[RTC List] Comments for General Plan on info-tech

[Pat Bitton]

Thanks for the clarification, Josh.

Now if we could just get governments to speak the same language as the
people they purport to represent ... 

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: list-bounces at redwoodtech.org [mailto:list-bounces at redwoodtech.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Koenig
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 4:10 PM
To: list at redwoodtech.org
Subject: Re: [RTC List] Comments for General Plan on info-tech


Hey Pat/List,

With the caveat that I am not a lawyer, or certified to parse govspeak, I
have done a fair amount of translation to/from bureaucrateeze. So here's my
best shot.

The gist of this proposal is that these two paragraphs should be included in
the General Plan:

> "Information technology solutions or which make travel by non-single 
> occupant vehicle modes more convenient, desirable, or efficient, and 
> which would reduce peak-hour automobile travel demand, shall be 
> considered as mobility management solutions that may, singly or with a 
> suite of other solutions, substitute for projects which would increase 
> roadway capacity."


Meaning: the county's plan should tell them to look at technology which will
alleviate traffic by making alternatives to solo-driving more
attractive/viable, instead of simply building more roads.

> "Consider information technology solutions such as telework and 
> teleconference programs and facilities that allow for the substitution 
> of vehicle travel as mobility management solutions that may, singly or 
> with a suite of other solutions, substitute for projects which would 
> increase roadway capacity."


Meaning: the county's plan should also tell them to look at telework
technologies which will reduce overall demand for road travel as
alternatives to building more roads.

The rest of the proposal includes some rationales for this change, and a few
examples of how such technologies are beginning to be used elsewhere, but
that's the meat. The plan should explicitly endorse the consideration of
these alternatives.

IMHO the strongest argument here is that the General Plan has a 20- year
lifespan. Even if you're skeptical about "telepresence centers"  
or "electronic ridematching," over the coming two decades the variety and
viability of technologies which can potentially increase productivity and
quality-of-life while simultaneously reducing automobile traffic is going to
increase. Putting this language in now lays a foundation for paying
attention to these opportunities in the coming years.

Transportation funds are a huge part of how our Public money is spent.  
For instance, the proposed Indianola interchange on Hwy 101 between Eureka
and Arcata could pay for a redundant fiber-optic link to Redding twice over.
This seems like a decent opportunity to try and herd our transit planners
towards more innovative solutions in the future.

It's not just about driving technology either; it's also about effectively
managing traffic. Nobody likes rush hour in Eureka, but expanding road
capacity historically has *at best* a temporary impact on congestion -- at
least this is what study after study has told us since Robert Moses first
noticed the effect in New York City in 1942.  
It makes a lot of sense to me to encourage the county to think outside the
box, and I'm happy to add my name to the document.

Cheers
-josh

------------------------------------------
Josh Koenig, Partner
http://www.chapterthreellc.com
AOL IM: chap3josh
1-888-822-4273


_______________________________________________
List mailing list
List at redwoodtech.org
http://redwoodtech.org/mailman/listinfo/list_redwoodtech.org