Ticket to Ride v3

THE BESTEA WE CAN GET?

After months of speculation, political posturing and false starts, the House finally introduced legislation to reauthorize ISTEA two weeks ago. In what is seen as a clear rejection of the STEP-21 coalition's efforts to gut the existing law, the 387-page bill (the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1997 or "BESTEA") retains the existing ISTEA framework -- including the air quality (CMAQ), enhancements, transit, Interstate Maintenance and Bridge Repair programs. The ability for states to transfer funds out of the CMAQ and enhancements programs is limited to 50 percent of the increase over current funding levels in ISTEA, a major improvement from previous proposals to make 50 percent of the entire programs transferable. The bill also provides $50 million a year for a new Job Access program to help former welfare recipients get to potential places of employment.

The bill proposes to authorize $103 billion in funding over three years, a move that has several members of Congress, including the GOP leadership, concerned that the legislation could violate the balanced budget agreement. But the annual funding levels -- growing to $32 billion for highways and $6 billion for transit by the third year -- along with a “true” 95 percent minimum return for states are expected for now to defuse much of the donor/donee controversy that has surrounded the reauthorization debate in the past year.

In a brief sesson marking up BESTEA (HR2400) on Wednesday (9/10), the Surface Transportation Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee adopted an amendment offered by subcommittee Chairman Thomas Petri (R-WI) to strike one of the most controversial provisions in the legislation, which had drawn strong fire from the STPP coalition and environmental groups.

The proposed language -- which would have allowed highway widenings and new road construction to be funded from the air quality program (CMAQ) -- was completely dropped. Wednesday’s amendment also included revised language to improve provisions on “environmental streamlining" sponsored by Chairman Bud Shuster (R-PA). Although much improved from early drafts, many in the environmental community are still alarmed about its potential impacts.

No other amendments were taken up by the subcommittee before the bill was approved by voice vote. Rep. Nadler (D-NY) stated that he was preparing amendments for consideration by the full committee that would strengthen pedestrian safety provisions and planning requirements, and Rep. Barcia (D-MI) discussed his concerns about rural planning. The 71-member T&I Committee is scheduled to mark up the legislation this Wednesday (9/17).

The bill’s stiffest opposition now appears to be coming from budget hawks in both the House and the Senate. Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), among others, has continued to criticize BESTEA's impact on the balanced budget agreement due to sharp increases in annual spending levels as well as a provision to take the Highway Trust Fund “off-budget.”

Members of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee introduced a six-year, $135 billion bill on Friday (9/12) to reauthorize ISTEA. The legislation retains CMAQ and transportation enhancements as separate programs and increases funding for both -- without any of the more controversial provisions included in the original House bill. The Senate bill also dramatically increases funding for metropolitan areas and continues most of ISTEA’s basic provisions for planning, public participationand local control.

Yet the so-called Intermodal Transportation Act of 1997 does delete several significant programs and collapses categories, the most significant of which are ISTEA’s Interstate Maintenance and Bridge Repair programs. Some safeguards for highway and bridge repair are, however, provided for within the larger National Highway System (NHS) and Surface Transportation Program (STP) categories. STPP Executive Director Hank Dittmar commended EPW Committee leaders for preserving ISTEA’s environmental programs, but was critical of proposed research and technology provisions “that favor costly ‘Rube Goldberg’-style automated highways over needed research resolving conflicts between transportation and the environment." The bill's overall funding levels roughly translate into a $22.6 billion annual highway program, a slight increase from current ISTEA spending but far less than the $32 billion figure the House has proposed. But the Senate's efforts to honor the recent balanced budget agreement may also cost the bill some votes from states who don't fare as well under the proposal.

Additional ISTEA information is available on the world wide web at http://www.istea.org.

CRITICAL MASS -- IN L.A.?

A mounting interest in bicycling has people asking: Will Critical Mass happen in Los Angeles? Many bicyclists dispute the idea of Critical Mass rolling south of the Tehachapis, but others see no reason why Los Angeles cannot be the next venue for Critical Mass--albeit a different version of the main act.

Critical Mass happens once a month in San Francisco when cyclists assert their right to the road by riding in a large group, taking up a lane or two and slowing traffic. Critical Mass aims to take back the streets, making them safe for bicyclists. The ride is an unsponsored "event" unaffiliated with any organization or band of promoters. Joe Speaks, a member of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (SFBC), explains, "I think Critical Mass hasn't articulated a political agenda and doesn't have one because it's not a group of that sort. It's a reaction. It's not an action."

One week before July's Critical Mass, Mayor Willie Brown vowed to bring Critical Mass to a grinding halt and to put an end to what he termed cyclists' "arrogance." However, bicycle advocates successfully countered Mayor Brown's threats, and just days before the scheduled ride the mayor backed down from his strong fist position and opened negotiations with cyclists.

The city promised to sponsor an alternative transportation summit and to re-visit the city's bicycle plan. In exchange, cyclists agreed to start the ride a half-hour later and to follow a pre-arranged route. At its largest size ever--about 6,000 riders--the ride quickly went awry. Many cyclists were led off-route, confusion took hold, and confrontations erupted between cyclists and motorists. By ride's end, 110 cyclists had been arrested.

Media portrayal of cyclists has ranged from negative to tepidly sympathetic, but has had the effect of bringing attention to cyclists' concerns. SFBC has used Critical Mass to focus on its underlying issues: a hostile street environment for bicyclists, an imbalanced transportation network, and real safety concerns ranging from road rage to fatal encounters with traffic.

Just last month, two cyclists were killed on San Francisco's congested Market Street. The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition is advocating that Market Street be closed to cars, allowing buses to operate along a traffic-free corridor and providing cyclists with a safer route. The two fatalities point to the fact that Critical Mass is not about frivolous demands. "I'm sort of seeing it as the birth of yet another social movement," says Niko Leutonic, SFBC president, "An alternative transportation movement."

Some bicycle advocates in Los Angeles believe the arrests during San Francisco’s Critical Mass gave bicycling a black eye, and they don’t want to suffer a similar hit in Los Angeles. Ryan Snyder, an Angeleno bicycle advocate and planner, hopes Critical Mass won't happen here. "Critical Mass paints a picture of bicyclists as road renegades who favor intimidation tactics over democratic process. That's not productive for advocacy efforts. Organized rides are great--when they obey the law."

A more common response from L.A. bicycle advocates speaks of the impracticality of a Critical Mass in Los Angeles. Michelle Mowery, Los Angeles D.O.T. Bicycle Coordinator, argues, "A Critical Mass on the scale of San Francisco's just isn't practical. Commuters in L.A. are spread across a huge land area; there's no key commute routes that can be targeted like Market Street in San Francisco." Adds Jim Hasenauer of the International Moutain Biking Association, “We’re pretty spread out. Couple that with the car culture, and I think we’d look pretty weak and measily and pitiful. Not that I don’t think some kind of organized ride is not a good thing, but I don’t think Critical Mass will do it for us.”

But Mike Garcia, the unofficial sponsor of a small monthly Critical Mass ride on the Westside disagrees. "Every city has different cycling needs, a different cycling culture. Here in L.A. Critical Mass could take the form of a dozen 'mini-masses' throughout the city. It's a way to get bicycle commuters together, to exchange ideas, and to make our presence known to motorists."

And few bicycle advocates in San Francisco dispute the efficacy of Critical Mass. One cyclist argued that Critical Mass has done more for bicycling in one ride than advocacy efforts have accomplished in the past six years. Like a pattern of punctuated evolution, Critical Mass has propelled bicycle advocacy efforts far along their path of development. Explains Nick Carr, Vice-Chair of the San Francisco Bicycle Advisory Committee, "Critical Mass has launched bicycling issues from a bureaucratic to a political level."

MYRON ORFIELD COMES TO L.A.

U.S. Representative Myron Orfield (D-MN) has waged war against the white flight and decentralization that sapped the stength of his urban Minneapolis/St. Paul district and he’s successfully pushed legislation on regional tax equity, fair housing and land use. In his recently published Metropolitics, Orfield uses maps of public investment and demographics to argue that the concentration of poverty, crime and social problems in urban areas has been fueled by federal investment policies favoring suburbanization, destructive metropolitan competition for jobs and property taxes, and widespread indifference to regional economic goals. He builds a compelling case for regional coalition building to prevent the ruin of urban communities and inner ring suburbs.

The Rockefeller Foundation has funded Orfield to conduct similar research in L.A. -- research likely to provoke discussion about a host of social equity issues. (Is it fair, for example, to spend so much on fire protection in Malibu when fire stations are being closed all over South Central and East L.A.? Or to be spending so much money building roads to service new suburban developments in North L.A. County when the transportation needs of inner city residents are not being met?) Orfield is working with Angela Johnson-Meszaros of the Environmental Justice Network, who has begun networking with all those interested in tackling the policy questions his research will provoke. For more info call her at 213-891-1536.

REVERSAL OF FORTUNE

(Condensed from the Tri-State Transportation Campaign’s “Mobilizing the Region” weekly bulletin for New York, New Jersey and Connecticut) The August issue of England’s Economist says the long, slow decline of British cities has ended as pro-urban public policies combined with mounting suburban congestion and longer travel times have staunched middle-class urban flight. The upbeat urban-revival story attributes a synergistic set of local and national public policies:

Central-government financing of brownfield development, light rail and pedestrianized shopping areas are reversing decades of population and job losses in Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield.
In London’s financial district auto restrictions have cut traffic by a quarter, road accidents by a third and bus travel times by more than half without displacing traffic to adjacent districts, winning praise from shopkeepers, residents and commuters.
City centers are increasingly being linked by inter-urban high-speed trains, reinforcing their appeal while, predicts the Economist, “suburban and country living may grow less attractive as the costs of travel rise sharply.”
Near-universal support for keeping countryside as green space is helping maintain the trend toward city living in the face of rising urban housing costs.

To combat still-endemic highway congestion, the Economist urges stiff parking fees, innercity pedestrian zones, investment in public transit and, above all, road pricing. With “the right economic incentives,” says the Economist, buses, bicycling and walking could replace half of all U.K. car trips that are under five miles.

The contrast with America could hardly be more stark, what with zoning, taxation, road constriction and public facility siting here continuing to channel development into outlying greenfields. While London's economy grows at twice the overall U.K. rate, New York City badly lags behind the suburbs and many second-tier U.S. cities fare even worse. Small wonder that U.K. CO2 emissions have stabilized, while 1996 greenhouse gas emissions were up almost 10 percent over 1990 levels.

SMART HIGHWAYS A DUMB IDEA?

The U.S. government has spent more than $57 million on a scheme to wire the nation’s highways, and the National Automated Highway System Consortium put a demo project on display at their conference in San Diego last month. Amid all the hoopla, here’s a different view: 1) How can automated highways reduce congestion when more cars on already crowded urban freeways means more cars will be dumped onto arterials and neighborhood streets -- which means more congestion? 2) Are we really going to take away four lanes of freeway to accommodate the technology, or build new freeways through urban neighborhoods? There would need to be two lanes in each direction, one devoted to the platoon and a transition lane enabling people to get up to speed. 3) Putting more cars on the road results in more air pollution. 4) It will cost $5,000-$10,000 to retrofit a car, serving to create a two-tier highway transportation system where the technology is only accessible to those who can afford it. 5) Will people really want to rely on an an automated system to transport them safely at 70 mph just 20 feet from cars in front and back? And who assumes liability? 6) The federal government gave a sole source contract to a consortium of big corporations who stand to profit from the technology, and told them to develop, evaluate and promote it. This is bad science. There needs to be an independent evaluation.

Wouldn’t it be better in both the short and long run simply to pursue alternatives to the car? These could include funding fleets of roving tow trucks on freeways to relieve the 50 percent of congestion caused by traffic accidents and incidents, and priority timing on traffic signals to allow buses and rail to move quickly through congestion. STPP Executive Director Hank Dittmar debates Steve Shladover of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC-Davis at http://www.thesite.com/0697w4/work/work621_062597.html.

ADVOCACY PROFITS

While the bicycle industry’s massive trade show, Interbike, was more abuzz with the latest techno-trends than advocacy efforts, the Bikes Belong! campaign has made significant inroads: it's at least on some of the industry’s agenda. Manufacturers such as Specialized sponsored meetings at the Anaheim Interbike two weeks ago to discuss the link between a transportation system that includes bikes and the health of the bicycling industry. Several retailers argued that they directly profit from efforts that improve cycling conditions. And, argues Specialized’s Linda DuPriest, “Cycling can solve a lot of the world’s problems, but more of the industry is going to have to step up to the plate if we want to see change happen.”

Non-industry advocates also met at Interbike. The California Bicycle Coalition’s annual statewide meeting focused on how to increase involvement in Los Angeles’ California Bike Commute ‘98 (May 18-22). Of those registered in last year’s event, only 5 percent were from the L.A. region.

BIKE SHORTS

The Los Angeles D.O.T. is giving away free bike lockers. Each holds two bicycles and provides secure storage for commuting cyclists. Employers may apply for up to five lockers if they meet one requirement: they must be located within the City of L.A. Sounds easy, and it is. Call Michelle Mowery, L.A. D.O.T.'s Bicycle Coordinator for an application at 213-580-1199 . . . . . The L.A. D.O.T. is also installing 1,500 inverted-U bicycle racks throughout the city. Each rack will hold two bikes. Providing parking for the same number of cars would require at least 300 parking spaces--the equivalent of paving nearly one million square feet! . . . . . Kudos to Amtrak in California for superior bicycle service. While bicyclists must check their boxed bikes as baggage on most other routes throughout the country, bicyclists boarding all local Amtrak trains in California can simply roll on their bikes--no boxes required. For all you century riders, that means you can ride from L.A. to Santa Barbara and return on Amtrak for only $16 . . . . . While the MTA dedicated funds in the last Call for Projects for bikestations throughout the County, bikes were dealt a blow when the Board scaled back funding to put bike racks on buses -- a key factor in making sure the bikestations serve their intermodal purpose. Only two-thirds of the necessary funds were allocated to the project. How bicyclists are supposed to fully utilize an intermodal transportation system without being able to ride the buses remains a key issue for bicycle commuters in L.A. . . .

. . . AND SHORT CUTS

Academy Award winning cinematographer Haskell Wexler is making a documentary of transportation in L.A. starring Eric Mann . . . . State Senator Rob Hurtt (R-Garden Grove) has revived his measure to repeal California’s parking cash-out law. His previous bill, SB1320, was stripped of the cash-out language so the bill number could be used for an unrelated measure. But he’s reintroduced the legislation as SB 731, even though the federal tax code was changed last month so as to encourage cities to adopt similar measures. . . . The Southern California Association of Governments plans to release its draft regional transportation plan next month. Conformity with the Clean Air Act is still nowhere in sight, and attorneys for the NRDC, NAACP, Coalition for Clean Air and Environmental Defense Fund are meeting with SCAG officials and attorneys to discuss equity and environmental concerns. . . .The Local Government Commission is holding two more of its widely acclaimed Livable Communities workshops -- in Santa Monica on September 25 (where the topic is traffic calming and how to create communities more friendly to bicyclists and pedestrians) and in Manhattan Beach on October 9 (the topic is commercial corridors). Anyone interested in the transportation/land use connection will find these workshops stimulating. The cost is about $30. Call Julia Lave at LGC, 916-448-1198, or e-mail LGC@dcn.davis.ca.us, for more info.

TICKET TO RIDE

the Surface Transportation Policy Project's SoCal newsletter

September 1997 Volume 1 Issue 3

Contents: