City parking meters are a gold mine, and in Chicago, Morgan Stanley is rolling in parking riches. Secret company documents leaked to reporters show the company will rake in a 70 percent profit margin this year from its $1.15 billion, 75-year lease of Chicago's parking meters. This profit is on top of the millions Morgan paid to buy new, high-tech meters. The good times will keep on rolling for investors: In 2010, after another meter price hike, Morgan expects to make monthly profits of $4.8 million, roughly 55 percent higher than in 2009.

Graphic: New York Times/Chicago News Cooperative.

Streetsblog has been following the Chicago parking privatization closely because it is the poster child for all that can go wrong with Public Private Partnerships, or PPPs. The basic idea behind a PPP is that the government leases public transportation infrastructure -- say a bridge, highway, airport, or parking meters -- that can generate user fees. In exchange for the fees, a private investor pays the government a large upfront fee or assumes the cost of improving the infrastructure. PPPs are popular in Europe, especially at airports.

Sustainable transportation advocates should care about PPPs for a number of reasons. First, politicians and bureaucrats are captivated by the fantasy that PPPs are the ultimate free lunch, generating billions in transportation investment at no cost to the taxpayer. President Obama's euphemism for PPPs is "creative financing." Here in New York, state officials have repeatedly presented a PPP as the way to raise billions for the astronomical cost of replacing the Tappan Zee Bridge. This is dangerous thinking. PPPs do inflict a cost, and it's a big one. Huge amounts of revenue that could be directed to public transit, or crucial road and bridge repair, is instead going to Wall Street.

The second concern is that PPPs allow public officials to skew the public planning and review process and put private profit before public benefit. A private investor has tremendous leverage over what gets built if they are the government's main financing option. The investor's goal is to make money, not to produce the greatest public benefit over many decades.

Despite the latest revelation, Chicago is only beginning to recognize the inherent problems with privatizations. According to the Times, Alderman Scott Waguespack introduced a measure that would require an "independent third-party valuation" of major asset lease proposals before any future privatization deal is completed. The legislation would require "a comparison of public retention and private leasing over the life cycle of the agreement." This could serve as an important safeguard, but so far, the measure only has 12 co-sponsors among the council's 49 other members.

When it comes to building new developments in the Bay Area, especially in San Francisco, the battle over limiting the construction of new parking spaces is pitched. Parking reform advocacy organizations like Livable City, which maintains a listserv populated by car-free and livable-city advocates keeping a keen watch on planning commission parking exemptions, have long encouraged city leaders to tighten the parking-to-unit ratios in dense neighborhoods flush with transit and bicycling options.

Photo: Matthew Roth

And who should they hang for granting variances permitting higher than 2:1 ratios, as happened last week when a two-unit home at 2626 Larkin Street in Russian Hill received permission from the San Francisco Planning Commission to build five parking spaces, one with a parking stacker for additional cars?

When these questions are asked of city planners and developers, like they were during the struggle to limit parking at 299 Valencia Street, advocates and political leaders are led to believe that it is impossible to finance new developments, particularly condos and non-rental properties, without the maximum parking ratio possible. Less parking, goes the developer refrain, banks will refuse to loan and the units will be impossible to re-sell.

Not all developers buy that argument, however, and some have buildings that disprove it.

"If you are doing a project next to BART or many buses, you really don't need to have a lot of cars," said Oz Erickson, Chairman of the Emerald Fund, Inc, a developer who has built more than 2,000 units in San Francisco. Emerald's newest development, a rental building at 333 Harrison Street in Rincon Hill, will be built with a .5:1 parking-to-unit ratio, even though the developer could appeal for a variance to build more parking.

Above all else, Erickson argued, a city should provide as much flexibility in developments as possible. "You really should be in a position where zoning laws do not require you to put in parking," he said.

Patrick Kennedy's Gaia Building in Berkeley has 91 units and only 35 parking spaces. Photo: jeremydw

Referring to cyclists and others who don't own cars: "I think it's important to provide them with an opportunity to live a car-free life if they choose to."

Clarence Eckerson Jr., the mad genius behind Streetfilms, believes that the next frontier of activist journalism isn't going to be written blogs but video blogs.  Sometimes, when I look at the performance of your average Streetfilm  compared to the hits one of my best researched and most popular stories, it's hard to argue with him.

Picking up the mantle of citizen journalist is USC Junior Matt Schraeder who's story on how the city will ticket cars parked on streets due for cleanings is pretty much a must-see piece of journalism.  While you're not going to confuse the above piece with a Streetfilm, Schraeder does take the needed steps to take the film beyond your run-of-the-mill time elapse video to a worthy, well-rounded news story.   He manages to interview officials in the LADOT and Parking Enforcement.  Just add some music, get rid of the sympathy for drivers who park illegally and we're in business!

While you won't catch me crying crocodile tears for the drivers in Schraeder's piece, it's not like they know the streets isn't going to be cleaned when they make their parking decisions, there is a major issue with this ticketing practice.  The City of Los Angeles is in desperate need of parking reform, which should include more rate increases and longer metered hours.  The more the city decides to use the new funds to fill a hole in the general fund and the more it hands out tickets that are more likely to enrage than educate; the harder and more politically unfeasible it is going to be for politicians to make the right decision when it comes to parking pricing and reform.

It's been six months, to the day, since we last checked in on the Mayor's desire to privatize the city's parking meters and publicly owned parking garages.  Under the Mayor's draft plan, the city would get an as of yet undisclosed amount of money to turn over the money generated by its parking assets.

While half a year hasn't been enough time for J.P. Morgan Chase to finish the study which would tell the city how much to expect for the sale of its meters.  While we wait for the investment firm to encourage the city to its cash cow for a handful of magic beans, there have been some changes in the privatization front from around the United States.

First, in Chicago, where meters were privatized under a deal with Morgan Stanley, it looks as though the city was more than fleeced.  Writing for Streetsblog back in June, John Kaehny writes that while the city received $1.3 billion for a seventy five year lease, it will cost those parking nearly $975 million in income that could have gone towards nearly anything.  While Chicago pols made a short-term political calculation, the city handed over a staggering 146% rate of return for the investors.  In other words, let the seller beware when taking advice from investment firms when it comes to pricing their meters.

Of course, there are also smart growth and urban planning reasons not to hand over street parking to investors.  Most importantly, it effectively kills efforts of communities to remove street parking and better opening the street to all users.  Chicago communities are already complaining that they've lost control of their streets that are now in the hands of private investors.

Of course, the Mayor's office isn't pushing privatization because it's good urban policy.  It's pushing it because it's looking for a quick fiscal fix during the recession and decreasing tax receipts.  Bad news on that front too.

USA Today reports that the money to purchase public infrastructure is drying up as the recession continues. 

A rush by state and local governments to sell roads, bridges and airports to private operators in return for eye-popping upfront sums has all but collapsed in the recession.

That could leave taxpayers on the hook for more of the $200 billion a year needed to maintain the nation's transportation system, according to federal estimates.

An era of privately operated infrastructure seemed near when Chicago leased its 7-mile Skyway for $1.8 billion in 2003 and Indiana leased a 157-mile toll road for $3.8 billion in 2006, deals that had other governments rushing to cash in, too.

USA Today's story takes their story in the opposite direction as Kaehny's, but that's because they are only examining highway projects.  Highway investors are losing their shirts, because people are driving less, but metered parking, which still undercuts parking in private lots, isn't seeing the same decreases.

All of this points to a need for the city to advance very slowly.  We know from a Livable Streets standpoint that privatization is a bad idea because it limits the public's ability to control their own streets.  What we don't know is fiscally how to evaluate whether or not the deals are good ideas in either the short or long term.  Let's hope the city treads carefully and that there are plenty of chances for the public to weigh in before the city sells our cash cow for good.

Photo by Amber Rhea via Flickr.

The state law requiring cash out parking had several problems. Chief among them is that only the state could enforce the ban. Making matters worse, an October of 2008 report by the City of Los Angeles revealed that the City couldn't tell you how many employees a company has and how spaces at a particular lot are valued.  At the time, the city decided to require employers to inform the city how many employees it had when applying for business licenses.  The City hoped they would have a full inventory of employers size by the end of 2011.

To address one of the other enforcement issues, the Governor signed legislation by State Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) that allows municipalities and air quality boards to enforce the cash-out mandate instead of just state agencies.   When she chaired the transportation committee, enforcing the cash-out requirement was a favorite issue of now-Comptroller Wendy Greuel. Armed with new enforcement powers as of January 1 of this year, it will be interesting to see if Chairman Rosendahl is as interested in making this a priority for the City as his predecessor.

Unfortunately, the Governor vetoed AB 1186, introduced by Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield (D-SFV) which would have required building owners to put a value on parking spaces when renewing a lease with a current renter or opening a new lease. That way, employers would know how much money should be awarded the car-free commuter. For example, a $100,000 lease under the old law would say $100,000 with $90,000 for office space and $10,000 for parking. Why did the Governor veto the legislation? Apparently, he was worried it was too much work.

With respect to this bill, although well-intended, I am concerned about placing an additional burden on commercial property owners at this time. It is my hope that better enforcement will shed more light on the challenges and effectiveness of this program

With respect to Governor Schwarzenegger, as long as he continue to speak in platitudes about improving air quality, but isn't willing to address the details that turn his good intentions into reality; many of his environmental goals are nothing more than rhetorical Greenhouse Gas. 

While it's good news to give more agencies power to enforce a law that rewards and encourages a car-reduced lifestyle, in this case the Governor is passing the buck on enforcing a law that state agencies haven't touched and not allowing them all the tools they need to enforce it right.  How does he expect employers to provide this benefit, and municipalities to make them do so, if nobody has an idea how much the "free" parking for car-dependent employees is?

While taking my cat to the pet store earlier today, I noticed that at some point in the past month the automobile parking signs on Beverly Boulevard had changed.  It used to be that cars could park for two hours at metered spaces, the meters expired at 6:00 P.M. and there were no Sunday parking hours.  Given that I've never parked at the new metered areas, that extend from La Brea all the way to LA Cienega; I decided to check with some local businesses to see what changes they noticed since the signs have went up.

The answer, at least along my part of Beverly, is "not much."  Urban Pet, the local pet store, didn't even notice the change.  However, they have their own parking lot and U-Racks for bikes so they're probably not the best data point. 

So, I checked with the staff at Terroni's, and Italian restaurant.  They hadn't noticed either.  Although in their case it wasn't a parking lot but a valet service and a rental agreement with the local post office that shielded them.  I popped my head into a couple of boutiques, none of whom said parking changes had effected business.

However, I know this lack of outrage is hardly typical of what goes on what meter rates go up and hours are extended.  So, I'm giving you homework this weekend.  If meter prices or hours have changed in your neck of the woods, go out and check with at least one local business to find out how the changes are effecting their bottom line and leave me a comment below.

At last week's meeting of the City Council Transportation Committee, LADOT's Alan Willis presented on the status that the DOT has made with the owners of the Greek Theatre, Hollywood Bowl, Coliseum, Sports Arena, former Olympic Auditorium and Dodger Stadium in getting these traffic attractors to pay for their own traffic officers. In response to the budget crisis, the city has cut the budget to pay for special event traffic and parking officers for their events from $6 million to $2 million.

While the reasons for this cut have less to do with transportation policy and more to do with budgetary reasons; it's good and overdue to see the city ending what is basically a subsidy for drivers. After all, now that these agencies are going to pay their own way on traffic control, they'll probably pass the real transportation costs of the event on to the people that drive to the venue. 

Naturally, the response from the media is that Carmageddon may be upon us.

The Times ran the understated headline "Los Angeles budget crisis' main event: gridlock" for an article that actually took pains to explain that the change would lead to a very small decrease in the number of traffic officers on the street.  KPCC called the effort to force private corporations to pay for their own traffic control a "bailout," before a detailed article on the loans and other moves made by the Council to support the LADOT.

As a matter of fact, only the Sports Arena is going to opt out of paying for city traffic control officers so fans of sports, theater and music won't see much of a change on the street, but may eventually see a change in the parking costs as agencies seek the easiest way to recoup the costs of the parking control officers.

Signaled out for special praise both at the Council meeting by Willis and in the Times article was the Los Angeles Dodgers who quickly struck a deal with the city that removed only one person from one intersection leaving three traffic control officers at that place.  Howard Suskin, speaking on behalf of the Dodgers, explains.

"We believe that working cooperatively with the department of transportation that we have a deployment plan that will have no interruptions," said Howard Sunkin, senior vice president of the McCourt Group, which owns the Dodgers. "The level of service at those intersections for our fans and our neighborhoods will continue."

It's too bad that commitment to their fans doesn't extend to transit users.  You may remember that the Dodgers refused to lift a finger to continue last season's free Dodger Shuttle bus service and even sneered at the city's efforts at a public event.

Some ideas just refuse to die.  Less than a year after the City of Los Angeles moved to end it's free-meter parking for hybrids program, a new proposal to allow only the highest tech and cleanest cars to park for free has resurfaced.  The Council resolution asking LADOT to study the program was introduced by Council President Eric Garcetti and sponsored by Downtown Council Woman Eric Garcetti and "Tom LaBonge for Bill Rosendahl."  Despite the presence of LaBonge and Rosendahl as sponsors of the legislation, they led Transportation Committee in expressing concerns with the newest free-parking for expensive, high-tech, cars scheme.

Garcetti's resolution would apply to many less vehicles than the program that was scrapped earlier this year.  Instead of all hybrids that qualified for the state's HOV exemption sticker, only the cleanest cars would qualify.  Only electric and zero-emission vehicles would qualify, cars which get a white sticker, pictured above, from the state.  While the state no longer hands out the more ubiquitous yellow stickers to fuel-efficient hybrids, it is still handing out the white stickers to those that can afford it.

One of the main objections that Council Transportation Committee Chair Bill Rosendahl had with the old free-parking plan when he single-handidly stood up to unanimous opposition on the Council and eventually succeeded in ending that program; was that the program was not encouraging people to buy hybrids but rewarding them for doing so.  Because there were no more yellow stickers being handed out, the program wasn't providing an incentive for people to buy hybrid cars.  This argument resonated with the Council and the program was halted.

While that argument won't have the same strength this time, there are still plenty of reasons to not give away parking to zero emission vehicles as an incentive for people to buy them.  While there are plenty of economic reasons and transportation reasons to not give away parking.

First, the economic ones.  While the city doesn't yet know how much revenue they would lose if the program went forward, we do know that there would be some loss.  Conversely, we have no idea if the program would lead to one more zero-emission vehicle being purchased.  As the State Senate and Assembly begin debate on whether to renew the "Access Ok" program due to expire in 2011, Caltrans has admitted there is no way to track whether or not even one vehicle has been purchased as a result of their giveaway.  When asked, Amir Sedadi, representing LADOT, couldn't give a firm answer as to how many cars had been purchased as a result of the city's parking giveaway.

This argument had the most traction with the Councilmen present.  Councilman LaBonge, who is trying to reduce the parking meter hours for business areas in his district, expressed concern that this program would require higher rates for other drivers.  When reminded, Councilman Rosendahl remembered his quote to the Daily News last January that:

...there's plenty of other great benefits to having a clean-fuel car.  With the city budget in the shape it's in, we can't afford to leave any 'gold in the gutter.'

From a transportation angle, such a proposal would also add Vehicle Miles Traveled (V.M.T.) to metered areas.  As Donald Shoup has taught, and Santa Monica has learned, when you give away parking you reduce the chance that people will pay for it elsewhere.  In other words, cars will cruise for spaces adding an average of a mile to each trip taken to a metered area by a white-stickered car.

Joe Linton raised a different concern at the hearing, quoting an old riddle.  "When does a Prius and a hummer have the same carbon footprint?  When they're parked."  Linton's point was that a parking space has a carbon footpring and environmental cost by itself and giving them away in the name of clean air is a bit of an oxymoronic idea.

I should note that the LADOT was officially "in favor of such a program" but Sedadi didn't seem very enthusiastic about the program.  Several times he dodged a question from Councilman LaBonge about "what he would do," instead insisting he was happy to do whatever the Council wanted.

In the end, the LADOT was tasked with reporting back to the council about the costs and benefits of the plan at an unspecified date in the future.  The Transportation Committee seemed happy to wait to see if the state re-programs their "Access Ok" program before moving forward.  But waiting for the state might not be the best way to go.  Even if they do re-up the program, the lobbyists pushing for its extension are lobbyists for the auto-industry not environmental groups according to a report from the Sacramento Bee.

Traffic trying to get to Dodger Stadium. Photo:=Manny=/Flickr

Here comes one positive side benefit of the L.A. budget crisis: Gridlock. Our tight budget means the city can no longer afford to pick up the tab to make driving easier — by providing free traffic officers for events at the Dodger Stadium, Hollywood Bowl, and other major venues.

So now, most of these venues plan to pick up the tab — but also to reduce the number of traffic officers working — which according to the L.A. Times, “could lead to congestion.”

The change doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll have more congestion. Perhaps more people will simply take public transportation to these events, as L.A.’s Principal Transportation Engineer Alan Willis is apparently encouraging people to do — though it’s unclear from the L.A. Times article what concrete steps, if any, Willis plans to take to actually get people on buses and rail. But even if we do get more congestion, this is good news for both the environment and alternative transit advocates, according to David Owen, a staff writer at The New Yorker whose latest Wall Street Journal article expounds on “How Traffic Jams Help the Environment.” (via Idea)

“Traffic jams can actually be environmentally beneficial if they turn subways, buses, car pools, bicycles and walking into more-attractive options,” Owen points out. That may be a rather obvious observation, but Owen’s arguments that both ramp metering and congestion pricing aren’t necessarily good for the environment will be surprising at first for many alternative transit advocates:

Advocates of congestion-fighting strategies usually argue that traffic jams waste gasoline. That’s true, but the energy waste and carbon output attributable to idling cars is smaller than that attributable to the overall transportation network. There’s nothing green about fighting congestion if, by distributing traffic more efficiently, it results in an overall increase in traffic volume and extra miles driven by vehicles avoiding the fee areas.

That said, Owen isn’t against congestion pricing — He’s simply pointing out that such programs must be part of a “truly effective traffic program” that “would impose high fees for all automobile access and public parking while also gradually eliminating automobile lanes (thereby reducing total car traffic volume without eliminating the environmentally beneficial burden of driver frustration and inefficiency) and increasing the capacity and efficiency of public transit.”

Owen’s entire article’s a great read — which also gave me an idea: Perhaps simply raising the parking prices in these L.A. venues alone will get rid of the potential congestion problem altogether while encouraging more people to take alternative modes of transportation.

Parking pricing, in fact, is what the City of Santa Monica’s targeting now to tackle its own gridlock issues. Reduce this “ill-advised subsidy for public parking,” reports the L.A. Times, and more people might walk, bike, or take public transit to enjoy a day or night out on the Third Street Promenade: “If it works, the city would benefit from smoother traffic flow, reduced pollution as fewer people cruise for spaces and a better return on land developed for public parking.”

Those plans are still in the works; the city staff first needs to recommend a plan (”perhaps by late this year,” according to the L.A. Times) that the City Council can take up. But reading about how L.A. drivers can expect not only more gridlock but also higher parking prices really made my day today!

Of course, in addition to making driving and parking less pleasant and more costly, we need to make it easier for people to get to all of these venues without getting in a car. I love the convenience of taking the bus to the Hollywood Bowl, but I hear getting to the Dodger Stadium via public transit isn’t as easy…

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (Photo: Gawker)

Mayor Gavin Newsom has been quietly pressuring MTA Chief Nat Ford to delay or prevent proposals to extend parking meter hours on weeknights and Sundays, despite a looming mid-year MTA budget deficit and studies that show it's good policy, Streetsblog has learned. ...

"The Mayor thinks it's the wrong time to make these moves," said Nathan Ballard, Newsom's communications director. "Right now, with the economy where it is, the burden on ordinary people for city services is already stretched to the max, and so he hasn't seen anything that convinces him otherwise. He's open to arguments, but he's still where he was."

The "we can't change policy in a bad economy" argument is familiar to Capitol Hill transportation watchers, who saw the Obama administration use the recession to rule out a gas tax hike or per-mile vehicle fee earlier this year.

But in Newsom's case, as Matt and Bryan point out, San Francisco is lagging behind its fellow major cities when it comes to charging for parking. In Los Angeles, where voters will soon be looking at Newsom's credentials, meters remain on until 2 a.m. New York City keeps meters on until midnight, and Washington D.C.'s stay on until 10 p.m.

Photo: Nahh/Flickr

To help justify their plan, they tried to push the idea that they were following a Smart Growth model based on the teachings of UCLA Economics Professor and Parking Guru Donald Shoup.  Shoup has explained how street parking is undervalued throughout America and by capturing those revenues and putting it back into the communities from which it comes cities can begin to remake themselves.

The City of Los Angeles seems to have forgotten that last part, and now is facing a political backlash because the meter hike they pushed through is being rightly viewed as increased fees with all the negative things that come with them and no benefit seen in the community. 

While increasing meter rates isn't a bad idea by itself; the political reality is that people don't like to pay more money without seeing something in return.  In this case, Los Angeles blew a chance to build a political alliance for increasing meter fees and politicians burned by this experience are going to be less likely to take a stand in the future.  That's not Don Shoup's vision.

In short, by not using the parking fees to improve transportation or reinvesting in the community, the city neglected to develop a group of people that push for meter increases because of what can be done with those dollars, so when newspapers write stories on the increases it's not at all surprising that a reporter can't find a person willing to explain why raising rates isn't a bad idea.  Take today's Daily News:

Business owners, shoppers and restaurant and theater patrons throughout the San Fernando Valley are up in arms about the increased parking meter rates that have been introduced over the past year - and demanding something be done about it.

Councilman Dennis Zine agrees and has asked officials to re-evaluate the rate hike, which was intended to raise an extra $18 million for cash-strapped city coffers. He believes the rate increase may have been counterproductive.

Even as activists around the city prepare to make a point that as a society we're wasting open space in the name of cheap parking during Park(ing) Day in just 10 days, the city bungled raising meter rates so badly that it created a backlash against any future meter raises, even those that might be usable for Livable Streets means.

Yesterday we reported on the ongoing debate over the Wilshire Bus-Only Lanes, but that's hardly the only item of interest on next Wednesday's City Council Transportation Committee Agenda.

For starters, after a slew of bad publicity surrounding the "trashed" state of the Orange Line Bike Trail, the city went out to bid on a new contract for both trail maintenance and maintenance for the city's transit facilities.  The LADOT is recommending that ShelterClean, the company that has held the contracts to maintain 5 transit facilities in the Valley including Chatsworth Station and Van Nuys Station, to maintain both their bike trails and their transit stations.  Here's hoping they do a better job keeping the Orange Line bike trail than their predecessors.

Also on the agenda is the hiring of more mechanics to operate Los Angeles' street parking meters.  Between the under-staffing, and expected attrition in the next year, L.A. could lose nearly $1.3 million in 2010 unless an exemption to the city's hiring freeze is given.  According to the math offered by the LADOT, the city would need to allocate just over $301,000 in salary, benefits and other costs to cover hiring three technicians.  However, the city would gain almost $650,000 in revenue from having more meters functioning correctly.

But perhaps of greatest interest to Streetsblog readers, the LADOT provides a report on, well, how the LADOT is structured and works.  After a brief explanation of the various sub-departments there is a flow chart that breaks down the organization of the leadership and offices within the department.

The corner of Victory and Alameda in Burbank. Photo: BikerScooby/Flickr

CBS News reports (with video) that business owners along Victory Boulevard in Burbank opened their shops on Monday morning to a bad surprise.  The curb in front of their stores was painted red, as the city had banned street parking for several blocks to increase the boulevard's capacity for left hand turns.  The city gave shop owners less than 24 hours notice before removing the parking, in possible violation of a recent Los Angeles County Superior Court Ruling, causing an outcry from an already struggling business community.

In May of 2008, when the debate over the fate of the Mayor's Pico-Olympic Plan was at its hottest, a Superior Court Judge ruled that the City of Los Angeles needed to do an environmental study of the effects on eliminating street parking before moving forward with the plan to increase capacity on the two thru-fares at rush hour.  The judge specifically noted the poor public outreach done by LADOT and the City, an outreach campaign that looks like a model for good government next to Burbank's.

Somewhere, Jack Weiss, the former Council Member who was the sole backer in that legislative body for the Mayor's Pico-Olympic Plan, has to be wondering why he didn't think of just repainting the roads and seeing what happened.  Shocked that removing parking could cause such an outcry, the city engineer has already admitted that the public outreach "could have been better" and the City Council is already working on fixes.  I guess the City of Burbank's traffic engineering department doesn't have access to the Internet or any other way to do ten minutes of research to see how similar plans have fared in the past.

Don't worry, Streetsblog hasn't suddenly become an advocate for free street parking for the sake of businesses, but to ignore the impact that removing parking can have to basically, do it and say "deal with it," is bad policy no matter how you slice it.  Yes, I would write the same thing if they had taken the parking to put in bike lanes and not add vehicular travel capacity.

I never imagined it would take this long to pass the plan.

You may remember that Metro delayed a vote on the 2008 LRTP until this year so that it could take into account whether or not Measure R had passed when creating its project timeline.  Over eight months after the transit tax's passage, the Board is finally ready to vote on the LRTP.

Or are they?  At a "workshop" on the LRTP last month, then Board Chair Antonio Villaraigosa moved to hold off passing the 2009 LRTP until July so that Metro could do more outreach.  Tt had been eighteen months since Imagine campaign had kicked off and the Mayor claimed he wanted to make Metro's vision clear to county residents before its passage.  If there's been any new outreach in the last six weeks, I'm not aware of it. Based on email conversations; neither is the Bus Rider's Union or the Southern California Transit Advocates.  So.CA.TA's  Dana Gabbard took a humorous look at the lack of any new outreach efforts on behalf of the LRTP.

...previous Plan preparation included convening stakeholder groups to provide input while the draft plan was being formulated and a round of public meetings in the region (held in the evenings) on the draft plan were conducted seeking input.

This current plan has had minimal to no substantive means by which to comment. A poorly publicized hearing held during a weekday in downtown L.A. falls far short of what used to be common practice.

That said, I should note the old way of doing things still mostly resulted in what you would expect they planned to do anyway, so I am not claiming it was paradise or some such. But at least the niceties were observed.

As best I can tell, with the exception of the addition of some clarifying language on bicycle and pedestrian funding; the current draft plan is no different than what was presented at last month's workshop.  So if they weren't going to change anything, or do more outreach, than what was the point of the delay?  I'm pretty sure they didn't just hold-up the process so that they could release the new bicycle and pedestrian funding numbers.

Image: AnsaldoBreda

For the fifth meeting in a row, the fate of Contract No. P2550, the one granting an exclusive right to manufacture light rail cars to the Italian company AnsaldoBreda, will certainly bring fireworks to the meeting.  Because Breda is years behind schedule on its current contract and the cars are too heavy for the tracks, most rail advocates want the contract for new cars to go out to bid.  However, AnsaldoBreda counters that it's Metro's fault the cars aren't built to their specifications and has amassed an army of union workers to press their case.  You see, AnsaldoBreda is promising to build a new rail car factory in L.A. County.  Even though the Board of Directors can't legally take that into account when awarding a contract, the presence of scores of union workers demanding that the Board "vote for jobs" is too big for any politician to feasibly ignore.

However, hope that the Board might cancel the exclusive arrangement and put future cars construction out to bid received new hope.  An article in today's Times reports that, Metro CEO Art Leahy sent a letter to the Metro Board asking them to not re-new the contract with AnsaldoBreda.  The LA County Federation of Labor sent a memorandum countering Leahy's, but it again stresses jobs creation, something that the Metro Board is not legally allowed to consider.

Other items of note include a discussion of whether or not Metro should support efforts to allow more hybrids and other "clean" vehicles to use HOV and HOT Lanes throughout California and whether or not to extend the January 2011 sunset for the hybrid access law.  There is now precedent for allowing "hybrid benefit" laws such as these to retire, as the City of Los Angeles voted last year to end its "free parking for hybrids" program.  You would think with the state's ongoing fiscal crisis that legislators would be looking for ways to raise money, not ways to hand out more discounts.

Speaking of HOT Lanes, there is also an agenda item on the consent calendar to set the "toll costs" for single passenger vehicles to access the coming "Express Lanes" on the I-10 and I-110.  The fees would be set at a minimum of twenty-five cents a mile and a maximum of $1.40.  Streetsblog will follow-up on this story a little later this week or sometime next week.

And speaking of user fees, the Board will also approve a hearing plan needed to set the fares for the Silver Line Bus Service during the September 24 Board of Directors meeting.  Does anyone want to bet on whether the hearing is held before or after a debate on AnsaldoBreda?

Last week, the news blog LA Eastsider reported on efforts of residents in Echo Park and other Eastside communities to fight back against Dodger fans that cruise through and park on residential streets.  Basically, faced with a city that hasn't been quick enough to help out, residents have taken to posting their own signs, barricades and even dressing as security guards to keep fans looking for free parking off their streets.

When I first saw the article, I wanted to repost it, but thought better of it.  In this city, DIY projects tend to get erased awfully quickly when someone shines the light on them.  Sure enough, when I checked back yesterday there was a note that many of the signs that were put up were taken down the same day the article posted.  Consider this Fletcher Bridge Redux.

Just as in the now-famous Fletcher Bridge incident, regular people are trying to protect themselves and their streets after he city turns a deaf ear to their concerns.  The Eastsider explains:

With City Hall and the Dodgers unable or unwilling to spend money on traffic and parking control measures that mean something, residents say they are on their own. "We are kind of left to do what we have to do," said the resident from Solano Canyon.

Of course, now the signs are down so the limited protection the community created for itself are now gone.  One of the commenters on Eastsider claims that the communities are working with the city and Eric Garcetti's office to try and come up with a long-term solution and I'll keep my eyes open for what's happening on those streets.

In the meantime, wouldn't it be nice if there were a transportation story involving the Dodgers that wasn't about car-culture run amok?

Photo: Best Recession Ever

All in all, it wasn't the money for nothing bargain the City Council seemed to think it was back in December when Morgan Stanley handed over a check for $1.157 billion. This manna from Wall Street plugged the city's gaping budget hole and allowed the council to avoid painful tax hikes and service cuts. It also enticed lawmakers in Los Angeles and Philadelphia, where officials were considering their own parking privatization deals.

In return for the upfront cash, Chicago leased its 36,000 parking meters for the next 75 years to the Morgan-led consortium, and granted it the authority to double and triple meter rates. By 2013 downtown meters are slated to double to $6 per hour; neighborhood meter rates are to double to $2 per hour.

The deal was pushed hard by Mayor Richard Daley. The core of his privatization argument was that Chicago lacked the political will to raise meter rates and that desperate fiscal times demanded unlocking the value of public parking. He noted that city meters were only generating about $20 million a year, and because of neighborhood resistance, meter prices hadn't gone up in 20 years. His conclusion was that Chicago had to outsource the political will to raise meter rates.

However, the inspector general's report concludes that, "If Chicago were to keep control of the parking-meter system and operate it under the same terms as the private company, the system would be worth approximately $2.13 billion (in present dollars)," or $974 million more than the city received. Ironically, another cost of Chicago parking privatization was that it quashed a number of neighborhood-supported parking improvement districts, in which higher meter fees were to be invested in local pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements.

There's plenty of credit to go around for the stalling of A.B. 766.  For example, Committee Chair Mike Eng and Assistant Chair Kevin Jeffries made clear their bias in favor of the status quo.  After treating the California Highway Patrol as an "expert witness" despite their clear opposition to the legislation, Eng joined with the Auto Club of Southern California, Teamsters and AAA of Northern California to claim the "science" of the legislation was flawed.  Somehow, setting a speed limit based mostly on the desired speed of the most dangerous users of the road is more scientific.

To his credit, Eng vowed to keep this issue in the forefront of the committee's conciousness and will hold future hearings bringing in more "experts" to help craft legislation to fix the problem of speeders setting the speed limits.

I'll also briefly note that while Stephen and Enci Box, on behalf of the Bike Writer's Collective and the Woodland Hills-Warner Center Neighborhood Council, were joined by the City of Oakland and Lieutenant Carl Povilaitis of the Glendale P.D.; neither Wendy Greuel nor Richard Alarcon nor any representative of City of Los Angeles were present to speak on behalf of the City of Los Angeles.  Both L.A. City Council Members were present at last week's press conference, and Greuel's presence was expected today.

To give you an idea of how far we really have to go to bring about the transportation reform we need to see, Asm. Blumenfield's legislation that would require building owners to spell out the cost of parking when a cash-out program could apply drew heavy fire before passing 9-4.

Anyone that's read the Streetsblog comments section is familar with Ubrayj02 or Umberto Brayj.  Not everyone has made the connection that Ubrayj is Josef Bray-Ali in real life, and he has an impressive track record of advocacy in his own right including founding the Bike Oven and the Flying Pigeon Bike Shop.

At his own blog, Brayj Against the Machine, Bray-Ali has written a couple of posts about people that drive to Lincoln Park, the largest tract of open space in his community, and park their cars on the grass and in pedestrian trails.  Even worse, entitled drivers plow up and down the bike and pedestrian paths as though they owne them, even though they're banned.

But, since Bray-Ali is more about solutions than problems, he's come up with a solution that would allow people to drive to the park and protect the rest of the park goers from entitled, dangerous driving.  To see his solution, head on over to his personal blog, Brayj Against the Machine.

That question has been on a lot of people's minds recently.  The City Council is trying to figure out how much its metered street and garage parking is worth and now State Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield wants to discover the cash value of employee parking.  A.B. 1186 would require that non-residential landlords itemize parking spaces on lease contracts so that employers can better compensate those that don't drive to work.

Unbeknownst to many Californians, there is a state law requiring organizations located in non-attainment zones which employ more than 50 people and provide car parking also provide an equal benefit to employees who walk, bike, take transit, or carpool.  However, the law is rarely enforced, partly because many employers have no idea how much their employee parking is costing them per space.  Blumenfield's legislation would address that.

A.B. 1186 is heading to a hearing from the Assembly Transportation Committee on May 11, and has garnered the support of many large environmental groups.  If you want to add your voice of support, Blumenfield's office would be happy to hear from you.  You can email them at Assemblymember.Blumenfield@assembly.ca.gov. 

I wrote a draft letter in support of the bill to help you get started which can be found after the jump.

April 30, 2009

The Honorable Bob Blumenfield
California Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 9581

Re: AB 1186—Parking Space Cost Transparency—Support

Dear Assemblymember Blumenfield:

I am writing to express my support for AB 1186 which would force non-residential building owners to quantify the value of parking spaces provided for employers.

State law requires that employers of 50 or more people who provide parking for car commuters in many parts of the state also provide a cash benefit to those that leave their car at home (or don't own one in the first place) and commute to work by walking, biking, taking transit or joining a carpool.  However, because many landlords don't quantify the value of a parking space, figuring out the value of the parking spaces becomes difficult at best.

Your legislation would require that non-residential renters itemize the cost of parking in lease agreements to clarify the cost of the space so that non-drivers can receive equal benefits.  When passed, this legislation will make it more cost effective for more and more people to seek alternative ways to get to work.

Sincerely,

xxx