Streetsblog Interview: Michael Woo

5_21_09_woo2.gif

Michael Woo has a long history fighting for a cleaner Los
Angeles.  In the late 1980’s, he was the rare City
Councilman who was also a trained urban planner and had a strong showing in the 1993 Mayoral Election coming up short to Mayor Riordan.  He currently teaches urban planning at USC, and
consultant to Climate Plan, a coalition promoting transportation and Land-Use
strategy.  Streetsblog caught up to him
in the USC faculty lounge on Bike to Work Day to talk about Climate Change,
S.B. 375 and what all of us can do.  If
you’re interested, you can read a lot more about Woo at his Wikipedia Page.

Sadly, there was a great anecdote at the end of our
discussion, after the tape recorder was turned off about working with Ron “Bike
Sage” Milam to become an urban cyclist himself. 
I guess we’ll have to wait for Milam’s Streetsblog interview to get that
story on tape.

The full text of the interview is available after the jump.

Streetsblog: One of
the main things we’re here to talk about is Senate Bill 375, which has been
dubbed by many people as the “Smart Growth” bill.  This legislation was passed last winter, and
now we’re talking implementation around the state.   Could you start by giving us a brief summary
of what the goals are.

Woo: The goal is to tackle the number one source of
Greenhouse Gas emissions here in California, which is the transportation
sector.  40% of all of the Greenhouse Gas
emissions produced in California are transportation related, and the largest
share of the transportation-related emissions are caused by the cars and light
trucks which most people use for their daily trips.

I work with a statewide coalition called ClimatePlan which
was organized to advocate land use and transportation strategies to address
climate change. In many discussions about climate change, you hear a lot of
talk about demand for electricity, the need for alternatives to burning coal,
energy conservation resulting from green building techniques, and of course the
negative effects of our reliance on oil. 
But many times you don’t hear much about the impact of the
transportation choices which are caused by our land use patterns.

Climate Change’s position is if we’re going to be serious
about Greenhouse Gas emissions, we have to focus on the transportation sources.  In other words, if we create cities that put
housing far away from jobs, and create low-density patterns that don’t support
transit very well; , then it’s no surprise that people have to drive
cars a lot to get from one place to another.

S.B. 375 is the first major law in California that makes
that connection between land use , transportation, and climate change,
and sets up a process to encourage the creation of communities which grow in a
more sustainable way.

Streetsblog: A lot of the push for cleaner air has been
about cleaner cars.  This isn’t about
that, it’s more about less cars than cleaner cars?

Woo: That’s right.

Senator Fran Pavley is the author of a law (AB 1493) that which
reduces greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles by about 22% by 2012
and by about 30% by 2016.  These
California clean car standards were held up for years by lawsuits from the auto
industry, but the new federal standards announced by the Obama Administration
should settle the matter.

SB 375 tackles a separate problem.  Pavley’s landmark climate law AB 32 committed
California to a the goal of rolling back greenhouse gas emissions to
1990 levels by the year 2020, but it didn’t really spell out how California is
going to achieve that goal.  SB 375 authored
by Senator Steinberg is the next step in terms of addressing one of the major
causes of Greenhouse Gas emissions related to transportation and land use.

Streetsblog: In a perfect world, how should Greater Los
Angeles embrace SB 375.  As a City, a
county, a Metropolitan Planning Organization? 
What changes can we expect as a city and a county.

Woo: SB 375 sets a process whereby the 18 so-called
“Metropolitan Planning Organizations” (MPOs) such as the San Francisco Bay
Area, Central Valley and Southern California are responsible for adopting plans
for reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions generated within
each region.  The Southern California
region is huge, the largest region in the state, with 48% of the state’s
population. .  The MPO in our region is
called the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and is a
voluntary association representing local governments across the region, not
just the City of L.A. and the County of L.A., but also Ventura, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties, and all the cities large and
small within them.

Under SB 375, the California Air Resources Board will set a
target for each for proportional reductions in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions
relating to land use and transportation. 
In Southern California, since we have the largest and most complicated
region, the sub-regions can adopt their own plan to reduce Greenhouse Gases as
it applies to transportation.

To answer your question, a large city such as Los Angeles or
a subregional association of cities in Western L.A. County or Western Riverside
County may collaborate on what this law calls a “Sustainable Community
Strategy” that will start to be serious about relating land-use decisions and
transportation to the creation of Greenhouse Gases.  Various local governments will start to focus
on this.

Inside the cities, people will have to think about what role
transportation and land-use make in their personal decisions.

Streetsblog: We’ve
talked a lot about development, but what role does alternative transportation
(transit, walking, biking) play in meeting the goals of 375?

5_21_09_woo_citybeat.jpgMike Woo as portrayed in City Beat.

Woo: The modes of transportation matter a lot.  The availability of rail transit, bus lines,
car sharing and even bicycles are very important to anyone making a
transportation plan.  If a plan is going
to be developed at a local level, the people making this plan have to address
how these alternatives help accommodate a reduction in Greenhouse Gas
emissions.

The expectation is that the parts of the region that have
the most alternatives to cars, that is have access to transit, ought to do more
than areas that don’t have as many alternatives and aren’t going to have the
opportunities to do it.

Yes, the availability of alternatives will have a lot to do
with a local community’s ability to do their fare share in reducing their
Greenhouse Gas emissions.

Streetsblog: What is your role, and what is Climate Plan’s
role, in getting this moving in Southern California.

Woo: I wear many hats in connection to S.B. 375.  I’m appointed to the Regional Targets
Advisory Committee, RTAC, which is appointed by the Air Resources Board to make
recommendations to the ARB by this September about how to develop targets for
each of the regions for the state.

In addition to that, I’m an advocate in that I do work for
Climate Plan.  Climate Plan is pushing
for the phrases “ambitious but achievable targets.”  We want to push the envelope to set the
targets as high as possible as a way of showing that land use and
transportation changes can play a big part in reducing Greenhouse Gas
emissions.  Furthermore, by getting
serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we can also get more serious
about planning for communities which rely less on driving cars and encourage
diverse, lively, and sustainable mixed-use communities which aren’t wasteful
about land, energy, and water.

The other hat I wear is as a member of the City Planning
Commission.   I can play a role in making
a decision about specific development projects in L.A. in terms of what impact they
have on transportation patterns, what kind of development patterns are created
in the long-term and what are the climate implications.

Streetsblog:  What
kind of opposition are you facing in terms of people that don’t want to see
this legislation implemented for whatever reasons?

Woo: When S.B. 375 was first addressed, it was much more of
a mandatory bill, with a lot more teeth in it. 
There was strong opposition from the building industry, city governments
and county governments that felt they were going to be required to do something
but not be given the money to pay for it.

As the bill moved through the legislative process, it became
less mandatory.  You could say it’s a lot
less mandatory bill and it is weaker than the original version of the
bill.  But it’s still quite an
accomplishment that it got passed at all. 
And it can be a very constructive influence moving local government land
use and transportation decisions in a more sustainable direction.

There is still some opposition to what were trying to
do.  Just last week I was at a meeting of
the Southern California Association of Governments and there was opposition
being articulated from two levels.

One source of opposition was local elected officials who
questioned whether climate change was a real problem or questioned whether what
they do has any impact on climate change. 
So there’s still a certain amount of foot dragging going on with local
officials who don’t think it’s a problem or think it’s someone else’s problem.

Separate from that, right now I’d say there are a lot of
people in local government who know of S.B. 375 but they are very unclear on
how this affects what they’re doing right now. 
I know there’s a lot of conferences and outreach planned to help
demystify this problem and explain clearly how this law will effect local government.

The next level is the general public, most of whom have
never heard of S.B. 375.  But if things
start to change the general public will start to notice things happening
differently then they would without this law. 
At some point this becomes a political issue: how do you make change if
the goals aren’t very clear and if the effected representatives of the public
aren’t very clear about what’s going on.

5_21_09_big_woo.jpgWoo speaks at the CALPIRG confernce on transportation reform earlier this month.

Streetsblog: If someone reading this interview likes what
you’re saying and wants to help move the ball forward, what should they do?

Woo: They can contact us at ClimatePlan and beyond that if
you belong to a local organization that has any interest in the environment or
urban planning or transportation issues you can encourage those groups to get
involved with the process.

In the end, the changes we’re talking about won’t happen
without a groundswell of support which currently doesn’t exist.  So, there is a role, a very critical and
important role, for getting people involved with the process and building
public awareness.

If there are elected officials, such as the ones I heard
from last week, who don’t think it’s a problem or think it’s someone else’s
problem, this is a place where the public can get involved and start
influencing the local officials who are thinking about their place in relation
to climate change.

Streetsblog: Anything else you want to add on Climate
Change?

Woo: Ultimately, this does come down to some level of
personal responsibility.  This is not an
abstract issue.

I sometimes mention when I give talks on the subject that if
you stay up late and are watching cable television you can sometime see these
public service announcements for the World Wildlife Fund with a sad polar bear
sitting alone on a rapidly shrinking piece of ice.

The urban viewer is most likely wondering what that polar
bear has to do with me.  So this can be a
hard point to get across, it might seem too theoretical; but clearly the
decisions we make about urban sprawl and giving people few options except to
drive a car ultimately have an effect on that polar bear.

In other words, there is some level of personal
responsibility which is necessary in order to be serious about addressing this
global problem.

Streetsblog: This is unrelated.  On my way biking here as part of the “Bike
Not to Work Day,” two people told me to ask you “Why Do the Streets of
Hollywood Glitter?”

Woo: Back in the 1990’s when I was a Member of the L.A. City
Council, someone suggested an experiment on Hollywood Boulevard using recycled
glass mixed in with asphalt, aka “glassphalt” to use recycled material, to stretch
the amount of money available for street repaving and creating this glitter
effect on the streets of Hollywood.  This
is very appropriate given the reputation of Hollywood.

That was the reason there was some experimentation in paving
Hollywood Boulevard with glassphalt.  At
the time there were a lot of people that made fun of it, thought it was a
joke.  But now I think it’s something a
lot of people think should be done more because it encourages recycling and I
just learned that it does relate to Global Warming.

Streetsblog: Everything relates to Global Warming

Woo: Typically black or dark colored streets retain heat
much more than older streets in Los Angeles that are lighter colored or made of
cement.  I’m not a scientific expert on
this, but if a the material in the street is reflecting light back , maybe that
would retain heat less than using dark colored asphalt.

Maybe there is a carbon change benefit to using reflective
material rather than dark colored material.

This is actually a good example of how some mundane
decisions can be part of the solution.

Streetsblog: I’m hardly a scientific expert on anything, but
I’ve heard the same thing: glassphalt is better for the environment than
traditional road materials.

Woo: In the 90’s we talked about it only as a way to expand
the demand for recycled materials. 
Nobody was talking about urban heat island effects on the city streets.

Streetsblog: So you were ahead of your time!

Woo: I guess so.  I
didn’t know everything about the underlying problem either, but  at least there was an underlying idea about
making a connection between a mundane project like street repaving and the
state of the environment.

Streetsblog: The last question I ask everyone when I
interview them is “if you could change one thing about transportation in Los
Angeles, wave a magic wand and it would be changed, what would it be?”

Woo: I think I would borrow and idea from Bogota, Colombia.  I would close the streets on Sunday, or one
day a week, for two reasons.  The first
reason is to take over the street for recreational purposes on that particular
day but also to show urban residents that there are dramatically different ways
about thinking of urban space.

In Bogota, Mayor Penalosa started this idea and was
initially ridiculed.  Now, years later,
this Sunday tradition is wildly popular. 
There are people on bikes, on roller skates or just walking down the
middle of the street.

Every Sunday I go to the Hollywood Farmer’s Market to get
fresh produce and I’m surrounded by people who just like walking in the middle
of the street. Reclaiming the urban space.

To take this concept further, imagine Wilshire Boulevard
completely closed to (automobile) traffic from the beach to Downtown L.A. and
turning it into the world’s longest linear park.  Things like that would be really exciting,
wouldn’t cost much money and would really change the way people think about our
streets.

  • Great interview – Mike Woo breaks downs SB 375 well. I work at the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) – the MPO for So Cal. while I’m not working directly on SB 375 I’m happy to help direct anyone interested in finding out more about it to the right staff person here. Feel free to email me at meaney@scag.ca.gov

  • I’d like to know more about the teeth of this so-called green house gas emissions legislation. If there are no standards that cities have to meet, then what is the point of the law?

    In LA, we have some incredibly stupid methods of planning, designing and measuring our roadways for cars only. We intrinsically ignore other modes of transportation and other uses of the public right of way for anything other than automobile throughput.

    Further, whether the former councilman realizes it or not, “cyclists” are the only modal group in CA measured based on the measure’s perceived purpose of the cyclists’ trip. If a cyclist is riding on a road for recreation, they are not counted as a “cyclist” as per state law. Whereas, in the case of an RV these vehicles have a full vote according to state law, and do not suffer from this bizarre “perceived use” bias.

    It would be easier to plan for bikes if we had better roadway standards and measurements (and procedures). Further it would be easier to plan for bikes if the standards we have didn’t exclude a fat portion of those that use this mode!

    Whaddup with this situation? We get hand-waving and vague enviro-speak from the left, and yet “nothing changes” because their toothless proposals continually fall flat and threaten business. We need policy that makes a low-capital and low-energy input economy thrive, end of story. Instead, we get these stupid laws written by people who will fight like a cornered bobcat to preserve the high-capital, high-energy, input economy we have today! Witness what happened with the recent AB 766 bill.

  • Ethan Elkind

    SB 375 is not totally without teeth. For example, the “Sustainable Communities Strategy” (SCS) that Mike talked about becomes part of each region’s transportation plan that it submits for state and federal transportation funding. State and federal dollars get spent on projects ranked in that plan. So the projects that are consistent with the SCS will get priority funding, which could direct transportation dollars to more sustainable purposes. Secondly, the housing allocations for each region must align with the SCS. Cities must rezone to accommodate the new growth being allocated to them. If they don’t rezone, any interested person can sue to force a rezoning under SB 375. So I think we will see some changes, but this bill is more about process than outcomes, so there is much uncertainty at this point.

  • Prof. Pigginton

    If every car was removed from California including transit vehicles we would still have a huge CO2 problem. Only addressing the population growth, through responsible fertility rates will california have a chance of a good future. It is also the cheapest approach and most realistic approach to our environmental problems.

    People are dreaming if they think we can get half the people out of their cars. Many people don’t want to live in high density areas where you can have a good transit grid. Worse, our cities are already laid out and built out. The smart growth concept works on NEW development. Smart Growth as practiced NEVER rolls up current suburban areas and turns them into open space. Smart Growth as practiced is SPRAWL plus some high density along arteries. Hey, sounds like Santa Monica Blvd!

    Don’t forget that C02 is a world wide problem. Every gallon we save here is gallon that goes to china, india, and eventually africa (when the get things together). If you want to end oil usage we have to take over the Middle East and Indonesia.

    Smart Growth is swallowed by the religiously blind and manipulated by developers. Developer make a killing off all the upzoning. If you don’t know what upzoning is, its time you figured how that makes big developers superwealthy.

    I know, I know, it would all work out fine if we just had better bike routes.

  • Oh whatever Prof. Pigginington. Was 4chan down again and you didn’t have anywhere to troll?

    “The developers” is such a joke. I worked for a developer, and the way you’ve framed the issue totally cripples you from making a rational decision about land use and transportation. If you want to affect the business of building buildings and selling them/renting them, you need to look at it as a business and affect the bottom line of those engaging in that business. End of story.

    What sort of moronic jihad would you employ to continue the 20th century’s profligacy and waste while somehow improving air quality and the livability of our cities?

  • Michael Woo has a long history fighting for a cleaner, so many people know that, we shoul learn something from him.

  • Prof. Pigginton

    I do not hope that our nation and the world continue down the path towards failure resulting from resource depletion. I recommend reading the book Collapse by Jared Diamond. We do not have time to fiddle around with things that are easy when that isn’t good enough, especially if the are not effective no matter how much we are wed to the idea.

    Part I: Zoning
    “you need to look at it as a business and affect the bottom line of those engaging in that business.” EXACTLY! Someone zoned R4 gets to go to R20 plus density bonus is going to make the owner of the land filthy rich without adding real value, other than processing a subdivision map.

    This upzoning happening across California in the name of smart growth (and government regulated “affordable” housing). The trick is that after the upzoning in the “transit oriented” neighborhoods, that you end up with MORE people driving cars in that neighborhood than when you started, in most cases. Hum…. everyone is happy because they don’t care about actual measurable results, they only care about happy talk.

    It is time to bring data to the table. Does our rhetoric and logic actually result in reaching the objectives?

    Can anyone give me an example of where smart growth was instituted in a city that was already built out (like LA) and it resulted in suburban neighborhoods being converted BACK to open space or turning the outskirts into ghost towns? How about, is there anywhere where the upzoning is balanced against the purchase of raw residential land that is converted to open spaced zoned property? I’ll even settle for examples where sprawl slowed down.

    Given that a lot of people enjoy the benefits of living IN more open space and lower density, smaller town atmospheres they will continue to buy at the periphery of metropolitan areas. Many people are willing to commute an hour+ because they like that so much.

    Part II: Objectives
    First, usage doesn’t equal waste. People get really confused about that. For instance, I use a lot of water, but I efficiently grow A LOT of my own food with that water. Am I wasting that water?

    Second, if the planning approach being proposed is for the objective of air quality and the livability of our cities, please describe how “livability” is defined and can be measured? Whenever I press people on this they usually end up describing features of small town life (if they even know). So, what do you mean?

    As for air quality, I’m glad you brought that up. The atmosphere does not care how much pollution each of us individually puts into the air. It only cares about the total amount emitted. Thus, if you and I cut our emissions by half we are back to where we started when the population doubles.

    This brings us to the other inconvenient truth. Even if we cut CO2 emissions to net zero, we still have major resource problems ahead of us. We must reduce our long-term population size. We must reduce fertility rates, and implement a sustainable immigration level. This can be achieved with sound and ethical policies.

  • walker_o

    We should take the time to think about what he says and not blindly fall in.

    I do not hope that our nation and the world continue down the path towards failure resulting from resource depletion. I recommend reading the book Collapse by Jared Diamond. We do not have time to fiddle around with things that are easy when that isn’t good enough, especially if they are not effective no matter how much we are wed to the idea.

    In respons to ubray,
    Part I: Zoning
    “you need to look at it as a business and affect the bottom line of those engaging in that business.” Exactly. Someone zoned R4 gets to go to R20 (plus density bonus) is going to make the owner of the land filthy rich without adding real value, other than processing a subdivision map.

    This upzoning is happening across California in the name of smart growth (and government regulated “affordable” housing). None of us are critically evalating what is ACTUALLY happening. We are more interested in the rhetoric and group think.

    The trick is that after the upzoning in the “transit oriented” neighborhoods that you end up with MORE people driving cars in that neighborhood than when you started, in most cases. The LA times has covered this phenom. Hum…. everyone is happy because they don’t care about actual measurable results, they only care about happy talk.

    It is time to bring data to the table. Does our rhetoric and logic actually result in reaching the objectives?

    Can anyone give me an example of where smart growth was instituted in a city that was already built out (like LA) and it resulted in suburban neighborhoods being converted BACK to open space or turning the outskirts into ghost towns? How about, is there anywhere where the upzoning is balanced against the purchase of raw residential land that is converted to open spaced zoned property? I’ll even settle for examples where sprawl slowed down.

    Given that a lot of people enjoy the benefits of living IN more open space and lower density, with a smaller town atmosphere they will continue to buy at the periphery of metropolitan areas. Many people are willing to commute an hour+ because they like that so much.

    Part II: Objectives
    First, usage doesn’t equal waste. People get really confused about that. For instance, I use a lot of water, but I efficiently grow A LOT of my own food with that water. Am I wasting that water?

    Second, if the planning approach being proposed is for the objective of air quality and the livability of our cities, please describe how “livability” is defined and can be measured? Whenever I press people on this they usually end up describing features of small town life (if they even know). So, what do you mean?

    As for air quality, I’m glad you brought that up. The atmosphere does not care how much pollution each of us individually puts into the air. It only cares about the total amount emitted. Thus, if you and I cut our emissions by half we are back to where we started when the population doubles.

    This brings us to the “other inconvenient truth”. Even if we cut CO2 emissions to net zero, we still have major resource problems ahead of us. We must reduce our long-term population size. We must reduce fertility rates, and implement a sustainable immigration level. This can be achieved with sound and ethical policies. Pigginton has that part right.

  • There is a lot in the respone above, but I’ll address the “livability” question, because it is something I’ve actually spent an enormous amount of time on and I am probably the one person you’ll meet who has specific definitions of livability in mind when I mention it.

    “Livability”, overall, is a sociological measure of several factors in a community. Donald Appleyard deployed several varieties of survey in the bay area in the 1960’s and 1970’s to establish a working definition of this term.

    In survey of area residents, those in more “livable” areas report that they have more friends on their block (as compared to areas with higher car traffic volumes and speeds); that they are more likely to let their kids play in front of their homes or in the streets (which are markedly safer than less-livable streets); and a bunch of other important things that are currently un-measured in America.

    Your appraisal of TOD based solely on car traffic is indicative of the myopia that afflicts many Americans. You do not have the vernacular, nor the perspective, nor the information, to properly assess the situation (and neither do our politicians) and so your judgment is rendered by passing by in an automobile.

  • Marcotico

    Walker O said: “The trick is that after the upzoning in the “transit oriented” neighborhoods that you end up with MORE people driving cars in that neighborhood than when you started, in most cases. The LA times has covered this phenom. Hum…. everyone is happy because they don’t care about actual measurable results, they only care about happy talk.”

    Actually the LA Times wrote one article where they went to one TOD location and counted cars during two morning periods. That isn’t exactly scientific. More academically rigorous articles look at TOD in the context of supportive city policies and have found there is a reduction in car use over time. OVER TIME is the key point.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

“Locals” Continue Attack on S.B. 375 “Sprawl Bill”

|
Photo of Riverside via Miizzard/Flickr. In what could seem a companion piece to either this morning’s Streetsblog.net post or last week’s interview with Michael Woo, the California Planning & Development Report outlines some of the excuses local planners are using to attack S.B. 375, the legislation that requires land-use patterns be used to fight sprawl.  […]
STREETSBLOG USA

Comparing 20 Years of Housing Growth in American Cities

|
Here’s an interesting way to visualize how different regions are growing (or not). Using a tool developed by the University of Virginia Demographics Research Group, Michael Andersen at Bike Portland shares these charts showing where housing growth has happened relative to city centers. The dark brown lines show the number of occupied housing units at one-mile intervals […]

The Future of Bike-Share: An Interview with NABSA’s Matt Martin

|
Matt Martin is the Project Manager for the North American Bikeshare Association and the Director of Rosewood Bikes, a nonprofit program bringing bike resources to a poorly served area of Portland, Oregon. Prior to NABSA, Matt led the Community Bike Project Omaha, an Omaha nonprofit focused on transportation equity issues, where he helped bring bike-share to Omaha and served […]