July 2012 Archives

The Bus Riders Union and several other civil rights organizations took to the streets in Los Angeles last week, saying the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority should restore 1 million hours of bus service that were lost over the last four years. The union charges that the cuts in service, along with fare increases, have disproportionately harmed 500,000 African-American, Latino, and Asian-Pacific Islander bus riders.

That's not all. The coalition wants President Obama to personally intervene in the negotiations between the Transportation Department and the LACMTA. DOT slammed the city for implementing service changes without conducting a legally required analysis about the impacts on minority and poor riders. But the federal government has not gone so far as to require the city to reverse its decisions, which agitates the bus riders.

"We're framing this fight right now as a fight over the future of our city," said Eric Mann, director of the Labor/Community Strategy Center in Los Angeles. Mann says the city's emphasis on rail commuting is gentrification at its worst--harming the most disadvantaged populations who rely on bus service. "The rail system is going to bankrupt the transit system," he said.

The protest is a potent reminder that transportation systems are about more than state budgets, contracts, and traffic manipulation. A transit system sets the character for an entire city. Even the best-intentioned changes to it can have devastating and unexpected consequences.

What are city residents entitled to when it comes to mass transit? Do the same rights apply to road access? Does it make sense to consider access to transit or roads a civil right? If so, how does that change the policy conversation? How can city officials stay cognizant of the needs of various populations? What rights do city and state governments have with regard to their transportation systems? How can transportation officials balance the needs of everyone while staying within their budgets?

5 responses: Lexer Quamie, Eric Mann, Gabriel Roth, Laura Barrett, Gabriel Roth

7 responses: Patrick D. Jones, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., Gabriel Roth, Robert L. Darbelnet, Joshua Schank, Emil H. Frankel, Ken Orski

The rest of the country may be putting the brakes on high-speed rail projects, but the concept is alive and well in California. The state Senate recently passed a measure, with only Democratic votes, to put about $8 billion toward initial development of a bullet train to run between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The vote was hailed as a victory by Democrats, who said the project was an economic stimulus for the state.

Then last week, a UCLA economic analysis threw a wet blanket on the fire when it stated that a similar bullet train project in Japan in the 1960s did not create jobs or boost the economy. The study also said that high-speed rail tends to create sprawl because it makes it cheaper and easier to live in bedroom communities. (Depending on your point of view, this could be a good thing or a bad thing.)

Given congressional Republicans' unwillingness to come along for the high-speed train ride and Republican governors' refusal of high-speed rail money, California may offer the only realistic opportunity anytime soon to understand how and when to embark on high-speed rail projects. And the state still has a long way to go, with total costs for the project estimated at around $70 billion. We know that building a high-speed rail system from scratch takes a long time--longer than any politician's public life--and that the jury is still out on how beneficial such transit is to the overall economy. We also know that investment in infrastructure is about as solid a commitment as a city or state can make to its residents. There is no way that money is going overseas.

What can we learn from California's struggle to build a bullet train? Will partisan divisions sink the project? Is it true that building the transit system won't impact the economy? Does it matter? Are there less tangible benefits from super-fast train between two hubs? Would it be a benefit for the whole state or just Los Angeles and San Francisco residents?

3 responses: Michael Melaniphy, Peter Gertler, Jack Kinstlinger

After months of congressional wrangling, President Obama signed the $105 billion compromise transportation bill on Friday. And while the road to reauthorization was long and winding, there was one provision that was never really at risk. It was in the Senate bill and some form would have made it into the House version, too. It extends loan financing for infrastructure projects and was championed by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who both pushed for the provision and was a key architect of the bill.

The measure--America Fast Forward--expands the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act funding from $122 million a year to $750 million in fiscal year 2013 and $1 billion in fiscal year 2014. That's more than double the amount proposed by the Bipartisan Policy Center last year. It's been touted as letting a handful of major projects move forward, including New York's Tappan Zee Bridge replacement project and a set of projects in Los Angeles.

But even the expanded TIFIA program has its critics. Steven Higashide at the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, for example, criticized lawmakers for having "removed most of the criteria for judging applications to the program (these criteria had included environmental sustainability, project significance, use of public-private partnerships, and more), turning it into a rolling application program instead." The main remaining criterion would be creditworthiness, Streetsblog reported.

It may be easy for big cities like New York and L.A. to prove their good for it, but many (smaller) cities have lately faced the threat of credit downgrades. Is TIFIA a gift only for cities with good credit? Or is it, as its champions like to characterize it, a perfect short-term solution for a system in dire need of reform? Did the compromise hurt its effectiveness? Or is it an example of Congress actually getting something right?

2 responses: Phineas Baxandall, Bob Poole

They finally did it. In an 11th-hour turnaround, Congress passed a compromise transportation reauthorization (including a student loan interest rate extension and flood insurance reauthorization).

The 599-page bill reduces the number of highway programs by two thirds. The controversial coal ash and Keystone XL provisions House Republicans pushed for were dropped, but the streamlining provisions they wanted made it in, including exempting from environmental review certain emergency infrastructure replacements and programs that receive less than $5 million in federal funds. The cuts aren't as deep as many conservatives wanted and the concessions went too far for some Democrats.

Transportation enhancement funding--for things such as bike paths--remains, but a compromise split the funding between localities and states, which have an opt-out. The bill reduces the deficit by $16.3 billion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The Highway Transit Fund, the key funding source for highway projects, will be exhausted some time in fiscal year 2015.

What do the changes to the transportation enhancement program mean for bike paths and alternate transit? Is the program consolidation going to work? Will the streamlining really help to speed up products? What more could the bill have done to accelerate project delivery? What critical provisions is the deal missing? Is this bill an early Christmas present or a lump of coal?

2 responses: Gabriel Roth, Larry Hanley