Gav For Guv Short On Transportation Essentials

Electric_Vehicles_showcase.jpgNewsom extolling the glories of EVs, from mayorgavinnewsom via Flickr

So Gav made it official yesterday that he’s running for Guv by tweeting it to his more than 283,000 followers, announcing it on Facebook, and even running a strange pseudo-article with a lot of donate hyperlinks in the Huffington Post, all of which made a splash among bloggers and traditional media icons.  All the hullabaloo aside, I need convincing on Gav’s record on the issues important to this blog.

For his transportation platform, he leads with the right foot, making a strong link between transit improvements and climate change, job growth, and energy independence.

We must leave the era of the car behind and refocus our investment and energy on building smart, environmentally sustainable transit options

Creating robust mass transportation systems will connect our local and regional economies, create jobs, give Californians better affordable transit options and ease traffic congestion.

Amen, brother.  I couldn’t have said it better and I hope all environmental and transportation advocates will hammer on those points this election cycle, namely that any candidate who claims green cred must embrace transit and that public transportation equals jobs. No governor serious about addressing climate change can stand by idly (or sit by in a hydrogen Hummer) as all state funding for transit is zeroed out and environmental review for highway projects is thwarted.  Any candidate for governor that wants my vote will immediately reverse the trend away from funding transit operations and widening highways.

So I’m sure the very first platform point will be a solution for restoring desperately needed transit operating money?  Hmm, not so much.  He leads with "innovative technology," claiming that he’s modernized Muni with NextMuni and Translink. While it’s important to give riders information and make their transfers more fluid, we learned in the kerfuffle over 311 work orders to MTA that more than 60 percent of total call volume to service were questions about bus and train schedules, which NextMuni provides for much less money.

Gav acted on this matter and came up with a cost-cutting solution, but only after Supervisor Bevan Dufty made it a priority.  In fact, if it weren’t for Dufty, the matter of various agencies milking MTA for more than $83 million in work orders by 2010 would have slid by the wayside.  Gav didn’t seem to have a problem with SFPD and 311 draining the monetary gains that Prop A afforded the MTA until the press picked up on it. 

Putting out fires is not my idea of visionary leadership. 

What Gav doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to admit is that Muni has a credibility problem that no amount of expensive efficiency plans and innovative technologies will fix.  It’s terribly important to be sure that redundant and unnecessary service is eliminated and that Muni focuses its energy on the 80 percent of its ridership on the 15 most used lines, but when the agency faces $129 million in annual budget deficits, it can’t even pay to implement its Transit Effectiveness Project, whenever that clears environmental review.  Muni needs money, plain and simple.  Every transit operator in the state needs money, so until you address this issue, I’m not taking your transit platform seriously.

Although he uses the good rhetoric quoted above, Gav offers no solutions for dealing with concerns of building  housing near transit, nor reducing driving to fight climate change. The state has two excellent bills on the books, AB 32 and SB 375, which in principle chart a course toward situating new homes near transit, toward reducing driving, and preventing sprawl.  As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said, reducing the amount Americans drive is one of the biggest challenges facing our nation.  US DOT Secretary Ray LaHood and HUD Secretary recently announced a joint effort to improve regional planning, reduce sprawl, and encourage transit-oriented development. 

California governors like to think of themselves as cutting edge nationally, so why is Newsom so far behind on one of the most fundamental environmental, transportation, and energy concerns facing this state?  Mobile sources are responsible for more that 40 percent of all the state’s CO2.  This might not be so obvious when you’re driving around in your 18 mpg hybrid truck here in San Francisco, but the smog downwind in Sacramento is unmistakable.  

As for pedestrian safety and amenities, quality public realm, bicycling, traffic calming, speeding, and a whole host of other issues we livable streets urbanists consider important: nada.  What instead is the solution to our problems meriting inclusion in two platforms?  Of course, it’s electric vehicles!

Not to harp on an issue I’ve written about in more detail already, but I will steal a quotation from a commenter on the Carfreeliving listserv: "Yay, electric traffic jams!"

  • Gavin is claiming “innovative technology” like TransLink? TransLink’s been planned for longer than Gavin was even up on the Board of Supervisors and is actually being provided by MTC, which is under ABAG. Also, TransLink has been on Golden Gate Transit and AC Transit for a while, which are under no possible jurisdiction of Gavin Newsom.

    Gavin is exactly like Arnold. He talks the green talk but can’t even walk the green walk in perhaps the easiest place in the world to do it.

  • rzu

    Gav is short on a lot of essentials. His campaign slogan should be: “All sizzle, no steak!”

  • I don’t see the sizzle either…

  • You don’t see the sizzle cause it’s never in the city.

    I do like the “electric traffic jam” quote. Only part of the problem with cars is the fact they pollute. Another part is that one person (sometimes up to 4 or 5!) take up so much road space. You can fit 15-30 cars’ worth of people in a bus and take up fraction of the road space hence more human throughput.

  • rzu

    Good point mikesonn. And lets not forget that it is the MTA Board that Gavin appointed that is raising fares and slashing service, choosing to drive away MUNI riders rather than deal with the difficult task of generating revenue in some other way. Yes, the problem is in no small way due to the state budget mess, but well before the current crisis, advocates have been begging the MTA to figure out better ways to fund the agency. So far, Gav’s only response has been to put the kibosh on sound ideas, like raising parking rates and imposing stricter penalties on illegal parking.

  • Donovan b

    I think the electric traffic jams quote was a case of sarcasm and is actually making the same point rzu and mikesonn made. Regardless, support for mass transit is great, but the connection to land use has to be hammered on. Just locating housing near transit stations is a beginning, but there is soooo much more to good local and regional planning than that and the advocacy community has to be articulate on the issue. Gav, as mayor of sf, has to understand this. Settling for anything less is not going to get us to where we need to be in terms of a sustainable, human-scale living environment. This isn’t rocket science and the ball has to be moved further than just housing and transit.

  • patrick

    Newsom isn’t fit to be mayor of San Francisco, much less the Governor. What has he actually done other than photo opps?

    He claims responsibility for NextMuni & TransLink? Please!!! At best he allowed it to happen, but there is no way it was his vision, or that he even promoted it. His MTA directors are only there to allow funds for Muni to be funneled to other departments where he has political friends.

    Newsom would be worse than the Governator.

  • Look, between his cynical looting of Muni, his ownership of a too-heavy SUV that gets 18 mpg and his overall dislike of mass transit, looting it to pay for mayoral aides with no qualifications at all to take MUNI safety inspector funds, this guy is just another Arnold, but with better hair and whatnot. Keep on praising him for his platitudes because it’s not like he ever did much as Mayor – hell he isn’t even HERE most months and doesn’t care a whit for sustainable anything – besides sustaining his thin career as a public official.

    Whatever. Flame on, San Francisco. The City That Once Knew How is now the City That Has No Clue.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

STREETSBLOG USA

Not a Word About Transit in Obama Jobs Plan

|
President Obama released a blueprint for his second term yesterday, a 20-page booklet focused on job creation [PDF]. Let’s be clear: This came from his campaign machine, not the White House. In the booklet, called “The New Economic Patriotism: A Plan For Jobs and Middle-Class Security,” Obama touts his success at keeping the American auto […]

Big Transit News: Bush-Era Rule Tossed, Enviro Benefits on the Table

|
Transportation reformers and members of Congress have long clamored for changes to the federal government’s major transit grant program, otherwise known as "New Starts," and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood answered today with an announcement of sweeping changes in the works. LaHood made his announcement today at the Transportation Research Board conference. (Photo: AP) The first […]

Gav for Guv Interview This Thursday on Current

|
Flickr photo: mayorgavinnewsom One of the good things about Mayor Gavin Newsom’s obsession with putting public discourse online is the opportunity the public has to ask him a lot of questions.  In this vein, Current is holding a live online video interview with California gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom about his "green" agenda and they are […]
STREETSBLOG USA

Funding Mass Transit Security After Bin Laden

|
The demise of Osama Bin Laden has transit officials across the country preparing their agencies for possible retaliatory attacks. In Washington, Mayor Vincent Gray informed constituents via Twitter that “users will see an increase in # of officers throughout [Metro] system (trains & buses).” In New York, a spokesperson announced MTA had “increased security at […]