 |
Re: SMART's Weekday Ridership is 27% Below Forecast According to SMART's Annual Report
Author: Ken
Date: 03-21-2018 - 09:11
I agree with Mike Pechner. SMART's finances are so bad, they can't pay
market wages and get the additional crews they need to operate the DMUs they
do have. And that's why there are gaps in the peak hour schedules. They need to be
operating more train sets to eliminate those gaps.
Blaming it on the housing crisis, though, is silly. Every employer in the Bay
Area is dealing with a tight labor market and higher wages. And they're paying the
higher wages if they want to keep existing employees and/or grow their employee count.
We're in one of the fastest (if not the fastest) growing metro areas in the country.
It may be the housing crisis has constrained this growth. Maybe growth would be
materially higher if more housing were built. But it's hard to see it in the numbers, because employment has been growing so significantly since Mar-09 and the number of housing units hasn't.
In any case, the issue of where to put the housing is probably one of the most
complex, political issues, the region will face for some time. And how it is resolved will affect what the region looks like 20 years from now.
Sonoma politicians like TODs. The MTC Chair McKenzie loves TODs. Marin and many communities are pushing back, because suburban residents like suburbia and know more housing leads to more congestion on the roads and overcrowded schools. Yeah, they're called NIMBYs, but then, who could blame them? In fact, they're right. The claim that TODs reduce traffic is really stupid and not supported by any of the many federal studies on the subject.
The implication: if we're not going to put housing into the many open spaces in the 9 counties, the housing will be built in the communities outside the 9 counties that accept them. Think Tracy.
Just look at where the vast majority of housing has been built by decade. Palo Alto has almost the same population as it did in 1970. Not so for Fremont and Milpitas. That's how the region grown has grown in the past. And it implies the 9 counties is likely due to growing jobs and housing demand, to become an 11 county region.
But if the regional agencies try to impose TODs on suburban communities that don't
want them, look out for a political fire storm. Suburban voters vote. And while some TODs may get built in suburban communities that don't want them, the political push back will be significant. It's in the economic interest of affluent voters living in wealthy suburban communities to have the housing go "somewhere else."
Then we can move onto how those residents living in the suburban fringes are going to get to the jobs that are in the regional core. See the traffic on the San Mateo bridge? That's because of the job growth in San Mateo and northwestern Santa Clara counties and the paltry growth of housing in those same geographies. Local planning agencies love expansion of commercial, job-locating, high-tech firms. But the workers are left to find housing wherever it's built.
It's complicated, isn't it?
market wages and get the additional crews they need to operate the DMUs they
do have. And that's why there are gaps in the peak hour schedules. They need to be
operating more train sets to eliminate those gaps.
Blaming it on the housing crisis, though, is silly. Every employer in the Bay
Area is dealing with a tight labor market and higher wages. And they're paying the
higher wages if they want to keep existing employees and/or grow their employee count.
We're in one of the fastest (if not the fastest) growing metro areas in the country.
It may be the housing crisis has constrained this growth. Maybe growth would be
materially higher if more housing were built. But it's hard to see it in the numbers, because employment has been growing so significantly since Mar-09 and the number of housing units hasn't.
In any case, the issue of where to put the housing is probably one of the most
complex, political issues, the region will face for some time. And how it is resolved will affect what the region looks like 20 years from now.
Sonoma politicians like TODs. The MTC Chair McKenzie loves TODs. Marin and many communities are pushing back, because suburban residents like suburbia and know more housing leads to more congestion on the roads and overcrowded schools. Yeah, they're called NIMBYs, but then, who could blame them? In fact, they're right. The claim that TODs reduce traffic is really stupid and not supported by any of the many federal studies on the subject.
The implication: if we're not going to put housing into the many open spaces in the 9 counties, the housing will be built in the communities outside the 9 counties that accept them. Think Tracy.
Just look at where the vast majority of housing has been built by decade. Palo Alto has almost the same population as it did in 1970. Not so for Fremont and Milpitas. That's how the region grown has grown in the past. And it implies the 9 counties is likely due to growing jobs and housing demand, to become an 11 county region.
But if the regional agencies try to impose TODs on suburban communities that don't
want them, look out for a political fire storm. Suburban voters vote. And while some TODs may get built in suburban communities that don't want them, the political push back will be significant. It's in the economic interest of affluent voters living in wealthy suburban communities to have the housing go "somewhere else."
Then we can move onto how those residents living in the suburban fringes are going to get to the jobs that are in the regional core. See the traffic on the San Mateo bridge? That's because of the job growth in San Mateo and northwestern Santa Clara counties and the paltry growth of housing in those same geographies. Local planning agencies love expansion of commercial, job-locating, high-tech firms. But the workers are left to find housing wherever it's built.
It's complicated, isn't it?
