Rally For Transit at the Capitol!

Governor Schwarzenegger, who has crafted a political persona as a "green" politician, has made some curious policy proposals for an allegedly environmentalist governor. Most recently, his proposal to raid state transit funds to pay for other state programs raises the question of whether he has the courage to be anything more than a cheerleader for alternative-fueled Humvees.

The Governor's original proposal, which would have removed $1.3 billion in funds from transit agencies like Sacramento Regional Transit, has been whittled down to a mere $591 million cut in a "compromise" measure ratified by the State Budget Conference Committee. That's still a punishing blow to programs that should be the center of rational transportation and land use policies.

As reported in earlier posts on this blog, both the Transportation and Land Use Coalition and Odyessy have provided suggestions for citizens who wish to help protect the state funding streams that are the lifeblood of California transit. Now comes an opportunity to make a personal appearance at the Capitol in support of transit.

On Monday, July 16, at 12:30 PM, supporters of transit will rally on the West Steps of the Capitol Building to let the "big five" (Schwarzenegger, Perata, Ackerman, Nunez, and Villines) know how important state support for transit is. It's important to demonstrate the depth of public's commitment to transit is. Join us, and bring your friends.

For more info you can call Richard Seyman at 475-3820.

Global Warming & the Attack on CEQA

Global warming has become something of a cause celebre in the U.S. recently, and California has been a leader among states in passing legislation that attempts to address the issue in the wake of the federal government's years of neglect of the issue under the Bush administration. AB 32 codified the state's commitment to reducing greenhouse gases by phasing in an emissions cap that will drop the state's production of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

But AB 32 is not the only state mandate that requires project proponents to examine their impact on global warming. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires thorough analysis of the environmental impacts of almost any project approved by a state or local agency, also requires analysis of greenhouse gas impacts. Recently, both the California Attorney General and the nonprofit organization Center for Biological Diversity have been aggressively holding local agencies' feet to the fire regarding the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions.

Now comes the pushback from the building industry. A coalition representing a broad swath of business and construction interests has petitioned Arnold Schwarzenegger for relief from the duty to analyze greenhouse gas impacts as part of CEQA review. Ironically, they cite AB 32 as support for the proposition that they don't need to take any steps to identify or mitigate global warming impacts before the implementation of AB 32 measures. You can read their letter to the governor here.

The Planning and Conservation League has submitted a response, and they are also encouraging others to call or write the Governor and the Democratic leadership in the legislature. Read more from PCL here.

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!

California's Bullet Train

I just returned from a trip to Japan where I had a chance to ride the incredible bullet train. There really is nothing like it--and I can't imagine how the Tokyo metropolitan population would manage without it. There is absolutely no way the airports in the Tokyo area could handle all of the domestic travel needs of the 35 million residents in and around Tokyo. We are quickly approaching the same situation in the Los Angeles area. A recent opinion piece by Dan Walters in the SacBee highlighted the failed expansion plans of all the major airports in the southland and San Francisco. The Sacramento airport traffic is up 25 percent from pre-911 levels.

A high-speed rail system has been under consideration in California for a decade and over $30 million has been spent to study this alternative. A California bullet train will not only relieve air traffic congestion and take auto traffic off our over-crowded highways, it will also dramatically reduce the State's green house gas emissions; over 40 percent of these emissions are attributed to transportation sources.

The Sacramento News and Review has been following the politics surrounding the HSR in several recent articles, and the Sacramento Bee is also paying attention. At issue is initial planning and infrastructure funding and whether or not a bond for the system should be placed before the voters in 2008. With gas prices close to $4 a gallon, climate change and middle east unrest, it would be hard to imagine such a bond not passing. In 2003, two-thirds of Californians favored the idea.

The Governor's original budget proposal of $1.2 million was just enough to keep the HSR plans on life-support. He also proposed postponing a 2008 bond measure designed to fund the initial infrastructure development. Now, however, the "Green Governor" appears to be changing course. The Governor penned a recent editorial in the Fresno Bee:

As the recent Bay Area freeway collapse illustrated -- and as a recent Bee editorial correctly pointed out -- Californians need and deserve a diverse array of transportation options. I absolutely believe high-speed rail should be one of those alternatives.

A network of high-speed rail lines connecting cities throughout California would be a tremendous benefit to our state.

Not only would its construction bring economic development and the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs, but once completed, we would also see improvements to our air quality, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, congestion relief on our highways and greater mobility for people living in the Valley and other areas of our state currently underserved by other forms of transportation.

Walters believes there is not much support in the State legislature for the HSR, given a current deficit. With the Governor's recent show of support perhaps that will change but we should not be complacent. Everyone should write their State representatives to let them know you support full funding for the project. Let's get the HSR plans back on track.

What's really going on with the Transportation Budget?

Does anyone really know what kind of shell game is being played at the capital with our bond and transporation money? There seem to be two different opinions on this. First it's "armageddon" from the story on the Governor's light rail trip:

In his January budget, Schwarzenegger proposed shifting $1 billion in gas tax funds away from transit to help fill the state budget deficit.

The move caused an uproar from transit executives statewide, who argue the governor shouldn't disregard them as he positions California to combat global warming.

In Sacramento, the governor's proposals could reduce RT's state funding by up to $22 million, budget officials said.

Faced with what RT executive Beverly Scott called a brewing fiscal "Armageddon," the RT board this week eliminated several planned bus service expansions in Natomas and Arden Arcade, and froze spending at last year's levels.

Then in an editorial by Dan Weintraub --the sky isn't falling:

Schwarzenegger's proposal has flaws. But taken as a whole, in the context of California's ongoing budget problems, the governor's plan is a reasonable opening to a discussion about the proper level of state support for transit. And its effect would probably not be as disastrous as the transit lobby is making it out to be.

Then there's this response to Weintraub from DOF's Genest:

While much of Dan Weintraub's April 15 column on transit spending and the state budget ("Governor is in trouble over plan for transit funds," Forum) is on the mark, one point he raises warrants some additional discussion.

His assertion that the budget breaks faith with the voters because it uses funds from voter-approved transportation bonds for transit projects -- instead of the state's already overburdened general fund -- is off track. These funds will indeed be spent on public transit projects as promised.

At the same time, the governor is proposing to use a spike in sales tax revenue from high gas prices to finance transit programs for school children and for the developmentally disabled. In recent years, the Legislature has voted to divert these revenues for programs that were tangentially related to public transit (retrofitting Bay Area bridges), or to flat-out siphon off all of these revenues to programs that were no relation to public transit whatsoever.

By contrast, the governor's budget dedicates a portion of these revenues to programs that are clearly transit-related, while at the same time increasing the overall year-over-year state support for local transit agencies by $300 million for a total of $1.5 billion. That's good for public transit, and that's also good for the state's bottom line.

- Michael C. Genest, Sacramento

(Director, California Department of Finance)