It's hard to believe any regional plan would actually end L.A.'s notorious air pollution problems, but Denny Zane is not known for thinking small. Photo:pollution articles.

“This is a game-changing plan for Southern California. It will create thousands of jobs and make air pollution a relic of our history,” said Denny Zane, executive director of Move L.A. “Southern California should be competitive with any metropolitan area in the world.  We already have the best weather.”

In 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed  SB 375 into law which required that regional land use and transportation plans bring about measurable changes in Greenhouse Gas emissions.  The first regional plan passed under this law was by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and is now being challenged in court for placing too much emphasis on highway expansion, albeit in the form of high occupancy toll lanes.

Local experts praise the SCAG plan as an improvement not just over past efforts, but also over the SANDAG plan.  In particular, the plan will :

• Increase funding for active transportation $1.8 billion in the most recent plan to $6.7 billion;
• Shift focus away from highway spending.  $246 billion, nearly half the plan’s total revenue will be spent on public transportation;
• Embraces transit expansion and calls for 12 L.A. County transit projects to come online;
• Will embrace TOD.  The amount of housing near transit will increase 60% more h than is currently available;
• Create 4.2 million more jobs in the region, 87% of which will be ½ mile from transit;
• Most importantly, the plan cleans the air.  Respiratory illness caused by air pollution will fall by nearly one-quarter;

More on the plan’s impact can be found at the NRDC Switchboard, where Amanda Eaken, the NRDC’s Director of Sustainable communities broke down the plan in advance of today’s meeting.  Eaken herself was thrilled with today’s unanimous action.

“While Washington politicians continue to point fingers about high gas prices, local leaders in Los Angeles have actually done something about long commutes,” said Eaken. “SCAG has approved a plan that will save people money, shorten their commutes and create a cleaner environment. Investing in transit will put millions of people back to work on local projects that benefit anyone who chooses to trade gas prices for a metro card.”

Not everyone is as thrilled with the final plan.  Jessica Meaney with the Safe Routes to Schools National Partnership credits “We’ve seen meeting after meeting dominated by people pushing for active transportation issues, but I wish we had seen more leadership in the regional transportation plan,” says Meaney.  ”One thing we did see is that people in all six counties want to see walkable and bikeable communities.”

The $6.7 billion mentioned above for walking and bicycling is less than one percent of the budget despite pedestrians and cyclists accounting for 25% of traffic fatalities.  A recent study by the L.A. County Department of Public Health found the need for bicycle and pedestrian funding to be $42 billion over the life of the SCAG plan.

SCAG is the nation’s largest metropolitan planning organization, representing six counties, 191 cities and more than 18 million residents.

What make a good regional transportation plan?

This question has become a complicated one in recent years as a new legislative mandate requires that the regional bodies responsible for creating these plans, plans which decide the funding direction for large parts of the state, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and again by 2035.  We’ve already seen how a plan hailed for its progressiveness upon passage by the San Diego Association of Governments now finds itself in court, with the state’s attorney siding with the plaintiffs.

The current round of regional plans will direct funding until 2050 and are the first ones passed since the passage of the state’s greenhouse gas reduction law in 2008.

Soon the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) will have its chance to finalize a regional plan.  An important step in that process will happen later this morning, when SCAG’s Transportation Committee meets to discuss the plan for the last time before it’s 83 member board of directors votes on the plan next month.  Rarely does SCAG meetings or plans attract as much attention, but, spurred by the Safe Routes to Schools National Partnership, Move L.A. and local groups such as VC Cool, hundreds of people have commented on the plan either asking for greater investment in transit, or active transportation.

This has led to two camps forming within transportation reformers.  On one hand, Move L.A. is praising the plan with few conditions.  An op/ed by Move L.A.’s Gloria Ohland (also a Streetsblog contributor) lays out the positives of the plan.  Ohland’s full piece appears at the end of this article:

The broad interest in charting a new direction in community and transportation planning has resulted in a remarkable $530 billion regional plan that enhances the region’s economic future and jobs growth by reducing traffic congestion despite a projected growth in population of 4 million residents. It locates 87 percent of all jobs and 82 percent of all housing within a half mile of transit, and more than triples funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects.

The plan promises to yield a $3,000 annual savings to each household because of lower auto, fuel, water and energy costs, and a 24 percent reduction in pollution-caused respiratory problems, resulting in a $1.5 billion/year less in health care costs. The plan envisions future revenue sources including the substitution of a fee on vehicle miles traveled, a “VMT fee,” for the current gas tax.

Meanwhile, the Safe Routes to Schools National Partnership with its allies, including Ventura County’s VCCOOL, who is responsible for the above video, continue to press for more funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects. A recent report by the L.A. County Department of public health estimated a $40 billion need to make the six county SCAG region a safe and attractive place for people to walk and bike. Funding for these projects in the transportation plan that stretches to 2050 is less than $2 billion.

But it’s not just a lack of funding that worries the partnership, it’s the lack of a long-term vision to create safe streets for all road users, especially those without cars. The coalition for transportation options also wants SCAG to increase funding for implementing a complete streets policy, creating a Safe Routes to Schools strategy and funding an effort to solicit and earn larger grants to make streets safer.

One of the many groups that are working with the Partnership is VCCool, a small Ventura County based non-profit who has used video and public presentations to make the case that investing in transit, but not bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, is creating an unbalanced transportation system that can be inherently unsafe.  You can see their most recent video above, and download their presentation by clicking here.

At this point, it seems unlikely that any major changes will happen to the SCAG plan, which means the question posited at the top of this post could be decided in court, just as it will in San Diego.

While Congress Fiddles, Southern California Shows How to Get Things Done

–Gloria Ohland, Move L.A.

When a delegation from the LA Chamber of Commerce visited Congress earlier this month to lobby for passage of the federal surface transportation reauthorization, members were greeted warmly by federal transportation officials who noted that LA was providing a model for Congress on how to get things done.

“You check your politics at the door,” said US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, who with US Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Federal Transit Administration head Peter Rogoff, complimented the chamber delegation on the bold and broad business-labor-environmental coalition that is supporting massive investment in LA’s public transportation system.

Congress has bogged down in partisan and ideological brinksmanship over the transportation reauthorization—and many other issues—so often during the past four years that the federal transportation bill will have to be extended for the ninth time when the current extension runs out March 31. While the Senate approved its bipartisan version of the bill this week under the leadership of Senator Boxer and Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) had to abandon his bill, which linked infrastructure programs with domestic oil production.

The lack of a federal bill means states haven’t had the funding assurances they need to begin major multi-year infrastructure projects that could provide hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs to American workers.

While the grand coalition that championed the Measure R sales tax for transportation in LA County in 2008 is one example of how to get things done in a bipartisan manner, another perhaps even grander example of how cooperation, community and bipartisanship can yield impressive results is currently underway in Southern California.

Every four years the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopts a 25-year regional transportation plan (RTP) that has to “meet conformity” with the federal Clean Air Act in order for the six-county region to continue to receive federal transportation funding. During this planning cycle the RTP was for the first time paired with a “sustainable communities strategy”(SCS)—mandated by the state’s new GHG reduction law, SB 375—that lays out a plan to reduce GHGs by reducing driving.

The public rarely shows up at SCAG, an agency governed by a bipartisan 83-member Regional Council, but the SCS has drawn hundreds of people into SCAG’s planning process. Meetings have been crowded with advocates demanding more transit, bike lanes and pedestrian improvements and more affordable housing choices, and doctors and academics testifying that in order to deal with the health and obesity crisis the region needs to create “active environments”—because auto-oriented communities have literally engineered physical activity out of our lives.

The broad interest in charting a new direction in community and transportation planning has resulted in a remarkable $530 billion regional plan that enhances the region’s economic future and jobs growth by reducing traffic congestion despite a projected growth in population of 4 million residents. It locates 87 percent of all jobs and 82 percent of all housing within a half mile of transit, and more than triples funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects.

The plan promises to yield a $3,000 annual savings to each household because of lower auto, fuel, water and energy costs, and a 24 percent reduction in pollution-caused respiratory problems, resulting in a $1.5 billion/year less in health care costs. The plan envisions future revenue sources including the substitution of a fee on vehicle miles traveled, a “VMT fee,” for the current gas tax.

There seems to be general agreement across the region that our single-minded focus on building single-family residential neighborhoods connected by highways has reached the point of diminishing returns. Demographic changes—a majority of single-person households and a rapidly aging population—and rising gas prices are causing Southern Californians to demand a wider range of housing and transportation choices.

LA County voters demonstrated this when they passed the Measure R sales tax in 2008 to provide $40 billion for transportation—$30 billion of it for transit—by almost 70 percent. The Measure R investment together with the bike and pedestrian improvements and the increase in jobs and housing near stations is responsible for much of the GHG reductions in the RTP/SCS. And in the final run-up to plan adoption, SCAG staff may be recommending even more funding for transit, bike and pedestrian projects.

Prior to passing the transportation bill in the US Senate, Senator Inhofe said he’s always believed “conservatives should be big in two areas: national defense and infrastructure.” We can only hope that the spirit of collaboration and bipartisanship evidenced both in the US Senate and in Southern California—and the acknowledgment that transportation investments and the jobs they create are critical—will inspire the US House of Representatives to move forward.

What is the RTP?

To read the plan in its entirety, click on the image.

The SCAG 2012 to 2035 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy  is a $525 billion, 23 year transportation and land use blueprint for the six county, expected-to-grow-to 22 million person Southern California Associations of Governments region. The 230 page draft report, 446 page list of projects to fund, 642 page environmental impact report, and numerous appendixes lay out a vision for transportation and land use in the greater Los Angeles region along with a plan to raise and spend over $520 billion to maintain, operate and expand transportation infrastructure through 2035.

Comments on the draft plan are due by 5pm on Valentine’s day, February 14, 2012. I’d encourage everyone interested in the future of streets, transit, sustainability or the built environment in the region to submit comments by emailing RTP@scag.ca.gov While not everything in the draft plan will get implemented, the RTP is a strong indicator of how transportation agencies, counties and cities will prioritize investments in transportation. If there are harmful or wasteful projects slated to be funded, you should encourage SCAG to drop them. If you want local governments to prioritize different transportation investment, you should let SCAG know. If you have ideas for other ways to improve mobility, to raise funds to pay for transportation, to encourage more sustainable land uses (especially housing patterns and locations), or otherwise transform how we move people and products, let them know.

I hope that some Streetsblog readers will check out the project list to see and comment on what is planned – and what is left out- for your part of the region and/or for the transportation sector(s) that you know best. For my comments, which I summarize below, I’ve tried to focus on the improved mobility and more sustainable neighborhoods that I hope to see evolve over the next 25 years. If the draft plan moves us in that direction, I’ll acknowledge the positive elements of the plan. Where the draft plan falls short or moves in the wrong direction, I’ll suggest changes.

A Vision for the Future

So what are some compelling but achievable long term visions for transportation and land use in the region? Mine would include:

• Rapid implementation of more balanced transportation options. The region is still far from recovering from a frenzy of car-based development. The SCAG region has 21,638 center-line miles of road  (55,890 lane miles of roads), 4315 miles of bikeways of varied quality (almost zero of it protected lanes on streets), and 470 miles of passenger trains (only 80 miles of which is light rail/subway, the rest metrolink). Opportunities and infrastructure to walk, bike, and take transit should be rapidly expanded so residents have choices for how to get around.
• Transportation that doesn’t kill us, make us sick, or destroy the future. Moving people by cars and materials by trucks and diesel trains and separating where we live from where we work and shop produces fatal collisions,  cancer and heart disease, obesity and diabetes  and climate change, with a disparate impact on residents of low income neighborhoods bisected by highways and living near ports, warehouses, railyards and intermodal facilities. Shifting to active transportation and safer streets; insisting on zero emission technologies; promoting walkable land uses; and taxing polluting forms of transportation to pay for clean mobility options can help ensure we are not harmed by our transportation systems.
• Streets for people, not roads for cars. Streets are our most important public spaces so let’s reconfigure them to be vibrant, safe, healthy places rather than sewers for cars. Why can’t we get some world class street designs implemented in this region, like the models for South Figueroa showcased by myfigueroa last year? At the least we deserve slower speed limits, more cross walks, and better sidewalks, not to mention more murals and legal street food.
• A network of rapid buses as the primary way to travel Los Angeles in a vehicle. I like Jarrett Walker’s vision for Los Angeles streets in 2030  “Indeed, the Rapid has come to feel like a subway on the surface.  Nothing gets in its way, so it glides smoothly from one stop to the next past all the frustrations of other traffic.  In fact, the Rapid is the only reliable way to travel down most of the great boulevards of LA, if you’re going further than you can cycle.  And because it works, all kinds of people ride it.”
• Good places rather than more sprawl. People are drawn to diversity in the built environment,  so municipalities should legalize interesting, mixed-use neighborhoods by getting rid of zoning rules that restrict mixed use development to a small fraction of cities’ land area. Governments should also not be contributing a single cent towards more sprawl so I’d like to see an end to road building and the provision of public sewers or utilities ingreenfield, exurban areas of the region.
• An expansive network of protected bike lanes. The cycling rate in greater Los Angeles is pitifully low, although growing, with a severe gender imbalance. The main reason for this is likely that most people will not ride bicycles in traffic (or separated from traffic by a painted line). In the developed world, every nation with high rates of cycling has separated bike facilities while every nation with low cycling rates lacks this infrastructure. Let’s start creating a network of protected bike lanes/ cycletracks in all urbanized areas of Southern California, like the Dutch did beginning in the mid 1970s. I realize that protected lanes are frowned upon by state street engineering standards but this is a 23 year plan so we can assume that separated facilities will be legalized.
• Expanded passenger rail for mobility and as hubs of walkable neighborhoods. New light rail in Los Angeles County has been one of the main positive trends in transportation and land use in the region. Planned and new lines should be rapidly built to fill in gaps in the system. From light rail to high speed rail, new lines and stations should be designed to encourage walkable, mixed use development, more affordable housing, and last mile connections by bike and foot (rather than land-wasting parking lots).
• Less space for cars and trucks. Roads and parking currently take up too much of our land, which encourages car-based transportation and all the problems that accompany it. Driving increases when roads are constructed, lengthened or widened. Yes, it is that simple.  So we should not be building any new road space anywhere in the SCAG region. Instead we should remove space for cars by planning for freeway removal as smart cities are doing around the world;  implementing road diets to give car lanes to pedestrians, bikes and buses; barring cars from city centers either permanently or regularly as part of expanded ciclavias; and  ending all minimum parking requirements.

Comments on draft RTP

While I don’t think that the draft RTP moves far enough towards this improved transportation and land use end goal,  I would like to acknowledge some of the positive elements of the draft plan.

• The planning process took account of the relationship between transportation, land use,  sustainability, environmental justice and economic development.
• The draft plan calls for significant investments in transit construction, operations and maintenance.
• The draft plan increases investments in active transportation compared to previous RTPs.
• The draft plan anticipates that vehicle miles traveled will increase less than population growth.
• The sustainable communities strategy quantifies how different forms of growth will have very different impacts on sprawl, energy and water use and other sustainability indicators.
• The draft plan anticipates adoption of zero emission technologies towards the end of the plan time frame.
• The draft plan supports high speed rail.
• The draft plan anticipates a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transportation in line with the goals of SB 375.
• The single largest anticipated funding source in the draft plan is implementation of a fee on driving or an increase in the gas tax, either of which would discourage driving.
• Much of the new highway space proposed in the draft plan is toll roads, HOV lanes, or HOT lanes (open to HOV or Tolls) and therefore may lead to less new, induced driving than the provision of free, multiuse lanes.

I think there are some major areas in which the RTP should be strengthened or modified

1. Increase investments in active transportation from the $6 billion budgeted to the approximately $40 billion recommended by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health to fix sidewalks, implement jurisdictions’ bike plans; and invest in last mile infrastructure near transit stations.
2. Budget an additional $1 billion for the construction of 1000-2000 miles of protected bike lines to increase rates of cycling among non traditional cyclists  (protected lanes recently constructed in Long Beach cost approximately $580,000 per mile).
3. Expand and accelerate transit investments so all planned transit projects in the RTP are constructed by 2022. Existing and new transit services should be funded so as to be affordable with frequent service.
4. Do not add any lane miles of highways or major arterials,  because as Duranton and Turner have shown, “For interstate highways in the densest parts of metropolitan areas we find that vkt increases in exact proportion to highways, confirming the ‘fundamental law of highway congestion’ suggested by Downs(1962, 1992). This relationship also approximately holds for other important roads in dense areas and for interstate highways in less dense parts of metropolitan areas.”  The SCAG region currently (base year 2008) has 21,638 miles of road and 55,890 lane miles of roads. The draft RTP anticipates adding 948 centerline miles/ 7419 lanes miles which would be a 4.4%/ 11.1% increase.  Converting mixed flow lanes to toll, HOV or HOT lanes or converting HOV lanes to toll or HOT lanes would be acceptable.
5. Pay for additional active transportation and transit investments by cancelling highway expansion projects and by increasing fees on driving. I believe that the dozen most expensive road expansion projects in the RTP are: east west freight corridor ($15.2 billion),  Riverside to Orange County CETAP ($13 billion), high desert corridor ($6.9 billion), 710 corridor expansion ($6.1 billion), 710 gap closure ($5.6 billion), 5 north capacity enhancements ($5.3 billion), 241 expansion ($2.7 billion), mid county parkway ($2.3 billion), 15 widening ($ 1.7 billion), 405 widening in Orange County ($1.7 billion), 5 widening ($1.6 billion), and 79 expansion ($1.4 billion). Building these highways projects will expand driving, while cancelling them will allow $63.5 billion to be spent on active transportation and transit.
6. Adopt alternative 3 (the envision 2 alternative) smart growth land use and housing patterns) rather than the planned project.  This alternative version of the plan relies on smart growth land use and housing patterns to achieve superior environmental results in air quality, aesthetics, open space and farmland preservation, water conservation, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, mobility, and land use.
7. Encourage sensitive densification of existing single family zoned areas by encouraging municipalities to allow cottage housing, duplexes, accessory dwellings, and small lot subdivisions in R-1 zones.
8. Encourage all jurisdictions to eliminate mandatory parking minimums for existing and new buildings.
9. Set a goal to reduce rather than expand vehicle miles travelled within the region. Vehicle Miles travelled in the baseline year 2008 was 445,844 daily, approximately half on freeways, half on arterial roads. SCAG calculates that this number will rise to 546,806 daily by 2035 without any changes to roads (a 22.6 % increase). Under their plan, VMT will still rise, to 516,990 (16% increase). They also anticipate that VMT for trucks will grow even faster, expanding from 30,201 to 53,431 under their 2035 plan (a 76.9% increase).
10. Plan for highway removal or modification. Learning from cities removing highways http://www.cnu.org/highways/freewayswithoutfutures2012 , agencies and municipalities should plan to remove, cover or alter and reclassify as arterials highways that divide communities, negatively impact valuable natural resources such as rivers and coasts, or channel excessive traffic into neighborhoods. Freeway stubs such as the 710 N above the 10 or the 2 as it approaches Silverlake are ripe for removal or conversion and the 101 through downtown Los Angeles has been the subject of advocacy for capping for a park.
11. Do not invest in goods movement roads and rail expansion in the hopes that zero emission technologies will emerge decades later. Invest more in zero emissions trucks and locomotives now as a precondition before expanding freight infrastructure. Otherwise impacted communities will continue to suffer disproportionately from pollution from good movement.
12. Price driving and parking to reflect the externalities of car and truck use. There are a variety of methods for increasing the price of driving, some of which are contemplated in the RTP’s financial plan.  Higher gas taxes, carbon taxes, charges based on miles driven, appropriately and dynamically priced parking, and congestion charges aimed at commuters entering central city areas are all useful policies.

If there aren't changes to SCAG's plans, will there be another lawsuit? Time will tell.

When Attorney General Kamala Harris announced her office was supporing a lawsuit against the allegedly progressive long-term transportation plan passed by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), it sent ripples through the transportation advocacy community.  Harris bluntly claimed that SANDAG can’t meet Greenhouse Gas goals set by state law by building highways now and other transportation options later.  She also noted the low amount of funding going towards walking and bicycling in the plan.

Locally, activists hope that the Attorney General’s decision influences long range planning at the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG.)  The numbers and planning strategies between the SCAG draft plan and the embattled “final” plan at SANDAG are similar enough that the threat of another lawsuit looms large unless the SCAG plan undergoes some changes.

The SANDAG plan sets aside $2.5 billion for active transportation over the next thirty eight years out of a $214 billion dollar plan for the region.  That’s roughly 1.2% of the program for bicycle and pedestrian projects combined.  But SCAG’s number is even lower.  The local Long Range Plan allocates allocates $6 billion dollars for active transportation, 1.1% of the total $524.7 billion.

Safe Routes to School California leads the charge to increase the amount of funding for active transportation in the SCAG plan.  A recent post on their website encourages people and organizations to sign-on to a letter urging SCAG to increase the active transportation portion of the budget to five to eight percent of the budget, not 1.1%.

L.A. County Public Health Department explains how it came up with the $40 billion need estimate for the SCAG region. Basically, they took the bicycle and pedestrian need based on local bicycle and pedestrian master plans and funded Safe Routes to Schools plans to calculate a "per person" need estimate. Next, they combined that number with an estimated amount to create safe access to transit stations based on an estimate by the Center for Transit Oriented Development. You can see their presentation by clicking on the image. Safe Routes CA also has a detailed explanation

The SRTSCA ask isn’t just a random number.  The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health estimates that the funding need to create an adequate bicycle and pedestrian network in the six-county SCAG area is actually $40 billion, or 7.6% of the SCAG Long Range budget.

SCAG and SANDAG both wrote plans that allocated an impressive amount of resources towards transit expansion.  But each plan has a catch, the funds for transit are allocated at the end of the plan with highway funding coming at the start of the plans.

In the press release announcing her action supporting local lawsuits against the SANDAG plan, Harris notes that the SANDAG plan actually leads to an increase in greenhouse gases, the very thing these plans are supposed to battle, after 2020.  She then lays the blame for that increase at the feet of SANDAG’s addiction to more highway projects.

While greenhouse gases initially decrease in the plan, the EIR shows that after 2020, driving miles will increase and overall greenhouse gas emissions from driving will continue to increase at least until 2050.

The transit plan also prioritizes expanding or extending freeways and highways in its early years, largely deferring investment in public transit projects, such as transit, bicycle and foot paths, when funds may not be available.

The news is similar for the SCAG draft plan.  From the Safe Routes to Schools California blog (emphasis mine):

 The SCAG RTP allocates $6 billion for active transportation.  However, $4.8 billion or 80 percent of this funding is not available until after 2026.  In addition, for the years 2016-2025 the funding for active transportation will be half of what it is currently on an annual basis.

If you want to be involved in changing the SCAG plan, you could sign-up with the Safe Routes to School California’s letter campaign, or submit comments on your own or email comments by February 14 to RTP@scag.ca.gov.

Kamala Harris

The agency declared victory, but many local advocates weren’t convinced.

“If this is a national and regional model, we’re in bad shape,” Dough McFetridge of the Cleveland National Forest Foundation grumbled to Streetsblog last November.  ”We have a need — a tremendous need — for transit right now, today. This proposal puts funding transit off into so far in to the future that many of us won’t be around anymore.”

McFetridge and other environmental groups pressed forward with a lawsuit claiming that the EIR for the plan was flawed because it didn’t take into account the impact new highway construction would have on vehicles miles traveled.  This week their lawsuit received a major boost when California Attorney General Kamala Harris joined their efforts.

“The 3.2 million residents of the San Diego region already suffer from the seventh worst ozone pollution in the country,” said Harris in a press release. “Spending our transit dollars in the right way today will improve the economy, create sustainable jobs and ensure that future generations do not continue to suffer from heavily polluted air.”

The lawsuit argues that the environmental review of the transit plan did not adequately analyze the public health impacts of the increased air pollution. The San Diego region already has a very high risk of cancer from particulate matter emitted by diesel engines and vehicles and there is no analysis as to whether this risk will increase.  By prioritizing highway expansion in the first years of the plan, SANDAG claims more pedestrian, bicycle and transit expansion in the plan even though those plans may never happen.  The bulk of the investment in transit and active transportation begins decades from now.

“The attorney general’s intervention in this case supports our argument that SANDAG’s plan is deeply flawed,” said Kathryn Phillips of the Sierra Club.  ”We’re encouraged that the State of California is serious about limiting air pollution and climate change pollution created by transportation in the region.”

While greenhouse gases initially decrease in the plan to the levels required by state law, the EIR shows that after 2020, driving miles will increase and overall greenhouse gas emissions from driving will continue to increase at least until 2050.  SANDAG claims that many of the miles of new highway projects should count as transit projects because many of the new lanes will be “managed” lanes similar to the Express Lanes coming to Los Angeles or HOT Lanes such as SR 91 in Orange County.  Because buses will have “congestion free” access to these lanes, SANDAG argues these are really transit projects.

The plaintiffs didn’t buy this argument.

“If we hope to avoid the worst of climate change, we must act aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage compact, transit-oriented development,” writes Kevin Bundy, Center for Biological Diversity. “The Attorney General’s office recognizes that SANDAG’s approach to transportation and land use development will do just the opposite. We can’t wait any longer to address these issues.”

Even those that offered tepid support for the plan last year see hope for a better plan in the lawsuit.

“The lawsuit should serve as a reality check for our region’s leaders to take smart growth planning more seriously,” writes Elyse Lowe with Move San Diego.  “Even in auto-centric, sprawled out San Diego, quality, location-efficient jobs and housing growth  must be served by quality transportation options to meet California’s legislated climate emission goals.  Hopefully the gut check from the (attorney general) will result in more sustainable land uses, and more funding toward transportation options.”

For its part, SANDAG hasn’t commented on the lawsuit other than brief comments from Encinitas Mayor and SANDAG Chair Jerome Stocks who tells Voice of San Diego that he is dissapointed in Harris’ decision to join the lawsuit but wouldn’t comment beyond that.

How will this lawsuit impact transportation at Los Angeles’ regional planning organization?  Streetsblog will examine that question on Monday.

This Spring, the Southern California Association of Governments, representing 191 municipalities, 6 counties and over 18 million people, will vote on its regional transportation plan for the next three decades. The plan will direct how billions of dollars are spent, and currently only 1.3% of the budget is dedicated towards bicycle and pedestrian funding combined despite 21% of all trips being done on foot or on bike.

For advocates of green transportation, that dedication is woefully low.  Activists, from Transportation for Alternatives to the Safe Routes to School’s National Partnership to bicycle and pedestrian groups in Los Angeles have all called for SCAG to increase their bicycle and pedestrian funds to 5-8% of the budget.

And it’s not just new urbanists making the case anymore. The above video, simple, straightforward and effective, was produced by VC Cool, a Ventura County organization fighting global warming through better policy. At its website, VC Cool explains why clean transportation is just as important to those living in the suburbs as it is new urbanists.

…there are so many reasons our communities desperately need to switch to “Active Transportation.” From childhood obesity and diabetes, to the climate change crisis, to rising gas prices in a struggling economy, we need safe, viable bicycle and pedestrian routes. We simply cannot afford to wait another four years to start working on the solution!

If you agree with VC Cool, they’ve set up a petition to ask that cyclists and pedestrians get their fare share and you can sign it, here.

To read the plan in its entirety, click on the image.

But thanks to the passage of Measure R by L.A. County voters later that year and a new focus on building mixed use communities with improved bicycle and pedestrian networks, Los Angeles County and the surrounding counties can will meet those standards.   The region’s first draft Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), released today by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), shows that the region will meet its 2020 greenhouse gas reduction target and exceed the 2035 target, double the number of people who live near high-quality transit, and reduce traffic congestion — despite the fact that the population is expected to grow by 4 million by 2035.

The draft plan shows increases transit investments by 13 percent and even as the federal legislature debate slashing funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects, the Southern California region will triple.  The current long term plan shows a $1.8 billion investment in people powered transportation, but SCAG proposes over tripling that total to $6 billion. the funding for bike and pedestrian projects. On the transit side, it plans for the build-out of 12 new rail lines and other Measure R projects.  For the rest of the region: bus rapid transit projects in Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties and enhanced Metrolink service with the goal of doubling Metrolink ridership.

SCAG hardly has a reputation for progressive transportation planning, but in recent years that reputation has slowly begun the change.  Today, environmentalists and progressive transportation reformers alike praised the new draft plan for being a crucial step in creating a sustainable Southern California.

“The draft RTP/SCS shows the region is on track to meet air quality and GHG reduction goals, and to provide people with more choices about where to live and how to get around,” said Denny Zane, executive director of Move LA. “It also shows cities have been doing good planning, which will put Southern California ahead of national trends in the real estate market and the energy economy.”

The plan also shows that the number of new homes that will be built in neighborhoods with high-quality transit will increase from 34 percent of all homes to 51 percent. The number of new jobs near transit will increase from 39 percent to 53 percent.

“Clearly somebody’s been paying attention,” added Amanda Eaken, NRDC’s deputy director of sustainable communities. “This plan reflects the market realities of the 21^st Century: Most people want to live closer to their jobs and shops, and don’t want to spend hours stuck in the car or looking for parking. This plan gives us more choices to get out of our cars and the freedom to spend the time and money on more enjoyable activities.”

The plan also shows that this more compact development will save 400 square miles of open space, and the plan results in other significant benefits, including:

• Providing for transportation improvements that will create 4.2 million jobs;
• Reducing VMT (vehicle miles traveled) by 10 percent;
• Increasing investment in public transit by 13 percent;
• Resulting in savings of $3,400 annually in costs for autos, fuels, water, energy;
• Saving $5 billion in infrastructure costs to local governments;
• Saving $1.5 billion in health costs.

A final plan will be adopted by SCAG’s 84-member Regional Council in April of 2012. SCAG is the nation’s largest metropolitan planning organization, representing six counties, 191 cities, and more than 18 million residents in six Southern California counties.

Last week, SCAG’s Joint Meeting of the Regional Council and Planning Committees met to vote on a proposed long-term plan for the SCAG region which covers Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial counties, passed a measure that nearly tripled the regional investment in bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Walking and driving account for 21% of trips, but 1.3% of funding. To see a county-by-county breakdown or a larger version of this graphic, visit the Safe Routes to School California Blog.

Over thirty people testified in favor of the proposal including representatives of the Safe Routes to Schools California, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, National Resources Defense Council, and San Bernadino Council of Public Health.   At the Safe Routes to Schools blog site, Jessica Meaney lists some of the more powerful testimonies.

So bicycle and pedestrian planning is on the mark in Greater Los Angeles County.  That’s the good news.  The bad news is the near-tripling of funding is less impressive when put in a larger framework.  SCAG updates its long-term plan every four years.  In 2008, it allocated less than half of one percent to bicycle and pedestrian funding.  This year’s draft plan increases that percentage all the way to 1.3% of the future funds or about $6 billion of a $450 billion spending plan.

The Safe Routes to Schools California explains why even the higher number is alarmingly low:

And given that 21 percent of all trips are conducted via walking or biking (2009 National Household Travel Survey) and 25 percent of all roadway injuries and fatalities in this region affect bicyclist and pedestrians (2008 SWITRS data), we continue to urge SCAG’s Regional Council to invest a significant percentage of resources toward walkable and bikeable communities and neighborhoods.

But even alarmingly low is better than the status quo.  At NRDC’s Switchboard, Amanda Eaken casts a positive light on this modest victory but still calls for a more equitable funding scheme:

We couldn’t agree more.  But is funding a paltry 1.3% enough to do that?  We don’t think so.  Equity, safety and the environment demand more than that.

Fortunately, there’s time to improve the plan. The next milestone is the December 1, 2011 vote of the full Regional Council to release the preferred alternative to the public for review.

Meanwhile, farther south the SANDAG (San Diego Area Governments) has already passed their $214 billion new 40 year plan.  It also increases bicycle and pedestrian funding, transit funding over current levels.  Perhaps most shockingly for a region more associated with sprawl than even Los Angeles, the SANDAG plan dedicates more money for transit expansion than either local road improvements or highway expansion.  Of course, looked at another way, it dedicates 55% to road and highway improvements, 36% to transit improvements, and a meager 1.4% for bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Much like the SCAG plan, the SANDAG plan received the mixed support of much of the local transportation reform community.  On one hand, the percentages for transit and people powered transportation are much lower than they should be for an area serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  On the other hand, it’s much better than previous plans which had less than half a percent for bicycle and pedestrian projects and much lower set-asides for transit expansion.

Modest improvements didn’t stop advocates with the Green Party and Cleveland National Forest Foundation from blistering the plan.  Founder Duncan McFetridge.  ”If this is a national and regional model, we’re in bad shape,” said McFetridge in a phone interview.  ”We have a need, a tremendous need, for transit right now.  Today.  This proposal puts funding transit off into so far in to the future that many of us won’t be around anymore.”

McFetrdige isn’t just complaining without offering a solution.  Transit San Diego, a campaign of the CNFF, are the authors of the 50/10 plan which envisions a fifty year transit investment being made in the next decade.  Meanwhile, advocates with groups such as Move San Diego and Walk San Diego have supported the improved plan while pushing for more equitable funding in future plans.

But while San Diego’s plan is already passed, there’s still time to work on improving the SCAG plan.  Eaken mentioned above that the plan won’t be voted on until December 1.  If you want to get involved, Safe Routes to School California invites you to join the Safe Routes to School Southern California Network.  The Network conducts monthly regional meetings and talk about these very types of issues and engage our partners to help with these conversations.  If you’d like to join this network and get info on meetings email jessica@saferoutespartnership.org.  Move L.A. has a similar working group, and you can join the fun there by contacting Beth Steckler: sbsteckler@gmail.com.

Crossing the Street in Echo Park. Photo:Safe Routes California

Yesterday, Streetsblog looked at the funding differences in the long range planning in the San Diego County Region as compared to the “SCAG 6-County Mega-Region” that includes Los Angeles.  But instead of looking at the success in San Diego and going “why not us,” a group of advocates, notably Gloria Ohland and Beth Steckler at Move L.A. and Jessica Meaney at the Safe Routes to Schools National Partnership, is fighting to secure billions for active transportation in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) long range transportation plan.

And their efforts are beginning to pay off.  At yesterday’s meeting of SCAG’s Transportation Committee, Board Members began talking about the benefits of walking and biking and what they could do to get more people out of their cars.

Santa Ana City Council Member Michele Martinez, who riders her bike nearly every day commented that,  “We need to make sure this region creates a multi-modal network – that has walkable and bikable neighborhoods that connect to transit, rail and more.  Right now the City of Santa Ana has only 3 miles of bike lanes, we are working hard to change that.”

City of Compton Council member Barbara Calhoun also noted that the number of bike riders is growing, “I’ve seen more bike riders than ever before.  Maybe I’ll buy a bike”

With momentum growing, what can you do to help make sure that streets that work for all users are adequately funded going forward?  The most obvious answer is to take time on the first Thursday of every month to head to the SCAG Transportation Committee meetings at 10:00 A.M. at 818 W. Seventh Street in Downtown Los Angeles.

Another way would be to sign Safe Routes to School 2012 RTP Platform for the SCAG Region and encourage friends and organizations to do the same.

Meaney explains the basics of the platform, “This platform will improve safety, increase walking and bicycling trips, provide access to transit, and be cost effective for achieving long term SCAG Regional Goals, including some key public health goals that are critical to address through our transportation investments and choices.”

The Safe Routes to Schools plan, if adopted by SCAG in their Long Range Plan, would improve data collection, change planning models to include an active transportation component in all transportation plans, further educational and promotional programs and, of course, dramatically increase the fiscal investment in walking and biking.

While opponents of investment in active transportation like to point to census figures on commuting trends, the truth is that one’s commute accounts for a small fraction of their total weekly trips.  Investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and education in the Regional Transportation Plan should be representative of the mode share, 12% of all trips are made by foot or by bike, and safety trends in roadway collisions and fatalities.  Amazingly, a quarter of all traffic collisions and fatalities are cyclists or pedestrians.

For more information on the SRTS platform, or how you can sign, email Jessica Meaney at jessica@saferoutespartnership.org.

Special thanks to Jessica Meaney for reporting from the Transportation Committee Meeting.

Photo: Clintus McGintus

Earlier this week, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) allocated $2.58 billion of their thirty year plan for bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure improvements.  If that seems like a big number, it is.  While Los Angeles has been celebrating it’s Bike Plan, and the Measure R set-aside that’s going to help make it a reality, we should remember that the total funding set aside for the Bike Plan hovers around $50 million of Measure R funds plus whatever grants the city earns over the same time frame as San Diego County’s multi-billion investment.

By comparison the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has yet to release a draft of it’s long-term transportation plan, but expectations are for a much lower allocation for active transportation projects.  In the last Regional Transportation Plan, a $530 billion plan adopted just three years ago, less than 0.5 percent of funding was dedicated towards bicycle and pedestrian projects.  For SANDAG, that percentage is over five times as big.  The SCAG region includes six counties, 190 cities and more than 19 million residents.

So why is San Diego so far ahead of the SCAG mega region when it comes to allocating sources for active transportation?  One reason is that SANDAG is embracing the mandates of the state’s Smart Growth Planning Law known as SB 375.  The Union-Tribune explains:

Two ways that those goals can be met are by developing more mass transit and elimination of highway bottlenecks. But regional planners also bet that in the land of sunshine more people will willingly get out of their cars and walk or bicycle, if the road ahead is made safe and attractive enough.

While 80 percent of the county’s commuters still ride alone in their vehicles, SANDAG estimates that 76,000 cyclists commute daily to work, schools and colleges. In a year’s time, they account for 94 million miles not driven by cars.

A second major reason is that local advocates have banded together and demanded change in the way SANDAG funds transportation.  Streetsblog talked to Elyse Lowe, the executive director of Move San Diego, and one of the leaders of this movement.  At first, it was just a small group going to SANDAG, as Lowe explains “When I first started going to SANDAG meetings two years ago it was just Move San Diego and the Bicycle Coalition and local transit riders representing themselves.”

Then, slowly but steadily, the coalition grew.  Walk San Diego began showing up, then a representative from CALPIRG.  Foundations such as the Ford Foundation began investing in groups working on implementation plans for SB 375.  The Nature Conservancy joined the party, as did Sustainable San Diego and housing advocates.  Soon the room wasn’t so empty.

Locally, there is a movement to reform SCAG’s funding priorities, but it is in a much younger state.  At the February meeting of SCAG’s Transportation Committee, 10 speakers rose to speak up for active transportation, although a handful of them were government staffers including LADOT Senior Bicycle Coordinator Michelle Mowery and Metro’s bicycle coordinator Lynne Goldsmith.

A third reason is that SANDAG just seems to have more respect for people that move by foot or bike.  For starters, they refer to cycling and walking as “active transportation,” not “non-motorized transportation” as SCAG does.  A more substantive example?  SANDAG spends $3.9 million to staff it’s active transportation program.  SCAG invests a cool $210,000 for “non-motorized transportation.” SCAG has an annual budget of $39 million, less than 1% of that budget goes for dedicated “non-motorized transportation” staff.

But the battle for SCAG funding isn’t over. Tomorrow Streetsblog will discuss more of what Angelenos are doing to reform SCAG’s funding and some easy ways for you to get involved.

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) launched what they’re billing a “Bike-Ped Wiki” to help increase the number and quality of public comments for their upcoming Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).  Unlike some of the Wiki efforts we’ve seen in the past such as I Bike U, which has gone to the digital graveyard, and StreetsWiki, which is sort of available here, the “SCAG Wiki” is to help create the bicycle and pedestrian portion of the Plan.

So sadly, unlike the original StreetsWiki and I Bike U, there won’t be an entry for me.

After creating a userid and logging in, users will be able to comment directly on the most recent planning documents and view other people’s comments.  This is a step forward in how agencies collect information and feedback from the public.  Can you imagine how public comment for the City of Los Angeles Bike Plan would have been improved if you could comment on virtual copies of the maps and the plan itself easily on a website?

SCAG seems pretty excited about this innovation too:

“This site marks a new approach to public involvement in transportation planning,” said SCAG Executive Director Hasan Ikhrata. “Traditionally public review and comment has been submitted via electronic or regular mail and followed a slow cumbersome process for review and inclusion. The new BikePed site allows the user to be part of the planning process by directly editing and commenting on the plan itself.”

In addition to the Wiki, the website has an impressive library of maps, reports and other primary sources on bicycle and pedestrian planning.  Theoretically, someone who doesn’t know anything about planning could spend some time in the library and turn around and offer expert comment almost immediately.  In an age where it seems the government is trying to restrict information, this is quite a step forward.

Of course, SCAG needs to show that this website isn’t just window dressing.  We’ll keep an eye as they move forward with the process on their LRTP to see if your comments, no matter how they’re delivered, are impacting the final plan.

Photo: Mark Stozier via SF Streetsblog

Last Thursday, the California Air Resource Board (CARB) voted unanimously to adopt ambitious targets for greenhouse gas reductions statewide by 2020 and 2035.  Thursday’s vote, hours after the Metro Board of Directors voted to endorse high standards for the Southland, will compel Municipal Planning Organizations (MPO’s) to create development and transportation plans that will encourage Smart Growth and discourage catering to long commutes in single occupancy automobiles.

Under California’s landmark anti-sprawl bill, SB375, the state’s 18 MPOs were required to set emissions reductions targets and Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) within regional transportation plans.  Los Angeles’ MPO is the Southern California Association of Governments, a body that voted endorsed weaker standards a few weeks ago.  That vote, while politically telling, can and was overturned by CARB.  To be clear, Southern California’s targets are an eight percent reduction by 2020 and a thirteen percent reduction at 2035 of yearly greenhouse gas emissions from the 2005 emission levels.

In a press release, ARB Board Mary Nichols explains how a state mandate to meet certain development goals can be both a carrot and a stick:

“These targets are ambitious, achievable and very good news for California communities.  Improved planning means cleaner air in our cities, less time stuck in your car, and healthier, more sustainable communities,” said ARB Chairman Mary D. Nichols. “Cities that choose to develop Sustainable Communities Plans that meet these targets have an advantage when it comes to attracting the kinds of vibrant, healthy development that people want.”

Opponents of higher standards were energized early in the meeting when Ken Yeager, a Board Member from the Bay Area, took on the sprawl lobby and sharply criticized the Building Industry Association’s claims that setting these standards would cause gas prices to rise to $9 a gallon.  While this type of fear-mongering might work in the Inland Empire or Orange County, it fell flat in front of the CARB.

But now Southern California’s political leadership is faced with a challenge.  Remember, SCAG is the largest MPO in the country and represents Los Angeles County as well as Imperial, Orange, Riverside, Ventura and San Bernadino Counties.  There’s going to be a lot of negotiating to devise a plan that works for all of these areas and has a chance of meeting these goals.

That being said, a little personal responsibility could go a long way in reducing emissions.  A terrified op/ed in the San Diego Union Tribune does the math on what kind of changes people would have to make in their own transportation plans to reach San Diego’s emission reduction goals.  The Union-Tribune writer calls the measures to reach a 13% personal reduction, “harsh.”  Remember, achieving just one of them would allow a driver to meet their personal goal:

To achieve a 13 percent reduction in greenhouse gases, a motorist could do one of the following:

• Telecommute to work two days a month

• Carpool to work four days a month

• Bike or walk instead of driving 18 miles a week

• Take a bus instead of driving 21 miles a week.

As SCAG responds to last week’s CARB meeting, we’ll keep you posted.

Last May, I had the chance to sit down with Michael Woo, the former Los Angeles City Councilman and Mayoral Candidate, urban planner, USC Professor and Climate Change activist.  Woo expressed hope that the Southern California Association of Governments would set the bar for other regions when deciding how to follow new state laws by setting high targets for emissions reductions.  The reductions are a state requirement after the passage of California’s internationally lauded Smart Growth Law in 2008, SB 375.

Yesterday, SCAG took a pass on history and sided with the sprawl lobby in endorsing reduced targets for the region which includes Los Angeles County as well as the Inland Empire, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernadino Counties.  Instead of setting the goal of reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 8% in 2020 and 13% in 2035 as recommended by the state’s Air Resource Board after a lengthy public process, SCAG chose to set goals of 6% reduction in 2020 and 8% in 2035.  The 8/13 targets were rejected by a 21 to 29 vote.

Unfortunately, this means that design standards and community plans throughout the region will have less density, encourage fewer transportation options, and create less vibrant communities with less open space over the next twenty five years than they would have if SCAG would have followed the state board’s recommendations.

This rejection marks a victory for the Building Industry Association which lobbied for a 5% reduction target and distributed misinformation far and wide to preserve Southern Californians right to sprawl.  The BIA claimed the rejected benchmarks would push gas prices to $9, would cripple the economy, and were completely unrealistic anyway.  That independent reviews showed that a plan to meet the 8/13 benchmarks would increase gas costs by two cents a gallon over twenty five years, would save the average working family save $3,600 annually on transportation costs, would create design standards that would encourage growth and calls for lower reductions than the ones passed in the Sacramento and Bay regions somehow didn’t make the B.I.A.’s “hysteria sheet.”

And that the SCAG Board chose to believe these phony statistics, without a methodology showing how they came to be, over the hard work of their own staff tells us a lot about the SCAG Board.

After the vote, the BIA was crowing.  Richard Lambros, the executive director of the association told the Associated Press:

They made a decision that is both aggressive and achievable and will make a significant reduction in emissions while still protecting California’s economy.

Meanwhile, environmentalists scorned the decision.  The same Associated Press article quotes a frustrated representative of the American Lung Association, while other articles quote NRDC’s Amanda Eaken, who has emerged as something of an expert on this issue.  Locally, ClimatePlan staffer and Streetsblog contributor Gloria Ohland commented simply that “we have more work to do.”

Glen Becerra. Photo: Flapsblog.com

The meeting itself was a wild affair that would make your average Metro Board Member wonder who was in charge of this circus.  Public comment was cut short as was debate amongst the Board Members.  Despite the close 29-21 vote, most of the Board Members who did get the chance to speak were in favor of the reduced targets including an over-the-top “dare” from Simi Valley City Councilman Glen Becerra that anyone with the gall to oppose the smaller goals should stand and face him.

Oddly, Beccera sounded a completely different tone when there was a microphone in front of him.  He told the Ventura County Star that he really, really would have liked to vote for higher standards, but just couldn’t:

So what happened?  How did sprawl win the day?  Part of the problem is that the debate, as covered by the press and as presented by Beccera, is portrayed as a “developer vs environmentalist” debate instead of “environmentalists, public health experts, transit advocates, and developers vs some other developers.”  In addition to the “usual suspects” testifying in favor of the higher reduction goals yesterday, there were also six developers that believe that dense development and transportation options are the future for Southern California.

A second problem is that state cutbacks have led to less funds being available throughout the region to help encourage Smart Growth Development.  An email ClimatePlan sent to supporters after the vote noted that much of the debate was about this lack of funds and not that clean air, transit and vibrant downtowns were bad for the economy.  However, much of the press following the meeting reverted back to the easier-to-write story of “environmentalists v jobs.”

In a cycnical move to deflect some criticism, the Board did vote to revisit today’s vote if the state’s Air Resources Board, the body that developed the 8/13 target, came through with eleven action items.  ClimatePlan reports that it’s not likely to meet these items as many of them, including adoption of the 30/10 plan, are well outside of the ability of the ARB.

Last, a handful of local leaders who had a vote today missed the meeting.  Los Angeles City Council Members Eric Garcetti, Bernard Parks and Ed Reyes all sent letters of support for 8/13 instead of attending and voting.  Councilman Dennis Zine, who’s taken some heat at Streetsblog, was the only Council Member in attendance and deserves some praise for taking time out of his recess to attend this important meeting.

Local activist Beth Steckler expressed frustration with the rest of the Councilmen

We appreciate the letters of support from la city council members on this vote, but we need more leadership from the city to really be sure the interests of Angelinos are represented at SCAG.

Today’s vote was hardly the last step in the saga of how standards will be set for Greenhouse Gas reduction mandates for Southern California.  Streetsblog will let you know how you can be involved in making sure that today’s vote isn’t the last word in how Southern Californians feel about Climate Change, clean air and transportation options.

A sprawling view from Griffith Park. Photo: Shiner Clay/Flickr

Back in July, Matthew Roth summarized the goals of California's groundbreaking S.B. 375, the first piece of legislation in the country to tie sprawl development to declining air quality and quality of life. Roth, quoting work done by NRDC's Amanda Eaken, noted that there are a lot of great things that S.B. 375 would accomplish if properly enacted by state Metropolitan Planning Organizations (M.P.O's), but that the local politics of the M.P.O. could prevent Californians from seeing the benefits provided by Smart Growth and proper transportation planning.

At a meeting tomorrow in Downtown Los Angeles, Southern California will have its chance to show that it can put the long-term health of the state over provincial politics. The Southern California Association of Governments Joint Policy and Regional Council will consider a proposal from the state's Air Resources Board to set targets for Greenhouse Gas reduction in the region. The ARB wants to see an 8% reduction in the next ten years and a 13% reduction in the next 25.

That's a complicated way of saying that tomorrow, regional leaders will decide whether or not they want to clean the air to meet state law or not. Eaken lays out what's at stake in more simple terms:

Thursday, SCAG has the opportunity to adopt ambitious 13% targets that will deliver significant co-benefits of better transit, improved air quality and public health, and reduce household transportation costs for Southern California residents. Across California, there's a shifting market demand embodied by SB 375 that is already pushing in the direction of more walkable, transit oriented communities-exactly the kind of growth needed to help Southern California achieve emission reduction targets and create sustainable communities.

What makes S.B. 375 so controversial with some segments of society isn't that they're recommending to make the air cleaner through high-tech vehicles or solar paneling; but through land-use patterns that support density, transportation options, and open space over sprawl. In other words, by growing in a denser fashion, the state can reduce automobile miles traveled and clean the air. A noble goal. And one that has the sprawl lobby and reactionary politicians up in arms.

Too often, activists get caught up in the numbers and goals of legislation. Read that second paragraph again, but the activist group Climate Plan asks that we look beyond the numbers at the real goals of S.B. 375 and anti-sprawl activists. The end goal isn't for a scientist to look at an air sample and proclaim, "we did it!"; but to develop in a way that puts people closer to work, reduces the cost in terms of time and money of their commutes, lowers the rate of asthma and other respiratory illness caused by our state's worst in the nation air quality and preserves parks, beaches and other forms of open space.

In other words, it's not just about density, it's about giving back Californians the time, money, health and open space that we've been robbing them of in the name of sprawl development.

While this might seem like a political slam-dunk, there is some concern.  First, the SCAG region isn't just Los Angeles City or County, it also includes politicians from Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino and Ventura Counties.  Second, most of the politicians from the City of Los Angeles who would be the beachhead for this sort of vote are on vacation because the City Council is on recess.

So what can you do?  Assuming you don't have several hours to spend at a meeting tomorrow; you can email comments to salcido@scag.ca.gov.   Remember, focus on the effects of smart growth; not just the set targets.

Source: S.C.A.G.'s Year 2000 Post Census Regional Transportation Survey

In my Tuesday review of Monday's City Council debate on whether or not the city should use it's Measure R Local Return to fund bicycle and pedestrian projects, I mocked a statement by Councilman Greig Smith that because 10% of trips aren't by bike, the City shouldn't fund bicycle projects with 10% of Measure R funds.  I argued that because the city doesn't do bike counts, it's not possible to know for sure how many trips are by bike, but since we're talking about bicycling and pedestrian spending together the argument is moot anyways.  After all, everyone is a pedestrian.

Turns out there's more data out there than I knew.

In 2000, the Southern California Association of Governments completed a transportation survey to get better data for the Southern California area.  As you can see above, it turns out that almost 12% of trips regionally are done by what we call "people powered transportation," but what S.C.A.G. calls 'non-motorized transportation."  Unfortunately, this number is a low one when it comes to trying to get a good number for just the city.  S.C.A.G. includes less urban counties such as Riverside, Ventura and San Bernadino in with L.A. County so it's safe to assume that the number is higher in the city than in the entire S.C.A.G. region.

Second, the population most likely to use their feet or pedals to get around, immigrant and day-laborer communities are historically under-counted in surveys, especially those conducted by governmental organizations.

And last, this survey was done ten years ago.  More people are biking now than they were then.

The good news is, this survey will be updated this year after the census is completed so we'll have better data to work with soon.

So, Councilman Smith, you were right to point out that the 10% number for the "bike-ped. set aside" was pulled out of thin air.  The number should have been at least 12%.  We look forward to your amendment correcting this mistake when the full Council votes on this matter at next Tuesday's meeting.

Actually, scratch that.  Taking your logic from Monday, that modal funding should be based on modal split, "non-motorized transportation" is going to need a lot more than just 12% of the Measure R Local Return. S.C.A.G.'s 2008 RTP Non-Motorized Transportation Report says on page 20:

Out of the total expenditure of $569 Billion in the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan, $2.6 Billion is allocated for non-motorized projects.  Regional bicycle and walking travel represents 11.9% of all trips respectively, but represents less that 0.46% of all transportation funding in the region.

Wow!  It's going to take a lot more than 10% of the Measure R Local Return set aside to reach 12% with less than half a percent going towards cycling and pedestrian projects.  However, giving these modes a fare shake next week is a good place to start.

 It's not often that we cover news out of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), but a recent study funded by the City of Los Angeles and SCAG on the "last mile" problem has led to a report sponsored by the city that is all about getting people out of their cars. The report was presented by LADOT Chief Rita Robinson and Planning General Manager Gail Goldberg at a meeting this morning, then again by SCAG to regional stakeholders this afternoon.

While the report is progressive, it's rare to see a report talking about getting people out of their cars with a "City of Los Angeles" crest on it, it's just a report. While Robinson may like many of the ideas in the report, it's still up to advocates and elected officials to get these ideas off the paper and onto the streets.

Just after this morning's presentation ended, Robinson was speaking in front of the Transportation Commission about the massive cuts coming to LADOT. Even for a department that has the goal of moving as much automobile traffic as possible, now seems the perfect time to investigate low cost alternatives to get people out of their cars instead of expensive and time-consuming highway and road expansions.

The study team, led by consultants from Nelson Nygaard, was charged with focusing on the "last mile" problem. For those of you unfamiliar with the "last mile" problem, it is a term created to describe the barrier many car commuters feel to taking transit or other options to single-passenger vehicle commuting. Informally I call it the, "I would take the train but the closest stop is so far away from my house/office."

Broadly, the strategies studied should:

1. Get people out of their car
2. Provide incentives to help households avoid needing multiple cars
3. Help cities meet the standards of SB 375

From there the team came up with thirteen strategies that would help cities, especially Los Angeles, meet those goals. They then narrowed down the list of thirteen to a list of six strategies that aren't already being studied by another organization. The six transportation modes that SCAG, City of L.A. and their consultants want to expand are: casual carpooling, taxi's, car sharing, short-term car rental, bike sharing, folding bikes.

For a full copy of SCAG's presentation, click here. For a synopsis of the six strategies and some editorial commentary, read on after the jump.

Casual Carpooling - I honestly had never heard of this before, but apparently it's all the rage in the Bay Area. Areas are set up where people can meet to form a carpool in lots and other areas near freeways to decrease the amount of cars coming into the city. In other words, there would be space where I get on the I-10 on my way to Church on Sunday where I could pick people up that were heading to the Whole Foods which is close to my destination. With these strangers on board, I could use the carpool lane on my entrance ramp.

Taxi's - The study identified that the main fear people have towards using taxi's is the unknown cost of taking the vehicle. The report recommends requiring taxi's to charge based on distance traveled, "zone fares," instead of time traveled so that passengers would know the cost ahead of time. There was a concern on the SCAG call that drivers, already underpaid for their work, would balk at this sort of change.

Car Sharing - I think we're all familiar with ZipCar and its history. We've talked about it at length. However, the report recommended studying city-supported car sharing that would lead to reducing the city's vehicle fleet and save the city money. While that strategy is something that Streetsblog has discussed a couple of times; this is the first time we've seen it in print in a government document.

Short-Term Car Rental - Is similar to car sharing except you rent a car as though you were going to Hertz instead of being part of a membership organization such as ZipCar.

Bike Sharing - Who wants to bring a Velib to Greater Los Angeles? Wendy Greuel did at one point, but LADOT balked at both the price and the state of bike infrastructure in the city. The study identified several ways to encourage bike sharing in the big city. First, Los Angeles should clarify city code to allow bike share lockers and locations on government property. Second, they could allow developers to build in bike, or car, share locations instead of putting aside funds for road mitigation. Third, the city could embark on its own program and off-set the cost with advertisers.

Folding Bikes on Transit - Metro is studying a program that would subsidize the cost of folding bikes for transit users to get more bikes on trains and buses. Currently it is legal to bring a folding bike into buses or trains at any time. Not so for regular bikes.

The issues that sparked the most discussion were car sharing, short term rentals and bike sharing.  Because a public partner would be needed to bring, or in the case of car-sharing, expand, the program; each of these three ideas are low-cost to the local government be it a goliath such as Los Angeles or a smaller city such as Walnut.

Of course, the big issue is whether or not any of these ideas will ever see life outside of a presentation.  Hopefully, the city's involvement in the presentation will lead to taking the lead on implementation.

Barbara Boxer and John Kerry's Ear Rally Against Greenhouse Gas

Yesterday, Senator Barbara Boxer, Chair of the Committee charged with reauthorizing the federal transportation funding bill, held a hearing at the Metro Board Room to ask local transportation leaders how they would like to see the federal government change the way it funds projects.  It's always interesting to see what political leaders say when the activists that lobby them aren't in attendance, although there was a smattering of yellow BRU shirts in the front row, as opposed to what they say when the room is packed with people supporting a certain mode or region.

In short, they say plenty of things about freight movement, federal new starts projects, and transit projects.  At no point do they mention bicycles, pedestrians, walking or alternative transportation.  Before anyone asks, yes, the federal government does fund bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Of particular note to Angelenos would be the testimony of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, SCAG executive director Hasan Ikhrata, and Metro CEO Roger Snoble.

Arriving almost an hour late to the hearing, Villaraigosa opened his statement by jumping off script and praising the Bus Rider's Union for all of their work to make Metro an award winning agency.  Without their lawsuit that led to a consent decree that limited Metro's programming freedom, Villaraigosa argued that LA County wouldn't have the best bus system in America.

From there the Mayor made an impassioned plea for more funding for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.  He argued that 44% of the nation's cargo moves throgh these ports and the federal government has intentionally underfunded these projects to fund other road projects in rural and suburban areas.  While I agree with Villaraigosa's main point that the federal government underfunds urban transportation projects, it was strange to hear him arguing for increased urban funding based on the nearly the same arguments that he rejected during the debates at the Metro Board of Directors over Measure R last month.

Villaraigosa was echoing the testimony of SCAG's Ikharta who also focused on funding better portways.  Instead of arguing for greater equity in funding, he focused on the devastating impact the air pollution caused by too many trucks has on the community and the ineffectiveness of local efforts to curb pollution.  Ikharta called for the creation of a federal Freight Trust Fund modeled after the Federal Highway Trust Fund.  This new pot of money should come from new fees on freight distributers that they can then pass on to whoever is selling the final product.

Metro CEO Roger Snoble also testified at the hearing, but he focused on the problems accessing federal dollars by local agencies.  For example, funds from Metro's New Starts program often add two years to the time it makes to contruct a project.  Snoble also complained about the low level of federal funding.  The entire New Starts program has one third of the funds that China's national governement is going to spend on a new rail project.

Snoble outlined three different reforms he would like to see in the next federal funding bill.  In addition to more money for New Starts and expediting the funding process, Snoble also wants the federal formula to link land use and transportation.  Such a change would steer more funds towards areas with denser developments, i.e. cities.

The local press wrote about the hearing in today's press.  If you're interested, here are some stories from the Press-Telegram, Ventura County Star and Traffic World.

Photo: National Wildlife Federation

The City of Los Angeles planning department is partnering with SCAG's Compass Blueprint to make the Sunset Junction Metro stop more community friendly by increasing bicycle and pedestrian access to the stop. The study will also look at the potential for transit oriented development for the area.

The first community meeting for this project is tonight, so if you have na idea to make Sunset Junction a better place for commuters make sure to stop by the Casa Laguna Community Room at the corner of Sunset and Myra, tonight at 6:30. 

Below are the goals and tactics for the study as taken from the Compass Blueprint website:

Goals:

• Create full streetscape design the that recognizes the multi-modal character of the intersection
• Develop designs for a potential transit plaza at the station
• Explore possibilities of better linking the Redline stations
• Investigate potential developments and neighborhood improvements in the area

Services Included in the Study:

• Public workshop and design ‘charrette' with local stakeholders to explore desires and needs of the community
• Interviews of individual stakeholders as well as developers to asses needs
• Property value impact analysis from projects associated with the transit stop
• Opportunities and Constraint analysis of existing land use and development types
• Develop building prototypes congruent with local character
• Tipping point/ROI analysis to estimate necessary rent and taxes on new mixed-use developments

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is currently in the comment period of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). This twenty year plan (up to 2035) will set a long term framework for transportation investments for the six county SCAG- region (comprised of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties).

Latinos are a growing part of this region which will influence mobility patterns. We need to ensure that these needs will be addressed in the next cycle of the RTP.

Please join us for a lively discussion and presentation on the RTP and Latino mobility patterns.

For further information contact: James Rojas, (626) 437-4446

DATE: TONIGHT!

TIME: 7:00 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.

PLACE: Metro Headquaters, Gateway Room, 3rd Floor.

For more LUF about visit http://www.latinourbanforum.com/

To post events, activities or meetings that promote planning, cultural or dialogue contact James Rojas at 213 892-0918 or email Latinourbanforum@yahoo.com Please submit post in a word document.

Image and Text from Latino Urban Forum