The days are numbered for the military vehicle that carmakers turned
into the bane of pedestrians, cyclists and planet Earth. GM has
announced plans to wind down Hummer production
after a deal to sell the brand to a Chinese manufacturer fell apart.
According to the Times, the Chinese government wanted no part of Hummer
because it is "trying to put a new emphasis on limiting China’s
dependence on imported oil and protecting the environment."

A Hummer H2
weighs in at more than 6,600 pounds, measuring about 17 feet long by
6.75 feet wide. Anyone with a plain old driver’s license can pilot one
on crowded city streets. Evidence suggests that laws should be amended to protect the public from such a risk. Now, at least, there will gradually be fewer and fewer chances to wield these civilian tanks where they don’t belong.

Video of Arnold testing out the first civilian Hummer via complex.com.

To the casual observer, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger seems like an environmental crusader.  He signs anti-sprawl legislation, he sues the federal government over emission standards for automobiles, he flies around the world to attend greenhouse gas conferences.

But to those of us that live here and have been working to clean and green our transportation system; the Governor’s track record has been somewhat lacking.  We roll our eyes at his daily jet commute and react in horror at his efforts to roll back environmental protections in the name of environmental progress.  Yesterday, the Governor attended a press conference at the site of the most expensive highway project to be funded with Stimulus funds and unwittingly removed any doubt that he doesn’t understand the connection between freeways, the environment and public health.  From the Daily News:

“This is why it is so important because we have this bumper-to-bumper traffic to go and build an extra lane and build out the 405 freeway,” Schwarzenegger said at a news conference at a Caltrans construction yard along Mulholland Drive. “And hopefully, eventually, we will build on top of the 405 Freeway because I think we
need another freeway on top of the existing one.”

As you would expect, both the Daily News and KTLA, who’s story is above, are silent on the amazing environmental damage the construction and usage of an extra four lanes of 405 would bring to the area and the state.  If you don’t have a chance to watch KTLA’s coverage, reporter Jesse Gray seems a mix of whimsical and incredulous about the prospect; but ends with a wish that it happen in his lifetime.  And naturally, there’s no mention of the Governor’s plan to bankrupt transit agencies throughout the state at the same time he’s proposing ANOTHER massive freeway project for an area already choking in its own traffic.  Let’s not even talk about the report released earlier this week showing that living near freeways leads to hardened arteries.

Anyone that thinks that the Governor was just speaking off the cuff about his most recent attempt to destroy local air quality; the state has prepared a sketch of what the raised 405 would look like.

The state has made the official transcript, and full video, from yesterday’s press event available at its official website.  Joining the Governor are state officials, business leaders, and union leaders.  Mayor Villaraigosa wasn’t planning on attending, according to his daily schedule, but that didn’t stop the Governor from joking that he was “caught” in traffic.  As a matter of fact, it makes a fun game: go through the press conference and count the number of times the Governor jokes about people being late to the press conference because of traffic versus the number of jokes about the Terminator movie franchise.

As a last note to anyone reading this and thinking it’s impossible that this project will move forward, after all Metro and Caltrans just embarked on the I-405 HOV project through the Sepulveda Pass; remember the words of Bart Reed, executive director of the Transit Coalition, speaking about the Governor’s newest scheme to rob transit last month.

…unfortunately with this Governor rumors often turn out to get worse as they get closer to policy.  The Governor is disingenuous when he claims to be green on transportation.  The only time he’s green is when a special interest lobbies to turn a brown project green or when it comes to promoting cars that are slightly more clean than others.

In today's Los Angeles Times, the local paper of record follows up on this weekend's look at Metro's operational funding crisis with an editorial urging the Metro Board to increase fares to help close the agency's roughly quarter of a billion annual deficit for 2011.

To be fair, the editorial strikes a lot of the right notes.  It does talk about the Metro's relatively low farebox recovery ration, the major problems with the state's yearly grab of operating funds, and the pain felt by all Angelenos if transit riders feel forced into their cars for their commutes or other trips currently made by transit.  But, the only solution offered for fixing the $250 billion deficit is fare increases.  From the editorial:

In most big U.S. cities, it costs at least $2 to ride the bus, and big-city transit agencies typically make enough from fares to cover about 40% of their operating expenses. In L.A. a one-way ride costs $1.25, and fares cover only about 26% of the MTA's expenses. The fare will jump to $1.50 in July, but that still won't be enough to make up for the budget shortfall. One solution would be to impose an annual schedule of hikes to put fares in line with other cities and allow them to keep up with inflation. Ridership would probably fall in the short term, but such fare-based plunges seldom last long; moreover, L.A. bus and rail riders are going to have to pay their fair share of the costs if they want to avoid deep cuts in service.

But, the editorial also misses on a lot of points.  First, it doesn't mention the riders for whom a fare increase won't mean going back to their car, but will mean less food on the table or more debt.  As is often pointed out in the Streetsblog comments section, Los Angeles has a sizeable population that is transit dependent, and they shouldn't be excluded from the discussion when the impacts of fare increases are discussed.

Second, the only politician mentioned by name is Antonio Villaraigosa.  The Mayor takes a shot for putting his capital behind the Subway to the Sea but not fixing Metro's operating funding issues.  This seems an odd target, because over sixty percent of Metro's deficit is caused by the state's transit raids, ruled illegal by the State Supreme Court, that there is a push to continue this year.  The Mayor may have a lot of pull, but the name of the person who could do the most to fix Metro's problem is another Angeleno.  Unfortunately, this one commutes by jet to Sacramento, so he doesn't have to worry about the trains running on time.

Over the weekend, the Los Angeles Times took a look at the coming budget crisis at Metro.  The article just scratches the surface of the issue, correctly noting that there are a lot of reasons for the quarter of a billion dollar operating deficit including the state’s budget grabs, lower than projected sales tax revenue and an 8% decline in ridership from Metro’s record setting year in 2008.

However, while the article is very clear that over $150 million of the $250 million deficit comes from the state’s grab of a fund dedicated to transit operations, it doesn’t name names for who it to blame for that raid.  The word "Schwarzenegger" doesn’t appear.  And, to be fair, while Los Angeles County is home to the last two Assembly Speakers, the current Chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee, and Chair of a Transportation sub-committee that deals with funding issues; none of these leaders are mentioned or quoted.  Assembly Members Fabian Nunez, Karen Bass, Mike Eng, and Michale Feuer, take a bow.

As has been noted several times, one of the reasons the debate on the Governor’s current transit raid is receiving such a frosty reception compared to previous years is because the press is covering the impact transit cuts state wide are having on riders, especially those that are transit-dependent.  The next step is for the press to start naming names, so that you don’t have to read transportation blogs to be able to pin the blame on the Donkeys and the Governor.

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.

Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA), above, founded BAF with the mayor of New York and the governor of California. (Photo: Post-Gaz.)

Dodd, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee and has announced
his retirement as of 2011, said today that he is "determined, in these
remaining 12 months, to do everything I can to make sure [the NIB]
becomes the law of the land."

DeLauro’s NIB bill,
which boasts 44 cosponsors in the House, would set up the bank as a
government-owned entity with its own board of directors. The NIB could
issue bonds, borrow money, and lend the interest it earns on financed
debt to encourage public-private partnerships on projects ranging from
transit to broadband to clean energy.

A Senate version has yet to emerge, but Dodd has spearheaded similar legislation in the past and said today that he plans to move quickly, holding a hearing in the Banking panel next month.

In addition, Rendell told Streetsblog Capitol Hill in December that he believes the NIB could advance as part of the Obama administration’s broader job-creation effort.

The Pennsylvanian’s infrastructure advocacy group, Building America’s Future,
marshaled groups as disparate as Transportation for America, AASHTO,
the liberal Campaign for America’s Future, and the libertarian Reason
Foundation to sign onto the NIB push.

"From mass transit to
water development systems, we are still reaping the benefits of massive
infrastructure investments," DeLauro said today, adding that a similar bank in Europe lent more than $80 billion in 2008.

Dodd and DeLauro’s enthusiasm gives the NIB an undeniable leg up in a year that could see
Democrats narrow their focus to legislation with a chance of securing
bipartisan backing. But significant hurdles remain, including
differences of opinion over the best vehicle for, and the long-term
effects of, the Bank.

The first question mark is the stance of House and Senate appropriators, who declined to heed the White House’s calls for a $5 billion capitalization of an NIB in their 2010 transportation bill.

The
appropriators, known to zealously protect their power over the federal
purse, noted last month that the "complexity" of the NIB plan makes it
due for a stand-alone authorization bill, which could require carving
out significant space in an already-crowded Senate calendar.

DeLauro said she was open to examining any option for moving forward
with the NIB. "Above all, the focus is on [creating] a singular entity
that would be able to go to the capital markets and attract substantial
private investment," she said, in areas beyond transportation.

Rendell, for his part, said he would prefer to see a stand-alone NIB.

Another
hiccup could come from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus
(D-MT), whose influential panel could assert jurisdiction over the NIB.
Baucus is on record as
a critic of the proposal. "I think that bank idea will rob the future
growth of the highway program," he said during an environment committee
hearing in April.

Finally, cities in sore need of a transit
funding boost may find the NIB less attuned to their needs for yet
another reason — the NIB is not particularly geared to attracting
private investment without the potential to turn a profit.

Speakers
at today’s event avoided the question of how transportation plans apart
from toll roads could take advantage of the format. "There are projects
that won’t have a commercial application simply because of the nature
of the project," former House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt said.

This route won't be alone in seeing a cut...but at least it survives. Photo: rjmconnel/Flickr

In a letter to Neighborhood Council's, LADOT General Manager reminds the communities of the $350 million structural deficit over the next decade for the transit lines, $23 million of which comes in the next year.  You can read the brochure included in the letter to the Councils here, or read on after the jump for a breakdown of the cuts and hikes by service. Prepare yourself, the word "draconian" came to mind while digesting the changes, although it's not like they have a lot of choice while our jet-setting state leaders terminate transit funding.  Oh, and good luck finding news of the cuts on the LADOT main site or transit services site.  (Update: You can now find them here: http://ladotlbl.tmdinc.net/recommend.htm)

To register your outrage or try to save your line of choice, you have three options.

1. Internet –Go to http://ladotlbl.tmdinc.net

2. Telephone & Leave Message – Call (213) 455-0880

3. Mail – Send your comments to
LADOT, 201 North Los Angeles St.,
Space 18B, Los Angeles, CA 90012

Public hearings have not been scheduled, but will probably be held next month.  A final review of the of the plan will come before the City Council this Spring and the changes will go into place in July.

Hikes and Cuts by Service.

Charter Bus Program will be completely eliminated.

DASH

Routes to be eliminated:

Central City
East Downtown Route C
Downtown Route DD
Fairfax Hollywood/West Hollywood
Hyde Park Shuttle
Van Nuys/Studio City Warner Center (North & South)

Routes with Service Changes:

Downtown Route D: Reduce frequency to every 15 minutes after 6:00 PM
El Sereno/City Terrace: Reduce frequency to every 30 minutes from 8:00 PM – 10:00 PM
Highland Park/Eagle Rock: Eliminate service along Yosemite Dr. and Colorado Blvd. east of Townsend Ave.
Lincoln Heights/Chinatown: Change routing as follows: Serve current routing from College St. and Centennial St. in Chinatown to Broadway and Lincoln Park Ave. in Lincoln Heights (both directions). Eliminate all other portions of route including Cesar Chavez Ave., Main St. and Griffin Ave.
Northridge: Eliminate AM and PM Commuter Service and reduce frequency to every 15 minutes
Wilmington: Eliminate service after 7:00 PM

Fare increases: Current/Fare on July, 2010/Fare on July 2011

One-Way Tickets .25, .35, .50
Senior/Disabled .10, .15, .2
Monthly $9, $13, $18
Trip Ticket Booklet $15, $21, $30

Commuter Express

Routes to be eliminated:

413 – Van Nuys/Burbank/North Hollywood/Los Angeles
430 – Brentwood/Pacific Palisades/Los Angeles
575 – Simi Valley/Warner Center

Routes to see reductions:

142 – San Pedro/Long Beach: Eliminate service to Customs House; reduce frequency to every 30 minutes; end service at 9:00 PM
419 – Chatsworth/Northridge/Granada Hills/Mission Hills: Remove service west of Chatsworth Metrolink Station
422 – Central LA/Hollywood/San Fernando Valley/Thousand Oaks & 423 – Newbury Park/Thousand Oaks/Woodland Hills/Encino/Downtown LA: Eliminate service to/from Ventura County; end service at Westlake Village

Fare Hikes:

There's a big table in the letter to the Neighborhood Councils, but depending what type of ticket you buy you can expect to see hikes of 30%-60% in the next two years.

City Ride

Bus Pass Subsidy
Cityride participants will no longer be able to use Cityride fare value (formerly scrip) to buy Metro Monthly Passes, but can still purchase the substantially discounted Metro Passes for $14/month.

Reductions
Reduce the annual fare value (formerly scrip) allotment to $168/year ($42 per quarter)
Reduce Dial-A-Ride maximum trip length to 10 miles

Hikes:

Quarterly fees will go from $9 to $21.
Dial-a-Ride cost will go to $3 a trip
Increase one-time emergency trips to $12 for $24 of fare value

Local transit advocates are reacting with fury to the Governor’s rumored plan to skirt a court ruling requiring that the state stop robbing transit funds dedicated in the gas tax by completely revoking the tax and reinstating it as an excise tax.

As reported recently in the LA Times, and briefly discussed here on Monday, to close a looming $20.7 billion budget deficit,
Schwarzenegger is expected to release a plan this Friday to eliminate
the state’s gas tax, which has specific mandates to provide funding for
transit, and replace it with an excise tax that would not have transit
funding requirements. The net effect would be 5 cents less per gallon
at the pump and continued decimation of state funding for transit
operators.

Erin Steva, the transportation advocate for CALPIRG, makes the case that the Governor’s end run on state law is not just bad policy, but politically tone deaf, "  Raiding public transportation funding is the wrong move. We need more
transit, not less to keep our cities moving and our economy strong.
Cutting public transit funding goes against California’s commitment to
fight global warming pollution and clearly violates the voter’s will to
expand, not contract, transit."

"It’s what we feared," said California Transit Association (CTA)
spokesperson Jeff Wagner told SF Streetsblog earlier this week. "This proposal circumvents both the law and
the will of the voters. The court ruled they had to stop doing it, so
what do they do? They change the laws that were in place. Time and
again, transit has been the piggy bank they’ve gone to to fill
in the gaps in the other stuff. It’s shortsighted and it’s in blatant
contravention of the voters’ will."

Wagner said the CTA was tempered in its reaction to its victory in
court last year, saying they assumed the governor could come up with a
scheme to continue taking money from transit to plug the general fund
hole. "We knew that our lawsuit victory would provide us with some
reprieve, but we were cautious. We knew that it wasn’t beneath this
administration."

Locally, transit advocates were just as outraged.

Transit Coalition executive director Bart Reed tells LA Streetsblog, "We’re basing these comments on rumors, but unfortunately with this Governor rumors often turn out to get worse as they get closer to policy.  The Governor is disingenuos when he claims to be green on transportation.  The only time he’s green is when a special interest lobbies to turn a brown project green or when it comes to promoting cars that are slightly more clean than others.  The stats are there showing that transit is greener, more efficient and more cost efficient than even the cleanest cars, yet he proposes another slap in the face to transit riders.  Hopefully this proposal never makes it to the legislature, but even if it does let’s hope the Senate and Assembly reject it before a court has to slap the Governor in the face again."

Southern California Transit Advocates Dana Gabbard was just as critical, but also offered some hope for the future, "I think this will just add momentum to the efforts of the transit
industry to have a initiative on the ballot later this year that
creates a firewall to protect transit funding from further raids. I
know SO.CA.TA at its meeting Saturday will discuss our plans to help
gather signatures!

And I think my previous comments pretty well says it all.

All of this is regrettable and certainly in the long run the
shortchanging of transit is shortsighted. We should be preparing for
the future but many officials persist in praising transit while robbing
it of the means of being able to handle a surge of demand when gas
prices spike again. So frustrating! "

However, Damien Goodmon suggests a practical lobbying solution for transit boosters, "Perhaps the Governator needs to be reminded that in a few months now
he’ll no longer have his police escort.  More transit cuts mean more
hoopdies on the road and more traffic backups from broken down cars.  We must appeal to his personal selfishness."

As this plan continues to move forward, check back here for more details, reaction and analysis.

Despite
continued cash flow crunches facing nearly every transit operator in
the state, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said absolutely nothing about
transportation or fixing transit’s woes in his State of the State
address today. Transit operators are still bracing for the expected budget proposal
this Friday that would thwart the state Supreme Court’s ruling
declaring the governor’s raids on transit funds to fill general fund
coffers illegal.

The Governor’s proposal would eliminate
the sales tax on gasoline and replace it with an excise tax, in the
process eliminating an enormous transit funding mechanism and making it
cheaper to drive.

In a state where nearly half of all
CO2 pollution comes from private cars, and despite national trends
toward fewer cars on the road, the governor said nothing about
providing affordable and reliable transit options. Instead of
supporting proven greener transportation, he quoted from a recent Time Magazine article heralding California’s innovative spirit in clean tech energy:

(California)
is still a dream state. In fact, the pioneering megastate…is still the
cutting edge of the American future — economically, environmentally,
demographically, culturally, and maybe politically. It is the greenest
and the most diverse state, the most globalized…when the world is
heading in all those directions. It’s also an unparalleled engine of
innovation, the mecca of high tech, biotech and now clean tech.

"The
governor’s silence on transit in the State of the State highlights his
lack of commitment to creating a robust economy in California that
meets the vision of the governor’s proclaimed belief in the Green
Economy," said Nick Caston of TransForm, a smart growth and transit
advocacy organization. "The Governor’s rhetoric has in the past ignored
his destructive policies taking transit services from our communities."

Incentives that
make driving more desirable and cut into transit funding are a double
whammy that imperils many of California’s new carbon-reduction and
anti-sprawl legislation, said Erin Steva, transportation advocate for
the California Public Interest Research Group.

"California
already has the worst congestion in the country," she said. "California
often has led the way on numerous issues, including climate change.  If
we’re going to see through those improvements, it needs to include
transit.  The leading cause of global warming emissions in this state
is transportation and it is the segment that is growing most quickly." 

Rather than cut funding from more efficient modes, she said, "We need to put our money where our mouth is."

In October of last year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a rather innocuous piece of legislation with a hidden message telling the bill's author, by way of reading the first letter of each line, to f-u-c-k y-o-u.  Childish? Yes.  However, millions of transit riders must have been wondering what the big deal was. The alleged environmentalist has been giving them the same message for years in much more explicit terms.

However, with a ruling by the California Supreme Court ruling that the Governor's consistent raiding of transit operating funds was illegal, many assumed we were safe from the former Terminator's disgust with public transit.  The Times reports that anyone who doubts the Governor's ability to make transit riders lives miserable was wrong:

The California Supreme Court seemingly put an end to the transit raids only months ago, ordering the state to repay the more than $3 billion in gasoline sales taxes that it had taken since 2007.

Instead, the Schwarzenegger administration has crafted a plan to again take the funds -- just in a different way.

The governor would eliminate the sales tax on gas and, at the same time, impose a new per-gallon excise tax. Drivers would pay about 5 cents less per gallon at the pump. The excise tax would not be subject to voter-approved spending requirements for public transit.

Well, you have to admire his chutzpah if nothing else.  He continues to have the guts to masquerade as an environmental reformer while proposing a cut to both the gas tax and transit subsidies at the same time.  Perhaps the plot of his first movie out of office could be how killer robots from the future kill off humans by replacing elected officials who care about the environment with clones who are only out to destroy it.

Streetsblog will continue to cover this story as it moves from a report in the Times to the floor of the legislature and beyond.

Last weekend, in the wake of Governor Schwarzenegger’s signing of a law exempting the largest development project in Southern California since the L.A. Colliseum, the drumbeat began for more exemptions for projects that are going to be a lot less destructive to the environment.  The OC Register opines in a Saturday editorial:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last week may have cemented his eventual
legacy as the man who brought professional football back to Los
Angeles. But a better characterization might be that he gave one
business a pass on having to follow laws that he otherwise vigorously
supports, and, depending on how the process unfolds, that he put
taxpayers in harm’s way…

…Gov. Schwarzenegger made the case for one business that we’ve been
making for all businesses – that environmental mandates have grown so
severe they unfairly restrict business growth and add significantly to
cost. If it works for Mr. Roski, why not for Mr. or Ms. Every
Entrepreneur?

As a supporter of strong environmental reviews, I can’t help but agree with their central point.  If you’re going to exempt a mega-project such as the stadium, enforcing the law on smaller developments seems unfair.  Strike another victory for our Environmental Governor!

The editorial goes on to mention that the claimed economic benefits of sports stadiums rarely meet the boasts of officials before the stadium is built.   However, as a supporter of gutting environmental regulations, the paper doesn’t mention that the only people that officially reviewed the environmental documents for the project were the City Council representing eight hundred people in the City of Industry.  They also didn’t mention that Industry’s Mayor and other elected leaders are going to reap a windfall in contracts when the stadium is completed.

Opponents of expanding the I-710 near Pasadena to connect the road to the I-210 received a double dose of bad news in recent weeks from both the courts and our environmental governor.  First, Governor Scwarzenegger, between lecturing his wife about safe driving, found time to veto Senator Gil Cedillo's legislation that would have required any highway expansion in this area to take the form of a tunnel.  Second, a state court ruled against the lawsuits brought by South Pasadena and La Canada Flintridge against the inclusion of funding for the I-710 expansion in Measure R.

First, let's check in with our Greenhouse Gas fighting Governor.  Senator Gil Cedillo's legislation, SB 545, would have required that any expansion of the 710 for the purpose of connecting to the I-210 would have to be below ground.  In addition to saving homes, there was a strong political reason for the legislation; it would have ended a fifty year old dispute between South Pasadena and Alhambra.  Alhambra has been one of the leading communities fighting for the expansion, hoping that the increased freeway would reduce traffic on its surface streets.  South Pasadena is one of the cities strongly opposing the project.

Despite the overwhelming local support for the legislation, the Governor vetoed the legislation saying:

This bill is unnecessary. The project development process currently being undertaken by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is the appropriate vehicle to determine the scope and feasibility of a project to address the transportation needs in the I-710 corridor. This process provides ample opportunity for public involvement and input. There is absolutely no need to enact statutory restrictions that would mandate certain project design options or remove others from potential consideration.

While I'm sure Metro appreciates the vote of confidence, it should be noted that the transit agency supported SB 545 and sent representatives to Cedillo's press event celebrating the bill's passage.  Opponents and proponents of the project both viewed Schwarzenegger's veto as a bad thing.  Supporters wanted to quell the opposition of South Pasadena and opponents wanted one less thing to worry about.

One last note, neither Schwarzenegger or Cedillo cited the environmental benefits of the massive expansion in their statements.  Perhaps the 2004 report by Environmental Defense that labeled the expansion "one of the dumbest highway projects in the country" is getting through.

Meanwhile, a judge in Santa Barbara dismissed a lawsuit from the cities of South Pasadena and La Canada Flintridge that the inclusion of the 710 expansion in Measure R was illegal because the project did not have a selected route or needed environmental clearances.  The judge ruled that the $780 million set aside for the project did not require Metro to build the project, especially if it never receives the needed clearances.  If the project doesn't move forward, the $780 million would most likely move to another highway project so it didn't change the allocation by mode that was part of the compromise that created Measure R.

The rejection of the lawsuit caught officials with the plaintiff cities off guard.  Representatives from South Pasadena testified at last week's Metro Board meeting, a day before the lawsuit was rejected, that they expected the 710 project to be removed from Measure R's expenditure plan.

Photo by Amber Rhea via Flickr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new survey released yesterday by the Public Policy Institute of California has been getting a lot of play in the press because of the strong support Californians are showing for Greenhouse Gas reduction programs, even in the midst of the current recession and budget crisis.

Often times when politicians talk about climate change, they tend to leave transportation reform out of the conversation; choosing to look at hybrid and other low- and zero-emission cars as the solution. However, the PPIC asked Californians what they thought about transit expansion and gas prices.

The results? Californians are tired of paying such a high price for gas and want more alternatives. From the PPIC's press release:

Californians (69%) are less likely than last year (76%) to report that gas prices are a financial hardship. But large majorities of some groups do, particularly Latinos (85%) and residents with annual household incomes under $40,000 (83%). And although the percentage of Californians who drive to work alone has declined 12 points since 2002, commuting patterns among employed Californians (63% drive alone, 16% carpool, 9% take public transit) are similar to last year...

...Three in four residents (77%) say the state should focus transportation planning dollars on expanding public transit and using the existing network more efficiently, up 10 points since August 2004 (67%). Just 18 percent say the state should focus on building freeways and highways.

Over at The Switchboard, the Natural Resources Defense Council's official blog, they break down those numbers for transit support by region, and what might be a surprise to some, but shouldn't be after the support for Measure R, Los Angeles is actually slightly above average when it comes to transit support.

The Switchboard goes on to state the obvious...with Californians crying out for more and better transit options; Governor Schwarzenegger and Caltrans continue to push for massive highway projects while fighting desperately in court for the right to rob funds dedicated by taxpayers to transit projects.

And Californians instinctively recognize not only the importance of transit, but the need to make our entire transportation system more efficient.  The environmental benefits of such an approach are made clear in a new publication, co-sponsored by NRDC, and released earlier this week: Moving Cooler: Transportation Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.   This first-of-its-kind study looks at nearly 50 measures and combinations thereof, assessing their potential to save fuel, reduce heat-trapping pollution and save consumers money. 

California’s policymakers would be well-advised to read Moving Cooler.  As the Kinks said, Give the People What They Want.

Since I appreciate a good Kinks reference as much as the next person, I'll leave it at that.

Now that the Governor and legislature have finally reached an agreement on the state budget, city transportation staff can breate a sigh of relief. The deal announced by Mayor Villaraigosa and Council President Garcetti that ended Schwarzenegger's plan to "borrow" against local gas taxes that were, of course, dedicated towards transportation.

While the Mayor was celebrating his victory on Twitter, Garcetti sent out an email outlining what exactly the deal struck between cities and our state leaders means for local transportation:

The outpouring of support from our community last month made a difference during the Legislature's tense negotiations. Our letters to state legislators helped protect a critical source of revenue for local municipalities.

As I noted when I last wrote you, for every gallon of gas you put in your car, 3 of the 18 cents that you pay in non-federal gas taxes goes to cities and local governments to help pay to maintain roads and fill potholes. It's a tax that has always gone to local governments so that we can repair our cities' streets, and if it had been taken it would have seriously restricted our ability to perform even routine road maintenance for the foreseeable future.

If saving road reconstruction funds exactly get you jumping for joy, a statement from the LADOT to Streetsblog implies that if the state had successfully raided the local gas taxes could have imperiled the city's ability to paint bike lanes and other street markings:

...our Department uses 'gas tax' monies to pay for the speed hump program and for re-striping of streets (after Public Works Dept re-paves.) The bulk of the gas tax funding for street repairs actually goes to Dept Of Public Works, which re-paves roads, fills potholes and reconstructs curbs and sidewalks.

So there you go, anyone looking for a silver lining in the state's massive budget cuts can at least take solace that they didn't place us farther behind when trying to get the city to paint bike lanes and other road markings.

Last week, the Times announced the details of a an early budget agreement that including a forced sacrifice for city transportation agencies, "Cities and counties would lose another $1 billion in transportation money." Knowing that the state wasn't planning on raiding its transit operations subsidy anymore, some fretted that this newest plan would endanger Measure R and other local alternative transportation projects. However, there was never any discussion about raiding local sales tax revenues.

Anyone that has been reading LA Streetsblog for any period of time knows that we haven’t been shy about criticizing Governor Schwarzenegger for talking a good game about the environment but never asking Californians, including himself, to make any changes in their lives when it comes to transportation.

Well, this time we have to give the Governor his due.  The Times reported over the weekend that in response to a Caltrans report about waste, fraud and abuse in the state’s take-home car program for employees that the Governor is ordering a 15% reduction in the state’s take-home fleet.

“Today I am taking action to get rid of waste and abuse in the state’s vehicle fleet and ordering my administration to reduce the [entire] fleet by 15%, eliminate all wasteful home storage permits and sell surplus cars at our state garage sale next month,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

The fleet reduction will save at least $24.1 million the first year, according to the Department of General Services.

Of course, the state response to this Caltrans report shines a harsh light on Los Angeles’ less tough response to a similar report by then-Comptroller Laura Chick showed similar waste earlier this year.  Rather than cutting the fleet to a  more-manageable size, Villaraigosa declared he was “putting the brakes” on abuse by putting a freeze on permits for new staff members and required more paperwork before filling one’s tank for free at city pumps.

But let’s give credit where credit is due, congratulations to Governor Schwarzenegger for taking a stand to save taxpayers millions of dollars and engage in some good transportation policy at the same time.  Now if only we could get him to do something about his jet-commute from L.A. to Sacramento for work or his chauffeured trip across the street from the Capitol to a hotel across the street on days he stays in Sacramento.

The California Transit Association, that called the winter budget deal that zeroed out the state's operations assistance program "Armageddon," were the plaintiffs in the case that resulted in yesterday's big win for transit.  They celebrated and explained the court decision yesterday.

While the Court claims no authority to order repayment of funds re-routed in past budget deals, the decision means that continued diversion of voter-mandated transit funding is illegal going forward. And that means that approximately $1 billion earmarked for the General Fund as part of current negotiations must be restored to transit.

“The ruling clearly states that the rip-offs are illegal,” said Joshua Shaw, Executive Director of the California Transit Association and lead plaintiff in the suit that was originally filed over $1.19 billion taken from the Public Transportation Account (PTA) as part of the 2007-08 budget agreement. “It says they’ve been illegal since before 2007, and it says that the definition of mass transportation that lawmakers have adopted since then to mask these diversions is illegal.”

Unsurprisingly, the Schwarzenegger Administration is already promising an appeal and is asking the appeals court to stay its decision pending the outcome.

Update: Dana Gabbard of So.CA.TA. sends the text of the decision.  It can be viewed here.