Saundra Davis - Mrs. Davis is very supportive of bike riders’ issues...Of course if there are specific issues you would like to address or if there are suggestions that you wish to apprise Mrs. Davis of, it would be helpful to hear from you. Mrs. Davis would love to know what those concerns are and what ideas you have that would address the issues.

Assemblyman Curren Price - However, this is only half of the battle. Whether one cycles for business, for pleasure or for the environment, cyclists and, more correctly, support for cyclists plays a crucial role in creating a more livable 26th Senate District. Improvements and expansion of Class One Bikeways via increased public/private partnership funding and incentives for those who build bike-friendly developments supported by ancillary City street improvements are among the priorities I would have in developing a cycling/environmental agenda. A continuous Class One Bikeway along the Exposition Light Rail Line which extends through the 26th District is another.

Rabbi Nachum Shiren - Let me speak frankly: I am angry at the abuse and peril thrown at cyclists, some of our best citizens. We need to make more cycling  accessible , not limit or obstruct it! The traffic has become unbearable. Not one of the politicians supports augmenting bike lanes or developing new ones. I will, to the best of my ability upon election, commit to this endeavor.

I will never capitulate to the automobile!

Just a quick reminder that I am still putting together a survey for the remaining candidates for 5th District City Council and City Attorney.  Anyone that has a question they would like to see answered should leave a note in the comments section.

Congresswoman-elect Kathy Dahlkemper overcame ridicule for her "wacky" notion that Pennsylvanians should try walking and cycling. But down in western North Carolina, voters returned Rep. Patrick McHenry -- shown here mocking, and misrepresenting, the federal bike commuter tax benefit -- to Washington.

Though his state also went for Barack Obama, the outspoken conservative Republican defeated Democratic challenger Daniel Johnson handily. The Hickory Record reports:

"The morals and values I took with me to Washington — I still have them," he said. "I'm not going to stop fighting for conservative ideals now."

McHenry's values and ideals have earned him a lot of views on YouTube, where his anti-cycling speech has been given special treatment.

Video: GreenMaterialism/YouTube

The National Republican Congressional Committee ran this ad against Democratic challenger Kathy Dahlkemper in the race for Pennsylvania's third congressional district. It hits a few Gingrichian notes on how to address the country's energy problems before the announcer tells us incredulously:

Dahlkemper's wacky solution? She said we should make personal sacrifices, such as walking places and riding bikes. Hmm... Why don't we use dog-sleds, too?

That passage heaps on the fear and loathing with scare quotes, shots of an impossibly crowded sidewalk, and a bike bell sound effect. But guess what? Seven-term incumbent Phil English is heading back to Erie, and Kathy Dahlkemper is going to Washington. The AP breaks down her victory:

Mrs. Dahlkemper's advantage was viewed as being in the more urban areas of the district -- the cities of Erie, Sharon, Meadville and Butler -- where she was expected to benefit from longtime union support and Sen. Barack Obama's presence at the top of the ticket. Her challenge was to sway voters in the suburban and rural regions.

Think Dahlkemper's competition will bank on the same anti-urban message in 2010?

Maybe John McCain can somehow pull out one more win for small town America. But the odds look increasing long. More importantly, no future Republican nominee is likely to try another full-on, rural-based run at the White House. Or to repeat this autumn's theme of rural places as "real" and "pro American," using coded language to imply that big metropolitan areas are illegitimate and anti American. We are a metro nation and we do have a common stake in the success of all places -- from largest cities to the smallest hamlets.

Back in August, Citiwire's Neal Peirce noted that the convergence of city and suburban interests is already creating a more favorable environment for regional transit initiatives. It will be fascinating to see, following today's election, how this transition shapes federal policy too.

Photo of the flag flying in Inwood: Brad Aaron

Voters in North Hollywood Wait to Vote Yesterday

It was a late night for those waiting for results on Metro's transit tax proposal and the bonding proposition that would fund a high-speed rail proposition for a line between San Francisco and San Diego.  In the end, transit advocates got good news as both measures just achieved slim victories.

Supporters of both measures remind us that just because last night took care of the funding issue, nothing is built yet.  However, that didn't stop anyone from celebrating last night.

In a jubilant press release celebrating the passage of Prop. 1a, the High Speed Rail bonding measure, CALPIRG's Transit Advocate, Emily Rusch, proclaimed:

We couldn’t be more thrilled with voters’ approval of Prop 1A. With this vote, Californians decided to reduce our oil dependence, to build alternatives to traffic and long airport lines, and to help solve global warming. Californians were also voting to boost the economy. 

Prop 1A is another historic example of California leading the nation. This vote confirms California’s commitment to building high-speed rail. Now California leaders must continue fighting for the project in order to start laying the tracks as quickly as possible. Before we spend bond funds on construction, Congress and private companies will have to match California’s commitment to the train. We need that to happen quickly because this project cannot be delayed any longer.

In the Times, Steve Hymon reminds voters that just because Measure R was passed, don't expect new roads or rails to start appearing across Los Angeles County.

Early work is likely to include an extension of the Expo Line from Culver City to Santa Monica, an extension of the Gold Line from Pasadena to Azusa and placement of a busway or light-rail line along Crenshaw Boulevard in South Los Angeles, planners say. A fare hike for next summer will also be postponed until 2010, with some special fares for seniors, the disabled and students delayed until 2013.

Given the narrow margin of victory, I hope Villaraigosa and the rest of the politicians that put their reputations behind Measure R send Bruins for Traffic Relief a "Thank You" card.

In other news, Santa Monica voters rejected the anti-development Proposition T while voters in Beverly Hills rejected plans to reconstcut the Beverly Hilton.  If the Redondo Beach City Council hoped to confuse voters by placing a competing measure to curb development on the ballot next to a citizen's initiative, the plan backfired.  Both ballot initiatives passed.

Though we found plenty of fodder this election season, transportation policy never emerged as a consistent talking point in the presidential race. This is more than a little surprising, considering the sad state of American infrastructure and the importance of same to this country's economic and strategic well-being. Then again, what kind of dialogue can we expect when one side's position can essentially be summed up in three words, two of which are "drill."

On this election eve, we turn to an unexpected source for a sober summation of the future of transport under either a McCain or Obama administration: the Pacific Shipper, "the Essential Transpacific News Weekly." In an insider-y feature story posted today, the Shipper susses out some of the main policy differences between the two candidates, from highways to waterways, and finds electeds and experts who think each is in for a rude awakening when it comes to funding.

Perhaps more than any national campaign in recent history, the major candidates have staked out very clear and decidedly different stances on transportation infrastructure investment.

McCain has made criticism of earmarks something of a crusade in his campaign, and says he wants to send more decisions on spending priorities to the states.

“I believe that a higher share of the taxes collected at the gas pump should go back to the state where those taxes were paid,” the Arizona Republican told the American Automobile Association, “and I’ve co-sponsored legislation that would allow states to keep almost all of their gas tax revenues for their own transportation projects without interference from Washington.”

“We’ve got a problem,” Mortimer Downey, a former deputy secretary of transportation in the Clinton administration and an adviser to the Obama campaign, told a public forum in Washington last week on transportation policy. “Infrastructure needs more investment. It is important, it is crumbling, and other countries are doing more than we are. We’ve got national issues we need to deal with, and transportation is the critical tool for doing that.”

He said the Obama camp has “a vision” for the next highway bill. “It should be a much better bill than the last couple. It shouldn’t have so many earmarks in it,” Downey said.

At the same forum, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, chief economic adviser to the McCain campaign, said the spending priorities are critical. “There is no area where earmarking has been more visible than in highway bills. We have to get more bang for the buck.”

Downey said the economy will make transportation programs more important. Obama favors, he said, “an economic recovery measure that would have infrastructure and get people working on, hopefully, small projects that would roll out quickly.”

After the jump, the Shipper looks at how the next admin might try to finance the 2009 federal funding package, and what the US Department of Transportation could look like under each.

How either administration would pay for a highway bill remains an open question.

Obama has endorsed a $60 billion National Infrastructure Bank to invest in projects of a national priority.

McCain dismisses that idea. “The notion that there is a need for an infrastructure bank is not something the senator supports,” Holtz-Eakin said. He called the plan “reminiscent of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

At the agency level, industry observers believe the two would offer starkly different approaches to regulation.

Industry officials believe an Obama White House would work closely with the Democratic Congress on such agency-level issues, and a strong majority in the Senate would clear the way for broader actions in areas such as “card check” legislation to make it easier for labor unions to organize workers.

A McCain Department of Transportation, meanwhile, likely would look much like the last eight years under President Bush.

“I think a McCain DOT is going to be very similar to what we have now,” said the U.S. Chamber’s Kavinoky. “There has been speculation about Mary Peters staying on as DOT secretary. In that case, I think you would see a lot of consistency between a Bush and a McCain administration.”

“An Obama administration is starting over; they have to put all new people in place, develop reauthorization proposals, that could delay the process,” she said. “It’s not an easy task to develop legislative concepts that could get through (the Office of Management and Budget).”

And who would head up the next USDOT? The Shipper mentions Downey and Federal Aviation Administrator Jane Garvey as possibilities. Mary Peters tops the list of prospects under McCain, according to Congressional Quarterly, which also names Garvey as a potential Obama pick. A Politico piece picked up by Bike Portland says Reps. Earl Blumenauer and Jim Oberstar have been short-listed by Obama. And though we'd hate to lose her, New Yorkers have our local favorite.

Regardless of how little time the campaigns have devoted to the issue while on the trail, it will undoubtedly loom large for the next occupant of the White House, one way or another.

Graphic: Pacific Shipper

Niccolo Machiavelli

Before the financial meltdown severely undercut John McCain's presidential ambitions, his campaign was giddy over the apparent success of its energy policy message: Drill, baby, drill!

It is, after all, a simple sounding solution that appeals to politicians in love with the quick fix, oil companies desperate for access to new sources, and auto-dependent Americans, many of whom now find themselves stranded in far-off suburbs, trapped in expensive car commutes and completely lacking freedom of choice when it comes to transportation. No matter that drilling here and drilling now isn't going to do much of anything to reduce gasoline prices or wean Americans from their crushing oil dependence. 

If you're curious about the masterminds behind the message, head over to Newt Gingrich's "tri-partisan" American Solutions web site. There, you can download "The New Language of Smart Energy," a 42-page talking points memo from Republican pollster Frank Luntz. Luntz handily sums up his findings as "The 10 Communications Commandments for 2008." Not surprising, given the buckets of fossil fuel money behind Gingrich's American Solutions, the Commandments can pretty much be summed up as "Thou Shalt Drill. Thou Shalt Drill Here. Thou Shalt Drill Now."

Here, courtesy of Frank and Newt, is some of the messaging that oil companies are using to maintain their grip on U.S. energy policy and get to those environmentally-sensitive leases. Mock and ignore them at your own peril.

• First off, before even getting into the Ten Commandments, make sure you present yourself as having risen above partisan politics.
• Then frame the issue in terms of national security. Our dependence on oil isn't the problem. It's our dependence on "foreign oil" that's the problem. All that stuff about oil being a globally traded commodity? Too complicated. Skip that. 
  
• Shortages "are unacceptable in our 21st century economy." All that stuff about geology and peak oil? Too wonky. Skip that.
• "It is about American oil and American gas." (Bold and underline formatting courtesy of Frank Luntz.)
• The more you can talk about futuristic "breakthrough technology," the more you'll be embraced by the American public.
  
• "Diversity of supply leads to security of supply." But focus, mainly, on diversity of oil and gas supply not diversity of energy sources.
  
• Do: Talk about new technology and the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid. Don't: Talk about conservation or sacrifice.

Newt, Frank, and the rest of their ilk seem to be in retreat for now. But with some drivers returning to their gas-guzzling ways, how long until the next "crisis" hits -- and the oil-suckers emerge from their crypt?

Happy Halloween.

Graphic: Carly Clark

One could argue that the main battle over Measure R has been between a battle for the transit system that LA needs versus the parochial concerns of politicians fighting to get more money spent in their districts regardless of need.  Indeed, that's the argument that has dominated the debate despite the efforts of the Bus Rider's Union to inject race and socio-economic concerns and cyclists and pedestrians earlier efforts to set aside funds for non-motorized transportation.

Given that frame, these two images from the outstanding Metro Library struck me earlier today as the perfect frame for theat debate.  Two pictures to take with you into the booth tomorrow that help define what the argument is about.  In the end, who do you want to side with, politicians fighting for regional equity, or students fighting for a vision of Los Angeles having a complete transit map?  Do you want to support the guy with the "Gold Line Now" sign who apparently thinks the best way to fund transit projects is to vote against transit funding; or the students who, to a person, walked or biked to their political rally?

Both Photos Courtesy the Metro Library

You don't need me to tell you that there is a lot riding on next Tuesday's election.  To help anyone who has yet to make a decision on the presidential election, Prop 1A, Measure R, or local planning and transportation measures, I'm including a nearly complete set of links to Streetsblog stories about what's going to be on our ballot this fall.  Consider the comments section a place to put links to any other writing you've seen on the election or to let us know how you're going to vote.

Presidential Election

Where They Stand: Obama and McCain on Transportation

Palin Weighs In Against Pollution Fees for Ports of LA and Long Beach

Sarah Palin, Transit Advocate?

From Denver: Dems Discuss Funding Woes; Biden Says "Amtrak"

McCain Impressed by US Trains, So Long as They Don't Stay in US

Obama: I'll Boost Funds for Bike-Ped Projects If Elected

Measure R

A Look at the BRU's "No on the Six" Ballot Campaign

"Yes on Measure R" Breaks Its Silence

Proposition 1A

Dana Gabbard: Yes on High Speed Rail

Santa Monica's Proposition T

Architect's Op/Ed Against Proposition T

Voter's Guide: Santa Monica's Prop. T

Redondo Beach's Measure DD and Measure EE

Competing Ballot Propositions to Curb Development in Redondo Beach

Beverly Hills Special Ballot Initiative

Voter Guide: Residents Fight Hotel and Condo Development in Beverly Hills

Photo: Kangster/Flickr

Yesterday CALPIRG released a new one-minute video short showing members discussing why they are supporting Proposition 1A, the High Speed Rail bonding measure that will appear on next week's ballot.  Reasons to support the proposition range from California's needs, to the environmental benefits of rail, to it just being "hella awesome."

To support their video and other efforts, CALPIRG is also asking supporters to get behind an email campaign based on the popular game "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon."  Despite Prop 1A's popularity with rail enthusiasts and environmentalists, CALPIRG argues that this grass roots email campaign is necesary because mos trank and file Californians aren't aware of the ballot proposition, High Speed Rail, or what's at stake for our state transportation infrastructure in California.

I can't possibly do justice to the "Prop. 1A Kevin Bacon Game" so just read their message to supporters and draft email to send to your contacts, after the jump.

We need your help to get the word out about why it's important to vote YES on Prop 1A, which would bring a high-speed train to California.

Our target: Kevin Bacon. (And millions of Californians.)

If you've ever played the game, then you know that everyone is connected within Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. We're asking you to forward this email far and wide. If we can get enough people to forward it along, eventually it will get to Kevin Bacon - and it should reach millions of Californians along the way, educating the public about why we need high-speed rail.

Some specifics: Prop 1A would start the process of building the California High-Speed Rail line. This train would run from Sacramento to San Diego, taking passengers between northern and southern California way faster than driving. For example, travelers could get from LA to San Francisco in less than three hours.

The train would create 450,000 jobs once finished. It would reduce our dependence on oil by 12.7 million barrels a year, eliminate 12 billion pounds of harmful greenhouse gasses, and reduce traffic congestion. Get more information

Right now, most people don't know that High-Speed Rail is on the ballot and we don't have the money to buy TV commercials to educate people about Prop 1A. That's why we're counting on you to help us get the word out, by sending this message to all the Californians you know.

So keep this message going - if it reaches Kevin Bacon, then we can be pretty sure we've gotten the word out across the state! Please forward this email to friends, co-workers, moms, dads, aunts, uncles - everyone.

When you're done, go to our website and let us know how many people you forwarded the email to so we can see how many people we're reaching. You can also pledge to vote "yes for Prop 1A" there

http://www.calpirgstudents.org/high-speed-rail

Thanks for all you do,

CALPIRG students from UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz, UC Santa Barbara, USC, UCLA, UC Irvine, UC Riverside, UC San Diego, San Diego State, Cal State Bakersfield, Cal State LA, Sac State, San Jose State, and SF State.

P.S. If you ARE Kevin Bacon and you are receiving this message, please let us know!

The National Infrastructure Bank will assemble a portfolio of projects for investment by the public and private sector. I will follow the formula developed by the renowned economist Felix Rohatyn so that any project seeking over $75 million in federal support would be required to submit a proposal to the bank. The submission would include the contribution to be made by the state and local governments, user fees and a plan for maintenance. The bank would then decide to fund the project outright, or through credit guarantees for state bonds or loans against future revenues from user fees and other sound financial strategies.

The federal government will favor cities that introduce congestion pricing. A recent study by the Brookings Institute found that more than $100 billion could be raised annually by road pricing in the 98 largest metropolitan areas. We will adopt the previous administration’s call for a dedicated Metro Mobility (MM) Program (pdf) for metropolitan areas with populations greater than 500,000. These are the battle grounds for congestion, fuel inefficiencies and production of greenhouse gases.

The gas tax is a dinosaur (pun intended). As long as it remains a flat tax at 18.4 cents per gallon and gas consumption decreases (a goal of my administration) it will be a dwindling source of revenue. I propose that the tax, like most other taxes, be indexed against the sale price. This way, when foreign influences raise the price of gas, some revenue will be returned to the taxpayers in public works projects. I propose a 5 cent/gallon increase over present levels, the first increase since 1993, to generate about $10 billion annually. But, if the price of gas goes down, and I hope it does, the tax will go down accordingly.

Well, thanks to Josef Bray-Ali and his Flying Pigeon bicyle shop, that's going to change tomorrow evening.  The bike shop will be hositng the Southern California Transit Advocate's Hank Fung and the Bus Bench's Randall "Bus Tard" Flemming tomorrow evening at 7:00 P.M.  The Flying Pigeon shop is located at 5711 N. Figueroa St., Los Angeles, CA 90042.

Here's a description of the debate in Josef's own words.  To read an even more full description check out his blog at Flying Pigeon LA.

The debate will be sizzling! It will start with introductions at 7 p.m. A coin toss will determine who gets to offer their argument for or against Measure R first, each speaker will get a chance to rebut the other’s argument..

In the “Yes on R” corner we’ll have Hank Fung, Treasurer of the Southern California Transit Advocates, a nonprofit transit advocacy group which is one of the supporters of Measure R listed in the ballot pamphlet. Fung, a licensed civil engineer, is currently pursuing a master’s degree in public administration at Cal Poly Pomona.

In the “No on R” corner, we’ll have Randall “BusTard” Fleming, a writer, public transit advocate, and regular contributor to The Bus Bench, a Los Angeles-based blog. A former magazine publisher (Angry Thoreauan, 1987-2001), with 20 years of experience in the print industry, he has also contributed to a great many books, periodicals and newspapers in Los Angeles and New York: New York Post, Working World Magazine, Brooklyn Spectator, Discover Hollywood!, Home Reporter, Ben Is Dead, Flipside, Los Feliz Ledger, Sabotage in The American Workplace (Pressure Drop Press), Notes From the Underground: Zines and the Politics of Alternative Culture (Verso), and several of the Unreinforced Masonry Studio books about Los Angeles. He presently resides in downtown Los Angeles but is occasionally at large, lurking about in the Lower East Side and Brooklyn.

So far we've mostly looked at the "Yes" campaigns for Measure R and Proposition 1A, but there are strong "No" campaigns for each of them also.  While most of the "No" arguments are based on the details of the proposal and have caveats such as "I like the idea of more transit" this campaign doesn't give any ground.

The Bus Rider's Union is leading a "No on the 6 Ballot Props" against Ballot Propositions 1a, 4, 6, 8, 9 and Measure R.  Putting aside the propositions that don't have to do with transportation, let's look at their arguments against Measure R and then against Proposition A.

In their view, Measure R is about building highways and subways for rich people and about tearing apart the bus system.  Pointing at the regressive nature of sales taxes in general and at the billions of dollars being spent on highway projects and rail projects versus the smaller amount reserved for buses and the BRU argues that the Measure R plan is actually a form of "reverse Robin Hood" where the well of have their transportation needs paid for by those less well off.

One of the BRU's more creative arguments is to look at the total cost of all rail projects proposed in Measure R and noting that the total cost is $80 billion, a much larger number than the total funds that would be generted by the half cent sales tax.  They argue that the MTA will be faced with a choice to cut bus service to pay for the rest of these projects ignoring that there are plenty of funding sources at the federal and state levels that would help pay for new rail projects and that the firewall that has prevented the MTA from using operating funds to pay for capital construction has held better than in other parts of the country.

The BRU also discounts Metro's claim that future planned fare hikes will be put off as a result of the funds generated by the sales tax.

And while MTA officials, rail boosters and corporate developers will highlight the additional “funding” for buses and the “whopping” one-year fare freeze guaranteed under this sales tax as they attempt to win over bus riders; the reality is that MTA officials and State Legislatures have created a flimsy, vague and ultimately raid-able funding category with no real detail and no real language to expand the bus system or to reverse MTA’s plan to increase fares every two years over the next 30 years.

Their arguments against Proposition 1a, the bonding for high speed rail, again note the high cost to taxpayers of the project and the perceived negative impact it would have on those of lesser means.

We know that going from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two hours might sound cool but it really isn’t when you do a true cost accounting of the social consequences it has on our communities.  At the end of the day, the winners will be the state-wide rail lobby, who will fatten their pockets, getting mostly upwardly-mobile and often white train riders from LA to San Francisco, while most inner city and rural family are worried if they can travel cross town as fares go up and bus services are slashed statewide.

As we near the end of the campaign, after all a week from today is election day, we'll see if the BRU's campaign gains any traction outside of South LA.  Metro is counting on an overwhelming vote from the City of Los Angeles to pass their sales proposal.  By crying racism, the BRU is limiting the appeal of their message, but if they can convince enough voters in South LA to vote against the tax, it could be enough of a push to keep Measure R from reaching its two-thirds vote threshold.

Commuters who have to pass the crowded intersection of Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards know that is one of the most congested intersections in Los Angeles.  When commuters find out that the City of Beverly Hills has approved plans to replace the Hilton that sits on one of the corners of that intersection with a larger Waldorf-Astoria complex that includes two condominium towers, they wonder, sometimes graphically, what in the world the city was thinking.

They're not alone.  2,700 residents of Beverly Hills signed a petition to place Measure H on this fall's ballot, which would revoke the city's approval for the project, forcing the developer to redesign their plans and go through the approval and environmental review processes all over again.  For their part, the developers claim the project will have a minimal traffic impact and will generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the community.

The Times explains the proposal and the related transportation plans:

Oasis West wants to overhaul the nine-acre property, replacing the Hilton with a 170-room, 12-story Waldorf-Astoria hotel – 47 fewer rooms and four added stories. It would be the West Coast’s first version of the New York icon.

Plans also include two condominium high-rises: a six- to eight-story tower with 26 to 36 units and a 16- to 18-story tower with 64 to 74 units, according to a statement. A two-story conference center would be replaced, and a new park added with 4.5 acres of landscaping and gardens.

The Hilton has promised to spend as much as $10 million on traffic improvements, and estimates that in 30 years, the project would generate $750 million in revenue for the city.

The bulk of the traffic improvement funds would be spend on widening Wilshire Boulevard to allow easier access to the complex and left hand turns at the light.

The City of Beverly Hills has developed a website to help explain the proposition to voters.  For a complete breakdown of the arguments for and against the project, please read the pdf. here.

Image: LA Curbed

Photo of Traffic in Santa Monica by Joel and Kristina's Flickr Page

(As we approach Election Day, LA Streetsblog will continue to take a look at the ballot propositions and measures that will effect transportation on this fall's ballot.  The following opinion piece is by LEED Certified architect Neal Payton.  The title doesn't leave a lot to the imagination as far as his views.  If you would like to write a piece on any local or state ballot measure that effects transportation, please contact damien@streetsblog.org)

Proposition T in Santa Monica is my Candidate for the Worst Urban Planning Idea of the Year. <

By Neal I. Payton

http://norift.blogspot.com

I know what you are thinking.  This title demonstrates a wee bit of hyperbole, that it’s a tad exaggerated.  Well let me explain my reasoning: 

Last Spring, an earnest and eager young man approached me as I was walking out of my local Trader Joe’s, shopping bags in hand, and asked, “Would you like to fight traffic in Santa Monica?  We’re gathering signatures to stop, ‘over-development’ by limiting commercial development in the future. It’s the Residents’ Initiative to Fight Traffic (RIFT).”  Well none of us wants to be overwrought, overweight, or overtaxed, but those are so difficult to control, so, while I didn’t sign the petition, I imagine the prospect of not being ‘overdeveloped,’ sounded pretty good to most of my neighbors, because a measure has shown up on the ballot in Santa Monica, this November under the innocuous sounding name, Proposition T.   

My biggest problem with the measure, which caps commercial development (retail and office combined) in the city to 75,000 square feet per year (about half of the current average), is that it wont’ work for its intended purpose --fighting traffic.   

Now the Proposition T proponents are clever and careful to correct me.  They don’t claim that RIFT will reduce traffic, only that it will slow the rate of traffic increase.  So, of course, we’ll never know if it has worked or not, because there is no base line  How do we know how fast traffic would have increased?  How do we know if Proposition T reduced that growth by 10%, 50%, none or even made matters worse?  Another way to frame their argument it seems to me, is that traffic in Santa Monica is terrible, and the RIFT backers have crafted a measure that will allow it to get worse slower than it would have otherwise gotten worse.  Sounds amazingly half-baked, as even my six-year old noted, who said, “that’s just dumb.” I mean if you went to a doctor, with a chronic and debilitating disease, and she offered you a therapy that would slow your rate of decline, but you knew that other therapies existed that, over time, would actually allow you to see an improvement, wouldn’t you fire that doctor? 

The Proposition T literature loudly proclaims, in bold type, “Our city’s own traffic consultant says we can’t fit any more cars or our gridlocked streets.” How is a measure that acknowledges a problem, but then fails to provide anything resembling an adequate solution acceptable? (By the way the City uses a lot of traffic consultants, so I’d like to know which one made such an inane and unprofessional remark.)   

In other words, why doesn’t this measure attack the root cause of the problem, which is how people get around, to work, to shop or to play?  We know that there are cities with far greater density with less traffic burdens.  The reason, this measure doesn’t attack the root cause, is that by doing so, the Prop-T advocates would acknowledge the value of  appropriately designed mixed-use development to the long term health of the city. This measure uses the traffic as a Trojan horse to fight something more at the heart of every development issue in the city, which is what kind of City does Santa Monica want to be? Proposition T backers, would like to put a wall around this city and freeze it as is.   

How do I know? Well again, look at the literature, from a recent “Yes Prop T” mailing, “And more development is coming, Lot’s more.  Our City Council just voted to INCREASE new building heights on all of our major boulevards from Wilshire to Pico to as high as six stories tall.”   

So what does this have to do with Proposition T?  Not one thing.  Proposition T does not in any way affect the building heights in the city.  This is just a scare tactic. It is intended to get the reader to distrust all developers, those interlopers, again from the brochure, “some from San Francisco and Beverly Hills,” who would continue to do work in this city, and contribute to its evolution and its tax base.  

It is pretty clear to me that if the well intentioned folks who crafted Proposition T had spent the time constructing a measure that would be truly effective at reducing traffic, they would not have chosen such a blunt instrument. Their tool is the product of a methodology born in the 1960's and refined slightly, over the next several decades, until its ossification in publications put out by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), that have been, dare I say it, fundamentally discredited by contemporary practitioners of the art and practice of City and Town Planning. 

The ITE's methodology, based on empirical data from the suburbs, assumed that a certain number of trips would be generated by each 100-200 square feet of office or retail space.  To this assumption, no mitigating factors were allowed (such as the fact that someone might walk from store to store, or from home to work, etc.). Moreover, these assumptions were applied pretty much equally over the cross-section of urbanism that covers virtually every metropolitan area of the country (from suburb to inner city).  The methodology also assumed that all parking would be free to the driver (at least seemingly free. See, The High Cost of Free Parking, by Donald Shoup, for a complete disputation of that assumption).  

Moreover,  residential development, which is unaffected by Prop T, will probably increase as a result  So if one thinks that voting for Proposition T, will somehow change or overturn what the Council has just passed than they are in for a disappointment. All that will be achieved is the certainty that this six-story development is almost exclusively residential, i.e., a mono-culture, of one use, where the possibility of realizing more walkable areas of the city are diminished. 

Is that all?  No. It also makes unlikely the possibility of creating more humane and pedestrian friendly edges along its most disgusting corridors, diminishes the city’s efforts to clean-up abandoned industrial lands, minimizes the likelihood of the purple-line subway extension into the city, reduces the city’s effort to fight global warming, is biased against lower income residents, and seriously stresses the city’s fiscal health. And oh, did I mention that because it’s based upon flawed assumptions and methodologies, it won’t work at reducing traffic?

(Between now and the November 4th election, LA Streetsblog will be writing about as many local ballot measures that effect transportation that we can find.  I'm trying to ignore the politics of the propositions and measures and focus on what they would actually mean to residents when passed.  If you would like to write an opinion piece either for or against any measure on this fall's ballot or have any suggestions please email me at damien@streetsblog.org.)

One upping Santa Monica, the City of Redondo Beach has two propositions on the November ballot that would limit growth within the city.

First, the Community organization Building a Better Redondo gathered over 6,000 signatures to place Measure DD on the ballot.  According to Ballotpedia this Measure would require a ballot measure before any development would be approved that would:

• Have the effect of converting any public land to private use,
• Change business zoning to residential or mixed-use developments with certain density limits, or
• "Significantly increase" traffic, density or intensity of use in a neighborhood.

Not surprisingly, Redondo's elected officials are less than excited about a ballot proposition that limits their power over development.  The City Council passed their own competing ballot proposition, Measure EE, that would also slow development somewhat, but that doesn't seek to place restrictions on all development.  Measure EE...

• Has an effect on times when a low density residential neighborhoods would be "upzoned" to a higher residential density than is currently allowed.
• Prevents any zoning changes to non-residential uses in single family dwelling neighborhoods.
• Has no effects on medium and high density neighborhoods.
• Has no effects on rezoning business or public property (other than P-PRO) to condo zoning.
• Prevents the rezoning of parks and open space to any other type of zoning,
• Limits the height of buildings within the Coastal Zone to current 45-foot specifications.
• Any proposals by the city's Planning Commission that change zoning beyond these parameters must go to a public vote.

The main difference between the two plans, is where the voter is asked to place their trust when it comes to development.  Measure DD asks voters to place their trust in the electoral process.  Measure EE asks them to place their faith in the city's planners and Master Plan.  Another difference is Measure DD treats all development projects the same, while EE gives preference to developments that meet the requirements of the city's Master Plan.

For those people interested in doing what is best for the future of Redondo Beach, rather than trying to preserve it as it currently is, the choice really comes down to one question.  Do you trust voters to not vote down every development that comes to them for a vote.  After all, there are many cities in California and the Northeast that have similar requirements to what Measure DD proposes and as many towns in New England have had similar ordinances since the 1700's.  Clearly there has been some development there in the last 300 years.

However, if you think anti-development ferver is so strong in Los Angeles County that Measure DD will be a death knell for any development in Redondo, then I would think long and hard about supporting it even if you agree with its general sentiment.

Photo: pikake1227/Flickr

Ballot Initiative Proposition T Seeks To Limit Commercial Development in Santa Monica

(Between now and the November 4th election, LA Streetsblog will be writing about as many local ballot measures that effect transportation that we can find.  Please email any suggestions to damien@streetsblog.org.)

A group of Santa Monica residents known as the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City, tired of the overwhelming traffic they see caused by commercial development, have placed a measure on this fall's ballot, known as Proposition T, that would limit commercial development in Santa Monica to 75,000 square feet a year for the next 15 years.  Santa Monica, which is only 8 square miles large, has seen over 9,000,000 feet of commercial development over the last 25 years.

Opponents of Proposition T, led by State Senator Shelia Kuhl and the chair and co-chair of Santa Monica's Planning Board, claim the proposal would do little to help traffic because the major commercial developments that already exist in Santa Monica will continue to create traffic.  On top of that, developers will just build large residential developments over existing units replacing and wiping out existing affordable housing.

Right now, much of the debate has been between the two factions arguing whether the plan would reduce traffic and what cost the proposal would have for the people of Santa Monica.  What has been somewhat absent is a clear alternative to the proposal to improve the quality of life on Santa Monica's streets.

For example, a mix of a large affordable housing plan, an increase of bus service to major traffic generators such as the Water Garden and Westside Center, and continuing to invest in pon-motorized transportation infrastructure could have a larger impact on traffic demand than a proposition limiting development.  For those of us that watched last night's presidential debate, one might say this type of approach is the "scalpel approach" versus the hatchet of Proposition T.  Unfortunately, that's not the debate we're seeing, at least thus far.

Personally, I find this proposition to be too poorly written to pass even if a credible transportation engineer could prove that it would lessen traffic.  Hospitals are concerned it threatens their viability by limiting their chance to grow and the reality is there are a lot of good developments that can be built, especially transit oriented developments that should be put in place before the Subway to the Sea and Expo Line are completed.  I would be a lot more comfortable with this proposal if it had exemptions for TOD or other sustainable development plans.  In other words, try a carrot approach rather than a ban.

For more information and opinions about Proposition T, check out the website for the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City and Neal Payton's exhaustively researched No On Proposition T Blog.

Image: DooleyMTV/Flickr

(As we've already seen today with Measure R, the campaign for and against Proposition 1A, a bonding measure to pay for High Speed Rail, is also heating up as the weather cools down.  Today, the Times profiled the efforts to support and oppose the ballot prop.  Speaking for those in favor, Dana Gabbard writes below some of the many reasons that Californians should support High Speed Rail in a couple of weeks.)

While attending a stakeholders meeting for one of Metro's long range plans about a decade ago I was listening to the comments of someone from the League of Women Voters discussing our challenges in dealing with traffic 15-20 years from now. And it struck me that she was assuming that most people would still be getting around in automobiles. And I had a sudden epiphany, one of those rare nuggets of insight that help shape my approach to advocacy. What I realized is often the great challenge new ideas face isn't facts or cost but dealing with perceptions and assumptions. This comes to mind as I recall a conversation I had a few years later with a reporter from the business section of the Los Angeles Times. Somehow the subject turned to the proposal for a statewide bullet train network. She stated "Dana, I just don't see it". I believe the main challenge the high speed rail faces isn't feasibility--the technology is well established with a sterling safety record (the only major high speed train accident occurred in Germany in 1998)--but the changes implicit in its creation which challenges people's conception of our state. But if it makes sense than while it will be a dauntingly expensive project and on a scale akin to the building of the state aqueduct, it really comes down to priorities and a matter of will, if we desire to have it.

In my recent commentary on Measure R I wrote about its path to the ballot being like a soap opera.

But it has nothing on the proposed bullet train which literally has been 15+ years in the making. It was in 1993 that an Intercity High-Speed Rail Commission was established to study the feasibility and advisability of a high speed network. After the Commission concluded that such a system was worth pursuing the California High-Speed Rail Authority was established in 1996 to begin planning it. In 2002 after extreme exertions State Senator Jim Costa was able to have placed on the ballot $10 billion of bonds as a down payment for a bullet train network. Slated to be voted on in 2004 the vicissitudes of politics caused the measure to be bumped twice before the body politic decided this was the year it deserved its shot. And like Measure R this is a do or die situation--if the program doesn't go forward soon environmental documents are in danger of starting to expire and needing redone. Plus development imperils necessary right of way acquisition in the Central Valley. If the bonds fail by all accounts the Authority will fold its tent and it could easily be 50 years before another effort for a high speed train may be undertaken. 

You may be shocked to learn I have just two chief reason why I think we should pass the bonds. The first was made all the way back in 1996 by the Commission in its Final Report: given the unlikelihood of our major airports being expanded it would make sense to shift intra-state travel to high speed rail while having air space mostly reserved for long distance travel. Certainly in the intervening 12 years the tensions between the major airports (LAX, John Wayne, SFO, Oakland, San Jose, Lindberg) and their surrounding communities over expansion etc, have become if anything more heated. In this context high speed rail has a logical and prudent role in our state's transportation network.

The other reason was first stated by former state librarian Kevin Starr in an interview two years ago in CityBeat L.A.: that building a bullet train would help unite Southern California and Northern California. Much too much of our state's culture and politics has been dominated by the north/south divide. Investing billions so our residents think of themselves as Californians not simply residents of whatever enclave or region they inhabit would be money well spent. Sometimes the most powerful idea is the simplest, most straight forward one.

http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/kevin_starr/4406/

We can do it. It makes sense. And once again, as our state has been so often in the past, we'll be pioneers leading the way for the rest of the county. The bullet train partakes of the very spirit that created and built this state. We don't think little. And we have the confidence to do what others would believe impossible. Vote for Proposition 1A, and for a renewal of the spirit that has made our state great in the past and can make it great again. Or as the Romans put it: Fortes fortuna adiuvat (translation: fortune favors the bold).

Image: Pacifica Radio