Photo: TransForm/Flickr

Members of a broad coalition hailing from throughout California are headed to Sacramento next week to push policymakers to save transit funding and enact sustainable transportation planning reforms.

The Oakland-based transit advocacy group TransForm has amassed about 150 advocates to descend on the capitol for its two-day Transportation Choices Summit, the first known event of its kind, where they will meet with state representatives and urge them to prioritize walking, bicycling, and transit.

TransForm State Policy Director Graham Brownstein said the action came out of the organization’s Invest in Transit campaign, launched last year to address the “very, very serious crisis” facing transit systems in California. The state has made dramatic funding cuts totaling more than $4 billion over the last decade, and TransForm recognized the immediate need for “creative policy reforms that will stabilize, and then grow transit funding in California,” said Brownstein.

The cornerstone of the campaign is a push to ensure that a major portion of the revenue from California’s nascent cap-and-trade program will be dedicated to transit operations and affordable housing projects located near transit.

The cap-and-trade revenue could go a long way toward restoring the damage done to transit funding under the Schwarzenegger administration. By selling emissions permits, Governor Jerry Brown’s administration anticipates the cap-and-trade program will generate $1 billion in the 2012-2013 budget and $10 billion annually by 2020, according to TransForm [PDF].

Brownstein said transit agencies need all the help they can get to avert a much deeper statewide crisis.

“Piecemeal, at this point, isn’t going to cut it,” he said. “We’re looking at just billions of dollars that are needed really pretty rapidly, or else you run into a situation where some of these systems that have not had proper maintenance and rehab for years start to really not function, and it becomes much more expensive, and it’s not just a repair, but a replacement kind of an issue.”

TransForm’s proposal is targeted to help the state meet its air quality goals, particularly for disadvantaged communities, as mandated by AB 32, passed by the state legislature in 2006. The goal, said Brownstein, is to combine “the investments in transit infrastructure and operations with transit-oriented development in the right places so that you’re maximizing the drop in people driving their cars, maximizing the increase in the ability of people to take transit, walk, and bike, and therefore you’re maximizing the greenhouse gas reductions, which cap-and-trade is all about, ultimately.”

He also pointed out that investing in transit options benefits low-income communities the most. “You’re maximizing the benefits that accrue to people in this state who are suffering the most because of our over-reliance on cars. They’re suffering because of the hit to their pocketbook, they’re suffering because if they’re low-income they’re much more likely to live next to a freeway or near a port or other facility where lots of polluting motor vehicles are located.”

The coalition will also push for reforms in how the state plans and funds transportation projects, “all of which aim to either increase funding for transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities, consider health and equity impacts as they’re making transportation planning decisions, create some new tools for local governments to have financing to support needed infrastructure and housing investments,” said Brownstein.

The coalition amassed by TransForm has grown to represent “not just the usual do-gooders,” he said, but also local governments and transit agencies, business and labor, affordable housing proponents, and disability advocates. The campaign coalesced to ”stitch these interests together.”

“This has become much bigger than about transit and housing,” said Brownstein. “It’s now really about integration of the various modes of transportation — transit, bike, ped, and cars — and the ways in which we coordinate, or fail to coordinate, transportation and land-use planning to maximize the benefits of these investments.”

The Transportation Choices Summit will take place in Sacramento next Tuesday and Wednesday, May 1 and 2. Registration for the event is still open, and you can also sign a petition to show your support.

California's lack of bold transportation policies and transit investment points to a failure in Sacramento. Photo: aquafornia

A new report from NRDC and Smart Growth America — which examines what all 50 states are doing to curb greenhouse gas emissions from transportation — lauds California as the most progressive state on policy, but points out that its transportation and spending priorities don’t match the bold blueprints, particularly as it relates to public transit.

It all points to Sacramento, where legislators have continuously raided the only dedicated fund for transit, leading to massive cuts statewide.

The report praises the state’s smart-growth law, SB375, as a model for other states, noting that “it puts in place a strong framework that can be used to drive better coordination between transportation and land use, and, of particular relevance to this analysis, to do so in a way that reduces GHGs.” It remains uncertain, however, “whether SB 375 will deliver results on the ground as opposed to just changes in planning documents.”

In September, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 2035, a move that will compel the state’s metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to better integrate land use and transportation planning. The real test for SB375 will come at the local level as MPOs draft plans to meet the targets.

Unless the state prioritizes investments in sustainable transportation, California’s progressive policies will continue to be undermined.

“Huge cuts to public transit threaten these (policy) gains and could lead to even more devastating consequences for California communities and the economy,” said a joint press release from Smart Growth California, NRDC, TransForm and the Sierra Club of California. “In California, transportation policies and spending decisions are not in line with the state’s bold commitments to reduce the amounts of carbon dioxide and other emissions being pumped into the air.”

Last year, TransForm released a study that found that good access to public transit in major metropolitan regions could save California residents $31 billion a year and reduce GHGs by 34 percent.

“By failing to increase investments in transit — and worse, by drastically cutting transit in recent years — California is working against its own interests and missing key opportunities to save money, rebuild the economy, create jobs, and build the transportation system needed for the next hundred years,” the joint statement said.

Graham Brownstein, TransForm’s statewide policy director, said it’s unclear what the upcoming legislative season holds for public transit. Considering the funding restraints imposed by Proposition 26, the coming year is going to be especially challenging as legislators attempt to lift the state out of its financial mess. Sustainable transportation advocates are hoping to work with legislators to craft a long-term funding solution for transit, as well as walking and biking infrastructure.

“This is not a mystery. People do understand this, but it’s such a big problem and the solutions are so politically and economically difficult that we just haven’t seen the leadership that I think is ultimately needed to really drive through the necessary reforms,” said Browstein, adding that he sees it as a “moral hazard” problem.

“Nobody wants to be the first legislator to stick out their neck, and so, it really does remain to be seen. We are hopeful that with the new governor, that with some of the new folks in the Legislature, the politics may shift a little bit in this session and we may see some leadership on transit funding issues.”

Click to enlarge: Annual household transportation costs in the Bay Area.

In the Bay Area, where annual car ownership costs on average over $8,000 per person, individuals spend roughly $34 billion every year on personal transportation costs, compared to only $4.6 billion spent by public agencies on transit and roads combined. Households with poor access to public transit not only spend double the amount per year on transportation when compared to those with good access to transit, they produce more than double the amount of CO2, a greenhouse gas.

"The most astounding thing is that agencies pinch their pennies on transit and cut back and we feel like we can't afford not to save that service," said Stuart Cohen, Executive Director of TransForm. "We're already spending more than seven times as much as our agencies spend on public transit and roads just on buying and operating our vehicles."

What's more, the report points out that fuel costs represent a small minority of the cost of owning a car, so the craze for electric and other low-emission vehicles will not dramatically reduce the transportation costs for those living far from their jobs and far from transit. The best solution to combating climate change, the report notes, is to build walkable, vibrant communities where residences are situated close to job centers. 

Click to enlarge: household CO2 from transportation in the Bay Area.

"By reducing public and private transportation costs and increasing revenues to local governments, SB 375 can help put dollars back in the pockets of consumers and local governments," said Cohen.

Windfall for All counters the claim that SB 375 will be too costly to implement during the current economic crisis with several examples of how planning denser cities and offering alternatives to private car travel can save money.

First, in Sacramento, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) created a 2050 development blueprint that forecasts current development patterns and compared them to smart growth patterns. SACOG found that Sacramento would save $9.4 billion in public infrastructure costs (transportation, utilities, water, etc), $655 million in annual residents' fuel costs and $8.4 billion less for land purchases to offset environmental degradation from sprawl. The city would also see a 300 percent increase in public transit use if the city clustered development around transit within an urban growth boundary.

Benefits of public transportation for household costs and pollution. Image: TransForm.

In the Bay Area, parking regulations are a significant impediment to dense development. In San Leandro, parking minimums of more than two parking spaces for each new home made dense development a planning impossibility. When San Leandro re-wrote its downtown plan, it rezoned to allow 3,400 new homes, more than seven times the limit under the old zoning laws. The first development in the new Downtown Transit-Oriented Development Strategy, The Alameda, designed by San Francisco Architect David Baker, saves $3.9 million by eliminating a level of parking and produces 30 more affordable units, according to the report.

Based on these and other case studies, Cohen suggested California should consider levying a climate impact fee on gasoline to generate enough money to expand public transit options and expand walkable communities while improving the economy and meeting ambitious greenhouse gas targets.

"Building our communities with the expectation that every driver in a family is going to have to own their own car is part of what is part of what is bankrupting families," said Cohen. "The infrastructure for the... roads and those patterns of growth is part of what is bankrupting our public agencies."

Windfall for All Critical Recommendations

• Integrate full economic analysis into planning. The huge dividends from efficient land use become evident once personal costs, not just public budgets, are considered. Without such analysis, we will continue to promote plans and policies that cost too much for families, businesses, and local governments.
• Provide cities and counties with an infusion of funds to engage the community in planning. The state should make funds available for updating zoning codes and parking policies to make more efficient use of land and resources. Identifying strategies to maintain and expand the number of affordable homes is also critical.
• Fund cost-effective public transportation. The state needs to provide leadership and restore funds for public transit, as well as make it easier for regions to raise new revenues with climate-impact fees. Economic analysis could determine whether such fees, if spent in ways that promote more efficient communities, can reduce our overall costs.
• Innovate, evaluate and replicate. There are dozens of innovative strategies – whether an individual program such as car-sharing, or a comprehensive rewards approach such as UC San Diego’s. MTC, the Bay Area’s transportation agency, will soon launch the first “Transportation Climate Action Program.” This program will seed, evaluate and replicate innovative programs. Other regions should follow suit.
• New development should minimize pollution from new residents – or pay to mitigate it. The San Joaquin Valley is encouraging efficient development from the start. New developments that don’t provide walkable communities with convenient transportation choices must mitigate the costs of the air pollution that will be generated by future residents. The state and regional air districts should encourage this same system for mitigating the costs of greenhouse gases.
  

Earlier this month, Sacramento Regional Transit launched a program it's calling "Ride to Abide," which allows the agency to ban riders who misbehave on its vehicles for up to a year. Given the recent high-profile violent incidents on Muni, we decided to take a closer look at the policy, which VTA Watch highlighted earlier this week, and see if Muni could benefit from a similar rule.

The policy is the result of Senate Bill 1561, authored by State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacremento). From Regional Transit's press release:

"Effective October 1, 2009, anyone arrested for a crime or cited on three separate occasions within a period of 60 consecutive days for infractions committed in or on an RT vehicle, bus stop or light rail station will now face a ban of 30 days. Offenders can be banned for up to a year if convicted of more serious offenses.

Interfering with an operator of a transit vehicle, willfully disturbing others on or in a system facility or vehicle, and defacing District property could all result in exclusion."

The policy also "provides an appeals process for individuals who opt to contest a prohibition order," according to the press release. Except in the case of the most serious offenses, banned riders can also petition for exceptions to their ban for absolutely necessary trips, such as to work.

Regional Transit's Michael Young said so far the agency has banned one individual. "They've gone through the ten-day waiting period. They've gone through the Stay of Prohibition Order. They are currently excluded," said Young.

On a system the size of Muni, or even on a system the size of Regional Transit, which is about one sixth the size of Muni, it's nearly impossible for drivers to identify all banned passengers. Young said the ban isn't actively enforced, but rather is an additional tool for officers to deal with misbehavior. "If a person is excluded, we're not going to be actively looking for that person," said Young. "But should they be noticed on the train during that time, especially disturbing other passengers, then we have an additional tool to remove them from the system."

Young said the policy wouldn't solve all of the behavioral issues on Regional Transit buses and trains, or on all of Muni's vehicles if the MTA tried it, but it's helpful nonetheless. "It would at least give the Muni another tool to try and combat those riders who do not follow the rules and break laws on the system. It would just be another tool to help your officers deal with that behavior."

Without functioning onboard cameras, it might not even provide that, since the SFPD, lacking video evidence in some cases, has yet to track down some of the violent offenders in the recent incidents. But for more everyday nuisances, could it be useful for the SFPD and MTA?

"The idea has come up in discussions around improving safety and security on the system," MTA spokesperson Judson True said. He noted that Muni drivers can already have riders removed from transit vehicles for any reason, but that a ban policy might be valuable as a symbol that the agency takes passenger safety seriously.

Here's another installment in what could ideally become a series on how police departments are doing right by pedestrians and cyclists. We posted the Chicago bike video a couple of weeks back. We now present the Sacramento crosswalk sting. (Warning: Insufferable Geico commercial may precede video.)

Back in April, TV station KCRA filmed a plainclothes Sacramento officer busting motorists who couldn't be bothered to yield the right of way. Notice how, though they cite the potential amount of the fine, neither the anchor nor the reporter ever intimate that the operation is a money-making scheme? Instead of sticking a mic in a driver's face for a quick-and-dirty accusation of extortion -- a near-must in most any mainstream media story about traffic enforcement -- the reporter is completely sympathetic to the pedestrians in harm's way, and rightly credits the officer for putting his life on the line.