Borja Leon. Photo: Mayor's Office

Now, on the eve of announcement of a new federal transportation bill from leadership in the House of Representatives, the Mayor’s office is pursuing three different options to leverage the expected $40 billion in sales tax revenue over the 30 years between 2009 and 2039.  Besides the pursuit of federal dollars, there is also the possibility of asking L.A. County voters to tax themselves again and working with equity firms in China to finance the projects.

Last week, Streetsblog talked to Deputy Mayor for Transportation Borja Leon about the different options being pursued and where the city is in the process.

Plan A: America Fast Forward Née 30/10

Streetsblog will feature ads for the Regional Connector Final EIS/EIR throughout the next 30 days.

“Plan A” is still the 30/10 or America Fast Forward plan to change federal law to reward communities that choose to tax themsleves to expand transit.  If enacted, the Mayor’s proposal would create interest free loan programs that would allow projects to get started earlier and would re-prioritize federal grant programs.  When Republican leadership in the House of Representatives and Democratic leadership in the Senate announced proposals last year, both included major increases in the TIFIA loan program which is a major provision of America Fast Forward.

The Mayor’s Office appears confident that this increase will remain.  ”We have been working with the Federal Government and have a great partnership,” explains Leon.  ”A lot of things have been moving in the last week with America Fast Forward.”

We should find out if the confidence, and Mayor’s lobbying efforts, have paid off this week.

When considering the prospects for Measure R+, it's important to remember the role that highway expansion planed in selling the "transit tax" in 2008.

Plan B: Measure R+

Earlier this month Assemblyman Mike Feuer, a close ally of the Mayor when it comes to transportation expansion in Los Angeles, announced new legislation that would allow L.A. County voters to vote on extending the Measure R transit tax, creating opportunities to speed up the construction time of projects through bonding and perhaps add to or improve existing projects.  Supporters of transit expansion have dubbed the proposal “Measure R+.”  But it could also be dubbed, “Plan B.”

Getting “Measure R+” from legislative proposal to passage by L.A. County voters is a tall bill.  First, AB 1446 must be approved by a pair of committees in the State Assembly before moving to final passage on the Assembly floor.  Then the process has to repeat itself in the Senate.

On this front, Leon is confident that Feuer can shepherd the bill through the process. “Assemblymember Feuer has been a great partner; he helped the Mayor with Measure R at the State Legislature. If its the Extension or anything else to accelerate Measure R, the Mayor will fight hard to get it done,” Leon says.

From there, passage of a sales tax still has a long road to go.  The bill has to be signed into law by the Governor, the same Governor that hopes to have a statewide tax to balance the state budget on the ballot.  Some tax experts believe that the more tax initiatives on the ballot, the less the chance that they will pass.  It’s also possible that funding for High Speed Rail could be on the ballot.  Will Jerry Brown want to risk one his statewide projects to allow a local sales tax proposal?  With this governor, it’s hard to predict.

Even if the Governor signs the bill into law, then the Metro Board of Directors and L.A. County Board of Supervisors has to act to put a measure on the fall ballot.  Even then, it would take a two-thirds vote of L.A. County voters to pass the measure.

The stars were in alignment to pass Measure R in 2008.  Are they similarly aligned in 2012?

Many were surprised when L.A. Times transportation writer Ari Bloomekatz reported that Mayor Villaraigosa was talking to Chinese investors about financing a front-load of Measure R transit projects a mere ten days ago.  Leon writes that negotiations began in the fall of last year and are ongoing, but are still in the early phases.

“In Ocotober 2011, the MTA was approached by several parties concerning unsolicited offers of low-interest financing. Soon after, the CEO released a memo to the Board explaining the interest from Sovereign Wealth Funds. If there are parties that offer financing terms that are below current U.S. market rates, we should be willing to explore them. If the Chinese and/or any Sovereign Wealth Fund is willing to provide such terms we shouldn’t automatically discount it,” he explains.

There are several barriers to bringing this proposal to reality as well.  Working with investors in a foreign country is never easy, even if the investors have experience working in other countries.  Even if the county, Metro and the investors are all in agreement, there’s always the chance that such a deal could become politically problematic.

The other question is whether there will be other “add-ons” to a proposal with the Chinese that could make the loan less valuable than one from a more local equity firm.  Will L.A. have to buy passenger cars or other technologies from Chinese manufacturers?  Will L.A. County actually get a better deal by getting a higher interest loan from an American firm that has less strings attached?  All those details remain to be worked out.

Going Forward

Denny Zane, the executive director of Move L.A., the organization most known for pushing the original Measure R believes there is merit in all three proposals, but sees “Measure R+” as the key to getting the eight transit projects that aren’t under construction, under construction.

As the clock is ticking on Villaraigosa’s term, which ends in June of next year, there’s clearly a lot of work to do to see the Mayor’s transit vision become reality in a near-term timeline.  And as if these three ideas weren’t enough to pursue, Leon hints that there could be another surprise proposal come our way.

“We’re always looking for our next Plan B,” the Deputy Mayor concludes.

At first glance, the motion creates more questions than it answers, so to that end Streetsblog talked to staff with Councilman Rosendahl’s office, the Mayor’s Office and Metro to get some answers.  Here’s a quick F.A.Q. on the motion.

Why does the Mayor’s Office need Measure R Dollars to better coordinate with Metro?

The City of Los Angeles is the largest partner that Metro has.  Metro staff has quietly complained that working with the city can be a tough process, especially when permitting is involved.  LADWP is somewhat notorious for this, although nobody was willing to go on the record.  Having a central contact person in the Mayor’s office to manage schedules and follow-up with various departments

Where is the money coming from within Measure R?

The money will come from the 1.5% of Measure R that is set aside for “Administrative costs.”  The funding will not come from Measure R’s local return and will not impact the funding of any project.

Why does the City have to pass a motion to accept money from Metro?

Because the city’s budget has already been passed, the city needs to accept the funds as an increase to the general fund and then allocate to the Mayor’s Office.  This motion does that.

Will new staff be hired?

No, this will fund a couple of existing positions.  Attendees at our December fundraiser might remember Gregg Spotts, is one of those hired by these funds.

Streetsblog will have an update on this motion and the rest of the City Council Transportation Committee on Thursday morning.

Dana, you left out a key part of her bio. Yoh was also the captain of my (last place finishing) team in the Transit People Transit Race of 2009. - DN

Earlier this week, we posted the responses of Measure R Oversight Committee Advisory Panel member Gary Painter to some questions including several suggested by readers of this blog.  Today, it is Panel member Allison Yoh’s turn.  Yoh is Associate Director of the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies and also a past member of the Metro Board of Directors. The latter experience resulted in my asking Yoh one extra question I didn’t ask Painter.

And again I wish to express regret at the delay in getting this material ready for posting. As I said earlier, life happens.

 Gabbard: Briefly describe your academic background?

Yoh: I work in urban planning, particularly in public transit. I’ve done research on how transit agencies can increase ridership, the costs of bus rapid transit, transit improvements (operational and capital) needed to increase rider satisfaction, smart card adoption and applications, and different fare structures that could improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of transit services.

Gabbard: To what extent are you a daily train user? Is it you main means of mobility? What other modes do you use (automobile, bicycle)?

Yoh: Transit is one of the modes that I use. It is not my primary mode now, though it had been for over a decade when I first moved to LA in 1999. During that decade, I used transit for a good majority of my trips – to school, work, leisure activities, shopping, and other appointments. Now, I drive or carpool for most trips that are related to getting my child to school, doctor’s appointments, other activities, and for work. I use transit about once every week or two for work and other trips. I also walk. I bicycle/skate/scoot the least.

Gabbard: How long have they been riding transit (i.e. from what age)? Have you experienced outside of Los Angeles, outside of California and outside of North America? Any impressions or thoughts about our system comp[ared to others?

Yoh: I’ve been using transit since I was about 17 years old. I’ve used transit in the Bay Area and in Southern California. Outside of California, I’ve used transit in other large urban areas (New York, Boston, etc.) and also in not-so-large, not-so-urban areas too (Florida). Outside of North America, I’ve used transit in Paris, London (and suburbs), Stockholm (and other areas in Sweden), Beijing, Shanghai, Taipei, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, and San Juan (Costa Rica).

My impressions/thoughts about our system compared to others? Well, the experiences I’ve had run the gamut. One thing I can say is that LA’s transit system can get you anywhere you need to go. We have great coverage. What we don’t have, however, is good reliability. You can get anywhere, but how long it will take and whether your vehicle is on time is another story. I think LA’s transit system would benefit immensely from having a network of bus-only lanes to pull transit vehicles out of congested general flow lanes. It is something that would require far less in capital costs (compared, for example, with rail), it would improve throughput on our street systems, and it would reduce travel time and wait times.

However, such a system would require a lot of political will and leadership, and support from the local governments that maintain and operate the roads. In other parts of the world, particularly in Europe and Asia, there is a strong public willingness to support transit and to make it a viable mode – in terms of giving it priority and making it a convenient way to travel.

Gabbard: What reaction did you have when asked to serve on the panel? Have you undergone any briefings or been supplied with any materials by the agency prepatory to your service? Have you been given an idea when the panel may be convened and how often it is anticipated it will meet?

Yoh: I am very honored to serve on the panel — there were many well-qualified candidates whom Metro considered. I keep in touch with Metro staff on occasion as questions arise. I’ve been told that the oversight panel will draw on advisory members on an as-needed basis, and perhaps on an individual-by-individual basis when certain questions arise.

Gabbard: What further improvements would you make to the present Metro system, if any?

Yoh: In addition to more bus only lanes as I mentioned above, I would encourage Metro to improve the frequency of their bus services, and particularly the reliability of their bus schedules, since buses provide the most extensive geographic coverage in our region. Rail lines have the advantage of operating in their own rights of way, which helps with reliability and on-time performance, and these service qualities are possible with buses as well if you provide dedicated lanes. If Metro Rail is the “backbone” of the transit system, as I’ve heard some advocates and transit officials proclaim, then Metro Bus and Rapid are really the muscle that supports the backbone. I’d put rail only in corridors with extremely high levels of congestion because rail is so expensive to build.

Metro has recently launched a rather aggressive campaign to provide real-time information (via smart phones, internet, etc.) on bus and rail arrival and travel times. I’d encourage them to continue these programs.

Finally, I’d improve the way that we collect and set transit fares to better reflect the costs of providing services and to improve the equity of how we charge fares. With smart cards, we can begin to really innovate with our fare structures through incentive programs, distance-based, time-of-day-based, and mode-based fares that could really transform the system.

Gabbard: Are you excited at the prospect of undertaking this advisory role to a public entity?

Yoh: Yes!

Gabbard: Has your time serving on the Metro Board effected how you see this appointment? In what way?

Yoh: That’s a good question. On the Metro Board, I voted on very difficult choices. There are many critical improvements needed for LA’s transit system, but these all carry with them price tags and opportunity costs. Now is a particularly hard time for transit across the nation as agencies are expected to maintain service levels at a time when people need affordable travel options and yet, it is exactly at this time when revenues to support operations and maintenance are down. LA is quite unique (and perhaps in a better relative position) because of Measure R. There is no shortage of the ways we can make transit better. The toughest work is political.

Professor Gary Painter

Below are the responses of Painter, who as I previously noted is Director of the Graduate Program in Public Policy and Management for the USC School of Policy, Planning and Development. Yoh’s responses will follow tomorrow.

Gabbard: Briefly describe your academic background?

Painter: I was trained as an economist at UC Berkeley, and have been at USC since 1996. I primarily conduct research on housing markets and education policy. My main focus has been on the housing and locational choices of immigrants. I have only conducted one study of immigrant transit mode choice, so my academic expertise on transportation policy issues is limited.

Gabbard: To what extent are you a daily train user? Is it you main means of mobility? What other modes do you use (automobile, bicycle)?

I either take transit or I telecommute. I drive to either the Willow, Norwalk, or Lakewood park and ride, and then take transit in to USC from there.

How long have they been riding transit (i.e. from what age)? Have you experienced outside of Los Angeles, outside of California and outside of North America? Any impressions or thoughts about our system compared to others?

I have riding transit exclusively since 2007. I ride the DC Metro at least 3 times a year, and rode BART daily when living in Northern California. I have also used public transit in Europe. The metro cars and buses are generally not as nice as the other systems. The metro cars appear to be designed for low capacity usage.

Gabbard: What reaction did you have when asked to serve on the panel? Have you undergone any briefings or been supplied with any materials by the agency prepatory to your service? Have you been given an idea when the panel may be convened and how often it is anticipated it will meet?

I was happy to participate as a transit rider. I have not been briefed at this point as to what my role might be.

Gabbard: What further improvements would you make to the present Metro system, if any?

As gas prices have increased, the metro system has become much more crowded. The park n rides are at capacity before 7:30am on most days (Willow is an exception). My concern is that the system does not have a reasonable way to accommodate increases in demand.

Are you excited at the prospect of undertaking this advisory role to a public entity?

I am pleased to serve.

Gabbard: “Would you be willing to sell your car and rely on public transportation for at least 90% of your trips while you are a member of the panel? If not, why not? Would you be willing to give up your position to a current transit user who does not use a car?”

I suppose in some ways we are not completely representative of all transit riders because I have the choice to drive every day, but choose not to. I would not give up my auto for all of the other mobility issues. Some households do not have a car, and therefore have no other options, and I could imagine the need for their voice as well.

Passing Measure R was just the beginning. Image:Long Beach Post

For example, in a previous commentary I laid out the history of the Measure R Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee, which per the ordinance (section 8) is composed of three retired federal judges where the Mayor of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Supervisors and the “other cities” of the county each choose one of the three. The Committee is tasked to appoint an advisory panel to assist it, made up of various folks representing various professions or areas of expertise.

My intrigue at all this was that the specified categories for members of the panel included “transit system user”. I was curious how Metro would recruit someone to fill this role. There was even a rumor at one point some folks had me in mind. My thought process was maybe Metro would do outreach via The Source and/or the Metro Monthly take one brochure to recruit interested riders to apply.

What Metro did instead was contact the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies and USC School of Policy, Planning and Development and asked if they could provide candidates to fill the transit user slots. The February staff report to the Committee lists Dr. Allison Yoh, Associate Director of the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies, and Gary Painter, Director of the Graduate Program in Public Policy and Management for the USC School of Policy, Planning and Development, as the candidates advanced by their respective academic units. I understand the Committee has accepted as suitable to sit on the Advisory Panel all the candidates nominated by the various entities Metro contacted. And I should hasten to add that besides their impressive academic credentials Yoh and Painter are daily transit users.

I am unaware of any documentation laying out Metro’s rational for deciding to seek academics to fill the role of transit users, and I won’t conjecture in the absence of information. Yoh may be familiar to some as from 2001 to 2003 she served a stint on the Metro Board. Her appointment to it by James Hahn was fulfilling a campaign promise he had made to place a transit user on the Metro Board if he was elected.

Yoh and Painter have kindly consented to respond to some questions I have about their new roles. But I first wanted to give the readers of this blog a chance to make suggestions for what those questions should include. If you have some please post them as comments. After a few days I’ll review the suggested questions and at my discretion include some of them among those I use to query Yoh and Painter.

So what is the question you want answered?

Another massive highway expansion project, brought to you by Measure R

As Streetsblog has been documenting, there has been a heavy cost to Measure R beyond a half cent increase to the county sales tax.

One of those costs that 20% of the collected funds will go towards massive highway expansion projects that will induce even greater car dependence, worsen air quality and promote sprawling development patterns.

Thanks to a recent article in the Santa Clarita Signal, we’ve been given a look at another one of those projects: The planned $500 million six lane widening of the I-5 from the Highway 14 interchange to Parker Road.  Construction could start within the next year.  The project will be completed in three phases and will add two truck-only lanes and a carpool lane in each direction.

Lest anyone wonder about the motivations for the project, Victor Lindenheim, executive director of the Golden State Gateway Coalition, makes it pretty clear.

“This is about adding capacity,” Lindenheim said. “When capacity is needed, in certain situations, it will be a godsend.”

Santa Clarita’s planning manager, Robert Newman, agreed.

“There’s certainly going to be a big benefit for traveling public,” Newman said.

If the theory that adding more travel lanes does nothing to improve traffic patterns over the long-term, the question for this project is the same as it is for other massive highway expansions.  Will the car congestion created by the expansion be greater than the “congestion savings” created by the expansion before the travel lanes are filled again.

Senator Boxer offers strong support for a transportation bill that supports 30/10.

On an atypically dreary day for October, Los Angeles County’s elected representatives from every level of government gathered with community members at Leimert Park to celebrate the receipt of a $546 million loan for the Crenshaw Light Rail project.

The news had already broken on Friday. So above all, this was an opportunity for elected officials to congratulate each other, Metro, and civic leaders for securing the low interest TIFIA loan from the US Department of Transportation.

Several speakers, especially LA County Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas and Congresswoman Maxine Waters, highlighted the economic and environmental benefits that this project will bring to the South Los Angeles.

But for those following the Mayor’s 30/10 plan closely, the biggest news of the day came embedded amidst the promise of thousands of good paying union jobs and the (somewhat dubious) hope for traffic reduction.

Rather, the key points came from three figures at the federal level, whose work will help determine if the Crenshaw LRT loan is a one-off deal or a veritable down payment on a grander 30/10 scheme.

Firstly, in making a formal declaration of the loan allocation, Under Secretary of Transportation Roy W. Kienitz lauded the spirit of 30/10’s vision, but lamented that “the rules of our funding don’t allow us to do the entire program at once.” How then do you reward one of “the most creative projects,” if the current rules cap the amount of federal loans that can be allocated?

USDOT's Roy Kienitz (middle) chats with members of the community.

According to Kienitz: support the US DOT and the Los Angeles Congressional Delegation in Washington so that they can “figure out how to rewrite the rules of transportation funding.”

That’s some excitingly bold talk from a senior official in a Transportation Department that has taken a progressive approach to sustainable transportation and its role in livable communities. But ultimately, it will be up to Congress to write the next six-year transportation funding bill and to determine how 30/10 fits into that picture.

Fortunately, Senator Barbara Boxer and Congresswoman Jane Harman embraced the spirit of Kienitz’s challenge and ran with it. After lauding 30/10 as a model for communities across California, Sen. Boxer declared that 30/10 “is going to be included in our next transportation bill.”

As if that was not completely clear, Rep. Harman made it utterly unambiguous when she stated that the next transportation bill “will change the formulas for how funding is calculated” for transit projects and that Los Angeles will benefit from these new formulas. Additionally, she got behind President Obama’s proposal for a National Infrastructure Bank and said Congress would be there to fund it.

Given where Mayor Villaraigosa’s 30/10 plan stood in January – a compelling, but rough vision with little official support – it is a little bit amazing to see two powerful members of Congress vowing to rewrite transportation policy on the same day that US DOT hands over a $500 million loan.

While the boost to the Crenshaw project represents something of a milestone for 30/10, some serious heavy lifting remains. Under normal circumstances, there’s enough highway building inertia in transportation funding to kill off good public transit ideas. And on top of that, there’s a monumental mid-term election in two weeks that might result in allies like Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) losing his chairmanship of the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee.

But indeed, there is something compelling about the self-help nature of the Measure R sales tax that transcends ideology and geography. With 30/10, Los Angeles County is doing precisely what any smart small business would do: leveraging its dedicated funding source to guarantee loans that will allow the city to capitalize on labor and materials costs that are the lowest they’ve been in a decade. And in the same motion, 30/10 could put thousands of unemployed construction workers back on the job, not building tract homes on the urban fringe, but building crucial pieces of public transit infrastructure.

In other words, let’s get to work.

We don’t often discuss issues effecting the Northern parts of L.A. County.  But as a freeway expansion project moves through the environmental study phases towards construction; it’s worthwhile to check in on one of the few new highway projects in Southern California, the High Desert Corridor project.  With $33 million in Measure R funds to pay for the environmental studies already secured  for the $6 billion highway project, Caltrans is moving forward with a series of public hearings in the North County this month.  A copy of Caltrans’ postcard announcing the meetings is available at the end of the article.

So what is the High Desert Corridor?  Caltrans refers to the project as “multi-modal” because it will help move cars and trucks.  Metro, gives a more honest assesment in the project’s homepage.

The High Desert Corridor (HDC) will accommodate an expected three to six fold increase in tra;c between the Antelope and Victor Valleys…

…The HDC will construct a new 50-mile east-west freeway/expressway and possible truck toll facility between Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. The east-west segment would be an eight-lane freeway [including a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction] from SR-14 past the Palmdale Airport to 50th St East along an alignment paralleling P-8 in Palmdale; a six-lane freeway/expressway from 50th St East to 240th St East past the planned Southern California Logistics Airport to I-15.

In an era where new freeway projects are greenwashed with claims the project will help clean the air by reducing congestion or reduce the number of cars by encouraging carpooling, it’s both refreshing and horrifying to see a new highway proposed solely because it will create hundreds of new travel lane miles between two sprawled out places on a map.

While there’s little written on this project compared to many of the other Measure R Highway Projects; it could have a gigantic impact on the way in which the region grows.  Consider that the mammoth widening of the I-405 occurring in West Los Angeles will add 25% car capacity to the road, but this project will add between 300%-600% along a 50 mile stretch.

Thus far, there’s little opposition vocal opposition to the project, while support comes in from as far away as Las Vegas.  While Metro is optimistically broadcasting a 2020 completion date for the project, the hearings being held this month are just the beginning of the environmental process.  This process could take more than just a couple of years if opposition to the highway sprouts up as we’ve seen in other suburban areas where people have already gotten the message the highways are the cause of, not the solution to, automobile gridlock.

You can keep up with news on the HDC as it moves towards construction at the High Desert Corridor Joint Powers Authority website.

Move L.A., the first organization to push for a sales tax to fund transit in 2008 and the group that invented the 30/10 plan, is now asking for your help to get that plan through Congress.  The petition, which you can sign on behalf of yourself or on behalf of an organization, isn't just a lobbying tool; it's perhaps the best summary of the benefits of leveraging the half cent sales tax revenues to build all twelve Measure R transit projects in the next ten years.

Denny Zane, Move L.A.'s founder and executive director, has preached that a big tent would be needed to get the sales tax passed and to get 30/10 through Congress and the White House.  Thus, it's no surprise that this petition lists everything from environmental reasons to job creation as reasons to pass 30/10.  And for good government advocates, it also points out that by paying for projects now, instead of decades from now, L.A. County voters would save $4 billion in the long run.

In other 30/10 news, L.A. Observed writer Bill Boyarsky, who once covered the transportation beat for the L.A. Times, recently penned a column in praise of Measure R:

With city hall news full of minor malfeasance, it is surprising to report that something positive is actually happening. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s 30/10 transit plan is moving toward Congressional approval even though progress is about as slow as a Wilshire bus during rush hour.

Locally, it seems just about everyone is in favor of 30/10.  Move L.A. is just giving people an easy way to show it.

This weekend wasn't just a good one for cyclists.  On Saturday, while I was still sleeping off Critical Mass, groundbreaking occurred for the Gold Line Foothill Extension in the San Gabriel Valley.  The rail line was always a popular project with Valley residents, but until Measure R was passed, a measure opposed by several prominent politicians in the area, funding for the project was not approved.  Now, with cash in hand and shovels in the ground, officials are predicting the extension will open in 2014, before the Expo Line will be completed all the way in to Santa Monica. 

Anyone who wants to know more about the specifics of the project should read this excellent "Q and A" written for The Source by Steve Hymon.

Reports on the ground breaking describe an event that was equal part celebration and pep rally.  The Source quotes Metro Board Chair Ara Najarian proclaiming that, "This whole county is going to change."  Later, Congressman Adam Schiff put in a plug for the a third extension (as in the one after the next one,) promising, "None of us will rest until this line goes to Ontario Airport."

But of course, it's not just transit hungry residents that are the winners.  While it's great that residents of Azusa can take a train to Mariachi Plaza if they want to; the creation and construction of this line will also determine how the San Gabriel Valley will grow.  On Saturday, The Times wrote an article all about the T.O.D. plans for line, including details of an ambitious project already on the "drawing board" in Azusa:

Monrovia's proposed Station Square project would rise next to the future site of its Gold Line station, just south of the 210 Freeway. Monrovia has already invested $30 million into the project and is negotiating public-private partnerships with multiple commercial real estate developers, Monrovia Mayor Mary Ann Lutz said...

...The project's first phase will include approximately 700 apartment units, 450,000 square feet of office space, and 30,000 square feet of retail space, according to Blaine Fetter, the Principal/Organizer at Samuelson & Fetter. Some of those apartments and offices will be completed by the time the train begins operation in 2014, he said.

How quickly and intelligently those development projects are constructed will have much to do with the success of the line.  If pedestrian-friendly, truly transit-oriented developments are built, the car-culture that has had a strangle hold on Valley developments might finally be eased.  If the rail line is used to justify new development, but little effort is put into making sure the new apartments and retail blend with and support the transit; then extension or not, it will be business as usual.

But for this week, the theme is celebrating the beginning of the construction of the Measure R projects.  "The whole county is going to change."  Let's just make certain that the change is more than worth the cost.

Image: Metro.net

You’ll remember in April, while discussing the obscure Independent Citizens’ Advisory and Oversight Committee (ICAOC), I mentioned the start-up of the Measure R Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee was impending.

The hold up was the appointment of the three Committee members. Measure R dictates the panel shall be made up of retired judges, with one appointment each by the Mayor of Los Angeles, the County Supervisors and the "other cities" of the county (similar to the way Board seats are divided).

The Committee members are:

• Justice Candace Cooper (appointed by L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa)
• Judge Richard Kolostian (appointed by the "other cities")
• Judge Robert W. Parkin (appointed by the L.A. County Supervisors)

June 3rd the Committee has its first meeting in the Metro Board Conference Room, starting at 1:30 p.m.

One of the first tasks the Committee members face is appointing the members of its advisory panel. Measure R states the members shall consist of at least one representative, and not more than two, of the following professions or areas of expertise:

a. Construction trade labor union representative

b. Environmental engineer or environmental scientist

c. Road or rail construction firm project manager

d. Public and private finance expert

e. Regional association of businesses representative

f. Transit system user

The staff report gives a good overview of the Committee’s purpose and other legal type stuff.

Evidently much like the aforementioned ICAOC, this body was seen as being a selling point for the voters. I guess having retired judges gives it an aura of authority and impartiality. Such is the way policy often zigs and zags, shaped as much as anything by perceptions and political realities.

Villaraigosa (r.) with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, another co-chief of Building America's Future. (Photo: Getty)

Rendell and Villaraigosa came to the Capitol for a visit to the House Ways and Means Committee's revenue panel, which faces the challenging task of finding a workable financing mechanism for long-term federal transportation legislation.

Villaraigosa used his high-profile push for federal assistance with his city's "30/10" transit plan, which would expedite construction of 13 rail and rapid bus projects using proceeds from a voter-approved sales tax, to urge lawmakers' support for an NIB.

"We're not only arguing for infrastructure investment on the federal level," he said. "We're saying ... at a time of spiraling deficits, we've got to encourage local governments to put up their own money. We have done that [in L.A.]."

Rendell, who has used his role as co-chairman of the advocacy group Building America's Future to amass support for an NIB, quoted GOP Sen. Jim Inhofe's (OK) support for federal transport spending in a bid to depict infrastructure as a uniquely bipartisan issue.

"The American people are way ahead of us," Rendell told Ways and Means members. "Infrastructure is something they can touch, they can see, they can experience ... This is easier, in terms of public perception, than anybody thinks."

But even as the duo focused on the NIB -- which Rendell and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) agreed should be placed outside the U.S. DOT, counter to the White House's proposal -- the specter of the federal gas tax hung over the room. One day after conservatives began using anti-gas tax arguments in a bid to derail the new Senate climate bill, lawmakers prodded Rendell and Villaraigosa to share their views on the subject.

Rendell, specifying that he was "not speaking for" his advocacy group, endorsed a gas tax increase. Villaraigosa followed, confidently: "I unequivocally support an increase in the gas tax ... if America is going to continue to maintain its highways and infrastructure, it's crucial."

Few Democrats on the Ways and Means panel, however, were prepared to echo their colleagues from the state and local levels.

"I think we'd have a hard time passing a gas tax increase in the Democratic delegation [and] a hard time passing it in the Pennsylvania delegation," Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) told Rendell after the governor cited surveys that show the majority of the public incorrectly believes the tax is already indexed for inflation. "I just think these polls may not be as telling as we'd like to think."

A middle-ground approach was offered by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who reminded fellow House members that "there is no reason we have to raise a gas tax, this year or next year," to pay for sustained new federal transport investment. "As long as we establish a revenue path going forward within a 10-year budget score, we can leverage it."

Still, in a political climate dominated by incumbents in both parties running scared ahead of the November midterm elections, the prospects for any significant commitment from Washington appeared bleak.

These were the place mats awaiting guests at yesterday's conference.  Nice work Transit Coalition - DN

(Since leaving the LA Weekly, where she did everything from review bands to serve as transportation writer, Gloria Ohland has been heavily involved in the transit reform scene.  Most recently she worked with the T.O.D. advocacy group Reconnecting America.  You'll be seeing more of her writing here in the very near future...DN)

Let’s be clear: The “30-10” transit plan to build nine new rail and three new bus rapid transit lines over a decade is a really big deal. That infusion of investment ($18 billion for transit capital out of a total $30 billion for capital and operations) and jobs (166,000) could jolt LA County at least part-way out of the recession. But even more importantly, the coalition that has come together in support of 30-10 – business, labor, enviros, elected officials, Metro board members – is also a big deal. Some say it’s the first time the L.A. County Congressional delegation has ever united in support of something.

And if the Move LA coalition can mobilize this “30-10” transportation and economic development game-changer what’s to stop the coalition from going even further?

I refer you to this map that was passed out at Denny Zane’s Move LA confab on Thursday at the downtown Cathedral, which was attended by some 300 people including everyone from Mayor Villaraigosa to California Assembly Transportation Committee Chair Bonnie Lowenthal. Not all the new lines on this map are funded by Measure R. But those that aren’t are either under construction or under serious consideration. Add to that the bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure that could be funded by the $6 billion of Measure R funding that’s allocated for Local Return to cities. This represents a massive investment in non-auto infrastructure. Suddenly LA looks a lot like a transit metropolis.

But there’s more: Because of SB 375 most cities in LA County will be seriously considering “going vertical” around new rail stations to reduce VMT and GHG emissions. Former Urban Partners developer Dan Rosenfeld, now deputy to Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas, told the audience he thinks projects near stations should be able to move ahead “by right” if they’re green, have an affordable component, and no more than one parking space per unit. He suggested a height limit of 200 feet in neighborhoods along Wilshire, for example, and 80 feet in neighborhoods like downtown Pasadena ­­– the same as the Moule and Polyzoides designed Del Mar Station that Rosenfeld developed.

Admittedly, 30-10 is not the perfect plan. For example, it’s expediting $10 billion for highway projects. And never mind whether you believe LA Metro will actually be able to do a good job of concurrently managing 12 new transit projects, or that we’ll be able to find the money to operate them. “It’s a little like mounting a mission to the moon and invading Europe at the same time,” Richard Little, director of USCs Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy, told the audience. And it’s true that the political coalition supporting 30-10 is a little fragile, as was noted by Inglewood Councilmember Danny Tabor as well as other elected officials who won’t see rail lines getting built anywhere near their cities.

But meetings in Washington DC have intensified and the next 60-90 days are considered critical; something needs to happen before Congress adjourns for the summer. Senator Barbara Boxer, considered politically vulnerable in Southern California, is working hard to get LA the money – maybe with a bridge loan or a loan guarantee that could help leverage funding from the private sector.

The federal government appears sympathetic. And why not? L.A. County is the only place where residents have voted to tax themselves three times in order to build a transit system; in L.A. County we now pay 1.5 cents of the sales tax to transit. No other region in the U.S. has come to the federal government and been so bold as to ask for a $9 billion loan for transit and offered to pay it back. That is exactly the kind of behavior that the Obama Administration should be encouraging.

Thirty-five speakers representing the Move LA coalition were arrayed across the large room facing each other in two large half-circles, brainstorming about ways to fund the infrastructure that the U.S. so badly needs to stay competitive with countries like China, for example, which is building 46 high-speed rail lines. There were conversations about investing pension fund money from CalPERS, CalSTERS and SEIU. And allowing transportation commissions to add a $30 “congestion fee” to the cost of a car license; multiply that by the 7 million cars in LA County and it could raise $200 million a year to pay for transit operations. And by reducing parking requirements for developers who buy lifetime transit passes for their renters or buyers – providing Metro with a steady stream of money for operations as well as riders.

“Imagine how many votes we would have gotten for Measure R if voters knew that we’d build all the rail lines in 10 years,” said Zane, who moderated the day-long discussion. “If we also lowered the votes required to pass local sales tax measures from 67 percent to 55 percent it would be a new day for transportation in California.”

The gathering also provided Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa with an opportunity to be triumphant. "People laughed at me when I said Los Angeles would become the cleanest, greenest U.S. city. But we could attain that goal if we go vertical and build transit villages around all the new stations,” said the Mayor. "I told President Obama that it's important that we build these new transit lines during his administration."

But at the same time the Council debated, a sideshow developed in the witness chairs as LADOT and the Chief Legislative Analyst's office were unable to give a clear answer as to whether or not the city could spend $3.2 million on bicycle and pedestrian projects.  Doubly confusing because the Mayor's FY2011 Budget puts that number at $5.35 million because some of the funds for the 2011 Budget were collected in the current fiscal year, the tax started in August, but wasn't spent  If you don't want to scroll through the proposed budget, here's what's being proposed:

 Regardless of whether the number is the $3.2 million that will be collected in FY 2011 or the $5.3 million that will be collected in 2010 and 2011; the LADOT seemed determined to help their critics who claimed the Department wouldn't be able to spend the funds in the next fifteen months.  Streetsblog gave a hard time to those advocating for language that would allow the LADOT to spend "up to 10%" of Measure R Local Return Funds on bicycle and pedestrian projects, which was the opposite of the intent for the set-aside; but when you have a Department that is basically arguing against giving them these funds, what else are the Council Members supposed to think?

Speaking for the LADOT was Mike Uyeno, who was joined by Maria Souza-Rountree from the Chief Legislative Analyst Office.  Time and again, Council Members asked if the LADOT would be able to spend Measure R Local Return funds that were set-aside.  Time and again, Uyeno gave an answer somewhere between "no" and "I don't know."  For example:

Councilman Paul Koretz asked:

Is there any chance at all that we’ll be unable to spend the 10% on bike and pedestrian needs.

Uyeno answered

I’m not sure. It depends what staffing becomes available. Not sure what ped. Projects are out there in the department. There’s just a lot of open ends in this anymore.

This is the perfect example of the difference between a Department with vision, passion, and leadership and the LADOT.  While Rita Robinson wishes for magic, perhaps a spinal transfusion would be better to fix what ails this hapless department.  Without doing any research, but with a dedication to change, you could give this as an answer:

There are a lot of great projects in the upcoming Bike Plan that will be passed in 2011.  On the off chance that we can't come up with enough big projects to fill those funds, the city will use any remaining funds to make certain that the curb cuts along major corridors are ADA compliant.  We have a backlog of intersections that are unpassable to our most dangerous to our most vulnerable for pedestrians, and just because they are "grandfathered" in doesn't mean they are a major safety problem.

Or you could mention matching funds for "Safe Routes to Schools" grants.  Or you could discuss better signage for bike paths.  Or you could say "we'll fund the bike corral and put 10,000 new bike racks on the streets."  There are literally thousands of ways to spend a couple of million dollars in this city, and to not be able to give a firm yes just show how far removed from the streets the LADOT really is. 

So congratulations and thanks to the City Council for finally dedicating some city funds for bicycling and transit, and jeers to the LADOT for, inentionally or not, undermining that effort.

Today, the Metro Board of Directors voted to endorse the 30/10 proposal, but for a long-time it didn’t look good.  All of the signs were there for a disaster…a highway sellout of "30/10," the proposal to use federal loans to front-load construction of twelve transit projects funded in Measure R.

The forces of the status quo, AAA, a pair of CoG’s and various chambers of commerce, were speaking of the needs of including highway projects in Measure R.  Heck, even some transit advocates were willing to compromise some highway projects on the list in the name of the "greater good."  Meanwhile, the Metro Board wasn’t talking about pushing the best list of projects it could to get federal funds flowing quickly to L.A.  And while the Mayor was trying to frame 30/10 debate in environmental terms on twitter, the idea that highways cause pollution was completely absent from the debate put forth by our elected leadership.

Sure, there were plenty of pro-30/10 comments, most notably from other transit advocates and the environmental movement.  NRDC and the Clean Air Coalition published a pair of blog posts and letter to the Metro Board arguing that wasting time and focus on highways undermines the spirit of Measure R.  Even the Bus Rider’s Union spoke up against the amendments, noting that it was "unfortunate the Board was aligning with highways to build more trains."

A pair of pro-highway amendments were added to the proposal to formally endorse "30 in 10."  One by Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas required Metro to also be pushing funds for "public-private partnership" projects in Washington, D.C.  Another, by Supervisors Diane DuBois and Pam O’Connor, just flatly requires that highway project acceleration be made equally important to transit project acceleration in Washington, D.C.

Finally, Director Richard Katz, holding one of the Board positions appointed by Mayor Villaraigosa and the author of the resolution calling on Metro to back 30/10 spoke.  After accepting these amendments as "friendly," he took the turn to speak about the proposal.  First, he made clear that he considered these motions to be in addition to 30/10 not part of it.  In other words, the project list being touted by the Mayor and other 30/10 supporters would remain in-tact, and not be polluted by those favored by the highway lobby.  Second, he noted that if they were to be added to 30/10 list, it would make everything much more difficult and could delay the whole thing.

You see, transit projects are funded differently than highway projects in D.C., and Katz pointed out that, "the support in Washington is clearly on transit projects."  If they change horses and add a new list, they could find themselves back at square one.

Despite the concerns by some that the highway projects would get left by the wayside, the Metro Board ultimately voted unanimously, minus the absent Don Knabe, to accept the proposal as amended.  It will be interesting to see how much energy is put into advancing the highway project timeline and how much of today’s debate was just verbiage.

There were two interesting comments from the debate that deserve a little extra attention.

First, the lobbyist for the Automobile Club of Southern California, aka AAA, actually tried to couch the inclusion of highway projects in environmental terms.  Basically, they argue that L.A. County deserves a multi-modal 30/10 not just one focused on "transit."  Of course, a plan that involves light rail, heavy rail, bus and bus rapid transit is multi-modal, but I guess when you’re the car-culture lobbyist, there are two modes: "cars" and "all that other stuff."

The second is that one of the best arguments against cluttering 30/10 with highway projects came from one of the Board Members who authored the motion to make certain they were accelerated also: Santa Monica Council Woman Pam O’Connor.  O’Connor noted that "We’re not building eight projects. We’re building a system."  Why one would want to take projects off the list that would create the system and replace them with highway projects, which is what many people including myself, AAA, and all the pro-highway forces thought her amendment would do, is beyond me.  To hazard a guess: the personally car-free O’Connor was at war with the politician who wants to do what her constituency felt they needed in the South Bay.

But at the end of the day, the Board voted with one voice.  Boar Chair Ara Najarian boasted that when the Board is unified, "when we’re going to Washington, they’re scared of us." Whether they’re scared enough to help L.A. County build the transit system it deserves remains to be seen.

Source: S.C.A.G.'s Year 2000 Post Census Regional Transportation Survey

In my Tuesday review of Monday's City Council debate on whether or not the city should use it's Measure R Local Return to fund bicycle and pedestrian projects, I mocked a statement by Councilman Greig Smith that because 10% of trips aren't by bike, the City shouldn't fund bicycle projects with 10% of Measure R funds.  I argued that because the city doesn't do bike counts, it's not possible to know for sure how many trips are by bike, but since we're talking about bicycling and pedestrian spending together the argument is moot anyways.  After all, everyone is a pedestrian.

Turns out there's more data out there than I knew.

In 2000, the Southern California Association of Governments completed a transportation survey to get better data for the Southern California area.  As you can see above, it turns out that almost 12% of trips regionally are done by what we call "people powered transportation," but what S.C.A.G. calls 'non-motorized transportation."  Unfortunately, this number is a low one when it comes to trying to get a good number for just the city.  S.C.A.G. includes less urban counties such as Riverside, Ventura and San Bernadino in with L.A. County so it's safe to assume that the number is higher in the city than in the entire S.C.A.G. region.

Second, the population most likely to use their feet or pedals to get around, immigrant and day-laborer communities are historically under-counted in surveys, especially those conducted by governmental organizations.

And last, this survey was done ten years ago.  More people are biking now than they were then.

The good news is, this survey will be updated this year after the census is completed so we'll have better data to work with soon.

So, Councilman Smith, you were right to point out that the 10% number for the "bike-ped. set aside" was pulled out of thin air.  The number should have been at least 12%.  We look forward to your amendment correcting this mistake when the full Council votes on this matter at next Tuesday's meeting.

Actually, scratch that.  Taking your logic from Monday, that modal funding should be based on modal split, "non-motorized transportation" is going to need a lot more than just 12% of the Measure R Local Return. S.C.A.G.'s 2008 RTP Non-Motorized Transportation Report says on page 20:

Out of the total expenditure of $569 Billion in the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan, $2.6 Billion is allocated for non-motorized projects.  Regional bicycle and walking travel represents 11.9% of all trips respectively, but represents less that 0.46% of all transportation funding in the region.

Wow!  It's going to take a lot more than 10% of the Measure R Local Return set aside to reach 12% with less than half a percent going towards cycling and pedestrian projects.  However, giving these modes a fare shake next week is a good place to start.

In recent years, there has been little attention paid to transportation in Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's annual "State of the City" address given with the budget.  In 2008, the speech focused mostly on gangs and safety issues.  I reported at the time that there was "precious little" on transportation.  Last year was worse.  I found one paragraph on transportation.

This year, finding solutions to the city's never-ending transportation crisis was a major part of the Mayor's speech.  As you might expect, Measure R and "30 in 10" were key components of the yearly status report; but it wasn't the only issue covered.  Astute readers will even notice the mayor talking about the importance of supporting our street backbone.  Hmmm.

But the largest transportation topic covered was split between Measure R and "30 in 10."

Again, in November of 2008, the voters showed their willingness to invest in the future of their city. They passed Measure R with 68% support in the County of Los Angeles over two-thirds countywide voted to raise the sales tax by half a penny.

In doing so they secured $40 billion in revenue for new bus and rail lines, better streets, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements.

Bicycle and pedestrian projects?  To his credit, Villaraigosa has held on his promise to advocates in 2008.  5% of the local return funds from Measure R in next year's budget, $2.6 million per category, are set aside for bicycle and pedestrian projects.  More on the mayor's budget tomorrow.

Now, Angelenos’ willingness to invest has caught the attention of our national leaders. We have been able to make the strong case that the federal government should partner with Los Angeles to accelerate our historic transportation investment. Instead of completing twelve major transit projects in thirty years, Washington should help us do it in ten.

We are calling this the “30/10 Initiative.” By combining our investment with federal support we could generate 166,000 construction jobs; 2,800 permanent jobs over the next decade; increase transit boardings by 77 million per year; save 10.3 million gallons of gas; and keep 570,000 lbs of pollution out of the air.

Doing this will make Los Angeles more sustainable and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Measure R will double our transit system here in Los Angeles and “30/10” would make us a national model showing how locally we can drive transformative investments in the future of cities and our great nation.

This is a good sign that the Mayor is ready to fight for a "transit only" "30 in 10."  He takes the argument past Antonovich's one for eonomic development and focuses on the environmental and economic reasons for accelerating transit projects first.

Later in the speech, after discussing the need to make deep cuts, Villaraigosa then goes into area he won't cut.  These include:

This budget funds the backbone of our transportation infrastructure: our street surfaces and street signals. By leveraging Federal Stimulus dollars we will budget 735 miles of street resurfacing. This keeps us on pace with the last two years.

Obviously, the Mayor isn't talking about the Backbone Bikeway Network, but if this signals a re-commitment to repaving large arterial road instead of less-traveled local roads, it's pretty much saying the same thing.

Of course, there's a third component to the transportation infrastructure in L.A.  Transit, and streets and parking.  But when a city official in the land of Shoup is talking parking, it's not about reform but about leases or privatization.

This September, we will aim to close leases on a set of our city-owned parking garages. And working with the City Council we've already begun exploring the possibilities of partnerships at the Los Angeles Zoo, the Convention Center our municipal golf courses and the City’s parking meters. All represent opportunities for the City of Los Angeles to capitalize on the strengths of the private sector while delivering a better quality of service for the people of Los Angeles.

This is a sort of "good news, bad news" part of the speech.  The good news is that the city is holding to its word not to rush ahead with privatization of parking meters, which could cripple the city both fiscally and from a transportation reform perspective for years to come if it weren't done correctly.  The bad news is that the city does seem to be rushing towards leasing out its garages in the next six months.  The quicker the process, the less change its going to be handled in a public way and that the city will maximize its deal.  Of course, there is no talk of the city using any of those revenues for anything besides closing the gap left in the general fund.

Considering that we'll have to wait to make a final judgment on the parking privatization plan until it's actually released; the "state of the city" for transportation reform is stronger than it was a year ago.  Measure R, increased funding for bike-ped, "30 in 10," and investing in the backbone of our transportation system are all concepts and projects that have been lacking from recent "state of" addresses.  Maybe yesterday was a sign that, finally, things are moving in the right direction for transportation in Los Angeles.

This Thursday, the Metro Board of Directors will debate and vote-on whether or not to formally support Mayor Villaraigosa's "30 in 10" program that would use federal loans to move the twelve largest transit projects contained in the 30 year Measure R sale tax program in the next decade.  "30 in 10" has proven wildly popular with transit riders and is being touted as a national model for transit agencies, yet all of the advance debate on the program from the Board can be summarized as "how can we make sure to build more wasteful and expensive highway projects quicker?" You can read the full agenda for this Thursday's meeting, here.

The Source reported last week that the Finance Committee of the Metro Board approved a motion from the personally car-free Santa Monica Council Woman Pam O'Conner and Lakewood Council Woman Diane Dubois requesting that highway projects be added to the project mix.  Following their lead, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments started waving their arms demanding "30 in 10" money for the I-710 Tunnel Project, an option to "improve" the I-710 which isn't even the locally preferred alternative and faces fierce opposition from some local municipalities and every environmentalist in Southern California.

Meanwhile, in the Santa Clarita Signal, Supervisor Mike Antonovich makes the case that "30 in 10" doesn't work for all of L.A. County mainly because of the lack of highway projects in the transit plan.  In addition to repeating the tired arguments against Measure R, which were roundly rejected by voters in the Santa Clarita area, Antonovich makes an economics pitch for accelerated highway construction:

The county Economic Development Corp. last week released a report stating that 67 percent of the jobs, economic output and earnings generated by Measure R come from highway projects, with the remaining 33 percent from transit projects. Without incorporating highway projects, the 30/10 plan will leave behind 341,500 jobs, $46.3 billion in economic output and $15.1 billion in earnings. We cannot afford to leave the benefits of highways out of 30/10.

While it may be true that the EDC did predict more jobs to be created from the freeway projects than the transit ones; it failed to analyze all of the money that will be wasted when the highways lead to more pollution, worse air quality, higher asthma rates, and all of the other curses that have rained down on L.A. County because of our car addiction.

Via email, Alexander Friedman, a Streetsblog contributor and member of transit groups, writes

For too many years Southern California has favored the automobiles over everything else, which is pathetic. As a result, the autos ultimately destroyed Mass Transit, took away Pedestrian space and landscaping, and didn't focus much on Bicycle conditions... So, it is now time to catch up, and create a vast network of Public Transportation, thanks to Measure R, along with 30/10 plan.

At least one County Supervisor is backing the mayor  In the Los Angeles Business Journal, Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas writes that it's time to re-assemble to coalition that passed Measure R.  While I appreciate his sentiment, most of that coalition is already re-assembled.

While Thursday is going to be a real test for the Metro Board, it's a real testament to the power of Southern California's car culture that this is even an issue.  Consider the rallies and coalitions that were needed to get Measure R passed.  After that, transit advocates at Move L.A. had to devise the "30 in 10" plan themselves, before Villaraigosa emerged as a champion.  Then, rallies were held by the advocates, and eventually the mayor did too.  And yet, before the Board of Directors for the local transit agency can get on board, we first have to have a debate about how much of those front loaded funds are spent on highways, and perhaps which projects have to be sacrificed to satiate our elected leaders car addiction.

As someone who has been pushing hard for a "bicycling and pedestrian set aside" for Measure R funds from before it was called Measure R, I have mixed feelings about yesterday's City Council Joint Hearing with the Transportation and Budget & Finance Committees.

On one hand, it was gratifying to see the funding guidelines for how the city will spend its share of Measure R local return funds, including the set-aside, move forward to the full Council.  While it's true the set-aside will be re-debated next year, provided it passes the full Council, that will account for roughly $6.2 million dollars.  If spent correctly, that's a lot of bike lanes and ADA complaint curb cuts. 

On the other hand, at one point it seemed as though the proposal was going to be turned around to limit the amount of Local Return funds that could be spent on people powered transportation.  Without some timely intervention from the Mayor's office, what was supposed to be a big day for cyclists and pedestrians could have been a disaster.

For those just joining this discussion, during the debate at the Metro Board on the project list for what would become Measure R in the summer of 2008, bicycling and pedestrian advocates petitioned for a set-aside in the "Local Return" funds for "non-motorized transportation."  While they didn't get the set-aside, they did get a promise from Mayor Villaraigosa that the City would spend a sizable portion of its local return on bicycling and pedestrian projects.  What followed was a year and a half of hearings and negotiations, led by the Los Angeles County Bicycling Coalition, with assists from LA Walks and Stephen Box at crucial points, that led to yesterday's hearing and a future hearing by the City Council.

So what happened?  After a parade of speakers testified in favor of the bicycle and pedestrian set-aside being included in the city's Measure R spending guidelines, Councilman and Transportation Committee Chair Bill Rosendahl voiced his support for the set-aside.  But then a funny thing happened.  Transportation Committee Member and Budget & Finance Committee Chair Bernard Parks spoke against the set-aside, voicing concern that it would hamper the city's ability to do other projects.  His logic was that if you do the set-aside before making a final plan for how the set-aside would be spent that you might end up wasting funds on less deserving projects just to meet the guidelines.

Parks proposed changing the language to read that "up to 10%" of Measure R local return funds spent by the city could be spent on bicycling and pedestrian projects.  Parks' proposal would have turned what was supposed o be a guarantee of some funding for bike/ped projects into a limit on what could be spent on these projects instead.  Whatever Parks' intention, the result would have been a restriction of Measure R funds towards "people powered projects."

Councilman Greig Smith

Of course, the 10% is for cyclists and pedestrians leaving us with one of four options for the Councilman's statement.  He either can't read, didn't bother to read the legislation in front of him or listen to the speakers, doesn't know what a pedestrian is, or just doesn't care about cyclists so much that he couldn't hear anything else but "money for bikes."  I'm guessing it's the second option, but given his efforts to delay an "anti-harassment law" for cyclists, it could be the fourth as well.

Of course, is Smith wants to play the math game, he could declare that if cyclists are only 3% of transportation users, a low estimate for an urban area, than they should receive 3% of all LADOT construction programs.  Or, since 100% of people are pedestrians, that is all the LADOT should support anyway.

Moving on from Smith, Councilman Koretz spoke highly of cycling and told an anecdote about supporting a Council candidate 35 years ago in part because of his bike-friendly views.  He then joked that he didn't want to be walking into City Hall on his cane in 35 years complaining that he couldn't bike there because there were no bike lanes.

Still to speak were Councilmen Huizar and LaBonge with a 2-2 declared vote on the set aside.  LaBonge rose to speak and delivered a somewhat muddled speech that seemed to be leaning towards voting for the "limit" language instead of the "set-aside" language.  However, half-way through his testimony, he asked for some expert commentary from LADOT.

The LADOT ducked giving a firm answer. Something to remember the next time LADOT tells you they "want to be more like New York."

Next, LaBonge asked the Mayor's Office for their opinion, and Jaime de la Vega went to the witness table and delivered an eloquent defense of having a set-aside for bicycling and pedestrian projects.

(The set-aside) creates a discipline on how you spend money in the future.  This city should spend a disproportionate amount on transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects.

In other words, just like the rest of the Measure R funds, Local Return projects shouldn't be based on what the city is now, but what the city should be in the future.  Affter de la Vega's testimony, LaBonge voiced support for the set-aside, and soon Councilman Huizar, who also serves on the Metro Board as a Mayoral Appointee, did too.

While a 4-2 vote seemed assured, Rosendahl did accept an amendment that required that the city revisit the issue of the set-aside after 2011 to make certain that the city is able to spend those funds.  Of course, if the city isn't spending those funds, it's not for a lack of projects.  The city could declare that all of the set-aside was going to make sure that every intersection at the city has ADA compliant curb cuts and that would gobble up all of the set-aside even if the city didn't paint a single inch of bike lanes in the next two years.

That being said, yesterday's opposition creates uncertainty that the set-aside will pass the full Council.  Eight votes are necessary, and we can assume that there are at least four from today's vote, but where will the other four come from?  In the past, Richard Alarcon has voted for the set-aside, but so had Councilman Parks.  Councilmen Eric Garcetti and Ed Reyes have supported bicycling projects in their district, but haven't gone on record in support of this particular piece of legislation.  Councilman Paul Krekorian was a champion for cyclists and pedestrians with his "safe streets" legislation in Sacramento, but hasn't been put to any test in his Councilmanic district.  The list goes on and on.  With no date yet set advocates are going to have their work cut out to make certain the final version of the Measure R spending plan doesn't cut out the cyclists and pedestrians that were promised some much needed support 21 months ago.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), at left, with the president last night. (Photo: AP/CBS)

In
remarks from one appearance that were released by the White House,
Obama touted Boxer’s "work to pursue a clean energy future" by helping
to craft a climate change bill in the upper chamber — albeit one that was effectively supplanted by a non-cap-and-trade measure crafted by three other senators.

"California has been a leader in promoting hybrids and cleaner burning
fuels," Obama told the crowd, "and appropriately, you have in Barbara Boxer a subcompact
senator with a seemingly inexhaustible supply of energy."

But
that energy may not be enough to propel Boxer to victory without a
tangible win to tout for recession-weary Californians, as E&E News
reported this morning. From its subscription-only writeup of the
Obama-Boxer fundraising swing:

Shaun Bowler, a professor at University of California, Riverside, said
Boxer has three factors to blame for the uphill fight: an
anti-incumbent mood throughout the country; Attorney General Jerry
Brown’s (D) lackluster campaign for governor; and Obama’s sagging
approval ratings. …

To Bowler, Boxer needs to show evidence of a major victory before the
fall, but he is unconvinced that a climate bill would resonate with
voters.

Cue Antonio Villaraigosa?

The Los Angeles mayor has credited
Boxer with bringing federal funding and momentum to L.A.’s transit
system, and his push for expediting more than a dozen new projects
under the "30/10" umbrella has given Boxer a new opening for transportation policymaking as the fate of a long-term federal infrastructure bill remains uncertain at best.

Even
Republican lawmakers such as Rep. John Mica (FL), the senior minority
member of the House transport panel, have indicated their willingness
to work out a federal financing package for L.A. transit, perhaps
through a combination of loans and grants. If Boxer can help hammer out
that 30/10 deal despite the mired state of Congress’ six-year
infrastructure measure, she would have a job-creating achievement to
tout on the trail this fall.

Much depends on the state of negotiations over a new long-term infrastructure bill. Democratic leaders have promised
Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) a vote on the legislation before year’s
end, and Boxer has indicated she plans to release her version of the
bill in the coming weeks. Would the task of taking up a transportation
bill months ahead of the White House’s preferred timetable slow down Boxer’s progress on L.A. transit funding? Stay tuned …