Current Events – AC Transit Cuts, part 2

2
by current events, transportation • Tags: , , , ,

Here is an update on the ongoing cuts to AC Transit service that I first reported on last week:

AC Transit is in trouble. Dire financial straits have forced the agency to consider enacting additional service cuts and the possible declaration of a fiscal emergency. Already adjusting to the 7 percent service cuts that went into effect at the end of March of this year, August is likely to bring an additional 8 percent less service, with more cuts in the pipeline if new funding sources are not found.

On May 26th, AC Transit held two public hearings, at 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. to solicit comments on three possible scenarios that could be rolled out in August.

Proposal one is to operate only trunk and major corridor services on the weekends;

Proposal two is to modify All Nighter and late-night services;

Proposal three is to distribute the reductions across all weekday, late-night and weekend services.

However, it is unlikely that any one scenario will be enacted in full, but rather some sort of amalgamation of the proposed cuts.

I attended the 6 p.m. public hearing and tensions were running high among those who came to speak out against the cuts. Time and again, concerned residents spoke of their fears about losing accessible transit. Many stated that they could not afford cars, or were seniors or disabled and could not walk or bike as an alternative. Some had moved to their residences specifically because they were accessible to bus routes- routes that are threatened under the new scenarios, either by reduction of service resulting in unreasonable wait times, or loss of service areas altogether.

While some expressed frustration with the board of directors, in truth these are deep and painful cuts that nobody wants to make and that will result in the continued erosion of the ridership base, further driving down revenues.

What can we, as informed and concerned citizens, do to try to recover the essential functions of the public service on which so many depend? we need to speak up if we want to keep our transit systems intact (or expanded). Transit is often at the bottom of the list because public outcry is greater on other issues; perhaps transit is seen as so fundamental that we take it as a given. What AC Transit is showing us, is that publicly funded transit is far from a given.

Contact your State Senator.

The Key System

2
by looking back • Tags: , , , ,
Since  the decline of  bus service in the East Bay has been on my mind lately, this installment of Looking Back asks the question: What was AC Transit before AC Transit?
Image of a historic Key System map housed in UC Berkeley’s Earth Science and Map Library
The Key System, a privately held company, provided transit in the East Bay from 1903 until being sold to the public entity AC Transit in 1960.
The first cable car appeared in the East Bay in 1886  on the arterial road, San Pablo. Electric street cars followed in 1891, knitting togther Berkeley and Oakland with intercity rail lines. By 1893, the street cars were being consolidated into the Key System by Francis Marion “Borax” Smith. Although the conglomeration of tracks already served the East Bay from Richmond to San Leandro, Smith furthered the service by building a pier that pulled a track out into the bay, with the final 3 mile leg of the transbay service being completed by ferry. This jutting feature into the bay along with the maze of tracks on land resembled an old fashioned key in plan view, thus giving the Key System its name.
This image was originally posted to Flickr by jaycross at http://flickr.com/photos/66151780@N00/220773099.
By 1924 the Key System had reached a peak of 18 million riders and was typical of integral rail systems in cities across America. However, by the 1930s street cars were already losing major ground to automobiles. The transbay bridge was primed for car and truck crossing in 1936, but did not accomodate rail for another two years. Locals already calibrating to the speed of the auto era, were abandoning the leisurely street car-and-ferry crossing. In another blow to the Key System, tolls at bridge crossings dropped drastically, further driving up competition from auto commuters.
Although the lean war years did temporarily provide a second wind for the mass transit system, the system was beginning to age and infrastructural funds were not ready at hand. With the suburban boom that followed the end of WWII, transit began to decentralize. National City Lines backed by oil and tire companies began to buy up ailing rails across the country and replace them with bus service. In the East Bay, all electric street car lines, save the transbay route had been replaced by buses by 1948.
In 1956 voters approved the establishment of the publicly run Alameda Contra Costa Transit District. AC Transit bought out the nearly bankrupt Key System in 1960.
Credits: All information was gathered from the AC Transit website, and “The Rise and Fall of the Key System“, a slideshow presented at AC Transit Transbay Taskforce November 10, 2009 by Will Sparger.
For a good source of online historical photos of the Key System, click here. Take a trip across the historic Key System rails in a video here.

Editorial – How Much Space is Enough?

1
by editorials, energy • Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Houses have been getting bigger. Over the past fifty plus years (until 2008), the size of the average new house more than doubled, from 1,000 square feet or less in 1950 to 2,265 in 2000 (values from NAHB). The percentage of new homes smaller than 1,200 square feet has been dropping since 1987, while the percentage of new homes larger than 2,400 grew from 21% to 38% between 1987 and 2001 (values from this study). Interestingly, the size of the average new home dropped in 2008 (data here and an article here).

The general trend of larger and larger houses has a direct impact on the environment. Larger houses require more land to build on, more materials for construction, more energy to heat, cool, and light, and result in more waste, both during construction and demolition. While it is expected that there may be some “economy of scale” as houses get larger, there is a widely held suspicion that larger homes consume proportionally more materials because they often have higher ceilings and more complex geometry. Larger houses also require more materials to furnish and decorate.

It should be noted that larger homes are not only increasing in area (square footage); they are also increasing in volume, which may ultimately have a larger impact on the energy consumption of the house. Larger houses are usually constructed with extra features that are not surface area efficient (such as complicated roofs and dormer windows) and which consume more energy for heating and cooling than a compact house of the same volume.

New houses should be both smaller and more compact.

However, it has been difficult to build smaller homes. Aside from the social cache afforded those with larger homes, zoning rules and mortgage practices have also pushed “bigger is better.” For example, mortgage lenders often required the home to be “three times the value of the land,” which then determined a minimum house size for a certain area.

The recent, slight tilt towards smaller home is likely due to the recession and the constrained finances of those building, financing and buying homes. But it is encouraging. When considering what they could afford financially, people chose smaller houses. If we consider what we can “afford” using metrics of energy, water, and materials, we should prioritize building smaller houses.