Adventures in San Francisco

Can Biking Save Billions in Health Expenses?

By: Jessica Pearce

November 15, 2011

Commuting from the Financial District to Park Presidio? Taking your out-of-town friends from your place in the Panhandle to play tourist at Fisherman’s Wharf? Want to go from Twin Peaks to the Mission on a Friday night? Instead of driving, you can hop on your bike. Not only is it better for you, but scientists at the University of Wisconsin say more biking could stimulate local economies to the tune of $3.5 billion a year.

The scientists researched the economic and health benefits of biking short trips (shorter than five miles) in 11 Midwestern metro areas. According to the experts over at GOOD.is:

Combining data on air pollution, medical costs, mortality rates, car accidents and physical fitness, the researchers found that if inhabitants of the sample region switched to bikes for half of their short trips, they’d create a net societal health benefit of $3.5 billion per year from the increase in air quality and $3.8 billion in savings from smaller health care costs associated with better fitness and fewer mortalities from a decreased rate of car accidents.

The study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, also took into account the frigid weather in the Midwest, only counting about four months of cycle-friendly days. Having lived in both the Midwest and San Francisco, I can say that the calf-busting hills here cancel out the six months of snow and bonechilling wind there.

In 2010, the SFMTA counted 8,713 bikes in the city, and Reset has covered the improvements in the works to make the city even more bike friendly – from new bike lanes tobuffered bike lanes to bike sharing programs. We’re working hard to reset transportation in San Francisco, making it faster, more efficient and reliable for everyone. It doesn’t matter if you ride a bike or a bus, drive your car or use your feet, everyone deserves to get where they’re going safely, quickly and reliably.

We already knew that biking saved money and served as a stimulus to the local economy – to the tune of more than $13,000 a year. And we know that the more people we can entice out of their cars with safe and reliable options, the better it will be for everyone, from bus rider to car user. Now we know one more benefit to a more bikeable San Francisco – a chance to peddle our way to greater prosperity through savings in health care costs.

This post was originally published at Reset San Francisco

Is E-Government More Effective Or Just More Hype?

November 14, 2011

If you were able to have a direct impact on how your city or county allotted its budget, would you be more likely to show up for municipal elections?

If you could take a geotagged photo of that pothole on your way to work and send it to the appropriate city department, would you be more confident that it would actually be fixed?

If you have more faith in city or county government, would you be more likely to support new programs tackling problems like traffic congestion, job creation and access to quality education?

The New America Foundation and Zocalo Public Square, in partnership with the Bill Lane Center for the American West held a panel discussion at Stanford University to ask, “Can Technology Save California Government?” The panel brought April Manatt, principal of April Manatt Consulting and the author of the report, “Hear Us Now? A California Survey of Digital Technology’s Role in Civic Engagement and Local Government and experts fromIntelliticsCalifornia Common Sense, the City of Carlsbad and the National Conference on Citizenship to discuss how California’s 5,000-plus local governments are using Gov 2.0 technology to encourage civic engagement. (For more on the meat of the report, check out our previous post.)

Local Government And Technology Tiers

Local governments usually fall into one of three “technology tiers,” said Manatt. The first includes information usually provided offline at city halls, such as council agendas, agency departments and phone numbers, photos and links to other entities. Every California county, and all but 12 cities, have websites that meet this basic level. The second tier adds more information and city documents and also sometimes invites citizens to provide feedback on the site. The final tier incorporates the idea of Gov 2.0 and crowdsourcing to change the paradigm and allows citizens to steer and define the process of governance.

“California has so many diverse governments, and they’re exploring technology in lots of different ways,” Manatt said. “Even the far-flung regions of the state where the population is low are at least dipping their toes in the water.”

Greg Hermann, the Senior Management Analyst for the City of Carlsbad, said he envisions an “on-demand” government. “This is the most exciting space to be in right now,” he said. “As we look at the size and scope of government and look at rethinking the way they work, technology can be a powerful, transformative tool.”

Real-Time, Transparent Government

Even more than on-demand government, Dakin Sloss, the Executive Director of California Common Sense and a Stanford senior, said that 10 years from now we’ll have real-time government, with cities and counties tracking spending online and making it available to citizens. “We’re all paying more and getting less,” he said. “Using social media as a civic engagement platform, where people can get together and share stories,” also enables them to take action and makes everyone a stakeholder.

Gov 2.0 represents a huge opportunity — if we can come together as a community, said David B. Smith, Executive Director of the National Conference on Citizenship. “People have said there’s no value in being involved in state or local government, but technology provides a great opportunity for changing the power structure.”

Government 2.0: Changing How We Think About (And Participate In) Government

All of this technology talk can seem distant from our everyday concerns — but the point is to make better use of technology, so government is responding to our priorities and spending scarce resources effectively. So we can fill those potholes, find better jobs, see our children off to great local schools and affordable colleges and universities.

Experts have called California “ungovernable,” but the promise of Gov 2.0 is that it gives the average citizen the tools to interact, influence and even change the way politics is done. Whether it’s using video conferencing to connect city staff and residents who need help or crowdsourcing the city budget, technology is changing the way we think about — and participate in — government. 

This post was originally published at Reset San Francisco

Second Summer of Smart hackathon tackles buildings, transportation and sustainability

Building data. It’s a small thing, but what if the buildings where we live, work and play were able to show us how they work? How much energy they use, what their carbon footprint is, how they compare to the building next door? Building data. It’s also a huge thing, a salvo in the data revolution that rages across the U.S. and brings the hope of transparent, agile and accountable government.

San Francisco has always been a proving ground for small ideas that blow up to impact the American landscape in ways no one could have predicted, from the hippies in the 1960s to the tech boom that is still ongoing. The current movement is challenging coders, data artists, designers and makers to find, create and illuminate available data to build apps, widgets and games to make the city better — to use civic hackathons to create experiments that have the potential to change the face of city government.

This puzzle is the basis of the Gray Area Foundation for the Arts (GAFFTA)’s Summer of Smart program, a three-month experiment in urban innovation that is bringing together developers, designers, city officials, urbanists, journalists, community members, and more to see what happens when you give ordinary citizens the tools to create change. GAFFTA, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that funds and creates experiments that build social consciousness through digital culture, along with the San Francisco Department of Technology, has created a living laboratory for a new model for how citizens and government can work directly together to address urban issues. It’s called Democracy 3.0, and it’s not limited to the West Coast anymore.

GAFFTA’s second urban hackathon was held over the weekend of July 22 to 24, and focused on sustainability, transportation, and energy.

One eye-opener for the 100 passionate citizen who showed up on Friday night was that the transportation sector is awash in data, (though it’s often not being used correctly or at all by the actual transportation agencies) while building data is such a morass of different formats and metrics that it’s impossible to work with.

“The reason we are talking about transportation and buildings is that the two of them account for a huge percentage of our country’s energy bill,” said Peter Hirshberg, chairman of GAFFTA. “In a city, buildings consume 40 percent of our energy bill, and about 30 percent of that could be saved if we knew what was going on. The problem is that we’re a little bit data blind. There’s just not that much information about buildings.”

In order to focus energy and attention on that problem, GAFFTA brought in experts to talk to the hackers about transportation, energy efficiency and city government.

Di-Ann Eisnor, a GAFFTA board member and executive at WAZE told the group about the how crowd-sourced traffic data is providing far more real time information about what’s happening on our roads than was ever available from government, sensors, or helicopter traffic services. “When you turn gathering traffic data into a game, and thousands of smart phone users play along, you are able to see what’s going on and manage traffic as never before,” Eisnor said. In keeping with the art spirit of things, she showed GAFFTA created visualizations of LA traffic data from the recent Carmageddon weekend.

Brandon Tinianov, CTO of Serious Energy spoke of buildings as machines full of data and manageable, but too often lacking the software layer and systems to allow building managers to do anything about it. His firm is a leader in providing industrial solutions to the problems, but he too called for a building data movement — to create awareness, open up more data, and to help cities understand how much better and more efficient buildings could be when attention was focused on working with the right data. “We can map bikes, trash, cars, but we can’t map buildings,” he said. “No one in this room knows what this building consumes or it it’s efficient.”

By Sunday evening, the seven teams had created projects that, in some ways, used available data to highlight what was missing. One team used available data to create a widget that will allow tenants of commercial buildings to compare sustainability factors such as energy use, waste generated and water consumed. Another group used data supplied by Muni to build an app that would allow line supervisors to use the same information that riders have to make on-the-fly decisions about trains and buses. Another takes information from building permits available on data.gov to create a picture of green building retrofit history in San Francisco. All in all, the teams were about evenly split between transportation and buildings, somewhat surprising given the difference in the amount of data that was out there between the two.

“This weekend was particularly interesting, because after searching for data, it became very clear that the transportation sector is way ahead of the energy sector, and part of this is demonstrating useful applications for the energy data: something I believe the weekend achieved,” said Christine Outram, research associate at the MIT SENSEable City lab. Outram and her team created Goodbuildings.net, a site that will allow tenants to compare commercial spaces on energy efficiency, water efficiency, waste disposal, the walkability, bikability or proximity to public transit and occupant ratings using data from LEEDS certification, Energy Star, walkscore.com and Public Open Spaces. “The story of data needs to be told, because data provides value and insight. We have seen this happen in the transportation sector, where mobile applications and data analysis have resulted in a more convenient, efficient, and flexible transit system that doesn’t require the roll-out of additional infrastructure or vehicles. This is not enough though, we must continue to tell the story of data so that other sectors begin to understand the value proposition.”

Building data, on the other hand, is a confusing mess of formats, standards and metrics. In February, San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee signed the Existing Commercial Building Energy Performance Ordinance, which requires owners of commercial buildings to determine how much energy a building uses and make that data available, but it doesn’t apply universally until 2013. Even the data that is currently available isn’t always in the same formats, a problem tackled by the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) and the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in their PAP10 project to create a data standard for energy usage.

“Government data is critical for the public in terms of transparency and accountability,” said Jay Nath, director of innovation at the San Francisco department of technology. While the projects that came from the weekend were all very good, Nath thinks they could have been even better if the data was there. “Data is the raw material for much of the work that happens at hackathons. Our goal as government is to increase access to data that is consistent with our privacy and security policies. Events like this can spur demand for data that can raise awareness within government.”

The other focus of the weekend, transportation, had almost the complete opposite problem: the groups were swimming in data, but the public transit agencies in the city don’t have access to it, or don’t actually use it.  Emily Drennen, a current intern with Muni, decided to use the weekend to fix Muni: “You know, a small, manageable project.” Her idea was originally to find a way to allow train operators and line supervisors to access the same information that riders have, on nextmuni.com, and use that data to make on-the-fly decisions to solve bunched up buses or clogged muni trains. But when they went down and actually talked to some of the Muni employees, it turned out that supervisors often didn’t even know when there was a problem, much less have the ability to solve it on the fly. “The people who are in charge are basically on their radios going ‘Roger roger’ and trying to get the information across,” said Matt Kroneberger, a Berkeley graduate student.

The Summer of Smart hackathons have drawn the attention of people across the city, from mayoral candidates to tech superstars and San Francisco-based corporations. Candidates Phil Ting, Joanna Rees and David Chiu stopped by the GAFFTA headquarters and all said that they want the innovative spirit of the hackathons to live on in their administrations, which is exactly what Hirshberg hoped would happen when he came up with the idea.

“The insight for summer of smart, for me, began when GAFFTA Executive Director Josette Melchor and I were talking to supervisors and mayoral candidates about open data and visualization and they looked at us and said, ‘well we’ve heard about that, but how does gov 2.0 help make a better city, make people be more healthy, solve social problems or make the trains run on time? What does it do for our voters?’,” Hirshberg said. “I realized that it was a classic case of us geeks being excited about something and the business users not having any idea what we’re talking about. This is a classic problem in technology marketing So I was really interested in making the people who are running for office clients for real live projects. If they said ‘these are the priorities,’ that would turn the geeks into people who actually understood what the real business use was. By making it a part of the campaign process, we’d create a lot of awareness.  We’d be a laboratory for ideas that candidates might want to adopt – ideas worth stealing.” Candidate Phil Ting echoed this when he said, “When you are in a campaign, you are constantly looking to push the envelope and challenge yourself as well as the city and you’re looking for innovative ideas. In a campaign, it’s like policy entrepreneurship. Candidates, especially those of use who are running for offices we haven’t held, we’re looking to identify issues that we can champion and that we can work on and I think that’s happening a lot in this campaign.”

While that sounds idyllic, you might be forgiven if your experiences with city government have made you a bit cynical. However, in this case it’s actually working. Remember that Muni app, created in a weekend by seven regular citizens? On Sunday evening, the groups presented their apps to an audience including Melanie Nutter, Director of the San Francisco Department of Environment. When the conversation turned to the potential to offend a city IT staffer, Hirshberg turned to Nutter and asked, “You work for the city, are we in trouble yet?” Nutter’s response? “I’m part of the [Muni] strategic planning team and I think this is a great thing.”

This was originally posted at GovFresh

Summer of Smart: What Can You Do For YOUR City?

By Jessica Pearce

It’s 9:15 on Friday night, and there are about 100 people milling around the GAAFTA headquarters. Wandering around, you hear one group talking about using current and historical Muni data to, in the words of GAFFTA’s co-founder and Chairman Peter Hirshberg, “make the bus chase you, rather than you chase the bus.” Another group is creating an app that works with the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Redevelopment to show available apartments and co-working spaces in realtime. A third group wants to crowdsource available sustainability data to compare buildings in the city.

GAFFTA’s second Summer of Smart hackathon is off and running, and it’s bringing together architects, building engineers, journalists, Android developers – pretty much anyone you can imagine who might be interested in making their city a better, more responsive and more innovative place to live.

The first Summer of Smart, held the weekend of June 24th, focused on community development and public art. Of the seven projects that hackers put together over the roughly 24-hour hackathon, about half are still being worked on a month later, a much higher percentage than most hackathons have, says GAFFTA research director Jake Levitas.

What makes Summer of Smart different? It’s by design, says Hirshberg. “We picked areas that matter to the city,” he said, “Where you would naturally get geeks and activists who cared so they would stick around and become part of the dialogue. Some hackathons are more commercial, sometimes you’ll have one that’s around social media data and everyone shows up to show off the API from their startup. But this one is pulling people from the community, and so you get this really interesting group of people who really care about this type of data who have more of a diverse background, and are interested in producing results at urban scale.”

The final Summer of Smart hackathon, focusing on public health, food and nutrition, will be held the weekend of August 19th. The best projects from the three weekends will be presented to city officials and mayoral candidates at the Commonwealth Club on October 6th.

Also published at GovFresh and GAFFTA’s Summer of Smart site.

Social Congress and the 21st century legislator

By Jessica Pearce

How is it possible, in the 21st century, that I can Skype with friends in China, keep up with my friends across the country via Facebook and exchange messages with the CEO of a startup I admire on Twitter, but yet when I try to communicate with my members of Congress, it seems like everything I do is swallowed up by the black abyss?

What? Maybe I should try tweeting to Senator Boxer, commenting on Rep. Nancy Pelosi‘s Facebook page or emailing Assemblymember Tom Ammiano? Come on, you’re joking, right? Doesn’t everyone in Congress think the Internet is a series of tubes?

Well, turns out I’m wrong. Not only is Congress up on their social media skills, but according to Brad Fitch, president of the Congressional Management Foundation:

Nearly 2/3 of staff surveyed (64%) think Facebook is an important way to understand constituents’ views and nearly 3/4 (74%) think it is important for communicating their Members’ views.

Fitch talked about how Capitol Hill perceives and uses social media at a #SocialCongressmeetup Monday in San Francisco. He had some good news, bad news and interesting perspectives. (The full report will be released on July 26th.)

Bad news first: staffers agree that email and the Internet have made it easier for citizens to take part in public policy, but nearly 2/3 feel like they’ve reduced the quality of the messages they send, and less than half think that email and the Internet have increased citizen understanding of what actually happens in D.C. In other words, to quote Popvox CEO Marci Harris, “The internet has increased civic participation and lawmaker accountability but has not necessarily led to a more informed constituency.”

Great, now we have uninformed people writing to Congress. How does that possibly help our democracy? Well, as Thomas Jefferson said, “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” In 2005, CMF found that “Congress received four times more communications in 2004 than in 1995 – all of the increase from Internet-based communications,” and a 2008 survey by CMF and Zogby found that “43 percent of Americans who had contacted Congress used online methods to do so, more than twice the percentage that had used postal mail or the telephone.”

In this case, the good news and the bad news is kind of a mobius strip: more people are communicating with their elected officials. Those people may not be as well-informed as said elected officials hope them to be, however, the saying “the medium is the message” is more appropriate than ever when talking about the Internet. Senior managers and communications staffers on the Hill across the board said social media tools like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube were vital to both communicating the Member’s views and understanding what constituents want. The key is doing more than just liking a status update, or leaving one-word comments on a link. To make an impact on your member of Congress, you have to discuss the impact of a bill on your state or district, give a reason for your support or opposition, or tell a story.

Gov 2.0 champion Tim O’Reilly asked the question that was on the minds of all the technologists in the room:

“It’s not just about reaching Congress,” he said, “but can we use technology to make Congress smarter? People in government are ready, they want to figure it out. We have to help them be more responsive, to be the government we wish we had.”

This was originally posted at the GovFresh blog on July 15, 2011

SF developers, public servants pitch their civic tents at CityCampSF

By Jessica Pearce

If there’s one lesson that’s inherent to CityCampSF, it’s that crowdsourcing will save the world.

The second CityCamp San Francisco was hosted at the city’s Office of Technology, and featured projects that heavily favored using the community residents to make their block, neighborhood or city better. My takeaway? While the state of California may have proven that direct democracy doesn’t work, the city of San Francisco has shown that giving the power to the people may be the best way to save it.

Here are two examples:

SF Fire App

This is perhaps the best example of how people can help people. The app allows CPR-trained volunteers to get smartphone notifications of cardiac arrest patients who may be near them.

Developers used CityCampSF to work together and create another app to map Automated External Defibrillator (AED) locations. This technology is critical to help save lives, San Francisco City Attorney (and mayoral candidate) Dennis Herrera said, and that information was not readily known before.

Real World Sim City

One of the things I tweeted during the Real World Sim City presentation was “It’s amazing what can be crowdsourced — learning about billboards, gov’t apps, even a Robocop statue in Michigan!” For some reason a spam account picked up on that and commented, “I’d buy that for a dollar!” which unknowingly played right into the ethos of the project. One of the ideas Loveland Technologies Creative Director Jerry Paffendorf talked about was ‘Inchvesting,’ or paying a dollar per inch for vacant lots in downtown Detroit. Sure, you can’t do a lot with an inch, he said, but it gets people involved and invested in their neighborhoods, and good things come from that. You’ve probably heard of another venture Paffendorf had a hand in – the 10-foot bronze statue of Robocop enough people thought was a good idea that they donated $50,000 to make it happen on Kickstarter.

The whole experience was symbolic of the Internet, he said. “Take something that’s really serious, but put some kind of art experience on top. If you want to clean up the park, put a little Robocop on top of it.”

There were so many excellent panels and so little time. There were people coding in the atrium, talking in the hallways and exchanging ideas and business cards in every corner. SF Director of Public Works Ed Reiskin said he applauded events like this, calling them the “next step forward in civic engagement.”

“You ask, ‘how can we empower people,’ how do we take the information the government has and make it work better, make it more useful, more accessible, in ways that we in government didn’t imagine,” Reiskin said. “When you work in an organization you don’t question some of the basic assumptions of why you do what you do. Coming in from the outside, having tech savviness, but also just being citizens, you make sure the government works for you, and that’s tremendously powerful and helpful.”

To learn more about check out #citycampsf on Twitter and the CityCampSF Flickr group.

This was originally posted at the GovFresh blog on June 21st, 2011

Window on White House visitor records beginning to clear

By the end of November, nearly 2,100 records of visitors to the White House recorded between January 20, 2009 and September 15, 2009 were publicly released by the Administration in a searchable online database. Although this is only a fraction of the total visitors during that time — up to 100,000 people visit the White House each month — in the future, we will see a much fuller picture.

Since September, the Obama administration’s policy has been to release records only if (1) specifically requested and (2) deemed by the Administration as “reasonable, narrow and specific” enough to release. Since then, more than 400 requests have been submitted to the White House, resulting in releases of two batches of visitor logs: nearly 500 in October and more than 1,600 in November.

President Obama has promised to release the full logs, albeit delayed 90-120 days to “allow the White House to continue to conduct business.” In addition, certain visitors’ names will not be released because of national security, political sensitivity, privacy, or other concerns.

Initially, the Administration had refused to release the logs when requested by MSNBC and Citizen for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), asserting (like the Bush administration) that the records were not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW sued for access to the records in July, dropping the suit once the government agreed to turn over the records under a new “voluntary” disclosure program, which took effect on Sept. 15.

While the disclosure policy is not retroactive — records prior to September 15 are available only upon request — all records after that date will be released three months after the visit. We can expect a much clearer view of visitors to the White House starting around the end of December.

Hopefully, the Administration will minimize the number of instances where it fails to disclose names, perhaps by reviewing the redactions every six months and releasing additional names. It should also reconsider and publish all visitor logs from earlier this year. Doing so could make available tens of thousands of records.

This was originally posted on the Sunlight Foundation's blog, on Dec. 8, 2009.