GETTING THERE FROM HERE-By the time you read this, the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee will have met and heard planners from Metro and LA World Airports on how Metro Rail and LA World Airports will connect LAX to our expanding rapid transit network. Consensus, Planning and Funding will all need to be discussed--because, as experienced grassroots and governmental transportation folks know, the former two MUST be achieved before the latter.
Which might strike many a reader or ordinary taxpayer as rather strange ... consensus and planning BEFORE funding? Yet as one reflects further, it does make sense that a publicly-funded transportation project must be desired, vetted and sufficiently planned--with majority consensus--before the public can shell out more money to fund it.
We're caught between a liberal (usually Democratic) groupthink that likes to throw out taxing/funding BEFORE it really knows what to do with it (oh, they'll find SOMETHING to spend it on, of course!) and a conservative (usually Republican) groupthink that doesn't embrace funding anything (even when the public wants and DEMANDS action).
For the most part, our federal, state and local programs in social services, education and defense are all-too-often funded before our goals are adequately vetted, so that we budget without achieving our goals. Transportation and other infrastructure priorities (like water), on the other hand, are woefully unfunded compared to other priorities and become both the orphan children of government funding...yet also among the highest priority of taxpayers.
This is not to say that transportation isn't also being funded at times with a "top-down" approach: whether it was my association with Friends4Expo Transit, Friends of the Green Line, The Transit Coalition, CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and SoVePaM (transportation committee leadership of South Robertson, Venice, Palms and Mar Vista Neighborhood Councils), my own views--and those of my peers--are shaped by the opinions and consensus of others.
In other words, it's good to empower and support others...and even to lead a charge, if the citizenry supports that charge. Yet if one discovers he/she is "out there" compared to the majority, it's best to "back off" and stand down. That's true for either grassroots or governmental supporters of transportation efforts.
We currently pay a whole lot of money at the gas pump to both the federal and state governments...much more than the gas/oil companies take in, despite the common demonization of these companies by their governmental beneficiaries.
Yet it's no secret that our transportation/infrastructure funding is woefully deficient in our nation. Yes, we debate the good debate over whether high-speed rail is good, or freeway vs. rail is correct, but the amount of billions we fight over is peanuts compared to the huge budgets of education, defense and social services spending that is by far more cost-inefficient.
So count me in as someone who favors the pragmatic $10.5 billion, 8-month extension of our Highway Trust Fund yet count me in as someone who doesn't want this herky-jerky funding while other priorities get much larger budgets without close review and determination of cost-effectiveness.
Increasing the Highway Trust Fund with another (yes, another!) raising of the gas tax appears to be an easier quick fix than other proposed alternatives, but with more gas-efficient vehicles and a greater use of urban mass transit the Highway Trust Fund appears to be increasingly outmoded and inefficient as a future budgeting tool.
It must be remembered that our economy and our businesses all need and respect transportation (both car and transit) compared to other governmental spending which doesn't help as much--so a consideration of LOWERING business taxes overall should be balanced with RAISING transportation-related business taxes.
Unfortunately, the cap-and-trade and other related taxes on businesses (which, in theory, should be a transportation-only tax) is so top-down that this opportunity will often be lost on the governmental leaders to really fund the transportation spending that businesses truly crave need.
Sacramento is the ultimate example of governmental-spending-by-fiat-and-businesses-be-damned approach to transportation spending. Only if or when Governor Brown apologizes for the bait-and-switch he pulled on high-speed rail planning and spending, and stops focusing less on a LA/SF link and more on what high-speed rail can do for intermediate distances), he'll stop antagonizing the taxpayers.
There will always remain a few head-in-the-clouds, to-hell-with-others'-opinions ivory-tower types who are all-too-happy to support the Governor and adhere to the current CA high-speed rail authority's lousy public relations and top-down planning, and they probably consider themselves smarter (and maybe even a higher lifeform) than those with other opinions.
Yet a better approach would be to actually LISTEN to the critics who are pro-high-speed rail but who are better at explaining where it needs to be built first, and where the benefits are (like the Bay Area and the LA County regions), such as prioritizing a high-speed train system from Burbank-to-Palmdale.
A central California link between the SF region and the LA region is great...but those two regions are much more open to spending on a far-flung system when nearby priorities are met first. A Burbank Airport-Palmdale link would reduce a 90 minute Metrolink trip to about 15 minutes--and isn't that what high-speed rail is supposed to do?
So what's the answer for promoting high-speed rail in CA? To have those in the CA high-speed rail authority PROVE to the taxpayers that this system has benefits rather than RULE over those "silly, naive, misinformed, backwards" taxpayers. A Burbank/Bob Hope Airport-Palmdale link is a step in the direction.
And firing the PR staff of the authority, or at least a strong "come to Jesus" talk, might be another step in the right direction.
Because our Metrolink and Caltrain systems are wonderful and popular, if we upgrade them along with linking Amtrak routes, all of a sudden we have INTERMEDIATE distances between our cities having high-speed rail and not LONG distances which are difficult to access by car but not so much by airplane.
Similarly, closer to home, those at Metro need who still stiff-arm the consensus-driven San Gabriel Valley's Foothill Gold Line to Claremont (currently it's only going as far as Azusa) need to either be terminated or given a "come to Jesus" talk as well.
The San Gabriel Valley is paying for the Wilshire Subway, the Expo Line and a lot of other projects the local residents there don't prioritize (even if it could be proven they should--and it HAS been proven--they're not buying it), and despite the desire of Downtown L.A. to build and develop everything in LA, the ability to locally develop and densify along the Foothill Gold Line corridor is good news for both Angelenos and non-Angelenos alike.
So when Mayor Garcetti advocates for a Foothill Gold Line extension to Claremont and beyond, he's not just being a good neighbor but also recognizing that San Gabriel Valley taxpayers deserve some respect.
Ditto with the Orange Line in the San Fernando Valley: Shame on those former Valley legislators who didn't do right by their constituents and have the courage to kill the ill-advised Robbins Bill, but thanks are deserved for those who now killed it (finally), and to Governor Brown for helping to fast-track the signing of that NIMBY bill's demise.
Now if only the Governor could help fund that project, or any other Measure R or proposed Measure R-2 project ...
Finally, we've got our overdue airport/rail link at LAX to resolve, because just as Dallas and other cities have their own links, it's time for Los Angeles to have its own.
But whether it's the right rail, or even rail at all, and whether it's the right location, it's still the taxpayers' money (yes, I know that some of our electeds, such as Governor Brown, have a nasty habit of thinking it's HIS money when it comes to the high-speed rail project, but it's NOT).
{module [862]} {module [662]}
It's not MY money, either, so if I've ever (or if any of my transportation-minded colleagues) advocated for an Expo Line, or for a LAX/Green Line connection, or a high-speed rail/Metrolink line, or road/sidewalk/bicycle lane funding ... it had to be, and must still be, in response to and with the support of our neighbors and fellow taxpayers.
Ditto for more parking at freeway-adjacent Expo Line stations like Exposition/Sepulveda, Palms and Culver City, because they'll have Metrolink/commuter train-like features.
Ditto for NO parking at single-family-zoned stations like Westwood/Sepulveda station, because it's not a good spot for densification and it's bad for those who want to keep that station a pedestrian/bicycle/bus-focused station.
And ditto for avoiding overdensification and breaking the law in the spirit of "transit-oriented" or "affordable" development that any idiot can see is so damned big that it's just an environmental nightmare which caters to lawbreaking -but-politically-connected developers.
And again a reminder for any local, state or federal bureaucrats, officials and electeds: we WANT the projects, we ARE usually happy to pay for them, but they're OUR projects. YOU are supposed to work for US, and guide us, and educate us, and motivate us, and (at times) convert us if or when the shoe fits.
That "of the people, by the people, for the people" applies to everything--including transportation...because WE are the ones who are paying for it, and it's supposed to be done for US, and with OUR approval and OUR benefit.
That's not too hard for us all to remember, is it?
(Ken Alpern is a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at [email protected] . He also does regular commentary on the Mark Isler Radio Show on AM 870, and co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 57
Pub: Jul 15, 2014
Sidebar
CityWatch Los Angeles
Politics. Perspective. Participation.
05
Sun, May