April 20, 6:30 pm: City Council Meeting
BRT is 5th item on the “Non-consent” calendar (“Non-consent” = items for discussion)
Agenda: http://bit.ly/d2SziH <– BRT is on pg. 16
Meeting held at One Frank Ogawa Plaza, Oakland, CA

Please come voice your thoughts on BRT.

From 2004 through 2007, about 275,000 Californians left the Golden State for the old Dust Bowl states of Oklahoma and Texas, twice the number that left those two states for California, recent Internal Revenue Service figures show. In fact, the mid-South gained more residents from California during those four years than either Oregon, Nevada or Arizona. The trend continued into 2008.

I agree, though, the trend is likely to reverse at least a little bit (and would be more if the state could rationalize its spending & taxes), as California’s main problem–housing prices–are correcting.

For example, a house in Chicago in a similar ‘hood to where I am now costs about 20% more, with higher property taxes, higher utility/home heating costs. I think I’m not the only one who can pull out a calculator and figure that out.

And before that happens, the city might default by then.

Growth is dead. (free tip: if you’re a city politician, just name your solution growth, even if it isn’t, so it’ll be popular

thanks for the anecdote. I don’t know what Uhaul’s one-way numbers are, but I read that the outflow from California these days far outnumber one-way numbers to California — to Texas at least.

On the other hand, I see plenty of cars in Oakland these days with plates from all over — Northeast, Deep South, Texas, Ohio (well of course Ohio), etc.

I think we’ll see a slow outflow from cities back to smaller towns and rural areas over the next few decades. Especially as cities lose employers and jobs.

On the other hand, we should see a fair number of suburbanites returning to cities. WSJ has already reported on so-called reverse white flight.

ACT is going to be very reluctant to do any of this analysis, or even provide the data, because when you are a bus company, every solution has to look like a bus.

When I visited Cambodia five years ago, I noticed that there was no public transport. Not that I could see.

Everyone paid their own way, either on foot, bicycle, scooter, motorcycle or occasionally by car. Most cars were used as taxis. I was in a bus without a suspension and don’t recommend that for taking the dirt roads from Thailand to Cambodia. Most people seemed to stay in place their whole lives.

I suspect that is our future. Public transit is more fuel and space efficient when well designed and used. In most suburbs — and Oakland is largely suburbs — you won’t get great usage. Plus if people don’t have jobs, there is little reason to commute far. Oakland’s jobless and poverty rates exceed 40% in some areas.

–

I asked an older lady who grew up in Richmond what it was like after the shipyards shut down after WWII. She said they pretty quickly became somewhat “ghetto” like and “weren’t safe to drive through at night.”

I can’t imagine that, but if over a ten year period, most people who came to a city for jobs lost those jobs evap overnight, I think I could see it. I’m curious why the great southern migration didn’t go back to the south, but I’d have to ask some old-timers that question someday. Or for that matter, why most people think city life is better, and that everyone should move to cities.

I guess there are more people here, so more chances to have fun, eat cool dishes, see cool art, meet a mate/mates, and get paid more (although it costs much more to live here and you’ll have less personal time)… maybe the excitement and biological diversity makes it worth the risk.

So buses are good for congestion during peak hours, save energy (and CO2) during peak hours, and the only real benefit off peak is that they provide a transit option to the poor. The really ironic thing is is that the bus system would probably be operating cost neutral if it only ran during peak hours. And I would be willing to bet that if you took that $400 million or so that ACTransit needs as a subsidy, you could provide a far better transportation option to the folks who are actually poor. After all, I am not sure that anybody would say that the current bus system provides social equity to the poor compared to the well off driving around in their cars.