How to Win a Ballot Measure Campaign

We were very pleased this summer to be identified as a major player, in the Eno Center for Transportation's laudatory account of the 2016 Measure M campaign—along with LA Mayor Eric Garcetti and LA Metro. That win—with 71.15% of the vote—on a measure now providing $120 billion (mostly for transit) in LA County on a ballot that included three other successful funding measures (for community colleges, parks and homeless housing and services) was remarkable. Voters suddenly seemed very willing to tax themselves to help solve the county's real needs.

The non-profit Eno Center is a progressive transportation think tank in Washington D.C. that has been publishing analyses of transportation ballot measures in the recognition that new transportation funding sources are necessary. The reason? Federal gas tax revenues, long the biggest source of transportation funding, have been declining as the fuel efficiency of cars increases. The Eno Center sees LA County's ballot measures as an example for other counties.

The Eno report, a joint effort with the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and written by UCLA Professor Michael Manville, noted that “Measure M is a classic example of coalition politics. Much of the work surrounding the measure involved building an alliance to support it. This took place long before voters even saw the proposal . . . Measure M’s success began with a coalition representing almost every geographic area and large stakeholder.”

And, the Eno Center noted, not only did Move LA play the role of coalition-convener in the 2016 campaign but had done the same in 2008 when Measure R won with just 66.7% of the vote, a victory no less remarkable than Measure M, however, as the Great Recession was crashing down all around us. (Yes, that's Move LA's Executive Director Denny Zane to the right in both R and M photos above.)

The Measure R win also prompted a study by the Dukakis Urban & Regional Policy Center at Northeastern University, written by the center’s Associate Director Stephanie Pollack—now Secretary of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. This study discussed Denny's role in initiating the campaign at a summit he organized in early January 2008, after which he convened a powerful business-labor-environmentalist coalition to support the idea.

Wrote Pollack, “A charismatic leader can get the ball rolling and help overcome adversity. While the circumstances in 2007 clearly were ripe for a transportation finance campaign, someone had to convene the stakeholders. It is fair to say that without Zane there would not have been a Measure R campaign. Zane’s ability to bring people together and his willingness to take a risk kick-started this effort and likely carried it through.”

Move LA Policy and Communications Director Gloria Ohland was invited to Oakland last month to share the Measure R and M lessons with Bay Area transportation leaders and advocates who are considering a measure for their 2020 ballot. She talked about the importance of building multi-constituency coalitions and finding common ground—and how that is best done face-to-face, one conversation at a time. We believe that is the most important lesson!

We will soon share our coalition-building plans around the issues of affordable housing, clean air, climate change, regional high-velocity express rail, zero-emission technologies and the imminent need to address short-lived climate pollutants (also called super pollutants)—and hope you will join us. Stay tuned!


Metro Bus Ridership Decline a By-Product of our Affordable Housing Crisis

Since last month at the Metro Board meeting on its budget, where we testified that Metro needs to budget for expanding bus service, several news outlets have called Move LA to ask us why we believe bus transit ridership continues to fall in Los Angeles County.  

Our answer:  since Metro’s primary ridership base is the low-income members of our community, declining bus ridership and rising homelessness have the same fundamental cause – the loss of a large share of Los Angeles’ County’s affordable housing stock, not to bulldozers, but to rent increases and eviction notices. 

Increasingly, very-low and low income people and families are no longer able to afford to live here.  Many leave the county for more affordable communities to our east or communities in other states;  some end up on the streets among the growing ranks of our homeless population. 

In any case a large share of Metro’s very-low and low income transit rider base have left and are no longer riding transit.

We began to unearth this trend last year when we looked at demographic data we asked for and received from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).  

Since 2005, Los Angeles County has experienced two dominant trends: a dramatic increase in households with six-figure incomes and a concurrent and dramatic loss in very-low and low income households.

The Changing Demographics of LA County: 2005-2015

Source: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)

Changes in composition of LA County Households by Income

2005-2015

Increase in # 
of households

% Increase

Growth in Households in LA County 
with incomes over $100 K/yr. 

+ 311,107

+ 49.7%

Decline in Households in LA County 
with incomes under $ 30 K/yr. 

- 168,189

- 16.6%

The growth of over 300,000 high-income households in LA County is huge – more than a 50% increase over a decade from about 600,000 in 2005 to over 900,000 in 2015.  This growth continues today and is changing LA County in fundamental ways.

We believe this sudden and very large increase in our high-income workforce, primarily in high-tech industries, has created pressures on housing costs across the county, both for-sale and rental housing, driving up rents, gentrifying neighborhoods and displacing many low-income residents.

The Silicon Valley came to LA in the early 2000s to couple-up with Hollywood and beget the Silicon Beach (and spread inland). Early tech migrants Yahoo! and Google each bought major properties in Santa Monica and Venice in 2005-6 bringing the first wave of what would soon be 300,000 new highly paid employees (most from out of town). We had no idea the transformation they would bring. 

The residents of Queens saw the future better than we.  When they heard that Amazon was coming and bringing 25,000 highly paid jobs, they figured the jobs weren’t meant for them and the new highly-paid workforce would likely drive up housing costs, gentrify their community, and drive many of them out. So, they resisted.  Amazon backed out of the deal.  

Imagine if they faced an influx of not 25,000 new highly paid residents but 300,000 like us– it would be like lighting a demographic fuse that would blow away our low-income residents.

Many displaced low-income residents have moved out of town; some may have become homeless. Many members of the displaced households were likely transit riders. Thus, between 2005-2015, LA Metro lost nearly 17% of the population that provided its ridership base, largely due to rising housing costs. This loss of low-income households has continued and probably now exceeds 20% since 2005.

It is no surprise then that, in addition to riders lost in the aftermath of fare increases and service cuts in 2010 and 2014, Metro transit ridership declined another 17% after 2015.

It’s not just LA County.  In 2018, Beacon Economics in a report done for Next 10 said that essentially the same process was underway in urban areas throughout California.

We have been sharing this information with key leaders--at Metro, SCAG, and at our Annual Transportation Conversation. The news media took note and Elijah Chiland wrote an article for Curbed LA that supported our conclusion with further data. And then we were interviewed for KNX 1070 News Radio, the largest news radio outlet in Los Angeles, about the decline in ridership caused by demographic shifts and housing costs and what Metro can do today to invest in our current ridership and not just our future.

We believe that the Metro Board has been incredibly ambitious with its “28 by ‘28” proposal to complete 28 major capital projects by 2028 when the Olympics. This is ambition we encourage, with one caveat: we want Metro to add one more ambitious plan: We should rebuild our transit ridership back to 2008 levels by 2028. 

We believe there are cost-effective, proven strategies that include significant bus service enhancements, real fare reductions, universal student transit pass programs available to all college students in the county, and additional access for services to seniors and people with disabilities. 

Further, Metro should prioritize (like Barcelona, Spain has done) developing a significant network of Bus Rapid Transit lines on boulevards throughout the county.  There is already funding in Measure M for this and we believe it would be an excellent use of that measure’s new transit operations dollars.

Joe Linton of Streetsblog LA outlined our concerns with the FY 2019-20 Metro Budget and our recommendations for expenditures in this detailed story.

We've outlined our asks to the Metro Board and would like to get your support. Can you sign onto this letter endorsing our recommendations today and we will share it with the Metro Board? 

Oh, and what is our approach to the affordable housing crisis?  More on that next time.

 


Just Transit: Piloting Access to Universal Student Transit Passes for High School Students in LA

Move LA has been making the case for unlimited and universal student transit passes for almost five years now because we believe that free and discounted transit pass program will increase declining transit ridership in LA County and improve access to economic and educational opportunities while at the same time reduce the driving, traffic, GHG emissions, the need for students to own a care and the cost of getting an education.

This belief is based on good, analytic data showing that access to transit for students can have a whole range of other benefits:

  • A 2012 study by Safe Routes to School National Partnership estimated that 20-30% of morning traffic could be generated by parents driving their children to school;
  • A 2015 study by Harvard University found access to transportation is the single biggest factor in the odds of escaping poverty and avoiding homelessness;
  • A 2016 University of Minnesota study found that their student transit pass program resulted in lower estimated annual emissions of 93% for nitrogen oxide, 89% for particulate matter, and 59% for CO2, compared to the previous yellow bus program. In addition, annual reductions were estimated at 18,304 trips and 158,400 vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) from replacing yellow buses and 2,038,784 VMT from personal vehicles.
  • Alameda County's pilot program, which has been running since 2015, is providing bus and BART transit passes to high school students; 14% of students reported missing fewer days of school than they did during the prior year and involvement in non-school-based afterschool activities and after-school jobs increased dramatically (by 77% and 238% respectively) for student participants.
  • study by the LA County Department of Public Health found that securing free transit passes for all students from preschool to college could lead to: 1) families saving $750,000 per year in fines for fare evasion and $2.5 million per year on student transit passes, 2) students receiving more instructional time, 3) schools receiving an additional $125,000 each year for every 1% decrease in unexcused absences, and 4) fewer vehicle emissions resulting in healthier families and communities.
  • And studies conducted by Dr. Donald Shoup (2001) on student transit pass programs show that these programs reduce the cost of attending college by up to $2,000 and Dr. Nuworsoo (2004) show that deep discount group pass programs are useful instruments for increasing transit revenue and ridership.

A number of major cities like Paris, Chicago, and Seattle are currently researching or expanding their transit pass programs for students; our partners at Investing in Place wrote a great article about those programs as well as the current programs being offered in Los Angeles County.

Big Announcements Last Week On Student Passes

Last week, Los Angeles took a major step in providing unlimited and universal student transit passes to students in the LA Unified School District and the LA Community College District. In partnership with SLATE-Z and the LA Promise Fund, LA Metro began distribution of U-Pass TAP stickers to the rising Junior class at Manual Arts High School in South Los Angeles. These stickers go directly on students' IDs and can be used on all Metro buses and trains as well as 10 other municipal bus systems. This is the first-of-its-kind program where high school students will receive passes at a group rate. This pilot program is being funded by a grant from the 11th Hour Project after our organizations won a Just Transit grant. 

We will be tracking the outcomes of this program with the goal of sharing the results with the LAUSD and Metro Boards to make the case that expanding this program to more high school students can improve school attendance, increase involvement in extracurricular activities, and decrease vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution.

Also happening this week, Mayor Eric Garcetti, Councilmembers Mike Bonin and Paul Krekorian, and LACCD Board President Mike Fong announced that LADOT's DASH Bus Service would be FREE for LAUSD and LACCD students with a Metro student discount TAP card. This is funded through an existing stream of $$ coming from Caltrans HQ for low carbon transit programs, a program that Move LA advocated to fund through California's cap-and-trade auction proceeds.

Move LA was quoted in both Streetsblog LA and Curbed LA on this exciting development but what piqued our interest the most was when Mayor Eric Garcetti speculated that "maybe Metro will be next.” We hope that we will soon see Metro take similar action, laying the foundation for transit ridership resurgence which we believe should be the 29th project in Metro’s plan for the 2028 Olympics. In fact, all municipal and county transit operators should leverage these existing state funds to subsidize student transit passes as an effective policy for ridership and transit access, and we will continue to encourage State and local leaders to invest in these types of programs.


Vision 2020: Addressing Regional Environmental Challenges

MLA_2019_V2020_Sky_Blog.jpg

The coming decade looms large for anyone who has been at the frontlines of fighting climate change and air pollution. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report concluded we have just 12 years to reduce global emissions or the consequences could be irreversible. 

Our politicians have shown the leadership that can help get us there: Governor Jerry Brown set a goal of deploying 5 million ZEVs by 2030; Governor Gavin Newsom wants to dump diesel by 2030; LA Mayor Garcetti and Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia set a goal of zero emissions at the ports by 2035. And by 2031 the South Coast Air District must meet federal standards for air quality or face certain penalties and loss of funding. 

All of this will take major public investments in incentives and infrastructure—and that’s where voters come in! We can dump diesel, improve air quality, and conquer climate change if we can match the State of California’s investment in clean transportation.

We need to drive clean transportation technologies like zero-emission vehicles to the marketplace faster and at scale—light, medium and heavy-duty vehicles! Simply put, we need to get to economies of scale quickly in order to make ZEVs cheaper than their gasoline and diesel counterparts. Then the marketplace itself can take over.

We also need to drive near-zero emission heavy-duty trucks to the marketplace because we must dump diesel now—it’s toxic to our neighbors, especially in the frontline communities near freeways and ports. While zero-emission trucks are the goal, it may take a long time to develop the technology that allows these trucks to travel across the country, and even longer to install charging infrastructure that will take them where they need to go. This is why we believe near-zero heavy-duty trucks are part of the solution.

There is an advantage to near-zero in the short term because we must also capture and use short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), which are 100 times more powerful than CO2. They also decay more quickly, but only after the damage is done. Near-zero trucks can be fueled by biomethane, one of the major SCLPs—80% of which is produced by dairies and cattle ranches, landfills and waste-water plants.

Regulating heavy-duty trucks to make them comply with California’s climate goals isn’t an option, because they are regulated by the federal government, not states or localities.

Addressing these concerns requires major investments, and we need to make big progress in a decade. We learned when passing Measures R and M for transit that we can raise serious money at the ballot box to help achieve seemingly impossible goals—these measures together are raising $120 billion over 40 years for transportation, 70% of that for transit.

The State of California is already investing big bucks in the fight against climate change. Now we need to double down on that investment at the local level. And we know how to do this because we have done it before.

So what if we could vote to end climate change? Would you?

Is it Time for Move SoCal?

Read more

Our Vision 2020 Priorities for a New Ballot Measure

MLA_2019_Photos_Blog.jpg

1) Attain federal clean air standards with full implementation of the Mobile Source Plan of the 2016 AQMP:
Diesel emissions are the most pressing challenge to air quality in Southern California by far. Diesel emissions are a toxic air contaminant, second only to smoking as a cause for cancer. Disadvantaged communities near freeways are especially burdened. The 2016 AQMP relies on incentives to accelerate deployment of zero- and near-zero-emission heavy-duty trucks and equipment at a cost of over $1 billion/year. This scale of effort can only be funded by a regional ballot measure.

2) Address climate change head-on:
California is leading the way in the fight to conquer climate change. Our progress in replacing fossil fuel power with clean renewables has been so great that our #1 priority now should be reducing GHGs from the transportation sector, still the biggest source of GHGs. The economies of scale for manufacturers could yield significantly reduced costs for car buyers around the world—and make a big difference in the effort to conquer climate change. We plan to urge inclusion of very significant funds to accelerate deployment of zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles and charging facilities.

3) Modernize and electrify Metrolink, Southern California’s regional commuter rail system: 
Modernizing our 530-mile, 5-county regional commuter rail system is a golden opportunity to create high-capacity, high-efficiency, higher-speed, zero-emission electric regional transit linking the region’s core communities. Double-tracking and modernizing the system and providing the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (which operates Metrolink) with funding for reliable, frequent and more affordable service will build ridership and address climate change head on.

4) County transportation commission local return program:
We should include significant funds for investments in clean local transit systems and the expansion of active transportation in each of the Air District's 4 counties. The measure would fund each county transportation commission and respect the authority of each to establish their own transit project priorities, specifically referencing each county’s Long Range Transportation Plan.

Read more

We Could Vote to Create High-Velocity Regional Transit!

HighVelocity3.jpg

Move LA proposes placing a regional ballot measure before voters in the South Coast Air District in 2020—which includes nearly all of 4 counties—to fund the transformation of our existing regional Metrolink commuter rail system into a high-velocity regional transit system.

It will require major investments to electrify the 530-mile Metrolink system, and to double-track—even triple-track—wherever needed to significantly enhance service and enable all-day express service on one or more lines, and to connect to regional airports like Ontario Airport.

To accomplish this we propose a regional half-cent sales tax measure, which can also fund implementation of the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, ensuring we finally meet federal clean air standards and achieve major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
To succeed Move LA needs to identify and come together with regional partners to create a new regional coalition, which we hope to call Move SoCal—if our partners agree!



Challenges in the Aftermath of Measures R & M

MLA_2019_yingyang_Blog.jpg

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

Think back to 2006. Worsening traffic congestion in LA County was on everyone's mind, and all over the media.

In response, a local coalition convened by Move LA worked to convince LA Metro and LA Mayor Villaraigosa to give voters an opportunity to invest in a dramatic enhancement of the county's transit systems, a ballot measure that won approval with 67.9% of the vote. LA Metro under Mayor Garcetti's leadership returned to the ballot in November 2016 with Measure M, which also extended Measure R. Voters said Yes by 71.1%, providing LA Metro with $120 billion over the next 40 years.

During this same period downtown Los Angeles has undergone a remarkable revival, recreating a real urban core for the region. And the digital and high-tech industries have seen opportunity to expand to LA.

Is LA on a roll?

Maybe. Maybe not.

New industries arrive and create prosperity for some. Yet a housing affordability crisis has ensued and created displacement, uncertainty and homelessness. Many of the people who are working full-time cannot afford to make rent. More than 50,000 people are living on the streets in LA County. Traffic congestion has not ebbed, and transit ridership is way down, despite voter support for solutions.

Is this a Tale of Two Counties?

Challenge #1
Transit ridership falls because of fare increases and service cuts: Job losses during the Great Recession combined with fare increases and service cuts lead to an 11% transit ridership decline from 2010-2015.

Challenge #2
Transit ridership continues to fall because of rising housing costs: New industries bring new high-income residents. LA County housing costs rise. Gentrification, displacement and an increase in homelessness follow.

Challenge #3
Regional and global transportation-related challenges reach the tipping point: Air pollution, climate change and traffic congestion threaten regional health and prosperity.

Read more

Searching for Solutions: Expanding LA County's Transit Ridership in the Near Term

The decline in LA County transit ridership has prompted many theories about the reasons why—from Lyft and Uber to cheaper gas prices to an increase in car ownership among new immigrants. We, however, have a different take on why ridership has declined, and explain our rationale HERE, with numbers to back up our POV. But as importantly, we have some ideas about how we can rebuild ridership while also serving populations that would really benefit from more, better service.

Read more

Make Riding Transit Free & Charge Drivers for Driving? Intriguing...

Phil-Riding-Subway_Blog.jpg

When Phil Washington, CEO of the LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority,  asked that we “Re-Imagine Los Angeles”—as his proposal to the Metro Board last December is now called—he linked the possibility of introducing congestion pricing with making transit free and more frequent in LA County.

While the idea of drivers having to pay to drive in some places at some times may alarm more than some Angelenos, the idea that the revenue could be used to make transit free and frequent is intriguing, to say the least. It  suggests maybe we can eradicate congestion without waiting for land use changes (more housing near jobs and transit, etc.) to get us there, and fix Metro’s declining ridership. This has never been tried in the U.S.

Congestion pricing was originally proposed in response to a request from Metro’s Board of Directors that CEO Washington find a way to pay for the acceleration of 8 of the 28 projects the board wants completed before the 2028 Olympics, at a cost of $26.2 billion. The other 20 projects were already scheduled for completion by 2028.

But concerns have been expressed about both congestion pricing and completing 28 projects by 2028, in part because pricing could hit low-income drivers hard. Metro and its boardmembers have all committed to prioritizing equity should congestion pricing be implemented, though how that will be done has not been decided.

Free and frequent transit—and an expanded bus system—could be an antidote, with attendant benefits including reduced GHG emissions, and relief from the public health burden on residents who live near heavily trafficked freeways as well as the public safety threat to pedestrians and bicyclists.

The interest expressed by the LA Times and by Metro’s Board of Directors, with caveats of course, indicates that free and more frequent transit might be the sugar that could make the medicine of congestion pricing go down. The Metro Board voted last week to move forward with a 12-24 month study.

Move LA spoke with CEO Washington on Feb. 12. These are some of the things he said in the interview:

“It’s mind-blowing to think about what congestion pricing could allow us to do. The sky would be the limit. It’s not a money grab. We also have to think also of the environmental and public health benefits. I simply do not see a downside to saying yes to congestion pricing.”

“A lot of people have expressed concerns about the equity impacts, and yes I wholeheartedly support making equity the front and center issue. But it’s very important that people understand there’s nothing equitable about the current transportation system. Cars are very expensive to own and operate. And it’s black and brown low-income people who breathe in the most emissions from freeways. Moreover, low-income people work 2 or sometimes 3 jobs to make ends meet, and traffic congestion makes that very difficult.”

“I am convinced the best way to get rid of traffic congestion is through congestion pricing. Only a few cities in the world have tried it. When London began congestion pricing it was opposed by 70% of the people. Now that it’s been in place for several years 80% support it.”

“This really is an opportunity to change the way we live in Los Angeles. The revenue stream could be large enough—depending on the type of congestion pricing and how widely we employ it—that it could also fund free transit. And it would guide drivers—and employers—toward the right decisions about when to get on the road.”

“Reducing congestion is part of our mission as a transit agency. This strategy can make it possible for us to achieve our mission. But the other half of the congestion equation is providing the transit alternative. Which we are able to do because of Measure M.”

“It’s clear that this plan to move forward has to be phased in, beginning with a study and then a pilot project. Because I fully believe that—as in London—the pilot will be so successful that people will want more.” 

“Once congestion pricing is implemented the next step will be to increase transit options and make transit free. Together with congestion pricing this will help make biking and walking safer and reduce air pollutions and GHG emissions—which might be considered unintended but critically important benefits as well as an inheritance to leave for our children. We have built the greatest transportation infrastructure in the world, which helped make our nation great, but we have not continued to update and take care of it.”

“Free transit would also start with a pilot. Maybe it could begin with seniors and people with disabilities. Maybe we could provide free transit for community college students. We did make transit free on election day last November and during the teachers’ strike, and in the past we have made it free on Earth Day. Each time we netted a ridership increase of about 6-7%. Transportation is the 2nd highest household expenditure after the rent or mortgage. So making transit free would have a real impact.”

“At Metro we have been thinking about congestion pricing for a long time—we recommended an exploration in our Strategic Vision Plan, approved by the board last year. It’s one reason I created the Office of Extraordinary Innovation, and they will write the scope for a feasibility study. If the board says ‘Go’ on February 28—and the board has been, for the most part, supportive—we’ll start exploring the options, which could yield between $12 billion and as much as $104 billion over a decade, depending on what kind of congestion pricing, how much it costs, and how widely it is deployed.”

“We are the most populous county in America, we own the most vehicles, and we are innovative—no other agency has partnered with the private sector on microtransit and partnerships such as the one we’ve just begun with Getaround, a car-sharing program to help people get to and from 37 stations. We’re making scooters part of our first-last-mile strategy. And we are committed to setting standards including a guaranteed 20-minute ride from downtown LA to LAX. We are committed to stepping into a big leadership void in transportation when it comes to congestion. It is our mission.”

 

 

 

 

 



Donate Volunteer Find an Event

connect

get updates