fried rice doesn’t really go with your outfit. You could cruise all the way over to Lafayette, enjoying some Lady GaGa on the way, but Yankee Pier may not be your scene, gas just keeps going up, and all that time in the car is time you’re not admiring your date. If you’re determined to pinch pennies, you can take your high-heeled, clutch-toting companion to the Sinaloa truck on First Avenue, where there’s free parking and the lengua tacos with pickled carrots are cheaper than Ozumo’s tender toro. What do you do?

The classy answer is to go to Ozumo and pay the valet, or cough up the $2 and walk a block. I dare say that’s your date’s opinion too.

Should Oakland weigh in on connector?

UPDATED to reflect correct meeting date, Thursday June 18.

Next Thursday (June 18), the Oakland City Council Rules Committee will hear a request from Councilmember Nancy Nadel to agendize a discussion of the proposed Oakland Airport Connector project. Ms. Nadel will request the connector be discussed at the Public Works Committee, which she chairs, and that the project then be forwarded to the full Council. The project is being sold to the region as a great investment in Oakland, yet Oakland’s elected officials have not had an opportunity to examine it in eight years, and the project has changed substantially since then. Nevertheless, transit advocates expect a fight over whether Oakland should even have a discussion.

A lot is at stake for Oakland. On one hand, project supporters claim that it will improve the Oakland Airport area, attracting more airline passengers and perhaps more businesses to Airport and surrounding area. For the reality-based community, however, there are enormous costs to the City of Oakland to moving ahead with the project. ACTIA funds that would otherwise go to East Oakland bike/ped/transit improvements, such as a mooted transit village at the Coliseum BART station, would be lost. The Port of Oakland will have to use funds that would otherwise go to airport renovation and expansion. Regional stimulus funds would go to this instead of to shoring up AC Transit and BART service. And the City of Oakland will lose the opportunity to improve transit service that would serve the workers and businesses in the Hegenberger Corridor, since the RFP for the Airport Connector does not include any intermediate stops. Many of these problems are a result of changes to the project, and many former supporters are now opponents.

A half-billion-dollar regional investment in Oakland should clearly merit some review by the Oakland City Council. However, transit advocates expect Councilmember Larry Reid, who represents the Airport and is on the Rules Committee, to resist allowing a public hearing on the project. He has claimed several times, most recently this morning at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission committee hearing, that six of the eight councilmembers support the project. If that’s true, why wouldn’t he welcome a public hearing and the opportunity for the Council as a body to weigh in? Supporters of the Oakland Airport Connector, mainly BART and MTC staff, have been resisting any review of alternatives to the project (today MTC Director Steve Heminger said it was “too late” to look at alternatives, even though they’ve been mooted for years). BART staff have repeatedly lied to decision-makers about the specifics of the project, for example telling the Port Commission about local hire and project labor agreements that are mysteriously missing from the RFP, or providing outdated ridership projections to the MTC. A well-placed City Hall source tells me that when Council staff contacted BART about having a public hearing on the project, BART said they would rather meet privately with each councilmember. Clearly Airport Connector supporters don’t think they have the truth on their side.

So, what do you think? If you agree that Oakland’s elected official should weigh in on the project, with public comment, please send an email to the members of the Rules Committee, especially Council President Jane Brunner (addresses below). If you think projects should be decided without the input of relevant elected officials, well, then you are probably quite thrilled with the direction of Bay Area transportation spending, and you don’t need to do anything. Without Oakland’s elected officials having a public hearing, the citizens of Oakland have no formal voice in the process. The Oakland City Council needs to step up to plate and make the decisions they were elected to, on behalf of the city. Please advocate for your chance to have a voice.

 

Rules Committee (meeting on Thursday, June 18)

Council President Jane Brunner, North Oakland: jbrunner at oaklandnet dot com

Jean Quan, Montclair-Laurel: jquan at oaklandnet dot com

Ignacio de la Fuente, Fruitvale-Glenview-Jingletown: idelafuente at oaklandnet dot com

BART Board mortgages system for East Oakland “Blingfrastructure”

This afternoon, the BART Board of Directors voted 7-1 (Radulovich no, Murray absent) to take out a $150m loan to fund the construction of an elevated fixed-guideway transit system to the Oakland airport. Community groups including Genesis, Asian-Pacific Environmental Network, and Urban Habitat, teamed with BART and AC Transit unions and transit advocates to urge the BART Board to adopt a Rapid Bus that would serve workers and businesses along the route and have a lower fare. The arguments from BART staff that a bus just isn’t good enough, and from construction interests urging job creation, apparently swayed the Board. Board President Tom Blalock argued that the community benefit of the flyover connector is increased road capacity on Hegenberger, and BART staff said there was potential for one infill station, but no financial commitments were made. Mr. Blalock also made it clear that the flyover not serving Airport expansion was not BART’s problem. Tom Radulovich, after agreeing with many speakers that BART shouldn’t borrow money for expansion when the core needs of the BART system are underfunded, said that the bus alternative was clearly superior, and characterized the overhead Airport Connector as “blingfrastructure:” ostentatious, expensive, and unnecessary. The Port of Oakland must approve raising $44m from airline ticket fees, and two federal agencies must sign off on aspects before the project receives final approval from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

If you’d like to learn more about the meeting and the Directors’ comments, please see my Twitter (@dto510), @MaxAllstadt, and @TheBlackHour. Even if you don’t have a twitter account you can subscribe to RSS feeds of my twitter to follow breaking news or my other updates. Living in the O and I will blog when there are further opportunities to advocate for a more cost-effective Airport Connector that better serves East Oakland.

Bike to Work Day 2009: Progress with a gift bag

Tomorrow is Bike to Work Day, of course. The local tradition started in Oakland, and to this day Oakland hosts the biggest Bike to Work Day event in the Bay Area. Bicyclists congregating on City Hall to listen to politicians give speeches may not seem all that encouraging when daily many cyclists are faced with a lack of bike lanes, bike parking, and bike accommodation at work and at home. A look at the context of Bike to Work Day in Oakland reveals challenges but also reasons to take pride in progress.

Obviously, ancient sidewalks and pothole-ridden streets are bad for bicyclists and pedestrians. There is still a crippling bike parking shortage in many parts of downtown, and major construction projects are unnecessarily impacting bike commuters. The Fox Theater isn’t following the new Bicycle Parking Ordinance, yet had the gall to ask the city for a subsidized parking lot on Telegraph Avenue, gaining the support of the Redevelopment Agency. Transportation planning is as much of a mess as it ever was.

But a lot has been accomplished in the last year. Oakland’s Bicycle Master Plan was passed in 2007 and is being implemented in a stuttering but cost-effective manner. Bike route signage will soon grace most thoroughfares. Pedestrian advocates were able to delay the Uptown parking lot in favor of public art (no thanks to the downtown councilmembers). Bike parking has finally come to Old Oakland and other parts of town. The Bicycle Parking Ordinance has been followed with pedestrian-friendly zoning and ground-floor design standards recommended for downtown by the Planning Commission, setting a precedent for the citywide zoning update. Dramatically increasing pedestrian and bicycle trips are not only apparent but now they are documented, setting the stage for greater government awareness of the need for, as it’s called now, complete streets.

Bike to Work Day may only be symbolic of the quest for better transportation options, but it’s fun! You can join a Pedal Pool, and bicycle with your Councilmember and neighbors to City Hall, where you’ll be greeted with a pancake breakfast and gift bag. If you’re biking to work somewhere else in the city, energizer stations will provide food, drink, and swag (a map is in today’s East Bay Express). The East Bay Bicycle Coalition will provide valet bicycle parking all day, and in the evening there’s a North Oakland Bike From Work Day party, sponsored by ULTRA, the EBBC, and Tip Top Bike Shop (starts at 5:30, on 49th St between Shattuck and Telegraph Avenues). It’s an opportunity to engage in an alternative commute in a more welcoming environment than usual, but as Becks points out, it’s also a chance to talk to your councilmembers about bike/ped issues, and even to stop by BART HQ to speak for a better East Oakland investment. If only every political event came with a gift bag!

---

Also, some interesting reading on bike/ped and transit issues:

 

NRDC Switchboard’s Justin Horner (former Oakland City Council aide) discusses the recent change in America’s driving habits.

StreetsFilms gives tips on locking a bicycle, and Streetsblog kicks of its national coverage with an update on progress toward a new Surface Transportation Act. Meanwhile, Transportation For America releases its priorities for greener, more equitable transportation policy.

Transbay Blog looks at newly-released BART rider survey data, and concludes that infill stations are a better investment than suburban extensions.

Tomorrow is also the big vote on the Oakland Airport Connector. Will BART borrow $150m, steal from its seismic improvement fund, and potentially bankrupt the Port of Oakland to build a flyover connector between the Coliseum BART station and Oakland Airport, with no stops at the hotels between, and a $12 roundtrip fare? Or will the BART Board choose a vastly cheaper option that would provide greater local service and free up funds for other transit improvements around the Coliseum and throughout the Bay Area? You’ve probably already read Becks’s blog, and TransForm’s report, but here’s a blog from the BART workers’ union.

DTO Nightlife: Far from footloose and fancy-free

In Oakland it seems that one has to attend a late-night City Council meeting to spend late nights out clubbing. With dancing all but illegal, our grittier, more crowded version of the small town from Footloose forces nightlife lovers to engage in elaborately choreographed routines to appeal to public sympathy, with no guarantee of a Hollywood ending. Fortunately, the same skillset for pitching woo at midnight over a pounding beat can aid a political pitch at midnight over the background noise of a gadfly. Tonight, erstwhile clubbers and other supporters of a more vibrant Oakland will appeal to our elected representatives to reverse decisions made by bureaucrats that harm downtown Oakland’s nightlife.

Oasis Dancing Permit Appeal

Though the claim that Oakland shutting down clubs with violent incidents is an elaborate racist conspiracy is far-fetched, it is certainly true that the city is not supportive of late-night businesses even as the General Plan and other policies encourage a “24-hour city.” From the smoking ban to cabaret permit application fees to pinball bans to the city-created taxi shortage, Oakland does not make it easy for nightlife venues to be successful. But when, against all odds, a dance club is successful yet does not lead to shootings in the neighborhood, one would expect the city to be pleased. One would be quite wrong.

The Oasis, a somewhat run-down club with a wonderful space and an unique music selection, is appealing its denial of a cabaret license to the City Council tonight. Essentially, the owner’s permit was yanked because his almost hundred-year-old building didn’t pass all inspections, and he continued operation. Undercover police found after-hours operations and “the scent of freshly burnt marijuana” as well. When contacted about needing a permit (after four years of operation and business tax payments), the owner applied for a permit. His permit was rejected because he was operating without a permit. You can read the entire Kafkaesque saga in the staff report, but suffice to say that there are no allegations of violence or anything more serious than folks dancing without a permit.

Uptown parking lot

Late last year, Forest City Development asked for a three-year extension on its agreement to build a tower on a city-owned parcel at 19 and Telegraph. The Redevelopment Agency could ask for almost anything as a condition of extending their lease, but chose to ask for a surface parking lot. Ever since then, area residents, clubbers, and concerned citizens have been fighting this very visible step backwards for the Uptown neighborhood. Much has been written about this proposal, but it is important to note that, whether the parking lot is ever built or not, the only effective plans for increasing area car parking have come from pedestrian advocates opposed to the surface lot (including keeping the Franklin lot open later and installing signage). Tonight the Council will hear Redevelopment Agency’s request to apply to the Planning Commission for permission to build the lot; if they vote to move forward, it will likely be back before them in six months when either residents or the Redevelopment Agency appeals the Planning Commission’s decision.

So downtown nightlife lovers will congregate tonight, not at Somar, but at City Hall. There may be an after-party, but the meeting’s liable to run past bar closing time. If we’re successful, there will be other chances to party. After all, the City Council doesn’t meet every night!

Oakland government’s woes reflected in parking proposal

Eager readers of the blogoaksphere certainly noticed many bloggers’ cause du jour – preventing the city from installing a surface parking lot in the middle of downtown’s up-and-coming Uptown neighborhood. The issue touched on a lot of the causes dear to bloggers’ hearts: pedestrian and transit-oriented planning, civic engagement, and enjoying nightlife. While advocates were clearly outlobbied at the City Council yesterday, and I find the Community and Economic Development Committee’s pro-parking decision as frustrating as everyone else, I see how the city came to this decision. It’s not just that the CED Committeemembers decided, for whatever reason, that they love parking and don’t understand its pedestrian impact, but also contributing to this result are the structural flaws that beset Oakland’s government in general. It’s the poor performance of the Redevelopment Agency, the deeply flawed labor contract, and the city’s lack of transportation planning that lead the city to push for parking lots instead of better solutions.

An ineffectual agency

It was the Redevelopment Agency that made the decision to ask the Council and Forest City for a surface parking lot. I have been told that the decision was reached after much internal debate, since Redevelopment had the option to ask Forest City for pretty much anything as a condition of extending their lease on the 19th and Telegraph parcel. Parking won out because the Agency has planned to build a parking structure on 18th and San Pablo for almost ten years, but can’t get it together to move forward. In fact, last year they ignored an unsolicited offer to build a structure with a bowling alley on top, and have no timeline for issuing an RFP. Yet Redevelopment told the Council that temporary parking is needed because it will take some time to build new parking, which is entirely the Agency’s fault, as the planed parking structure could have been built at any time in the last decade. In effect, pedestrians are being punished for Redevelopment’s inefficiency. And long-promised Uptown sidewalk improvements are still going nowhere, adding insult to pedestrian injury.

Labor issues

The city employees’ contract, which expired last summer but is still basically in effect, imposes stringent work rules that limit the City Council’s ability to pursue programs or efficiently manage the workforce. Several of the rules governing employees limit the options available to Councilmembers concerned about adequate parking in Uptown. Pedestrian advocates and local businesses suggested that, to increase the supply of street-side car storage, parking meter hours be extended until 2am, and street sweeping hours be pushed back until 2 or 3am. The City Council ignored those cost-effective ideas, because city work rules prevent meter maids from working after 6pm and street-sweeping crews from working past 3am. Since the city workers’ contract prevents the Council from adjusting parking enforcement to meet the needs of a late-night district, adding additional parking becomes an easier prospect than increasing the use of existing parking. It’s not just the enormous expense of the city workers’ contract that’s holding Oakland back, but its work rules as well.

Lack of transportation planning

Oakland’s transportation connections are the engine of its economy and the linchpin of residential demand. However, overlapping jurisdictions severely complicate the picture: AC Transit and BART provide most public transportation (though not all: Emeryville’s Emery-Go-Round, Contra Costa County’s WestCat, and the Water Emergency Transit Authority’s ferries also serve Oakland), CalTrans controls the freeways and some major roads, the Public Utilities Commission oversees railroads, and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency and Transportation Improvement Authority direct most local transportation funds. When the City of Oakland is provided representation on these commissions, it is spread among the elected officials: Rebecca Kaplan is Oakland’s ACTIA rep, Larry Reid is Oakland’s CMA rep, and Jane Brunner sits on the joint ABAG/MTC policy-making board. The officials are free to pursue whatever policies they think are best on each commission without talking to one another, and the citizens of Oakland have no opportunity to influence transportation planning at public hearings.

Making matters worse, Oakland’s bureaucratic and official structure does not unify transportation decision-making. The Redevelopment Agency (the only part of Oakland city government with any money) is responsible for many if not most transportation improvements, and they do not necessarily work with CEDA’s bike/ped program or the planning department. Building Services also has jurisdiction over many transportation issues, especially as related to large-scale development projects. When Pat Kernighan asked the head of Redevelopment at the parking lot hearing if he was working with BART on signage and wayfinding, he said no. However, the bike/ped program is in fact working with BART on signage, but probably don’t realize that there are redevelopment goals that the signage can further. Transportation policy decisions are made by several different Council committees: most parking issues are handled by Finance and Management, planning for parking or transit-oriented development goes to Economic Development, most street improvements are heard by the Public Works Committee, and taxi regulation is governed by the Public Safety Committee. With most policy decisions made at the Committee level, Oakland’s City Council is structurally unable to coordinate transportation policy.

How does this lead to a bad parking lot? Besides the fact that a parking lot is obviously bad planning, if the Council committeemembers were up to speed on its transportation planning they may not have approved it. There is a transportation plan for Uptown, and it involves moving major vehicle traffic off of Telegraph and to Broadway at 20th St, a goal that clearly conflicts with a parking lot on 19th St. Sidewalk and bicycle improvements and a plaza are planned for lower Telegraph, AC Transit has already built their transit center on 20th and moved bus stops off of lower Telegraph, and Oakland’s taxi regulator is exploring adding a taxi stand to Uptown. Had the CED Committee been able to evaluate the parking lot in the context of these plans, they may have realized that it just doesn’t work. But not only is the Council unaware of existing transportation plans, it appears that city staff is as well. In such an environment, it is impossible to implement a transportation plan. It’s because of these factors, which also impact other aspects of Oakland’s poor governance, that Uptown pedestrians may be stuck with a parking lot.

Three years of Oakland’s future

Three years ago today, V Smoothe and I started this blog, FutureOakland (then on blogspot). We were disappointed by media coverage of the mayor’s race, and felt the minority of Oaklanders opposed to growth and revitalizing the city were completely dominating the public discussion of Oakland’s future. Under the reactionary handle of OaklandNative, I hoped to help move public discussion in favor of a more informed and more hopeful vision for this beautiful city’s success. Three years later, that goal has been largely realized.

It was not long ago that any discussion of redeveloping downtown was clouded by the angst of those wishing to preserve the failed past. Now, Oakland and East Bay residents take justifiable pride in the rebirth of Uptown as an entertainment destination, and countless neighborhoods have rediscovered their identities and are demanding their rightful share of city attention. Three years ago city government was regarded as problematic because of the influence of “greedy” developers; now the public is aware of the timidity of our elected officials and the enormous self-imposed barriers to economic success. Wednesday night’s meeting of the Planning Commission on the downtown zoning update feature a much younger and more hopeful crowd than perhaps the commission has seen in its history. While I may not agree with everyone who was there, I agree that they should offer their practical and optimistic vision to public officials. I am sure that this blog helped drive the ever-higher public meeting attendance that Oakland has experienced for the last year or so.

I don’t necessarily mean to take credit for the dozens of committed activists who have shaken up a complacent City Hall in the last few years, or for the New Media explosion allowing Oaklanders to understand the context and impact of city policy and cultural change for the first time in perhaps decades. Maybe I was just a little ahead of the curve. Of the three major Oakland blogs that predate mine, one is still kicking. But, as I am often reminded by longtime politicos, Oakland’s public discussion is light-years ahead of where it was when Ron Dellums was elected Mayor on a platform of nonsense.

Real change, whether you call it shaping the future of Oakland or creating a better Oakland, does not come from reporting alone. Since starting this blog I have become not only more informed, but more engaged. I have joined several civic organizations, taken leadership roles, and found my political niche. I have learned that, while full-throated advocacy (always nuanced and well-founded, to be sure) may make for exciting blogging, making a positive impact in the community means working with others. We Oaklanders are a clever and mostly well-meaning lot; civic engagement has been rewarding and thought-provoking.

So while I am thrilled that so many bloggers are lighting up cyberspace with a wealth of thought and information about every facet of life in this complicated city, and of course everyone should totally follow my Twitter, I ask the reader to do more than just read these brilliant blogs, but to take a more active role in the future of our great city. Volunteering, attending public meetings, starting a neighborhood organization, cleaning a local park on Earth Day, and emailing city councilmembers are the tools with which we make a stronger, healthier Oakland. Individually, we each only have so much time and so many issues that excite our attention, but together, we contribute to creating a thriving community.