What is the RTP?

To read the plan in its entirety, click on the image.

The SCAG 2012 to 2035 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy  is a $525 billion, 23 year transportation and land use blueprint for the six county, expected-to-grow-to 22 million person Southern California Associations of Governments region. The 230 page draft report, 446 page list of projects to fund, 642 page environmental impact report, and numerous appendixes lay out a vision for transportation and land use in the greater Los Angeles region along with a plan to raise and spend over $520 billion to maintain, operate and expand transportation infrastructure through 2035.

Comments on the draft plan are due by 5pm on Valentine’s day, February 14, 2012. I’d encourage everyone interested in the future of streets, transit, sustainability or the built environment in the region to submit comments by emailing RTP@scag.ca.gov While not everything in the draft plan will get implemented, the RTP is a strong indicator of how transportation agencies, counties and cities will prioritize investments in transportation. If there are harmful or wasteful projects slated to be funded, you should encourage SCAG to drop them. If you want local governments to prioritize different transportation investment, you should let SCAG know. If you have ideas for other ways to improve mobility, to raise funds to pay for transportation, to encourage more sustainable land uses (especially housing patterns and locations), or otherwise transform how we move people and products, let them know.

I hope that some Streetsblog readers will check out the project list to see and comment on what is planned – and what is left out- for your part of the region and/or for the transportation sector(s) that you know best. For my comments, which I summarize below, I’ve tried to focus on the improved mobility and more sustainable neighborhoods that I hope to see evolve over the next 25 years. If the draft plan moves us in that direction, I’ll acknowledge the positive elements of the plan. Where the draft plan falls short or moves in the wrong direction, I’ll suggest changes.

A Vision for the Future

So what are some compelling but achievable long term visions for transportation and land use in the region? Mine would include:

• Rapid implementation of more balanced transportation options. The region is still far from recovering from a frenzy of car-based development. The SCAG region has 21,638 center-line miles of road  (55,890 lane miles of roads), 4315 miles of bikeways of varied quality (almost zero of it protected lanes on streets), and 470 miles of passenger trains (only 80 miles of which is light rail/subway, the rest metrolink). Opportunities and infrastructure to walk, bike, and take transit should be rapidly expanded so residents have choices for how to get around.
• Transportation that doesn’t kill us, make us sick, or destroy the future. Moving people by cars and materials by trucks and diesel trains and separating where we live from where we work and shop produces fatal collisions,  cancer and heart disease, obesity and diabetes  and climate change, with a disparate impact on residents of low income neighborhoods bisected by highways and living near ports, warehouses, railyards and intermodal facilities. Shifting to active transportation and safer streets; insisting on zero emission technologies; promoting walkable land uses; and taxing polluting forms of transportation to pay for clean mobility options can help ensure we are not harmed by our transportation systems.
• Streets for people, not roads for cars. Streets are our most important public spaces so let’s reconfigure them to be vibrant, safe, healthy places rather than sewers for cars. Why can’t we get some world class street designs implemented in this region, like the models for South Figueroa showcased by myfigueroa last year? At the least we deserve slower speed limits, more cross walks, and better sidewalks, not to mention more murals and legal street food.
• A network of rapid buses as the primary way to travel Los Angeles in a vehicle. I like Jarrett Walker’s vision for Los Angeles streets in 2030  “Indeed, the Rapid has come to feel like a subway on the surface.  Nothing gets in its way, so it glides smoothly from one stop to the next past all the frustrations of other traffic.  In fact, the Rapid is the only reliable way to travel down most of the great boulevards of LA, if you’re going further than you can cycle.  And because it works, all kinds of people ride it.”
• Good places rather than more sprawl. People are drawn to diversity in the built environment,  so municipalities should legalize interesting, mixed-use neighborhoods by getting rid of zoning rules that restrict mixed use development to a small fraction of cities’ land area. Governments should also not be contributing a single cent towards more sprawl so I’d like to see an end to road building and the provision of public sewers or utilities ingreenfield, exurban areas of the region.
• An expansive network of protected bike lanes. The cycling rate in greater Los Angeles is pitifully low, although growing, with a severe gender imbalance. The main reason for this is likely that most people will not ride bicycles in traffic (or separated from traffic by a painted line). In the developed world, every nation with high rates of cycling has separated bike facilities while every nation with low cycling rates lacks this infrastructure. Let’s start creating a network of protected bike lanes/ cycletracks in all urbanized areas of Southern California, like the Dutch did beginning in the mid 1970s. I realize that protected lanes are frowned upon by state street engineering standards but this is a 23 year plan so we can assume that separated facilities will be legalized.
• Expanded passenger rail for mobility and as hubs of walkable neighborhoods. New light rail in Los Angeles County has been one of the main positive trends in transportation and land use in the region. Planned and new lines should be rapidly built to fill in gaps in the system. From light rail to high speed rail, new lines and stations should be designed to encourage walkable, mixed use development, more affordable housing, and last mile connections by bike and foot (rather than land-wasting parking lots).
• Less space for cars and trucks. Roads and parking currently take up too much of our land, which encourages car-based transportation and all the problems that accompany it. Driving increases when roads are constructed, lengthened or widened. Yes, it is that simple.  So we should not be building any new road space anywhere in the SCAG region. Instead we should remove space for cars by planning for freeway removal as smart cities are doing around the world;  implementing road diets to give car lanes to pedestrians, bikes and buses; barring cars from city centers either permanently or regularly as part of expanded ciclavias; and  ending all minimum parking requirements.

Comments on draft RTP

While I don’t think that the draft RTP moves far enough towards this improved transportation and land use end goal,  I would like to acknowledge some of the positive elements of the draft plan.

• The planning process took account of the relationship between transportation, land use,  sustainability, environmental justice and economic development.
• The draft plan calls for significant investments in transit construction, operations and maintenance.
• The draft plan increases investments in active transportation compared to previous RTPs.
• The draft plan anticipates that vehicle miles traveled will increase less than population growth.
• The sustainable communities strategy quantifies how different forms of growth will have very different impacts on sprawl, energy and water use and other sustainability indicators.
• The draft plan anticipates adoption of zero emission technologies towards the end of the plan time frame.
• The draft plan supports high speed rail.
• The draft plan anticipates a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transportation in line with the goals of SB 375.
• The single largest anticipated funding source in the draft plan is implementation of a fee on driving or an increase in the gas tax, either of which would discourage driving.
• Much of the new highway space proposed in the draft plan is toll roads, HOV lanes, or HOT lanes (open to HOV or Tolls) and therefore may lead to less new, induced driving than the provision of free, multiuse lanes.

I think there are some major areas in which the RTP should be strengthened or modified

1. Increase investments in active transportation from the $6 billion budgeted to the approximately $40 billion recommended by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health to fix sidewalks, implement jurisdictions’ bike plans; and invest in last mile infrastructure near transit stations.
2. Budget an additional $1 billion for the construction of 1000-2000 miles of protected bike lines to increase rates of cycling among non traditional cyclists  (protected lanes recently constructed in Long Beach cost approximately $580,000 per mile).
3. Expand and accelerate transit investments so all planned transit projects in the RTP are constructed by 2022. Existing and new transit services should be funded so as to be affordable with frequent service.
4. Do not add any lane miles of highways or major arterials,  because as Duranton and Turner have shown, “For interstate highways in the densest parts of metropolitan areas we find that vkt increases in exact proportion to highways, confirming the ‘fundamental law of highway congestion’ suggested by Downs(1962, 1992). This relationship also approximately holds for other important roads in dense areas and for interstate highways in less dense parts of metropolitan areas.”  The SCAG region currently (base year 2008) has 21,638 miles of road and 55,890 lane miles of roads. The draft RTP anticipates adding 948 centerline miles/ 7419 lanes miles which would be a 4.4%/ 11.1% increase.  Converting mixed flow lanes to toll, HOV or HOT lanes or converting HOV lanes to toll or HOT lanes would be acceptable.
5. Pay for additional active transportation and transit investments by cancelling highway expansion projects and by increasing fees on driving. I believe that the dozen most expensive road expansion projects in the RTP are: east west freight corridor ($15.2 billion),  Riverside to Orange County CETAP ($13 billion), high desert corridor ($6.9 billion), 710 corridor expansion ($6.1 billion), 710 gap closure ($5.6 billion), 5 north capacity enhancements ($5.3 billion), 241 expansion ($2.7 billion), mid county parkway ($2.3 billion), 15 widening ($ 1.7 billion), 405 widening in Orange County ($1.7 billion), 5 widening ($1.6 billion), and 79 expansion ($1.4 billion). Building these highways projects will expand driving, while cancelling them will allow $63.5 billion to be spent on active transportation and transit.
6. Adopt alternative 3 (the envision 2 alternative) smart growth land use and housing patterns) rather than the planned project.  This alternative version of the plan relies on smart growth land use and housing patterns to achieve superior environmental results in air quality, aesthetics, open space and farmland preservation, water conservation, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, mobility, and land use.
7. Encourage sensitive densification of existing single family zoned areas by encouraging municipalities to allow cottage housing, duplexes, accessory dwellings, and small lot subdivisions in R-1 zones.
8. Encourage all jurisdictions to eliminate mandatory parking minimums for existing and new buildings.
9. Set a goal to reduce rather than expand vehicle miles travelled within the region. Vehicle Miles travelled in the baseline year 2008 was 445,844 daily, approximately half on freeways, half on arterial roads. SCAG calculates that this number will rise to 546,806 daily by 2035 without any changes to roads (a 22.6 % increase). Under their plan, VMT will still rise, to 516,990 (16% increase). They also anticipate that VMT for trucks will grow even faster, expanding from 30,201 to 53,431 under their 2035 plan (a 76.9% increase).
10. Plan for highway removal or modification. Learning from cities removing highways http://www.cnu.org/highways/freewayswithoutfutures2012 , agencies and municipalities should plan to remove, cover or alter and reclassify as arterials highways that divide communities, negatively impact valuable natural resources such as rivers and coasts, or channel excessive traffic into neighborhoods. Freeway stubs such as the 710 N above the 10 or the 2 as it approaches Silverlake are ripe for removal or conversion and the 101 through downtown Los Angeles has been the subject of advocacy for capping for a park.
11. Do not invest in goods movement roads and rail expansion in the hopes that zero emission technologies will emerge decades later. Invest more in zero emissions trucks and locomotives now as a precondition before expanding freight infrastructure. Otherwise impacted communities will continue to suffer disproportionately from pollution from good movement.
12. Price driving and parking to reflect the externalities of car and truck use. There are a variety of methods for increasing the price of driving, some of which are contemplated in the RTP’s financial plan.  Higher gas taxes, carbon taxes, charges based on miles driven, appropriately and dynamically priced parking, and congestion charges aimed at commuters entering central city areas are all useful policies.

The House GOP bill would leave transit riders stranded. Photo: ifmuth/Flickr

Streetsblog Network members are on the case: Darla at Walk Bike Lee, in Lee County Florida, says the bill unfairly pillages the pittance given to sustainable transportation modes and urges her readers to voice their concerns to Rep. Connie Mack. Yonah Freemark at The Transport Politic says the bill is the pinnacle of bad transportation policy. And Daniel Nairn at Discovering Urbanism writes that is tailored to the interests of oil companies, not your average citizen.

Opposition to the proposal is starting to emanate from editorial pages: The New York Times and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel have called it “terrible” and “not worthy of passage.”

Meanwhile, Deron Lovaas at the NRDC’s Switchboard blog points out that House GOP bill doesn’t even pass the rudimentary test of fiscal discipline. Congressional Budget Office projections show that John Boehner’s plan to plug the transportation funding shortfall with $2 billion in oil drilling revenues only kicks the can down the road:

The bill is larded with extreme measures, including bills passed last week that would annihilate dedicated funding for public transportation (see a report on that here) for the first time in thirty years, slash public oversight required thanks to the 40-year-old National Environmental Policy Act and for the first time ever tie the federal transportation program to speculative drilling revenue.

These bills touted as the panacea for a revenue-starved transportation program don’t prop the program up at all! As Taxpayers for Common Sense has noted this is fiscally reckless. And as they, along with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Reason Foundation and NRDC have noted, it violates the “user pays” funding principle that has underpinned transportation investments for at least the past half-century.

Fiscally reckless. Environmentally damaging. Attacks anyone who rides transit, walks, or bikes by swiping funding for those options. It’s time to kill this bill.

Oh, and if you don’t have The City Maven on your daily reading list, take a second to add it now.

• GOOD Video Illustrates Impact of Small Modal Shift on Congestion
• Long Beach Planning Ties Transportation and Public Health (Press-Telegram)
• LA County Declares War on Physical Activity on Beaches (CBS 2)
• “Think Labs” Hope to Make Planning More Accesible (LAist)
• California’s Biggest Bike Race Coming to California’s Least Bike Accessible City (Biking In LA)
• Yup, Planting Ficus Next to Sidewalks Was a Mistake (LA Observed)
• Man Tasered for “Meandering” in Freeway (Daily News)
• Redondo Beach Seeks Input for Aviation Blvd. Bike Lane (Daily Breeze)
• Coming Soon, BH Will Respond to Metro’s Response to BH’s Response to Metro’s Report on Westside Subway Tunneling (Patch)

Steven LaTourette, an Ohio Republican, said he opposes the House transportation bill as it is currently written. Photo: Cleveland.com

So there’s a chance that House leadership will fail to round up the 218 votes needed to pass this bill. Based on Streetsblog’s initial conversations with House GOP members, the bill could be too anti-transit and too hostile to street safety to pass, even in this extremely partisan political climate.

Streetsblog began reaching out to House GOP members this morning to see where they stand, and already we’re finding representatives who think the current bill is too extreme. One Republican with misgivings is Ohio Rep. Steven LaTourette, who represents rural and suburban areas in the northeast part of the state, east of Cleveland.

LaTourette has been a supporter of common-sense transportation reforms in the House, co-sponsoring national complete streets legislation as well as a bipartisan measure that would have increased flexibility with federal funds for struggling transit agencies.

Through his chief of staff, Dino DiSanto, LaTourette’s office had this to say about the bill:

In its current formation there are lots of things we don’t like about it. If it’s not changed drastically, we’re not going to support it.

What they’re doing to highway funding — removing [Transportation] Enhancements, not allowing more flexibility for transit agencies? There’s no reason [transit agencies] should be able to buy buses but not operate them.

Infrastructure used to be something that was widely popular among both parties, and for some reason over the last few Congresses, they’ve become highly polarized.

Meanwhile, Bob Turner (R-NY), whose district encompasses parts of Queens and Brooklyn, has reservations as well. In a statement, Rep. Turner indicated his disapproval, specifically for the portion of the bill that would eliminate dedicated funding for transit:

Now that the House bill is taking shape, I have concerns about how the funds will eventually be allocated. We cannot underestimate the importance of providing efficient, safe, mass transit, roads, bridges and tunnels to the people who live and commute in New York City. As this bill evolves, I will continue to work with my colleagues both in Congress and New York to find the best approach in meeting our infrastructure needs. However, I will not support any bill that does not allow New York City to sufficiently meet those needs.

Another GOP representative from New York, Peter King, told Crain’s via his spokesperson that he “has serious concerns about this legislation and the impact it will have on mass transit both on Long Island and New York City.”

The House and Senate transportation bill proposals are both expected to go up for votes next week. Streetsblog will be tracking the positions of key House Republicans throughout the week.

Lahood speaks as Villaraigosa, Metro CEO Art Leahy and Metrolink CEO John Fenton look on, Photo: LA Streetsblog/Flickr

In recent weeks, two competing pieces of legislation are moving in Washington, D.C.  The first, is moving through the House of Representatives on a series of highly partisan votes and is reviled by advocates for transit, walking, bicycling and complete streets for it’s over-the-top support for highway construction.  The other is moving through the Senate with unanimous bi-partisan support and funds a more balanced vision for transportation funding.

But in yesterday’s “sunshine” press conference, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, decided to look on the positive.

“It’s time for them to pass the surface transportation bill.  it’s time for them to pass America Fast Forward,” Villaraigosa offered in a deflection of a question on Congressional investigation of how Los Angeles spent some of its federal stimulus funds.  Later, responding to a direct question from Streetsblog about the partisan bill moving in the House of Representatives, Villaraigosa focused on Congressman John Mica’s (R-FL) support for America Fast Forward.

America Fast Forward is the mayor’s proposal to change and reform federal law to encourage federal investment in projects supported by local dollars.  Under the proposal, Los Angeles Metro would likely be able to accelerate the construction of transit projects funded by a sales tax passed by voters in 2008.

“I am still positive about the portion of the bill that expands the current $128 million to a billion dollars for the TIFIA program which is one of the programs that L.A. needs to accelerate the 30 years of transportation funding into a shorter period of time, hopefully a ten year period,” Villaraigosa began.

“I’m also heartened that he did include three of the five reforms that we have said are necessary to accelerate that program.”

The Mayor did touch on the controversy surrounding the House Bill, but refused to weigh in.   “I know there is some dissidence between the Senate and the House version, and I don’t want to get in the middle of that right now so I’ll leave it with a positive comment, for now.”

However, the non-partisan reaction to the “Mica Bill” didn’t stop Villaraigosa or LaHood from praising the legislation put forward by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and her competing legislation moving through the Senate.

“I want to give a loud shout out to Senator Boxer for working in such a bi-partisan way to put together a surface transportation bill that got total unanimous vote out of her committee, 18-0″ proclaimed LaHood, responding to the same question.   “She has the ranking Republican on her committee, Senator Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma.  That bill is going to be on the Senate floor.  It’s a two year bill.  It’s a good bi-partisan bill that addresses the transportation values of America.  That’s the way transportation has always been done. and I can’t give a big enough shout-out to Senator Boxer to working so hard with Senator Inhofe to get this bill to the Senate floor.”

Villaraigosa jumped in to praise the Senator.  ”Ditto to that, I was remiss.  Barbara Boxer doesn’t have a bigger fan than Antonio Villaraigosa.”

Both pieces of legislation have passed through the committee system in their respective chambers, but a final vote has not been scheduled for either.  While both the former Republican Congressman  and the man some feel could replace him as Transportation Secretary held their fire on the House Republicans, it’s clear that each favors the bill moving through the Senate.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Secretary Ray LaHood exchange a handshake during yesterday's press event at Los Angeles Union Station. Photo: LA Streetsblog/Flickr

Delivering a “message from President Obama,” LaHood set the tone for a defense of the president’s vision for High Speeed Rail. “”High speed rail is coming to California,” Lahood began. “We will not be dissuaded by the naysayers or those that think that high speed rail is not the next generation of transportation.”

Later, noting that the President’s vision was larger than just a rail plan for California, LaHood talked of the California project as a model for the nation.  ”We believe the high speed rail corridor in California will be the role model for high speed rail in the country.”  Other rail projects won’t capture the country’s imagination as the California project.  For example, the proposed rail project in Illinois would increase rail speed from seventy to one hundred ten miles per hour.  California High Speed Rail will run at speeds up to 200 miles per hour.

Responding to complaints from Steve Gregory, a reporter from the conservative news talk radio station KFI, about the costs and ridership projections, Villaraigosa took the microphone to offer his own defense.  After noting that projections for Los Angeles’ subway and Bus Rapid Transit systems are both well above projections, he pointed both to local benefits of a statewide transit network and to the investments America has historically made in transportation over the decades.

“High Speed Rail in California is the natural extension of the 21st Century transportation system we’re building here.  For me, this is an easy one.  We need to get on this train.  We need to stand for the proposition that California needs to lead the way,” Villaraigosa opened.  ”Imagine if they had asked President Eisenhower to cost out the federal highway system in 2012 dollars.”

The Mayor’s verbal gambit to defend the $100 billion price tag for construction of the high speed rail line was seized on by Dan Richard, the executive director of the High Speed Rail Authority.  A recent report by the authority noted that the original $42 billion estimate for a project between Sacramento and San Diego was low.  Instead, a $100 billion estimate for a route between San Francisco and Los Angeles was more likely.  Richard noted that one third of the price increase was because current projections take into account inflation that is expected over the next thirty years of construction.

Despite the high cost projections for construction, Richard notes that the line will pay for itself during operations.

“All of our analysis shows that ridership will be strong.  Every high speed rail project in the world more than pays for its own operations,” Richard said in response to a question from a television news reporter.  ”Even under the most pessimistic projections, we bring in more money than it takes to run the system….none of us wants to launch a system that doesn’t have riders.”

If the goal of the press event was to change the debate on High Speed Rail from complaints about cost and management to a discussion of the benefits the line will bring, yesterday was a mixed bag.  While the press conference was featured on most nightly news telecasts, only one print publication, La Opinion covered the event.

On the way home from the press conference, I listened to Gregory’s coverage on the wildly popular “John and Ken Show.”  While Gregory stuck to playing unedited audio clips of the event, the shows hosts interrupted to lambaste the project as “the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars I’ve ever seen” and the Secretary as “a buffoon.”  At the end of the day, rail supporters were probably heartened by the show of political strength for the project, but the skeptics remained just as skeptical as ever.

Over one hundred tenth graders from Esteban Torres High School’s Renaissance Academy had a chance to redesign the Gold Line Eastside Extension Station areas as part of a series of interactive modeling sessions designed to introduce them to urban planning.  Rather than introducing them to our modeling process through a presentation, we took the students to visit and take notes at three Gold Line Stations: Mission/Meridian, Lake and Del Mar Stations.

Photo: Latino Urban Forum/Flickr

Next, we had them examine the stations from a different perspective.  They participated in  a series of interactive workshops to help the students articulate their needs. We had them read maps of the station areas and create models from them using found objects.

The students presented their ideas through models of the Gold-Line Metro station areas and and explained how their proposed developments around the stations may increase ridership and attract people into East Los Angeles. They created three trains in their models; one, the newly christened Butterscotch Line, is made completely from candy (just in time for Valentine’s Day.)

The students designed these light rail station areas as neighborhood destinations to draw the community to the station and draw riders off the trains. They located services, and amenities lacking in today’s Eastside community such as parks, stores, housing, and offices within site of the stations.  The students were proud of their community and designed stations that welcomed people to the Eastside with “welcome” signs and decorative gateways.

Best of all, their stations and their Gold Line fit the community.  Before the workshops they investigated the physical form of the actual community.  The examined architecture and design that creates identity of place. They used that map of their community to create beautiful streetscapes designs that capture the artistic power of the community.

The candy Gold Line Train model is incredible. It’s a wedding cake of rich colors, shapes, textures that draws you in.  The candy model captures the vibrancy and sensual quality of East Los Angeles. The Gold line is created by a butterscotch candies while an Aztec Temple made of sugar cubes creates a canopy over the station.  There’s never been a  model quite like this one.

But most impressively were the students themselves.  They took ownership of the planning process. They were articulate and had conviction and passion for the transformation of East Los Angeles.   Just as the students of the Renaissance Academy learned a lot about planning from this process, there is a lot the professional planning community can learn from these students.

This intersection, Chicago's North Avenue at Kedzie Avenue, would be eligible for automated speeding enforcement under new legislation in Illinois. Between 2005 and 2010, 22 pedestrians and cyclists were injured by auto collisions at this intersection. Photo: Grid Chicago

Speeding Cameras Coming to Chicago: New legislation has cleared the way for automated speeding enforcement — speeding cameras — in Chicago. The cameras will be used only in “safety zones,” or areas around schools and parks. Fines will be $50 – $100 depending on the magnitude of the violation.

Steven Vance at Network blog Grid Chicago is dispelling some common misconceptions about speed cameras, pointing out that they will save lives. “Speed correlates with the survival rate of a pedestrian involved in an automobile crash. If a pedestrian is hit by a person driving a car at 30 MPH, there is an 80% survival rate. If a pedestrian is hit by a person driving a car at 40 MPH, there is a 30% survival rate.”

Will the cameras be effective? Vance summarizes three studies that looked at the efficacy of speeding cameras in preventing traffic collisions. The studies found that speeding cameras were indeed useful in motivating drivers to reduce their speed, improving safety. “There have been reductions in the number of people speeding, and the number of injuries and fatalities, in locations where speed cameras are installed and operated,” Vance writes. “In my assessment of multiple studies, it seems that speed cameras are a main cause of these reductions.”

Why Subway Construction Has Gotten to Be So Expensive: Building new subway lines is more expensive than ever — even when adjusted for inflation. Yesterday Benjamin Kabak at Second Avenue Sagas reviewed a recent Salon article by Will Doig, who identified seven issues that contribute to skyrocketing costs and ballooning construction time tables. Some of the culprits: the slow wheels of bureaucracy, the difficulty of assembling funding for large transit projects in an environment that marginalizes public transportation in favor of auto travel, and NIMBYism. Salon also identifies some progressive reforms, including environmental impact statements, ADA compliance and union rules, as hurdles that aren’t impeding China’s ability to lay down tracks for metros seemingly overnight.

Kabak looks at the issue through the lens of the Second Avenue subway New York City has been planning for decades. “The MTA issued its notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the Second Ave. Subway in March of 2001,” he says. “The FEIS saw the light of day 38 months later in May of 2004, and the authority had to further revise its assessment in 2009 to find no material impact when it had to redesign station configurations at 72nd and 86th St.”

Red Lights to Be Optional for Paris Cyclists: Systemic Failure points us to a story in the London Times about an experiment in Paris that will allow cyclists in one district to “turn right or to go straight at a T-junction even when the lights are red.” The news come after a contentious campaign by cycling advocacy groups which claimed it was “idiotic for them to stop at traffic lights.” Proponents of the measure argued it would reduce the risk of traffic collision — a sharp departure from American sensibility on the topic. It will be interesting to observe the safety outcomes of this one.

A trio of speed limit proposals head to the City Council Transportation Committee tomorrow.  The proposals total 5.4 miles of city streets that would see a limit increase. Half of those miles would see a dramatic increase from 35 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour. The areas due for an increase are:

• Kester Avenue between Saticoy Street and Victory Boulevard (35 mph increased to 40 mph for 1.5 miles),
• Kester Avenue between Magnolia and Ventura Boulevards (35 mph increased to 40 mph for .9 miles),
• Chandler Boulevard between Lankershim Boulevard and Coldwater Canyon Avenue (35 mph increased to 45 mph for 2.1 miles)
• Chandler Boulevard between Lankershim Boulevard and Vineland Avenue (35 mph increased to 40 mph for .3 miles),
• Clybourn Avenue between Strathern and Cohasset Street (35 mph increased to 45 mph for .6 miles)

A team of advocates including representatives from Los Angeles Walks, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and Ridazz, an online general assembly of concerned cyclists, is planning to lobby the Committee to hold back the limit increases.  Councilmen have begrudgingly passed similar increases in the past in an effort to support LAPD traffic enforcement.

Until 2004, speed limits were set at the 85th percentile of driver speed on a section of road rounded to the nearest 5 mile increment.  A.B. 529, authored by San Gabriel Valley Democrat Mike Gatto and passed last year,  allows municipalities to round the posted speed limit down no matter how the 85th percentile is to a higher limit.  For example, if the 85th percentile of drivers is driving at 39 miles per hour, and the municipality considers a 40 miles per hour speed limit too high for that stretch of road, it can “round down” to a 35 miles per hour limit.

Don Ward, one of the organizers of Ridazz, writes a personal story explaining why drivers shouldn’t be allowed to set speed limits based on their driving over what is safest for all users, a process Councilman Tom LaBonge referred to as “voting with their pedal.”

“When I think of the lunacy of setting 45mph speed limits on streets like Chandler or Kester or any of the other residential streets of LA I think fondly of my pops, a depression era man and pure fiscal conservative – may he rest in peace. He refused to drive more than about 25 miles per hour any where in LA. This would drive me absolutely bonkers,” writes Ward.

“To which he would chuckle and go into his spiel about the fact that he had carefully crafted his driving style in order to conserve gas, brakes and engine wear… In fact he was a scientist about it…. citing the Burbank traffic grid as the best suited for his methods. And it was true… I would see car after car race ahead of us at 40-50mph only to slam on the brakes for a red light that he eventually floated through on the green, passing those same impatient drivers who now revved their cars back up to speed only to repeat the same mistake again at the next light. “Those people are idiots” he would quip. “They’re wasting their money. Learn to time the lights sonny.” I miss my old man.”

At Ease, Soldier: A young member of the East Side Riders proudly poses with his bike at the Watts Towers.

Several years ago, I spent a week photographing a stretch of 37th St. as part of a neighborhood documentation project of the area around USC. Where other photographers had diligently snapped structures and streets, I had cajoled residents into participating in the project and later gave them copies of the photos so they could see the final product. The soul of a neighborhood is its people, I had argued in defending my approach at the time. Without them, the structures are just a shell.

I was reminded of this while surveying the scene at Augustus Hawkins Natural Park on a chilly Sunday morning in late January. About 60 riders had shown up to participate in the CicLAvia South L.A. Exploration Ride through Watts. Each had a different motivation for being there. Some simply enjoyed participating in exploratory group rides. Those unfamiliar with the area came to check out our landmark destination, the Watts Towers. Others were linked to the CicLAvia South L.A. Host Committee, TRUST South L.A., C.I.C.L.E., or the BikeRoWave, the groups facilitating the ride. Still others were from the Watts-based East Side Riders (ESR), eager to make the case for Watts to be included in the CicLAvia expansion route.

Finally, a sizable contingent—at least 20%—came to document the ride, including the L.A. Times, KPCC’s OnCentral, the Annenberg Innovation Lab, filmmakers from Ride: In Living Color, folks from ParTour (a USC initiative harnessing new media and mobile technology to advance positive social change), and, of course, Streetsblog. The apparent newsworthiness of this crossing of socio-economic boundaries served to underscore how infrequently it occurs, even in a city as diverse as ours.

The ride was a continuation of the Committee’s efforts to host monthly rides into South LA. The larger purpose was to promote cycling and show the value of livable streets in communities, bridge gaps between communities by helping people explore new areas, demonstrate proper riding techniques and the rules of the road, and, in the case of ParTour, to engage participants in the creation of a crowd-sourced map of the route to showcase South L.A. as a rideable destination.

On just about all those counts, the organizers of the ride could consider it to have been incredibly successful, something for which they should be commended.

Seeing curious faces poking their heads out of doors and windows as we rolled by, however, I wondered if residents viewed the successes in the same way. To what extent did they grasp the goals of the ride or feel inspired by seeing bikers pass down their streets? Know about (or even have an interest in) the crowd-sourced map? Or agree that bridges were being built between their community and others?

It was hard to know, as, for the most part, we did not stop to interact with those who smiled and waved their greetings as we passed.

Some members of the ESR who had grown up along these streets voiced frustration that this was an important part of the real Watts that we were missing: the people. Moreover, the limited amount of time we would be in the neighborhood and a desire to see CicLAvia extend southward seemed to add to the pressure they felt to make sure participants would see enough to appreciate the community for what it was. Simply riding a route to a landmark, they noted, did little to help others see their community a destination.

To mitigate some of these concerns, both the ESR and the ride organizers had collaborated to work in a stop at the Watts Labor Community Action Committee (WLCAC) to begin the process of bridge-building. It was a great move—a number of the riders in the group mentioned being inspired by the talk given by the WLCAC’s president and CEO, Tim Watkins, about the community and their work, and said they had not known about the WLCAC prior to visiting.

Post-talk, riders gathered together for a group photo at the Mother of Humanity statue, agreed it had been a fun ride, and then hit the road, headed back to the original starting point.

Lovely a ride as it was, would people return on their own to visit the community? Would people in the community now feel inspired to take back the streets for bikes? What were the longer-term gains for the community? What should they be?

Best Friends: Frederick Buggs and Joshua Jones of the East Side Riders roll down Holmes Blvd. together

There is only so much that can be accomplished with a single ride event. But if we seek to use cycling to bridge divides and make the communities themselves the destinations, then we may need to think about innovative ways to get more out of future such events. Cyclists tend to focus on finding routes that make it easy to move through places to points of interest when mapping rides. Thus, when community is built, it tends to be among those participating in the ride, not with those we pedal by. Genuine, sustainable bridges between communities clearly requires greater engagement of the residents of an area — both cyclists and non-cyclists — in such a way that the people of a community are able to participate in and contribute to the experience.

But what does that look like in practice? How much and what kind of outreach does that require? To figure it out, over the next few weeks, I will be retracing some of the route taken through Watts that day and interviewing residents to get their perspectives on these and the other questions raised above. Stay tuned for part two…

Denver's plan to add 122 miles of passenger rail is boosting the local economy. Photo: The Fast Lane

The secretary’s blog, The Fast Lane, discusses how this project promises to be, on many levels, a winner for the Mile-High City:

The enthusiasm in yesterday’s crowd was electric. It’s not hard to see why. The West Rail Line is 85% complete, and the mock-ups and progress to date indicate a beautiful, state-of-the-art transit system.  The new line will allow tourists and commuters to spend less time in traffic and less money on gas. That’s something everyone can appreciate.

Not only will the FasTracks program provide an efficient and cost-effective way to get to and from work, school or the airport; but it is also creating jobs right now.  There are more than 500 men and women working on the West Rail Line alone. FasTracks estimates that its plan will eventually provide work for 4,200 others.

But we can’t be content to see this progress in just one city.  All across America, there is work to be done on projects like the West Rail Line.  More and more Americans are looking for greater choices in transportation today, and it’s important we provide the funding to ensure transit remains one of the available choices.  Now is the time to connect people who need work with the work we need to do improving our nation’s transit centers, highways, railways, airports and ports.

This is exactly the type of investment in the future that other cities would miss out under the House GOP proposal to strip transit projects of dedicated federal funding stream.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Mobilizing the Region reports that political leaders in the New York-New Jersey region are united in their opposition to the House transit proposal. Streets.mn asks if traffic engineers’ roadway classification system is an outdated way of understanding transportation dynamics. And Suburban Assault introduces Dallas’s first bike café.

My favorite "Buy Here Pay Here" promotional picture.

Last year, Ken Bensinger at the Los Angeles Times wrote a three part series exposing some of the business practices of these dealerships that create extra hardship for disadvantaged car buyers.  This year, he has continued to follow-up on the issue as these bills were introduced and begin to move in the legislature.  Here is a brief explanation of each piece of legislation:

A.B. 1447, Introduced by Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-LA)

A.B. 1447 would actually change three parts of the business strategies of Buy Here Pay Here dealerships.  First, dealers would be required to post the selling cost of the vehicle on the body of the vehicle.  This would prevent dealers from setting prices at the negotiating table based on their estimate of what the seller could afford.  The legislation also prohibits Buy Here Pay Here dealers from hasassing references for the buyer after the sale, requiring cash payments in person from drivers and disabling and tracking cars with GPS systems of payments are late.

“This industry preys on people who have no other options for getting a car,” said Feuer.  “In many parts of our state, auto travel is the only way for parents to get to work on time, or to pick their kids up from school.  Instead of helping Californians get back on their feet by providing needed transportation, these dealers are promoting an endless cycle of debt and joblessness.”

Critics of Feuer’s legislation either argue that instead of passing laws to regulate the entire industry the state should focus on supporting existing laws or that the law is written so broadly that it applies to legitimate car dealerships who include LoJack with their car sales.  Bensinger talked to several opponents in his piece for the Los Angeles Times on A.B. 1447.

S.B. 956, Introduced by Senator Ted Lieu (D-LA)

Senator Lieu’s legislation focuses on the lending practices of the dealerships instead of the car sales.  By handling financing in house but being licensed as a car dealer, Buy Here Pay Here dealerships were able to get around many state financing laws and consumer protections.  Lieu’s legislation would:

• Impose regulations on dealers offering Buy Here, Pay Here installment loans by requiring them to obtain a California Finance Lender’s license, which would provide consumers with an array of protections.
• Limit used-car installment loans to a maximum 17.25 percent interest, which would give California the strongest cap in the nation.
• Change the way Buy Here Pay Here used car dealers are able to repossess vehicles to include grace periods and make it easier for buyers to reinstate a repossessed car.

“Unscrupulous dealers are pushing these types of previously unregulated loans to sell cars for far beyond market value, at interest rates as high as 30 percent,” explains Lieu.  ”They need to either find a conscience or display a sign: Rip-offs R Us.”

Representatives of the industry are arguing that Lieu’s legislation will make it difficult for dealers to sell to people with bad credit.  To here their argument, read the bottom of Bensinger’s article on S.B. 956.

A.B. 1534, Introduced by Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont)

Wieckowski’s legislation seeks to reduce the amount that dealers would mark-up their vehicles by arming buyers with information outlining the real value of the vehicle.  A.B. 1534 would require dealers list a value for the car based on a third-party valuation source, such as Kelley Blue Book or the NADA Guide.  The value would take into account the car’s model year, condition and mileage.  While it would provide knowledge to the buyer, it wouldn’t place any restrictions on what the car could be sold for.

This legislation is receiving the same argument from Buy Here Pay Here representatives, that any restrictions on their industry will reduce people of lesser-means’ ability to have access to a car.  It’s also receiving some more credible blowback from dealers worried that the wording of the law would require all dealers of used vehicles to be constantly updating stickers and signage to reflect the new prices.

The automobile industry is expected to weigh in on all three pieces of legislation, but all three bill authors remain optimistic that some legislation regulating this vampire industry will make it to the Governor’s desk.  That’s the value of having a paper with the reach of the Times shine the light on an industry that is doing more harm than good, no lobbying effort will ever be able to turn that light back off.

Sen. Schumer had made restoring the pre-tax commuter transit benefit a priority in 2012. Photo: AP

• $3.7 billion transferred from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, already funded by a slice of the federal gas tax
• $2.8 billion from reducing a tax credit on certain biofuels
• $2.5 billion from taxes on imported cars, redirected from the general fund to the HTF
• $0.7 billion from the “gas guzzler tax,” also redirected from the general fund
• $0.7 in back taxes collected after revoking passports of serious offenders, assuming offenders would rather pay the feds than lose their passport

Furthermore, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) has sponsored an amendment that would restore parity between the pre-tax commuter benefits for transit and parking. There had been parity between transit and parking pre-tax benefits since the Stimulus Act was passed in 2009, but the transit benefit was slashed in half — from $230 a month to $125 — when the measure expired on January 1st. Schumer’s amendment would make the parity permanent.

Live updates will be available tomorrow on twitter (#TranspoMarkup).

Beverly Hills Civic Center

(Note, the Beverly Hills Courier points out that they had the story first on Thursday evening despite my call that Patch broke the news. You can read their coverage, here. – DN)

Last Friday, word broke on Patch that a review of the geological studies on the Westside Subway commissioned by the city government of Beverly Hills came to different conclusions than the conclusions authored by Metro’s team of experts.  Exponent-Failure Analysis Associates concludes in the executive summary that:

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

In summary, it is Exponent’s opinion that additional effort is needed to accurately identify,  quantify, rank and mitigate the potential hazards posed by the proposed Westside Subway  Extension Project before one of the two presented alternatives, or a third alternative, are selected  for implementation.

A more detailed analysis of the 70 page study (available here) can be heard at tomorrow’s “Study Session” of the Beverly Hills City Council.  Those that don’t want to wait for tomorrow’s presentation can seemingly engage with City Councilman John Mirisch on the validity of the study by commenting on the Patch article.

Predictably, any action by either side in the on-going grudge match between advocates of the Westside Subway and government representatives in Beverly Hills was met with praise from one side and scorn from the other.  As both sides attempt to work through the other sides’ writings here are a few suggestions.

First: Let’s Agree That Neither Metro’s Experts nor Exponent Consulting Are on the Take

Somehow, it seems to have become a slur for expert geologists, seismologists and engineers to get paid to do studies or give opinions.  First, the NUMBY’s slurred Metro’s experts as being on the take, a charge that went all the way to the pages of L.A. Weekly.  But in return, subway-friendly publications made the exact same charge against Exponent.

Let’s say this, it’s highly unlikely that Metro’s distinguished review panel, which includes Dr. Lucy Jones, a federal employee not compensated for her work, or a publicly traded company that relies on a reputation as non-biased evaluators would risk their reputations for one project.

I’ll admit, that when I read the Patch article on Friday, my first reaction was “of course it says that the Metro report is flawed,” but fortunately I took the weekend to take a beat.  My assumption that the report is flawed because of who paid for it is just as uninformed as the comment from the Unified School District’s Board Chair article assuming the Metro study is based on bad data.

It’s certainly not unheard of for experts to disagree.  Saying “our experts are unbiased researchers; but their experts are bought and paid for” doesn’t really say anything.

Second: Beverly Hills Has the Right to Put Metro Studies Under Thorough Review

Whether they’re concerned about the impacts during construction, the rattling that could be caused by an active subway or whether it “just doesn’t feel right to dig under our school,” as one columnist offered; the City of Beverly Hills can and should submit every study to rigorous review.  At the same time, opponents of digging a tunnel under the school should wait until Metro has a chance to review the review before deciding that Metro’s studies are flawed.

Exponent had three months to review Metro’s documents, it’s only fair to give Metro a chance to review what Exponent wrote.

Third: The Back and Forth Is Going to Get Worse Before It Goes to Court

This is just speculation on my part, but I would posit that whenever the environmental reports are released by Metro that the public relations spin on both sides won’t deviate from what’s already been said.  I’ll also speculate that this whole thing is going to be determined by a court, not by geologic experts or Metro itself.  Judges tend to look down on super-heated rhetoric so it behooves everyone to remain calm.

Tuesday, Wednesday – Metro may have completed the final environmental documents for the Regional Connector, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have one last chance to weigh in before the design state begins in earnest.  You can click the link on the right to visit the Connector’s webpage, or click here to get information for a pair of public meetings on Tuesday and  Wednesday.

Wednesday – We usually don’t publicize events that happen down in Long Beach, but this event seems like such a combination of fun and activism that I couldn’t resist.  Women on Bike SoCal launches a program to double the number of women and girls riding bicycles.  The kickoff includes the announcement of a scholarship program for League of American Cyclists instructors that specialize in teaching women cyclists.  Sounds like a good start.  The kickoff starts at 9 A.M. at Bike Station.  Click here for more details.

Wednesday – Vroom!  More speed limit increases on the agenda.  Fun times for the City Council Transportation Committee as it meets at 2:00 P.M. in City Hall.  Get the details and the agenda, here.

Wednesday – The Living Room on Sunset Boulevard in Silverlake is hosting a fundraiser for the California Bicycle Coalition.  Get the details, here.

Thursday – City Planning and the LA County Department of Public Health are sponsoring a series of workshops on TOD in South L.A. around the Green and Blue Lines.  Get the details on this week’s meeting at Augustus Hawkins Park by clicking here.

Friday – Do you love CicLAvia?  I do.  Get the details on their Valentine’s Day fundraiser, here.

Sunday – L.A. Graffiti Artist LA graffiti artist Galo “MAKE ONE” Canote is back for another workshop! Learn about MAKE’S
creative process as he takes you on a journey into LA street culture and teaches you the fundamentals of letter structure and design.  Get all the details, here.

If there’s an event we missed, please email damien at streetsblog dot org.

The House transportation bill passed committee on solidly partisan lines. It would reverse decades of reforms that promote safer streets, sustainable transportation, and urbanism. Photo: The National Journal

The Senate managed to put together bipartisan support for legislation that weakens biking and walking programs while including a few progressive reforms to transit policy. House Republicans, meanwhile, have lined up behind a draconian vision for highways-only transportation policy that would reverse decades of pragmatic reforms.

Crystallized in the House bill is a strident position that seeks to undermine any form of transportation beside the private automobile, one that rejects cost-saving reforms while cloaking itself in the pretense of fiscal rectitude.

This position — clearly a favorite of industries that profit from highways and sprawl — has even become a talking point among Republican presidential contenders this primary season, reports Yonah Freemark at the Transport Politic. Advocates for green transportation and urbanism have no choice but to fight, says Freemark:

As I have documented, density of population correlates strongly and positively with the Democratic Party vote share in Congressional elections; the result has been that the House Republicans have few electoral reasons to articulate policies that benefit cities. Those who believe in the importance of a sane transportation policy need to make more of an effort to advance a sane transportation politics to residents of suburban and rural areas, who also benefit from efforts to improve environmental quality, mobility alternatives, and congestion relief, but perhaps are not yet convinced of that fact. Doing so would encourage politicians hoping for votes outside of the city core — Democratic or Republican — to promote alternatives to the all-highways meme that currently rules the GOP in the House.

In the face of such actions, it becomes imperative in the short term not only to ramp up citizen opposition to the defunding of transit and associated programs, but also to full-throatily endorse those leaders who will stand up to fight. Not working for their election in the fall risks policies like those being advanced in the House being passed by an acquiescent Senate and signed by a future president. Such actions would put in question the potential improvement of existing programs and turn back on the policy strides that must be made to contest the vision some have of an all-automobile America.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Second Avenue Sagas explains that the House GOP’s proposal to eliminate dedicated funding for transit would be catastrophic for New York City. iWatch News reports that industry groups are working hard to discredit a government study that is expected to link diesel exhaust to lung cancer. And BLDGBlog shares tips for making planning popular in the community.