Bus Rapid Transit, Active Transit & Metro's Equity Platform - Move LA Speaks with Metro Chief of Staff Nadine Lee
Move LA spoke with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (Metro) Chief of Staff Nadine Lee in October 2020 about the state of public transportation in Los Angeles County. We spoke about fareless transit, recovery of public transit and public transit funding, the NextGen Bus Plan, Bus Rapid Transit, and active transportation. The interview lasted close to an hour so we will be publishing the interview in three posts. Read the first and second part of the interview on our blog.
There is about $1.2 billion in Measure M for bus rapid transit (BRT), and BRT costs about tens of millions of dollars per mile versus hundreds of millions for light rail and billions for heavy rail. So with the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget, which is $1.2 billion lower than last year, do you see BRT becoming a higher priority investment as the economy recovers and sales tax revenue recovers back?
That's a great question. And I'll give you my opinion on this because I think that having a BRT investment in Measure M is phenomenal. It's a really wonderful thing. With buses, we can realize benefits incrementally – we don’t have to have everything in place all at once as we do on rail, which is an all or nothing investment. With BRT, things like exclusive lanes can be put in place before you get all of the other BRT infrastructure in place.
We also don’t have to wait until all of our BRT vision is funded and built before we start providing high level, rapid service on buses. There's an opportunity for us to think about how we might invest early to make incremental improvements with the money that we have right now. Instead of looking at BRT corridor by corridor, maybe there's a concept where we could say, "Let's take the first $10 million and implement the exclusive bus lanes on all five corridors at once." And then while we're working on the rest of the BRT infrastructure we could already operate faster, more reliable bus service in all five corridors. We should put our thinking caps on and figure out how we might be able to more effectively use that money and deliver benefits sooner rather than later.
Metro CEO Phil Washington spoke about more funding for active transportation or microtransit connections to stations. What is the plan for that?
Metro is always looking at how we can make access easier for people. Identifying new ways to easily access transit, like active transportation and microtransit, are always on the radar. We will launch the microtransit pilot in January, and we have a number of active transportation projects in the works. Our progress is only constrained by available funding.
We know that if transit is not within easy walking distance, it's harder to incorporate a connecting mode into the trip. Because of this, we try to look at the “total journey experience,” which is a term we got from Singapore’s Land Transport Authority. From point A to point B, what does that entire trip look like for the customer? How do we remove uncertainty during that trip and make the travel as seamless and convenient as possible? How do we make that total journey experience the best it can be?
If we can start removing uncertainties and create opportunities for people to enjoy their trips on Metro, we will remove the mental hurdles that people have about leaving their cars behind. We can get into the consideration set when a person is deciding how to get from point A to point B. Right now, if you have to make a transfer, particularly if it involves a bus of any sort, the uncertainty about the wait time and whether or not the bus actually shows up is a huge deterrent. When I think about the total journey experience, this is what I imagine: a grid of high-frequency bus service all over the County, where you get off of your first bus and your transfer time is less than 5 minutes, and you know the bus will come on time because they have an exclusive lane. The best part is that you also have an app that tells you exactly where the bus is and when it will arrive. And, it's a real bus, not a ghost bus. Likewise, I could ride my bike or take a microtransit ride to catch my bus or train, and the transfer is fast, convenient, and stress-free.
When Metro successfully delivers this total journey experience, the uncertainty will go away, and ideally, it works so well that it will all become invisible to you. That's what we're shooting for.
What funding or projects has the equity platform changed in order to prioritize particular Black, Brown, Asian Pacific Islander, other people of color, and low-income communities, have you seen the equity platform really direct funding in new ways?
Our Executive Officer for Equity and Race, KeAndra Cylear Dodds, is exploring ways to evaluate our funding allocations. We're going to have to take a pretty hard look at where our resources go, especially in terms of which communities benefit the most from our investments. We currently have funding spread out all over the County, but depending on the outcome of her analysis, we may have some pretty interesting conversations coming before us. Every region in the County has communities of color and disenfranchised and disadvantaged populations. The onus is on us to identify where the biggest needs are and find ways to meet those needs while not delaying investments that are already committed. There may be hard decisions ahead of us, but I think our overall goal is that we really want the County to be a better place that provides a variety of high-quality transportation options that are more accessible to everyone.
Move LA spoke with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (Metro) Chief of Staff Nadine Lee in October 2020 about the state of public transportation in Los Angeles County. We spoke about fareless transit, recovery of public transit and public transit funding, the NextGen Bus Plan, Bus Rapid Transit, and active transportation. The interview lasted close to an hour so we will be publishing the interview in three posts. Read the first post here.
Question 3: At the last Metro regular Board Meeting, there were several dozens of folks who came out to oppose the budget because they felt it belied an increase in service promised in the NextGen Bus Plan. Move LA has been advocating for years that we should be increasing bus service and as part of the NextGen Bus Plan we were looking to see expanded levels of service. So what will it take to restore additional hours to return to those pre-COVID-19 levels of service or even beyond?
Pre-COVID, as all of the speakers at the September Metro Board Meeting pointed out, we were operating somewhere around 7 million revenue service hours in the Fiscal Year 2020. We had every reason to believe that we were going to continue on that path with the NextGen Bus Plan. And then in March, safer-at-home orders took hold and, because of the pandemic, our ridership dropped. Overall system ridership went from 1.2 million a day to somewhere on the order of 300,000 a day - about 25% of what we were used to.
For all intents and purposes, at that point in time we reset the baseline. So regardless of whether we provided seven million hours in Fiscal Year 2020, those pre-COVID revenue service hours are almost irrelevant because our ridership dropped so low, and our revenues concurrently plummeted due to the economic downturn. As a result, we had to adjust service levels.
At this point, we are building from that 300,000 riders a day. Right now, we're running a little over 600,000 riders a day, so we're more than double our lowest ridership from March, which is a good sign. That means that people are coming back to the system – they're feeling comfortable enough to ride. In the early days of the pandemic, everyone was pushing essential travel only, and people were unfortunately encouraged not to take transit, even though studies have since shown nearly no evidence directly linking transit rides to COVID outbreaks.
We are building the service back up a little bit here and there, based on demand and where we see crowding. I think that it's really important for everyone to understand that we are working to get back to where we were before COVID, but there's a tension between ridership demand and budget in the development of bus and rail services levels. You have to optimize the service levels to the budget available and the capacity needed to meet ridership demand. That doesn't mean that the NextGen Bus Plan and the NextGen vision have been thrown out the door. It means that, because we're starting from a different baseline, the implementation of our plans for NextGen are going to lag a little bit because of our funding constraints. Whereas we had planned to have seven and a half minute headways on our Tier 1 routes with the December shake-up, we're starting with 10-minute headways first.
NextGen comprises a network redesign – making sure that our routes are running where people want to go and at their optimum speed by straightening out some of the lines, consolidating some of the bus stops, etc. In addition, NextGen set a vision for desired service levels on the redesigned network. For the first phase of implementation, we’re putting the new network in place, and we will build service levels from there. As the ridership grows, we will have even more reason to add service.
NextGen will provide faster and better service to the places people want to go to. Historically we've provided more service in the rush hours and less in the off-peak. Through NextGen, we realized that a lot of travel happens during the midday, and if we boost some of the service levels during that time, we can make transit a more attractive option for those trips. In addition, due to COVID, everyone now understands the concept of flattening the curve. By providing better service outside of the peak periods, we could see a shift in the times that people travel for work trips, and this will help manage the travel demand that is historically so concentrated during the rush hours, thus flattening the travel demand curve. This will help tremendously to mitigate congestion.
The plan for NextGen is still intact; the vision is still intact. All of the ideas and service levels are still part of the plan. Right now, the funding levels drive our ability to deliver more service. We just got the approval from the Metro Board to begin the implementation of NextGen starting in December. Once the network is in place, we will build the service levels back with the NextGen goals in mind.
Question 4: You say Metro has set a new baseline with COVID, but there is also a new baseline in terms of bus capacity due to social distancing guidelines from LA County Health and the CDC. Isn’t there a tension between increased ridership and social distancing guidelines?
Sometime in the future, assuming that we can grow the ridership back to pre-COVID levels and beyond, there will be a point when we no longer have enough capacity for distancing because we don't have enough buses, trains, or operators. You've likely heard Metro CEO Phil Washington say that public transportation cannot be held to a higher standard than the airlines. Right now, while the County public health orders are still in place, we will continue to provide distancing when possible. We know that about 99% of our riders are using masks. So, we feel like riders are taking their own precautions to protect themselves.
We are tracking data and social media to identify patterns of crowding so that we can add buses where needed. Transit app is also a way for people to tell us if their buses are crowded. We're trying to monitor the crowding levels for trends. It's not effective to randomly send a bus out in real-time to relieve a single crowded bus, but if data shows that a particular route tends to get crowded on a regular basis during certain times every day, then we can strategically add capacity to alleviate crowding on that route.
Would you say that Metro is doing enough outreach to people riding the bus in the general public, particularly on what's going to be upcoming with NextGen?
Whenever we have a shakeup there are very tried and true processes in place to notify people. NextGen makes changes on a bigger scale because, remember, the network hasn't really changed over the last 25 years. Throughout the development of the NextGen concepts, there was extensive public and stakeholder engagement, and prior to bringing the NextGen plan before the Metro Board for approval in October, staff did a ton of work to get the proposed changes approved through the subregional Service Councils. Now that NextGen has been approved, we have about six or seven weeks to post all of the information in advance of pushing the button on December 13.
Going forward, Metro intends to continue our engagement with bus riders on all things related to the bus system. More on that to come in early 2021…
While we expressed reservations about the Metro Fiscal Year 2021 Operations budget at the last meeting, we saw the commitment to $140 million in this year's budget for bus capital infrastructure investments as a positive sign. What do you anticipate being the most effective in terms of facilitating efficiencies that really will make a material difference for riders in terms of more frequent and reliable service?
We talk a lot internally about what it takes to get transit, and in this case, bus, into an individual’s consideration set as it relates to his/her/their transportation choices. We want to address the core needs that people have when it comes to transportation. Right now, buses aren't really meeting those core needs – things like being fast, being reliable, and feeling safe and comfortable for our riders. Having certainty about your travel or your trip is extraordinarily important. We have all kinds of reasons why we're not necessarily reliable all the time. A lot of things are out of our control, but I think it's time for Metro, bus advocates, and all of our city partners to say, "You know what? All hands-on-deck – everybody is responsible for this problem."
There's a people-throughput equation here that we need to consider. As a community, our priority must be to facilitate more people traveling as efficiently as possible by rewarding or incentivizing people to take less space on the road. There is a price to be paid for the space that people occupy, especially during congested times. That price currently comes in the form of time and delays to your journey. If you choose to drive alone, you are taking up more space for one person than the 40 people on the bus next to you. I don't think it's fair for the 40 people on the bus to be delayed by the 40 people driving alone who take up a lot more space on the street. I think it's fair for us to say, "Okay, we're going to give the bus riders their own special lane because they're sharing the ride and they take less space."
To your question, what kinds of improvements do we need? Well, certainly bus lanes along the most congested corridors in the county. We should identify locations where we experience the most delay and congestion on our bus routes so that we can actually focus our efforts on unclogging those areas first. The solution will not always be a bus lane; it could involve a traffic signal timing change. But again, we have to get all of our partners to say, "We agree that getting buses through our city streets is a high priority. It's in fact a higher priority than getting single-occupant vehicles through the streets." Moving buses faster is absolutely critical and I hope that the cities find this to be a priority too.
Check out our blog tomorrow for the next set of questions and answers on the NextGen Bus Plan and funding for transit operations.
Move LA spoke with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (Metro) Chief of Staff Nadine Lee in October 2020 about the state of public transportation in Los Angeles County. We spoke about fareless transit, recovery of public transit and public transit funding, the NextGen Bus Plan, Bus Rapid Transit, and active transportation. The interview lasted close to an hour so we will be publishing the interview in three posts.
Question 1: Metro CEO Phil Washington has proposed a fareless system and set up a Fareless System Initiative Task Force to explore options. This is a shift from the thinking of Metro just a few months ago. What do you attribute this shift in thinking to?
First, we believe we have a moral obligation to LA residents to pursue a fareless system to help our region recover from the pandemic and the increasing lack of affordability in the region. For example, 69% of Metro riders are low or extremely low income, and fare evasion penalties disproportionately impact low-income riders. Housing and transportation are the two biggest expenses for most households. If we can eliminate one of those big expenses, imagine how much that would help low-income families. A fareless system will help promote social equity and expand economic opportunities, especially for our low-income riders.
In terms of the change in thinking, several things have happened over the last few years. One, we have started to think more broadly about what we're trying to accomplish as an agency and a community, rather than just delivering the status quo. We've also been asked to provide discounts or free fares for a variety of different populations. So, instead of approaching this fareless concept as “death by a thousand cuts,” we think there is value in looking more comprehensively at what it would take to go fareless in the context of everything else we are trying to do. We also have so many people out there trying to hold on economically, while fear of COVID keeps people from conducting normal business in the course of their daily lives.
To put things in perspective, Metro collected on the order of $300 million annually in fare revenue, pre-COVID. Now, with rear-door boarding on our buses to protect everyone during the pandemic, we aren’t collecting much farebox revenue at all. We already make fares free on Election Day and Earth Day. Combined with all of the discounts we offer to specific populations, the entire approach becomes very piecemeal and reactionary. Instead, in the last few years, we've really tried to focus on making policy decisions based on the broader outcomes we are trying to achieve and not just piecemealing things together. We want to be more thoughtful about what we're trying to accomplish and use outcomes-based thinking as our guide to how we set policy and implement our programs.
Part of the Fareless System Initiative Task Force’s mission is to look at all of the costs and factors we need to consider if we go to a fareless system. For example, even if the system is fareless, there will be increasing pressure to improve and expand bus service. We also have a number of rail and bus rapid transit (BRT) corridors coming online over the next 40 years, and there will be costs associated with operating a much larger network of transit. If we're not collecting money at the fare box, where's that money going to come from? How are we going to pay for the high quality of service that people want, while they also want it to be fareless? There's a big equation that has to be figured out in order for us to deliver on that idea. We don't want the quality of service to deteriorate as a result of being fareless. So now we are figuring out what would it take to go fareless, whether it make sense for us to do it, and if so, how we would actually implement it.
Question 2: How does Metro ensure that all riders feel welcome, they feel safe, they feel comfortable on Metro buses and trains and we help those who are unhoused find the services they need?
First, I think it's really important for people to understand the difference between being unhoused and exhibiting undesirable behaviors, on the transit system or anywhere else. There are a lot of unhoused individuals who are riding the system completely unnoticed – they’re just people trying to make ends meet like everyone else. Also, many people who exhibit erratic behaviors and create unhygienic conditions are not homeless. Our focus should be preventing the conditions and behaviors that negatively impact other riders.
Specific to the unhoused, we absolutely want to help them find assistance. However, Metro is not solely responsible for the unhoused population in LA County. Everyone owns this issue in some part, and that includes LA County, the 88 cities within the County, and every individual in the County. It's going to take everybody at the table to care for the unhoused. We need all hands on-deck to help solve the unhoused crisis in the County. So, we are going to invoke support from all of our government partners, all of our advocacy partners, every single person, and every single organization in this county who have an interest in making sure that the Metro system remains comfortable for all riders. That's what we're looking for. So yeah, there's a lot of work that has to be done, but we first have to get everybody to realize we all own this crisis.
Check out our blog tomorrow for the next set of questions and answers on the NextGen Bus Plan and funding for transit operations.
The scare from the worsening fire season on the West Coast (and in other parts of the world) combined with hurricanes in the east has sensitized many people to the fact that the climate emergency is here. Last week we told you Move LA is launching a statewide effort as Move CA, and with our Northern California partner SPUR are investigating the idea of putting a "California Climate and Clean Air Initiative" on the November 2022 ballot.
Our goal is to raise the funding needed to meet California's vital climate and air quality goals while also building a just and equitable economy, and the climate leaders featured at our event expressed much enthusiasm for the idea: Mary Nichols, Fran Pavley, Kevin de Leon and Terry Tamminen told us the great need—and big opportunity—to make dramatic near-term and lasting improvements are in accelerating the deployment of zero-emission transportation and off-road technologies—both battery-electric and hydrogen.
They also emphasized the need for major reductions in the emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs)—also known as "super pollutants"—including fugitive methane, black carbon and HFCs.
And they said hard-wiring a commitment to equity for disadvantaged communities should be a co-equal priority for this measure.
Below are the remarks made in response to the climate leaders by our nonprofit partners, who also focused on the importance of keeping equity in the forefront of planning for this measure. To listen to the two-hour conversation CLICK HERE, or there's a 30-minute version at the top of the page HERE.
Bill Magavern, Policy Director, Coalition for Clean Air: The vast majority of our air pollution problem, aside from the horrible wildfire smoke, is coming from transportation . . . What’s particularly toxic is diesel exhaust from the movement of goods, which is why the Coalition for Clean Air focuses much of our work on goods movement—including trucks, locomotives, and cargo-handling equipment. We need to replace diesel with cleaner alternatives, including zero-emission engines wherever feasible and near-zero engines with renewable fuels everywhere else.
We have strong regulatory standards and it is vital that we complement these standards with incentive dollars [as proposed in this ballot measure] because incentives have been crucial in advancing the technologies that we need and also crucial in accelerating fleet turnover—in both light and heavy-duty vehicles—by getting dirty old engines off the road.
We laid the foundation for equitable clean mobility with the Charge Ahead California Initiative, which establishes equity-based transportation projects at CARB, including Clean Cars for All, which is a scrap-and-replace program so low-income drivers can get out of their dirty old gas guzzlers and into advanced clean vehicles or get transit passes. Charge Ahead projects also include electric vehicle car-sharing and electric-vehicle financing.
But we also need to invest in charging and fueling infrastructure for battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell-electric vehicles. And we must reduce vehicle miles travelled by reforming transportation funding and planning. We are currently funding the old paradigm by investing millions and millions of dollars into roads when we should be funding transit and active transportation, bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure.
Alvaro Sanchez, Environmental Equity Director, Greenlining Institute: We must do more than ensure that a percentage of our resources are invested in disadvantaged communities. Now, in addition to investing in those communities, we must also allow the people who live there and are most impacted [by climate change and air pollution] to become core partners in the transformation we need to address both poverty and pollution at the same time.
We really have to center equity so that it influences the process, implementation, and outcomes—so that the people living in disadvantaged communities receive direct, meaningful and measurable benefits. And we need an analysis and evaluation process related to the equity goal so we can ensure we’re making progress along equity lines.
We just published a report called The Greenlined Economy Guidebook, which identifies the barriers that currently get in the way of an economy that is cooperative, regenerative, democratic, non-exploitive and inclusive. And we put together a set of standards to make sure that equity is in the DNA of the process and isn’t just an add-on . . . We need to advance multi-sectoral approaches because communities are not failing because of just one deficiency—it’s not just a lack of housing, for example, but rather housing with good mobility options, green spaces and places where people can buy healthy food.
We need to build community-driven decision-making and establish pathways towards wealth-building, whether it’s good jobs or workforce development or educational opportunities or contracting opportunities—these need to be embedded in the approach. And we need to operationalize equity in the design and implementation and analysis of our measures.
Chione Flegal, Managing Director, PolicyLink: Our local, state and federal policies have created huge disparities in the experiences of communities. We are now a majority-of-color state, which means most of our population is set up to fail because of these policies. Until we undo the impacts of redlining and the legacy of disinvestment, and all the policies that have locked communities out of our economic systems . . . we are not going to be successful.
New money is an important part of the solution but it’s not enough. We are spending billions of dollars as a state every year, often spending it in a way that is at cross purposes with the outcomes we are talking about today. There’s a lot of work to be done aligning existing policies and spending with the goals of a clean energy economy that works for everyone . . .
Every time we write policy or spend money we need to ask: How do we protect people so they can stay in their communities and continue to access the resources they’re accustomed to and that help build resilience into their daily lives? How can we expand housing development in communities that are opportunity-rich and allow people to move up the economic scale? Our polices and investments need to address these questions or they will not lead to the change we need.
We see a huge need to invest in the training and preparation of individuals who have barriers to employment . . . small businesses are not on an equal playing field either. So we’re thinking about training for workers and training and capacity development for people of color-owned and women-owned businesses so they have the know-how and skills to actually participate in the green economy. People need resources to actually sit down and talk about the vision we are moving toward and what it’s going to take to get them there . . . And this cannot be done without bringing them in to the process. Folks need to speak to these issues directly.
Chanell Fletcher, Executive Director, ClimatePlan: I’ve been inspired by Gov. Newsom’s executive order to phase out gasoline-powered cars by 2035, by Black Lives Matter going deep on defunding the police, and by Gov. Newsom creating a task force to look at slavery and reparations and what that could mean. Those things may not seem connected to transportation but they are for me. Because when we are talking about these big climate goals and about phasing out gas vehicles I think about the transportation system that we’ve inherited, and the fact that the bulk of the funding is coming from gas and diesel excise taxes, which are funneled into state highways and local streets and roads—that has been our funding priority.
But priorities like these continue to facilitate segregation and racism because we built these highways so wealthier white communities could be built in the suburbs. We need to understand the structures that are currently in place and being funded—are state transportation agencies considering racial justice and equity when they spend that money? Do they have a planning process that focuses on the communities most impacted by their decision-making?
So as with defunding the police, unless we start making changes now we’re not going to see anything change in the next 10 or 20 years. I think we have to look at the projects and programs that are getting the bulk of our money. How are we evaluating our current transportation funding? Are we considering changing the top-down planning process?
If we have these very ambitious climate goals should highways and local streets and roads be getting the bulk of the money—shouldn’t gas and diesel excise taxes be our revenue source [to roll back climate change]?
Mary Creasman, CEO, California League of Conservation Voters: The game has changed . . . I never would have thought even a month ago that we’d see something like Gov. Newsom’s executive order [banning the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035]. We’ve just finished a legislative session with largely no action on the things being discussed on this call today. So it makes me wonder: What is politically possible?
If we are talking about raising $30 billion, that is just a down payment on the rate and the scale of the serious change needed for climate change and climate justice in a state of our scale and given how far behind we are . . . and I say that as somebody who has worked with people on this call on regional measures that have generated more than $100 billion in places like LA County . . . If we’re measuring ourselves against what communities are feeling and being burdened with right now and what science tells us we have to do, I’d say $30 billion is not nearly enough.
The wildfires have thrown a wrench in our goals by radically increasing carbon emissions. [The forests and natural lands] we used to rely on as carbon sinks to clean the air could now turn into bigger carbon emitters than the transportation sector . . .
We cannot prevent catastrophe unless every part of the state participates, including under-resourced communities and black, brown, and indigenous people of color, and our rural communities in the Central Valley, the Inland Empire, Coachella Valley . . . We just finished a poll that showed 79% of all voters are prioritizing the clean energy economy right now. We have the opportunity to shift public will and we need to think about who must be sitting at the table to design and innovate the solutions.
Move LA is launching a statewide effort as Move CA, and together with our Northern California partner SPUR we are investigating the possibility of a voter initiative measure on the November 2022 ballot to raise the funding needed to meet California's vital climate and air quality goals while building a just and equitable economy.
On Thursday, Oct. 1, we were joined by 11 climate leaders and nonprofit partners and an audience of several hundred to talk about the ballot measure and the priorities that it should fund. The discussion was energetic, impassioned and very welcome, especially given the fires and high temperatures we’ve experienced in California so far this year.
Below are remarks made by our first panel of current and former elected officials and agency leaders, which we will follow up with remarks made by directors of several nonprofits. If you'd like to listen to the entire two-hour conversation CLICK HERE, or there's a 30-minute HERE. Over the next several weeks you will hear more from us on this topic.
Mary Nichols, Chair of the California Air Resources Board:
“When Denny asks me to participate in one of his convenings, I don't think I ever have said no. I believe that what he's about is what we need to be talking about right now and that is how to raise a boatload of money to facilitate the transition that we know needs to happen: The targets for greenhouse gas emissions must go 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. [We must] also set a goal for reducing our short-lived climate pollutant levels, which as was pointed out earlier is maybe even more important because it's something that we can accomplish faster.
So, the ballot initiative has to be really big and it also has to be long-term enough so that it will attract private investors because . . . nothing that we're talking about could be solely financed by public funds.”Read more
Move California and SPUR presented 'Vision 2022: When California Leads, the World Soon Follows' on October 1, 2020. Speakers included leaders who have been responsible for formulating California's world-leading climate strategies over the past decade as well as key environmental and environmental justice advocates. DOWNLOAD PRESENTATION DECK.
The program discusses the possible statewide ballot measure to finish cleaning our air and help roll back climate change. In just the first decade the measure we will talk about could generate $30 billion in funding to use for incentives and infrastructure investments—and it could generate $70 billion over two decades.
With this funding California could:
#1: Meet the challenge set out in the 2018 IPCC Special Report and within a decade halt the progress of global warming and turn climate change around by
a) Investing in the accelerated deployment of zero-emission vehicles of all kinds and other advanced technologies, and
b) Dramatically reducing short-lived climate pollutants. These "super pollutants" cause 40% of global warming but decay much more quickly than CO2.
#2: Finish cleaning California's air by dramatically reducing diesel emissions to ensure the attainment of federal clean air standards. Diesel technologies are the most prevalent source of the most harmful air pollution—which especially burdens disadvantaged communities near freeways and ports.
#3: Advance social equity and justice by identifying investments that can improve the health of people living in disadvantaged communities, and create jobs and opportunities that boost the economic vitality of these communities as air pollution and GHG emissions are reduced.Read more
We can do a lot! We are California, and when California leads the world soon follows!
It's already happening with our zero-emission cars and recently approved zero-emission trucks program. But we have to move faster and make the change bigger.
Join us next Thursday to talk with California's climate and clean air leaders about a possible statewide ballot measure in November 2022 to significantly reduce greenhouse gases and short-lived climate pollutants (including black carbon, methane, ozone andhydrofluorocarbons or HFCs), and finish cleaning our air.
REGISTER HERE TO JOIN MOVE CA AND SPUR ON A ZOOM CALL THURSDAY, OCT. 1, 10 A.M.-NOON, TO TALK WITH: Mary Nichols, Chair, California Air Resources Board ° Kevin De Leon, LA City Councilmember-elect and former CA State Senate President Pro Tempore ° Senator Nancy Skinner, CA Senate Majority Whip; former International Director of ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability/Cities for Climate Protection Program ° Senator Fran Pavley (ret.), author of AB 32 and SB 32, California's landmark legislation to fight climate change and Environmental Policy Leader of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute ° Terry Tamminen, Former Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency under Gov. Schwarzenegger and President of 7th Generation Advisors ° Randall Winston, Former Executive Director, Strategic Growth Council ° Alvaro Sanchez, Environmental Equity Director, Greenlining Institute ° Chanell Fletcher, Executive Director, Climate Plan ° Bill Magavern, Policy Director, Coalition for Clean Air ° Chione Flegal, Managing Director, PolicyLink ° Mary Creasman, CEO, California League of Conservation VotersRead more
Below is a fascinating account of the Gateway Cities communities in southeast LA County that dramatically illustrates how the shortage of affordable housing in LA County and across the state has meant that many families who live here cannot afford the cost of an apartment or single-family home—causing some families to share homes instead.
Much of the unmet housing demand reflects overcrowding like this, not just in the Gateway Cities but in other communities as well, many of which have primarily single-family housing stock. We believe there is an alternative way to provide significant affordable housing for renters on what we call "Boulevards of Equity and Opportunity," and that 36-mile-long Atlantic Boulevard, which traverses nine of the Gateway Cities, could provide an example of what can be done.
Building housing along commercial corridors like Atlantic is of special interest now because many are losing their vitality and businesses because of the popularity of online shopping, a trend accelerated by the coronavirus. These corridors could allow for the construction of mixed-use mixed-income multifamily development without displacing existing residents or businesses, and with improvements that turn them into affordable and appealing neighborhoods—with trees and urban greening, neighborhood services and jobs, and streets made safe for people on foot and on bikes.
Moreover, many of LA County's 2,100 miles of boulevards are already served by transit. Atlantic, for example, is crossed by the Blue, Green and Gold Lines, the 710 freeway (and LA River) and—some day soon—the West Santa Ana Branch light-rail corridor to downtown LA. Atlantic is also under consideration at Metro for a new bus rapid transit (BRT) project like the very popular Orange Line in the San Fernando Valley.
But change is hard and LA County's many cities are diverse. Nancy Pfeffer, Executive Director of the Gateway Cities Council of Governments—which represents 26 cities—was one of the speakers at our Zoomposium on Boulevards of Equity and Opportunity last summer. While she was interested in the concept she also listed some obstacles, such as the necessity to rezone the nine cities along the corridor to accommodate housing as well as commercial, and the difficulty of funding new services for new residents.
NANCY PFEFFER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GATEWAY CITIES COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS:
"I’d like to talk a little about the cities that are part of the Gateway Cities Council of Governments and about the Atlantic Boulevard corridor as it is today. The cities, in alphabetical order, include Bell, Commerce, Compton, Cudahy, Long Beach, Lynwood, Maywood, Southgate, and Vernon. When we talk about corridor planning we have to recognize that each of these jurisdictions has their own elected officials and their own general plan that has won support through a public process. So when you start to talk about regional plans or legislation to require re-zoning it’s very touchy.
"These are incredibly densely populated communities. New York City, for example, has a population density of 27,000 people/square mile; San Francisco has a density of 17,000 people/square mile. Six of the cities I just mentioned fall below the density of New York but above the density of San Francisco, and three of the cities—Lynwood, Bell and South Gate—are not far behind. As you drive through these cities you may see single-family housing, but in fact there are multiple families living in these homes, and the garages are all converted as living quarters, whether legally or not.Read more
You may remember that Move LA’s Boulevards of Equity and Opportunity Zoomposium in July was largely about the shortage of housing—especially affordable housing—in LA County and the City of LA, which prompted us to investigate the possibility of building housing along the county’s 2,100 miles of commercial boulevards.
We are particularly interested in the construction of housing in mixed-use, mixed-income development, along boulevards that are well-served by transit—as most commercial boulevards are—and can be improved with street trees and urban greening, made safe for walking and biking, and provide jobs and neighborhood services without displacement of current residents and businesses.
This led us to stage a very well-attended Zoom call with a dozen speakers and an audience of 600, and we have been posting the transcripts because each speaker addressed the issue from a different perspective. (You can listen to the discussions here—or view the transcripts on the blog on our website.)
Below are remarks by City of LA Director of Planning Vince Bertoni, who has worked on developing affordable housing near transit in the city, primarily through an innovative program called the Transit-Oriented Communities Incentive Program. This relatively new program encourages developers to build more housing units near bus and rail lines, and provides incentives (increases in height and density, for example, and reductions in parking) if the development includes affordable housing.
Vince expressed concerns about the potential for displacement, and the importance of involving communities in visioning and planning activities:
“We have been discussing the viability of planning for housing along LA’s many commercial boulevards. It’s important we keep in mind that planning is fundamentally about communities and people. As Metro CEO Phil Washington said earlier, building infrastructure and roads has often done great harm to communities—we must acknowledge the history of zoning as it relates to systemic racism and injustice.Read more