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.

Traffic is killing us.  It eats up our time, it thins our wallets as our cars idly burn through expensive gasoline, and it spoils the air we breathe.  We need a path to real public transportation alternatives in order to get out of our cars and on with our lives.

That’s why I have authored legislation calling for a group of experts to develop California’s first statewide public transit development and financing plan.  And, ever mindful of our trying budget times, it will not cost our state’s besieged General Fund a dime.

Assembly Bill (AB) 650 establishes a blue ribbon task force to craft a public transportation development plan for California based on an assessment of what transit we have, what amount of transit we need, and how we can finance transit construction.  The task force will be composed of 12 experts in finance, transit, the environment, and public health who must complete their plan by September 30, 2012.  This work would be undertaken, in part, through workshops conducted across the state.  And, it would be financed from existing transit moneys provided through California’s gas tax, specifically those devoted to transit planning.

The blue ribbon task force is a tried and true way to help California find solutions to complex and enduring problems, like public transportation.  In recent years, task forces have helped California enact comprehensive fisheries protections off our coast and achieve breakthrough reforms that balance our state’s water supply needs with environmental protection.

I come from Los Angeles where traffic is a big part of life.  While traffic congestion is a cause for consternation across California, it is particularly bad in Southern California where traffic delays have nearly tripled over the past twenty years.

Each commuter loses 63 hours of life to traveling by car at peak hours.  This staggering statistic is a reflection that we do not have enough transit alternatives.

Last month, while work was being done to expand Los Angeles’ 405 freeway, Angelenos everywhere were warned of the coming Carmageddon – massive gridlock that would paralyze the city.  It was a comical spectacle for everyone not living in Los Angeles.  But, more than anything else, this episode shows why we need more transit.

The simple truth is that California’s population is expected to grow by more than four million people over the next 10 years.  This will lead to more time wastefully spent in traffic congestion.  In 2005, transit prevented 540 million hours of traffic around the country, saving us $10.2 billion in lost economic productivity.

Transit investment creates jobs and reduces our footprint on the environment.  Every $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs.  Every $1 invested in transit generates $6 dollars in local economic activity.  For each person taking transit instead of driving, 4,800 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions will be prevented per year.  By 2025, an estimated 1 in 5 Californians will be over 65 and 20% percent of this demographic does not drive.

Unfortunately, funding for transit hasn’t kept pace with demand.  While we have secured a more stable funding source for transit in recent years, the demand for transit services has increased around the state, especially as fuel prices have risen, traffic congestion has grown, and Californians look for ways to cut commuting expenses and their environmental impact.

Today, most long-term transit infrastructure development planning occurs in a series of patchwork measures.  We need to think bigger.  Building and maintaining an effective public transportation network requires a commitment and vision that makes transit an integral part of transportation in 21st Century California.  AB 650 will help get us there.

While I support the goal of reducing vehicle trips, this bill would impose a new mandate on small business at a time of economic uncertainty.

Governor Brown tosses up an airball. Photo: Office of the Governor via KQED

There’s only one problem with this statement.  SB 582 doesn’t require anything of small business without the action of local government bodies known as Municipal Planning Organizations or Air Quality Districts (MPO’s and AQD’s) and the mandate they could require would barely cost businesses anything.  A coalition of environmental, transportation reform and public health groups supported the legislation as well as some large employers including Facebook and Genetech.

“We’re disappointed that Governor Brown vetoed this bill, which would have saved money for California employers and employees, while improving our air quality,” writes Rebecca Saltzman, a Program Associate with the California League of Conservation Voters.

So what would SB 582 have actually done?  It would have given MPO’s and AQD’s the ability to require businesses with 20 full-time employees (or in some cases 50 depending the transit options and air quality of the area) to provide commuter benefits to employees who commute to and from work without their car.  Despite the Governor’s rhetoric, there was a near-cost-free options to meet this requirement.

• Give employees the option to pay for their transit, vanpooling or bicycling expenses with pre-tax dollars, as currently allowed by federal law;
• Offer employees a transit or vanpool subsidy up to $75 per month;
• Provide employees with a free shuttle or vanpool operated by or for the employer.

The first option basically has employers deduct an amount up to $75 from employees pay checks and provide them with a separate check for that amount to cover commuting expenses.  This allows transit and bike commuters to have a tax-free, or tax reduced if their monthly transit ticket is more than $75. 

In a letter to supporters, Bay Area based reform group TransForm noted that, “Commuter benefits typically reduce taxes for employers, too, so this is a win for everyone.”   By reducing the taxable salary of employees, employers would reduce their taxes and could save more than the costs of administering a commuter benefits program.

The good news is that individual municipalities already have the power to require commuter benefits programs.  Both Los Angeles and San Francisco have their own requirements and program already in place.  The bad news is that providing these cost-free benefits has become an oddly partisan issue in Sacramento.

But it wasn’t always that way.  SB 582 was first introduced by Riverside County Republican State Senator Bill Emmerson who guided the bill through the Senate with largely bi-partisan support.  Then, after the bill easily cleared an Assembly Committee, opposition to the legislation was registered by the California Chamber of Commerce and California Taxpayers Association.  Their opposition caused Emmerson to drop his support of the legislation (all mentions of the bill have been scrubbed from his website).  Sponsorship was then transferred to Bay Area Democrat Leland Yee.

For more details on the partisanization of this bill, visit the League of Conservation Voter’s Blogsite.

But one setback doesn’t mean that supporters of SB 582 have given up the fight.  ”CLCV and our partners will continue to work to pass legislation that incentivizes and improves access to alternative means of transportation, like AB 650. That bill would establish a task force that will examine the current state of public transit, identify what is needed to make the system meet projected demand, map out associated costs, and – most importantly – determine how to consistently fund public transport to serve our state’s needs,” writes Saltzman.

Streetsblog will have more coverage of AB 650 next week.

A station in need of improvement. To see the Sierra Club's ideas on how, click on the image.

If you’re looking for a vision for a sustainable transportation plan for the Downtown Stadium, you shouldn’t look to politicians or even AEG executives.  A group of Sierra Club activists, led by Jerard Wright Angeles Chapter Transportation Committee Co-Chair, have outlined a transportation plan that would fulfill AEG’s claims that Farmers Field will encourage more sustainable transportation options than a rival stadium plan in the suburban City of Industry.

The key to providing real rail transit options is a series of major upgrades to the existing station at Pico and 12th, a rail station that in the Wrights’ words, is a “20 year old station that looks like it’s 50 years old.”  The Sierra Club’s presentation asks for the environmental documents for the stadium to include major upgrades to the Pico Station, bike facilities at the events center and nearby facilities, and streetscape upgrades that actually encourage transportation uses.

“Win or lose this is something AEG needs to do,” Wright said referring to the impacts Staples and L.A. Live are having on the already stressed transit station, “If we’re really serious about making L.A. a transit city, this is one way to do that.”

The first step to creating a great transportation plan for Farmer’s Field is to recognize the importance of the Pico Station.  Currently, the station serves only the Blue Line (and soon the Expo Line) and it’s still overcrowded after Lakers games.  An NFL Stadium can hold nearly four times as many people as Staples Center, so even if the Regional Connector is years away and plans for a Downtown Streetcar are sketchy, the station will need major upgrades just to handle the demand for the Blue Line.  Once the Connector is built, the station will be a hub of activity on game day as fans will be able to access the entire Metro rail system from one stop.

The current design of the station won’t just create inconvenience for the thousands of football fans who wish to use it, it will also create a dangerous situation.  Queuing at the station entrances due to passengers paying their fares at the ticket machines on the station platform will lead to passengers stuck on the tracks without major renovations.  When you consider that many people exiting NFL Football contests or major concerts aren’t always in a sober state of mind, the problem gets worse.

To see a larger copy of this image, click on the image to open a pdf of the Sierra Club's full plan.

While the Sierrans propose four different options for the Stadium, it seems that in the long run the third option presented, the “Platform by Destination” design is best.  When the Connector is completed, passengers will be able to access  the Blue Line, Expo Line,  Foothill Gold Line and East Los Angeles Gold Line at one place.

The plan includes more than just transit improvements.  Wright notes that the progressive “Figueroa Corridor Project” ends mere blocks away from the transit center.  Extending the protected bike lanes, streetscaping and wide sidewalks just a couple more blocks to the center will create the pedestrian friendly atmosphere that will draw people to the Stadium.

In the end, the Sierra Club has its own list of three things that AEG needs to include in the final plan to pass muster with the environmental community.  Wright sees the list more as a guide on how to do things right more than a list of demands intended to hamstring the project.  “As AEG moves forward with its outreach and process, it makes sense for the Sierra Club to be involved,” Wright added, “I don’t want the mitigation component used as a scapegoat not to do anything.”

1. The project shall provide capital and operating expenditures of the adjacent Pico Metro Rail Station for modernization and facility upgrades to handle the larger demand of patrons using transit to access Farmers Field,
2. Improved streetscapes that encourage pedestrian mobility along Figueroa, Flower, Olympic, 11th, 12th, and Pico Boulevard for pedestrians to connect to and from transit facilities to Farmer’s Field,
3. The project shall fund bike parking, lockers and dedicated bike lane facility investment surrounding the event center

Councilman Rosendahl is holding a public meeting with AEG executive Tim Leiweke next Monday.  Streetsblog will be certain to discuss the Sierra Club’s plan with both of them and will give you their thoughts.

Two Sacramento lawmakers have introduced legislation to improve access to transit. Maybe they ride Sacramento's efficient light rail system pictured above. Photo:Free Foto.com

(Ryan Wiggins is Transportation for America’s an on the ground in Southern California.  Last week he presented a primer on transportation funding at “Expanding Our Public Transit Options: Resources to Keep LA Moving Forward?” a Salon put on by Breathe L.A.  He was nice enough to share his notes with us in a two-part series.  Today we’ll focus on some legislation moving in Sacramento.  Yesterday Wiggins gave an overview of the federal picture. – DN)

Earlier this year, the State of California reenacted the state fuel tax which is viewed by T4A partners as a positive development. This maintains transit funds at $330 million – meaning that there have been no more cuts proposed this year; however, if the state budget process fails i.e. the revenue mechanisms/taxes proposed by Governor Brown are not enacted then cuts to state transit funds could once again be on the table

Transportation for America doesn’t take positions on state and local issues; however, partners such as Transform are taking a leadership role on state transit issues with the goal of making California’s public transportation networks more expansive and efficient.

There are several bills being proposed this year in the state legislature but two that have the possibility of increasing ridership, access to transit, and overall farebox recovery.

SB 582, Commuter Benefits Support, was introduced by Senator Bill Emerson (R-Riverside).  This legislation requires Municipal Planning Orgamizations (MPOs ) such as the Southern California Association of Governments to work with Air Districts to require companies with more than 20 employees to:

• Provide a pre-tax benefit to both employers and employees; or,
• Provide a transit subsidy; or,
• Employer provided shuttle service

There is a similar federal benefit that was extended in December for one year as part of the tax cut package. It saves both the company (as much as $1230) and the employee (as much as $500) tax money each year. The state pre-tax benefit would provide this same type of win-win benefit for the employers and employees. Any of the three would increase ridership, farebox recovery, and help reduce VMT, fuel usage, congestion, air pollution, and GHGs while making transit systems more sustainable

AB 147, the Subdivison Map Act, was introduced by Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento).  This legislation authorizes cities and counties to charge developer fees to defray the costs of transportation improvements, but it is currently limited to bridges and throughfares. In many areas this cannot be done due without tearing down existing homes and businesses, and where it can be done may not be desirable.

• This bill expands the use of these fees for transit, walking, and bicycling facilities
• Can increase the access of populations to transit, increasing ridership, reducing VMT, increasing farebox recovery
• Support SB 375 implementation goal

T4A does not have a position on these bills but its partners such as Transform are advocating for them as a means of improving California’s transit systems.  Transform and CalTransit Association are pushing these bills and were in Sacramento last week for an advocacy day focused on them. More information on these bills can be found at http://investintransit.org/.

Streetsblog will keep its eye on this legislation as it moves forward.

A government shutdown could empty out the D.C. metro system. Photo: Examiner

Just a month ago, AASHTO sounded the warning that the transportation sector could lose up to $100 million a day in case of a shutdown. However, Congress’s extension of SAFETEA-LU through the end of the fiscal year (September 30) has put their minds at ease. Now, AASHTO spokesperson Tony Dorsey says spending for federal highway programs will continue unabated, despite a shutdown. “At this point,” Dorsey said, “we’re not anticipating any issues.” Still, he said, they’re hoping that “should there be a shutdown, it will be a very, very short one.”

But that’s not the whole story. According to a detailed DOT shutdown plan, the vast majority of the Federal Transit Administration would shut down, keeping only 54 out of 575 positions working. Already-awarded stimulus grants would continue to receive oversight and the Lower Manhattan Recovery Office would continue to function. The $270 million that the FTA normally remits to transit agencies every week would cease.

Jeff Rosenberg, government affairs director for the Amalgamated Transit Union, says the SAFETEA-LU extension only continues government’s authority to pay for transportation programs. But “if the FTA isn’t authorized to open the door,” he says, those payments will cease. That could be especially damaging for smaller metros that receive operating assistance, not just capital funds, from the feds. However, he’s hopeful that a potential shutdown would only last a couple of days and would just be “a blip on the screen.”

What else can you expect to happen if the government does shut down as of midnight tonight?

• At least 800,000 federal employees would be furloughed immediately. That would cause a massive drop in transit ridership, especially here in D.C., where Metro is predicting a five to 20 percent drop in case of a shutdown. Michael Perkins of Greater Greater Washington estimates that this would result in a loss for Metro of a quarter million dollars a day.
• Amtrak’s federal subsidies – up in the air for months now anyway as Congress debates whether to eliminate them, reduce them, or maintain them – will stop. However, Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman recently assured employees that the rail operator can keep going on ticket revenue alone in the short term.
• The Federal Highway Administration will stay open, with no positions furloughed, according to the DOT shutdown plan. The FHWA is funded with contract authority and has enough funds available to operate in that way for about a month.
• More than half of the Federal Railroad Administration’s workers would be furloughed.
• The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will keep operating with a full staff.
• As a result of the colonial arrangement by which Congress controls D.C.’s city budget, some core D.C. city functions would grind to a halt. A new campaign to “take your trash to Boehner’s house” in case a shutdown stops garbage collection already has nearly 5,600 Facebook fans. (The city would resume trash collection after one week, when uncollected garbage constitutes “a danger to public health.”)
• D.C. Street sweeping, taxicab regulation, most road repairs, the DMV, and public libraries could also be suspended.
• D.C.’s metro system would keep running, and would even keep a rush hour schedule, but might reduce the number of cars.
• Circulator buses and Capital Bikeshare would also keep running.
• The Federal Housing Administration would stop guaranteeing new home loans. FHA loans account for 30% of the housing market.
• Most of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which issues auto recalls and makes grants to states for safety campaigns, would close, with about 65 percent of its employees furloughed.
• The air traffic control system would keep functioning.
• Long project delivery times and construction delays are already a major concern of Congress, and the House Transportation Committee has prioritized eliminating delays. Well, so much for that – the EPA would cease conducting environmental impact reviews in case of a shutdown, slowing the approval for construction projects.

We’re continuing to monitor developments, but at this point, we’re bracing for a shutdown. A few hours ago, Reid took to the Senate floor to declare that the “one issue remaining last night” was the GOP rider defunding women’s health services. Boehner’s office maintains that the issue is, as always, spending cuts. Both sides are hoping the public will blame the other party in case of a shutdown. Reid hopes people will be as “appalled,” “frustrated,” and “personally offended” as he is if the GOP is so dead-set against cancer screenings for women that they’ll shut down the government over it. The Republicans hope to portray the Democrats as being so unwilling to budge on just a few billion dollars that they’d even let U.S. troops overseas go without pay.

Whoever’s to blame, it looks like the rest of us may be forced to go without some government services for a while. The longest government shutdown in modern history – the Newt Gingrich episode – lasted 21 days, but there’s no telling whether this one will break that record.

Remember, even once Congress is able to come to some kind of agreement over the FY2011 budget – whenever that may be – there’s still the FY2012 budget to worry about.

“Are we doing right by the next generation?” Porcari asked. “We know we’re not.”

Echoing President Obama’s “winning the future” rhetoric, Porcari framed the administration’s push for a six-year, $550 billion transportation bill as a potential watershed that can reform a transportation system which has become increasingly burdensome for lower income Americans. “If you make between $20,000 and $50,000 a year,” he said, “odds are that transportation is your number one household expense, higher than housing.”

With the GOP-controlled House making noise about a much smaller reauthorization bill than the one Obama has proposed, better days for affordable transportation are not here yet, nor are they necessarily around the corner. Transit agencies have already been through a couple of years of widespread service cuts and fare increases. The brunt of these cuts have been felt by people of color — who make up at least 60 percent of public transit ridership.

So in addition to not doing right by the next generation, our current policies are not doing right by today’s generation.

Some of the most pressing questions in transit policy today have more to do with allocating diminished resources than investing in expansions. Marc Brenman, former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Transportation and co-author of The Right to Transportation, led one workshop at the TEN conference focused on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in federally funded programs.

Title VI protects everyone, including non-citizens, and it applies to transit agencies that receive federal funding. If individuals or groups have been discriminated against by local transit policies, they can file administrative complaints with the Federal Transit Administration which must be investigated. Thanks to the Bush Administration FTA, there’s a massive backlog of such cases. “Civil rights wasn’t exactly a priority under Bush,” said Brenman.

Questions of discrimination have recently played out in Oakland, where the FTA found that BART had failed to sufficiently analyze the impact on fares of building an elevated tramway to the airport, and in Atlanta, where some business interests are pushing to restore shuttle bus service to Braves games while leaving lines used daily by city residents untouched.

“When there are cuts, the people who take it on the neck the worst are usually people of color and low-income people,” said Brenman. “We should be asking, ‘How is the entity using its resources? Are the cuts being distributed in a fair way? Is everyone being hit equally badly?’”

Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff, addressing the entire conference, reaffirmed his agency’s commitment to serve the communities who depend the most on public transit, and are always the hardest hit by cuts and under-funding.

“For some people, a reliable transit system is the difference between seeing their kids at night or not,” he said. “It’s the difference between having dinner as a family or not. The difference between being able to supervise homework or not. These are the passengers that have no choice of whether to endure whatever service we serve up—clean or dirty, convenient or inconvenient, reliable or unreliable.”

Rogoff, who was the recipient of TEN’s Rosa Parks Transportation Equity Award in 2010, assured the audience that the FTA’s priority is “preserving service for the communities that need it most.”

And now the project, “Zen in the Art of Travel Behavior: Using Visual Ethnography to Understand the Transit Experience,” is completed.  A new website contains both the photo logs, which are a treasure trove of transit pictures, and contains some interesting analysis of Los Angeles’ transit riders.  For example, consider this description from one participant of the social aspect of riding on transit:

Caption: Usually pretty empty

Description: The bus is usually pretty empty…and I pretty much know everyone who rides it…at least I know their faces. Some of the riders know each other and have conversations on the ride in to work. A lot of admin assistants at law firms in Century City ride this bus (they pick it up at Union Station — I think most of them ride in on the Metrolink)…their chatter reminds me of riding the subway in NYC when I lived there…you always got juicy office gossip about an office you have no connection to.

If you have some time to read through the findings, or just preview the pictures and captions put together by the participants, take advantage of what Brian Taylor and Camille Fink have put together at the website.  It’s worth a look.

Photo Credit: Madness Rivera

Many opportunities and challenges await Los Angeles, an amazing city.  At the forefront of these issues is transportation planning, or more specifically a lack thereof.

SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protect Act, is a great opportunity to elicit and collaborate among the many voices working and supporting livable communities throughout California.

As Los Angeles steps up its investments in public transit and high-speed rail, it is critical that these bus stops, stations and the roads that get your there, are accessible to everyone irrespective to demographics. To achieve significant mode split change, better public health and so on, we need bold leadership and commitment, leadership that uses our transit systems, walks and bikes. Having people drive to catch a train or bus is not the goal.

Transportation planning has revolved around two trips a day – home to work and work to home.  People, especially mom’s, tend to make 4-5 trips a day.  With strategic and coordinated efforts to sync up transportation and land use investments – many of these trips could be done by walking and/or bicycling, frequently trips that are under 3 miles.

12% of all trips in Southern California are done walking and/or bicycling – the majority walking.  If we want to get mother’s, grandparents, and kids out walking and bicycling we will need better infrastructure (such as cycletracks, bike boulevards, wide landscaped sidewalks, outdoor seating at cafes, great public spaces and so on).  Most people are not comfortable riding their bike next to heavy traffic.

Walking and bicycling needs to become a part of everyone’s lifestyle, not just the brave or hardcore but by regular people of all ages and abilities.  These trips could be fun and a way to bring physical activity back into our daily lives.

Los Angeles needs livable inclusive streets, multi-modal planning and leadership to move these concepts forward.  We need these issues to be addressed as legitimate concerns on the trips to City Halls, Sacramento, and Washington DC.

Now is a time to celebrate leadership, visionaries and the countless other people working to champion our community public spaces. The co-benefits that can be seen with walkable and bikable communities are tremendous and need to be planned with consideration of all.

We need more leaders from all sorts of backgrounds to champion’s livable streets efforts.   Adonia Lugo, a PhD Candidate studying Bicycling in Los Angeles, states it succinctly, “LA actually has a remarkably diverse network of people striving to improve conditions for cyclists.”

I’d like to celebrate all the people in our communities, colleges and universities, public agencies, non-profits, in their free time – that are working on these issues, some behind the scenes and some out in front.   To me, right now, there seems to be great collaboration happening among many groups, with potential for more.  All of those who worked hard to leverage dedicated funding from Measure R at the City of LA to support pedestrian and bicycle investments – thank you.  Now with a soon to be adopted Bike plan (that had tremendous collaboration) and potential for great pedestrian and walkablity investments, and 3 scheduled cicLAvia’s for 2011 – there is much reason to see there is indeed progress.

I’d like to say thank you to everyone who is out there contributing to this movement.  Come out and share your story, your  perspective and needs and thoughts – write a column for Streetsblog, send in a idea for a story, be a part of a movement striving to be inclusive with a common goal in mind – a even better Los Angeles.

Here’s a sampling:

Lisa T. in St. Louis wrote:

As a high school teacher, I see how our less-than-adequate public transportation system impacts low-income families who do not have dependable personal transportation. Students and families who do not have cars are not able to participate in parent conferences, open house events, and extracurricular activities.

Jan H. of Montana wrote the president about how her hometown has been changed by car culture:

When I was a girl, there were two trains a day: east to Chicago and west to Spokane. Now, there are nothing but freeways clogged with big trucks.

Ann E. in Washington State told the president about the importance of transit accessibility:

I use an electric scooter to get around because treatment for bone cancer has limited my range for walking. Last fall, I went to visit my daughter who lives in Philadelphia. We were able to board the outbound trains to the suburbs using a special ramp but on our return trip we found that the station didn’t have the necessary ramps.

Please include funding in your 2012 budget to make public transportation practical for all who wish to use it.

John C. of Oakland, CA, wrote that transit service is an economic lifeline for working people:

In Oakland, we want expansion of mass transit to include eco passes to provide free mass transit for junior and high school students.

Nancy H. from Wisconsin, wrote about the transit issues in her area:

Funding for transit is a necessity where I live in Racine, WI, located between Milwaukee and Chicago. Anyone without a car must deal with limited bus routes that don’t reach many of the places in the county where jobs are located. Getting from Racine to neighboring communities by bus is impossible in most cases.

For the Racine community to attract new businesses there must be dependable, networked transportation.

Robert Kelly, President of the Amalgamated Transit Union’s Local 308 in Chicago, wrote the president about how transit spurs job growth:

With a staggering set of issues before you, it is easy to understand that some domestic issues might not make the top of your priority list when you have to deal with crisis after crisis. A renewed federal commitment to urban mass transit is an issue that absolutely affects the lives of millions of Americans every single day, the environment and your Administration’s commitment to grow jobs.

Mary J. in St. Louis wrote about her years without access to transportation:

Many years ago I lived in a rural area and had no ready access to a car. My mother and I would “flag down” a Greyhound bus on a nearby road to get to town for groceries, to attend church, and to visit family. Today, living in suburbia, I have a car, but no buses come near my house.

In Los Angeles, Pariss B. wrote about the importance of the bus system:

Bus operations are important to me because I am a citizen who wants things to get better. Bus fares are high and things are only getting rougher. Times are hard. It’s time for a change.

Maybe, once he reads them, Obama should forward these letters on to House Republicans, who are expected to be a tough audience for his pitch to increase investment to “outbuild” other nations.

In his recent re-election campaign, Chuck Schumer touted his support of transit tax benefits. Those benefits are about to expire, however.

For many transit riders, there’s another fare hike coming down the track, one that many may not even be aware of.

A provision of the stimulus bill that offered a larger tax break for some transit riders is set to expire at the end of the year. A new report by TransitCenter [PDF], a non-profit that works to provide tax-free transit benefits, outlines just how many riders will be affected by the end of those benefits, and how hard it will hit ridership numbers. By letting the transit benefit revert back to its pre-stimulus levels, Congress would push Americans away from riding transit and pinch the pocketbooks of those who keep riding.

The tax break was slipped into the stimulus bill by New York Senator Chuck Schumer in early 2009. Previously, riders could buy up to $120 in transit fares per month without paying taxes on that income, while those driving to work could deduct up to $230 in parking costs (one example of how the incentive to drive is embedded in the tax code). Schumer’s proviso equalized the caps, but only temporarily. It expires at the end of this year.

TransitCenter found that the higher transit benefit helped increase the number of people who took advantage of it. In 2010, 17 percent more firms offered the pre-tax transit benefit than in 2009, and 29 percent of employers reported higher enrollment in commuter benefits programs while the higher cap was in effect.

Without the higher cap, transit riders paying the national average tax rate of 31.6 percent could see their commuting costs rise up to 18 percent higher. For riders facing such a large effective fare hike, the train won’t look so appealing anymore. The report looked at studies of previous fare hikes and found that an 18 percent increase in price will translate into a five to nine percent drop in ridership among that group.

The cap reduction won’t affect every transit rider. On the nation’s largest urban transit systems, like New York City Transit or L.A. Metro, the cost of a monthly pass is below $120. However, TransitCenter found that of all Americans taking advantage of the commuter tax benefit, around 30 percent spend more than $120. Many of those are commuter rail riders; more than 200,000 people take advantage of the increased tax benefit on New York City’s three commuter rail lines alone, according to TransitCenter.

Schumer has a bill in the Senate, S. 322, that would make the increased transit benefit permanent, but it only has 14 co-sponsors, none of whom are Republicans. The House version of the bill, sponsored by Massachusetts rep Jim McGovern, has 47 co-sponsors, including two Republicans.

If Downtowners want to see a Regional Connector Station at 5th and Flower, they're going to have to find the money themselves. Photo:Clovis Bouhier/PBase

Here’s a quick rundown of the major votes by today’s Metro Board. Each of these five motions were discussed at Streetsblog over the last couple of weeks, and links to those stories can be found at the end of each summary.  Streetsblog will have links to all news reports on today’s meeting tomorrow.

Westside Subway Locally Preferred Alternative/Environmental Studies
As expected, the Metro Board of Directors unanimously voted to approve the Westside Subway “Locally Preferred Alternative” as the 9 1/2-mile route to the Veteran’s Administration Hospital in Brentwood from the current end of the Purple Line at Wilshire/Western in Koreatown.  Despite over an hour of public comment from the Beverly Hills’ NUMBY’s, there was no decision made on whether the subway should have a stop on Santa Monica Boulevard in Century City or Constellation Avenue.

Yaroslavsky’s motion, which seemed to place the concerns of Beverly Hills regarding the Constellation Avenue/Santa Monica Boulevard debate ahead of those of other communities, was amended by the author to urge the staff to provide a detailed account of the impacts of both alternatives through the Westside.  This would have happened regardless under the Final Environmental Impact Statement that the Board approved funding for today.  For background on this motion, read yesterday’s Streetsblog story or an update on today’s vote from LA_Now.

Regional Connector Locally Preferred Alternative/Environmental Studies
The Metro Board also approved the “Locally Preferred Alternative” and funding for the environmental studies needed for the Regional Connector.  The debate was dominated by Little Tokyo business groups concerned that “cut and cover” subway construction would disrupt the community and cost them business. Downtown interests and LA City Councilwoman Jan Perry also expressed concerns about the exclusion of the 5th and Flower stop from the LPA.  The Board narrowly voted to exclude the 5th and Flower for now, but left the door open to include it in the environmental studies, if local businesses raise the roughly $2 million needed for that part of the study.  For more background, read this story at Streetsblog or an update on today’s vote from Blog Downtown.

“BikeWood” Hub at Hollywood and Vine
The motion allowing the creation of a street level, highly visible Bike Hub a the Hollywood and Vine Transit Oriented Development passed without much discussion.  Streetsblog provided the background for this motion on Monday.

Ridley-Thomas Grade-Crossing Motion

Good use of everyone's time, Supervisors. Photo: Los Angeles County

The Metro Board quickly passed County Superviser Mark Ridley-Thomas’ controversial grade crossing motion that appeared to introduce a more “subjective” tone into the analysis of whether light rail should run at-grade or grade-separated at major street crossings.  Board Member O’Conner asked that the motion be tabled for a month so Board Members could have more time to analyze the motion.  But, after Metro staff argued that the motion was just a re-emphasis on community concerns from the current grade-crossing policy and that it would have no impact on how these decisions are actually reached, the Board voted to accept Ridley-Thomas’ motion.

During a public discussion segment, Southern California Transit Advocates’ policy director, Kymberleigh Richards, warned that the changes would lead to “days of public comment” over controversial crossings when communities felt their concerns weren’t being addressed.  We’ll have to wait and see if that prediction holds true once debate on specifics of the Crenshaw Line reach the Board in 2011.  For background on this motion, click here.

710 Tunnel Cost Estimate
Ha!  Najarian was listening to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, siting his “wisdom” as a reason to get a new cost estimate.  The official estimate was based on figures from 2006.  While Najarian was able to read his motion into the record, the motion won’t have a full hearing until the next Board Meeting.  For background on this motion, click here.

It seems as though voters would find a “yes” vote for Proposition 22 to be an easy decision.  After all, the proposition would end the state’s ability to decide that “we’re in a crisis” and could raid taxes dedicated to transit funding (as well as other local public services such as the police and fire departments) leading to the massive service cuts that we’ve seen locally and across the state.  Not surprisingly, transit advocacy groups such as the California Transit Association have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to see the initiative pass, and local groups such as the Southern California Transit Advocates have made passage a top electoral priority.

Yet, newspapers from Los Angeles to San Francisco to Sacramento are lining up against the ballot measure.  Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa hasn’t quite declared opposition, but has repeated the basic argument against the measure:

I think that one of the problems the state is facing is too much ballot-box budgeting. What happens when you do this, you break up the budget into lots of silos.

In other words, because the state has been raiding transit, and other locally collected and dedicated tax funds, for so long that creating holes in the state budget by putting them back where they were originally dedicated would damage the state.

Most of the arguments are a variation of this theme.  Teachers unions complain it would balance the budget “on the backs of students” while the “vote no” argument in the official voter guide argues that passage “leave us all in greater danger from fires, earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters. It also means cuts in emergency medical services, forcing longer response times if your family needs a paramedic—or perhaps no paramedic at all in a major emergency.”

In other words, whether or not an organization is for or against Proposition 22 depends on whether your favorite issue is the one receiving funds that weren’t dedicated for it or one that is losing those funds.  There also doesn’t seem to be a partisan divide on the issue.  For example, Republican Senate Candidate Carly Fiorina urges a “no” vote.  Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Meg Whitman is voting “yes.”

When it comes to messaging, it would appear the opponents have found a more personal touch.  While opponents use language painting a clear image that passage could have on school children, proponents language is a lot more bureaucratic.

What has been absent from the debate has been a discussion of what the raids have had on transit and transit riders.  Every major transit agency in the state has seen slashes in service that have literally left people stranded without a way to get to their jobs, stores, or anywhere.  As has been pointed out by the Bus Riders Union, these sort of cuts seem to happen to areas where people are more transit dependent, directly affecting their ability to earn a living and be a part of society.  Instead, arguments made by proponents focus on the fairness of the bait and switch of telling voters they’re voting for a tax that will pay for one thing and then spending it on something else.

Meanwhile, newspapers are divided in their endorsements.  While the Los Angeles Times urges a “no” vote, the Los Angeles Daily News urges a “yes.”  The Times bases a lot of their opposition around the idea that too much money is going to redevelopment agencies, and perhaps schools and other social services would be a better use of those funds.

Meanwhile, the San Francisco Chronicle is also urging a “no” vote.  Their argument is that “ballot box budgeting” has led the state into this fiscal disaster, and more of it isn’t going to make things any better.  The Chronicle’s argument is the opposite of that put forward by the Daily News who argues that voters and municipalities are better equipped to make decisions on how tax revenue should be spent than politicians in Sacramento.

The timing of a ballot initiative giving more power on fiscal decisions to municipalities than to the State appears to be poor.  Municipalities such as Bell and Vernon have become a national poster child for waste, fraud and abuse while they’re leaders and bureaucrats reaped windfall salaries.  An opinion piece by the head of the California Small Business Association makes this point.  So does an editorial in the Fresno Bee.

Of course, it’s not like the state legislature has been earning high marks for their budgeting prowess either.

In the end, people are faced with two decisions when voting on Proposition 22.  Do they feel that ballot propositions dedicating funds towards certain projects are worth protecting and do they support the legislature’s and governor’s decisions regarding how those funds are spent.  Policemen, firefighters, transit riders, teachers, students and millions of other people are awaiting their decision.

SEPTA is forgoing new amenities to focus on making sure their trains don't end up like this one. Brownstoner

Last year, the Federal Transit Administration announced that the seven largest rail transit systems had a backlog of $50 billion in maintenance needs to bring them into a state of good repair. In June, the agency determined that nationwide, the backlog is nearly $78 billion.

Though these needed repair and maintenance projects may be less impressive to the public than major expansions, they are key to increasing ridership and decreasing costs.

Last week, FTA Deputy Administrator Therese McMillan told the North America Strategic Infrastructure Leadership Forum that the agency is linking good transit maintenance to its livability initiatives. Keeping systems in good repair, she said, is the foundation of safe, reliable rail service that can help draw new residents to vacated areas.

“When we’re looking at the opportunities for in-fill, particularly in our major urban areas, where we can take advantage of the infrastructure we already have, this is where State of Good Repair becomes a very key piece of a livability initiative,” McMillan said. “So it’s not just about building the new stuff into greenfield. It’s about investing and making transit a real value-added as part of these strategic re-investments in communities.”

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority boasts the oldest transit system in America, said Richard Davey, who heads up the MBTA. So maintenance is no small task for them. Ninety-nine percent of the MBTA’s five-year capital plan is for repair and maintenance, which is projected to decrease their debt burden.

Bringing existing infrastructure up to code isn’t always the most popular use of money, especially when agencies have to choose between maintenance and investments that riders perceive more easily. Jeffrey Knueppel of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) said his agency even takes heat for focusing on safety. “At times we are criticized for not expanding the system, and also at times for not doing the customer amenities projects that other agencies have done,” he said.

But he said prioritizing maintenance is by far the most efficient use of funds. Looking at SEPTA’s bridges, Knueppel said, “We have an opportunity now to rehabilitate most of them, rather than replace them. If we continue to defer spending on our bridges we’ll end up spending a lot more money later to replace these structures.”

So how to pay for it?

Several agencies, including the MBTA, SEPTA, and New Jersey Transit, are looking at their parking assets to augment existing income streams. They’re considering leasing or selling off some of their parking lots. In the Philadelphia suburbs, towns that find themselves short on nighttime parking want to enter into an agreement to use the SEPTA lots during the off-peak hours.

Meanwhile, the FTA is developing proposals on the issue and is beginning to train grantees on asset management, but access to money for repairs is still a difficult prospect for many transit systems.

Members of the Beverly Hills High School School Board present a resolution asking that the Subway run below Santa Monica Boulevard

There is one thing that is clear about the position of the residents of Beverly Hills when it comes to the future Westside Subway.  No matter how many guarantees they receive about the negligible impacts of tunneling ninety to one hundred fifty feet below the ground, they don’t want it to run underneath their residential area nor their schools of their city.

Last night in Beverly Hills, Metro hosted the fourth of its five public hearings on the Westside Subway Extension’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement.  After a fairly brief presentation, where the depth that subway drilling would occur at was mentioned an even dozen times; the staff turned the floor over to a parade of homeowners, renters, doctors, School Board Members, City Council Members, grade school students, business owners, homeowner’s associations, civic groups and even a Monsignor ready to condemn even the suggestion that the Westside Subway should run underneath the homes and schools of Beverly Hills.

For Metro, there are two issues that need to be addressed along this corridor.  The first is which corner of the intersection of La Cienega and Wilshire to put a rail station.  The second is whether it makes more sense to tunnel under Beverly Hills for a station at Avenue of the Stars and Constellation Avenue or Avenue of the Stars and Santa Monica Boulevard.

Metro tried to make the case that tunneling underground is safe and will not effect air quality.

Wearing red buttons that read “No Subway Under BHHS” a parade of speakers took to the microphone to castigate the study of the “Constellation Avenue” route and stop.  The most common themes of the testimony were the fear that the pollution that would come from tunneling 50 to 100 feet below the earth’s surface, the feat that the vibrations or construction would cause buildings to sink into the ground or collapse, or that construction would cause a significant impact to the quality of life.  Speakers went out of their way to claim they weren’t N.I.M.B.Y.’s because they liked the routing that took the subway farther away from, uhm, their back yards.

While fear was a staple of the impassioned speeches heard last night from residents, science was not.  Only one speaker, Ken Goldman, bothered to take on Metro’s assertion that the fault line under Santa Monica Boulevard should be considered active.  Metro points to this fault as a reason to tunnel farther south along constellation, but the state doesn’t consider this fault to be active because it will only yield a major earthquake once every 7,000 years.

Another speaker took on Metro’s ridership projections, which show a small bump in ridership if the Constellation Avenue stop is approved.  Kathy Reeves noted that if the .2 miles difference between the proposed Avenue of the Stars stops is the difference maker in choosing the route, than Metro needs to look at the stop planned for Westwood which is a full .8 miles from the UCLA campus.

Other than that, the testimony may have been emotionally satisfying, but is unlikely to produce any change between the Draft EIR and the Final one due next year.  Metro has already studied the air pollution that will be caused by tunneling scores of feet below the ground, and found it to be negligible.  Metro has already weighed in on whether or not they can tunnel safely under Beverly Hills’ residential areas and schools.  Just testifying that one doesn’t believe them isn’t going to change their minds or even merit more than a cursory response.  Goldman and Reeves at least raised valid queries that have to be addressed.

I was also somewhat surprised by the raising of Rosenfeld’s $1.5-billion proposal for two 46-story skyscrapers holding hundreds of condominiums and offices to be built on Avenue of the Stars as a bogeyman.  While they were careful not to mention Rosenfeld by name, the “well heeled developers of Century City,” as Beverly Hills City Councilman John Marsh referred to him, was a constant punching bag.  The argument is that Metro has bowed to political pressure to put the stop near this development to increase its value.  Whether that’s true or not hasn’t been proven at this point, but this argument does little to make a case for a change in environmental studies unless, as Msgr. Thomas Welbern predicted, the towers aren’t built reducing ridership at the stop.

Personally, I agree with the people of Beverly Hills that it makes the most sense to build the Subway stop at Santa Monica and Avenue of the Stars and not on Constellation Avenue.  The Westside Subway is going to be an iconic part of Los Angeles for generations and it should be in a place that will attract maximum visibility and maximum ridership.  How it’s going to do that on lesser used, and lesser known Constellation Avenue, unless we are building a subway stop just for Rosenfeld Towers is beyond me.

But that being said the arguments heard over and over again last night were the environmental hearing equivalent of putting on a mask and yelling “boo” at children and claiming they’ve seen a ghost.  On my way out of the hearing I asked one speaker if she was worried about the impact construction of the subway would have on traffic patterns on Santa Monica Boulevard and got the response that people aren’t that worried because most of the construction would be underground.  That was one of the more logical points I heard from speakers that night.

Update:

A couple of commenters have pointed out that my assertion that the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars stop would be the better of the two stops is complete crap.  Here is a google picture of the intersection:

Iconic?

Ok, looking at that picture, I’m not sure what I was thinking.  Point taken everyone.  The subway stop should be at Constellation and Santa Monica.

Curbed makes the Tom LaBonge Transit Map based on his op/ed in yesterday's Daily News

Yesterday, the Daily News printed an odd opinion piece by 4th District City Councilman Tom LaBonge which outlined his views on how Metro should grow Los Angeles’ rail system in the coming years.  I say “odd” because the former Metro Board Member has to know that Measure R transit funds have to be spent on the projects listed in the ballot initiative passed in 2008, and it’s unlikely the agency is going to raise the funds for anymore transit projects in the near future.

Nevertheless, LaBonge does have some interesting ideas, such as monorail service to the Hollywood Bowl, an extension of the Red Line to the Valley and an extension of the Purple Line down to USC.  In fact, most of LaBonge’s article is about extending service to major trip attractors that are under served by transit.

So your homework assignment for the weekend is to assume you have a magic transit wand and could make any one change to our system, as it stands or post Measure R, and post it in the comments section.  On Monday, we’ll take a vote on which of the top suggestions is the best.  The overall winner gets a Streetsblog t-shirt!  Incidently, unless the Mayor breaks his arm trying to catch a train, that will be the only posting here until Tuesday morning.

Happy Labor Day!

Image via Rail L.A.

So you're sipping your coffee and reading the news on your web-enabled phone as you glide along the Expo Line, idly shutting it off as you descend into the downtown connector en route to Union Station. Your bullet train to Sacramento leaves at 9AM, but you're not feeling too pressed for time, because as it turns out, that train isn't departing for several years.

If you can't quite see yourself in that picture yet, a coalition of urban planners and architects has an exhibit for you. Through the month of August, railLA is hosting LA Beyond Cars, "a multimedia experience showcasing concepts, ideas, and musings from around the world on the future of Los Angeles."

Formed by members of the Los Angeles chapters of the American Planning Association and the American Institute of Architects, railLA aims to build awareness of and enthusiasm for the benefits of high-speed rail in California. LA Beyond Cars represents the organization's first foray into helping car- and plane-dependent Angelenos wrap our minds around what a transit-oriented city and state could look like.

Among the installations featured are James Rojas' famous interactive models of Los Angeles, the recently released Piggy Backyard plan to turn an outdated Union Pacific rail yard into an LA River wetlands and park, as well as numerous transit station design concepts sent in from as far away as Italy and the Netherlands.

Looks like a good crowd at the opening...

At the gallery opening on July 29^th, railLA chair Gunnar Hand and vice-chair Gerhard Mayer focused on the importance of integrating high-speed rail into a multi-modal transit system in Los Angeles that emphasizes rail, buses, and bicycles (i.e. people over cars). An urban planner and architect respectively, the two also discussed how transit hubs can serve not only as centers of mobility, but also as venues for rich civic and social interactions.

In a poignant conclusion, Mayer expressed the hope that railLA could facilitate the process of "stitching together the wounds of infrastructure dedicated to the automobile" in Los Angeles.

To this author, the individuals behind railLA came across as genuine in their ambitions to improve mobility, sustainability, and quality of life in Los Angeles through careful planning and human-oriented designs. That said, a quick scan of their sponsors (AECOM, Siemens) alludes to the powerful interests that attend any "capital D" developments in Los Angeles.

Indeed, railLA finds itself at the crux of a common planning and development challenge: to work on behalf of the public interest, while harnessing the power and resources of developers. Like trying to water a garden with a fire hose, the trick is to hold on tight (to one's principles) and aim high.

Exhibit Details Update:

LA Beyond Cars: A Global Perspective on Rail and Public Space

Opening on July 29, the exhibit will run through August 28th in the Jewel Box at City National Plaza (525 S. Flower Street).  The gallery is open to the public from 10am to 7pm.  Admission is free.

http://railla.org/vision/exhibition

Metro Rapid map.  Photo: RJM Connel/Flickr

Is that what transit in Southern California in the modern age has had as its goal? My long held suspicion is that transit as an alternative to the automobile is mostly an empty slogan that officials speak of but that as a practical matter receives little attention beyond lip service. And the great danger is trends may actually be leading us toward having transit use widen while officials and others aren't preparing for the many challenges this presents.

Our present public transit system is structured to meet two markets: peak hour commuters and the transit-dependent population (mostly made up of folks of modest means, seniors, the disabled and youth). Over decades service and funding structures have been built up predicated on that being the population it serves.

With the emergence of Metro Rapid and the growing grid of Metro Rail services the demographic that transit draws is widening. Which actually presents challenges, both political and practical.

A peek at what we may be facing is the huge spike in transit use that occurred when gasoline bolted past $4 a gallon in 2008 -- agencies struggled to meet the demand, often bringing out of mothballs old buses that had historically been part of a reserve fleet.

Because nearly all purchases of transit equipment by public agencies involve federal capital funding, rather stringent "buy america" provisions constrain the universe of manufactures that can bid. It can often be upwards of 24 months from when an order is made before deliver occurs, given the limited capacity to manufacture buses to serve the American market. Also most urban areas are extremely difficult to facilitate expansion of bus repair and storage facilities. Some of this is NIMBYism (folks don't want a bus yard in their neighborhood) plus in many cases plots of land large enough for a bus yard are few and far between (or entail the long difficult process of building on a brownfield). While many may think a lot more use of transit would be a good thing the transit providers right are now are nowhere near ready to handle it.

Then one tries to contemplate where the funding would come from to have transit as the main mode of mobility for a significant portion of the urban population. I think that takes us to about the limits of any possible prognostication being possible. Perhaps we need a more honest and engaged dialogue on these issues. I certainly think we are falling far short of that at the moment. The American landscape is evolving and I fear we are not remotely preparing for what it will need to fulfill its ultimate aim of better cities and better lifes for the people therein. Transit that is good enough won't cut it.

Rev. Jesse Jackson, second from left, has joined transit workers' unions in their Save Our Ride campaign. (Photo: Streetsblog NYC)

The president of the AFL-CIO's Transportation Trades Department, Ed Wytkind, also pushed for passage of the Senate bill in a National Journal guest blog post this morning. The Amalgamated Transit Union and the Transport Workers Union, both AFL-CIO members, have aligned with Rev. Jesse Jackson, environmental groups, and civil-rights advocates for a campaign dubbed Save Our Ride that seeks to stave off sweeping transit cuts in major cities.

The unions have several hurdles to clear before the transit funding becomes available, however. The Senate legislation contains only authorizing language, meaning that lawmakers must quickly follow with "appropriating" language that technically disburses the operating money.

That two-step process would have been accomplished quickly by attaching the transit aid to a larger bill that is considered "must-pass" by Congress, such as the upcoming supplemental funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Republican senators vowed early on to oppose any attempt to add unrelated spending to that measure, and the Senate passed its version sans transit aid before adjourning for the Memorial Day recess.

(Drew Reed is usually our volunteer Long Beach writer.  However, he volunteered to cover the CTA’s rail transportation symposium in Long Beach that took place Monday and Tuesday.  Here is a review of Monday’s coverage.  Tuesday’s will come tomorrow.  With the exception of the above graphic, all images are by Drew Reed.)

Last Monday afternoon, at the same building which one month earlier bore
host to the Long Beach Grand Prix, an entirely different (and
thankfully quieter) event was about to take place: the Passenger Rail
Symposium. Hosted by the Community
Transportation Association of America as part of the larger EXPO
transit convention, this is the first year this event has been held.

Scott Bogren, Editor in Chief of CTAA’s Rail Magazine and one of the
main organizers of the event, said that he was pleased that this year’s
EXPO took notice of rail transportation; in previous years, the event
had primarily focused on buses. But attendees seemed enthusiastic to see
what the rail symposium was all about, most coming from transit
agencies across the country with a few local rail fans sprinkled in.

Session 1: Setting the National Rail Agenda

Borgosian

The symposium began with an introduction from Bogren, who set the
tone of the event by pointing to the multifaceted benefits of rail. As
an example, he pointed to the Empire Builder, the train which runs from
Chicago to Seattle. While many complain that the train doesn’t attract
many riders between Chicago and Seattle compared to airlines, he points
out that the train also provides necessary service to riders in rural
Montana and North Dakota. The benefits of rail are also economic. In his
home region of Washington DC, the Orange Line in Arlington Co connects
to an area which used to contribute 16% of the county’s tax revenue, now
that area contributes 60%. But the benefits of rail aren’t just
economic, or even environmental, but also cultural. Bogren referred to
train stations as "cathedrals of transportation", and praised the Metra
stations of Chicago as examples of how a train station can benefit
communities in ways that are difficult to measure, but are significant
nonetheless.

Next to speak was James McCommons, author of the extensive Amtrak
survey Waiting on a Train. McCommons’s speech outlined
much of what he covers in greater detail in his book, which gives a
history of US rail travel while simultaneously giving an account of his
year’s worth of traversing the country by train. He covered the
essentials of the country’s rail history, from the first railroads in
the east to the rise of interstates and plane travel. He characterized
the creation of Amtrak as being similar to a "bailout", but judging from
his tone, he doesn’t think the term doesn’t carry the negative
connotation it does for other people. He was quick to point to Amtrak’s
flaws, as well as the historical reasons for them: outdated equipment,
ineffective stations, frequent delays. But he ultimately was hopeful for
the future. In his view, one of the most effective ways for train
travel to be improved was by individual states taking an active role in
rail development, as has happened in North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
Washington state, and California. In the long term, he hoped for the
development of a "steel interstate" system, a network of
government-constructed train lines crossing the country which would
increase train speeds and avoid conflicts between passenger and freight
trains.

Session 1. Rod Diridon, left, and James McCommons, right

Next up was Rod Diridon, a board member of the California
High Speed Rail Authority and the namesake of San Jose’s Diridon
Train Station. He began by asking the audience to raise their hands if
they thought high speed rail would make it to California, about 50%
agreed. He then proceeded to give a barnburning speech about the
apparently glowing prospects of the rail line; how he and a team of rail
supporters had approached Barack Obama with high speed rail plans while
he was still a senator, fully expecting him to forget them when he made
it to the presidency. According to Diridon, even Gov. Schwarzenneger
was willing to go to bat for the train in closed door meetings. He then
laid out the plans for the line itself, many of which we’ve all seen
already at the CAHSR media page, but were somehow made more interesting
by his impassioned description. At the end, I found myself wondering if
we couldn’t name a train station after him in Southern California too.

"You Can’t Sneak High Speed Rail Into Town" : Session 2, The
Industry Response

Session 2 began with Barry Goodman, currently
the leader of The Goodman
Corporation, a transportation planning firm. Before coming to the
magazine, he had an extensive career in public transportation in Texas,
including serving as the executive director of Houston’s Metro.
His enthusiasm for rail was tempered somewhat by his years facing
Texans’ ambivalence to rail. nonetheless he maintained that in Texas was
a place where "if you got four of the right people in a room, you could
accomplish anything". He was pleased at the creation of Houston’s light
rail, but lamented the fact that many of the stations were surrounded
by vacant lots – the kind of transit oriented development that makes Los
Angeles look good by comparison. His view of rail is that it’s not
enough to simply lay a train line next to a busy freeway, but if trains
are effectively woven into a larger urban fabric they will ultimately
become very effective. He called for a more unified approach by the
federal government to urban rail, going so far as to say that since
trains reduce oil usage they should be seen as a national security
issue. He urged the government to stop using "sustainability" as a
buzzword and become a leader in instituting truly effective train
systems, and better mobility overall.

Session 2. From left: Jerry Premo, Charles Wochele, Barry Goodman, and Rail Magazine publisher Dale J. Marisco

Following that came an extensive discussion of high speed rail from
the next two speakers, beginning with Jerry Premo, the global transit
director at AECOM. His take on high
speed rail? It’s not for the faint of heart. "You can’t sneak high speed
rail into town. It’s a major commitment to build," he cautioned. But
though the costs of investing in HSR are high, it pays off in
environmental friendliness, economic development, and improves people’s
lives by filling a gap between short distance travel and air travel. He
echoed Goodman’s desire for strong political leadership, and also
stressed that it was very important that HSR stations have excellent
local connectivity options. He concluded by asking the question that has
probably occurred to all of us at some point: "If the Chinese can do
it, why can’t we?"

Last up to speak was Charles Wochele, the vice
president of Alstom
Transportation Inc. He began by pointing out that in France, despite
their current reputation as a mecca for high speed rail, plans were as
difficult to initiate there as they are here. French citizens balked at
the cost, and provincial farmers worried about what a high speed train
would do to their cattle. But the plans went through, and now HSR is
widely popular in France; the French take pride in not having to fly for
short trips, and farmers’ concerns were alleviated when the french rail
authority decided to build grassy "cow overpasses" connecting pastures
divided by rail lines.  He also highlighted benefits of high speed rail:
it has the capacity of eight lanes of traffic and takes up the space of
two lanes, it is the most energy efficient form of long distance
transportation, it is very safe, the interiors are comfortable.
According to Wochele, California is a "sweet spot" for HSR; it is nearly
the same size and population as France, and HSR could potentially be
added incrementally, with certain sections becoming high speed before
others. He wrapped up with a slick video of the record breaking test run
of an experimental TGV – designed by Alstom.

At the end of the
first day, the overall outcome was a high level of enthusiasm over high
speed rail, though it remained unclear how exactly HSR would fit in to
larger communities. Speakers stressed the importance of all intercity
rail (high speed or otherwise) integrating seamlessly with community
transportation, and highlighted the benefits of transportation from city
center to city center. But is it enough to simply drop a train station
in the center of town? If HSR becomes a partial substitute for air
travel, improperly constructed stations run the risk of becoming mini
airports, with plenty of car rentals and shuttles but no real connection
to the city. How do we make train stations as effective as they can be?
More about that on day two of the Passenger Rail Symposium.