Who Pays the Bill for Cities?

Cities are essential to human existence.  More so than nations, cities are how we organize ourselves.  Nations are only a political overlay.  The renaissance history of Europe is a history of cities.  It was only after centuries of cities pushing humankind forward that nations entered the picture.

Cities are also the primary hub of economic activity, with their density and consolidated resources absolutely necessary to commerce.

And yet we lack good systems for adequately funding cities for the benefits they provide.  We gratefully accept the wealth that they spin into their surrounding regions, into their nation, and into the world.  But we largely ask them to fund themselves only with their own tax revenues.  We fail to adequately feed the engine to ensure that it continues.

This fact about cities was brought to mind by a recent story in the San Francisco Chronicle about a pair of teenagers who are lobbying for the City of Piedmont to be incorporated into the City of Oakland.  Their effort is quixotic.  With no adult support and an off-handed rejection by the Piedmont mayor, their lobbying will go nowhere.

But they’re still making a good and valid point.  Piedmont probably isn’t paying its fair share to support Oakland, the economy of which allows much of Piedmont’s affluence.

On that point, a recent article by the Brookings Institute found that the 300 largest metropolises in the world contain only 19 percent of the world’s population, but generate 48 percent of the world’s GDP.

Here in the North Bay, the economic activity of San Francisco and Oakland has a great effect on our lifestyles.  The North Bay would be a very different place without those two cities.

Similarly, the rural areas of the North Bay rely on the nearby towns.  The west counties would be less successful without the towns of San Rafael, Petaluma, and Santa Rosa.

But the mechanisms to compensate the cities and towns for being engines of economic prosperity are scanty and imperfect.  One method is the return of tax dollars from state and federal governments through grant programs.  However, those programs are directed from the top down.  Congress, the Legislature, and numerous federal and state agencies, set the rules by which the funds are to be used and then disburse the funds to the cities most willing to comply with the rules.

Effectively, cities, the fundamental unit of human organization, are reduced to being supplicants, forced to beg for treats.

A fine example is the decades-long history of Federal Transportation bills.  As Charles Marohn, founder of StrongTowns recently wrote for Better Cities and Towns, the approach of federal transportation policy has been to fund new roads and highways, leaving the local governments without adequate funds to provide often greater cost of long-term maintenance, leaving the local governments in worse condition than before the funds arrived.  The failure of the funding is so profound that Marohn suggests that many communities would be better off without federal transportation funds.

I’m not yet willing to go that far, but the problem he highlights is real and profound.  I sit on the transit advisory committee for a North Bay city.  In that role, I watch how grant funds are distributed to maintain and to operate the local bus service.  Some of the grants come with few strings, which is great.  But others come targeted for specific purposes that may or may not conform to the highest priorities of the city and its residents.

It’s important for regional or national standards to be promulgated.  It would make no sense for San Francisco to design its streets for 80,000 pound tractor-trailers if Daly City designs for only 40,000 pounds.  But the establishment of reasonable standards has become irrevocably entangled with the purse strings.

Not only is the creatively of cities being stifled, but many hours of time are being wasted at all levels of government in managing compliance with regulations that may not be beneficial.

I don’t have an answer to the knotty problem.  But I know that cities are legitimately entitled to financial support from the surrounding regions that rely on them for economic vitality and that the current way of providing those funds is ill-conceived.

Follow-Ups and Schedule Notes

Toronto Bike Lane: Remember the tussle over the removal of the Jarvis Street bike lane in Toronto?  The lane is now fully removed.  And Toronto has installed parking in the area formerly occupied by the bike lane, further infuriating bike lane advocates.

But in a boggling twist, the mayor who spearheaded the effort to remove the bike lane was ousted from office.  A judge directed that the mayor be removed for lobbying for a city contribution to his personal charity, voting for the contribution, and then refusing to refund the contribution when so directed by an arbiter.

Bicycle advocates rejoiced.  In perhaps the best comment on the situation, Movemeant tweeted, “Every time a bike lane is removed, a mayor loses his wings.”

Driverless Cars: Atlantic wrote about a race between the professional racecar driver and the computer in a driverless car.  The human won, but barely.  And the key point may be how the passengers in the driverless car quickly gained faith in the computer.

On the same subject, an NYU professor writes in the New Yorker about the ethical challenges posed by driverless cars, such as the decision to endanger either the passengers in the car or the potentially greater number of passengers in another vehicle.  Professor Gary Marcus poses the problem of how to program ethics when ethics are continually evolving to address new and different situations.

Petaluma Urban Chat: The next Petaluma Urban Chat will be Tuesday, December 11, 5:30pm at Aqus Café.  All are welcome, with particular encouragement to newcomers.  At this meeting, we’ll begin discussing the StrongTowns Curbside Chat booklet that can be found here.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

Who’s Behind the Wheel?

The evolving story of the driverless car, the technological challenge into which Google’s Sergey Brin has been devoting a portion of the corporate profits, has become increasingly interesting.  Interesting to the point that we can talk seriously about what driverless cars could mean to urbanism.

The Brin/Google team has made remarkable progress with the technology and with public approval.  Driverless cars are now legal in three states, most recently California.  To commemorate the last, Governor Jerry Brown made a morning commute in a driverless car to observe the new technology.    And many of the Google Streetview pictures in Nevada are now being collected by driverless vehicles.

For now, all state laws require a human continue to occupy the driver’s seat.  The passenger/driver must be ready to assume control if the computer system finds a situation it’s not prepared to handle, such as street construction.

Beyond that, I wonder how a computer system can handle eye contact with a pedestrian at the next street corner, trying to determine if the pedestrian intends to cross the street or is only looking for an overdue girlfriend.  Or to spot the cat trotting across a lawn and intuit that the cat may next dash under a parked car and into in the street directly in front of the driverless car.

But given the progress that all technology has made, it’s likely wrong to assume that these concerns with driverless technology problems can’t be solved.

Which leads to the question of the implications for urbanism.  I can conceive two very different paths.

If the problem of the driver needing to be continually in place behind the wheel can’t be solved, then I see that the relationship between car and driver will become closer than ever.  If a driver must assume control at a moment’s notice, it will be essential that the driver be fully comfortable with the vehicle.  We will become more wedded than ever to our personal vehicles.

And with the driverless cars making roadways more efficient, longer commutes may become possible.  Perhaps it would be reasonable to commute from Petaluma to San Mateo on a daily basis if you can move along briskly while responding to emails and voicemails during much of the commute.

Urbanism should still progress under this path because there are an increasing number of folks who are disposed toward a walkable urban lifestyle.  But it wouldn’t receive the boost from a paradigm shift in how we view our cars.

But the paradigm shift could result if the need for a human to be behind the wheel can be solved.  If we can just hop into a back seat, point our phone at a reader, speak our destination, and arrive effortlessly, cars would effectively become taxis without the labor cost of a cabbie.  And probably far less expensive than individual car ownership.

The emotional connection between ourselves and our car would be severed for many.  We could live in places, whether single-family or multi-family, without garages, as long as we remain close to a place where driverless taxis can be rented.  Or perhaps taxis could be dispatched from an automotive livery stable to our addresses.

Freed from the requirement to provide parking, urbanism could thrive, creating settings in which more people would want to live.

Two very different paths.  I hope I’m alive to see which we take and where it leads us.  Although I also wouldn’t be surprised to find that technology points us toward a third path of which I haven’t conceived.  The future often works that way.

It should be noted that the driverless technology has little impact on the other looming issue for the automobile, the use of hydrocarbons.  I would expect that driverless technology to result in slight mileage improvements, but not enough to greatly change the looming hydrocarbon issues.

The increasing use of electrical vehicles is a good thing, but in much of the country coal-fired generation remain the baseload electrical supply, so the energy source remains hydrocarbon.

Increased use of solar, wind, and other “green” technology is also positive, but remains a long way from covering all of our electrical needs, especially if we continue moving more of our automotive energy needs onto the electrical grid.

Unless scientists and engineers can find a solution to the automotive energy issue, it could become the ultimate limit to car usage, despite all the resources of Google.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)