Getting the MTA to Fund Bike and Ped Projects
-
If you've been following local transportation news, you know that the MTA is planning on asking voters in LA County for an additional 1/2 cent sales tax increase to fund transportation. Unfortunately, all of the projects they have on the drawing board are for highway expansion and transit lines construction - and NOTHING for bicycle projects or pedestrian amenities or improvements.
So, Damien Newton, the dude who runs StreetsblogLA, is organizing bicycle and pedestrian advocates to request that the MTA add bicycle and pedestrian project funding to their plans for the 1/2 cent sales tax increase.
If the MTA doesn't include projects for these modes, the logic goes, then we (the bike and ped advocates) will organize against the sales tax increase.
Considering that the sales tax will bring in several BILLION dollars, and that to build a Citywide Bike Network in L.A. costs only $60 million - we're likely only going to be asking for 1% to 2% of the total revenue to go to our modal categories by right. In San Francisco, bike and ped projects get 10% of a recent transportation ballot initiative.
In Portland, they don't build any more car facilities with their money - only maintain what they have while expandin bike, ped, and transit facilities.
Anyway, here is what Damien has been sending around:
Dear Metro Boardmember,
As currently proposed, Metro's plan to spend the $40 billion that would be created by a half cent increase in the county sales tax includes no funds set aside specifically for bicycle and pedestrian projects. This is a critical mistake, both from political and public planning perspectives. Given recent headlines, it is impossible to argue that the county is meeting cyclists' needs and after all, anyone that uses public transportation is a pedestrian at the beginning and end of their trip.
By not funding two popular and sustainable modes of transportation, Metro is unwittingly alienating people who would likely support both the proposed increase and many of the projects the increase would fund. To fix this problem, we propose setting aside 1% of the annual intake to fund bicycle projects and another 1% to fund pedestrian projects from the windfall that will be achieved by increasing the sales tax.
The case for better funding for pedestrian projects is an easy one to make. No matter one's preferred mode of transportation, for part of every trip the traveler spends some time as a pedestrian. People who walk to and from transit stops deserve wide, flat, unbroken sidewalks and attractive and comfortable shelter at the stops. People who only travel by foot are engaging in the most sustainable form of transportation and should be encouraged by their government officials to continue to do so.
Tens of thousands of LA residents travel everyday on their bikes, and many of them aren't doing it by choice, but because of economic reasons. While the law states that cyclists have equal rights to the road, the reality is they are not treated as equals by their fellow travelers. To not set aside funding for bicycles in a $40 billion budget just affirms what so many people erroneously believe, that bicyclists are second class users of our roads and should not be treated with the same respect as an automobile. Of course, the state of the bike networks in LA County varies wildly depending upon what municipality you happen to be in. Setting aside money for everyone to compete for would create an incentive for all municipalities to put forward deserving and well thought out bike project proposals.
At Metro's June Board Meeting, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa compared those interest groups fighting for a favorite project to people fighting over who gets the biggest cookie. Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky used the same analogy for pies. Taking their imagery to its logical conclusion, those fighting for better funding for bicycles and pedestrians aren't even allowed in the kitchen. Instead, we're being told to wait at the kid's table to battle it out for the leftover crumbs, i.e. the 20% of the budget called "Local Return" funds that filter back to individual communities to be spent as they wish. With just 2% of the total budget, you would not only send the message that non-motorized travel is critical to Los Angeles County's future, you also help create a future where cyclists and pedestrians have a safer and more enjoyable way to travel.
Sincerely,
Colin Bogart, Enci Box, Stephen Box, Josef Bray-Ali, Jason Burns, Liz Elliott, Rob Galbraith, Aimee Gilchrist, Siel Ju, Jennifer Klausner, Erik Knutzen, Dorothy Le, Jessica Meaney, Ron Milam, Deborah Murphy, Damien Newton, Ingrid Peterson, David Pulsipher, Shay Sanchez, Alex Thompson -
If anyone has read the Mission statement lately.... we should be all over this as an organization. I suggest that we ask to be includes as the Bike Oven, that we should promote this with flyers in the shop.... Bike advocacy is an important part of what we are about. We should reflect and promote that.
-
I agree, this is exactly the kind of issue that calls for action. I'd be a little surprised if voters approve a tax increase for much of anything at this point in time, but I don't think that means this isn't valuable. Everyone with a pet project screams for money. I suspect a big issue for them is finding ways to get the public behind the initiative. I think the message to MTA should be that:
- bikes should be included as part of any comprehensive transportation plan for several reasons, etc, etc.
- if bikes are, the cycling community will actively advocate for the initiative
- if bikes aren't, they'll actively work against it.
Even if this doesn't pass, it helps build the idea of cyclists as an interest group that needs to be considered when planning the PR campaign for this type of thing. If they don't address the bike community and it does fail, they'll grow to fear our awesome wrath... ;) -
We should be all over the MTA for allocating more of the EXISTING funds not just the added $$ if the tax increase even passes. I was at the Pasadena Sierra Madre Villa station the other day - seems about 2,000 spaces for car parking and about 10 spots for bike parking. They just finished a big parking structure at Filmore staion. I'll check that one out for bike parking. bet the ratio is about the same. Del Mar does have a designated room with about 20 spots for bikes
As someone else pointed out , there is a good chance that a tax increase probably won't pass if this economic climate is the same when the vote is taken ,so we should not link our bike revenue hopes to the 'added funds' as they may not materialize. We should be going after a bigger piece of the existing pie - although I don't know how one goes about it.........any suggestions??? -
The MTA handed out 1.2 billion dollars last year for "Local Returns" projects in the County.
L.A. got $100 million to build a grade separation in El Sereno where Valley Blvd. crosses the freight car tracks. All of our bike projects got denied, except where they widened roads.
You see, the MTA screens the Local Returns projects using car-only standards. If those standards could be changed, then a lot more money from that $1 billion+ pile of money could go to things other than car projects.
The standards are written in the "Call For Projects" funding guidelines, and the whole funding process is run through an wing of the MTA run by a woman named Carol Inge. Her wing of the MTA is named "Countywide Planning and Development".
The people who do the technical reviews of the projects work in a sub-department named "Transportation Development and Implementation" (or TDI). The TDI people are technocrats who judge projects based on the standards given to them.
I'm not sure yet who sets those guidelines, but I'm pretty sure that the MTA board could have them changed if they wanted to.
The change that would really hep bikes might look like this:Bicycle and pedestrian projects may occupy the right of way, and may be allowed to reduce the Level of Service, Average Daily Trips, and "mobility" on that portion of right of way they occupy if the local agency can show that the following criteria will be met after the project is completed:- automobiles will drive less than the speed limit in the improved area
- fatalities and injuries from vehicle on bike, and vehicle on pedestrian, crashes will be measurably reduced
- If located in a commercial business district - retail foot traffic and sales tax income will be increased
- Livability, as measured by a survey administered in a 300' radius from the improvement, will be improved (where livability is an index of social cohesion, general happiness, feelings of safety, a large "home" area for individual residents, and a general match of roadway users with census data).
All the onus to prove these things is on the local entities applying for funds - and the MTA staff can judge using these criteria before allowing Level Of Service, Average Daily Trips, etc. to be degraded. (LOS, ADT and other measures are car-centric roadway performance measures).
This amendment of MTA policy would be BETTER than a locked-in 1% - because it could be more lucrative and would allow for more sweeping changes in the way bicycle and pedestrian projects are discussed in policy making circles. -
Okay, if you want to do something easy, here is a suggestion from the LACBC:
LACBC: Write the Mayor for More Bike-Ped. Funds
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!