|
Post by nickv on Aug 5, 2007 22:01:22 GMT -8
I also believe that one of the most important factors for transit funding is strong local community support. I think that if the local support is strong, then the chances of transit projects getting county and federal support would be much greater. I've talked to several people and many would favor a statewide HSR system to get around the state and SoCal. I think what we have now in the state offices are a group of people looking for quick-fix transportation solutions such as building/widening freeways (which in long run, shifts the chokepoint and makes other freeways congested). As I posted in the past, I'm not a real fan of shortcut planning. I believe that master planned transit projects including (but, of course, not limited to) HSR, better nationwide Amtrak service, Metrolink, the Metro Rail system, and our bus systems will benefit the community in the long run.
Personally, between expanded Metrolink, the Metro Red Line, Metro Blue Line, and Metro Rapid (fed with Metro Local), I've been able to plan personal trips into the LA area without having to take a car beyond the local Metrolink Station. I don't know about you, but I'd rather prefer to be an crowded air conditioned bus/train than battling the freeway. Regardless of how crowded or tense the bus/train can be, I'd feel refreshed by the time I reached my destination. The last time I've driven into LA via the freeways was back in 2003 and I was able to use the Harbor Transitway carpool lanes. I've only once had to drive into Downtown solo to pick up some freight back in 2002 during the non-rush hour, and I personally did not enjoy that trip.
We know there's still lots of areas in SoCal that require a car to get around to. That's because those areas lack transportation choices. Most of our cities and counties are appearing to be aware of this problem. Let's also not forget that if transit projects and TOD projects are getting local support all around the state from local governments, I believe that one day, they'll get the state support; our current state officials will not be in office forever.
For now, our current state officials need to hear our opinion (No, not our opinion, but the reality of tomorrow's transportation issues if fewer transit projects are supported by the state in the budget).
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Aug 5, 2007 22:19:31 GMT -8
"Please sir, may we have some more?"............................ I found this in the TTC August 2007 Newsletter. It's interesting to see that the cars on the freeway appear to be 1980's cars. Are the state officials still thinking of 1980's build/expand freeway solutions for our transportation problems? Hmmm.... www.thetransitcoalition.us/NewsLetterPaper/NL200708v10a.pdf
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 5, 2007 22:32:37 GMT -8
We do have a lot going for us. Traffic, congestion, gas prices, global warming, quality of life, etc... how can a politician not support transportation?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 6, 2007 4:56:25 GMT -8
Nick and sodha bring up a few excellent points and questions. Bart and I met Assemblyman Feuer last Friday, and some key challenges were brought up, in that rural and suburban legislators just don't have the sympathy for our traffic misery because their constituents don't feel it.
Both parties don't have enough empathy for what we're going through, but the GOP (whose leadership has shifted to the hard, mean right in such a way that many of its base, including myself, has been alienated) is particularly against mass transit in a quasi-religious sort of way. You've heard me carp against those (including the Democrats, who did fight to keep the spillover fund devoted to transportation) who refuse to ask all budgetary priorities to take a budgetary hit, so clearly both parties and the governor are to blame here.
Were the Sacramento powers that be to ask for a 2% budgetary hit on all portions of the budget, I imagine that a compromise could be reached.
I came up with the idea to Assemblyman Feuer that perhaps the argument for mass transit should not be so much a pro-environment one (I think that the support the governor and those Democrats who scream about the environment is a mile long and an inch thick) but one that emphasizes:
1) Urban transportation--we don't have freeway capacity to go with anymore in the cities, so an alternative or supplement to freeways must be considered
2) Quality of life--again, this isn't felt in the rural portions of the state, so many if not most constituents there probably view mass transit as a ripoff at this point, although I think that education and communication would reverse this line of thinking
3) "It's the Economy, Stupid"--The cities support the rest of the state, just as the blue states support the red states (I remind you I am a Republican)...and although all counties and states have something vital to offer our state and nation, urban infrastructure that can support the movements of daily commutes of hundreds of thousands of commuters and goods traffic will benefit everyone and strengthen the economy to fund education, health care and everything we want.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Aug 6, 2007 22:12:59 GMT -8
This issue is not supposed to be divisive. This is not about Rich or Poor... Rural or Urban. Do we not live in the same country and breath the same polluted air ? Why aren't we all together in this ?
Even Kern County and King County now rank as some of the most polluted areas beside Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino.
Traffic and pollution are widespread. Are we the masses beyond the point of reasoning ? Most people do understand this critical problem, and just throw their hands up in defeat.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Aug 6, 2007 22:47:20 GMT -8
Good point. Even Temecula & Murrieta, two suburbs with almost 200,000 people (with both rich and poor) and in a location just about out in the middle of nowhere are demanding better regional transit.
Look at the ridership figures and trends on the 30+ mile CommuterLink Line 206 between this region and the Corona Metrolink Station. This commuter line is only three years old and ridership figures are high (ie. expect SRO on some trips). Riders have demanded and RTA is now proposing to operate this regional line on weekends too.
Down south, a suburb to suburb LRT line connecting Oceanside to Escondido will open in December. That's been in the works for 2 decades. I've took the express bus line that emulates that light rail line several times and that bus is SRO almost every time I travel on it.
Our entire state needs a better regional transportation system, not just the urban areas. Hence, even some of the suburbs like Brea, Fullerton, Orange, Temecula, and even Victorville are shooting for urban development in their city centers. This, I think, should be addressed to our state officials.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Aug 7, 2007 0:49:12 GMT -8
Ken I agree with what you are saying on the lack of empathy of reps from other areas. Is it reasonable to try to repeal the state gas tax in favor of county specific ones? I'd think everyone would be in favor of this, areas that don't feel they need as much transit funds could have a lower tax or no tax (music to republican ears) and for regions that are in dire need of these transit funds they can have a larger tax. I know that New York City has higher taxes (income tax)then we do out here, I'd suspect its to help maintain the infrastructure of the city. Also I had some other points regarding an angle in which to approach this politically. I agree with you that the environmental angle probably wouldn't gain much ground. I think republicans generally associate environmental with anti-business (which they probably have a negative knee jerk reaction to). I'd think the best angle is to talk about how the traffic is now hurting Los Angeles businesses. I also have heard the suggestion of freeway widening and double decking in the LA Times and such. I think this idea is short sighted for one main reason. The bottle neck will be shifted, not to other freeways but the streets. The streets can't be double decked. I go to hollywood and the westside and frankly there isn't room for more cars. Adding capacity to the freeways is inviting a huge problem for our city streets, at this point they need to be creating alternatives to street traffic, not adding capacity to the freeways. Another huge issue that LA has to look at is all this development. We are going through some crazy huge development boom right now. Scary huge take a look at this site www.tndwest.com/hollywoodvine.html there are going to be over 2000 new units just at Hollywood and Vine. They are building things like this all over the city, yet we aren't investing in the mass transit infrastructure to balance this out. They claim they are building these over transit so that people won't use their cars... Well don't get me wrong I love the subway and all, but I frankly can't use it, because it does not cover all the areas of the city that I need to go to. Its like they are trying to turn it into New York without the transit infrastructure. Imagine what manhattan would be like if it had no subway. I'm expecting that all these developments at Hollywood and Vine will be ready for residents within 2 years, will we have a mass transit system that can support this new influx of people and cars? If the developers will agree not to let any residents move into their buildings until we have fully operational transit system I say develop away...I'm going to take a wild guess and say this isn't gonna happen. This really seems like a huge crisis, I'm hoping that someone will have the courage to take action now. and my last point which is of course my mantra whatever we build needs to be completely grade separated and double tracked in each direction.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 8, 2007 10:19:45 GMT -8
as far as the environment is concerned, I would agree that we would probably want to downplay green issues when dealing with politicians who might be in denial about the issue.
however, there are plenty of areas of this state where air pollution and smog are big issues, but traffic congestion is not yet an issue (although, it likely will be in the future). I am thinking of places like Bakersfield and most of the San Joaquin Valley. they have reached the point where they get fined if they don't do more to clean up the valley's dirty air.
like good salesmen, we have to tailor our message to our audience, and I don't have a problem with emphasizing quality of life issues to the anti-green forces, but I also think we've reached a point where the "environmental issues are a hoax" side is shrinking.
just some food for thought.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Aug 8, 2007 13:15:17 GMT -8
as far as the environment is concerned, I would agree that we would probably want to downplay green issues when dealing with politicians who might be in denial about the issue. however, there are plenty of areas of this state where air pollution and smog are big issues, but traffic congestion is not yet an issue (although, it likely will be in the future). I am thinking of places like Bakersfield and most of the San Joaquin Valley. they have reached the point where they get fined if they don't do more to clean up the valley's dirty air. like good salesmen, we have to tailor our message to our audience, and I don't have a problem with emphasizing quality of life issues to the anti-green forces, but I also think we've reached a point where the "environmental issues are a hoax" side is shrinking. just some food for thought. The environmental issue seems like a loosely related to transit funding. Toyota is talking about releasing a plug in hybrid by 2009. We could all be driving electric that would solve our environment issues, but not the traffic ones. Congestions effect on business is more focused on our cause.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 9, 2007 0:30:05 GMT -8
The environmental issue seems like a loosely related to transit funding. Toyota is talking about releasing a plug in hybrid by 2009. We could all be driving electric that would solve our environment issues, but not the traffic ones. Congestions effect on business is more focused on our cause. you are right of course, that arguing solely on the issue of environmental pollution could lead to a future dominated by electric cars. however, that was not my point. I hope that we can avoid having this discussion devolve into an argument over whether light rail is "less filling" or "tastes great." It is both!!! I support the idea of reaching out to conservatives. I recognize that we might want to downplay the environmental issues when negotiating with a politician who has chosen to ignore global warming, smog, pollution, etc. at the same time, I think it is foolish to assume that the environment is only peripheral to our cause- which is the expansion of rail transit throughout the region. there are many half-solutions which are being pushed out there. electric cars might solve the smog problem, while doing little or nothing to prevent traffic congestion. another clear and dangerous half-solution would be a network of Orange Line-style BRT routes. BRT lines could solve the traffic congestion problem, while doing little or nothing to prevent smog. think it couldn't happen? the Bush administration is very bullish on Bus Rapid Transit and there are plenty of politicians right here in California who would love to be able to say they helped build mass transit at a lower cost than light rail. rail transit is the only solution which provides answers to both problems. light rail makes considerably more sense if you add the environmental factors.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Aug 9, 2007 1:36:46 GMT -8
you are right of course, that arguing solely on the issue of environmental pollution could lead to a future dominated by electric cars. however, that was not my point. I hope that we can avoid having this discussion devolve into an argument over whether light rail is "less filling" or "tastes great." It is both!!! I support the idea of reaching out to conservatives. I recognize that we might want to downplay the environmental issues when negotiating with a politician who has chosen to ignore global warming, smog, pollution, etc. at the same time, I think it is foolish to assume that the environment is only peripheral to our cause- which is the expansion of rail transit throughout the region. there are many half-solutions which are being pushed out there. electric cars might solve the smog problem, while doing little or nothing to prevent traffic congestion. another clear and dangerous half-solution would be a network of Orange Line-style BRT routes. BRT lines could solve the traffic congestion problem, while doing little or nothing to prevent smog. think it couldn't happen? the Bush administration is very bullish on Bus Rapid Transit and there are plenty of politicians right here in California who would love to be able to say they helped build mass transit at a lower cost than light rail. rail transit is the only solution which provides answers to both problems. light rail makes considerably more sense if you add the environmental factors. I agree that the Bus lines are not the best solution. But again for republicans I don't know if they are going to respond to environmental reasoning on this topic. I understand and support your point of view (I bought a prius this year for god sake). But republicans are about dollars and cents and most of them look at environmental causes as the antithesis of all things business oriented. I would say the environmental component is necessary, but when talking to someone that might have the tendancy to be unfriendly to that argument here are a few other angles. 1. busways are another modality adding a transfer, and can cause lower ridership then if it was a one seat ride. 2. bus's in the long run are not as cost effective, because they can carry fewer passengers per driver. 3. we are rapidly running out of room for busways. the wilshire corridor is an example of this, the business owners now favor a subway over dedicated bus lanes. Although I'm still am not a fan of at grade single tracked light rail, and don't think thats the solution either. Jumping back to the main topic of this page, is it feasible to repeal the gas tax and replace it with a county wide one that could hopefully be more effective at protecting transit funds? How would we go about starting something like this?
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Aug 9, 2007 20:56:31 GMT -8
I agree too. I don't believe in short-cut planning. Even though it's tempting to think BRT is less expensive to build than rail trasit, I don't think BRT should be a substitute for rail to address the needs of regional travel. As I've posted before in the past, rail transit should serve the high activity centers across the LA region and be fed with bus systems (e.g. Metro Local, Metro Rapid) serving less dense areas. Since Wilshire Bl is loaded with high activity centers and a high demand for east/west travel, an extension of the Purple Line I think would work better than a parade of busses.
I think before the community is asked that question, they need to be properly educated on the benefits of a good regional transit system and transit oriented development along the existing and proposed transit corridors. I think that's how transit agencies can gain the community support they need to get state and federal funding to help fulfill their missions.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Aug 9, 2007 22:13:55 GMT -8
I think before the community is asked that question, they need to be properly educated on the benefits of a good regional transit system and transit oriented development along the existing and proposed transit corridors. I think that's how transit agencies can gain the community support they need to get state and federal funding to help fulfill their missions. Sure I'm up for more public education, I sort of think the officials need more education too, considering the kind of system that is getting created. I've read a number of articles where people in the public share my feelings they live in transit oriented developments but still use their cars because the system is to inefficient. They would still beat the train by 15 minutes in rush hour traffic. At this point I think the public is up in arms over traffic congestion, I'd think any county wide gas tax that would replace the state one (that guarantees that funds will be used for mass transit projects and not siphoned off) would be approved with open arms at this point. I just want the officials to build something that I could realistically use no more of this at grade single track 33 mph express lines. I'll vote for the funds I just want the officials to use the funds wisely. one modality grade separated double track in each direction what is the process for getting something like this put on the table, or if anyone has other ideas for avoiding funds being siphoned off like this in the future. I've called all these reps, but I don't think its had much of an effect. here is an LAtimes article where people that live at transit oriented developments but still drive. www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-transit30jun30,0,4693321.story?page=1 we need a system that will quickly move people from region to region 3 to max 4 stops across the grid, not one union station but more like 5 of them we take stuff like the gold line to a regional union station and then within 4 stops you are in a new region of the city if need be (the valley, South Bay, Santa Monica) then take another line like the gold line or a bus to get you to your final destination.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Aug 9, 2007 23:29:19 GMT -8
I agree too. I don't believe in short-cut planning. Even though it's tempting to think BRT is less expensive to build than rail trasit, I don't think BRT should be a substitute for rail to address the needs of regional travel. But it is important to keep the BRT tool in the toolbox. L.A. has three true BRT networks, with a success rate of 67%. Metro Rapid is BRT for morons. People don't understand that Rapid is nothing more than 300-series limited bus service with better marketing. In fact, we could simply call all 300 lines Rapids and claim to have the world's largest BRT network. And it would be OK as long as people are dumb enough to fall for the ploy. Also, the problem with even using the term "bus rapid transit," is that it has become the transportation equivalent of Mad Libs. There's been no standardization of concepts, and "bus rapid transit" has been left up to transit agencies to define the term as they see fit. Actually, the present system is much better. Look at a Metro system map. Unless, of course, you are really into transfers. No question about it.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Aug 10, 2007 10:00:46 GMT -8
I'm not trying to rule out BRT as a whole What I tried to claim is BRT should not be a substitute for heavy corridors in need of rail transit. For example, take the Metro Blue line and Red lines and convert them into at-grade busways. Can you see where the problems come in? The Metro system, as you posted, has a good system. Most of the Metro Rapid lines already feed to/from Metro Rail lines and that's what I was trying to advocate more of. Suppose someone needed to get to an activity center located at Western Ave & Beverly Bl from LAUS. The Purple line would bring him/her to Wilshire & Western, and Line 757 would provide the Metro Rapid feeder service to Beverly Bl.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Aug 10, 2007 10:35:12 GMT -8
That's true! TOD is incomplete without the transit. Some people refer to these developments as "transit friendly". One bright side though:
Many developments offer stores and restaurants in the area which could reduce the need of taking a car trip to pick up food or a loaf of bread for a household. One thing I've noticed about strip malls and traffic: If there's restaurants/banks with drive thru's, supermarkets or big-box stores, count on more cars coming in and out these centers. Most TOD don't have these kinds of development.
Many of our local governments are advocating TOD to address growth. Why can't the state help fund the fundamental piece of TOD...transit?
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Aug 10, 2007 12:59:35 GMT -8
I guess I can see the value in developers building TOD opposed to suburbs that only a car would be able to get to. I just wish the politicians were as effective at taking care of their piece of the pie.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 10, 2007 13:26:07 GMT -8
Right now, everyone wants to build TOD but wants someone else to build the transit infrastructure. Having appropriate developers fees, and mechanisms to ensure that they'll be used for transit, is as good a way as any to ensure success in that endeavour.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Aug 10, 2007 14:53:47 GMT -8
Well I figure developers will do what developers do, its the city/county/state officials that supposed to plan/counter and control the growth so it doesn't eat us up. Right now with them opening up the zoning in downtown and not funding adequate or efficient mass transit alternatives I put the blame squarely on them, because we definitely have public will for these sorts of projects. The only complaint the public has is the alternatives the officials have offered us are unusable. this is what we need. we need engineers that think out of the box. dekku.blogspot.com/one modality (fewer transfers) grade separated (60-70 mph safely) double track in each direction (concurrent limited stop express service)
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Aug 10, 2007 20:32:11 GMT -8
Thanks to some serious budget cuts on the state level, Foothill Transit stands to lose about $7.2 million in funding.It looks like Foothill Transit riders may be one of the first to get hit with possible service cuts and higher fares "thanks to some serious budget cuts on the state level". ................................... August 2007 Footnoteswww.foothilltransit.org/EAlertControls/Data/august.pdfFair Fares for Foothill TransitA lot of you have been calling and e-mailing in a panic asking when and how much the fares are going up. This tells us we're great at getting the word out, but maybe we've been a bit too vague on specifics. The reason no one can tell you when or how much it is, is because, well, we don't know when or how much it is. Raising fares and changing service are two things done with ample research and careful planning. And even then, we don't work in a vacuum. Our numbers get to be analyzed and reviewed by you, our transit riding public, before any final decision gets made. So let's review a few facts we've already discussed: Thanks to some serious budget cuts on the state level, Foothill Transit stands to lose about $7.2 million in funding. A twist in local fund allocation calculations could hit Foothill Transit for nother few million. Things just cost more and prices keep going up - be it for gas, bus parts, safety precautions, technology upgrades, insurance, and even clean air upgrades. So doing some quick mental math, costs are going up and the money to pay for those costs is shrinking. We've all faced this dilemma in our own lives with making ends meet. How do you approach making it work? Well the straightforward options are to find more money, if you can, and tighten the belt a bit. We're planning on doing both, but what we do affects more than us. It has a direct impact on you, our customer. So we calculate, we research, we plan, and we compromise. But most importantly, we don't make any rash decisions. So how much? We're simply not sure yet. We know that we probably need to raise our fares to defray costs, but we don't want to raise them more than necessary. We're working to find the balance that will allow us to make ends meet with minimal financial impact to you. What service will be affected? Service cuts will probably be a part of this balancing act. We're reviewing all of our lines to see where changes can be made to maximize the effectiveness of the routes we run. This means those lines that carry only a handful of customers will probably be altered to make them more cost-effective. And the big question: when, when, when? We know you want to know. We want to know, too. It's not a big secret. Heck, we've been talking about it for the past two months in Footnotes. But we're not rushing blindly forward and I don't think you would want us to. Let's be clear on this: as soon as we know, so will you. There will be on board bus announcements, website news, press releases, advertisements in the paper, public meetings, and sky writing. Ok, maybe not so much on the sky writing. But we promise you'll know well in advance. We'll invite you to take a look at the proposal and give your input. Nothing goes into effect without your participation in the process.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Aug 10, 2007 23:41:20 GMT -8
I'm not trying to rule out BRT as a whole What I tried to claim is BRT should not be a substitute for heavy corridors in need of rail transit. For example, take the Metro Blue line and Red lines and convert them into at-grade busways. Can you see where the problems come in? Better yet, look at the Orange Line. At 20,000 boardings, Metro is already saying the line has topped out in capacity. Now it's getting to the point where Metro has to custom-order buses. There is no market for 80-foot buses in the U.S. So we now know there's a ridership ceiling to busways. Busways are suitable applications for freeways, where there is already road capacity, and there's a potential for ridership. The 405 and 605 freeways would be good for these. Line 757 is not a feeder route. It's a transfer route. A feeder, specifically, is a route whose purpose is to originate and terminate around an activity center (i.e., train station). It's oriented around the center, such as timing. See Orange County's 400-series StationLink buses for a working definition of "feeder" service. On the other hand, Western Avenue buses are not feeders. They are not timed to meet any trains along the line, and with such high frequencies, it would be almost impossible to do so. The Western buses connect with trains, but do not act as feeders. Western riders don't necessarily want to ride a train. They may want to transfer to another bus line, or just complete their trip along Western.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Aug 12, 2007 22:21:59 GMT -8
I understand. "Connecting busses", I guess would be a better term. I probably got carried away with the term "feeder". I'm personally used to using the term "feed" when it comes to transferring from a regional rail system such as Metro Rail to connecting local bus systems, even though the busses weren't designed as actual feeder routes. The whole point of my original post is this: Our state officials need to understand that California needs an efficient statewide transportation system. More freeways alone is not an answer. There has to be a reliable regional transit network with reliable connecting transit linking passengers from the train stations to their final destinations.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jan 6, 2009 22:59:23 GMT -8
ACTION ALERT - Proposed Reductions of State Transit FundsCall NOW to stop the Governor's brutal cuts to public transportation! It's Brutal: Proposed Elimination of State Funding for Public Transportation Governor Schwarzenegger is proposing taking another $230 million from public transportation to shore up the state budget.
But what's really shocking is that he wants to eliminate the only source of state funding for public transportation operations, the State Transit Assistance program!
Call California's Legislative Leaders and Tell Them to Say No Call California's legislative leaders and tell them to reject the Governor's proposals.
As Californians just made clear on Election Day, we want and need world-class public transportation in our state to fight climate change and congestion.
The fate of state funding for public transportation is in the balance.
ACTION ALERT:
Please call the following legislative leaders and tell them to reject the Governor's proposals to redirect state transit funds and to eliminate the State Transit Assistance program:
Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg: 916-651-4006
Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill: 916-651-4014
Speaker of the Assembly Karen Bass: 916-319-2047
Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines: 916-319-2029
CALPIRG reports transit funding creates 19% more jobs than road building!
Read more about TransForm's campaign to protect public transportation in the state budget.
|
|
|
Post by billcousert on Jan 17, 2009 14:54:27 GMT -8
I think it's time to recall another governor. There was an effort a couple years ago www.savecalnow.com/
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Jan 17, 2009 23:58:31 GMT -8
You can change the governor all you want, but it will not fix this stalemate. I think it's time to recall another governor. There was an effort a couple years ago www.savecalnow.com/
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jan 19, 2009 10:20:05 GMT -8
I agree with Matt. It's nearly impossible to pass a budget with a two thirds super majority necessary and with a quarter (mostly Republicans) who have signed a pledge of no new taxes.
Right now "expenses" are greater then "income" Either you cut expenses, increase income or do something in the middle. No matter what your feelings are on taxes a part of a legistator's job is to make compromises and hammer out deals so that all sides come out ahead. How are you going to do that with your hands tied with pledges to extreme positions, particularly in these economic times? It was irresponsible of these legislators to give up such an important part of their job: The ability to negotiate. Now if they compromise even a little, they are easily labeled as backsliders and liers.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 19, 2009 17:53:37 GMT -8
It's really simple: we cut way more than the Democrats want, and tax way more than the Republicans want.
Everyone's pissed off, but the budget is balanced and the average voter/taxpayer knows we survived a tough year. Next year would be another battle.
Inasmuch as I am not ready to give the governor a pass, I do recognize he is in the middle and has probably a better idea than either side is ready to come up with.
When we're ready to face a painful year of lowered services and increased taxes, we'll get past this horrible time.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Oct 1, 2009 18:25:53 GMT -8
CASE CLOSED: State Transit Funding Raids Illegal California Supreme Court Rejects State’s Appeal of Lower Court Ruling: Raids on Public Transportation Funding Are Illegal
California Transit Association FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 1, 2009
CONTACT: Jeff Wagner, Communications Director (916) 752-4150
SACRAMENTO – In a resounding victory for those who provide and those who depend on public transit in California, the State Supreme Court late yesterday rejected the Schwarzenegger Administration’s appeal of a lower court ruling that annual raids on transit funding are illegal.
By declining to accept the Petition for Review filed by state officials, the high court upheld the ruling of the Third District Court of Appeal that recent funding diversions violated a series of statutory and constitutional amendments enacted by voters via four statewide initiatives dating back to 1990.
“By denying the state’s appeal, the Supreme Court has affirmed once and for all what we always maintained was true: that it’s illegal to shift dedicated state transit funds away from transit agencies and their riders,” said Joshua Shaw, Executive Director of the California Transit Association and lead plaintiff in the case. “This decision validates our position that this practice has been illegal since even before 2007, and that the definition of mass transportation adopted by lawmakers since then to mask these diversions is illegal.” Public transit officials now hope to work with the Administration and Legislature to restore those funds taken since the Association filed the initial lawsuit in October, 2007, on the heels of the 2007-08 state budget package that raided $1.19 billion from the Public Transportation Account (PTA). Since that agreement, more than $3 billion in transit funding has been re-routed to fill holes in the General Fund.
“This is a clear victory for the millions of Californians who depend every day on public transit to get to work, go to school and access vital health care facilities,” said Michael Burns, General Manager of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and Chair of the Association’s Executive Committee. “Public transit has certainly borne more than its fair share of the budget burden in recent years, and we see the effects of that throughout the state in the form of fare increases, transit service reductions, job layoffs and more. We’re very hopeful that the high court’s decision will now enable us to work with lawmakers to restore these funds and help us to meet the ever-increasing demands for transit services in California.”
In its original lawsuit, the Association maintained that several successful ballot measures -- from 1990's Proposition 116 through Proposition 1A of 2006 -- established the PTA as a trust fund and require that PTA revenues must be spent on "mass transportation purposes." The initial Superior Court decision, issued in January of 2008, ruled that the 2007-08 budget violated the law by diverting $409 million from the PTA to reimburse the General Fund for past debt service payments on Proposition 108 bonds. The ruling declared that the shift “does not serve any transportation planning or mass transportation purpose.” At the same time, however, the Court permitted an additional $779 million transfer from the PTA to cover home-to-school busing and other programs that public transit advocates argued did not meet the definition of “mass transportation” as expressed in Proposition 116, which voters approved with the intent of establishing the PTA as a trust fund to support true public transportation service.
Just two weeks after the Superior Court ruling, the Legislature re-instated the $409 million worth of cuts by reconfiguring the law on which the court's decision was based, meaning that the entire $1.19 billion rightfully intended for public transportation funding had been raided. The Association filed its appeal of the Superior Court decision last September.
On June 30 of this year, the appellate court dismissed the State’s claims that it is legal to divert PTA revenues before they are deposited in the PTA, and also that it is within the purview of the Legislature to transfer “spillover” funds from the PTA to the Mass Transportation Fund (MTF).
“The MTF was created in 2007 by budget writers as a mechanism to perpetrate the diversion of transit funding to non-transit purposes,” Shaw explained. “By shifting PTA money into the ‘Mass Transportation Fund,’ they sought to create a veneer of legitimacy for these diversions. The appellate court rejected this legerdemain.”
Another key component of the appellate court’s decision was its definition of “mass transportation purposes” specified by the initiatives. The court denied the state’s contention that the definition permitted the transfer of funds for home-to-school bus service, transport of disabled persons to regional centers funded by the Department of Developmental Services, repayment of Proposition 42 loans, payment of Proposition 116 bond debt service, and payment of the General Fund’s obligation to fund bond debt service for non-transit general obligation bonds. These are all programs historically supported only by General Fund revenues; thus, when the budget writers diverted transit dollars to these programs, they hoped to achieve General Fund “savings.”
“While we agree that these are all worthy programs, they simply don’t fit the public’s definition of mass transportation,” said Shaw. “We feel the voters intended ‘mass transportation’ to mean ‘public transportation’ or ‘public transit,’ and the appellate court agreed.”
By skirting the intention of the initiatives, budget crafters diverted more than $5 billion of transit funding this decade – nearly $3.5 billion in the last three budget cycles alone. Transit funding took an additional critical blow when the budget agreement enacted in February of this year eliminated the State Transit Assistance program.
But proponents of the legal action saw the suit as being about more than just money to keep transit moving.
“Four times since 1990 – and with overwhelming approval – voters have clearly and repeatedly expressed their demands for dedicated transit funding,” Shaw noted, “and their will has been repeatedly circumvented by those responsible for crafting the state budget.”
“Furthermore, our original lawsuit strikes at the heart of the gimmicks that have been employed year after year in putting together the state budget,” he added. “We recognize the horrendous crunch that the budget crafters face, but the fact that the California Supreme Court would not even hear the state’s request for an appeal of the appellate court decision is one more obvious sign that the whole budget process needs serious reform.”
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 2, 2009 5:27:25 GMT -8
High court says state can't raid transit funds Matthew Yi, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Friday, October 2, 2009 (10-02) 04:00 PDT Sacramento - --
The California Supreme Court has left intact a lower court's ruling that the state illegally raided money intended for local public transit projects, a decision that could leave the cash-strapped state on the hook for up to $3.6 billion.
The lawsuit is one of several facing the state over its spending plans, which have repeatedly relied on accounting gimmicks such as the transfer of funds from one state account to another.
Losing the lawsuits would exacerbate the state's fiscal problems - a $7 billion to $8 billion shortfall is already expected for next year - and lawmakers are expected to be dealing with deficits for years to come.
This week's case began in 2007 when the California Transit Association sued the state after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature approved a budget that took $1.2 billion from public transit for other uses.
As the lawsuit lingered in the court system, the state continued raiding the transit funds in 2008 and 2009 to help erase budget shortfalls. In all, about $3.6 billion in transit funds was used for other purposes.
Judgment reversed While the state initially won at trial, that judgment was reversed by an appellate court on June 30. The state then asked the Supreme Court to reverse the appellate court's decision, but the high court decided late Wednesday not to hear the case, leaving the appellate court ruling intact.
"We're disappointed that the Supreme Court denied the review," H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the Department of Finance, said Thursday.
Jeff Wagner, a spokesman for the California Transit Association, said it is unclear just how much of the $3.6 billion will be restored. He said his group expects to negotiate with state officials.
Randy Rentschler, director of the Bay Area's Metropolitan Transportation Commission, called the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case a major win for transit systems across the state.
"Everyone knows that the state's in a budget crisis, but that crisis also exists in local governments in part because the state has taken transit money away from local entities," he said.
Jean Ross, executive director of California Budget Project, a progressive think tank in Sacramento, said California has been "deficit spending through gimmicks ... or high-risk proposals."
"I think the problem for California is that the state continues to use questionable assumptions even in years where external economic conditions would argue you should have bit the bullet and raised taxes to balance the budget," she said.
Siphoning funds In their latest budget action, the governor and the Legislature approved a plan in July to close a $24 billion deficit, in part by siphoning $138 million from the public transit account to the Department of Developmental Services to pay for transporting developmentally disabled persons to regional centers. The July plan also counted on taking $254 million from public transit to repay transportation bond debt payments.
In addition, the plan counted on shifting $622 million in transit funds to the general fund to pay for the previous year's debt service.
The refusal of the Supreme Court to hear the appeal could push California's precariously balanced budget immediately into the red.
Before losing this lawsuit, the state was already $200 million short. That's because a deal to cut the state's prison budget was ultimately watered down, reducing the actual savings.
More lawsuits The state also faces more lawsuits that threaten its financial stability.
On Thursday, a coalition of labor unions and disability rights advocates filed a suit in federal court in Oakland in an effort to halt budget cuts to In Home Support Services, which provides care to senior and disabled people.
Other pending lawsuits include:
-- Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, filed a suit claiming that Schwarzenegger's $489 million in line-item vetoes in July were illegal.
-- State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner has filed a lawsuit challenging as illegal a part of the July plan, which calls for raising $1 billion by selling a portion of the State Compensation Insurance Fund.
E-mail Matthew Yi at myi@sfchronicle.com. This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
As reported by the Chronicle. The big qurstion now is, when will the state cough up the money. Winning a lawsuit is one thing, getting the money in hand is another.
Look at that prisoner health lawsuit. The state has been getting hammered for years to reduce overcrowding and imprive inmate health, and they find ways to kick th ecan down th eroad.
RubberToe
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 2, 2009 6:18:13 GMT -8
You make a good point, but perhaps in the immediate future we'll see fewer raids on transit funding on a going-forward basis.
|
|