State Budget '07

[LAofAnaheim]

Hey...as we all know, the budget was finally passed. But, I found this quote out of the LA Times article quite interesting, I was wondering if anybody could shed some light:

"They (Republicans) boasted of gains won at the bargaining table, including a temporary prohibition on lawsuits that invoke new global warming laws to stop development. The ban applies to suits aimed at transportation and levee projects authorized by voters last year."

Does that mean, we can have more road/highway projects without concerns of global warming? Is the EPA okay with this? I can't believe the Republicans got away with this.

You know, it's funny, we approved Proposition 1B and none of the money for mass transit has been allocated...when will Congress release the $3.6 billion for mass transit. Or will this be siphoned to the general fund as well? With the latest bs we just had, it would have been better not approving 1B than approving it. Nowadays we fear if any transit projects will go through, unlike when we voted for 1B. Does anybody else besides care? Why isn't this front line news like the Villairaigosa caught with girlfriend in a mall story??

[saadi]

I think these concerns that the republicans are addressing are for projects like the extension of toll road 241 in southern orange county. The developers have been fighting to get it extended to the 5, but battles have raged on over the environmental impact. Sad thing bout these projects is they say its for traffic relief but then it just fuels a development boom where ever the roads are built so we end up right back at square one, or worse.

[dasubergeek]

I have to say that OC has pretty good freeways -- which will lead to little if any transit in OC. Even the worst of OC freeways (hello, 405, hello, 55) are not as bad as the Hell that exists north of the Orange Curtain.

I don't believe for one second that Foothill-South is going to relieve traffic on the 5, the 55, the 57 or the 91, but I do think it ought to be completed.

There was an op-ed in today's OC Register talking about how wasteful mass transit is compared to building freeways -- very loftily written from the POV of someone living in a county where there's still room to build freeways. In 20 or 30 years -- which is really not that far away -- let's see how it looks. LA County has little room for freeways, so any freeway expansion includes property taking and lawsuits.

And then you have cities like South Pasadena, who would really prefer to stay in their own little bubble thanks, and don't want the fancy 710 roaring through, and didn't want the Gold Line either.

[nickv]

There was an op-ed in today's OC Register talking about how wasteful mass transit is compared to building freeways -- very loftily written from the POV of someone living in a county where there's still room to build freeways. In 20 or 30 years -- which is really not that far away -- let's see how it looks. LA County has little room for freeways, so any freeway expansion includes property taking and lawsuits.

Buy this editorial writer and a guest a round trip Metrolink Weekends ticket to LAUS and have them discover all the attractions they can go to with their ticket stamped with the EZ-Pass logo... and they'll see first-hand why mass transit plays an important role. When Metrolink had their 50% off promo on weekend tickets, I took along a friend from Oceanside to LAUS on board Metrolink. Our tickets each were under $12 round trip. Using the Metro Red Line and the local busses as our "taxis" around Downtown, this certainly beat the headaches of driving and parking, especially since we visited many places.

The point I'm trying to present is quality of life; and Downtown LA's beginning to offer this. Imagine being able to do what you want to do without having to sit in traffic, search for a parking space, or enter into a blazing hot car for the return trip. I think people who claim transit growth a waste of resources need to see how having an efficient regional system beats battling the freeways.

By the way, when I took that trip from Oceanside to LAUS, I looked over at the I-5 and saw 3 areas of traffic: A 3/4 mile back up at the Border Patrol Checkpoint, a bumper-to-bumper back up just before SR73 in the Mission Viejo area due to a wreck, and some congestion in Commerce.

I also looked at the traffic report on Google Maps at 4:50 p.m. this afternoon and let me tell you; a trip from Irvine to Fullerton along OC's upgraded freeway system had mostly yellow and red dots for about 90% of the trip via I-5 and I-57. "20 or 30 years..." I think they're already feeling the pain.

Our Councils of Governments in SoCal counties support TOD lifestyles; look at the quality of life that's being offered. Our state officials need to help us. I think we have to be persistent, keep tapping the GOP on its shoulder, and not give up seeking transit funding over one budget. Hey, doesn't the state want to combat global warming?

[nickv]

Sad thing bout these projects is they say its for traffic relief but then it just fuels a development boom where ever the roads are built so we end up right back at square one, or worse.

I have to say that's very true. An Environmental Science book that I have has a picture of a gridlocked freeway and quotes (don't laugh), "Building freeways to reduce congestion is like trying to diet by loosening your belt." The Seirra Club has a Web site on the problem with Sprawl and has some good articles on the problems of building freeways to reduce traffic.

search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=freeways&sp-a=sp1001da90&sp-x-1=collection&sp-q-1=Main&sp-t=site_wide

I can also see the demand for car-centered development taking place all over San Clemente, Las Flores, and Ladera Ranch should this tollway project get built. I can also see more traffic on the 241 during rush hour through Foothill Ranch and more traffic on connecting freeways such as the I-5 and and SR 91 (and this corridor certainly has no need for more traffic).

Echo that to the state since they have the desire to combat global warming.

[LAofAnaheim]

Wasn't it pathetic that the article was written by the head of OCTA? I'm glad I left the OC and moved into LA!

[nickv]

LA Times
Budget siphons gas sales tax revenues from mass transit

www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-traffic23aug23,0,1954562.story?coll=la-home-local

To balance the spending plan, lawmakers take $1.3 billion from bus and rail. Cuts could imperil a number of projects, officials say.
By Rong-Gong Lin II and Jeffrey L. Rabin, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers August 23, 2007
For a state with so many traffic problems, transportation ended up getting little respect when lawmakers forged a budget compromise in Sacramento.

The budget takes $1.3 billion of the sales tax on gasoline revenues away from local transportation agencies to balance the general fund budget.

The cuts could imperil a variety of transit projects, most notably the Exposition Line light rail from downtown L.A. to the Westside, extending the Orange Line busway from Warner Center to Chatsworth, and building the Gold Line from Pasadena to San Bernardino County, said Roger Snoble, chief executive of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

"As far as improving transportation here, it's really a big setback," Snoble said.

If the trend continues, he warned, the MTA would be hard-pressed to fund needed road projects, such as widening the 5 Freeway through the San Fernando Valley and near the Orange County line and the 10 through the eastern San Gabriel Valley, and completing the 710 through South Pasadena.

"Expect to spend more time on freeways. And expect to have less transit available," Snoble said.

This is not the first time transportation has lost out in Sacramento.

In the last six years, the governor and state lawmakers have tapped the per-gallon gas tax and the separate sales tax on gasoline to balance the budget. These cuts are obvious to anyone who drives or takes mass transit. For many years, congestion has been growing much faster than road construction.

Transportation officials thought fortunes were turning when voters in November approved infrastructure bonds totaling nearly $20 billion over the next 30 years, which was touted as a way to ease the state's traffic woes.

It was only a fraction of the estimated $200 billion of need across California, said James Ghielmetti, chairman of the California Transportation Commission. But it was a start.

Now some local transportation officials accuse state lawmakers of a "shell game" -- using the bond money to backfill cuts faced by transit agencies that had been expecting the revenues from the sales tax on gasoline.

People "voted for Proposition 1B expecting to have additional projects to improve our transportation system," Snoble said. "That's literally being stolen and used to balance the state budget."

"Essentially, we all got hoodwinked," Snoble added.

The budget uses $1.3 billion from the sales tax on gasoline to pay for spending that is loosely related to transportation. More than $1 billion will be spent to pay off bonds for rail projects that have been built or to repay the state highway program. The remainder will go to help school districts run school buses and to transport the developmentally disabled.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's deputy finance director, H.D. Palmer, defended the approach. "These are clearly expenditures that are related to public transportation."

And he noted that funding to operate mass transit systems and build transit projects will increase this year, thanks to the infusion of $700 million from the transportation bonds approved by the voters last fall.

But Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) said Democrats had to compromise with Republican lawmakers in order to win passage of the budget. One compromise was on mass transit funding, Nuñez said in Sacramento.

In tight budget years, Govs. Gray Davis, a Democrat, and Schwarzenegger, a Republican, have looked to transportation taxes as one way to help close the gap in the state's general fund, which pays for such things as K-12 education, colleges and universities, prisons and health and welfare programs.

But voters in November, in addition to approving the transportation bonds, passed another measure to stop the state from balancing the budget with transportation funds.

So Schwarzenegger and lawmakers switched tactics this year, took money from the sales tax on gasoline and spent it on other programs instead of mass transit.

Other officials worried openly about what this means for public transit in coming years.

"The bond measure was clearly seen as a message from the electorate that they wanted to see transportation improvements," said Brian Taylor, head of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UCLA. But faced with potential cuts to prisons, healthcare and schools, taking the budget knife to road programs can often seem the least harmful, at least in the short term, he said.

"For example, if you're planning on widening a freeway . . . [but] you don't fund it this year," Taylor said, the freeway will still function, "albeit more slowly."

Already hurting for cash, the MTA imposed a significant bus and rail fare hike in July. And just last week, the MTA predicted there would be just $4 billion in additional projected revenue for new projects through 2030, despite a need for roughly $30 billion. Two of the biggest projects include the $5-billion subway extension beneath Wilshire Boulevard to Santa Monica, and completing the 710 Freeway through South Pasadena for $2.5 billion.

Now, MTA officials are concerned they will not receive $314 million they had been counting on to build the Expo Line to Culver City.

Without the state funds, officials would have to use bond money or divert funds from other projects.

Or if money just runs out, Snoble said, "We could end up not getting to Culver City."

Snoble said bus and rail service could be cut during nights and weekends, as well as on some of the more unpopular bus routes. But he added he was reluctant to look at increasing fares more than what is scheduled, at least in the short term.

New service cuts and bus fare hikes could be more immediate for Foothill Transit, which provides bus service in the eastern San Gabriel Valley. Officials are expecting a loss of $5 million to $10 million, said Paula Lantz, president of the Foothill Transit executive board.

"Obviously, this is going to hurt customers all over Southern California," Lantz said, but particularly "those least able to afford it."

Faced with a $60-million cut, the Orange County Transportation Authority expects delays on multiple freeway projects, including work on redesigning and widening several onramps and offramps on the 5 Freeway in Irvine and San Juan Capistrano, work on widening the congested 91 Freeway near the Riverside County line, and expanding parking at Metrolink commuter rail stations in Fullerton and Tustin.

"If we don't invest in roads and transit, then congestion is going to become increasingly worse," said Art Leahy, chief executive of the Orange County Transportation Authority. "And that's going to reduce the economic vitality. . . and quality of life in Southern California."

Transportation Commission Chairman Ghielmetti warned of dire consequences if state lawmakers continue to siphon money from projects. Ghielmetti has said the state has taken its transportation system for granted.

"We're not raising enough money either through the federal government or the state to adequately maintain our bridges and our roads," he said, referring to the Aug. 1 Minnesota bridge disaster.

Caltrans has identified 228 bridges that should be at the top of a list for repairs although they pose no danger for collapse. U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) and Nuñez last week said that the state's bridges may not have been given the thorough and frank appraisal or repairs needed.

"In the long run, transportation is terribly underfunded," Ghielmetti said.

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Times staff writer Patrick McGreevy contributed to this report

[nicksantangelo]

sodha said:

Wasn't it pathetic that the article was written by the head of OCTA? I'm glad I left the OC and moved into LA!

Ain't it true! My wife and I moved out of OC back in the late 80's and never looked back. The powers-that-be down there would rather bulldoze more and more real estate, i.e. the I5 in Anaheim, than build a decent rail line to link with L.A.

Is the Register still run by Libertarian-leaning interests? Sure sounds like it. They would rather die a slow gridlock death than part with their precious cars.

[nickv]

Wasn't it pathetic that the article was written by the head of OCTA? I'm glad I left the OC and moved into LA!

Hmmmm....Well, after reading that editorial (posted below), I have to ask these:

1. How's the p.m. rush hour drive from Irvine to Fullerton via the upgraded I-5 and SR-57?

2. How's the p.m. rush hour drive between the 26 lane El Toro Y and Mission Viejo?

3. Any "crushes" yet on the eastbound SR 22 at the crush? I saw some of those red dots on the traffic report map.

4. Any chance the SR 55 interchange will be the next a.m. rush hour chokepoint when the I-405 project through Fountain Valley is done?

5. It appears that the NB SR 55 chokepoint is at the upgraded I-5 and SR 55 junction. What's being done to address this one?

I'm sorry, but I'd personally rather catch up on some reading (and some sleep) on board Metrolink than battle the freeways. Well, at least there's 30 minute Metrolink service proposed between Southern OC and Fullerton (and to LA in the future). I would not understand why anyone from OC would rather drive and battle traffic into Downtown LA when this service hopefully becomes available in the future. Anybody in the state offices agree?

...................................


The Orange Grove: O.C. prefers more lanes to trains
Adding roadway capacity provides real traffic relief versus mass-transit schemes.
By JERRY AMANTE
Mayor Pro Tem of Tustin, a director of the Orange County Transportation Authority

Orange County transportation leaders have a clear-eyed understanding that freeway widenings and arterial improvements provide real traffic relief, and many officials in Los Angeles County who have placed nearly all their eggs in one basket – transit basket – don't like the comparisons.

The Orange County Transportation Authority is completing the final couple miles of widening the Santa Ana (Interstate 5) Freeway, all the way up to the L.A. County line, and a widening of the San Diego (I-405) Freeway is next on the agenda. This has some L.A. leaders in an uproar because, while they continue their decades-long practice of flushing millions in transportation tax dollars down the drain on public transit, their constituents are increasingly noticing the difference between the intermittent traffic on Orange County freeways and the gridlock they experience on L.A. freeways.

There is a philosophical difference between OCTA's reputation as a road-builder – at least since the proposed CenterLine light-right system was laid to rest several years ago – and Los Angeles' Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which focuses its resources on subways and rail. What it boils down to is that, in Orange County we're proud to build lanes, not trains.

Many Democrats in Sacramento were apoplectic about the governor's proposal earlier this summer to help balance the state budget by trimming the bloated public transit budget. But while buses, trains, monorails and subways seem like enticing transportation solutions in theory, they simply don't pencil out. Not in terms of true traffic relief for the vast majority of commuters and certainly not from a fiscal standpoint.

Consider this statistic: Nationwide, spending on public transit has increased seven-fold since 1960. And what have those billions of dollars done for commuters? Not much. During that same period, the number of public transit users has dropped by 63 percent and today less than five percent of all Americans use public transportation.

Over the past 30 years the United States has increased road capacity by 5 percent while we have 143 percent more cars on the road today than we did in 1977. But for some reason, despite the fact that money put into freeways is 11 times as cost-effective as money put into light rail, in most of California roadways remain the red-headed stepchild of transportation improvements.

Earlier this summer the Reason Foundation released its 16{+t}{+h} annual report on the Performance of State Highway Systems. In the category of "Urban Interstate Congestion," California ranked dead last of all 50 states. Drivers in Los Angeles spend on average 93 hours every year sitting in traffic. That's more than two full work weeks – more than most people get to spend on vacation every year.

It's time to fix our roads and build new ones.

Still, there are Democrats in Sacramento who are so zealous in their belief that public transit is the only answer, that they have even gone so far as to try to pass legislation to stop new highway construction – even if it's hundreds of miles outside their districts.

For example, after 25 years of planning and 10 years of environmental review, the Foothill-Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency Board, where I sit as vice chair, voted to approve the 16-mile connection of the Foothill (241) Toll Road to the I-5, south of San Clemente. Despite the fact that this roadway will be built without any state tax dollars because it is a public toll road, Assemblyman Jared Huffman, a Marin County Democrat, has introduced Assembly Bill 1457 in an effort to block this traffic relief project.

This roadway will comply with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but following the environmental process is not Huffman's goal – killing this road project is.

Whether it is completing the toll road system or implementing Measure M, Orange County's self-imposed half-cent sales tax that primarily goes to improving our local roadways and freeways, Orange County will continue to forge ahead with widening its freeways and city streets and building new roads, even if we make Los Angeles look bad by comparison.

[mattapoisett]

Does anyone know if there were any more Transportation cuts in the budget from Gov. Schwarzenegger's pen?

[whitmanlam]

Gee Whiz... what a blessing it is to live in the suburban motorist's paradise that is the O.C.

Yeah no traffic at all, could it possibly be because the O.C. population is less than 1/3 of LA's population ?
I'm sure my freeways will move faster if we had 1/3 of our current population.

Let's do that, let's get rid of 2/3 of our residents and see the traffic clear itself.

It's truly amazing how they reach these scientific conclusions at the O.C. Register. Somebody give this guy a Nobel Prize.... Please !!
***************************************************

The three ingredients for a successful Public Transit System:

1. High Density Housing: Homes and jobs located in transportation centers, makes it alot more convenient.

2. An extensive Public Transit System: Must be efficient and all encompassing to travel to most locations of interest.

3. (Here's the problem part) Heavy taxation of Automobiles, Gasoline, and Tollways to encourage Mass Transportation.... this will be the hardest sell of all, but it is necessary if Transit is to grow.

[mattapoisett]

mattapoisett said:

Does anyone know if there were any more Transportation cuts in the budget from Gov. Schwarzenegger's pen?

From the San Jose Mercury News:
"Schwarzenegger left intact $20.7 million to fund the agency overseeing plans for a 700-mile high-speed rail line throughout the state, erasing concerns of some Democratic lawmakers who feared he would veto the money.

"Most Californians want to see a viable high-speed rail system," said Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter. "I think he made the right decision."

A bond measure providing about one-fourth of the project's estimated $40 billion cost is scheduled to be on the November 2008 ballot."


The summary of the enacted Budget with Veto Notes can be found here:
www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/FullBudgetSummary.pdf

Take Care

- P.

[kenalpern]

For better or for worse (perhaps more for the latter), what's done is done...and the Governor has done what he needed (and, probably, his sincerest best) to get through the budget for this year. The state leadership of the GOP is rabidly anti-transit, probably much more so than much if not most of their voter base...while the Democrats don't support mass transit enough to balance the budget at the expense of other priorities.

The biggest, saddest result is the decreased lack of credibility that entirely sacked the intent of Proposition 1A...which will make it hard for the state to raise bonds and taxes again in the future. Since the reality is that the Governor couldn't pass more transit/transportation money without upsetting the GOP minority at this part of the budget cycle, the best strategy now is:

1) Let the state politicians know that they owe us $1.3 billion in addition to other previously stolen gas tax funds of any sort...and that this ain't going away

2) Make sure the California Transportation Commission reapproves the $314 million (all my political sources suggests this will happen)

3) Start lobbying for the decrease of the tax/bond threshold from 67% to 55% for transportation

[kingsfan]

Why in the world would we vote to reduce the threshold to 55% when the State has just proven is will take our money no matter what happens ? The lesson here is that Sacramento is incapable of fiscal discipline and honesty, and will steal our money one way or another.

[wad]

kingsfan said:

Why in the world would we vote to reduce the threshold to 55% when the State has just proven is will take our money no matter what happens ? The lesson here is that Sacramento is incapable of fiscal discipline and honesty, and will steal our money one way or another.

So true.

What's even worse is that there's no constitutionally-kosher mechanism to pre-empt any of the budget shenanigans we had just seen. I'd always thought that a good threat against missing a budget deadline would be hand the authority off to say, a budget director, and impose that for a month. However, a budget must follow the legislative procedure and be enacted by the governor. There's no way around it.

[kenalpern]

Sacramento continues to disobey the will of the people, but the problems persist. Traffic. Lack of mobility and economic development. Environmental issues. Increasing population.

Kingsfan and wad, your sentiments are shared by so many--the biggest casualties of this budget is the lack of credibility we'll have with governmental funding of transportation and the respect of the politicians to obey the voters.

Two courses of action remain to us--and I am a man of action:

1) Fight with Sacramento to let them know they owe us that $1.3 billion, and to press for a way to kill this awful Spillover Fund loophole

2) Work for local, countywide funding to make sure that we can get these projects built without any nonsense from Sacramento

[whitmanlam]

We can't let Transportation funds become the Piggy bank for politicians. And, sadly that's what it has become lately. A blind man can be robbed so many times.

I wish every citizen can realize how our gas tax dollars are being stolen from under us.
Pork Barrel spending, salary and pension hikes, are bankrupting California. Gobbling up a good portion of our tax dollars for generations to come.

Who's to say they won't pick the pockets of a future High Speed Rail Bond ?

I have all but lost faith in Sacramento. We need a local tax initiative like a Measure M to get our fixes and get some private investment along the way.

Southern California is an economic powerhouse in America. Our Ports serve so much to so many. Our people create the ideas of tomorrow. Yet our ports are getting clogged and piling up. Our people can't even get to work on time and must leave early to beat traffic. It's costing us jobs.

Our State politicians need to grow up and wise up, to the dangers of do nothing-ism.
Stop acting like a Third World Country.

[kenalpern]

I agree with you, Whitman--we've got to stop Sacramento from doing this, and find ways to take care of our own problems without their interference. Perhaps the best thing Sacramento can do now is to allow the voting threshold to drop to 55% for tax/bond initiatives to allow our county to take care of its problems with local initiatives.

[Transit Coalition]

Well, I am in Sacramento to have conservations with our elected officials. Things are not always as they seem, but it's time to get the High Speed Rail bond on the ballot for next year and to get the proper amount of transit funds.

As always, relationship building is important. I'll have a report at the Transit Coalition meeting Tuesday evening.

[Tony Fernandez]

Give 'em hell Bart, people are starting to turn around about mass transit and it's about time the politicians followed suit.

[whitmanlam]

With the current housing slump dragging down our economy. I don't know if the State will have funds for transportation next year. Tax revenues are expected to decrease dramatically. We could be looking at deeper budget cuts, if Sacramento doesn't cut the waste or raise taxes.

I just wish that we could've built our Transit systems, and established funding, during the housing boom instead of after it. We need to grow with development, require developers to pay for or build rail lines. Now we're just trying to catch up to all the sprawl we created.

A good strategy was to encourage the growth of Downtown hi density areas through transit. Like San Diego had done a decade before us.
With the suburban housing crash, and the loss of jobs, I think it's time for cities to really consider mass transit as a way to create jobs in their Downtown.
And every politician knows that sounds too good to resist....

[James Fujita]

well hey, the budget situation isn't all bad for alternative forms of transportation. the state gave yacht and RV owners a $45 million tax break!

[whitmanlam]

Isn't that how things work in California ? We let some businesses off the hook with gaping tax loopholes, while others are taxed right off the planet.

It's time we made car owners (Especially large SUV owners) responsible for the mess on the streets they create every day.

[James Fujita]

part of the reason why government so often seems to get things backwards is that it is the big, giant industries- the ones that can most afford to pay higher taxes, the ones that most frequently need regulating- are the ones that can afford the big lobbyists.

to break through the insanity, you need something special that people will rally around. the anti-tobacco movement comes to mind: the industry lobbied for years against sensible reform. it finally took tremendous grassroots effort backed up by solid scientific evidence to get the job done. they took what had been primarily a nuisance- the smell of smoke- and turned it into an environmental health issue.

are there parallels to transit? maybe: traffic is a nuisance, but smog is an health issue....

[whitmanlam]

Traffic Relief, pollution reduction, alternative energy, and alternative transportation. These are things that we can do in California without losing many jobs.
That's what all the lobbyists use as their battle cry " But.... It'll cost us jobs !!!".

And so far that has been the greatest fear among the voter, when it comes to decision making. The jobs.

But look at what Europe has done. Their economy is booming. Particularly the German solar power industry.... and they get half as much sunshine as we do.

We are losing jobs even as we speak. To high energy costs, lack of affordable housing, unhealthy lifestyles of driving 2 hours to work and back.

Our lack of vision for the future will cost us many jobs and many opportunities down the road, if we don't get our systems fixed right now.

[LAofAnaheim]

I agree Whitman. The one thing people don't understand is that we should focus on devceloping a centralized city (i.e. jobs in the downtown center). The zoning of Warner Center, Wilshire Center & Century City is the reason we have high traffic. There is no reasonable alternative available. The only people who complain about downtown are those without transit access. But, to the rest of us, that live in downtown, near transit lines, or even suitable bus service, love working in downtown.

My company is HQ'd in downtown, and some of the employees use Metro/Metrolink for commuting. When we have to travel to the Valley, Antelope Valley, Century City, we are stuck with a car b/c we have no reasonable alternative. We have these outside places b/c people are in pursuit of "free parking" as well...b/c downtown has "expensive parking". My cousin from Birmingham, England noted that it costs $20/hour to park in the city center, that's ridiculous to have free parking in a valuable land area.

[whitmanlam]

As long as companies keep moving farther and farther out into suburban low-rise Office Parks we will keep getting the same. I would prefer Downtown L.A. over Downtown Irvine.

I guess they planned their Downtown to be close to John Wayne Airport.... but what about the Metrolink station ?? Transit friendliness needs to be a focal point for business and private industry as a service to employees and the public.

[Justin Walker]

www.sacbee.com/111/story/365307.html


Suit fights transit fund shift
Advocates seek to stop reassignment of $1.3 billion to other transportation programs
By Judy Lin - Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, September 7, 2007

Public transit advocates on Thursday sued to prevent the Schwarzenegger administration from dipping into a transportation account to help balance California's budget -- a move that threatens to knock the spending plan off track just weeks after it was enacted.

The California Transit Association filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court, seeking an injunction to stop more than $1 billion from being shifted away from bus and light-rail operations so the state can pay for debt as well as home-to-school transportation and other programs.

The group, which represents public transit operators and suppliers, also wants to prevent the state from shifting mass transportation money to the general fund in future budgets.

"We absolutely recognize the huge complexity of any sitting governor to balance California's gigantic budget, but we think the law, as expressed by Cali- fornia voters, is clear: Transit should be funded," said public transit lobbyist Josh Shaw, who is the suit's named petitioner.

Advocates argue that state support for mass transit helps keep train fares low and buses running on time. But at a time when tax revenue is coming in lower than expected, the state took money from public transportation to keep other programs going.

Legislative Democrats and Republicans, as well as the governor, had agreed to shifting $1.3 billion out of the Public Transportation Account as a major cost-saving move following a 52-day budget standoff. The administration believes the shift is legal because the money is being used for transportation-related programs and debt.

Shaw said public transit advocates aren't trying to harm other state programs but admitted that the lawsuit, if successful, would leave a hole in the $103 billion general fund plan.

"It's not our intention to harm any programs," Shaw said.

Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, who serves as vice chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee, said many people can find flaws in the budget enacted last month. However, given that the state continues to spend more than it takes in, the assemblyman said programs such as transit had to accept concessions so other state programs wouldn't be cut.

"There's no question this is a very stressed budget," Niello said. "The transit association professes not to want to cost other programs, but if their lawsuit prevails, it will."

Shaw said the 2007-08 budget passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwar-zenegger last month "illegally shifts" public transportation funds "for purposes that we believe are clearly protected in state law for mass transportation services."

State Controller John Chiang and Finance Department Director Mike Genest are listed as respondents.

The lawsuit also objects to a budget amendment that would automatically shift half of future sales tax revenue collected from diesel fuel and gasoline sales to the general fund.

No hearing date has been set.

Finance Department spokesman H.D. Palmer noted that even with the shift, transit agencies would still be getting more money in the coming year than they did in the last fiscal year.

Rail and transit agencies across the state can expect to receive $2.26 billion for general purpose and capital funding this year, compared with $1.46 billion in the 2006-07 fiscal year, according to the Finance Department.

"That's a huge increase when we are either slowing down, paring down or holding flat many other programs in state government," Palmer said.

In trying to balance state revenue and spending, Schwarzenegger initially suggested shifting money from the Public Transportation Account to the general fund when he released his proposed budget in January. The account, which is partly funded by the sales tax on diesel fuel and gasoline, has been flush with cash because of high gas prices.

The budget that was passed by the Democratic-led Legislature and signed by the Republican governor called for moving $948 million to pay for transportation-related bond debt, $129 million for transportation costs for the disabled, $99 million to help children get to school, and $83 million to repay transportation loans owed by the general fund.

The lawsuit alleges that most of the transfers are illegal.

According to the lawsuit, the shift violates a string of constitutional amendments approved by voters. Proposition 116, which voters passed in 1990, established the Public Transportation Account funded by motor fuel sales tax. The state was directed to use the money "only for transportation planning and mass transportation purposes," and subsequent propositions reinforced the account.

The Legislative Analyst's Office had warned that parts of the accounting move were legally unworkable.

Administration officials recently issued a memo indicating the governor would introduce a balanced budget next year. California is facing a projected $6.1 billion operating deficit this year, but that figure may go up if the state fails to meet revenue goals.

[erict]

I hope for mass transportation sake that this lawsuit prevails and the funding is restored. If the state is serious about reducing greenhouse gases, then this is a no brainer. The cuts will have to come from some other place.

[kenalpern]

Hate to say it, erict, but I ain't too sure that the folks up in Sacramento really give two hoots about the environment (especially greenhouse gases) when it comes to the budget...despite oratory to the contrary. Actions speak louder than words, and this last budget spoke rather loudly about how Sacramento really felt about transportation and the environment.

After Prop. 1A passed, I'd say that yes, the cuts SHOULD come from some other place.