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 chauferred 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.

Caltrain parked in SF. Photo: smif/flickr

Last month, Streetsblog we saw that thanks to some creative accounting, Governor Schwarzenegger had found a new and creative way to rob transit even after he effectively eliminated the transit subsidy that exists in the state budget.  Because the gas tax is producing more funds than expected, hundreds of millions of dollars in transit funds appeared in state coffers.  However, as quickly as it appeared, the Governor proposed spending it on the giant gaping hole that in the state budget.

News comes from CALPIRG, that last week a joint budget committee met to decide what to do with the Governor's proposal.  Via an email to their members, CALPIRG reports that there was signifigant opposition to the Governor's proposal from the Democratic Caucus:

On Thursday the Legislature's Budget Conference Committee took up the Governor’s proposal to shift another $336 million in “spillover” funds away from transit to the General Fund. Senators Ducheny and Leno, and Assembly Members Evans (Chair) and Blumenfield all made substantial comments reflecting their distaste for the proposal, their acknowledgment that the February budget and the last several budgets have decimated transit funding, and their desire to find a solution to fund transit operations. 

But the battle is far from over.  After the jump you can find the entire text of CALPIRG's appeal to members to help fight further rollbacks in the legislature.

As most of you know, the legislature has raided transit operations funding for other general fund needs. As a result transit services have been significantly reduced, and fares risen, in cities throughout the state. As the price of gasoline goes back up, so has the portion of the sales tax on gasoline legally dedicated to transit operations, but the legislature could raid 100% of those new funds unless they hear from supporters.

Please contact your legislators and urge them to SUPPORT the Conference Committee’s direction to find a way to restore SOME 2009-10 transit funding.

Here is a link to detailed information about transit fare hikes and service cuts throughout the state, job losses, and transit capital projects that have been delayed: http://www.caltransit.org/files/resources/07%20STA%20member%20survey.doc

Here are more details from last Thursday's hearing, from Josh Shaw at the California Transit Association:

Senator Ducheny specifically asked for the item to be kept open, and that the Committee and staff look for a way to save $100 million for transit, through savings elsewhere or some other development or breakthrough. Chair Evans said they all knew they would need to eventually take “most if not this entire source,” but she finally agreed to keep it open in deference to her colleagues’ remarks. Budget staff was asked to consider ways to provide some amount of funding for transit, and some justification for the amount and to possibly include this discussion in the open local government discussion.

According to the California Transit Association, in a press release forwarded by Kymberleigh Richards of So.CA.TA.,  there was more damage he could do.  An unexpected budget surplus created a lifeline for transit, and Schwarzenegger was there with the scissors to cut it:

...the governor apparently couldn't pass up another opportunity to inflict more damage on public transportation in California. The revised budget proposal diverts another $336 million in transit-dedicated "spillover" revenue to instead cover transit bond debt service, which is by law a General Fund obligation.

"It's just more of the same from a governor whose disdain for public transit has by now been well-established," said a beleaguered Joshua W. Shaw, Executive Director of the California Transit Association. "Just when you think there's nothing left to take, he finds a way to dig the hole even deeper."

Since the last time the state created estimates on gas tax revenue sometime in the winter, higher than expected revenue from the state's gas tax actually produced a surplus of several hundred million dollars. During the 2007 budget compromises, Schwarzengger agreed that any spillover would be split 50-50 between the General Fund and the Public Transportation Account.  The P.T.A. can be used to fund either capital projects or to restore some of the state's now-missing operating funds.

However, yesterday Schwarzenegger ignored the agreement when he announced that the surplus is going to pay off bond debt and all of the $336 million was going to the general fund anyway before this budget maneuver.  Given the contempt the jet-setting Governor seems to hold public transit in, it's hardly a surprise that he could "forget" an agreement reached two whole years ago or that he found a new way to rob transit agencies of funds they've been promised for years.  According to the C.T.A., the state has diverted over $5 billion in transit funds over the last decade, $3 billion in the last two years alone.

Last Friday, local media outlets participated in a rally for the Sepulveda Pass Widening Project, that would widen the I-405 to connect carpool lanes between the I-10 and I-101, with Governor Schwarzenegger, Mayor Villaraigosa and various other union and public officials.  Using an uncritical media to amplify their claims, our elected leadership promoted the largest road widening project to use stimulus funds as a Godsend to not just I-405 commuters, but also the environment, the economy and even alternative transportation.

Doing little more than copying press releases and recording public statements, the LA Times, Daily News, CBS and LA Now promoted the project and either didn't ask or didn't receive answers for the questions that would have challenged the local conventional wisdom that America Needs More Highways, even though we can't maintain the ones we already have.

Instead of uncritically passing along the press release ready estimate that the project will save 7 million travel hours, the press should have asked questions such as:

Since other major road widening projects in the area are causing congestion during their construction, and because transportation agencies are reporting that additional highway capacity actually brings more cars to the road, are commuters going to see any net reduction in commuting time?

Governor, since you're standing here promoting this project, should we assume that you're going to guarantee that the state is going to supply $614 million passed by voters in bonds for the project so that it doesn't lose the $200 million in federal dollars currently allocated?

Mayor, do you see any contradiction between your professed desire to get people out of single occupancy vehicles and your promotion of the largest freeway widening to receive stimulus funds?  After all, this project is going to make it easier for single-occupancy vehicles to commute by removing other cars from the regular traffic lanes.

Any other questions I'm missing?  Feel free to leave them in the comments section.

Several states, including Oregon, Washington, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Texas are studying the feasibility of the transition and what infrastructure and technology would be needed to plan for a VMT tax.  In 2001, Oregon DOT (ODOT) launched a study called the the Oregon Mileage Fee Concept (PDF), and in April of 2006, ODOT tested GPS systems in vehicles belonging to several hundred volunteers.  Based on those findings, Oregon governor Theodore R. Kulongoski this year called for outfitting every Oregon vehicle with a GPS device that would assess a tax at the pump based on how many miles had been driven, regardless of the fuel efficiency of the vehicle.

In California last month, Assembly member Nancy Skinner of Alameda and Contra Costa counties introduced AB 1135, which would require every motorist to report their odometer reading when they register or renew their vehicle.  The state DMV would provide overall VMT data publicly. It would theoretically be available through fairly specific tracts to aid planning, though whether it would be by block face, census tract, voter district, or county has yet to be determined.

As the bill points out, accurate VMT data is essential not only for immediate compliance with the greenhouse gas reductions mandated in AB 32, but also for smarter regional planning and the reduction of sprawl mandated in SB 375: 

More accurate data about vehicle-miles-traveled--the mileage driven annually by Californians--would provide essential information to guide local transportation and land use planning. Location of transit corridor improvements, light rail, bicycle paths, and high-occupancy freeway lanes now depend on the estimates done by various state agencies, but all of these projects would benefit from more accurate data. Better data would also provide more consistent local and statewide estimates for transportation planning, city planning, and air quality planning efforts. The data would be essential in establishing long-term, historical trends in vehicle use, traffic congestion, energy consumption, and air quality measures, including ozone precursor pollutants and greenhouse gases.

This ABAG graph from a Joint Policy Committee presentation shows steady rise of VMT

One criticism of moving to a VMT tax from a gas tax is that the person who purchased a more fuel efficient vehicle shouldn't have to pay the same as the person who still drives a big SUV.  By that logic, if a consumer wants to drive a vehicle that pollutes more, they need to pay more at the pump.

Carli Paine, TransForm's Transportation Policy Director, said that line of reasoning was flawed. "Even people who drive highly economical vehicles have an impact on the roadways and ought to pay their share for upkeep. A Prius contributes to traffic congestion just like a Mustang, but is paying less into the account that addresses congestion and roadway wear and tear."

Paine argued that odometer reporting would likely not be the final method used for monitoring VMT, but that the bill would allow planners to set targets to promote transit-oriented development (TOD) and smart growth.  She said that living in close proximity to one's place of work cuts down on emissions and fuel consumption better than any vehicle technology can.

"It's hard to see how we can be serious about setting regional targets for reducing driving, without knowing how much driving is really taking place.  This bill would provide a significant boost to our efforts to curb global warming pollution associated with driving and land use."

Paine suggested that a Hummer driver living within a short distance of work would use less gas than a Prius driver who commuted 120 miles each way, as illustrated in this graph:

ABAG graph showing the difference in gas consumption by commute distance and vehicle type

Another criticism of altering the gas tax to a VMT tax centers on the concern that government would know too much about individual driving patterns if every vehicle had GPS or other tracking technology.  Those critics have complained that placing GPS in vehicles to collect VMT data, or even self-reporting of odometer information, would violate privacy rights, though AB 1135 explicitly states that personal information would not be public record.

In a recent Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) meeting, several commissioners brought up privacy concerns.  MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger explained that a good deal of information is already collected through routine smog checks, self-reporting to insurance companies, and Fast Trak and Translink monitoring, etc.

MTC spokesperson Randy Rentschler said at the same meeting that "to some extent, this is an imposition on motorists, but we have to get a good sense of how many vehicle miles traveled we have... as [transportation] is the biggest source of CO2 in the state.  FasTrak and Translink have privacy issues, but those databases exist.  When we are given subpoenas by the police, that's the only time that we will release private data."

MTC Commissioner and Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates said: "The privacy issue is important, but the information is necessary and needed to plan and make future decisions.  I think this is an important bill because we need to get VMT and the methods that we use now are so complicated and arcane.  We make assumptions about the impacts of TOD; now we could actually start verifying these things."

The MTC Commission endorsed the legislation at their March meeting. Commissioners Spring and Worth were the only two members who voted against it, citing privacy concerns.  Scuttlebut in the hall suggested they understood this was the first step toward a VMT tax and they were positioning themselves against the bill to please their suburban driving constituents.

This week Governor Schwarzenegger joined Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Meet the Press.  A partial clip of the Governor's statement on transportation can be found above and the full segment can be viewed at the Meet the Press website; but for those at work, here's what the governor had to say about traffic and funding after each politician's opening statement:

Well I think that, as Governor Rendell has just mentioned, in the latest polls it shows that people are very interested in rebuilding America and they're willing also to pay for it.  Look, everyone gets stuck in traffic.  There's no reason we should get stuck in traffic.  I mean, what we have to do is have a plan in America to see how do we move goods and people around?  Is it through rail, through High Speed Rail, I'm a big believer in High Speed Rail.  Is it through roads?  Which direction should we go?

People want to move faster and companies want to move their goods much faster.  We want to upgrade all those things rather than being stuck with that.

After a question from David Gregory about possible financing of these projects, and specifically a gas tax, the governor responds:

I think it's something to look at...that's the next question: How do you finance all this?  I think the important thing is that there is a willingness amongst the people to pay for it.  It doesn't all have to be done through public money.  We are talking about Public-Private Partnerships.  There are many companies that are interested in coming in and financing the High Speed Rail and other rail systems, light rail and so on.

First, it's funny that the Governor can't bring himself to say the words "gas tax" even when asked directly about it.  Second, as much as I agree that we need to improve America's infrastructure, the Governor is missing the point that we need to reinvest in fixing our crumbling transportation infrastructure in addition to or before investing in massive expansion of infrastructure.  CALPIRG detailed why stimulus funds for Californians should be used to "Fix-It-First" and there's no reason that a similar push shouldn't be made to spend "regular" federal transportation dollars in the same way.

And last, Governor, I don't get "stuck in traffic" very often because I don't drive or ride in a car very often.  Don't forget there's a lot of us that have opted out of congestion either by biking or taking transit.  We deserve some of those federal transportation dollars too.

Governor Schwarzenegger Prepares to Address His Constituents via Calcars.org

Proving that a lone State Senator can wield a lot of influence when a single vote decides the state of the budget, GOP Sen. Abel Maldonado cast the last needed vote in the State Senate to pass the new state budget for the next 16 months.  Maldanado, a long-supporter of Open-Primary elections, got a concession from Democratic lawmakers that would change the way elections are conducted provided it receives the support of voters in the next election.

In other words, the passage of the budget was so important to legislative leaders, they were willing to shake-up the electoral system that put them in office in the first place.  And yet...not one legislature from Los Angeles or any other metropolis was willing to stand up for transit operating funds.  As we've already discussed, the new budget reduces the state operations subsidy for transit to $0 for the foreseeable future, which could force Metro to cut up to 160,000 hours of bus service. 

Streetsblog will keep an eye on what legislators show up at the inevitable service cut hearings to complain about bus cuts in their area.

To add insult to injury, the state did come through to protect gas prices as best they can.  The proposed twelve cent a gallon gas tax was removed from the final budget, with corresponding cuts promised in the prison budget.  Another typical message from Sacramento and our Greenhouse Gas hating Governor, keep the gas tax low and force transit agencies to raise fares and cut service.  The total gas tax increase that would have saved the operating subsidy would be less than half a cent increase per gallon.

Lest anyone accuse me of being too harsh on the Governor's demagogery on Greenhouse Gas, the state also postponed a ruling that would have required retrofitting some industrial vehicles to reduce their emissions.  As Mary Nichols, head of the state's Air Resource Board, told the Times, "There are people who will die because of this delay."

But at least they'll save some money on gas.

Two articles written over the weekend highlight just how grim the new state budget is to transit riders, especially those in Los Angeles County.  For those of you that took off early on Friday, the Governor and legislature's compromise budget, the one that continaully falls one vote away from passing, would completely eliminate the state's transit operating subsidy for transit agencies.

The first piece was written by Kymberleigh Richards of the Southern California Transit Advocates and a Board Member of Metro's San Fernando Valley Service Sector for the Daily News.  Richards points out that California voters, especially those in Southern California, have voted repeatedly to fund transit expansion and that the Governor's frequent raids, enabled by the State Assembly and Senate, are a slap in the face to every voter that has ever voted for transit.  Especially those that supported Measure R.

Guess what will be tapped to backfill that loss? That's right - the Measure R funds that the voters approved to increase service but will now be used just to maintain the status quo.

Making matters worse, the Measure R operating subsidy won't be enough to replace all of the lost state funds, so Metro may still have to cut as much as 160,000 hours of bus service next year to bridge the gap. So, even though the voters of Los Angeles County voted for an increase in service, the lawmakers in Sacramento will make it necessary for Metro to reduce service instead.

Making matters worse, we can now see the impressive planned bus service increases that Metro would be proposing if the state wasn't destroying the ability of transit agencies to expand.  At Metro Rider, Wad published the list of bus expansions that Metro was planning before the state budget crisis threatened to withhold over $230 million of transit subsidies.  If you're a masochist and want a more complete picture of what Sacramento's posturing is costing us, head over to Metro Rider and have yourself a good cry.

Photo: Wad/Flickr

There are multiple villains in this story, but the blackest hat is reserved for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  While the governor was out-in-front supporting a glitzy high speed rail line to connect San Francisco to San Diego last November; this budget will cause major fare hikes and service reductions from around the state.  As Joshua Shaw, executive director of the California Transit Association notes in a press release:

We will see fare increases. We will see service cuts. We will see layoffs.  I can say that with certainty simply because we’ve already seen those things happening even before the state apparently decided to abandon its responsibility to fund public transportation.

Of course, the Governor couldn't slash transit funds without the support of the state legislature.   While the League of California Environmental Voters, Environmental Defense and the National Resources Defense Council placed the blame at the feet of a "radical minority" of Republicans who used the state's super-majority requirement for any budget to effectively stall democratic efforts, other transit groups blamed the Democratic majority for not not holding firm on protecting the environment. 

In the short term, readers should call their legislators and demand that transit funding be restored to the budget.  In the long term, the environmental groups want to change the super-majority law so that a small group of legislators can't hijack the entire budget process.

So what does this mean locally?  While Metro promised that there would be no fare hikes in the next fiscal year and their proposed service adjustments and cuts are modest compared to previous years; their current budget is balanced assuming that the agency would receive $227 million in operating assistance from the STA.  Last year, the MTA proposed cuts to 20 service lines in a move that was universally panned by advocates, the local press, and even Mayor Villaraigosa as "draconian."  Those cuts were proposed to close a $100 million dollar funding gap, less than half of what Metro will lose if the state eliminates the STA as currently planned.  While the Mayor and the rest of the Metro Board were able to hold off on the service cuts last year, the serious cuts the proposed cuts could seem small compared to what is coming.

In short, advocates rallying to save proposed cuts on lines such as Northeast LA's "Line to Everywhere," are facing a much steeper hill today than they were earlier in the week.  While the full scope of how Metro will deal with a nearly quarter billion hole in its operations budget isn't yet known, it's almost certain that the cuts they proposed before Schwarzenegger's irresponsible budgetdeal will be made and that more cuts could be coming.

If Metro wishes to reprogram more Measure R funds to help them fill the funding hole, they would need to go back to the voters to move funds.  One of the ways Metro received such high support for their proposed transit tax was to make sure that these funds couldn't be reprogrammed without another public vote.

With the state officially abandoning any role in funding transit, at least one person must be smiling today.  Former State Senator Tom McClintock, who finished well behind Schwarzenegger in the 2003 recall election, ran partially as an advocate of greater highway and reduced transit spending.  Meanwhile, the victorious Schwarzenegger claimed to be a champion in the battle against Greenhouse Gas and Global Warming as he cruised to victory.  I guess the joke is on any environmentalist who voted for Schwarzenegger as McClintock's dream of a state that turns its back on public transit has become a reality.

You're not going to catch me either crowing or complaining about the two major transportation taxes, a near doubling of the vehicle registration fee and a twelve cent increase in the state's gas tax.  While a raise in either of these fees are overdue, it's galling that despite a dramatic increase in transportation costs, there will be no increase in transportation services.  In fact, the state will be cutting $536 million in transit assistance, all of it would have gone towards operations and keeping fares as low as possible. 

Combined, these two fee increases will bring in $3 billion annually.  It's too bad that neither the Governor or legislative negotiators were willing to increase either of those fees by just a little more to protect transit costs.  The California Transit Association warns the Times what could happen to agencies under this proposal:

Jeff Wagner, a spokesman for the California Transit Assn., warned that such a big hit could mean fare hikes and service reductions. Transit agencies, he said, have "been cut to the bone already."

Since it's unlikely the governor would consider increasing the vehicle license fee, Schwarzenegger made a big show of cutting the vehicle license fee from 2 percent to .65 percent in his first act as governor, it is unlikely that he will allow an increase in the vehicle license fee beyond the proposed 1.15 percent increase.  However, if the government would increase the fee to 1.40 percent, it would provide enough new revenue to avoid the cuts in transit funding.  Similarly, another half cent increase in the fuel tax would accomplish the same level of revenue generation.  Dedicate those funds to transit and all of a sudden there's no more need to cut transit operating funds.

It looks bad for a governor who claims to be obsessed with reducing greenhouse gas to habitually cut funding to transit.  For a relatively small cost, he could avoid having to do that altogether.

(Editor's note:  A previous version of this story placed the transit cut at $459 million, as reported by the Los Angels Times.  This new number comes from T4America.)

Recently, Governor Schwarzenegger has come under fire for calling on President Obama to relax environmental rules to help stimulate the economy.   However, new proposed environmental standards may finally be changing the way the government looks at transportation and development. 

Anytime a development requires a permit from the state government, it must meet certain standards under the California Environmental Quality Act.  Critics have charged that the CEQA standards, because of the state's seeming belief that the number of cars on the road has little to do with pollution standards.  However, the new proposed rules seem to start going back on that theory by eliminating state parking requirements and motorized Level of Service requirements. Could the state finally be pulling back from its car culture planning paradigm?

After the jump, you can see the proposed changes.  If you want to let the state know how much you like the proposed regulations, you can send comments to CEQA.GHG@opr.ca.gov,  but make sure you do it by the close of business on Monday, July 26.  For a full list of all the changes, click here.

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: 

a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., rResult in a substantial increase in eitherthe number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on the roads, or congestion at intersections) roadway vehicle volume or vehicle miles traveled?

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 

cb) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 

dc) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 

ed) Result in inadequate emergency access? 

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 

ef) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Photo: Timothy Felsrow/Flickr

When democratic lawmakers presented their proposal for balancing the state budget, there was one little thing they didn't mention: It would have all but eliminated funding for public transportation -- not just next year but in perpetuity.

The proposal was vetoed last week by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, but that doesn't mean it's going away. Moreover, the governor's plan is even worse for public transit; the Democrats want to keep distributing about $150 million the state receives from a tax on diesel fuel to transit agencies, while the governor aims to get the state completely out of the business of funding transit. The rush to jettison passenger rail and buses as the state tries to cope with a severe budget crisis counters not only the will of the voters, who have repeatedly demonstrated that they greatly value public transit, but the state's ongoing crusade to reduce its traffic and pollution woes...

...So Democrats found a clever way around that rule: eliminate the gas taxes, replace them with a user fee that's 13 cents a gallon higher than the current taxes, then raise sales and income taxes by an amount equivalent to the old gas taxes. They can claim that they can raise taxes with less than a two-thirds vote as long as they reduce other taxes by an equal amount.

The problem with this shell game is that user fees have strings attached: They can only be spent on things that directly benefit those who pay the fee. So a gasoline fee could only be spent on roads, highways and other systems used by drivers -- and not on public transit.

This is a pretty cynical move.  Take funds people voted for transit projects and move things around to pay for the kinds of highway expansion projects that have been encouraging sprawl development, wrecking our air quality and making California a leader in Greenhouse Gas emissions.  The Governor's veto had nothing to do with the transit raid, he doesn't exactly have a strong track record when it comes to defending transit, so if we want to make certain the state doesn't choke transit to save highway funds, everyone needs to get in touch with their legislators now.  For help, click here.

With news out of Washington that the Obama administration's federal stimulus plan isn't going to be passed anytime in the next couple of weeks, our state and local political leaders now have the time to re-think their stimulus lists while the political drama unfolds in Washington, D.C.

At the state level, CALPIRG took its shot at Caltrans' project wish list in a report released just before the new year.  CALPIRG notes that while California's list of projects awaiting federal stimulus money is better than those in many other states, a clear one-third of the requested funds go towards road capacity enhancement projects compared to 37% for transit projects.  CALPIRG urges Caltrans to revise its list to be more like Massachusetts which is only requesting highway funds for fix-it-first projects.

To read the full Caltrans' stimulus list, click here.

The city's list of projects for the stimulus has come under similar fire from local advocates who note that most of the local dollars would be spent on road repaving and very little on alternative transportation projects. 

To read the city's list, click here.

Caltrans executives have stressed that any project lists that are made public should be taken with a grain of salt, because they are drafts and not final.  With the politics in Washington threatening to delay the stimulus package for another month, both Caltrans and city officials still have time to check their lists twice.

Of course, just because the city or state submit a project list, it doesn't mean those projects will ultimately be funded.  That's why it's important to focus advocacy efforts on local, state and federal politicians.

Photo: Barack Obama/Flickr