Streetsblog Los Angeles

Last week, Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) introduced S.B. 910, which seeks to define what a “safe distance” is for a motorist to pass a cyclist.   While the language of the bill may seem innocuous at first read, Lowenthal’s staff says the current draft of the bill is a placeholder for what will most likely become a “3-Feet Passing Law.”

Given the trouble some “safe streets” legislation has faced in Sacramento, the passage of a 3 Feet Passing Law might seem a difficult task. In 2006, a similar law died in committee after an intense lobbying efforts by the California Highway Patrol and the trucking industry.  The CHP’s opposition came in the form of “expert testimony” as it did when they all-but-killed legislation in 2009 that would have helped reduce speed limits on local streets.

But S.B. 910 should have some powerful local backers.  “Give Me 3″ posters still adorn bus stops around Los Angeles, part of the public service poster contest hosted last year by the LAPD, Mayor’s Office, LACBC and Midnight Ridazz.  At the press conference announcing the poster design, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said of a 3-Feet Passing Law, “We’ll keep at it until it becomes part of the California Vehicle Code.”

Despite some high profile support, S.B. 910 isn’t quite ready to go through the hearing process.  A close reading of the current draft of the legislation will show that the words “3 feet” don’t appear anywhere in the text.  John Casey, the Chief of Staff for Senator Lowenthal and a bike commuter himself, explains that the Senator’s intent is to work with bicycle advocacy groups and law enforcement to make sure that the final draft is a bill that will work for cyclists, and motorists throughout California.  Sixteen other states have laws that require motorists to give a three foot berth when passing a cyclist.

“We want to start looking at those states and see what works and what doesn’t so we can craft the tightest law we can for California,” explains Casey.

The introduction of this legislation is seen as a key moment by some in the bicycle community.  “Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) is pleased that Senator Lowenthal is sponsoring this bill.” explains Alexis Lantz, LACBC’s policy director, “He’s the ideal person to carry this bill forward, especially since he represents Long Beach, which we all know is trying to become the most bicycle friendly city in America. LACBC has been working with the California Bicycle Coalition (CBC) and the Mayor’s office on seeing this bill move forward.” Read more…

As news continues to spread about Senate Bill 518, Senator Alan Lowenthal's legislation that passed the State Senate last week and would encourage municipalities to curb their addiction to free parking or lose out on state planning and transit grants; the reaction from the press has been almost uniformly bad.  And it's not just the conservative outlets such as Fox News that are piling on.  As we detailed yesterday, the Times is almost gleefully promoting the most inflammatory comments from their article.  Yesterday, the Long Beach Press-Telegram, Lowenthal's local paper, took an editorial stand against the legislation.

I like to think that Streetsblog is more than just a place for the choir to preach to itself, or a place to discuss the court cases and laws regarding cycling.  I think it's also a place to try and effect some change, so to that end, let's get out there and take up for Lowenthal's parking reform legislation.  You can read a summary of what the legislation does here, and read more about the press' take on it in yesterday' article on S.B. 518.

After the jump will be a series of links and quotes to help you find the outlets discussing the legislation and the best way to either comment or send a letter to the editor.  Note how many of the articles and opinions complain about the quest to "get rid of free parking."  Of course, nobody is proposing any such thing.

Read more...

Last week, the California State Senate passed S.B. 518, by Long Beach Democrat Alan Lowenthal, that would limit the amount of free parking that new developments could offer by incentivizing smart growth strategies in local planning ordinances and requiring that developers itemize the cost of each parking space.  The legislation will be referred to the Assembly, where it will go through at least one committee before qualifying for a floor vote.  At the time of publication, the bill had not been assigned to an Assembly committee.

As we've come to expect, when a well-reasoned piece of legislation moves forward that dares challenge the Car Culture status quo, the reaction is hysteria.  The legislation passed the Senate Appropriations Committee by a nearly party-line 7-5 vote with a similar result, 21-12 in the Senate.  Suburban newspapers are already taking aim at the legislation in their editorial pages, and when the Los Angeles Times covered the bill's passage, the first two paragraphs of the article sounded extremely skeptical of the legislation's basic premise: that free parking is a problem for urban planners to overcome, not something that should be worked for.

Yesterday, the Times re-posted the story in its LA Now blog, emphasizing some of the crazier comments from the entitled Car Culture Warriors.  Lowenthal's legislation is one of the most progressive pieces of parking reform legislation in the country, and instead of celebrating this accomplishment, our entitled car-driving friends and neighbors lose their minds.  Here's a sampling of some of the comments the Times chose to highlight:

We need to vote these job killers out of office -- starting from the top! CA has the highest taxes on earth and they want (STEAL!!) more and more from the citizens.

and

This guy probably came out of a meeting specifically called to think of new ideas for non-tax, revenue generating schemes that can be put in place without voter feedback. As usual, the big picture is not taken into account.

and, my personal favorite,

Over the past 3 years living in downtown LA I've paid over $1,000 in tickets towing and meter fees. This state is starting to feel unconstitutional.

Read more...

As Governor Schwarzenegger presses forward with his newest scheme to rob funds dedicated to transit, he’s receiving a frosty response from legislators and opinion makers that could spell doom for this plan to balance the budget. 

After the State Supreme Court agreed with every other court to rule on the merits of a lawsuit brought by transit advocates against the Governor’s recent transit raids; the Governor proposed doing away with the portion of the state gas tax that goes towards transit permanently and replacing it with a new tax for the general fund.  Knowing such a plan would face fierce opposition, the Governor tried a little "transportation user warfare" by having the new tax actually be five cents lower than the current one; forever burying any belief that the Governor cares at all about transit, transit riders or vehicle-created pollution.

The good news?  It’s more than just transit advocates that are calling b.s. on the Governor’s plan.

The NRDC Switchboard reports on a Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review that was flooded with opponents to the Governor’s scheme and found their complaints echoed by the legislators who would have to approve it.  Long Beach Senator Alan Lowenthal is quoted as one of the leading voices against the plan:

It’s nice to go to a hearing in Sacramento every once in awhile and find
yourself in a cloud of nearly universal agreement.  I was able to
experience that rare feeling earlier today when the Senate Committee on
Budget and Fiscal Review held its hearing on Transportation and
Resources Issues…

…Senator Alan Lowenthal was “appalled” by the proposal’s impact on
transit; Senator Mark Leno told of San Francisco’s continued transit
funding problems and wondered how this proposal would help things; and
Senator Joe Simitian wisely pointed out the likely ridership impacts of
further cuts and fare hikes, particularly on those “discretionary”
riders who will once again choose their cars, leading to more air
pollution and road congestion. 

Meanwhile, an editorial is making the rounds of several Northern California newspapers pointing out that there’s more that would be loss in the Governor’s plan than just another round of transit riders v motorists.  From the Contra Costa Times:

The revenue shift would
take hundreds of millions of dollars away from transit systems at a
time when they are in dire financial straits.

Even worse, it
would result in a 1.6 percent reduction of Prop. 98-mandated school
funding, or about $800 million, according to the Legislative Analyst’s
Office. What about the governor’s pledge not to once again decrease
funding for K-12 schools?

The Governor’s plan is far from a "Done Deal" or a "Dead Deal" at this point, but based on the early returns; it appears that transit riders and advocates are starting ahead in the game and this time they’re not alone in the fight.