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.

This chart shows the amount of Federal-Aid Highway money given to each state per dollar contributed to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund for fiscal years 2005-2009. Image: GAO

You’ve probably heard some grumbling or chuckling — depending on where you live — about the way federal highway funds are distributed to states.

And it’s true that for quite some time, the country was divided into “donor” and “donee” states, each group either contributing more revenue than they received from the Federal-Aid Highway Program or vice versa.

But that is no longer the case, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office. Between 2005 and 2009 every state in the union received more Federal-Aid Highway dollars than it contributed through fuel taxes and other fees.

But while that might sound great, the truth is it’s bad news no matter where you live. This was only possible because the roughly $200 billion in Federal-Aid spending over that time period included $30 billion from the general fund — a trend that presents some rather obvious sustainability concerns, to say nothing of equity for non-drivers.

“A significant amount of highway funding is no longer provided by highway users,” GOA stated in the report.

Discrepancies in “rate-of-return” were also mitigated by the 2005 SAFETEA-LU which offered an “equity bonus” to donor states. The program guaranteed a minimum return to states, resulting in a higher rate-of-return for all states, and as much as a 25 percent increase for some.

That doesn’t mean funding discrepancies have been eliminated, as the map above illustrates.

Despite the fact that all states received more money than they contributed to the program, some 28 still receive a relatively lower rate than 22 others, GOA reported: “Thus, depending on the method of calculation, the same state can appear to be either a donor or donee state.”

The donor-donee issue has been a bone of contention in the federal reauthorization process and part of the conservative push for greater state-level control of transportation funding decisions. By claiming that their state is a “donor” state, some argue that their state should retain full control over its transportation funds, without federal decision-making or any cross-subsidy of other states’ transportation needs. In essence, they would wind down the federal program and all national transportation aims, in exchange for autonomous state-by-state transportation programs.

But GAO cautions that over-emphasis on rate-of-return issues can distract from more essential concerns for the country’s surface transportation program. For this reason, GAO lists the Federal-Aid Highways program on its “at-risk” list.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), ranking member of the House Transportation Committee, hopes the new information will throw water on the contentious issue and help streamline the reauthorization process. In a press release, Rahall had this to say:

Instead of being consumed by the parochial ‘donor’ and ‘donee’ debate, this GAO report confirms that Congress should be working toward crafting a surface transportation bill that meets the needs of a 21st century national transportation system. Using rate of return as our rationale for how we spend our limited transportation dollars simply detracts from the national focus when we ought to look at the larger picture and determine what investments best help create American jobs and grow our economy.

Glendale PLACE Grant Coordinator Colin Bogart shows off the new tri-lingual pedestrian safety markings at an intersection adjacent to Glendale City Hall.

This week’s series on the grants from the L.A. County Department of Public Health’s Policies for Livable and Active Communities and Environments (PLACE) Grants focuses on Glendale and their groundbreaking Safe and Healthy Streets Plan.

Glendale’s grant was different than most because it wasn’t the city that was actually awarded the grant, but the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC). The LACBC and the city worked together on the grant application. We’ll discuss the unique collaboration between the LACBC and Glendale tomorrow. On Friday we’ll discuss some of the physical changes that have happened over the last three years and that are currently underway.

Today, we’ll focus on Safe and Healthy Streets, the planning document passed unanimously by the city in June and how their plan sets a new bar for clean and green transportation planning in Los Angeles County.

For their part, the City of Glendale professes confidence and optimism that Safe and Healthy Streets will bring a change to the city’s transportation grid.

“People in Glendale are really frustrated by our record on traffic safety,” provides Mayor Laura Friedman. “It’s a way to get a grip on traffic safety in the city, and it’s probably the most cohesive effort we’ve ever had.”

The Baseline: Glendale knew it had a problem and was open to change.

When she first joined the City Council, Laura Friedman (pictured above) pushed for bike parking at City Hall. Now the City's racks are partially filled everyday by staff with a few spots held for visitors. The LACBC's Jen Klausner calls the racks "beautiful."

By its own admission, Glendale was in desperate need for a new approach to transportation planning. The unintended consequences of a transportation network that emphasized moving cars can be seen in the statistics. In Glendale, approximately 17.4% of adults (age 18+) are obese as are approximately 15.8% of children. An additional 46. 2% of adults and 17.9% of children are overweight. Many of Glendale’s health problems could be solved by a transportation system that emphasizes “people powered” transportation, but for years they weren’t ready to make the change. In 2008, almost 40% of adults in Glendale engage in minimal to no physical activity and 66.4% of adults drive to go on an errand less than one mile from their home.

Street safety for pedestrians and bicyclists is another major issue. Mayor Friedman, admits that Glendale has an “abysmal record of pedestrian safety.” From 2004 through 2009, there were 671 reported motor vehicle collisions involving pedestrians and 275 reported motor vehicle collisions involving bicyclists, according to data provided by the state. Of the pedestrian collisions, the primary collision factor (cause of the crash) was assigned to the motorist in 64% of the collisions; to the pedestrian in 22% of the collisions, and 14% of the collisions reported remain unknown or unclear.

Some residents believe that fear is one of the reasons that more people in Glendale don’t bike. “This is a unique city. We have a huge driving problem here, and the speed and the recklessness is beyond comprehension sometime,” commented Nathalie Winiarski. “We need a huge campaign to battle this.”

So how does Safe and Healthy Streets address those problems? Instead of a traditional transportation planning document, the kind that lists what streets get what treatments, Safe and Healthy Streets proposes a series of policy changes which shift the way the city views transportation, reprioritizes funding allocation that will ultimately lead to a changed city with a progressive transportation plan. Of course, a plan is only as good as the follow-through, but in the short-term Glendale staff and elected leaders seem serious about creating a different Glendale.

Which isn’t to say that Glendale abandoned traditional planning all together. Safe and Healthy Streets identifies the traditional “5 e’s” (education, enforcement, engineering, encouragement, and evaluation) of transportation planning, and then outlines specific policy changes to turn streets designed for cars into streets that are safe for all road users and to promote healthy lifestyles. The Safe and Healthy Streets plan closes with a section on implementation which is somewhat vague. Whether the plan becomes reality depends on the political will of Glendale’s elected leadership, which is currently committed to the vision.

While Safe and Healthy Streets embraces all 5 e’s, where it differs is how it treats engineering programs. Safe and Healthy Streets calls for an overhaul of transportation planning in Glendale so that the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. Even before the plan was passed, this new commitment was embraced by the planning and street services departments.

Engineering

The now-famous Mercedes dealership bump out. Work goes on in the street.

When it comes to the design of Glendale’s streets, the city didn’t wait until the plan was finalized to begin the long project of retrofitting its transportation network to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians.

“We’re happy with the document,” explains LACBC Executive Director Jennifer Klausner. “… we’re also happy with the real on-the-ground changes we saw during our partnership.”

The saga of the efforts of the LACBC’s efforts to get Shared Lane Markings (Sharrows) on streets in Los Angeles is familiar to most regular Streetsblog readers, but for those who are new here is a quick summary. It took over five years, dozens of public meetings, before LADOT finally relented. In Glendale, the third largest city in L.A. County, it took one private meeting. Sharrows are now on five streets in Los Angeles (although 20 more miles of Sharrowed Streets are in the works) and on five streets in Glendale.

The city’s success with Sharrows had another, almost psychic benefit to the city. Every single person I spoke with to prepare for this series brought up an attempt to put bike lanes on Verdugo Avenue over ten years ago that led to such a backlash that city staff literally cringed at its mention. But for Sharrows, the reaction was different. Mayor Friedman commented that “98%” of the feedback she received was positive.

Mike Nilson with City Planning, took it one step further, “Before Sharrows, people looked at bike projects as ‘taking away parking’ or ‘taking away car travel lanes.’” And now the city is ready to move beyond Sharrows and try adding bike lanes again. Plans are in the work for bike lanes as part of the Riverdale-Maple Greenway and a separate project is scheduled for Main Street.

As for the Sharrows, the city plans to continue to use them when bike lanes aren’t appropriate and has even placed them on some streets without car parking, a move that other cities in L.A. County believes violates the federal standard because Sharrows were originally designed to place bicycles in the safest part of the street.  In Glendale, they also serve to remind drivers that streets are for cyclists too.

Safe and Healthy Streets also calls for better crossings at intersections. When Glendale was planning to improve the intersection of Maple and Riverdale, the intersection was due for a new traffic signal, but thanks to the intervention of city staff and LACBC’s Place Coordinator Colin Bogart, the intersection underwent a dramatic change. Bump outs shorten the length of the Riverdale crossing so pedestrians aren’t as daunted and car traffic is slowed by the narrower street. Bike detectors are under the concrete so that cyclists don’t have to hop on and off the sidewalk to press a button or wait for a car to come along to get a green light. Signs direct cyclists how to navigate the difficult turn to stay on the existing bike route and future Greenway.

Another example is that when a Mercedes dealer was fixing the sidewalks in front of the dealership as part of an expansion project, City staff informed the dealership that they had to provide better pedestrian access along the street including bump outs to slow car traffic and provide pedestrians a shorter crossing along the city’s dealership row.

These small changes begin to add up to a changed street life in Glendale. It’s not as though the city has transformed from a car dominated transportation system to Copenhagen, but small changes add up over time. Sharrows, better crossings, traffic calming, these are all things that weren’t a part of Glendale’s plan a couple of years ago, but are all in the mix now whenever a transportation project is considered.

“I do believe the public works department is taking this very seriously,” Friedman says of the change in direction. “When I ask them ‘is this a complete streets project?’ they almost always say yes…That’s a change in policy for the city.”

City staff readily agrees. “The philosophical change is that now giving consideration to the bikes and pedestrians is standard,” provides Kevin Carter with the city’s Public Works and Engineering Department. “Every project that comes through, we’re looking at what can be done for bike and pedestrians.”

The next immediate step is the construction of a series of Greenways to connect Glendale’s three main parks. Construction of the Riverdale-Maple Greenway is part of their PLACE Grant, and is designed not only to connect parks but provide an east-west pedestrian and bicycle connection through a part of the city that is less affluent and has higher percentages of minority residents. Streetsblog will have more on the Greenway on Friday.

The next steps for Glendale are to revise its Master Plan to reflect this new commitment and pass a Complete Streets policy. Both items are currently being worked on by city staff.

In addition to clarifying Glendale’s policy of safe streets for all users, Safe and Healthy Streets also recommends major changes in how the city counts traffic to mirror the commitment to safe streets. Much as we see in Los Angeles and other cities around L.A. County, excluding Long Beach, Glendale traffic engineers decide whether a street is working based on a Level of Service calculation of how many cars the street moves. More progressive cities are embracing the idea that traffic counts should be people counts and the number of pedestrians, bicyclists and people on a bus are just as important as the number of people riding in cars.

The city believes all these changes will lead to more people walking and bicycling for local trips and history with other cities, both in L.A. County and around the world, backs up that claim. Or, put more succinctly the city believes that “If you build it, they will come.”

Enforcement:

Too subtle? Photo: Glendale News Press

In some ways, Glendale has become a state leader in the battle for safe streets. Over the past several years, the Glendale Police Department (GPD) and local Assembly Members have pushed for new legislation that would allow the city greater control over local speed limits. While larger cities have mostly stayed on the sidelines, the City of L.A. passed an ordinance and held a press conference in 2009 but failed to actually show up in Sacramento to lobby or testify in support of the legislation, Glendale has pushed and kept pushing for legislation that would make their streets safer.

Safe and Healthy Streets calls for the GPD to remain a leader in this fight, and calls for better training of officers on the rights of bicyclists and pedestrians. It also calls for a lighter touch when dealing with cyclists, especially younger cyclists, so the Department doesn’t discourage bicycling by cracking down on riders for minor violations. For example, the GPD will seek funding for lights and bike helmets to give to young riders instead of just ticketing them.

But cases over the last two years demonstrate the difficulties of enforcing traffic laws fairly in a world where many drivers routinely violate the law and many parts of the legal code are unclear.

In the days leading up to Easter of 2010, one Glendale officer literally dressed as the Easter Bunny and walked across the intersection of Broadway and Central. Motorists that failed to yield to the bunny were ticketed for their infraction and sent on their way. This outside-the-box thinking led to a lot of free press for the city, in Glendale and beyond, but was ultimately scrapped when City Councilman John Drayman complained. However, it’s an interesting case study in targeted enforcement, and it certainly demolished the argument often heard from drivers who violate pedestrian space. It’s awfully hard to miss a person in a bunny suit.

Would you think of this as a “Business District?” Image: Google Street View

The second story is a lot more tragic, and shows how Glendale law needs a change to protect cyclists. Safe and Healthy Streets explains the problem:

The City of Glendale’s Municipal Code 10.64.025 currently prohibits sidewalk riding in business districts. “No person shall ride or operate a bicycle upon any public sidewalk in any business district within the city except where such sidewalk is officially designated as part of an established bicycle route.” The existing law lends itself to confusion, as there are no specific boundaries in Glendale that outline where a business district begins or ends and most people are not familiar with the default definition of a business district as defined by the vehicle code. It also fails to address the needs of inexperienced or young riders who may wish to ride to a business destination.

California Vehicle Code Section 240 determines if a roadway is in a business or residential district. CVC Section 240 part C reads, “All churches, apartments, hotels, multiple dwelling houses, clubs, and public buildings, other than schools, shall be deemed to be business structures.” This determination means that neighborhoods with multi-family dwellings are considered business districts. This makes the current Glendale Municipal Code even more problematic since it opens sidewalk riders to citation and potential legal problems when riding in such areas.

Thus, when a rider was struck and killed in September of 2008 while riding on the sidewalk. The rider was in a clearly residential area, that is technically a business district under city law, so the slain rider was deemed partially responsible. Changing this law is considered of paramount importance and Safe and Healthy Streets gives several options to do so, including eliminating sidewalk riding completely so that there is no confusion.

While Safe and Healthy Streets provides guidance for the City Council, Mayor and GPD and not hard policy, addressing laws and enforcement issues is not something one sees in a planning report and is an example on how the Safe and Healthy Streets document is an improvement over a traditional Master Plan document.

Encouragement:

From the Safe and Healthy Streets website.

In some ways, the encouragement section reads like a traditional encouragement plan. The city promises to produce bicycle road maps, maps of pedestrian zones, Safe Routes to Schools maps and even mountain biking maps, while promising special events that highlight walking and bicycling. Where Safe and Healthy Streets has excelled isn’t in the planning of these events, but the execution that has happened in recent years.

Glendale doesn’t just have a Bike to Work Day and Bike Week as does its giant neighbor to the south and west, it has a Bike Month that had over 20 free events in 2010. It doesn’t program a Mayor’s ride once a year as part of a press event, it has them regularly (which is easier when you have a mayor that chooses to ride herself), the next one is on September 25. For a mid-sized American city to have a bike calendar similar to Glendale’s is unheard of, with official events on the calendar a couple of times a month year-round.

But Safe and Healthy Streets calls for more special events, so many that the events become less-special and more routine. Why have a “walk and bike to school day” when you can have “Walk to School Wednesdays” or “Car-Free Fridays?” Making these days a regular part of the calendar would require a strong partnership with the school district, but it’s a relatively easy way to combat childhood obesity and studies show that students learn more if they have some exercise before class.
Marc Stirdivant, who worked the LACBC on the initial grant, noted that more came from the rides than new riders, but also a new constituency. “Culture change also came as a result of the rides. Ice Cream Rides. Weekend Rides. Bike to Work Rides. All of a sudden there were 60 people and they all realized they were concerned about the same things.”

Education:

Go to the three minute point to see a PSA made by Glendale Grade Schoolers.

Much of the Safe and Healthy Streets proposed educational campaign is pretty standard fare, but where the plan shows some creativity is that it’s not afraid to grab on to some of the best practices of local municipalities.

In other words, the education component is about more than P.S.A.’s and snap bracelets that encourage cyclists to “ride right.”

For example, when someone gets a traffic ticket driving a car in California, they have the option to go to “Traffic School” to reduce the penalty they receive. Except for a few smaller cities, bicyclists don’t have the same opportunity. Safe and Healthy Streets pushes the city to change that for cyclists in Glendale.
When adopted, Bicyclists that are given tickets for traffic violations would have the option of attending a class on how to safely use a bicycle in traffic in lieu of paying the moving violation fine. Attendance at a Bicycle Traffic School requires a court order granted by the Traffic Court Judge and can only be issued once instead of paying the fine. Cyclists and pedestrians can pay anywhere from $100 to $200 per ticket, depending on the infraction. By attending the bicycle safety class the cyclist can not only save money, but also his or her life by learning essential safety rules. The cost of the program is negligible because the “students” will pay “tuition” to the school to cover expenses.

Safe and Healthy Streets also calls for the city to create bike co-ops similar to the Bicycle Kitchen, Bike Oven, Bikerowave, Valley Bikery and Bici Digna co-ops in the City of L.A. These storefronts serve not just as places where people can learn how to fix their bicycle, but also as social gathering points for cyclists to get together and places to hold bike-themed events.

Evaluation

Volunteer Guillaume Lemoine records a cyclist on Glenoaks at Grandview . Photo:LACBC/SaHS

One of the most important, and oft-overlooked, part of a plan is the evaluation stage and specifically who is going to be doing the evaluating. One of the main short-term recommendations of Safe and Healthy Streets is to create advisory bodies of city staff and residents to review and update the plan and hold the city accountable to implement the plan. Details on the makeup of each body is pending, the City Council will hear a recommendation on how to create the citizens’ committee this month.

Measuring the success of its bicycle and pedestrian program is something new for Glendale. “Before the PLACE Grant, people believed that nobody wanted this,” laughed Stirdivant when I asked about evaluation plans. Now the city is figuring out how to provide for a constituency that it didn’t believe existed three years ago.

However, the document does outline what criteria should be used to monitor the plan’s successes and shortcomings:

• Increasing the mode share of bicyclists in the City of Glendale
• Increasing the number of bicyclists and pedestrians recorded during the annual bicycle/pedestrian count
• Increasing the rate of school children walking or bicycling to school
• Increasing the rate of residents walking or bicycling to work, for errands, and recreation
• Decreasing the mode share of single-occupancy vehicular riders in the City of Glendale
• Coordinating with other programs, such as Safe Routes to School, to include schools as part of the yearly count
• Incorporating a Mode of Travel survey into schools as part of the City’s yearly pedestrian and bicycle count

How Will Glendale Do It?

Of course, the largest issue for any plan, be it a Master Plan or Vision Plan, or a hybrid such as Safe and Healthy Streets, is how the plan will be funded and who will see that it moves from paper to the street.

L to R: Mike Nilsson, Colin Bogart, Councilman Ara Najarian, Marc Stirdivant and Chuck Wike with Mayor Friedman's proclamation that May is Bike Month in Glendale

In some ways, Glendale is hamstrung by what ails every city in North America. The country’s budget crisis has hit Glendale hard with hiring freezes in place so the newly created position of Pedestrian and Bicycle Coordinator will most likely go unfilled for years. The City is looking for grant opportunities to help fund these positions, but so far has come up short. And even as the city embraced Safe and Healthy Streets, the city’s budget for transportation improvements was cut.
While many are enthusiastic about the plan, they’re also worried the funding issue could keep it from becoming a reality. Nathalie Winiarski, a resident of Glendale who worked on Safe and Healthy Streets as a Volunteer, explains. “I do feel the city is behind this. It’s a funding situation. I do believe everyone who I’ve come in contact with is very much in favor of this, but until the money is there we don’t know where it’s going to go.”

Which isn’t to say that funds aren’t available to do some great things. For example, Metro estimates that the City of Glendale will receive as much as $113 million dollars in local return funds from the 2008 county-wide transit sales tax. These funds may be used for a variety of transportation improvements including pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and safety measures. Safe and Healthy Streets recommends that Glendale follow the lead of Los Angeles and dedicate 10% of that return to bicycle and pedestrian projects. L.A. is planning on its set-aside to cover a lot of the city’s Bike Master Plan, and Glendale could do the same for its Master Plan which is still being designed.

Measure R isn’t the only place Glendale is looking for funding. In 2009 the city received a nearly $900,000 grant from Caltrans to improve safe passing at six local schools. One year later, the GPD received over a quarter of a million dollars to better train officers about pedestrian and bicyclist rights.

The City has applied for and received two grants as part of the Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program for two projects. The first, in the amount $376,200, is for traffic safety improvements at the intersection of Honolulu Avenue, Verdugo Road, Montrose Avenue, and Verdugo Boulevard. This project will be completed in 2012. The second project, in the amount of $322,640, will upgrade traffic signal for motorist and pedestrian safety at the intersection of Wilson Avenue, Harvey Drive, and Broadway. This project will also be completed in 2012.

With funding tight, the city is reliant on outside funding sources and grants to make its streets fulfill the promises of Safe and Healthy Streets. There’s a long way to go, but if the City maintains the political will and manages to find the money, Glendale might, one day, be the model of a safe and healthy community.

In 2008, Bruins for Traffic Relief Rallied for the Measure R transit sales tax which despite earning nearly 70% of the vote barely passed. New legislation seeks to lower that threshold from 67% to 50%.

A series of amendments proposed by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) to SB 791 would lower the threshold of voter approval for new taxes to fund transportation improvements from 67% to 50%.

“SB 791 empowers local communities to meet their local transportation needs, improve regional mobility, and invest in high-priority, job-creating infrastructure improvements,” said Sen. Steinberg.

News of this change broke over the weekend, and already transportation groups such as the Bay Area’s TransForm are already providing Action Alerts for Californians to contact their representatives in Sacramento.

The anti-congestion charge, in the form of per gallon fees on fuel paid at the pump, could be used to fund transit, bike and pedestrian projects, toll lanes, and the safety and maintenance of state highways and bridges. The charge would be levied on the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel and, for electric cars, on vehicle registration, and could be implemented for up to 30 years.

Revenues could pay for transit capital, operations and maintenance; bicycle and pedestrian programs and projects; programs and projects that would demonstrably reduce the growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT); conversion of carpool lanes to toll lanes; and improvements “relative to the maintenance, safety and rehabilitation of state highways and bridges.”

“Almost half of California’s greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation,” said Warner Chabot, CEO of the California League of Conservation Voters. “SB 791 will provide Californians with better transportation choices. It will lead to fewer cars on the road and will greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This bill is an environmental milestone.”

As we’ve seen with other proposals that would allow expansion of transit, bicycling or pedestrian networks, there is unity between environmental groups, organized labor and business leaders when it comes to supporting “pro-transit” ballot initiatives.

“The transportation improvements that would be made possible by SB 791 would create desperately needed good jobs in California,” said Maria Elena Durazo, Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. “Every $1 billion invested in transportation creates about 47,500 jobs. SB 791 will put Californians back to work, especially those who have been hit hardest by the recession.”

In 2008, Los Angeles County became the most recent county to pass a tax to fund transportation improvements.  Because any voter approved fee requires two-thirds support, it was a long night for transit advocates on November 4, 2008 despite overwhelming support for the initiative.  For Denny Zane, the executive director of Move L.A., the coalition founded to support Measure R, Steinberg’s proposal is a welcome change.

“In 2008 voters in LA County miraculously voted to support the Measure R sales tax for transportation by a two-thirds vote in the throes of a collapsing economy.  But, it should not require a miracle to ensure the future of our transportation system and our economy,” said Zane. “This bill provides the opportunity for congestion reduction strategies that can be approved by a sensible majority vote, including expanded transit services or highway improvements.”

No hearing date has been scheduled for SB 791, but Streetsblog will cover this legislation if it moves through the Senate and Assembly.

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.

While the Los Angeles City Council didn’t formally vote to end the city’s red-light camera program, the writing is clearly on the wall.  Of the twelve members present, seven voted to end the program, and of the three absent at least Greig Smith has voiced opposition to the program.  To raise the bar even higher, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is backing the Police Commission’s unanimous vote to end the program.

Richard Alarcon and Telfair Elementary School children try out the new Smart Crosswalk in 2007. With the city ending its red light camera program, some of the

While we thank Council Members Richard Alarcon, Tony Cardenas, Tom LaBonge, Bernard Parks and Jan Perry for their leadership, it’s time to turn the page and ask the City Council how they plan to make streets safer for all users if cameras aren’t the answer.  In opposing the motion to continue the program, Councilman Bill Rosendahl claimed the program cost the city $2.6 million a year and Councilman Paul Krekorian argued that “Every cent we spend on this is a cent we’re not spending on something else.”

This implies that the City Council is planning on spending the $2.6 million on something else, and not just using it to fix a small part of the City’s budget deficit.  The question should now be, how can the city most effectively spend those funds.

Obviously, none of the Council stated opposition to safe traffic crossings, although Councilman Dennis Zine is urging motorists not to pay traffic camera tickets after they break the law, and thus the Council ordered a study of whether or not extended yellow lights or short “all red” times in cycles can reduce crashes.  A study is a good first step, but as the city moves farther from the recent debate over cameras, the urgency to fund innovative projects is diminished.

So what can be done?

While the City Council passed millions of dollars from Measure R funds for a Safe Routes to School study that would finally allow the city to take a city-wide look at schools most in need of help instead of the political process it has now.  However, they failed to fund a position to oversee the study or manage the city’s myriad pedestrian safety programs.  This unallocated pot of funds could fund dozens of pedestrian coordinators, but the city only needs one.

The group Safer Streets L.A., in their effort to discredit the red light cameras, published a report back in January listing many of the improvements that they felt would provide greater safety benefits than red light cameras.  Now that the cameras are all but gone, it will be interesting to see if Safer Streets will live up to their name or whether it was all a ruse to get the cameras removed.

In their report, they note that LADOT has a history of removing marked, but unsignalized, crosswalks because it creates a “false sense of safety” for the pedestrian.  Safer Streets, in a laundry list of recommendations, urges LADOT to end this strategy and instead focus on improving these crossings.  While a signal is an expensive way to make the crossing safer, there are many less expensive ways, such as:

1) a two-beacon yielding system, pictured at the right, has been shown to increase traffic yielding to pedestrians by over 75%.  A four beacon system increases the effectiveness up another 11%.

2) pedestrian safety cones inside of crosswalks yielded a 12% increase in drivers yielding to pedestrians in New York City

3) overhead signs are showing less effectiveness than the less expensive alternative traffic cones, but still show nearly 7% improvements in yielding.

4) The most effective signage solution is the overhead “hawk” signal where a special red-light system is put in for pedestrians.  I’ve seen these crossings used in the Fairfax District of the city to great effect.

While these, and other, signage treatments may make things safer throughout the city, the Council now owes the communities surrounding the 32 intersections they chose to make more dangerous with yesterday’s inaction.  Councilman Cardenas, and the LAPD’s Sargent McWilliams both testified that red light running causes more crashes in L.A. than anything else, yet the Council voted to remove a safety measure.

At a minimum these intersections should see regular LAPD stings to nab red-light runners and those who fail to come to a complete stop before making a right hand turn on red.  If the Council believes they can achieve the same 62% reduction in crashes at the intersections that now have cameras just by changing the signal timing, then they should move quickly to implement this signal timing feature across the city.

People are dieing in our streets, and a Council that doesn’t act is becoming increasingly culpable in that carnage.  There’s plenty of treatments that can be applied to roads and signals in addition to more funding being thrown at LAPD Traffic Division.  Do you have a favorite plan or idea?  Leave it in the comments section.

Senators in Appropriations have to ask, Who rides the train cross-country anymore? Photo: Pignouf

The idyllic cross-country train trips that many Americans still take could get derailed by today’s “slash and burn” federal budget policies. Meanwhile, fears for the safety of rail passengers in the post-bin Laden era are drumming up political support for costly security measures and raising, once again, questions about why the federal government funds rail routes without any promise of profitability.

At this morning’s Senate Appropriations hearing on budget requests for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Amtrak, the three senators in attendance were unified in their support for funding rail transportation. They’re working on the funding request for the FRA for 2012, not the rail piece of the overall transportation reauthorization. Still, with huge disagreements over spending levels in Congress still raging and a showdown looming over cuts as a quid-pro-quo for raising the debt ceiling, next year’s funding is a significant question.

So the three senators present wanted to know how they could be expected to defend rail funding without more transparency in the budget allocation process. They also asked pointed questions about what the administrators of the FRA and Amtrak were doing to keep riders safe from the terrorist attacks threatened by Al-Qaeda.

The FRA has taken on a greater role in the allocation of funding for rail projects over the last several years and senators appeared frustrated over a lack of clear information as to where the funding would come from. Indeed, some security projects appear in the FY2012 budget request but the FRA is also requesting a USDOT loan to for the same thing.

Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) was quick to commend FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo for his efforts, but called him out for not improving transparency about how, when, where and why projects are funded. “I support investments,” she made clear. “Now is the time to address critics head on. We must communicate with the people.”

Murray and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) presented a grim future for surface transportation if funding does not keep up pace with booming population growth. The only other senator to speak, ranking Republican Susan Collins of Maine, agreed and reminded her colleagues that the ambitious national rail plan proposed by the FRA, including high-speed rail, has yet to be followed up with any cost estimates, for construction or operations.

Szabo, for his part, could only promise that studies to be released within “the next couple of months” would present the “broader business case” for funding both high-speed rail and individual projects across the country. Szabo, the first union railman to hold his position, was proud of what his agency was doing to keep hazardous freight secure – but admitted that there are still unimplemented security measures that date back to 9/11. He pointed out that for every $50 spent on aviation security, only $1 went to surface transportation.

Mr. Szabo’s predecessor and the current president and CEO of Amtrak, Joseph Boardman, was noticeably more willing to get into details. He agreed that a disproportionate number of Amtrak employees received overtime in the last few years, particularly during ARRA-funded projects, but said that it would have actually cost more to bring on new employees with Amtrak’s full benefits packages (54 percent of the salary-related cost) and train them for the required 24-30 month period, only to lay them off as soon as projects were completed. He said that Amtrak was already addressing overtime, as well as other operational overhead, wherever it could be reduced, but it was clear he did not see these among the biggest budget problems.

Sen. Collins presented Boardman with a pointed question: “How, given that you are serving more passengers than ever before, each and every month, are you losing more money than last year?” His answer began with a awkward nod to rail advocates.

The pro-rail folks always shudder and get concerned when I talk like this, but you are not going to be able to cut costs enough on long distance trains to make them profitable. It becomes more a question of policy of whether we are going to have border-to-border, coast-to-coast connectivity.

Despite record increases in ridership, Amtrak continues to rely on federal funding to keep all of its trains running. Collins wanted to know what Boardman thought of former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell’s ideas for severing the budgetary ties between Northeast railways and the rest of the country. As he has said before, Boardman believes this would only decrease ridership by disconnecting what should remain a unified transportation system.

He was also quick to remind Collins that long-distance routes are, for many rural Americans, their only connection to regional and local transit systems. Congress mandates that Amtrak operate those routes, which no private carrier would, as a public service although they do lose money. Boardman warned that while cutting those routes may seem like low-hanging fruit, it would be painful to those who most need transportation options — and would inevitably yield negative affects on ridership elsewhere.

Metro Orange Line Stop in North Hollywood. Photo:Chris Yarzab

Earlier this week, Metro released a draft of its 2012 budget, which includes both its operating and capital budgets.  The budget increased slightly over the 2011 budget, which is because many Measure R projects will begin construction this year.  The Source does a pretty good job breaking down the numbers, but the final budget hasn’t been uploaded to the Metro website as of yet. Update: Here it is!

In an effort to better understand the budget and the numbers therein, I reached out to some of the leading transit advocates to delve a little deeper into the numbers.  Dana Gabbard, of the Southern California Transit Advocates, but speaking here for himself, and Sunyoung Yang, the Clean Air Coordinator for the Bus Riders Union, responded.  As you might expect, the responses were dramatically different between Gabbard and Yang.

Gabbard seems ready to pop the champagne ending his commentary, “Not so long ago some of us wondered if the Gold Line to Pasadena would be the last rail project completed in our lifetime. I knew the situation would eventually improve but the magnitude of where we have gotten in a fairly short period of time is truly breathtaking to contemplate.”

Meanwhile Yang finds a silver lining in 377,000 hours of bus service cuts.  “The Budget Planning Parameters for FY12 budget issued in March indicated that 582,000 hours would be reduced from bus operations, but the draft budget issued today has only 377,000 hours reduction (which includes 305,000 hours approved last month).”

Each of their full comments can be found after the jump.  It really is amazing to think of how quickly things can change in Southern California politics.  Just a couple of years ago, advocates for a county-wide rail system felt stymied by a consent decree between the BRU and Metro that required the creation and maintenance of a record amount of bus service.  Today, advocates for maintaining that same bus network are finding it more difficult to defend that network from service cuts while rail will be growing at a record pace in the coming years.

Both Gabbard’s and Yang’s full statements can be found after the jump.

Gabbard:

While the reduction in price in the day pass in laudable, it would be more useful if Metro finally implemented the long-promised paper TAP cards with chips that bus operators will be issued to use for loading day passes.

I am heartened that Art Leahy has confirmed my previous analysis that this budget provides a significant boost in service for the Red/Purple Line. But I have yet to hear an explanation for why this is being undertaken. Maybe responding to the looming possibility of $5 per gallon gasoline driving up subway ridership? Just curious.

What an amazing era we are living in for Metro in its press release on the budget to state “Trains on the new Expo light rail line to Culver City are being tested, and the second phase of Expo to Santa Monica is about to break ground. Construction of the Foothill Extension of the Metro Gold Line to Azusa is in the construction phase. Within a year construction should begin for the Crenshaw/LAX light rail line with other rail projects in the immediate queue.” Not so long ago some of us wondered if the Gold Line to Pasadena would be the last rail project completed in our lifetime. I knew the situation would eventually improve but the magnitude of where we have gotten in a fairly short period of time is truly breathtaking to contemplate.

Yang:

The Budget Planning Parameters for FY12 budget issued in March indicated that 582,000 hours would be reduced from bus operations, but the draft budget issued today has only 377,000 hours reduction (which includes 305,000 hours approved last month).  We believe this is a result of the pressure from both the FTA Civil Rights investigation that’s pending and the BRU and public’s push back that the cumulative impact of cuts have left low-income bus riders with less access to education, job, and health centers.  It is a small victory for bus riders for the next shake-up but 377,000 hours of cuts is still substantial given that this year’s cuts only add to the last 3 years of cuts and included cutting lifeline services like the 305.The big picture is that while the size of the budget has increased, bus service has continued to decline.

In FY07-08, the budget was $2.8 billion and in FY11-12 it will be $4.1 billion, with the growth attributed in large part to Measure R. Yet bus service has declined sharply in that same time period. Bus service peaked at 7.674 million hours in FY08 and will drop this year to 6.835 million hours. The agency acknowledges more is being spent on capital at the same time that the agency works to make the bus system more efficient. But reading the fine print, we know that there are choices being made to spend less bus-operations eligible money (like Prop C and A discretionary funding) each year on bus operations.

Downtown Denver's Cherry Creek Trail was funded with four different Transportation Enhancements grants. Photo: National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse

The draft bill closely follows the outline presented by the White House in February, apparently unaffected by the raging budget battles that have consumed Congress since then. Although high-speed rail was completely de-funded in the last budget battle, the president’s bill still provides $53 billion over six years to the program, with $37.6 billion of it for network development and the rest for system preservation and renewal. The proposal also sticks to the language of a “transportation trust fund” rather than a “highway trust fund.”

An accompanying section-by-section analysis [PDF] explains the new Livability Program (one of the five areas the entire transportation program would be folded into). It would consist of three program components, according to the analysis:

• The formula-based Livable Communities Program, which would absorb popular livability programs including Transportation Enhancements, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program, National Scenic Byways Program, Recreational Trails Program, Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways, and Safe Routes to School. Some transit projects proven to improve air quality would be allowed. States would be required to use some of the money to employ a full-time Safe Routes to School coordinator and at least one bicycle and pedestrian coordinator. States would also be required to develop a livable communities strategy in support of national performance goals for livability, to be reported on annually. The budget allocates $23 billion over six years to this program.
• The discretionary Bicycling and Walking Transportation Grant Program has a big “[NEED TO MODIFY]” in front of it in boldface type, so let’s take all this with a grain of salt. The analysis says the program would fund “sidewalks, bikeways, and shared use paths” and other facilities, including bike-share stations, and bike education and encouragement programs. Grants could be as high as $20 million, out of an annual program budget of a half-billion dollars.
• The discretionary Livability Capacity Building Grant Program would give grants for data collection, training, technical upgrades, and the development of transportation modeling. Grants would be awarded to projects that further the goals of the HUD-EPA-DOT interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities. This programs gets $200 million a year.

The president’s bill, as we’ve mentioned, is useful as a standard to hold Congressional transportation legislation up against. It contains policies that would transform the highway-centric status quo, and reformers appreciate the administration’s decision to present an agenda that is such a quantum leap over previous funding levels, performance metrics, organizational structures, and priorities. However, don’t expect it to be central to the debate in Congress. By refusing to adjust to a still-struggling economy, high gas prices, and a deficit-obsessed Congress, the president has rendered his own plan moot.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee started writing its transportation reauthorization bill a few weeks ago. That committee, as well as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is moving away from talk of a Memorial Day deadline and are now shooting for “sometime in June” with the president’s signature before the end of the fiscal year.

We’ve had plenty of warning at this point that the House bill will likely include funding levels lower than SAFETEA-LU. The Senate’s plans are less clear, though insiders are forecasting a bill with more robust investments than the House version, but nowhere close to the president’s agenda.

“I don’t’ see how you get a bill passed without some deficit spending,” NRDC federal transportation analyst Deron Lovaas told Streetsblog, “and I don’t see how you deficit-spend in the current climate.” Certainly, he said, a gas tax falls further and further out of the realm of possibility as gas prices remain high, and that fact is tying this debate up in knots.

Reconciling the House and Senate transportation bills could be nearly as contentious as the battles over the federal budget, so if all goes well, the two houses will leave ample time for knock-down, drag-out fights over funding levels before the current extension of SAFETEA-LU runs out September 30. Experts say if they can’t agree to at least some deficit spending, the bill will be too small to garner much support for passage, and that could leave a two-year bill as the only viable option. Some wonder if Sen. Max Baucus’ recent comment in favor of a short bill might have been a powerful dose of foreshadowing.

Whether the committees have anything to show for themselves by Memorial Day or not, experts say the real deadline is the August recess. If a bill hasn’t been passed by then, some say, it’s hard to see how anything would be passed before 2013.

The most important thing the president did for transportation in his speech is steer the scrutiny away from the 12 percent of the federal budget that pays for “education and clean energy; medical research and transportation; food safety and keeping our air and water clean.” If we’re really going to deal with the deficit, he said, we’re going to need to deal with the other 88 percent.

Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans’ benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20 percent. What’s left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else.

The last few rounds of spending cuts, during which transportation advocates have begged and prayed and hidden their eyes from the carnage, have tried to extract a whole budget’s worth of overspending from just a few small programs. If the president can tackle the bigger issue and leave some of those programs alone, it’ll be a huge relief to transportation advocates, transit agencies, and DOTs.

Up until now, the cuts proposed by a lot of folks in Washington have focused almost exclusively on that 12 percent. But cuts to that 12 percent alone won’t solve the problem. So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget.

Obama’s plan borrows from the recommendations of the deficit commission but he does not promise to hew to them entirely. He says he’ll reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years and, yes, he still says we’ll “win the future.”

Meanwhile, he rejected the GOP plan, calling it a “pessimistic” vision of America.

A 70 percent cut to clean energy. A 25 percent cut in education. A 30 percent cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. That’s what they’re proposing. These aren’t the kind of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. These aren’t the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed. These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America we believe in. And they paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic.

It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them. Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels. And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can’t afford any of this.

Notably, the president didn’t utter the words “high-speed rail” in his speech. Perhaps he’s beginning to let go of the goal of providing 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail by 2035. Certainly this year’s budget, to be finalized this week, doesn’t bode well for sizable investments in rail.

Obama promised not to extend the Bush tax cuts, saying that he and others in his income bracket don’t really need any more help.

Friday is the official deadline for Congress to enact a budget resolution for next year, but considering they’re only just finishing up this year’s budget, don’t count on it.

Meanwhile, it’s in the context of this deeply ideological battle over social safety nets, tax rates, entitlement spending, and crumbling bridges that Congress is going to try to craft a surface transportation reauthorization bill. The two houses hope to have a bill ready by Memorial Day. Meanwhile, Obama said Vice President Joe Biden will start meeting next month with leaders of both parties to come to an agreement on a deficit reduction plan.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) is the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. Photo: Reuters

Meanwhile, President Obama is giving a speech in just a few hours on his plan to reduce the deficit. He’s not coordinating with the House Dems on this, though – it appears he’s relying more on the bipartisan “gang of six” senators who are crafting an agenda based on the recommendations of the deficit commission.

The Democrats’ budget proposal, hot off the presses, seeks to bring the economy into “primary balance” (which doesn’t count interest payments on the debt) by 2018, three years later than the Republican plan. It reduces the deficit by $1.2 trillion over ten years and promises to end tax breaks for oil companies.

Like Obama’s budget proposal and the deficit commission plan, the Democrats’ agenda would move transportation spending over to the “mandatory” column.

Our budget supports bipartisan cooperation to identify a funding source to build out and maintain our highway and transit infrastructure. It also supports deficit-neutral capitalization of an infrastructure bank to provide funding for a variety of needs, including transportation, waterways, clean energy infrastructure, and school buildings. Where the Republican budget cuts about $318 billion in transportation funding that benefits our families, businesses, and communities, the Democratic budget sets a path for a surface transportation reauthorization and new investments.

The detailed budget [PDF] allows for $93 billion in new budget authority for transportation next year, growing to $101 billion in 2021.

We’ll be watching Obama’s speech at 1:35 to see whether he supports the House Democrats or goes off on his own to create a third path to deficit reduction.

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.

An altered billboard from a 1983 promotional campaign in San Francisco. For the full story behind the billboard visit Found San Francisco

(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 the federal picture.  Tomorrow on the state one. – DN)

Before 1983 all funds dedicated to transit came from the federal general fund through appropriations.  In 1983 the Mass Transit Account created 1.0 cent gas tax which was raised in 1993 to 2.86  cents per gallon.  The federal gas tax has not been raised since.

Federal transit programs such as New Starts, which is responsible for many of the nation’s major transit projects, and the newer TIGER program come from the general fund, not the gas tax, and are subject to the annual DC budget battles

For the most part federal transportation funds only fund capital projects and not operations.  The major exception is for urbanized areas under 200,000 people where some capital funds can be flexed into operations.

Two bills were introduced last year to address the increasing operating deficits that transit agencies have been facing as a result of the economic downturn, more fuel efficient cars, and people in general driving less that have decreased state revenues to cover operating expenses forcing agencies to cut services in a time when demand for transit has increased.

The first is HR 2746, introduced by Russ Carnahan (D-Missouri), that would allow regions with populations over 200,000 to use a portion of their formula transit funds to cover operating expenses. This bill does not require additional federal revenues and received significant bipartisan support in the last Congress.  It is possible for inclusion in the reauthorization of the federal bill this year.

HR 5418, introduced by outgoing Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) was known as the Public Transportation Preservation Act and would have provided $2 billion in operating assistance to states allocated through the same formulas the government uses to give out grants today. Because this money would need to be allocated from the general fund or through an increase in the federal gas tax – not likely given the current economy and the fact that it hasn’t been raised since 1993 – it likely will not be revived this year

Accountability:

Advocates, including T4A and its partners, are pushing for Strategic Planning in the next bill so that each federal dollar can be stretched as far as possible.  MPOs and states have traditionally been given federal funds through formulas with little accountability for ensuring that transportation projects achieve long-term desired transportation goals.

Since the federal government funds the majority of capital infrastructure projects, both transit and highway projects, this has amounted to a blank check. Ideally we’d want regions and states to have distinct long-term goals to guide the selection and planning of projects. For transit that means ensuring that planning bus, light rail lines, and walking and biking facilities interconnect seamlessly to maximize ridership and accessibility so that transit systems as a whole are as efficient and self-sustaining as possible.  It’s important to note that roads are not self-sustaining, meaning the gas tax does not cover their construction or upkeep so the goal is for transit systems to cover as much of their operating expenses as possible, not necessarily turn a profit.

In the next federal bill T4A and its partners will work to ensure that performance metrics are established on the state level and States/MPOs use them to improve planning of systems and efficiency of performance.

i.     Reduce delay

ii.     Reduce VMT

iii.     Reduce transportation oil use

iv.     Increase walking, bicycling ,  and public transportation trips

v.     Increase population meeting NAAQS standards

vi.     Increase access for vulnerable populations

vii.     Reduce household transportation costs

viii.     Increase state of good repair

For California this would help align federal policy with its efforts surrounding SB 375 and help it achieve its long-term goals.

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.”

Secretary Ray LaHood indicates how many details he’s going to give Congress on how to fund the transportation budget proposal (Photo: AP)

On Valentine’s Day, the Obama administration released its budget proposal for next year. It included significant cuts to some programs, like heating assistance for the poor, and modest increases in others, like education and energy. But the president saved his biggest doozy for transportation – $556 billion over six years, about twice the current spending levels.

LaHood immediately grew impatient with the inevitable question – “How are you suggesting we pay for this?” Right away, he threw that hot potato back to Congress, saying it was up to the legislative branch to figure it out.

He could have started that process this morning, when he appeared before the Senate Budget Committee, but he again seemed impatient with the very question. (And this was the Budget Committee, after all – of course their primary concern is going to be the financial piece.)

The Senate, remember, is still controlled by Democrats, so he had an easier time there than he’ll have in the House. But everyone in Washington is focused on reining in deficit spending, although they may differ on how and how much.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said he was “flabbergasted” by the size of the president’s budget request – a 62 percent increase for the USDOT “at a time when all of us know we’ve got to contain spending and do something about the surging debt we’ve got.”

Indeed, LaHood’s persistent refusal to engage on the funding question – at a time when Congress is obsessively trying to cut spending – is beginning to sound tone-deaf. Every time anyone presses him for specifics on how to make this plan work, he returns to soundbites about how bold the plan is.

Well sure, Mr. Secretary, we like bold, but we like possible even more.

“We’re placing this country at risk,” Sessions said. “In all honesty, if you can’t tell us what kind of tax you think would fund this and are prepared to defend it, I think there’s zero chance of us passing such a tax as this.”

But Lahood and Obama haven’t proposed a tax. Experts on and off the Hill agree that the only credible way to fund the country’s current infrastructure program – much less an expanded one – is a gas tax increase or a shift to a vehicle-miles-traveled fee. The administration says these options are “off the table,” leading Sessions to deride the mystery funding source as the “new phantom tax; the not-gas-tax-tax.”

Committee Chair Kent Conrad – a Democrat and a big supporter of the secretary’s – also asked how LaHood proposed to close the ever-growing funding gap in the Highway Trust Fund. What are the options for closing this gap, and how realistic are they?

LaHood’s answer? “We want to work with Congress on our way forward.”

LaHood acknowledged that the Highway Trust Fund is deficient. “People driving less; they’re driving more fuel efficient automobiles,” he said. “As things stay stirred up in the Middle East, in countries that produce crude oil, we know that gasoline prices are going to continue to go up, and probably as a result people will be driving even less frequently than they are today, and that’s not going to help us in the collection of the gas tax.”

The secretary asserted that the transportation bill is a jobs bill, and that the effect on the economy would be positive.

Some senators proposed non-tax-related sources of revenue like Build America Bonds and tolling. LaHood mentioned the proposed infrastructure bank and the TIFIA loan program as possible funding sources (though the I-bank, especially, is not really a source as much as a destination of funding, at least at first).

Several Republicans – and some Democrats – also criticized the small percentage of the stimulus package that was devoted to infrastructure spending. They said that if we were worried about jobs and crumbling infrastructure, that was our big-spending moment to take care of it. And that moment, they say, has passed.

About 79 percent of Americans think the United States needs to modernize its transportation system in order to remain the world's top economic superpower. Photo: The Daily Green

That’s the conclusion of the Rockefeller Foundation poll released earlier this week. A bipartisan polling team questioned 1,000 American voters nationwide about their attitudes toward the nation’s roads, bridges and transit systems. They found individuals from every party affiliation support improvements in transportation and a greater focus on outcomes.

Survey results showed that, when it comes to transportation, 71 percent of voters think political leaders should seek common ground, rather than “hold fast to their opinions” — a position favored by just 19 percent of those surveyed.

“Voters’ message was this is something that we just need to get done,” said Jay Campbell of Hart Research Associates which, along with Public Opinion Strategies, performed the survey for the Rockefeller Foundation.

Transportation, more than any other issue, was the area in which voters want to see cooperative problem solving from the nation’s decision makers, the poll showed.

“There’s a surprising amount of partisan agreement on this issue,” said Campbell. “Everyone uses transportation. Everyone thinks it’s important to make it better than it is.”

Two-thirds of those surveyed said that improving the country’s transportation infrastructure is “very,” or “extremely” important. This was true across political boundaries, with 74 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of independents, 56 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of Tea Party members falling into the “very” and “extremely” important categories.

Bipartisan agreement on this issue persisted even when survey participants were asked to gauge their approval for statements made during President Obama’s State of the Union Address. Americans agreed by a 58 point margin that “in order for the United States to remain the world’s top economic superpower we need to modernize our transportation infrastructure and keep it up to date.” Americans also displayed an appetite for reform; 64 percent said that the current federal transportation spending policies are inefficient.

When asked about their top transportation priorities, safer streets and “more transportation options,” were the two most popular responses. Voters favored encouraging private investment and imposing penalties for late or over-budget projects. Ninety percent of voters reported they would like to see transportation projects adhere to a national plan. Fifty-eight percent of Americans also favor a fix-it-first policy when it comes to infrastructure. The president’s Infrastructure Bank proposal was also popular, drawing support from 60 percent of those surveyed.

While survey participants were eager to see improvements in the transportation system, their enthusiasm stopped short of willingness to pay higher out-of-pocket taxes and fees. Voters were not in favor of increasing the national gas tax, with 71 percent reporting such a measure would be “unacceptable.”

The Rockefeller Foundation did not explore bike and pedestrian improvements as part of the study. Nor did they ask participants to differentiate between transit and road-building. A study last year by Transportation for America found that 59 percent of voters favor increased spending on public transit compared to 38 percent for roads.

The Rockefeller Foundation completed this study as part of its $66 million transportation initiative, aimed at promoting equitable and sustainable transportation policies at the federal and state level. The margin of error on the study was 3.1 percent.

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.

Photo credit: M.V. Jantzen

A new report by the Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Transportation Policy Project (NTPP) challenges the country to envision a national transportation policy based on clear-cut, objective long-term criteria. With tight federal budgets and the end of stimulus money, NTPP says this is the perfect time to revisit the direction of transportation policy and spending.

Notably, the report is authored by Martin Wachs of the RAND Corporation and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a top economist in the President’s Council of Economic Advisers under both Bushes and a policy advisor for the 2008 McCain-Palin campaign. It’s encouraging to see a Republican stalwart coming under an explicitly bipartisan umbrella to find common ground on infrastructure spending.

The report’s main recommendations are three-fold:

• Balance the selection of quick, easy “shovel ready” projects with those producing long-term economic benefits.
• Revise transportation policies to focus on economic growth and sustainable job creation.
• Stop borrowing money to finance transportation spending and short-term job creation.

The authors emphasize that just because a project is “shovel-ready” does not mean it will produce lasting economic benefits, and they reject the notion that infrastructure projects can be evaluated based on immediate job creation or “multiplier” effects.

Studies often tout the job-creating power of certain types of transportation investment — be it roads, transit, or bike infrastructure. And the USDOT, for instance, estimates that each $1 billion spent on the federal highway system supports, on average, 30,000 jobs. The authors contend that there’s no data supporting this number and say the greatest economic benefit of transportation investment may lie in lowering the costs of business transactions, not job creation.

The authors also advocate for a “mode-neutral” approach to judging which transportation projects create long-term economic impacts — in other words, they don’t favor highways or transit. And they suggest that federal transportation dollars are currently disbursed to states without regard to the effectiveness of that spending.

The authors do criticize current policies that prioritize new highway construction over operations and maintenance, noting that maintenance typically requires more spending on labor than materials and can create jobs that benefit the local economy.

Brown at yesterday's budget briefing. Photo: Justin Short

For the first time in three years, California public transit agencies could see a full dose of funding from the State Transit Assistance (STA) fund, thanks in large part to the passage of Proposition 22, which prevents legislators from raiding local government funds, and Governor Jerry Brown, who announced his “painful” budget plan yesterday.

The Brown administration said state funding for local transit agencies would amount to $329.6 million for fiscal year 2011-12, significantly more than each of the last two fiscal years. Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had tried to zero out the fund despite a court ruling, but the Legislature restored it, albeit at lower levels.

The state cuts are one reason why public transit agencies up and down the state, including Muni and AC Transit, have been forced to raise fares and cut service.

“We laud Governor Brown for keeping faith with voters who overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22 last November,” said Doran Barnes, the chair of the California Transit Association. “The governor’s solutions acknowledge the vital role transit plays in moving our citizens to jobs and maintaining mobility in this tough economy.”

According to the governor’s budget document on business and transportation [pdf], the fund would be paid for by reenacting last year’s gas tax swap. In addition, local transit agencies will continue to receive “the equivalent of 75 percent of diesel sales tax revenues.” The budget must still be approved by the Legislature.

In San Francisco, SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said Muni stands to get about $30 million for fiscal year 2011-12.

“While we’d always like to see more funds coming our way to improve service and further our programs, we’re encouraged that this doesn’t project further cuts to our operating budget,” said Rose.

Joshua Shaw, the head of the California Transit Association, acknowledged the organization has a little damage control to do with legislators. Some representatives were angered that CTA and other local government groups campaigned to put Proposition 22 on the ballot, because they felt it would tie their hands on the budget even further.

“We get it. We understand that they don’t like their choices being constrained, however, we were ultimately unable to prevail with any legislator over the past several years to stop cutting more deeply and deeply into the transit program,” said Shaw, whose concerns prevailed as voters overwhelmingly passed Prop 22. “We felt we had no choice but to go to the voters and say, this has to stop.”

Shaw said the transit community along with others who care about streets management and even highway projects will all “sing off the same chorus page now in saying to those legislators ‘we get you have a General Fund problem, there are solutions.’”

The feeling among many transit advocates in Sacramento is that, given the draconian cuts other programs are facing, getting almost $330 this year is actually a victory, even though it doesn’t even begin to address the real need.

“There’s no money available for expansion of funding but the good news is there are no proposed cuts,” said Graham Brownstein, the statewide policy director for the transit non-profit TransForm. ” He credited Brown with making sure that 75 percent of the diesel fuel tax goes to transit, instead of 50 percent.

Brownstein he’s not counting on any major reforms for transportation or transit this year, considering the grim budget scenario, but he sees the situation improving in the next three years.

“Lots and lots of advocates in the Capitol are running around plotting major policy efforts but most of those folks are kidding themselves,” said Brownstein. “There is no appetite for that this year and to the extent that kind of stuff takes people’s time and energy away from the core concerns it could be detrimental to our interests. It’s really important that folks be very realistic about the limited options this year.”