Ticket to Ride Nov/Dec 1997

ISTEA EXTENDED FOR SIX MONTHS

Hours before adjourning for the year Congress managed to pass a stop-gap transportation authorization bill last month that allows states to tap into their current unobligated balances, provides $5.5 billion in new highway funds, and funds mass transit with $1.3 billion for formula grants and $1.1 billion for discretionary programs. But even with the new money some states may be constrained from moving all pending projects forward. As written, the legislation prevents states from obligating any money after May1, 1998 without a new multi-year reauthorization bill, places a $9.7 billion limit on total obligations by states until then, and restricts each state to75 percent of the previous years’ obligation authority.

One of the more troubling provisions in the extension bill for transportation reform advocates is a provision allowing states to temporarily shift funds between different program categories (Enhancements, CMAQ, STP, etc.). The legislation does direct the Secretary of Transportation to ensure that all funds are repaid upon passage of a multi-year reauthorization bill, but many advocates worry the move will disproportionately drain funds from environmental and community programs (since states have already spent nearly all funds available in the more traditional highway categories) and set a dangerous precedent. STPP and theRails to Trails Conservancy will continue to monitor the situation over the next six months.

Fiscal constraints will likely push the Senate to take up ISTEA as early as February. But the continued hope of House members to boost spending through the budget resolution process will likely postpone the House’s consideration of ISTEA, possibly delaying final passage until next summer.

For more information contact James Corless at STPP, 202-974-5134 or jcorless@transact.org.

NEW CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION LAW INCREASES LOCAL CONTROL

Senator Quentin Kopp’s SB45, signed into law in October, has substantially changed the rules of the transportation funding game, dramatically increasing the power of the MTA and diminishing that of both the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Caltrans. But will the new rules advantage or disadvantage alternative transportation projects? Will they help recast the bus versus rail debate as transit versus highways? Can they put a stop to the 710 freeway?

Federal and state transportation funds have in the past been divided into nine separate funding pots (flexible congestion relief, transit capital improvement, inter-city and commuter and urban rail transit, mass transit guideway, transportation systems management, sound walls, inter-city rail corridors) each with its own rules and match requirements. Caltrans and the regions (in L.A. County, the MTA) would submit their wish lists of projects to the CTC, and the CTC would decide which to fund.

Now the money goes into one big pot, with 75 percent of the total going straight to the regions and 25 percent going to Caltrans and the CTC. The CTC must still sign off on the MTA’s list, but it must either accept or reject the list in its entirety. And that list must be financially constrained, which means that whereas the MTA used to let the CTC make the hard choices -- which were easier to make up in Sacramento, far away from the madding crowds at the MTA -- now the agency will have to make its own hard choices. The buck will stop at the MTA. The politics will be strictly local.

A giant step forward for humankind? Potentially. It really will be up to the agency -- and the constituencies that lobby it -- whether to spend money on rail, buses, HOV lanes, or bike lanes, for example. But SB45 also did away with guaranteed state funding for those projects. Bike lanes will be competing directly with HOV lanes, and the 710 freeway with the San Gabriel Valley extension of the Alameda Corridor.

Which has sounded a hopeful note for opponents of the 710, a project long championed by Caltrans: Caltrans will not be able to amass funding for the freeway out of its own 25 percent share of funding. And in the MTA’s longlist of priorities the $1.6 billion 6-mile-long 710 freeway has ranked close to the bottom. The MTA’s first Regional Transportation Improvement Plan under the new rules must be completed by March 1998.

CAN THE LOCATION-EFFICIENT MORTGAGE
MAKE MASS TRANSIT WORK IN L.A.?

The location-efficient mortgage (LEM) is premised on the idea that it’s less expensive to live in a densely populated, transit-rich neighborhood than in a suburban community where everyone drives -- and that these savings should be treated as disposable income when banks calculate how much money to lend prospective home buyers. The LEM partners -- STPP, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Neighborhood Technology -- have been shopping the project around to lending institutions and secondary mortgage purchasers in the hopes of making location efficiency a standard consideration in the mortgage lending process.

FannieMae has just agreed to underwrite a test of the LEM in Chicago, with Los Angeles and San Francisco as the next likely test sites. In anticipation of this, SCAG has included the LEM in the just-released regional transportation plan as a strategy to promote the creation of Livable Communities.

The LEM is based on a 1994 NRDC study by Dr. John Holtzclaw that quantified the relationship between the residential density of a neighborhood and the total VMT generated per household. The LEM partnership is updating this work with Dr. Holtzclaw for the metropolitan areas of L.A., Chicago and San Francisco. As density and the availability of public transit increases these neighborhoods become more “location efficient,” providing easy access to jobs, stores, churches, restaurants, recreation and other popular destinations. Because of this accessibility people drive less and own fewer or no cars. As AAA estimates the annual cost of a car at $6,500 this can result in significant savings per household.

For example, a typical household in a relatively dense Santa Monica neighborhood (with 26 households per acre) drives approximately 14,000 miles less per year than a household in Encino, a relatively low-density suburb (with 3.5 households per acre). That translates into a savings of $300 a month in lower transportation expenses; for a family who uses transit and owns no cars it translates into a savings of $486 a month. Banks currently treat both cities equally, while the LEM would take this very real savings into account. Applied to the mortgage formula, the monthly $300 savings would equal approximately $28,000 more in borrowing power; the monthly $486 savings would translate into $60,000.

The LEM’s advantages are many: It will make location-efficient neighborhoods more attractive and affordable, serving as a counterbalance tosuburban sprawl. It will provide new home ownership opportunities for low and middle-income home buyers. It will enhance the economic well-being and taxbase of existing communities. It will invigorate the housing market in existing communities. It will bolster transit ridership. It will discourage increases in VMT.

Coming to your neighborhood soon . . . . .

Myth #3

People in Los Angeles will always choose to drive.

Policy has dictated this “choice” and it’s not a choice at all. Government plays a crucial role in establishing the car as the overwhelmingly dominant mode of transportation -- through numerous subsidies, tax deductions, roadway construction, land use policies, suburban infrastructure provision, and the externalization of most of the environmental and social costs of driving. In comparison we’ve done very little to establish transit as a viable alternative.

STATEWIDE COALITION TO PROMOTE SMART GROWTH

Southern Californians have been complaining about suburban sprawl as far back as the turn of the century. As Mike Davis chronicles in his tear-jerker essay “How Eden Lost Its Garden” (in The City: Los Angeles and Urban Theory at the End of the 20th Century, University of California Press, 1996) there was federal acknowledgment of “the profound causal relationship between landscape-destroying sprawl at the urban edge and neighborhood decay at the center” as far back as the Kennedy Administration. To no avail. None of the pleas for growth control and for land conservation to balance land speculation-- not by Charles Lummis, Charles Robinson, Mary Pickford, Frederick Olmsted, Richard Neutra, Ralph Nader, even Pete Wilson -- have been heeded. Not even in1991, when everybody who was anybody in the state Legislature put forward a bill to control growth or strengthen regional planning, and there were widely-supported growth control efforts in both Orange and Riverside counties.

Then the bottom fell out of the economy. But it’s that time again, with the pundits predicting that California will be home to thirty million more residents by 2020. As noted by USC urban planning professor Stephanie Pincell, who is finishing a book on the subject, growth control movements ebb and flow on a ten-year cycle. And a nascent statewide effort, the California Futures Network, has been initiated by the Greenbelt Alliance and the Planning and Conservation League. The reason it could work this time is that advocatesare talking about fundamental tax reform, maybe even regional tax sharing, and reform of current lending practices that make it difficult to build multi-family housing or anything that isn’t a traditional single-family-home suburban development.

For more information contact Kari Smith at the Greenbelt Alliance, 415-543-4921 or greenbelt@igc.apc.org. The California Futures Network is also looking for a program director. Operations will likely be based in Sacramento,although applicants from other locations will be considered. Applications must be received by Dec. 12.

BAY AREA RETHINKING HOV LANES

The phone was ringing off the hook at the Bay Area Air Quality Management District after a San Jose Mercury News story in October stating that the agency was considering yanking HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes off a list of preferred ways of combatting the region’s traffic problems. The reason: There are several studies indicating that new HOV lanes -- as opposed to existing lanes that have been converted to HOV -- don’t ease congestion and have a negligible effect on air quality.

But the news story wasn’t exactly true, according to the AQMD’s Jean Roggenkamp, who was quoted in it. She says the agency, which is updating its Clean Air Plan, merely asked the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to look into concerns raised by environmentalists that new HOV lanes actually induce additional traffic by adding capacity to freeways -- thereby washing out any benefits that may have accrued from carpooling.

The list of studies documenting the phenomenon of induced traffic is growing, and CARB’s Jerry Martin says the agency is reviewing the literature. Taking carpool lanes off the preferred list would dramatically curtail funding and force the Bay Area to rethink its air quality and transportation plan. Presumably the ripple effect would force a rethinking in Southern California as well, where we are spending $2.8 billion to construct 300 miles of lanes.

The Southern California Association of Governments says the percentage of people who commute by carpool in the SoCal region is declining, from 19 percent in 1976 to 15 percent in 1994 to a projected 14 percent in 2020.

INCREASING FUEL ECONOMY COULD SAVE ANGELENO FAMILIES
$573 A YEAR

Contrary to the age-old claims of the auto industry, increased fuel efficiency could save consumers money and combat global warming, according to“Blind Spot: The Big Three’s Attack on the Global Warming Treaty", a recent report co-released by the Surface Transportation Policy Project and the Environmental Working Group. The report found that increasing fuel efficiency standards -- which haven’t changed since 1975 -- from 27.5 to 45 mpg for cars, and 34 mpg for light trucks, would decrease greenhouse gas vehicle emissions 36 million tons per year (nearly half the amount necessary to reach the targeted 1990 levels) and save the average family in Los Angeles $573 a year.

“Blind Spot” supports the recommendations of a Presidential panel to improve fuel efficiency; promote location-efficient neighborhoods; accelerate the introduction of alternative fuels; strengthen ISTEA; increase funding for public transit; and fund research on climate change and transportation. The report is available at http://www.ewg.org.

GROUP PIONEERS CAR-SHARING IN SAN FRANCISCO

The San Francisco Transportation Cooperative (with the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition serving as fiscal agent) has begun organizing a car-sharing co-op in San Francisco. Car-sharing clubs started in Switzerland in the late‘70s, then took root in Europe and then Canada. What it is: An economic cooperative where members share cars, trucks, bikes, bike carts. When you need to drive you call to reserve a car on an hourly or daily basis. The logic: Individual car ownership encourages automobile use because once you’ve paid the fixed costs of financing, registration and insurance you might as well get your money’s worth by driving as much as possible. But since co-op members will pay just the incremental cost of a car trip they will choose to drive only when necessary.

In an ideal world we’d have transportation choices. Car-sharing can move us toward that goal by making it easier for people to give up their cars and switch to more sustainable modes of transportation. Car-sharing means less total driving and fewer cars, greater ridership of (and therefore support for) public transportation, less space devoted to roads and parking lots, and more space available for “higher and better uses,” like people and green space.

The plan in San Francisco is to share approximately one car among every ten members, with all cars located in neighborhoods within easy walking distance. A $500 deposit is refundable when you leave the co-op. There’s a $10 monthly administrative fee, and driving costs 20 cents per mile -- including gas -- and $2 per hour. You’re billed at the end of the month.

Car-sharing works especially well for those who live in dense, transit-rich neighborhoods and who commute less than four times a week. Car-sharing also works well for families who would like to get rid of their second car. Who wants to start up an effort in L.A.? For more information call 415-487-1978.

BIKE SHORTS

Chris Morfas of the California Bicycle Coalition suggests writing Governor Wilson and Caltrans Director James Van Loben Sels to express your concerns about the transferability of ISTEA funds (see ISTEA story above). Ask them to pledge not to transfer funds from the Transportation Enhancements or CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality) categories into highway-building programs. Write Wilson @ State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814 and Van Loben Sels @ Caltrans, 1120 N St., suite MS-49, Sacramento, CA 95814. . . . The MTA has slashed funding for bike racks on buses by a third. The L.A. Bicycle Advisory Committee is working with the MTA on a plan to install brackets instead of racks, which would reduce the cost but carry the same number of bikes . . . It’s exactly these last-minute budget cuts that worry L.A. County bike advocates who met last week to discuss strategies for preserving bike funding given the new rules of the funding game (see SB45 and ISTEA stories above). For more info get on the la-bac-news@cycling.org list serve, or call STPP . . . . Letters are needed in support of a pilot program temporarily opening trails in L.A. city parks to mountain bikes to determine if user conflicts exist. The equestrian community has already sent letters saying bikes are inappropriate. Write to Commissioner Steve Soboroff, L.A. Recreations and Parks Commission, City Hall, L.A., CA 90012. For more info contact Peter Heumann at peterh@pacbell.net . . . . Join Critical Mass L.A. Don’t wait in traffic and pay $5 to reserve parking at the Getty’s Dec. 16 opening. Bike up the hill for free! Leaving from the Abbey Cafe on Robertson between Santa Monica and Melrose at 2:30p.m., or Westwood and Le Conte at 3:30 p.m. Call 213- 935-8099 . . . . Bike L.A. Safety Training (better-known as BLAST) has begun organizing a Youth Cycling League at middle schools and high schools. Sign your child up for bike rides, field trips and special events like a bike tour . . . .

. . . AND SHORT CUTS

The Regional Transportation Plan just released by the Southern California Association of Governments was mailed out this week. Look for the RTP on SCAG’s website, www.scag.ca.gov, as well as a schedule of RTP workshops and presentations. Or call 213-630-1444. Public hearings begin in February. Comments on the RTP can be e-mailed to info@scag.ca.gov. The environmental impact report is available on CD-ROM or diskette (it’s too big to print), or there are copies at the central public libraries in each county and at major universities. . . . The Local Government Commission holds its summit on “Making Livable Communities in a Changing Los Angeles” Dec. 11 at the Omni Hotel in downtown L.A. Call 916-448-1198. . . . STPP and the Community Food Security Coalition will try to get language inserted into ISTEA II and BESTEA recognizing the links between access to healthy, affordable food, the transportation investment, and suburban sprawl. From 1975 to 1991 the number of supermarkets in older neighborhoods in Los Angeles decreased by 30 percent . . . . The Surface Transportation Policy Project has posted current and past issues of “Ticket to Ride” at our website http://www.transact.org/socal.htm . . Before adjourning the House and Senate broke a long-standing labor reform impasse and approved legislation to reauthorize Amtrak. A recent Gallup Poll found 69 percent approval of continued Amtrak funding . . . . KennethWykle, former deputy commander in chief of the U.S. Transportation Command, has been confirmed as the next Federal Highway Administration Administrator.

TICKET TO RIDE

the Surface Transportation Policy Project's SoCal newsletter

Nov/Dec 1997 Volume 1 Issue 5

Contents:

BIKE SHORTS

. . . AND SHORT CUTS