Streetsblog Los Angeles

A new federal funding and policy bill for transportation could be a boost for California's employment rate, but advocates worry if the Senator rushes or capitulates to some demands from House Republicans, it could have bad long-term effects for the environment and/or pedestrian safety. Image via KABC/Los Angeles

(Note: Much of this story comes from “Making Lawmakers Answer for Pedestrian Deaths in Their Districts” that appeared on Streetsblog Capitol Hill yesterday.)

No matter how you count it, California is a dangerous place for pedestrians.  A recent report by Transportation for America showed that nearly 7,000 pedestrians were killed in California’s streets between 2001 and 2010.  Now, thanks to an addendum to T 4 America’s annual  ”Dangerous by Design” report, we can now quantify the death toll by Congressional district.  After Florida, California has the most districts with high numbers of deaths.  Californians can see how dangerous their Congressional District has been by clicking here.

This places Senator Barbara Boxer in a tough place.  As Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, Boxer is the Senate’s point person in dealing with far more conservative members of the House of Representatives when it comes to creating a transportation funding and policy bill that can pass both chambers and be signed by President Barack Obama.

Keeping pedestrians safe is just one consideration the Senator has to weigh, but advocates hope that it is a top one.  “Having saddled communities with unsafe streets, it would be the height of cruelty for Congress now to take away resources and latitude from local communities trying to improve those conditions and save lives,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America, in a statement.

It's all sunshine for Boxer, Villaraigosa, and Metro...at least when it comes to the politics of the current proposed transportation bill in D.C. Photo: LAist

Yesterday, the United States Senate passed a two-year extension of federal legislation that allows the federal government to fund transportation projects throughout the United States.  While the legislation still needs to be passed by the House of Representatives before being signed by the President, the legislation’s passage allows the Senate, in this case led by Senator Barbara Boxer, to set the agenda and not the House of Representatives, controlled by a more conservative breed of politician.

Locally, reaction to the bill’s passage was nearly unanimously positive.

Leading the charge was Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has re-branded himself nationally as the “transportation mayor” and locally as a leading figure in the call for more rail service for Los Angeles.

“Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. James Inhofe showed remarkable bipartisan leadership on this bill,” writes Villaraigosa, praising his Senator and her Republican counterpart for not falling into partisan fighting that has marred the debate in the House of Representatives.  ”The surface transportation bill passed today by the US Senate will save or create 1.8 million jobs nationwide. The America Fast Forward component can create up to 1 million additional jobs across the country.”

Advocacy groups are giving the passage a big thumbs up as well.  Mobility 21, a group of transportation decision makers in Southern California, and Move L.A., the group pushing the rail expansion agenda in Los Angeles, have each sent out emails encouraging people to write to Congress to get the Senate bill passed.  A copy of the letter from Move L.A. is available at the end of this post.

Taking a more specific tack, the local office of Transportation for America (T4A) praised not just the Senate passage of the bill, but also Senator Boxer for working until the deadline to make sure that the Senate passed as progressive a bill as possible.  Last week, T4A led a group of transportation reform groups in thanking Senator Boxer for working with Senators Ben Cardin and Tom Cochran to draft and accept an amendment that made it easier for municipalities and local planning groups to fund bicycle, pedestrian and other progressive transportation projects.  If you’re interested, you can read the letter, here.  Read more…

Near this Culver City entrance, the Ballona Creek Bike Path is pretty isolated, but other parts of the path run close enough to other streets that cyclists could be forced onto this path, regardless of the time of day. Photo: mo mo foto/flickr

Senator Barbara Boxer is receiving bi-partisan praise for managing to move a transportation policy and funding bill through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in a divided Senate, but she may be facing trouble from a usually supportive constituency back home.

Regardless of how one feels about the new funding formulas proposed in the bill, there is no doubt that a provision in the MAP-21 highway authorization bill entitled “bicycle safety” would dramatically change cyclists’ rights to the road and would force many cyclists to either break the law or put themselves in unsafe situations.  The language in question reads:

BICYCLE SAFETY.—The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall prohibit the use of bicycles on each federally owned road that has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road.

“The provision requires no minimum standard of safety or mobility on the sidepath, and experience shows that such paths are often more dangerous or impractical than on-road bicycling,” explains David Snyder, the executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition.  ”The provision may have been well-intentioned but its result is to reduce safety and it should be removed.”

Jim Baross, with the California Association of Bicycle Organizations explains further.  ”Most of our concern is that adjacent trails, paths or alternative facilities that bicycling might be detoured to do not provide anything near to the efficiency and safety provided by the shoulders of Federal highways,” Baross begins. “At a time when there are significant and important efforts to encourage Americans to use bicycling as a healthy, environmentally appropriate and economic transportation choice, it is ironic that a proposal for prohibiting bicycling, such as this, would be included in a transportation bill.” Read more…

Will an expedited pre-construction process lead to a Leimert Park Station, more lawsuits, or moving up construction by a couple of months? Image: Crenshaw Subway Coalition

Yesterday, the White House announced that the Crenshaw Light Rail Line is one of fourteen projects nationwide selected to be part of an expedited federal review so that construction could proceed more quickly.  This announcement was met with praise from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Senator Barbara Boxer and County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas.  Ridley-Thomas even went so far as to ponder whether accelerating construction could lead to enough funds becoming available to construct the Leimert Park Station that has been environmentally cleared but not funded.

Here’s the official announcement:

Crenshaw/LAX, California

The Crenshaw/LAX project will extend the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (LA Metro) existing Green Line light rail nearer to the Los Angeles International Airport and connect it to the Expo Line light rail.  The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is providing additional targeted technical assistance to shorten the approval time for this project by several months. In addition FTA and LA Metro will pilot FTA’s new streamlined risk assessment approach for major transit projects to ensure risks and associated mitigation measures are identified and addressed promptly.

“I am so pleased that the Obama administration has taken these steps to fast track the Crenshaw/LAX project, so that local communities will have access to improved transit service even sooner than expected,” said Boxer through a press statement.  ”The Crenshaw/LAX Project will provide many much-needed jobs in the construction industry, which has been hard hit in these tough economic times.”

The first question on everyone’s mind is, “how much time can actually be saved by this new process?”   Read more…

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was in Washington, D.C. today to support the dramatic increase in the TIFIA loan program to $1  billion that is proposed in both the House and Senate draft reauthorization bills and is the center plank of the America Fast Forward plan to accelerate transit construction.  By the time he flew out of town, he also through his hat in the ring to be the most popular man about town.  This is Villaraigosa’s 7th trip to the Capital to lobby for and promote portions of the America Fast Forward program.

The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program provides Federal credit assistance in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit to finance surface transportation projects of national and regional significance.  Currently, the program stands at $110 million every year.  When transportation chairs Rep. John Mica (R-FL) and his Senate counterpart Barbara Boxer (D-CA) held field hearings on transportation, Villaraigosa reccomended tripling the program.  Both Mica and Boxer tripled Villaraigosa’s suggestion and are reccomending TIFIA be funded at $1 billion a year.

Researchers estimate that  increasing the TIFIA program to $1 billion will create 500,000 jobs over two years and 1.2 million jobs over six years

So, while Democrats piled on Mica, Villaraigosa joined the Congressman on a conference call earlier this month to defend the bill mainly because of the aforementioned increase in the TIFIA program.  While Senator Inhofe (R-OK) has been the poster-boy for bad environmental policy in part because of his denial of global warming, but earned praise from the Mayor for his leadership working with Boxer on a bi-partisan Senate Bill.  On a conference call with reporters, Villaraigosa congratulated Boxer and Inhofe for working together for “showing leadership to create consensus” around a Senate Bill.  Boxer referred to an earlier hearing, at which the Mayor testified in support of her bill, as a “bi-partisan breakthrough.”

But while he offered praise for Mica’s support for TIFIA, the Mayor is backing the proposal from Boxer, precisely because it maintains current funding levels instead of dropping them.  He told L.A. Streetsblog earlier this week that “we all would like to see a larger bill,” but faced with a choice between the status quo and a 30% cut, Villaraigosa backs the status quo.  He told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works earlier this morning:

And on this point we cannot afford to mince words. I support the approach put forward by this Committee because it maintains current funding levels. Any reduction in funding to our nation’s transportation programs will deal a devastating blow to local projects, local jobs and the national recovery.

According to an analysis by the Federal Highway Administration, a 30% cut to transportation funding would result in a half-million Americans losing their jobs in 2012 in the highway program alone. An additional 130,000 would lose their jobs due to cuts in transit programs.

The Mayor’s full testimony to the Environment and Public Works Committee can be found after the jump.  We’ll have more coverage of today’s hearing from Capitol Hill Streetsblog later today. Read more…

Representative John Mica is at the podium flanked by Villaraigosa and Boxer at last February's "field hearing" on reauthorization held at the V.A. Hospital in West L.A. Photo:Darrell Clarke

Much has been made of the proposal to reauthorize the Federal Transportation Trust Fund that was submitted by Republican Congressman John Mica last week.  The Mica Bill has been criticized by Democrats who feel left out of the proposal, advocates for green transportation options who bristle at the proposed elimination of the bicycle and pedestrian programs and the construction industry shocked by dramatic cuts to an industry that is already seeing higher-than-average unemployment in an era where the unemployment rate is beyond average.

To paint an even uglier picture, SF Streetsblog broke down the bad news for transit agencies and cities throughout California while Capitol Hill Streetsblog just called it a “disaster for transit.”  But there is a surprise winner in the legislation: Los Angeles’ 30/10 plan, aka America Fast Forward.  This plan would allow Los Angeles to build its Measure R transit projects, currently slated to take three decades, to complete their planning, environmental studies and construction in the next decade.  The plan was rebranded because it provides benefits for all areas of the country willing to shoulder a major chunk of the burden of building their own transit.

Back when Mica and California Senator Barbara Boxer held a field hearing on reauthorization back in February, the Congressman was pressed by Mayor Villaraigosa to dramatically expand the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program up to $350 million a year which would be a dramatic increase from the $110 million a year funding level it is currently at.  While the Mica Bill cuts spending by nearly 33% from the federal government, this loan program would explode to $1 billion a year, nearly triple what Villaraigosa proposed just over four months ago.  It’s no wonder that while Democrats around the country have attacked the bill so much that Mica is publicly complaining about his treatment, Villaraigosa releases a statement praising Mica:

I know that Chairman Mica, who graciously co-hosted a transportation hearing in the City of Los Angeles earlier this year with Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), understands the scale and scope of the transportation and economic challenges facing all Americans.

Read more…

Villaraigosa and other leaders look on as Barbara Boxer announces $543 million in loans for the Crenshaw Line. Because of the loan, the Crenshaw Line was referred to as the "first 30/10 project."

Yesterday, The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee released an outline of some its core principles for a federal transportation reauthorization bill.  One of the main planks of their proposed program would be expanding the TIFIA loan program from a $110 million program to a $1 billion program and re-branding the program “America Fast Forward.”  The policy statement was signed by committee leadership from the Republican and Democrat side of the aisle, including California Senator Barbara Boxer.

Capitol Hill Streetsblog Reports:

TIFIA is currently funded at $110 million a year but demand has far outstripped the availability of loans. Boxer’s committee is proposing to increase that funding nine-fold, to $1 billion a year. She says that amount could leverage $30 billion a year in private investment. They also plan to increase the maximum federal share from 33 percent to 49 percent, with even more favorable terms for rural areas. The TIFIA program will keep its name but be folded into a new, larger program called America Fast Forward.

While inclusion in a proposed piece of federal legislation is doesn’t assure anything in Washington, D.C., this news does make one thing official.  The vision of Move L.A. to accelerate transit programs for areas willing to spend their own money to build them, a program that was championed by L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, has evolved from a local “good idea” to a national policy initiative.  In 2008, L.A. County passed a sales tax to fund transit projects over the next thirty years.  Unhappy with that timeline, a coalition of activists, politicians and labor leaders created the 30/10 initiative to create a federal loan program that would speed up the funding and construction of these programs.  The program was re-branded America Fast Forward earlier this year in an attempt to show the national benefit of changing the way the government funds and loans funds for transit programs.

But the idea and movement started here.  Following the release from the Senate Committee yesterday, Villaraigosa was in the mood to celebrate. Read more…

At times in this whole reauthorization process, it’s been hard to see the way forward. House Republicans refuse to deficit-spend their way out of the funding conundrum, and Democrats haven’t gotten behind a coherent plan to come up with more revenues, though they’re still arguing for a bigger bill. Still, I’ve been reporting on the bill as if it’s bound to happen, one way or another. Secretary Ray LaHood has been unflinching in his optimism that a bill will pass this year. But the more I talk to experts, I realize: this thing probably isn’t going to happen.

Fantasies of a six-year bill seem likely to die at the feet of Senator Max Baucus.

I’m not going to quote any of them by name, because I don’t want to risk getting them in trouble with the Congressional leaders that are pushing for a six-year bill. But the half-dozen or so people I talked to for this story were unanimous in their skepticism that this year will see anything but another short-term extension, despite the fact that everyone agrees that’s the worst option.

One advocacy leader said he’s generally an optimist, and until a few months ago, he believed there was a 50-50 chance of getting a bill passed this year. (That’s right – even at his most optimistic, those were the best odds he could give it.) In the last month or so, he’s gotten far less cheery on the subject. The administration has refused to provide leadership on the issue, he said. Rahm Emanuel was a strong force pushing for reform within the White House and with him gone (pushing for reform now in Chicago, bless his heart), the fire seems to be gone as well. Besides, my source said, the White House is already in re-election mode.

Other advocates aren’t shy about putting the odds at zero. Many say they don’t see how a bill could pass this year, with deadlines getting pushed later and later into the summer. Some sources aren’t convinced the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee even has a bill written. Certainly the staff is working on one, but nobody’s seen it yet. Even some sources inside the administration are wondering what’s up. T&I leaders say they’re waiting to finish the FAA reauthorization before really getting started with the surface transportation bill, and that’s not for nothing – budget cuts in Congress have left the committee short-staffed and they simply don’t have the person-power to shepherd two major initiatives at the same time.

But the time crunch is far from the only problem. The small size of the bill the House is expected to pass could be the kiss of death. “The stakeholders that often drive the process are not going to be as enthusiastic about it if it’s a lower level,” said one expert. Besides, with a smaller bill (not to mention the program changes and consolidations being proposed), they’re going to need to change the funding formulas — a complex process that takes a long time.

The rift between the six-year bill camp and the two-year bill camp is about to get serious, some say. First of all, sixers have a way of changing their tune when it becomes clear they’d be locking in starvation funding levels for that long. And many people think Sen. Max Baucus wasn’t just talking off the cuff when he proposed a two-year alternative. If that’s his position, he has the power to enforce it, both as chair of the Finance Committee and chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee of EPW. House Transportation Committee Chair John Mica has made no secret of the fact that it’s six years or bust in his book. Some think Baucus will go along if Mica and Boxer insist on a six-year bill. But as one expert told me, “It’s rotten fruit – how much of it do you really want to take home?”

Read more…

According to Congressional insiders, members of the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works are meeting today and tomorrow to hash out the details of their proposal for a multi-year transportation reauthorization bill. Hanging in the balance of these negotiations may be the federal government’s only programs dedicated to funding infrastructure for biking and walking.

Bike and pedestrian advocates are urging supporters to contact Senator Barbara Boxer today to tell her to retain dedicated funding for active transportation in the Senate transportation bill. Photo: CNN Politics

Advocates are rallying supporters to contact Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-California), and urge her and other senators to retain federal funding for bike and pedestrian programs.

Jeffrey Miller, president of the Alliance for Biking and Walking, says this marks an urgent opportunity to preserve funding for those important programs. “Senator Boxer is frankly our last hope,” said Miller. “If we don’t act now, dedicated funding for biking and walking programs may be written out of our transportation system for the next six years.”

The Senate occupies the key middle ground between the House GOP and the White House. House Transportation Chair John Mica (R-Florida) has indicated his desire to eliminate the federal commitment to bike-ped funding. While the Obama administration has repeatedly signaled its support for bike-ped programs under the banner of livability, if dedicated funding for bike and pedestrian projects isn’t preserved in the Senate version of the bill, there is little hope that they will reemerge in the conference committee process and get into the final bill, Miller said.

Biking and walking advocates are concerned that Boxer, who has generally been supporter, is being pressured to compromise and eliminate the programs, said Miller. Both the Alliance and the League of American Bicyclists are calling on their members to email Boxer, thank her for her past support and urge her to continue federal support for bicycle and pedestrian programs.

“At this very moment, she is negotiating with other senators who don’t think bicycling and walking are an important part of the transportation bill,” said Miller. “She needs to know we have her back on this issue and she shouldn’t give up on these crucial programs.”

“Transportation Enhancements, Safety Routes to School, and Recreational Trails are important programs for transportation, safety, and health that have a huge impact on the funding available for bicycling and walking projects,” said Bike League director Andy Clarke. “It is critical that these programs are included in the Senate draft. Otherwise, it will be nearly impossible to add them later in the process.”

Committee chair Barbara Boxer asked panelists for their thoughts on an expanded role for the TIFIA loan program.

With House GOP leadership making it abundantly clear that they would be pleased to return federal transportation policy to the 1950s, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works met today to get serious about the who, what and how of funding a 21st century transportation system.

Meeting with a panel of transportation officials and local-level policymakers, committee chair Barbara Boxer repeated her interest in indexing the gas tax to inflation and expanding the TIFIA loan program to become the more robust funding option outlined in the America Fast Forward plan. Support for a “robust” bill came from across party lines, but as usual there were divisions between those from rural and urban areas.

Indexing the federal gas tax from its current rate of 18.4 cents per gallon to an ‘ad valorem’ tax based on the consumer price index would increase revenue for federal transportation programs over time without, technically, raising the gas tax. Of the committee members at the hearing, only Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders expressed concern, worrying that anything that might raise the cost of gasoline would adversely affect rural communities, but he did not object to indexing outright.

The hearing was the committee’s first since a bi-partisan show of support last week for America Fast Forward. Boxer made it clear that she believes TIFIA can “fast forward” infrastructure projects across the board — lending big sums upfront if the local recipient has a revenue stream to back up their borrowing. She said that the Fed could potentially come in at the beginning of a project and put up the initial funding, perhaps as much as 50 percent of the total projected costs.

Read more…