In the summer of 2008, when Streetsblog first announced its "1% for bikes, 1% for peds. campaign" in what would later be known as Measure R, we never thought that a year and a half later we would still be fighting that fight nor that we would be close to a partial victory.  

Tomorrow, the Los Angeles City Council Transportation Committee will be discussing how the city will program its share of the Local Return funds from Measure R.  Following the mayor's promise that Los Angeles would set aside a portion of its Measure R funds for non-motorized transportation; the LADOT and Council Members have been living up to Villaraigosa's promise by programming 10% of the city's Local Return funds for these modes in every version of the budget that has come to light.  Building on the campaign launched here last summer, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition has been organizing transportation, public health, and environmental groups to keep the 10% set-aside alive.

However, the process of actually allocating those funds has been a slow one.  It was back in May when Council Members Bernard Parks and Jose Huizar first proposed projects to be funded by Measure R and later in the month when then Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel outline for the city's Measure R share.  Over the next six months, different reports from the Chief Legislative Office have arrived spelling out a dire economic climate and different proposals for the city's Measure R funds.  Tomorrow, the city departments working on the proposed budgets are asking for another sixty day extension.  A copy of the proposal, with a project list to be funded at the end, can be found here.

So what's the hold-up?  Unfortunately, the sad state of the city's finances have complicated the issue of what to do with a new funding source.  The CLO's report notes that the city is expecting shortfalls in various transportation funds and has to raise a "local match" for some Measure R projects within city limits.

When it comes to raising funds for "local match," the city has to raise 3% of funds for construction of:

• Crenshaw Transit Corridor
• Exposition Boulevard Light Rail Transit
• Green Line Extension to Los Angeles International Airport
• Regional Connector San Fernando Valley 1-405
• Corridor Connection San Fernando Valley
• North-South Rapidways (Canoga Corridor)
• San Fernando Valley East North-South Rapidways Westside Subway Extension

According to the CLO, that comes to a cool $200 million.  Given the mayor's stated goal of completing all transit projects within ten years, the LADOT and Council will be under pressure to front-load transit funding which could lead to a reduced ability to set aside bicycle and pedestrian funds.

In addition, the city is expecting shortfalls from the two transit taxes that make up the bulk of the city's transportation budget which could lead to a delayed time lime for some projects and a combination of fare hikes and service cuts for the D.A.S.H. buses.

On top of that, remember those first motions by Parks and Huizar mentioned above?  Each of those motions directs Measure R funds towards specific projects.  In Parks' case it would fund intersection improvements near the Foshay Learning Center.  Huizar wants further study for the Downtown Streetcar.

Despite all of these projects pulling what are quite honestly a limited amount of Measure R funds, just under $21 million dollars for the current fiscal year, it's honestly surprising that the bicycle/pedestrian set-aside has lasted this long.  Maybe the tide is turning when it comes to setting aside money for non-motorized transportation at 200 Spring Street?  I guess we'll have to wait another 60 days to find out for sure.

Our friends at the transit mega-blog The Transport Politic put together an image to accompany yesterday's story that is perhaps the most beautiful thing I've seen since the birth of Samuel last month.  This map shows the Los Angeles rapid bus, light rail, and subway system that we could have in thirty years if all of the Measure R and LRTP projects are constructed. 

I actually didn't notice the story until I was already tweeting the Board Meeting and decided to save it until today, because as we head into the weekend, after a long week; it's nice to remember what it is we fight for, and argue about, and spend our nights and weekends going to meetings for.  It's so that when Sammy is my age, he'll have this transit system in place.  He won't be forced to choose between waiting in the rain for the bus or biking through the puddles/  He won't have to make three transfers if he wanted to try and get to Church without taking a car or a bike in the summer heat.  He'll have the transit options that our friends in other major cities brag about while mocking our Car Culture.

If we don't let our elected leaders mess this up, Los Angeles has a great future.

Have a great weekend.

Tomorrow the Metro Board will meet and is widely expected to finally pass the Long Range Transportation Plan, which just like the city's Draft Bike Plan, was the subject of public hearings in the early winter of 2008 and hasn't been subject to much public scrutiny since.  Many Board Members are already offering amendments to the plan to protect and advance their preferred local projects.  The goal of moving projects in the plan is to better position them to receive federal funds to hopefully get them off the design table and on the ground, or under the ground, as quickly as possible.

And, we have a chance to say goodbye to AnsaldoBreda's monthly appearance on the Board Schedule.  Last month the Board approved an extension to the exclusive contract for building rail cars to the Italian company, so they'll never truly be gone; but an update on the contract is on the agenda providing gadflys and opponents one more chance to blast Board and AnsaldoBreda, for now.  To read the full Board Agenda, click here.

But the big ticket item will be the Long Range Transportation Plan and the battle to advance local projects.  At The Source, Steve Hymon has a handy F.A.Q. that answers some of the basic questions but only covers the politics in general terms.  For a breakdown on some of the issues the Board will discuss tomorrow, read on after the jump.  To just dive in to the 54 page Draft Long Range Plan, click here.

But first, let's speak to the issues that don't seem to have a champion on the Board.  It's something of a surprise that the LRTP document doesn't include the words "bicycle" or "pedestrian" so we're back to having no firm number for how much funding is included for "non-motorized transportation."  I've got a call into Metro to make sure that's just an oversight and that the funding remains at the increased level of $324 million for each mode over 30 years.

More photoes at BRU/Flickr

The Long Range Transit Plan calls for 14 fare increases over 35 years, a reduction of the overall bus fleet, a draconian "33% fare recovery ratio" that cuts public subsidies for bus riders of color. The LRTP will also undermine the environmental sustainability of the region, as car use in the region cannot significantly be reduced with it recommendations to: 1) significantly expand highways in the region, 2) expand subway and rails: LA's failed rail experiment has meant that the region has the same amount of transit riders since the early 1980's, and 3) provoke reduce transit riders rider ship, as service deteriorates and increased transit fares will drive more people out of public transit and into autos (as shown by the 2007 fare increase).

The BRU has been hard at work lobbying three Board Members in particular, South L.A. Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Downtown Councilman Jose Huizar and Mayor Villaraigosa.  We'll see if their efforts pay off tomorrow.

Speaking of Ridley-Thomas, he offered the first amendment to the LRTP which is designed to protect the funding for the Crenshaw Corridor, be the final project BRT or LRT.  Given the political pressure from Mayor Villaraigosa to push up the opening date for the Subway to the Sea, he again mentioned opening the line in ten years instead of 27 earlier this week, and the push for the Gold Line Foothill Extension, Ridley Thomas wants to protect his turf.

And speaking of Huizar, he could present the second motion.  It's no secret that the Downtown Streetcar has been a favorite project of the Councilman and he is seeking to get the project added to the "unfunded" portion of the LRTP.  While the streetcar wouldn't fight for any currently allocated funds, its presence in the LRTP might qualify it for additional federal and state funds that it doesn't qualify for today.

But the biggest debate will be a motion put forward by Board Members Dubois and O'Connor that would instruct staff to create a list of all projects available for a variety of federal funds.  The long-term purpose of this motion is to get the Board to advance projects for immediate federal funds besides the Downtown Connector and Westside Subway, both of which the Board forwarded last night.  The Foothill Extension advocacy blog I Will Ride explains the logic and politics behind this motion.

Also up for debate tomorrow are two motions having to deal with how Measure R Local Return and bus funds are allocated.  Currently, my link to these documents aren't working, but Streetsblog will provide full coverage of these motions later this week.

Last week, two proposals by Metro staff dominated a lot of the Livable Streets discussion in Los Angeles.

The first was what seemed to be a proposal to accelerate three rail projects funded by Measure R, the Downtown Connector, Gold Line Eastside Extension 2, and Green Line to LAX.  The proposal garnered a lot of interest on the blogs after I Will Ride first noticed the proposal on a committee agenda and began asking how they could get their favored project, the Gold Line Foothill Extension, moved up as well.

It turns out the report in question had nothing to do with picking projects to accelerate, but instead was about illustrating what any sort of acceleration schedule would mean to Metro's finances.  As we noted here last week, the "proposed" acceleration didn't really make fiscal sense for an agency that is already projecting lower-than-expected revenue from Measure R.  While the Metro Board is scheduled to "receive" this report at Thursday's Board Meeting, there is no serious talk about accelerating any of the time lines for any rail project at this point in time.

Also up for debate were the proposed revisions to Metro's "bikes on trains" policy.  Two weeks ago, cyclists were happy to hear that Metro was planning to revise its policy towards bikes to remove any rush-hour restrictions on bicycles.  However, when cyclists were invited to a meeting with Metro staff to discuss the proposal, they ended up hearing about a plan to restrict bicycles to a "two-per-car" limit even in cars where there's a lot more space available.

After an outpouring of negative feedback, and a strong turnout by cyclists at the Metro Operations Committee, the proposal has been shelved for, at least, this month's Board Meeting.  Instead of Metro staff's original plan, Stephen Box reports that a new motion to "direct staff to investigate further and to involve the cycling community" took its place.

The Internet is abuzz with the news that Mayor Villaraigosa and his allies on the Metro Board are pushing for the acceleration of three transit projects that are partially funded with the now incoming Measure R funds.  LAist breaks down the new plans, outlined in a power point presentation for this Thursday's Measure R Committee Meeting at Metro Headquarters.

Those projects are moving opening dates of the regional connector in downtown from 2025 to 2018, the second Gold Line Eastside Extension to 2035 to 2018 and the Green Line to LAX from 2028 to 2017.

Meanwhile, the Gold Line Foothill Extension Authority is in "Why Not Us" mode, and is demanding that their favorite project, the Gold Line Extenstion to Azusa and beyond, be similarly accelerated.

But I have a different concern than what projects are getting accelerated and what project aren't: where is the money coming for this?  After all, we know that sales tax revenues are coming in lower than expected so it's not like Metro is overly flush with cash right now. 

Based on what is available in the power point, available on pages 28 and 29 for those following the presentation at home, it seems the plan is to borrow against future revenue.  The interest created by the debt would be partially offset by the savings Metro will see because of avoiding the increased costs of doing construction in the future.  At this point, there are no firm figures available to show us how much debt would be accrued or if the proposed acceleration would seriously damage Metro's ability to operate in the future; except that the accelerated project list means a $3.5 billion funding gap and a larger than anticipated operating defecit which would result in either fare increases or service cuts.  In fact, the debt created by accelerating just the Downtown Connector is over two and a quarter billion dollars over more debt.

Of course, many transit advocates think the fares are too low as it is, and want to see them go up so that the system, as a whole, can run better.  However, we have to recognize that it's not going to be an easy political decision for the board to raise fares in the short and long terms, especially after promising to use Measure R funds to keep fares low.

Bart Reed, executive director of the Transit Coalition, explains, "They haven't had the political courage to charge the right price for their service.  To operate the kind of system that we need, they should be charging $2.25 per ride.  Right now they are collecting an average of sixty-nine cents per boarding, and they can't run the kind of service they're talking about here on that amount."

All we have to evaluate these two proposals, accelerated schedule versus "strict" schedule, are these two sets of bullet points on the pros and cons of the acceleration.  According to Metro, if we accelerated the schedule here would be the results, besides having these three rail projects done earlier,

• We would have up to $3.5 billion funding gap
• We would incur additional debt and operating costs
• We would save on construction escalation costs
• We would require 2/3 vote of the Board to accelerate Measure R funds
  

Conversely, here is what shape following the plan as passed by the voters would have for Metro's fiscal state:

• Projects would be delivered in accordance with Measure R Expenditure Plan
• After operating deficit is resolved there would be no funding shortfall
• We would not save in construction escalation costs
• We would not incur additional debt and operating costs

Yesterday, the City Council Transportation Committee met and had it's first substantive discussion of what to do with the un-restricted transportation dollars the city will receive as part of the Measure R Local Return funds.

The news was mostly good for the 200 advocates who signed a letter to the Metro Board last year asking for a bicycle and pedestrian set-aside in Measure R.  While we were rebuffed by the Metro Board; Board Chair Antonio Villaraigosa went out of his way to let us know that many municipalities, including Los Angeles were interested in using Measure R to improve safety and comfort for non-motorized transportation.

Yesterday's hearing was only a directive to the LADOT and Department of Street Services to prepare a report to help the Council allocate Measure R funds.  LADOT representative Ken Hustings, last seen on Streetsblog at the recent Pico-Olympic hearings, outlined the LADOT's priorities for Measure R funds: to provide a match to state dollars on large projects, to help relieve shortfalls on Prop. A and Prop. C and to set aside $1 million a year for bicycle and pedestrian projects.

That $1 million isn't a large number, but it's a great starting point for debate.  During the Council's part of the presentation Councilman Bernard Parks brought up the idea for a yearly set-aside for bicycle and pedestrian projects and he did this before me and Dorothy Le of the LACBC raised the idea in public comment.  After we said our parts, Councilman LaBonge approached Le and myself to voice his support and Councilman Alarcon said he thought it was a good idea before the LADOT received the go-ahead to work on a Measure R report.  After the meeting, outgoing Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel commented that it was "good we reminded them" about the Mayor's promise from last year.

Obviously, yesterday was nice but the final victory won't come for months when we see the final report on how the city will spend its Measure R funds and the Council vote on a spending plan.

Also on the agenda was a new contract for Ilium Strategic Marketing & Design, a Seattle-based company that designs the city's bicycle maps, schedules and apparently does the LAPD's outreach to cyclists.  Given the LAPD's outreach to cyclists is abominable, and that the bicycle map is two years late in being updated, you might expect some pause in giving Ilium more money to design new DASH and Commuter Express schedules.  You would be wrong.  The motion to extend them a new contract passed unanimously.

Photo of a pedestrian packed Broadway via DLIU Photography/Flickr

Let's rewind to about a year ago.  We still weren't sure whether or not the sales tax measure now known as Measure R would make it to the fall ballot, and activists of all ilk were rallying to try and make certain their favored mode of transportation wouldn't be left out in the cold.

At the time, Streetsblog helped lead the charge for a set-aside for bicycle and pedestrian projects to make certain that Local Return funds, which make up 15% of the total Measure R allocation, wouldn't just get funneled into wasteful expansion and synchronization projects.  Unfortunately, we failed to get anything put into the legislation or Measure R; but we did get assurances from Mayor Villaraigosa that the city was really, really serious about using an unspecified portion of its Local Return for projects to promote walking and biking.

Well, it's time to put Villaraigosa's promise to the test.  This Wednesday, the LA City Council Transportation Committee will debate and vote on a motion directing the LADOT to create its plans for those Local Return funds.  I'm going to be on hand to remind the City Council of the Mayor's promise and the 200 signatures we gathered last year; but I'm looking for your help.  Besides the letter and a copy of the article announcing the Mayor's promise to us; what if anything else should I take with me on Wednesday?

Tomorrow is the fourth Thursday of the month, and that means it's time for another packed agenda for another Metro Board agenda.  The agenda is dominated by the adoption of Metro's FY10 Budget and various side items such as the next chapter in the controversy surrounding Ansaldo-Breda rail car suppliers.

The"big-ticket" item tomorrow should be the debate over next year's budget.  Last week we discussed how the budget proposes a 120,000 cut in service hours in bus operations, just a year after the Metro Board bent over backwards to avoid any sort of cuts.

Unlike last week, we can now see how Metro is planning to spend the first of its 30 years of Measure R funds on page 13 of the budget.  In its first year, Measure R is projected to put aside over $100 million dollars for projects in future years. For example, it is "saving" over three times as much money in its highway expansion coffers than it is spending.  On the highway side, Metro is socking away $54 million in funds and spending only $16 million, over three-quarters of which will be spent on sound walls.

On the rail expansion side, by far the most money will be spent on Phase II of the Expo Line.  The current budget draft has Metro spending $71 million on rail expansion, with $61 million going towards Expo Phase II.  However, a motion by Director Antonovich would take the $27 million that staff was planning to save and directing it towards the Gold Line Foothill Extension.  While our friends at I Will Ride are pretty excited about this proposal, its bound to be one of the most controversial agenda items.

Ansaldo-Breda appearing on the agenda guarantees a strong turnout from organized labor as they did last month.  Generally, I consider the controversy about whether or not to "extend the expiration of the option, exercising the option, or allowing expiration of Contract No. P2550 with AnsaldoBreda S.p.A. for 100
additional light rail vehicles" as the Board puts it is outside of my area, but since the union presence could dominate the meeting, I thought it only fair to give warning.

Of course, there are always surprises from activists and the board at meetings with agendas this long and complex.  We'll have a full report tomorrow after the meeting.

First is the Subway to the Sea, which many people felt was the jewel of the promised Measure R projects.  The timeline for the project looks like this:

Subway to La Cienega -- 2019

Subway to Century City -- 2026

Subway to Westwood -- 2032

The timeline was panned by everyone: first by LAist which noted that less than a year ago Metro officials opined that the line could be open in five years,  later by Curbed who noted that the Expo Line would be 22 years old by the time it was completed, and lastly by Mayor Villaraigosa who called the timeline "too long."  How long is too long?  Metblogs notes that by the time it is competed, "you could be dead."

Expo Line light rail phase II, Culver City to Santa Monica -- 2015

Gold Line light rail extension -- 2017

Westside to San Fernando Valley transit project along the 405 Freeway -- 2038

The Bus Bench notes that the "usual suspects got bent over."  Using numbers crunched at Metro Rider, Browne Molyneaux shows that voting for more transit doesn't equal getting more transit.  The Gold Line Foothill's Extension will be completed by 2015 or 2017 but the Gold Line Eastside Extension won't be done until 2035.  The communities benefitting from the Foothill extension voted for the project with about 55% of the vote.  Eastside communities voted for Measure R with about 75%.

Wilshire Boulevard bus lane in city of Los Angeles -- 2015

Crenshaw Boulevard light rail or bus rapid transit -- 2029

Damien Goodmon, who wrote to me and others about the project list on Monday night,  was particularly incensed that South L.A. residents, who voted overwhelmingly for Measure R, were actually seeing a major delay in the completion of the Crenshaw line.  In the first draft of the Long Range Transportation Plan unveiled last year, the completion date for the Crenshaw project was listed as 2025.

In his email, he wrote, "And I will remind all parties, that the Crenshaw project was in the dedicated funding plan in the 2001 Long Range Transportation Plan and the Draft 2008 LRTP, meaning, the project was to be funded, built and operational well before 2029, EVEN IF MEASURE R FAILED."

Green Line to LAX -- 2016 to 2018

Regional Connector downtown light rail -- 2018

Back when Measure R was being debated by the Los Angeles City Council, that Councilman Bill Rosendahl announced that Metro had promised him that the Green Line extension would be accelerated under Measure R.  I guess that's one promise that Metro has been able to keep.

So what are Measure R funds going to be used for in the short-term?  The Whittier Daily News has the answer with the timeline for highway projects that will be funded based on their start dates and total cost:

Ready immediately: Alameda Corridor East road/train track separations, $1.12 billion

2012: 10 Freeway car-pool lanes from 605 Freeway to Puente Avenue, $198.6 million

2013: 5 Freeway, interchange at Carmenita Road, $379.7 million

2014: 10 Freeway car-pool lanes from Puente Avenue to Citrus Avenue, $182.8 million

2015: 10 Freeway car-pool lanes from Citrus Avenue to 57 Freeway, $192.1 million

2015-2017: Gold Line extension eastward from Pasadena, $905 million

Mayor Villaraigosa Mugs for the Cameras at Opening of Dodger Trolley

Back when Metro was preparing its project list for the potential funds that would be generated by what now is known as Measure R, there was a grassroots effort to get the agency a small set aside of the billions that will be raised by the sales tax over the next 30 years for bicycle and pedestrian projects.  While the Metro Board ignored the 200 people that made the ask, unfortunately we don't have a high-powered lobbyist; they did go out of their way to repeatedly tell us that we would be able to lobby the individual municipalities for non-motorized transportation projects from the 15% of the budget set aside for "Local Return."

Mayor and Board Chair Antonio Villaraigosa was particularly adamant that municipal governments would be lining up to paint bike lanes and widen sidewalks.

Well, now it's time to see if he meant it.

At tomorrow's City Council meeting, the Council will direct the LADOT and the Department of City Planning to put together a list of projects that would qualify for Measure R funds.  If the list looks anything like the city's proposed stimulus list, the Mayor's promise of programming Measure R funds for bicycle or pedestrian projects would be reveaked as a farce.

Despite the car-centricness of the transportation projects on the list, a close look of the city's list of "ready to go" projects that they hope to get funded by a federal stimulus package show there are a lot of projects that would enhance communities and provide a safe alternative for those who choose to travel without an automobile.  Some of these projects include streetscaping in Chinatown and along Pico Boulevard, an extension of the L.A. River Bike Trail, accelerating the schedule for the Expo Line, and  a city-wide grating replacement project.

As Board Chair, Villaraigosa promised the hundreds of signators to our sign-on letter that Measure R would be a boon for cyclists and pedestrians.  As Mayor, he'll now have a chance to prove just that.

Photo: Phil Schilaci Kropoth/Flickr

Anyone worried that the Metro Board of Directors, with an estimated $40 billion in hand to spend over the next 30 years, was going to break the bank right out of the bank can breathe a sigh of relief.  Concerns over federal and state funding measures, and how it impacts our plans for Measure R funds locally, dominated the debate at today's Board Meeting.

On the federal level, both organizations and the Board pledged to work towards a re-authorization of the Federal Transportation Trust Fund that would pledge more funds towards transit and projects that encourage alternative transportation as opposed to just highway projects with a small set-aside for transit.  Even the Bus Rider's Union was on board.

Mayor Villaraigosa also led a discussion on how a true stimulus package, if the Obama administration is serious about stimulating hte economy be investing a lot of money in infrastructure, should focus on projects that alrady have a local match available.  Villaraigosa argues that then the federal dollars would actually multiply if they were allocated for projects in areas where people actually have money to spend on transit projects.  In other words, because LA County has the highest tax dedicated towards transportation, the federal government should reward us by finally investing in Los Angeles as we deserve.

The Board's concerns with the state are less, "are we going to get the new funds we deserve" and more the "is Schwarzenegger going to rob transit to balance the budget...again..." variety.  With the state budget crisis constantly looming, and the Governor's history of robbing funds "dedicated" to transit to balance the budget; the Board has decided to move cautiously on it's bus expansion plans so that if the governor robs transit operating subsidies...again...they will be able to cover the backlog without hiking fares.  So, for now, the dreams of bus-only lanes running throughout the city have to be put on hold while we wait for the state to figure out their budget mess.

In the meantime, Metro is going to focus on creating a new bus plan to spend the $8 billion in Measure R funds provided they don't need to cover any shortfalls in state allocations.  The text of the Mayor's initial resolution to make a new bus plan can be found after the jump.

VILLARAIGOSA MOTION that the MTA Board of Directors:
A. Direct the CEO to solicit feedback through the Service Sectors on what type of bus service improvements are wanted by the public by February 2009
B. Provide to the MTA Board and municipal operators by March 2009 with an estimate of the MTA and municipal operator portions of Measure R 20% using the formula allocation procedure (FAP)
C. Direct the CEO to coordinate with the municipal operators to avoid service duplication or other inefficiencies, including requesting information on how each municipal operator intends to spend its portion of Measure R 20% funds
D. Direct the CEO to report back during the March 2009 Board cycle with recommendations for a new “Bus System Improvement Plan” for MTA’s portion of Measure R 20% funding that considers, but is not limited to:
1. New clean fuel bus purchases
2. Additional fare freeze or fare reduction
3. Added bus lines
4. More frequent service
5. Longer hours of operation

Photo: StuckinSuburbia4/Flickr

No sooner has the news come out that Measure R has officially been passed by voters four weeks ago, the Metro Board of Directors is already moving to begin spending some of that money.  This week's special Metro Board meeting, the first since late October and the last in 2008, has some Measure R proposals and other interesting proposals.

On the Measure R front, the Board will vote on two measures that will allocate the expenditures for the first couple of years of the 30-year funding proposal.  The first proposal by Richard Katz directs Metro staff to immediately begin pricing potential rail yards and maintenance facilities for the rail lines that can be built with Measure R funds.  The second proposal, by Mayor Villaraigosa, directs staff to put together a bus improvement plan to spend the billions of Measure R dollars directed towards bus programs.

Of news to cyclists, Metro is proposing to raise the fees for renting a bike locker from $25 a year to $48.  Metro runs their bike locker program with the Los Angeles County Bike Coalition who assures me this change should not be viewed as Metro looking to increase revenue on the back of cyclists.  It's more a matter that demand for these lockers has increased dramatically in the last year and oftentimes renters aren't using those lockers very often.  It's believed that the higher cost would give pause ot the occasional users, increasing the amount of lockers available to commuters.

Last, a temporary extension of the Sheriff's contract is on the agenda.  There's been a lot of talk online about the value of the sheriff's to Metro security after a Bus Bench blogger was arrested for filming in a public location.

Image: LA Streetsblog/Flickr

Agenda (pdf)

Item 13:

Recommendation as submitted by Supervisor Antonovich: Direct the Chief  Executive Officer to review the operating agreement with the Los Angeles County Museum of Art to determine if additional funding is necessary to  operate the facility in light of the $900,000 provided by the Museum to the "Yes on Measure R" campaign.  (08-3359) 

The interview covers a lot of different topics, below is a quick example of a question and answer from the interview, but for the rest head over to the T 4 America blog:

Do you see any broader implications from your victory, any lessons that a larger movement for transportation reform could learn from your campaign?

Well it was certainly was true that here in Los Angeles, the business community, the labor community, the environmental community all saw a common interest. Especially when the concern that might have unsettled them would have been how much highways versus how much transit, but in our case, nobody was really arguing for expanded highway construction. Assuming you need maintenance and repair, and interchange improvements, but significant freeway projects – all that had been done in previous epochs.

So everybody was of accord that the future of transportation had to be dominated by new transit, and this case, fixed guideway transit. It was just a question of how much.

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

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.

In an effort to boost the profile of Measure R, the proposed tax that would raise $40 billion for Metro over the next 30 years by raising L.A. County's sales tax by half a cent, a group of UCLA undergraduate and graduate students have taken to some real grass roots campaigning.  Standing at the corner of Wilshire and Gayley for the previous two weeks, the students waived signs at cars trapped in traffic gridlock and passengers getting off both Metro and Big Blue Buses.  The following interviews and pictures are from last Friday's rally.

Bruins for Traffic Relief hope that their efforts lead to greater involvement of young people in the campaign because they see the future of Los Angeles as closely tied to the greater transit investments that Measure R should bring.  Juan Matute, a member of UCLA's graduate student council, authored a resolution supporting Measure R and challenging the graduate students for USC and Pomona College to match or exceed UCLA's outreach efforts and media coverage.  In addition to sign waiving, the students have set up a table at the Greenwalk, a popular pedestrian route for UCLA students.

Mattew Vogel, one of the undergraduates who founded Bruins for Traffic Relief, believes that the funds generated by Measure R could be a tipping point for congestion problems in Los Angeles.

When you see how many people use the roads, buses and freeways and then see how much Los Angeles does with so little money; it puts the whole problem into perspective.

Chris Santiago, a first year undergraduate at UCLA, recounts his experiences growing up in an area not served by transit and how it limits people's options as a teenager and believes more funding for transit is the key to saving Los Angeles from a future of Car Culture dominance.

Before I had my license, I wanted to be independent.  But we had really poor public transit and I wasn't able to get around like I wanted.  Anything for more public transit I support.

"Proud Angeleno" Brigham Yen is not a UCLA student, but joined the event anyway because he believes a subway for Wilshire Boulevard is key to keeping the area he refers to as a "defacto downtown" thriving into the future.

We need to get the word out because we need to catch up with the rest of the world.  Tokyo, New York, Taipei are all major world cities and they all have extensive transit systems.  It's pathetic that we're still debating whether to build more transit in Los Angeles.

For more pictures from Friday's event, click on after the jump or visit the LA Streetsblog Flickr Page.

With less than 3 weeks until election day, the official "Yes on Measure R Campaign" has dramatically increased its visibility in the last couple of days.  First, the "Yes on Measure R" website opened its online doors.  Second, the television campaign kicked off last night.

The commercial will probably be found less than inspiring by Streetsbloggers; the focus is almost completely on highway improvements and reducing automobile congestion.  Do you like scenes with lots of cars on freeways?  Then this is the add for you.

However, we're not their target audience and there was some talk of transit improvements including a light rail extenstion to LAX.

For those of you without a video player or at work, here's the text of the ad:

1956.

Dwight Eisenhower was president with a plan to build roads, bridges and freeways.  Since than our population has more than doubled, but our transportation systems haven't kept up.

Measure R is a countywide plan.  The most comprehensive since the fifties.  Imagine expanded mass transit and modernized freeways.  Think about light rail to the airport and synchronizing traffic signals.  From big projects to fixing potholes.  Yes on Measure R, the Roadmap for Traffic Relief.

The long and short of this measure that would benefit L.A. but not our towns is $40 billion, funded via a half-cent tax on everything you buy that's taxed already at 8.25 percent, and you and your grandchildren will be stuck with that half cent for the next 30 years, if the measure passes.

We agree with Supervisor Don Knabe, who opposes the transit tax because it is inequitable. Yes, it's true that some of us commute to L.A. and beyond each day, but the vast majority of beneficiaries of this tax are people who live and work in L.A. If they want to tax themselves another half cent, they have our permission to do so at a later date.