Rob Peter to pay Paul?

California's budget problems are so complex and recalcitrant that many have abandoned hope. But how can we stand by when the Governor's 2007-2008 proposes to shift money from transit to education, at a time when the State is faced with severe impacts from climate change?

The Governor's budget proposes taking $1 billion from transit to pay for teacher tax credits, child care, and home-to-school transportation, all of which would normally be financed through the general fund. Does this sound like a long-term solution to you? And really, who does this hurt the most? It's the poor, the disabled and the elderly who will pay the immediate price in terms of loss of mobility. We will all pay the long-term costs to our environment and our air quality.

The fact is, debt repayment and tax cuts have led to these chronic budget shortfalls, which are expected to continue through 2011, according to the California Budget Project. The largest of these tax cuts is the $5 billion dollar drop in vehicle license fees that the Green Gov used to get himself elected.

Don't let them get away with this. The Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC) of the Bay Area has a great website with more information on this topic and a list of actions you can take, that include contacting your State representatives. Don't wait, do it today!

ECOS Comments on DEIR for I-80 Expansion

Better late than never... Here is an electronic copy of the comments that ECOS submitted on the Draft Environmental Impact Report released by CalTrans for its I-80 Expansion project (a so-called bus/carpool lane project).

The DEIR is available on the CalTrans website here.

Council Hits Brakes on Broadway Bridge

In a testament to the power of neighborhood groups to affect transportation policy, at least at the municipal level, the Bee reports that the Sacramento City Council will consider alternative locations for a new Sacramento River Crossing. And in what appears to be a developing rhetorical theme, at least one council member contends that transit access should be a central consideration in the location of the bridge. The Bee article implies that CalTrans disagrees:

[Council Member Rob Fong's] goal for a river crossing, he said, is to connect commuters quickly to major transit stops, such as light rail, not to put an undue burden on residential neighborhoods.

Caltrans officials contend the Highway 50/Capital City Freeway crossing of the Sacramento River -- also called the Pioneer Bridge -- is becoming crowded with local traffic forced onto the freeway.

I'm not sure there's any real contradiction between the desire to keep local traffic off the freeways and the desires to facilitate transit access and protect neighborhood livability. That is, there's no contradiction unless you assume that automobiles should continue to be the dominant mode of transportation in the region.

Ontario gets it!

Courtesy of the Walkable Neighborhoods blog, here is a bit of encouraging news from our neighbors to the North.

In a surprise announcement before the fall provincial election, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty unveiled plans Friday to spend $11.5-billion over 12 years on a lengthy list of public-transit projects in what the government boasted was the largest such investment in Canadian history.

[snip...]

He said that work would start on the projects next year, and that the plan, called MoveOntario 2020, is proof his government is serious about taking on the economic and environmental effects of traffic congestion, which he said is "choking" the GTA.

Note to state and local officials: when Ontario completes its "MoveOntario 2020" transportation plan, SACOG will be less than halfway through the term of its decidedly more modest MTP 2035.

June Committee Report

The June Report for the ECOS Transporation/AQ Committee is available here.

France expands bullet train network

While California remains mired in indecision concerning the future of high-speed rail, French citizens celebrate the expansion of the TGV network into northeast France and Germany.

Ideals and Actions

It's hard not to be impressed with the lofty goals in SACOG's MTP, the long-term transportation plan for the Sacramento region. It includes such laudible goals as:

3. AIR QUALITY

Develop a transportation system and related strategies that contribute to achieving healthy air in the region...

9. HEALTH AND SAFETY

Improve the health of our residents by developing systems that would encourage walking and biking, and improve the safety and security of people on all modes in all areas...

10. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

Develop the transportation system to promote and enhance environmental quality for present and future generations.

These principles sound like the foundation for a progressive, transit-oriented transportation plan that will move us away from relying on automobiles, right?

Think again!

Too often, the individual projects funded by the ostensibly progressive MTP are the same old solution to our transportation woes-- they spend our money to build roads and encourage still more automobile traffic. This approach does nothing to improve our air quality, ensure our health and safety, or promote environmental solution. On the contrary, continued expenditures on projects to increase highway capacity promote increased traffic and exacerbate the environmental woes that come with reliance on the automobile.

Take, for example, Caltrans' current proposal to expand Interstate 80 by adding a lane-- a so-called "bus/carpool lane." Caltrans has recently admitted that their "bus/carpool lanes" increase traffic rather than promoting sustainability, health or improving air quality. Check out the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed expansion of I-80. The project would add a "bus/carpool lane" to the freeway with the objective of encouraging carpooling and decreasing congestion. It sounds good, until you comb through Caltrans' own environmental impact studies. Buried deep in the DEIR is the admission that the addition of a "bus/carpool lane" to the freeway will increase traffic along I-80 in the eastbound direction during rush hour by 13% (compared to the 'no-build' alternative). That means 13% more vehicles on the freeway, solely as a result of the induced demand that results from freeway expansion.

This fact-- one of the most important impacts of the proposed expansion-- barely merits mention in Caltrans' DEIR. You have to look closely at p. 43 in Chapter 2 of the DEIR to notice that the additional lane will increase eastbound traffic during rush hour from 53,000 vehicles to 60,000 vehicles. That's a major increase in traffic, and it will result in important environmental impacts. Still, Caltrans apparently doesn't think a 13% increase in traffic is "significant."

What part of this project protects air quality, community health and safety or sustainability, as the MTP promises?

SACOG's MTP, like many planning documents developed through political processes, fails to follow through on the laudable goals it sets for itself. We're promised better air quality, better health, and a more sustainable system. What we get, when all is said and done, is more cars. It's easy to see why people are cynical about politics.