Justin Horner's Blog: Living Sustainably

The Problem with Parking: A Case Study From LA

2010-05-06T21:35:39Z

In previous posts, I’ve talked about the environmental importance of better parking policy and recent efforts at reform (including SB 728, sponsored by NRDC, to encourage parking cash-out).

Now, when most people think of parking, they think of parking on the street. An aspect of parking that just doesn’t get enough attention is off-street parking. Nearly all local governments require developers and property owners to provide parking spaces on the site of their projects. Initially designed to cut congestion, off-street parking requirements have instead generated a variety of perverse effects. Instead of developing land to be productive for people, we instead require set-asides for cars. Less building and more parking spaces mean less efficient development, pushing up building costs. Vast parking lots also push buildings farther apart, making it difficult to walk and bike around and encouraging driving. Studies have shown that off-street parking requirements drive up the cost of housing.

A recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Business Times provides a great detailed case study on this phenomenon. Josef Bray-Ali’s story of developing a 7000 square foot infill lot in Eagle Rock is worth quoting at length:

[7000 square feet] is not a lot of room to work with. The zoning code allowed for multifamily residential and commercial uses on the same property.

We thought we could do something really nice: ground-floor offices topped by four two-story apartments. Our plans fit in perfectly with the gentrifying neighborhood (area-specific plans called for light commercial that was walkable). Our plans also fit nicely with the mixed-use zoning code ... until it came to parking.

Car parking requirements forced us to shrink everything – the ground-floor commercial was squeezed into a 400-square-foot space; the building had to have an extra story just so we could stuff a bunch of cars underneath. The cost on paper shot up, meaning that our four one-bedroom apartments turned into four studio condominiums – and once you subdivide a property into condos, you have to go through a whole bunch of planning hoops, bumping up costs even more.

This easy $200,000 construction project turned into a super-risky $1.2 million, four-story fiasco.

To make a profit, we’d have to sell 800-square-foot studio units for nearly $400,000 apiece! Even at the height of the boom, that was insane. So, after months of meetings, research and design sessions, the tiny project was scrapped.

In sum: “The car parking requirements killed our project.”

We need to encourage cities to take a new look at how they regulate parking. Last year, Senator Alan Lowenthal put forward SB 518, a sensible, entirely voluntary effort to incentivize localities to be progressive on parking. Let’s hope we see similar efforts from Sacramento and California cities in the near future.

Harvard Business Review: “The Suburbs Have Lost Their Sheen”

2010-05-04T22:01:51Z

From Pricewaterhousecoopers, to the Urban Land Institute to real estate experts throughout the country, the consensus is clear: changes in American demographics and evolving market preferences mean that the clock is ticking on sprawl. Smaller households and a growing affinity for walkability and urbanism give us the chance to turn back decades of environmentally disastrous development. People are catching on, but there’s still a lot of convincing to do.

The latest news comes from a recent article in the Harvard Business Review (“Back to the City”), which details the growing trend of businesses coming back to center cities after years of fleeing to the suburbs. The reason?

These companies are getting a jump on a major cultural and demographic shift away from suburban sprawl. The change is imminent, and businesses that don’t understand and plan for it may suffer in the long run.

To put it simply, the suburbs have lost their sheen: Both young workers and retiring Boomers are actively seeking to live in densely packed, mixed-use communities that don’t require cars—that is, cities or revitalized outskirts in which residences, shops, schools, parks, and other amenities exist close together. [Sound familiar?]

As the article outlines, 64% of college-educated 24-to-35 year olds choose a job after they have chosen a place to live. To attract new talent, major companies are moving back to where the workforce of tomorrow wants to be: walkable, compact communities that are not suburban sprawl.

LEED-Neighborhood Development: It’s Official (and California Already “LEEDs” the Way)

2010-04-29T20:53:18Z

In twin events today in Washington DC and Chicago, the three partners who created LEED-Neighborhood Development (NRDC, the Congress for the New Urbanism and the US Green Building Council) announced the system’s official launch. Nearly a decade in the making, LEED-ND is the first national standard to attempt to describe and quantify what “green” actually is on the neighborhood scale. We all know green buildings; ND gives us green neighborhoods.

As my colleague, Kaid Benfield (NRDC Smart Growth Director and one of the Founding Parents of LEED-ND) says on his blog today:

Our hope is that LEED-ND will prove to be an asset for development projects that meet the standards, separating the worthy from the pretenders and giving the worthy a stamp of approval that can help their case as they make their way through the local entitlement process. We also hope it will help local environmentalists and citizens’ groups evaluate development proposals, and that it will provide templates for governments at all levels to borrow from as they upgrade their policies to support sustainable, green neighborhoods.

Now, you can certainly read all about ND here, here and here, but what I want to add is the California angle. Although the system officially launched today, there’s been a pilot program on since 2007 that includes nearly 240 projects from all over the world. Projects must first register to be evaluated by the program and then, if they qualify, they are certified.

Of the registered projects, 18% are from California (the largest percentage of any state, province or country outside of North America) and of the certified projects, 16% are from California (again, the largest percentage of any state, province or country outside of North America). Now note, California has about 12% of America’s total population, so the number of projects would be disproportionately large for the US even before you included the rest of the planet.

Now it may come as no surprise that California is leading the way (see AB 32 for greenhouse gas emissions, SB 375 for better land use planning, vehicle fuel economy standards for cleaner cars, TV efficiency standards to save energy, the list goes on), but it’s always nice to have pleasant and inspiring truths confirmed.

In fact (just to continue with the theme) the newest LEED-ND certified project (like, certified last week) happens to be in California, in Richmond, right up the BART line from my house. The plan for the Miraflores project was certified LEED-ND Gold.

As you (probably) can see from the site plan, the Miraflores project is dense, walkable and includes plenty of open space. There’s a significant affordable housing component for seniors, a mixture of for-sale and rental units, amenities for kids, creek restoration and a significant component dedicated to urban agriculture. There are universally-accessible units for people with disabilities, new bike paths, and plenty of trees and shade

And there’s a lot that you can’t see: the construction debris will be recycled and diverted, there’s on-site renewable energy generation, innovative storm water management strategies to avoid water pollution, and energy-efficient buildings. It’s close to local schools and will use 100% native plantings for all landscaping.

Oh, and did I mention that it’s also being built on a former brownfield site previously occupied by a commercial nursery (huzzahs to the City of Richmond Redevelopment Agency for the clean up and my friend Ted Bardacke at Global Green USA for the info on their project)?

These are the types of projects LEED-ND encourages: mixed-use, walkable communities with the latest in energy efficiency and other green technologies.

California has LEED-ND certified projects all over the place: from Oakland (the Tassafaronga ND Gold project is opening May 10th) to West Sacramento, from San Diego and the City of Orange (the sold out Depot Walk) to Santa Cruz and Napa.

Now that LEED-ND is officially a go, we’re looking forward to the projects coming down the line. LEED-ND is a great tool for those developers, communities and localities that are looking to encourage investment and building that make sense for the planet.

Public Transit: More Jobs Bang for the Stimulus Buck!

2010-01-05T23:09:33Z

Now, we already know that taking public transit is good for the environment, safer than car travel and even better for your health. But now we know something else: as far as putting people to work, investing in transit easily beats spending more on roads.

To wit: today, our friends at Smart Growth America, USPIRG and the Center for Neighborhood Technology released a new report, What We Learned from the Stimulus. The report looks at job numbers from the House’s Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for the first 10 months after the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was signed, comparing jobs from transit to those from road building.

The main finding is this: Every billion invested in transit produced 16,419 job-months, while every billion spent on more roads got us just 8,781 job-months. In other words, transit produces nearly twice the jobs per billion spent.

Why is this so? Well, the report lists three primary reasons why transit investment ends up creating jobs so much more efficiently: 1) far less money is spent on the acquisition of land than in road building; 2) transit jobs tend to be more complex, requiring varied expertise; and 3) transit investments goes towards the purchase and maintenance of vehicles. Or, as the report says, “public transportation creates more jobs by spending less on land and more on people.”

For any upcoming jobs bill in DC, this report provides great guidance. Do you want to create more jobs, quickly, while investing in the transportation system we need for the future? If so, the authors say, divide the investment equally between public transportation and road projects. You could see as much as 71,000 more job-months, the equivalent of year-round employment for more than 5,000 people.

And on top of all this, we know that transit investment creates jobs for just those sectors of the workforce that are being hit the hardest by the economy.

That’s right: more jobs for less money; building the transportation system of the future; putting the unemployed back to work. Oh, and we can help the planet, too. Not bad, if you ask me. Hopefully, DC will get the message.

Windfall or Burden? Two New Reports Focus on "Location Efficiency" and the Real Cost of Housing

2009-11-20T23:09:53Z

Both Transform and the Urban Land Institute have recently released reports that look at the Bay Area from a perspective NRDC has been pushing in the public arena for some time: “location efficiency.” Just as appliances can be more or less energy efficient, homes and businesses can be more or less location efficient, depending on where they are. If you need to drive 10 miles for a gallon of mile, you’re not location efficient. If you can walk down the block for your milk and hop on a bus to get to work, you are.

We know that location efficiency has tremendous environmental benefits (if you’re interested in more, check out this post), but what these two reports tell us is that the way we develop has serious economic implications for American families.

In most people’s minds, what makes housing affordable is how much it costs. What the reports reemphasize is that we need to not only look at the cost of the housing, but the cost of everyday transportation to and from the house, when determining whether a home is affordable enough.

Transform’s Windfall for All: How Connected, Convenient Neighborhoods Can Protect Our Climate and Safeguard California’s Economy covers the basics: Transportation expenses tend to be highest for Bay Area households in areas without transit, while neighborhoods with very good access to transit spend significantly less (39% less, in fact) on transportation each year. These households not only drive fewer miles (which saves money), but they own fewer cars, which is where I imagine the bulk of the savings comes from. If we can expand transit service or create more compact communities near existing transit, there’s a huge potential to save households money.

ULI’s Bay Area Burden, Examining the Costs and Impacts of Housing Transportation on Bay Area Residents, Their Neighborhoods and the Environment, provides even more information, offering detailed analysis of the Bay Area with respect not only to housing and transportation costs, but to area median incomes. Some interesting bits:

On average, Bay Area household spend 59% of their income on housing and transportation (H + T), but this percentage varies by what county people live in, and accordingly the contribution of each element varies. For example, Alameda County residents pay 61% of their income in H + T, while San Franciscans pay 58%. Sure, housing is more expensive in San Francisco, but transportation is more expensive in Alameda County.

When H + T costs are compared to median incomes, some staggering facts come to light. For example, even with relatively low housing and transportation costs, Oakland residents pay 69% of their income on H + T, due to their lower median income. In Berkeley? 77%. East Palo Alto? 75% In the small East Bay town of San Pablo? 81%!!

Both reports encourage better regional planning and more coordination between land use and transportation planning. SB 375, the bill NRDC co-sponsored last year, is pointed to by both reports as the best vehicle for so doing.

SB 375 is known primarily as America’s first legislative effort to link land use, transportation, and greenhouse gas emissions. What’s perhaps less well known is that it puts housing affordability into the equation as well (which was why it was supported by affordable housing advocates). These reports contribute to the already large body of study telling us that this is the way we need to go. The stakes are high not just for the environment, but for the economic livelihood of American families.

Green City Rankings: California Cleans Up!

2009-07-21T23:11:22Z

Last week, we here at NRDC released our fourth annual rankings of “smarter cities” across the US. What are smarter cities? Well, I’ll let the website speak for itself:

When thinking about the urban environment, more often than not problems come first to mind…Today urban leaders—mayors, businesses and community organizations—are in the environmental vanguard, making upgrades to transportation infrastructure, zoning, building codes, and waste management programs as well as improving access to open space, green jobs, affordable efficient housing and more. If they succeed in making their cities more efficient, responsible and sustainable, what will result will be smarter places for business and healthier places to live.

Of course, for me, the big news is how California just completely dominated the rankings. Big cities, medium-sized cities, green building, recycling, transportation, water quality, you name it! With about 10% of the country's population, we’re more than carrying our weight. Here’s just a sample:

Six of the top 15 big cities overall are Californian: San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego and Los Angeles
Five of the top 10 big cities for water quality: LA, San Fran, Oakland, San Jose and Sacramento
Five of the top 10 medium cities for overall standard of living: Thousand Oaks, Fremont, Irvine, Vallejo and Sunnyvale; and
EIGHT of the top 10 medium cities for recycling: Santa Clarita, Santa Rosa, Irvine, Stockton, Burbank, Ventura, Ontario and Fullerton

Check out the rankings and see how your city measures up.

California Transit Not Alone: 80% of Systems Short of Funds

2009-06-15T22:40:24Z

In a pair of revealing reports, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) tells us that:

a) Despite lower gas prices, rising unemployment, the economic “situation,” and declining revenues, public transportation ridership is basically the same as it was last year (ridership decreased 1.2%, a negligible amount, but still less than the decline in the miles Americans drove (1.7%)); while at the same time

b) according to a new survey, more than 80% of the transit agencies APTA asked nationwide reported flat or decreasing local, regional and state funding. Of these systems, nearly 60% reported higher ridership over the past year

I’m no economist, but I know that when you have to offer the same level of service with less money, something has to give. To wit:

89% of the systems surveyed had to raise fares or cut service (with nearly half doing both!)
65% of the systems reduced or eliminated off-peak service, while 48% have reduced their system’s geographic coverage
50% of the systems were forced to eliminate staff positions (with several systems cutting more than 400 employees!)

And that’s not all! Without coming relief from the state or the Federal government…

2/3 of the agencies are considering further service cuts; and
1/2 considering fare increases (with some, like Sacramento Regional Transit, for a second time)

Let’s keep our fingers crossed for the Supplemental Appropriations bill up for a vote this week in DC. The provision permitting 10% of a transit district’s stimulus funds to be used for operations is still included.

Take Transit: It’s Good for Your Health!

2009-04-23T19:07:03Z

The more you learn about public transit, the happier about it you get. As I’ve written earlier, transit is essential to create more livable communities and to cut down on global warming pollution. Now, apparently, it’s also good for your health!

I don’t know about you, but I need all the exercise I can get. So it may have been with a little bit of self-serving optimism that I read Transit and Health: Mode of Transportation, Employer-Sponsored Public Transit Pass Programs, and Physical Activity, by Ugo Lachapelle and Lawrence Frank of the University of British Columbia. As a daily transit rider, the news, for me, was good.

By analyzing the travel habits of 4,156 Atlanta area residents, the study endeavored to “assess whether transit and car trips were associated with meeting the recommended levels of physical activity by using walking as a means of transportation.” The idea was that transit riders are more likely to walk to and from transit, and to walk in the middle of the day for errands, while drivers would tend to walk less. Walk distances for each group were then compared to the US Surgeon General’s recommended 30 minutes daily of moderate physical activity, which has been shown to reduce obesity levels, heart disease and hypertension.

Here are some of the report’s conclusions:

Across income groups, transit users walk longer distances, with higher income transit users(!) reporting the most walking;
The more transit trips you took, the greater your chance of meeting the Surgeon General’s recommended activity standard. For car trips (as a driver) the relationship was the opposite. Transit users had four times the chance of meeting the standard than those who didn’t take transit;
Having an employer-provided transit pass had a positive relationship with meeting the standard, as did even just having access to one(!);
Living in a low-density neighborhood was negatively associated with meeting the minimum standard.

Now, it’s important to note that simply meeting the Surgeon General’s minimum recommendation does not mean you are physically fit or free from the need to exercise more, but you certainly can’t get there without at least meeting the minimum standard. The good news is that taking transit is a convenient way to integrate regular physical activity into your everyday life. And, of course, expanding the availability of transit may give more Californians the opportunity to lead healthier lives.