Solution to Overdevelopment

Follow Marin Events

• HomeUpOneBayAreaGrant $382 millionPlan_Bay_Area-OverviewPBA Workshops$20 BILLION on Bay Area TransportationSolution to Overdevelopment19th Ave Freeway TunnelLawsuit against "Plan Bay Area"CIVIC CENTER PDA Q&ALA Transit Orientated DevelopmentBay/cox to mtc detailed comments 20130514.pdfBay/Randal O'Toole comment letter.pdfSF Transit Hub or 19th Ave Tunnel?Marin Regional Planning InitiativesRemoving a PDASuit Sierra Club •
•  •

A Traffic Mitigation Fee Ordinance enables local governments to collect fair-share participation fees for needed roadways and public transportation improvements from new development projects that generate traffic.

The main reason, by far, that we have roadway congestion today is lack of accountability of developers (and planners). There is little control on development's affect on roadways and there is no correlation between freeway funding and the development that congests it.  Mitigation fees need to be implemented in all communities where the freeway is affected, no matter how far the development is from the freeway. Counties have to collect mitigating fees to be allocated to 3 separate pools.

  1. One for local Roadways,

  2. another for Freeway and a

  3. third for everything else including Transit, roadways and freeway.

Transit has been historically proven to do little to relieve freeway congestion Cost-Effectively, compared to Roadway Expansion, (with perhaps the exception of BRT and BUSWAYs). So the 3 pools ensure that freeway is not left out.  The third pool goes to transit or any other transportation related cause deemed necessary or reallocated to perhaps more needed roadway or freeway.

In addition, a fixed % of the state's share of sales taxes collected on motor vehicle sales AND a fixed % of gas tax should be allocated to roadways and transportation ONLY, we need to establish a similar correlation between roadway funding and the DRIVING that congests it.

 (If Prop51 had not been full of dumb projects, including cost-Ineffective RAIL, it could have been a logical way of funding transportation and roadways by those who drive.)

Europeans are incredulous when they see how little we pay for gas in this country. Typically 1/2 to 1/3 the price they pay. Yes, their gas is taxed this much more than ours.

We must have ONE Multi-County Agency controlling development to the extent that if it can be shown that development in one county will congest freeway in an adjacent county, to an unacceptable limit, then that development must be disallowed.  Not until that freeway in the other county has been expanded (or cost-effective transportation alternatives implemented) should that development be permitted.  All Local Community Development Agencies need to be overseen by this ONE controlling Agency. But they need to get it right!

The Bay Area's 7 million residents are split among nine counties and 100 cities. One city pulls up the drawbridge, forcing growth elsewhere; another woos auto dealers from its neighbors, putting budgets in disarray.
Much better would be a regional government with power to craft a large- scale vision for the area -- and power over major projects that might make that vision succeed or fail. Not every zoning decision, mind you, but with clout when needed.
While this may sound utopian -- or terrifying -- it almost happened in 1974, when a bill to merge five Bay Area planning agencies passed the state Assembly and had then-Gov. Ronald Reagan's tacit support. But the state Senate balked. Another try failed in 1992 with the Bay Vision plan to merge three agencies, including the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Conventional wisdom says the moment for strong regional government here has passed. Yet when the Field Poll asked Bay Area residents in April, "Should the state government require cities and counties . . . to create a joint regional plan on growth and land-use issues?," 73 percent called it a good idea. Maybe it's time to renew the battle.
John King sf chronicle



There will be no Population Increase if there is no Jobs Increase.

 PLAN BAY AREA attempts to predict growth based on estimated Population Increase but omits to address ways to direct and control Jobs that cause this increase. The root of the challenge is finding ways to

  • encourage job growth where there is regional housing to take these jobs and
  • discourage job growth where there isn't.

But instead the PLAN ignores this obvious approach and dollops Housing & Transit around already congested areas expecting an inordinate amount of commuters to abandon their cars as if we were all in a dense European city. They need to waken up to the fact that Americans have already chosen life in the suburbs as their preferred goal and will keep their cars, especially when they will all be driven with free energy, charged overnight from solar panels + battery.

This is the future that will give us ZERO GHG Emission ( fulfilling the SB375 goal tenfold if the PLAN did nothing).
There are studies that predict that Suburbs will power cities in the future from excess generation.
Autonomous electric vehicles, commuting us door to door, might render many Minor Transit Systems useless, if the PLAN would provide the necessary roadways for this to happen. 

Bottom Line -- focus on the root cause of disparity in Housing, Transportation and  Jobs -- incentives for JOB location and relocation to where there is Housing for it -- and a JOB TAX  where there isn't.