Force Change

NorCal NIMBYs begin fight against high speed rail line

The affluent Bay Area cities of Menlo Park and Atherton joined a group of plaintiffs that are filing suit today against the California High Speed Rail Authority.  The plaintiffs are alleging the Authority violated environmental laws in their preparation of the environmental impact documents.  However, of course, their real complaint has little to do with the “environment,” but is instead related to residents’ concerns that the elevated high speed rail line running through their town would be an eyesore and could also require the relocation of some people living along the tracks.

Duh.  That’s what happens when major public works programs are pursued–the cityscape is altered and people living in the way are, unfortunately, forced to move.  More unfortunately, however, is the complete predictability of this lawsuit.  In this day and age, NIMBYs sue under environmental laws anytime they don’t like a construction project.  Oftentimes, these litigious obstructionists need not even win their lawsuit, but merely hope to create enough delay and cost overruns that the plan dies on its own.  Either way, the taxpayer bears the cost.

Posted in General, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Lifestyle, Los Angeles, Politics, San Francisco, Transportation | 1 Comment »

Union Pacific raises questions about CA bullet train safety

There is a new hiccup in the drive towards building a high speed rail system in California.  Apparently, the Union Pacific railroad recently told the California High Speed Rail Authority that they have “safety and operational” concerns about having the high speed train run so close to their freight trains.  (The high speed railway is projected to run alongside some of the Union Pacific right-of-way.)  It is unclear whether this is a bargaining ploy by Union Pacific, or a reflection of legitimate safety concerns.  Surprisingly, Union Pacific and the Rail Authority only met last month for the first time in two years.  

A concern for rail supporters is that any alteration to the proposed course of the railway could result in the need to modify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).  EIRs are extremely expensive to put together and the technical requirements of them can be used by project opponents to create delays through litigation.

Having personal experience in the process of public financing of major projects, it is very concerning to think that the Rail Authority could be forced to alter the currently proposed route, and consequently the EIR.  Often times, opponents of construction projects will use EIR requirements as a tool to stall the forward progress of a project.  Even if there are no legitimate environmental issues, having to modify an EIR, which requires additional time and money, can create substantial delays that can lead to a loss of financing and an ultimate failure of the project. 

It is unfortunate that environmental laws can be used as an obstructionist tool, since it discredits their usefulness as a legitimate means of protecting the environment, and we hope that this does not become the case in this situation. 

Posted in Los Angeles, Politics, Transportation | No Comments »

Has a tipping point been reached with gas prices?

Apparently gas prices have finally reached some sort of tipping point, as public transit ridership numbers are growing at the fastest rate in at least a decade.  While public transit ridership has been slowly growing over the past several years (with a 2.1% growth last year), it is predicted that average growth will reach 5% or more this year, as high gas prices and a slower economy drive more commuters on to public buses and trains. 

Denver, which recently began work on a major public railway expansion, has seen ridership numbers increase by 8% compared to last year.  And for the first time since 1991, the federal Energy Department predicts that Americans will consume less gas this year than last. 

Evidence is slightly mixed in Los Angeles, but appears to indicate that the roads are clearing a bit, while public transit use increases as well.

This is all good news for proponents of mass transit and confirmation that political opportunists who have advocated the lifting of federal gas taxes (while also espousing their pro-environment credentials) are completely off-base.  Unfortunately for McCain and Clinton, even if all mainstream economists are uniformly wrong in their belief that any tax reduction will be met with an equivalent increase in prices by the gas companies, (and that their policies therefore would result in a lowering of gas prices), they would be releasing the recent pressure that has led to this increase in public transit ridership and decrease in road congestion. 

If we have, in fact, reached some sort of tipping point with gas prices and transportation, then the policy proposals from our leaders should be “how can we take advantage of this shift in daily behavior,” instead of “how do we reverse it by trying to lower gas prices?”  This is an opportunity and we, as a society, need to take it.

Photo credit.

Posted in Daily Behavior, General, Los Angeles, New York, Politics, Transportation | No Comments »

NYC’s failure to implement congestion pricing is gift to LA

Since the New York State Legislature failed to approve congestion pricing in Manhattan, the US Dept. of Transportation has offered the federal funds that were slated for New York to Los Angeles. In order to receive these funds, Los Angeles will be required to implement congestion pricing on short stretches of Interstate 10, 210, and possibly the 110. This will not be the first time congestion pricing is incorporated into the Interstate Highway system, but it will be the most visible.

The $213 million being offered would be used to convert carpool lanes into congestion pricing toll lanes. The HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes would become HOT (high occupancy toll) lanes.

We are in favor of trying out this partial solution to Los Angeles’ traffic woes. The way we manage society is always a balancing act, and every citizen will not always be happy with the ultimate solution. Congestion pricing critics argue that driving on the roads should be an egalitarian experience and that the rich shouldn’t be able to go faster just because they have more money. However, as long as the funds raised from congestion pricing go towards improving public transportation, the pricing system actually does benefit the poor, as they usually rely on public transit more than the rich.

Our only complaint is that the funds are slated to go towards the purchase of about 60 buses that will use the new toll lanes. Given the dire need for expansion of public rail in LA, and its constant budget shortfalls, we would prefer to see at least some of the congestion pricing funds go towards rail development.

Photo credit.

Posted in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Los Angeles, Transportation | No Comments »

Santa Monica contemplates commercial development ban

The Bottleneck blog has a couple recent posts regarding a proposal in Santa Monica to suspend commercial development in the city, in order to deal with the growing traffic mess. If passed by voters, the measure would limit commercial development to 75,000 square feet of floor area per calendar year.

Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce President Tom Larmore, who opposes the ban, states, “This goes far beyond office development. The commercial development definition includes a whole raft of things.”  Some of the unintended consequences may include preventing new hotel developments (which do not substantially increase traffic) and medical facility expansions. 

While Santa Monica traffic is a major quality of life issue, an outright ban on new development may not be the best solution.  Yes, unchecked commercial growth without parallel mass transit investment has been a major cause of the congestion problems.  However, an outright ban is not going to solve the problem.  The solution is, and always has been, to have smart growth—development coupled with intelligent transit and planning solutions, including things like public rails, efficient traffic signal management, mixed use buildings, and congestion pricing.  If this ban is just a temporary solution which focuses the city’s attention on the real needs (mass transit), then it might not be such a bad thing.  But if it is just an excuse to avoid dealing with the real issue of alternative transit and smart planning, then it will likely be counterproductive.

Photo credit.

Posted in Los Angeles, Transportation | No Comments »

NYC congestion pricing one step closer.

Living in Los Angeles, we’ve kept a close eye on New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to enact congestion pricing in Manhattan.  This proposal got another boost yesterday when the city council approved a measure urging the State Legislature to adopt the plan.

As we noted in a previous post, some of the highlights of the plan include: charging all drivers entering Manhattan below 60^th Street an $8 fee between the hours of 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., requiring the revenue (estimated at nearly half a billion a year) to be reinvested into mass transit, and providing cost breaks for the poor.

The only hurdle left is State Legislature approval, which if given, will allow congestion pricing in Manhattan to begin as early as March 31, 2009.

It is our feeling that this system will substantially increase the quality of life in New York City.  Of course, congestion pricing is somewhat controversial because it takes a public resource (roadways) and charges a fee for their use.  Fortunately, New Yorkers are used to paying for roadway access.  (Just work backwards from the West Coast term “freeway.”)  Therefore, imposing another toll on New York drivers would not be an unnatural concept. 

As for the argument that it unfairly discriminates against the poor, who have less money to spend on tolls, the answer to this criticism is contained within the proposal itself.  By reinvesting the revenue generated into mass transit, poor people (who rely more heavily on mass transit than the rich) should reap much of the benefit. 

In attempting to apply congestion pricing to a city like Los Angeles, these two points, unfortunately will not be quite as applicable.  First, most California drivers have never paid a cent for roadway access (aside from a handful of bridges and private roads).  Convincing them to pay for something that has been, up to that point, completely free, will be difficult. 

Second, unlike New York, Los Angeles has a horrendous public transit system.  The way to reinvest any revenues from congestion pricing is not nearly as clear as in New York, which has a fully developed and integrated public rail (and bus) system.  Nonetheless, as we noted recently, mass transit in LA is possible (and once was amazing), so maybe the windfall revenue from congestion pricing would be the catalyst needed to finally get a real solution implemented. 

Photo credit.

Posted in General, Governmental Regulations, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Los Angeles, New York, Transportation | No Comments »