Streetsblog Los Angeles

A bit of pre-Election Day fun: Here's a mock state-of-the-union speech drafted for the next President by "Gridlock" Sam Schwartz, the former New York City Traffic Commissioner who created the word . Combining some ideas from Barack Obama's platform with some that no candidate would utter during a presidential campaign, he lays out a plan for infrastructure investment and how to pay for it:

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.

There's been one small thing missing from the Measure R debate.  With the exception of political posturing from county supervisors and a small debate hosted by Green LA, there hasn't been an actual "debate" between the proponents and opponents of Metro's sales tax proposal.

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.

Read more...

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.   

Read more...

(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.

Read more...

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.

Read more...

(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. 

Read more...