Streetsblog will feature ads for the Regional Connector Final EIS/EIR throughout the public comment period.

On Tuesday, the House Republican leadership unveiled its version of the five-year bill. It isn’t just that this bill is so thoroughly partisan that it has no chance of being approved by the Democratic-controlled Senate; it’s that it is less a serious policy document than a wish list for oil lobbyists, and its funding proposals are so radical that they have been decried even by such conservative watchdogs as the Reason Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute andTaxpayers for Common Sense.

If you’re feeling angry about the state of transportation politics, reading the Times editorial is a good way to blow off some steam.  But don’t stop there, both Move L.A. and the Bus Riders Union have action alerts to help turn that anger into a little lobbying effort in advance of today’s hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee on transportation bill.

The Times wants a bus only lane project that looks like this.

In an editorial in today’s paper, the Los Angeles Times comes out swinging while calling on Council Man Bill Rosendahl and County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky to show some leadership in the ongoing debate over the Wilshire Bus Only Lanes Controversy.

The editorial is a powerful piece, and elevates the opposition to the Westside exemption from a crew of environmentalists and transportation reformers to a mainstream movement.  You can read the entire editorial here, and be sure to leave comments if you do.  You can read more of Streetsblog’s analysis of the piece after the jump.

But let’s give the Times the credit due on its reporting of this issue in the last week.  It hasn’t minced words, but has stuck to the facts in the two pieces by Dan Weikel.  That foundation makes today’s piece all the more important.

Ever wonder why L.A.’s public transit system seems haphazard, with rail lines that don’t go where they’re most needed and inadequate bus service? A political battle over bus-only lanes on Wilshire Boulevard serves as an instructive example of the ways the best-designed plans of transit engineers are often thwarted.

Councilman Tom LaBonge basically made this same point at Wednesday’s meeting.  It’s time to stop fracturing our public infrastructure because a group of affluent people complain.

Wilshire is L.A.’s densest business and residential corridor, and it’s among the city’s biggest traffic nightmares at rush hour, which is why devoting a lane in each direction to bus use only is a good idea. More people already travel by bus than by car along the route during peak hours, and a fast bus lane would lure even more out of their cars, reducing pollution and radically reducing commuting times for bus riders.

This is the key point in the whole debate.  For all the talk of the traffic nightmare that would be created, the Bus Only Lane will move more people more quickly than a mixed use lane ever could.

The lanes, which have been in the planning stages for nearly a decade, were originally supposed to run from MacArthur Park to the Santa Monica border, except for a segment in the city of Beverly Hills, which opted not to participate. But when wealthy Westsiders complained about a loss of street parking and increased automotive congestion, politicians started looking to carve out chunks of the 9-mile route. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, carrying water for high-rise dwellers in the Condo Canyon neighborhood between Selby and Comstock avenues, led a push in December to cut that mile-long stretch. Then City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, no doubt after getting an earful from constituents in Brentwood, proposed deleting the entire segment west of Beverly Hills, which would leave just 5.4 miles of bus lanes.

It’s good to see the Times name names, and to focus on Yaroslavsky as kicking this whole process off with his ludicrously argued “doing this for bus only lanes own good.”

At the behest of the L.A. City Council, transit planners are now studying the impact of Rosendahl’s carve-out; the full council is slated to decide whether to approve the longer or the shorter route in April. It’s unclear whether the mid-Wilshire-only option would jeopardize the $23 million in federal funds designated for the project, more than two-thirds the total cost. It is clear that it would render an attractive commuting alternative far less attractive, slowing Westside buses to a crawl for large parts of the journey.

Someone suggested to me on twitter that Rosendahl was only pushing this motion to make the Brentwood NIMBY’s happy and that he knows the Council won’t pass the final proposal.  Interesting thought.  Given the statements that Brad McAlister at Metro and Kang Hu at LADOT made saying they believe the 1.8 miles of BOL’s slated for Brentwood will make a difference, it’s hard to see this new study strengthening his hand with the Council.

Also, given the comments of Alarcon, Cardenas, Huizar and LaBonge, it’s also hard to see him having the votes to get the Council to go along with his set-aside.

Of course, if Yaroslavsky gets the Metro Board to exempt Brentwood as well, then the Council may be stuck with only “take it or leave it” options for the BOL project.

Bus-only lanes are by no means an ideal solution for Wilshire’s traffic woes, which would be best alleviated by a subway line. But the so-called Subway to the Sea is many years away and may never materialize, and the lanes are the next best thing. It takes courage — something seldom seen among Westside politicians — to build an effective transit network; we hope the council exercises it this spring by approving the full route.

The Subway as a solution to traffic woes?  Don’t let L.A. Weekly hear you say that!

It's taken me the better part of a day to figure out how best to write about this Sunday's Editorial in the Times concerning the Governor's plan to end the transit subsidy that is part of the gas tax and cut the gas tax.  After spending the bulk of the column attacking the "gimmicks" that created the state transit subsidy and painting transit advocates as disingenuous for decrying the raids on the subsidy; the Times ends with a call for more funding for transit projects.  Regardless of what one thinks of the Times' coverage of issues, they are the "paper of record" for the second most populous city in America, and largest in the state of California so the influence of its editorial page shouldn't be discounted.

If you haven't done so already, take a moment to read the editorial, then click through to my analysis. 

The first time I read this editorial, I was annoyed.  I thought the Times was actually blaming transit advocates for the current problem that has led the Governor to propose permanently ending the state transit subsidy, despite the overwhelming support the subsidy has received at the ballot box in 2002 and 2006.  It even praised Governor Davis for immediately going around the voter's wishes by declaring an "emergency" the first chance he got and claimed that Schwarzenegger's plan to eliminate the transit subsidy proposition as a step in the right direction.

But the Times closes with a plea for more transit funding, and even states that the plan being proposed by the Democratic leaders in the legislature because it doesn't provide a gas tax cut, and instead uses the preserved funding to restore part of the transit subsidy.  How do we balance these competing messages?

The key paragraph is this one:

To understand how they have been played, California drivers have to better understand what they pay at the pump, and why. Start with the state excise tax, a flat per-gallon fee of 18 cents, which is constitutionally required to be used on transportation projects and maintenance. It's a type of road user fee, and contrary to assertions from across the political spectrum, this money cannot be, and has not been, "raided" or even borrowed for use on non-transportation programs. Nor has the separate 18.4-cent federal excise tax, which pays for the federal portion of repair and construction of highways, roads and bridges.

In other words, the problem isn't that the state is subsidizing transit; the problem is that the mechanism that pays for the transit subsidy, and other government projects, is so complicated that voters can't understand it.  One would think that the answer would be a gas tax that goes directly towards transit, correct?  Not a percent of the current tax, but a simple statement that just says, for example, "ten cents of every dollar spent on gasoline in California should go towards funding transit operations."

In an editorial earlier today, the Daily Breeze, a newspaper covering the area between LAX and the Harbor, praised the city for moving ahead with a car sharing program and studying bike share.  In its own words the Breeze made the case for shared vehicles and managed to do it without calling supporters communists:

With a down economy, people throughout the Los
Angeles region are looking for ways to cut costs and save money. Now
the city of Los Angeles is working on programs to help folks do that -
through the concept of sharing cars and bicycles…

…The program is designed for urban residents who
no longer want to be burdened by the costs of car ownership, which
include fuel, financing, maintenance, insurance and related taxes.
These folks would use a combination of public transit and car sharing
to go about their daily lives. They can reserve a car online or by
phone in 10 minutes. And with a membership, they can quickly check out cars whose keys are stored in their glove compartments.

After similarly praising and explaining bike share, the editorial then ventured into Streetsblog territory by calling on the city to reduce its take home vehicle fleet and invest in car sharing for downtowners and government offices.

For example, instead of financing city-owned cars
for council members, why not just offer them paid Zipcar memberships
and access to bikes when why need to travel around the city? After all,
if the idea is good for average residents, it should also apply to city
employees and elected officials as well, especially when budget cuts
are on the horizon.

Is a movement growing to begin to truly pare down the fleet of vehicles that are treated as private property by city employees?  When Mayor Villaraigosa proposed cutting the size of the executive car fleet in 2008, the response was horror and outrage from City Council Members who claimed they were really concerned about the environment.  With the city and state in a full budget crisis, and with a recession slamming Southern Californians the response from our elected leadership might not be so tone deaf it the idea comes up again.

Photos: Sally M and jm3/Flickr

An editorial in today’s Los Angeles Times calls for Metro to cut bus lines with low ridership so it can avoid raising fares or spending too much of it’s Measure R windfall on operations:

The MTA is projecting a $134-million deficit for the fiscal year that
starts in July. Though Measure R will bring in additional money for
operations, it won’t take care of the agency’s fundamental structural
deficit, which exists mainly because transit fares are so low that they
cover only 28% of operating expenses. There’s a way to fix the deficit
without raising fares, but it requires the MTA board to cut
inefficiencies — such as bus lines that are used by only a handful of
riders. So far, it has lacked the political courage to do so. Unless
that changes, voters will see less bang for their sales-tax buck.

Despite the Times’ editorial, it seems unlikely that the Metro Board is going to work on service cuts anytime soon.  Last year, after a public process that took the entire winter and a lot of the Spring, Mayor Villaraigosa led a group of Board Members to reject the cuts submitted by the staff.  During the hearings on the cuts, bus riders poured their hearts out begging for their favorite local lines that were heading to the chopping block. 

Instead of aiming their slings at a Metro Board who acted to defend the rights of late night bus riders; perhaps the Times could aim it’s arrows at state legislators who look at state transit taxes as just another pot to help them balance their budgets.

The horrific July 4th Crash in Mandeville Canyon continues to be a focal point for discussions about bike safety. On Saturday, the Times published a remarkable editorial pleading with drivers to give cyclists their due respect on the road. Later in the day, Councilman Rosendahl’s office announced the cancellation of tonight’s scheduled meeting on bike issues in the canyon, opting instead to form a task force to decide how best to calm the relationship between riders and drivers on LA’s streets.

The Times‘ editorial is probably the most pro-bike writing to appear in a mainstream LA publication in years. It starts and ends with an unequivocal statement not just that cyclists deserve equal space and treatment on the road; but that choosing to bike someplace is a superior decision to choosing to drive.

As frequent Los Angeles cyclists well know, there are three things you need if you want to ride a bike in this town: a good helmet, a stout lock and a very good life insurance policy.

If the street wars between drivers and bikers in L.A. are a lot less deadly than the gang wars, they are no less irrational. Bikers, after all, perform a public service by reducing traffic and emissions. Few drivers seem to appreciate that. Talk to an L.A. cyclist and you will hear horror stories about drivers who cut them off, yell at them, throw things and otherwise endanger their lives…

…But it’s hard to escape the conclusion that no matter how bike-friendly our government or businesses become, L.A. will remain a rough ride until motorists learn to share the road. Bikers are boosting their health, their pocketbooks and the city’s environment. If it’s a battle for moral authority between drivers and bikers, the bikers have already won. Give them a break.

While the LA Times celebrated bike culture, Councilman Rosendahl’s office backed away from a public meeting on how to improve Mandeville Canyon after last week’s incident fearing an ugly confrontation between cyclists and those living near the road. The official announcement soft-sells the potential for some sort of angry confrontation at the meeting, but does say:

Over the past few days, officials with homeowner associations and the bicycling clubs that train on the winding, 5-mile stretch of road expressed concern that the tenor of media coverage and of blog posts would make a Monday public meeting counter-productive. Many said they worried the issue had become larger than the specific issues of Mandeville Canyon

While some cyclists have expressed regret that tonight’s meeting was canceled; the new task force isn’t the only bike-friendly iron Rosendahl has in the fire. On Friday, Rosendahl introduced the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights as a City Council Resolution calling on all city departments to adopt it’s principles in their plans and the execution of those plans.

Photo: Alex Thompson

Maybe there are some Times' editors reading Streetsblog?

In an editorial in today's newspaper, the Los Angeles Times takes a whack at the politicians who's local posturing endangers Metro's half-cent sales tax proposal, especially Gloria Molina. 

The Times sums up it's excellent editorial:

What Molina and the other obstructionists fail to grasp is that if the sales tax measure doesn't end up on the ballot, everybody loses, including their constituents. A better public transit system would reduce traffic and pollution for all Angelenos and provide an alternative for low-income residents who can't afford to fill their gas tanks. The projects in Feuer's bill would cover areas where the need is greatest. Sales tax hikes aren't a great way to pay for public transit, but voters deserve a chance to decide whether mobility is worth the cost.

Personally, I don't think any politician "fails to grasp" the issue.  It's just that their political pride and sense of what is and isn't fair is more important than what's best for the region as a whole.
 

Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero is taking a stand.  Romero tells the Times that if she doesn't get she wants for San Gabriel Valley, at no extra cost to her constituents, she'll vote to make sure all of LA County is denied the opportunity to to vote to increase everyone's transit options.  The Senator may have the muscle to back up her threat as AB 2321, the legislation authorizing the sales tax to be on the fall ballot after Metro's approval, still needs a full vote of the State Senate.

Romero's position doesn't make sense from a transportation stand point.  She's basically opposed to the sales tax measure because Metro won't guarantee a Gold Line extension without the funding from the sales tax.  While her argument that the $328 million set aside from sales tax proceeds won't extend the Gold Line as far as it needs to go has some merit; her argument that Metro should guarantee more funds for an extension without the sales tax rests on the argument that San Gabriel Valley residents would be more likely to support a sales tax increase if they have nothing to gain from it doesn't make a lot of sense.  After all, would you vote for a tax increase that has no benefits for you?

Have a headache yet?  If not, Romero also tells the Times that she opposes congestion pricing and Metro should approve it's plan for transit for the valley without knowing whether it will have the $213 million in federal funds.  Her argument?  SGV residents shouldn't be "forced" to pay tolls because there is a lack of reliable transit options.  Last I checked, which was right before I wrote this post, most of that $213 would be going to provide increased transit options for the effected corridors, including the San Gabriel Valley. 

So let's sum this up.  She can't support the sales tax proposal without a guarantee that she gets what she wants without the sales tax proposal.  She also opposes spending hundreds of millions of federal dollars to manage lanes and increase transit because Metro hasn't spent enough money to increase transit. 

This kind of grandstanding isn't new to Romero.  In the past she's slammed Metro for not lobbying hard enough for eastside projects after doing nothing to stop the governor's raid on transportation funds.  I guess the good news is that if she's as effective opposing the sales tax ballot proposition as she was the governor's budget or lobbying for local projects AB 2321 should pass the Senate easily.

Photo: Barack Obama/Flickr

Sign Announcing HOT Lanes on SR-167 Outside of Seattle

Metro took another shot to the chin this morning when the Daily News joined the congestion pricing pile-on with its unimaginative editorial, "HOV lane conversion plan is a taxpayer rip-off." Honestly? The Daily News should have just reprinted the Tim Rutton's Op/Ed from the other week and saved itself the effort of trotting out the same arguments every other newspaper has already made.

The piece starts out slow enough, a typical "Lexus Lanes" argument that I've written about so many times that I'll just say this. When someone actually takes the time to ask people what they think about HOT Lanes in areas where they've already been tried, people of all income levels approve of HOT Lanes. The argument that these lanes only benefit the rich is usually put forward by members of the lower-upper class or upper-middle class because they are worried they'll be stuck in congestion forever while their rich friends speed by them.

Later the Daily News argues that HOT Lanes won't do anything to relieve traffic. Of course, newspaper editors that are writing articles from the gut instead of from the brain are least likely to understand the nuances of congestion management. There was an excellent piece in the Contra Costa Times yesterday that explains how HOT Lanes make traffic better for everyone.

But as I've said before about carpool lanes, in their pure form, they keep traffic moving. That's not just a boon for the people paying for the fast lane, but for people in the slow lanes, too. Congestion doesn't just slow traffic down. It greatly reduces the capacity of the freeway. Opening up one of those clogged pipes means that a lot more traffic drains through, which takes pressure off the other pipes, too. So the rich are actually doing the proles a favor by paying their way through.

But the main thrust of their editorial focuses on a variation of the "They're called FREEways for a reason" argument. Basically, the Daily News is arguing that because the toll roads are already built with gas tax dollars, that turning an HOV Lane into a HOT Lane is a form of double taxation.

This argument seems to be the one that opponents of HOT lanes favor the most. The problem is it ignores that these roads don't exist by themselves, they're part of a transportation network that is in dire need of finances. So let's ignore the costs that car culture has imposed on Southern California's quality of life, a culture that is spurred by excessive freeway building and cannot possibly be repaid by any gas tax. Let's also ignore that with congestion pricing comes increased transit financing, and every time a traveler chooses transit over the car, everyone benefits.

In today's times, the funds generated by a gas tax are insufficient to cover our transportation needs. Metro claims that all funds generated by congestion pricing will go back into the transportation projects to the corridors from where the funds were raised. In other words, the drivers who pay the congestion charge will also be paying for the maintenance and upgrading of the transit corridors where they commute.

And honestly, what could be more fair than that?

Photo: Washington DOT/Flickr 

Over the last couple of weeks, we read a lot of dumb newspaper opinion pieces about Mike Feuer’s legislation that would allow LA County to place a measure on the fall ballot to place a tax on vehicles that emit the most greenhouse gases.

Of all the dumb reasons to oppose transportation user fees we found, it took a student newspaper in Long Beach to get to the crux of the argument: we love our cars and won’t stop driving them no matter how much you charge us.

Now I’m over 30 and am not hip to today’s youth culture, but I thought student newspapers were supposed to be bastions of progressive thought? I guess it’s possible the paper was being so ironic that it just went over my head, but I think they’re serious. The full editorial with my comments can be read after the jump.

Just in time for tax season, assemblyman and Borat look-alike Mike Feuer has introduced a fee to help mitigate the effects of global warming.

The whimsical "climate change mitigation and adaptation fee" would either add nine cents to gas pumps or place an extra $90 on vehicle registration with "a minimum of two-thirds of [the] net fee revenues" going toward public transportation, according to Assembly Bill No. 2558.

Because many people, some even scientists, believe that cars are leading to an increased amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. The hope of the bill is that by making driving even more expensive than it already is, people will be forced to stop doing it or start using public transportation. Thus, our planet will be saved.

Borat look-alike Mike Feuer? Ooooh, sick burn.

There’s a couple of things that the paper has wrong here. The fee isn’t expected to drive people out of their cars. I can’t imagine an extra $90 registration fee is going to make someone give up their H5 with custom made baby seal skin seat covers. It’s about making the people that do the most damage to the environment with their transportation choices pay to help the people making a better choice.

We cried at all of the footage of polar bears crashing through ice sheets in "An Inconvenient Truth." And we rooted for Jake Gyllenhaal in "The Day After Tomorrow."

We don't really believe that these lofty fees will actually change citizens' driving behavior, though.

Maybe it's just our cynicism, but for some reason we don't think that the projected $400 million revenue increase for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority will make the train and bus systems so appealing to Southern Californians that we'll all just give up our cars and hop on a train.

Really? I was hoping Gyllenhaal was going to get eaten by wolves. Also, what the heck was Jerry Lee Lewis doing as a scientist? But I digress...

The total funds that would be raised by Feuer’s legislation wouldn’t be $400 million, it would be $400-$600 million per year. Eventually that ought to equal some real money.

And we definitely don't believe that drivers will become so overwhelmed by the new fees that driving will become a rare endeavor in SoCal.

Agree.

If the last few years of crazy gas prices and horrible traffic has taught us anything about Californians, it's that almost nothing can make us give up our cars.

SoCal's sprawling design and intricate highway system makes private transportation the ideal way of navigating the region. Those who don't drive understand how much of an inconvenience it can be living in this area if you don't have a car.

Besides, the set schedule and limited routes of public transportation make them an inefficient means of getting around in an area that is extremely time-conscious.

Ok, here we start to slip into Daily Dude territory. Yes, the transit system as it currently exists needs improvement, but that’s what this bill is about. Improving it. Besides, I can think of one group of people that disagree with you that it’s inconvenient not to own a car.

Sure, this bill may make some people feel better about themselves for supporting it. We bet that George Clooney will vote for it.

But expecting taxpayers to give up their carbon dioxide-emitting cars is unlikely. Until the people themselves decide to stop driving, no one will ever be able to make us stop loving our cars.

...but the best way to help them do that is to give them alternatives. And that’s what A. 2558 is about.

So far, LA Streetsblog has dissected three editorials, with a fourth one coming later today. The vitriol against Feuer seems to stem from how he cast some of his legislation as anti-global warming. However, to just discuss the legislation in terms of climate change denies a conversation about what is at stake locally.

Los Angeles County doesn’t have the funds to build the transit projects that are needed to relieve congestion in the region’s long term future. Feuer’s legislation aims to make it easier, after a vote of the people in the county, to correct that by identifying new funding sources. Placing a user fees on the cars and trucks that pollute the most, which incidently also tend to be the ones that weigh the most and thus do the most damage to roads, is a sensible solution.

Nevertheless, the Desert Dispatch today chose to reprint an editorial written this weekend by the Orange County Register. The editorial has a lot of the global-warming-denial language we’ve become accustomed to, but ends with a real head scratcher. Emphasis added by Streetsblog.

But facts don’t deter schemes like Mr. Feuer’s to raise $400 million in additional taxes to pay for already funded transit projects. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority would have to place the issue on the ballot if AB2558 becomes law, and probably would do so because the agency would reap the bounty.

I’m not sure what the Register is talking about, but Metro has been very public about the fact that it doesn’t have the money to build all of the rail projects that LA County needs in the coming decades.

Earlier in its anti-tax screed, the Register and Desert Dispatch argue that Feuer is just using global warming to frame the debate because "If it (congestion) went away tomorrow, politicians would be unable to persuade voters to tax themselves to fix it." If the Sun and Register have their way, we won’t even have a shot to make congestion go away, so figuring out a different way to get voters to tax themselves won’t be an issue.

Slightly closer to home than San Bernadino, the Daily Breeze also seems offended that Assemblyman Mike Feuer would make a link between global warming, air pollution and congestion and that he would actually try to do something about it.

Here's a novel way to combat global warming: Get Los Angeles County drivers to pay a new tax to combat traffic jams.

Confused? That would be the only reason to vote for Assembly Bill 2558. If the author, L.A. Democrat Mike Feuer, were serious about dealing with either issue he'd come up with a better plan than lumping them together.

Feuer was quoted in the Orange County Register as saying the people in the Los Angeles region have had it when it comes to traffic and air quality. Well, yes. But now he's talking about three problems: global climate, local traffic and air pollution.

The Breeze is acting like there's no relationship between these three things, even though it's pretty well documented that climate change is caused in part by the air pollution created by cars. I think their point is that it will take more than just LA to reverse climate change, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything at all. That's the kind of thinking one would expect from the Washington Times, not a newspaper in Los Angeles.

Having denied the link between local congestion, air pollution and global warming, the Breeze continues by wondering how increasing transit would help solve global warming.

That's a tall order for the motorists of one county, even a big one like L.A., especially since the money would be used mostly for public transit. Whether or not you agree that a local tax is the way to try to change Earth's climate, we trust that you wouldn't spend the money this way.

Here's how the scheme, if approved, would work. The L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority would impose a fee, either in the form of a gasoline tax of up to 3 percent or an annual car fee of up to $90, on top of existing fees. Two-thirds of the money would go to public transit, and the rest to "congestion management projects and programs."

There is a case to be made for public transit. Many workers would welcome having alternatives to single-driver commutes, though they need to be convenient and affordable. But such a tax in one county won't do much of anything

to combat global warming. And gas prices are already at record levels. Such price levels are hardest on the poor.

High gas prices certainly aren't as hard on "the poor" as high transit prices or reduction in transit services are. And I have bad news for the Breeze, gas prices are reaching record highs every week. A nine cent increase isn't going to even make much of a dent in total gas costs.

The Breeze closes with this gem:

We oppose AB 2558. Voters probably are much too smart to approve it, but there's no reason to take the risk. Thoughtful legislators should kill this bill before it gets anywhere.

If the Breeze really wants to be "thoughtful" maybe it could reccomend a better way to come up with the over $200 billion that Metro needs to do its planned expansion over the next 22 years besides user fees for people that use the network?  It seems to be a trend of these columns to oppose legislation needed to fund transit expansion, but none of them seem to have a better idea.

Photo:Fred Camino

At issue is the legislative package of Assemblyman Mike Feuer who's seeking to make it easier for municipalities and counties to raise their own funds and not have to rely on the state and federal government. IBD completely misunderstands the issue and makes matters worse by backing up their old school opinions with incorrect "facts."

Let's examine some of the highlights of the editorial.

What's worse, they call it a "climate change mitigation and adaptation fee" - that is, a tax levied to deal with a problem that doesn't exist and probably won't happen.

Nice! Start off by denying global warming. That's going to win you some mainstream approval...in parts of rural Oklahoma...

Feuer's bill gives the Los Angeles MTA the option of adding another 9 cents a gallon to the layers of taxes already levied on gasoline or hiking the annual vehicle registration fee by $90. Trucks, SUVs and cars that have high greenhouse gas emissions would be hit with a higher levy.

Angelenos who are both well-off and environmentally conscious will be happy to pay Feuer's tax if it helps them assuage their guilt for driving luxurious cars. He can expect their support should his bill pass the Legislature and make it to the ballot as intended.

So the people who would have to pay for the fee could be expected to support it. What a dastardly plan, taxing people who don't mind paying for it.

But neither they nor those of lesser means should be paying this tax. Thanks to soaring gasoline prices, Sacramento, where Feuer and his fellow Democrats have proposed more than $25 billion in tax hikes so far this year, already is awash in fuel-tax revenue.

Now I'm confused. First off, I'm not really worried about poor people having to pay extra fees on their luxury cars and SUV's. Second, gas prices are going up with or without a fuel tax increase why not capture some of that money for the public good?

Third, unfortunately people of means seem to, as a whole, be unwilling to take transit yet. The funds generated by a gas tax will go in to transit, helping the people of lesser means who won't be able to afford luxury cars anymore because of registration fees.  And does the Investor's Business Daily really think that rich, environmentally concious people are really going to outvote people of lesser means?

Last, the funds generated by Feuer's proposals would go directly to Metro and local authorities. Sacramento won't see a dime of it. Nice red herring.

Feuer, who also has proposed increasing the car tax on heavier autos with higher carbon dioxide emissions, is right when he says the people of Los Angeles are fed up with traffic congestion. What they need, however, are more roads, not mindless policy that will drain their wallets for little in return.

A better solution is to use every cent of local, state and federal fuel tax revenues on real road projects. As it is now, a large portion of fuel taxes are wasted on expenditures that aren't related to auto travel. It's a dishonest way to run a government at any level.

Let's get this straight. The Investor's Business Daily, who just expressed concern for people of lesser means is now advocating taking all gas tax funds dedicated to transit and putting them towards road widenings. Then, it ends its editorial by calling government dishonest for using gas tax funds for things other than car driving.

Ok, let's talk about honesty. Let's assume that IBD has never heard of induced demand, has no idea that transit programs provide a benefit for automobile users by taking drivers off the street, doesn't know that gas tax funds also provide for safer sidewalks and bike lanes, and doesn't even know that 30% of funds generated for Metro will go into road widening projects.

By pretending to care about the plight of people of lesser incomes, before arguing to cut transit subsidies and funds for expansion is a dishonest way to run a magazine at any level.