Phil Matier Needs to Do His Homework on Transit and Bike Policy

Phil Matier, a pundit for KCBS and the SF Chronicle, has been betraying a rather stunning lack of policy knowledge recently, painting transit in the Bay Area as a boondoggle and wagging his finger at “bicycle lobbyists” for opposing a statewide mandatory helmet law.

Phil Matier. Photo: KCBS

In a KCBS radio segment this week, Matier did seem to understand the case against the mandatory helmet law proposed by State Senator Carol Liu:

[Bicycle lobbyists] feel that the requirement of helmets for adults would be another barrier to more people getting on bicycles and that it would be a disincentive. Safe or not, they seem to think it’s more important to get more people to ride their bikes.

The concept that Matier was apparently trying to convey is called “safety in numbers” — the well-documented phenomenon that biking is safer the more people are on bikes. As CA Bicycle Coalition has argued, helmet laws have been shown to only discourage bicycling, countering the safety in numbers effect. Focusing on helmets distracts from the implementation of changes that actually make streets safer and prevent crashes in the first place.

But then Matier went on to ignore that point and paint bike advocates as a constituency that just wants something for nothing:

San Francisco has already started to spend $3 million on bicycle awareness and will continue to do so for the next few years. This will include safety campaigns and improvements to bike lane infrastructure. The city has also called to increased citations to motorists by 50 percent in the next two years in an effort to cut down on injuries.

But when you turn it around on the bicycle groups, they don’t want to adhere to things like mandatory helmet wearing or even chipping in money on the new bike lanes. This is making state lawmakers and politicians wonder if this is a one-way street.

There’s a lot to unpack here. For one thing, the SFMTA has barely increased its bike spending in recent years, and $3 million remains only about 2 percent of the agency’s total budget.

Matier is also dead wrong when he claims that people who bike don’t “chip in on new bike lanes.” The vast majority of funding for local street infrastructure, including bike lanes, comes from general taxes paid by everyone. People who bike instead of drive also impose much less in the way of maintenance costs on the street system.

The share of road costs borne by people who don’t drive is only increasing as gas tax revenue dwindles (and proposed increases are repeatedly rejected) and general funding sources pick up the tab. In SF, general tax revenues, not user fees, pay 75 percent of roadway maintenance costs. In November, SF voters approved Propositions A and B, which increase the share of transportation funding that come from general funds and property taxes.

Matier and his partner Chronicle columnist Andrew Ross are known as watchdogs of wasteful public boondoggles. But too often, they have a blind spot when it comes to how much drivers pay for car infrastructure.

Matier and Ross’s recent column made a poorly-vetted argument to bash transit subsidies, based on a new figure showing that Bay Area transit ridership has declined by 14 percent per capita over the last 20 years. The number came from Bay Area Vital Signs, a new website launched by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to provide easy access to data on transportation, housing, and the economy in the Bay Area.

Matier and Ross wrote that “despite tens of billions of dollars in government subsidies and countless incentives, the percentage of Bay Area commuters taking mass transit hasn’t gone up a bit in more than two decades — in fact, it’s declined.”

It’s as if, to Matier and Ross, driving in the Bay Area doesn’t rely on massive subsidies to support free parking, freeways, and public streets.

As some Streetsblog commenters pointed out, the Bay Area has also seen a great share of car-dependent sprawl in the last 20 years. Bay Area Vital Signs has yet to publish those figures on housing development, but they’ll likely show that more residents are living in new single-family homes on the outskirts of the region without convenient transit access, tipping the scales toward car commuting. It’s a pattern that local governments aim to curb with Plan Bay Area, which focuses new housing development around transit hubs.

As watchdogs of government spending, there are certainly some big fish for Matier and Ross to fry when it comes to driving subsidies. Perhaps their next column can look at how much taxpayers are paying for the parking garages being built at BART stations at a cost of $35,000 per space. Plenty of media scrutiny has certainly been brought to the massive cost overruns on the $6.4 billion east span of the Bay Bridge, which was built mostly to move private automobiles. It would be enlightening to know how much of that is covered by toll payers, and how much is being paid for by everyone else.

  • Andy Chow

    Your definition is user fee (gas taxes, etc). My definition includes non-transportation specific revenues generated from transportation activities. I am not denying that driving is subsidized, but drivers are also providing the subsidy, more so than cyclists who don’t own cars.

    Review acknowledges that there’s no agreement on accounting methods: http://www.uctc.net/papers/313.pdf

    Businesses that offer free parking, or casinos offering free shuttles, do so because they know it will bring in customers and thus revenue. May be if the business is located in SF Union Square, that may not be an issue, but not in the suburbs where all your competitors have free parking. Are you suggesting them somehow being economy irrational?

    Is automobile socialism? In a way it is true. Compared to the railroads, highways are almost always publicly owned and toll free. Highways were developed during the Progressive era when the public disliked the railroad tycoon culture. They see highways as a pushback against the railroads.

  • Gezellig

    “You may think that road safety is important, but others believe in mobility and access to jobs and education.”

    These things are not mutually exclusive.

    “But I don’t agree with the assertion that cyclists are subsidizing drivers because the cost of streets and roads are not completely user funded.”

    It’s not about -ists and -ers.

    In our current setup we as a society subsidize car *trips*. The more you drive, the more it’s a subsidized and the more it’s a better deal for you. It’s really as simple as that.

    “(let’s face it, there’s no user fee at all for ped and cyclists),”

    Except for those general taxes that fund ~75% of road infra/maintenance regardless of how much you drive!

    “The user fee may not be paying for all the costs”

    That’s an understatement.

  • Alicia

    Better solution: no helmet law.

  • You mean like in places where they actually care about people?

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Phil Matier’s Shameless Bid to Drum Up Resentment About Parking

|
Phil Matier is apparently perturbed at the “rapid” pace at which SF plans to re-purpose less than 0.5 percent of its curbside parking spaces. In keeping with his habitual windshield perspective, Matier used both his SF Chronicle column and air time on KCBS radio today to spin a narrative about motorists getting “a giant middle finger” because a sliver of curb space is being […]

Today’s Headlines

|
CA Bicycle Coalition, Senator Liu’s Rep to Debate Proposed Helmet Law on KQED Forum Phil Matier: “Bike Groups Don’t Want to Adhere to Mandatory Helmets or Chip in for Bike Lanes” (CBS) City’s Map of Deaths and Injuries on SF’s Streets Now Has 2011 Data (SF Public Press) Panhandle Graced With “Bibliobicicleta,” a Mobile Library […]
STREETSBLOG LA

Does a Helmet Law Make Sense in California?

|
The proposed California-wide bicycle helmet law has stirred up a passionate debate on blogs and bike club lists as well as in the media. Unfortunately, many discussions have degraded quickly into name-calling and personal insults–like the oh-so-droll “hard-headed bicyclists” headline several media outlets thought was so clever. Many people also expressed off-the-point misunderstandings of objections […]
STREETSBLOG LA

LA Times Opposes CA Helmet Law, But Gets One Point Wrong

|
Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times wrote a mostly thoughtful editorial against Senate Bill 192, Carol Liu’s proposed mandatory helmet law for bicyclists. In the Times’ opinion, there isn’t enough evidence to show that helmets make bicycle riders safer to justify changing the law. Hear, hear. One thing the editorial board didn’t get right: saying that “many of […]