Report
of Briefing on the Southern California Regional Transportation Plan
June
14, 1999
Presented
by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
in
association with the Southern California Council on Environment and Development
(SCCED) and the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP)
Executive
Summary
The
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a 20 year, $84 billion plan to improve
transportation for the 16 million people in Southern California (Los Angeles,
Orange, Ventura, San Bernadino, Riverside, and Imperial Counties). Work is
underway to prepare the next plan revision for approval in 2001. Now is the
time for initial public input into the planning process. A summary of the
current 1998 plan and upcoming planning meeting schedules are available at
www.scag.ca.gov
or by calling (213) 236-1868 (Nancy Cobb).
Hasan
Ikhrata
,
SCAG Manager for Transportation Planning and Analysis, stated that in 2020 we
project 6 million more people in the region. All these additional people will
cause congestion and air pollution. So SCAG tries to do a mix of projects to
meet the needs of various people, including expanded highway capacity, high
occupancy HOV lanes, toll roads, rail, smart shuttles, transit corridors with
exclusive busways, truck lanes, etc. But these are all constrained by our
budget limitations.
The
50 participants at the June 14 Forum (see list) represented a wide variety of interests,
including state assemblymembers, city councilmembers, government agencies,
transit advocates, bicycle and pedestrian enthusiasts, and business. They
raised concerns that Maglev is an unproven technology, that high speed rail
will increase sprawl, that expanded highways will encourage more driving, and
that smart shuttles are not expanding service but are duplicating bus routes.
They supported more livable communities, bikeways, pedestrian facilities, rail,
buses, smart shuttles, long range planning, high speed rail to connect
airports, HOV lanes, smart growth land use patterns, fareless transit system,
and many others. Several people stressed the need for people to show up at all
the RTP task forces and committee meetings and make our voices heard.
Mr.
Ikhrata responded that the SCAG leadership needs to hear the public's concerns.
He said that the SCAG plan should meet everyone's needs.
Kathleen
Gildred
said that SCCED could coordinate further participation and input into the
planning process. Please forward your ideas and concerns to
Jim
Stewart
(Email:
sccedmail@aol.com
Phone: 310-281-8534 Fax: 310-362-8400).
Following
sumaries of the introductory presentations are summaries of the verbal
comments, plus the complete comments that were submitted in writing or by
email. Also available is a list of the monthly task force meeting schedules and a
response form. If you email this form with your comments to
sccedmail@aol.com
or fax to 310-362-8400, we will forward it to the appropriate person at SCAG
and follow-up to ensure it is received.
Introductory
Presentations
Kim
Stanford
,
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Community Outreach
Officer: The purpose of this meeting is to let people know about the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and how to have input into the next revision of the
Plan which will be adopted in April 2001. We are looking for your verbal input
at this meeting and on the survey forum which can be mailed or faxed in later.
(See form at the end of this report.)
The
RTP plan amendment process involves 12 task forces and 3 policy committees and
the SCAG Regional Council. Hasan Ikhrata is the key staff person responsible
for the RTP.
Kathleen
Gildred
,
Executive Director, Southern California Council on Environment and Development
(SCCED): SCAG is mandated by the Federal government to do public involvement
in the transportation planning process. SCCED has been working for the past
three years to encourage public participation in transportation planning. I
am also chair of the SCAG Regional Advisory Council (RAC) whose purpose is to
involve representatives of the public in all aspects of SCAG planning. SCCED
also promotes preservation of open space.
Gloria
Ohland
,
Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) Southern California Director: I
am glad SCAG is serious about transportation outreach, we need more people with
varying interests involved. The new RTP needs to be different, because our
congestion is increasing, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita is doubling,
and our air quality is still the worst in the nation.
Currently
we have 200 miles of rail operating in L.A. County, which provides us
opportunities for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) at each station. The
subway (which is a great mode of transportation) costs $300 million per mile,
but the Blue Line from Long Beach to downtown was only $100 million/mile.
STPP
just released a study on driving by women. We found that mothers spend more
than one hour/day in their car, more than their husbands.
At
present, there is not a single solution to our transportation challenges, other
than changes in land use, so people don't have to drive all over the place to
work, shop and go to school. If we had livable communities, a person could
come home from work on Friday night, park the car, and not use it again until
Monday morning because all shopping and recreation needs would be within
walking distance.
People
are beginning to make the transportation-land use connection. Of the 240 local
smart growth ballot measures last year, 72% of them won, including one in
Ventura County.
SCAG
Video
:
"Keys to the Future" Southern California is home to over 15 million people
now, and by 2020 it will grow by 7 million more. SCAG is the long range
planning agency for six counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, San Bernadino,
Riverside, and Imperial Counties), which are divided into 14 subregional
councils. SCAG is responsible for planning regional roads, airports, bus,
rail, ports, growth forecasts, rideshare programs, etc.
It
is governed by a Regional Council of 71 local elected officials from the
counties and municipalities. The new chair is Zev Yaroslavsky, L.A. County
Supervisor.
Stay
informed, get involved, send us an email, or contact our Speakers Bureau to get
a speaker for your group. We all hold the key to Southern California's future.
Hasan
Ikhrata
,
Manager for Transportation Planning and Analysis: We have found there is no
easy fix to transportation problems. We only can do small solutions and hope
they work. The 1998 RTP left unresolved a number of issues and we want to
resolve them in the next plan. No transportation project can get any Federal
money unless it is in the RTP.
In
2020 we project 7 million more people (and most of the time we have
underestimated growth) and 4 million more employees in the region. Given this
data, we can outline the transportation requirements for the next 20 years.
All these additional people will cause congestion. The problem is where people
live compared to where they work. For example, 18% more people will live in
Western Riverside County (WRCOG), but only 12% more jobs will be there. So
they need to get to Orange County where more jobs are. The problem is the only
route is the 91 freeway, which now has an average speed of 10 mph during peak
periods and will get much worse, as will most of the other freeways by 2020.
Why
can't we have people live where the jobs are? Because land use decisions are
made by local cities. We need more resources to provide livable communities,
where people can have affordable housing near their jobs.
We
don't have enough bus and rail services. Relative to aviation, should we
expand LAX to 100 million passengers per year or expand the other airports?
How are people going to get to the airports?
How
are we going to move all the additional freight? Tonnages will nearly double
by 2020.
How
are we going to achieve air quality conformity? The USEPA requires a daily
reduction of 15 tons of the reactive organic gases that form ozone (ROG) and 15
tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) as well as meeting the particulate (PM10)
standards. Actually, to really breath clean air, we should do much more than
just meet the federal minimum standards.
So
we try to do a mix of projects to meet the needs of various people: We propose
expanded highway capacity, high speed rail (up to 300 mph), high occupancy HOV
lanes, toll roads, smart shuttles (with computers to respond to demand),
transit corridors with exclusive busways, etc.
Magnetic
levitation high speed rail (Maglev) will be able to get you from LAX to
Palmdale or Victorville in 25 minutes (compared to 3 hours driving at peak
hours). We project it will cost $13.2 billion at $45 million/mile and carry
600,000 average daily trips. It will be a public private partnership in which
the public will provide the right of way (mainly on the freeways) and private
enterprise will build and operate it.
The
RTP is constrained by performance standards including mobility, air quality,
and available finances. If we implement what is outlined in the plan,
congestion will be reduced, but we need to ensure that resources are available.
The RTP expenditures of $82 billion have only $23 billion in new projects, the
other $59 billion complete projects under way and maintain existing highway and
transit systems.
We
are planning exclusive truck lanes on the 605, 60 and 710. We want to close
the gaps in the HOV system, and the 710. We plan to double deck the 91 and 71
freeways. We will increase Metrolink services, and establish 9 exclusive
busways in L.A. County.
Verbal
Questions and Comments on the RTP
Audience:
What percent is spent on transit and what on highways?
Ikhrata:
70% for transit, 30% for highways.
Audience:
You should drop Maglev. Germany canceled its Maglev and is doing standard
high speed rail. UK is not doing Maglev but TGV-compatible rail, which is used
in France.
Ikhrata:
The Federal government has a specific funding opportunity available for Maglev
of $1 billion. The Federal government has awarded California $6 million for a
feasibility study. We are not saying Maglev is better than TGV, but let's do a
study first.
Audience:
How can we do a strategy like we did during the Olympics when traffic was not
congested? How can we accommodate the physically disabled? I can only walk a
half block, so I can't use Union Station. How will smart shuttles help the
disabled? Do we have a pilot project?
Ikhrata:
During the Olympics, people cooperated for a short time, employers gave their
employees flexible schedules. Trucks unloaded at night.
The
smart shuttles should be able to go anywhere to help the disabled. We have six
pilots, two in the San Fernando Valley, two in the San Gabriel Valley, one in
Pomona.
Audience:
Bicycles are a solution.
Ikhrata:
We propose livable communities strategies to make our communities accessible to
pedestrians and bikes. This plan took credit for 2.5% of local commuters to go
to work by walking or bikes, but we did not have enough funding to support
enough bikeways. MTA is planning to spend $260 million on bikeways. We are
working at the state and national level to encourage legislation to increase
the non-motorized transportation mode split.
Audience:
Why not stop the sprawl and increase densities where people live now? Stop
developing agricultural land and encouraging longer and longer commutes.
Ikhrata:
SCAG does not have the authority to influence land use, SCAG only can do
transportation planning. I agree with you, but 10 or 15 years ago the SCAG
plan focused on pushing the jobs-housing balance and it almost broke SCAG apart.
Audience:
Increased highway capacity encourages driving.
Ikhrata:
We reduce congestion by increasing highway capacity.
Audience:
The problem is local officials are elected by developer contributions.
Audience:
The truckers said goods deliveries during the Olympics were easy, but the
problem is merchants don't want to stay up 24 hours to get truck deliveries all
night long.
Audience:
The problem about high speed rail is that it will increase sprawl. We need to
concentrate on making our cities livable and have bikeways, etc.
Ikhrata:
The SCAG leadership needs to hear this. We need a plan that will meet
everyone's needs. We are looking at the long term impact of livable
communities.
Audience:
You need to look at BART, there is more sprawl around each station.
Audience:
The National Park Service wants the transportation system to be able to get
people to the beaches and mountains.
Ikhrata:
The smart shuttle network could serve recreation needs. We have identified
180 different centers across the region that need transit services.
Audience:
The use of bikes could increase if you had bike racks on all buses, shuttles
and trains.
Audience:
With buses and car pools, you can carry the traffic of 2 or 3 regular lanes in
the space of one HOV lane.
Ikhrata:
The problem is there are bills trying to take away the HOV lanes. Some HOV
lanes are not fully utilized, some are doing very well.
Audience:
Most buses weigh 32,000 pounds and use too much fuel. I have a bus that
weighs 22,000 pounds and also seats 32 people. You could drop off the rear
section when there are fewer riders. The problem is many buses are 80% empty
much of the time. We need electric buses to reduce air pollution.
Ikhrata:
We found 20% of the bus lines carry 60% of the ridership. The other 80% of
the lines carry 40%. We need transit restructuring to increase the efficiency
of buses. We could use smart shuttles to carry small loads.
Audience:
The Southern California Federation of Scientists wants true long rang planning
out to 80 years.
We
could connect LAX and Palmdale with high speed rail so they would appear to the
passenger as one airport, you just get on one train to go to the terminal for
Flight A (which happens to be at LAX) and another one to get to the terminal
for Flight B (which happens to be at Palmdale).
We
also need planning for a fareless transit system to get people out of cars.
To
reduce air pollution we need to use electricity, such as electric busses and
shuttles. Use golf cart-type vehicles available by credit cards to get from
transit terminals to jobs.
Audience:
I watch the empty smart shuttles. They are duplicating bus service, not
dropping people off at their homes. The West San Fernando Valley shuttle is
duplicating bus service, but it is called "successful."
Audience:
SCAG said the shuttles should be used for low-performing bus routes, but the
shuttles are running up and down major thoroughfares. The shuttle pilot
numbers are useless.
Ikhrata:
I agree that there is a lack of coordination between the pilot projects and
the transit corridors, I agree you should not duplicate service. The shuttle
cost should be below the fixed bus service cost for a low ridership line.
Audience:
The problem is the unions do not want to divert transit funding to taxi
companies.
Audience:
The shuttles are now costing $10 per rider, but it's subsidized.
Audience:
What are the selection criteria for rail grade crossing and busways?
Ikhrata:
The grade separations are for the baseline routes, and for the Alameda corridor.
Audience:
Land use planning is working in Oregon, Ventura County, San Diego, etc. SCAG
needs to use different performance indicators. If we focus on providing
highways to reduce long distance commute times, more people will drive.
Ikhrata:
The RTP TAC is working on that.
Audience:
The Smart Shuttles are very helpful for CSUN students and faculty to get to
the Metrolink system. The Northridge bus stops running before evening classes
are over, but we can use the shuttles.
Ikhrata:
We need to give Smart Shuttles a chance to work.
Audience:
We want Smart Shuttles to be implemented as was envisioned.
Audience:
What are the plans for the additional funds from TEA21 that need to be used
for livable communities?
Ikhrata:
Livable communities is in the plan, but we did not have enough resources.
With the additional $4 billion Federal funding from TEA21, we will have more
for livable communities.
Audience:
Metrolink is carrying 50,000 riders a day. Why not lower the fare structure?
Ikhrata:
Where will the money come from?
Audience:
Use the additional money for bikeways, linkages to light rail.
Audience:
We need more projects for pedestrians, especially around transit stations.
Ikhrata:
What is the best way to go? How can we increase non-motorized trips without
getting into regulating land use? We have an opportunity to increase funding
for livable communities.
We
really need to do all of this. We need people like to you to add your voices
to the plan. You need to come to the SCAG Regional Council. The issues you
are raising today are what they need to hear.
There
are resources to do more, but you need to accommodate growth. We need a mix of
modes available to make our lives easier.
Audience:
The majority of trips are short trips. We need to focus on them, not the long
ones. Your projections show $13 billion for high speed rail carrying 600,000
people per day. But if bikes carry 1% of the trips, that is 3 million trips
per day, with an expenditure of only $350 million.
Ikhrata:
The $13 billion is assumed to be privately financed. Lockheed-Martin said
they would put up the money.
Audience:
You need to include bus priority lanes on all major arterials.
Ikhrata:
We do plan exclusive bus lanes on some routes.
Audience:
What about taking $300 million away from the subway and put that into
education to stabilize the population?
Ikhrata:
It would be hard to do that.
Audience:
What about using high speed rail to get to airports?
Ikhrata:
If a high speed rail system were available, more people would fly from Palmdale.
Audience:
What about the induced demand of a high speed rail system? Will you need
acres of parking lots?
Ikhrata:
We assume people use Smart Shuttles to get to the train stations.
Audience:
What about the noise of high speed rail?
Ikhrata:
The routes will be on the freeways so there will be minimum impact.
Sanford:
Thank you. I will provide the information from this meeting to the chairs of
the Task Forces and the Transportation and Communications Committee (TCC). You
can use me as a liaison with SCAG. My number is 213-236-1844. In the next 3
months, contact Al Fuentes at 213-236-1800.
Ohland:
This is an important plan and we need to make our voices heard.
Audience:
We can make an impact during the public comment period in every meeting. You
only get three minutes, but 10 people coordinated in a community effort talking
for 30 minutes could make a difference. We need to show up at all these RTP
task forces and committee meetings and make our voices heard.
Jim
Stewart
,
SCCED: The new chair of the SCAG TCC Dave Meyers is helpful. I will talk with
him. I serve on the RTP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Finance
Committee. I am also heading up an effort on non-motorized transportation.
We
want to develop a transportation and land use coalition. Talk with me more
about this. My number is 310-281-8534. We have a website at
www.scced.org
and we could develop an Internet chat room with different topics. Send an
email to
sccedmail@aol.com
to get on our email list.
Written
Comments
:
The
following comments were received in writing, either at the meeting or by email.
Dan
Gutierrez
,
L.A. County Bicycle Coalition:
Most
important transportation issues affecting me:
*
Arterial and collector roads county-wide that have narrow curb lanes make
cycling difficult. My commute to work by bicycle would be much better if all
of the arterials and collectors had wide curb lanes and/or Class II bike lanes.
This can be done during resurfacing at very low to zero cost!!
*
Cities and counties within the SCAG region should be required to have Bike
Master Plans and Bike Advisory Committees.
*
Metro rail trains (Red, Blue, Green & Metrolink) should have bike cars that
allow bicyclists to use the trains at ALL times, especially during the work
commute time window. Bike-Rail-Bike should be an easy and guaranteed
multi-modal option for bicyclists traveling long distances.
*
SCAG should "encourage" the L.A. County MTA to accurately count bike trips and
proportionally fund bicycle projects to create a dense Class II bike lane
network.
*
No mention was made by Ikhrata of non-automobile, non-rail multi-modal trips,
such as bike-rail-bike, pedestrian-rail-pedestrian, etc. Integrating
non-motorized transit with light rail will help reduce automobile trips.
Non-motorized trips are the only clean way to alleviate the pollution we have
in L.A. County.
David
Sundstrom
,
City of Long Beach Strategic Plan:
Most
important transportation issues affecting me:
A.
Increasing truck impact on 710 Freeway, diesel exhaust and particulate fallout
from relentless expansion of Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach.
B.
Fear of massive expansion of Long Beach Airport over the next 20 years (noise
and toxic fallout).
C.
High speed arterials bisecting neighborhoods (noise and "barrier effect").
My
suggestions:
*
Reduce demand for transportation by RE-PRICING it. As a society, we need to
more carefully measure the FULL COST of all transportation decisions.
*
We need to assign a cost to congestion, pollution and destruction of our
neighborhoods.
*
Increase gasoline taxes
*
Increase user fees.
*
Make industry mitigate its impacts.
Shel
Plotkin
,
Southern California Federation of Scientists (SCFS):
Most
important transportation issues affecting me:
*
No significant public transit and what there is is inconvenient.
My
suggestions:
1.
Establish true long range plans (70-80 years) with monthly task force meetings.
2.
Include "one airport" option in scenarios for LAX and other airport expansion
plans, including cargo and passengers.
3.
Begin planing for a fare-less public transit system to maximize utilization.
4.
Increase use of electricity as the energy source, because this is the only way
to ever achieve zero pollution, starting with electric buses.
Sam
Guyan
,
League of Women Voters, Whittier-L.A. County, Southern California Environmental
Action Committee:
Most
important transportation issues affecting me:
*
Heavy vehicular traffic crowding bicycle lanes.
My
suggestions:
*
Encourage and assist inter-community cooperation connecting bikes, bus, rail.
Rosa
Munoz
,
student, Cal-Poly Pomona University:
Most
important transportation issues affecting me:
*
Transportation options are not viable other than private vehicle.
*
Congestion is increasing.
My
suggestions:
*
Altadena to downtown Los Angeles commute should have better options.
*
What is the use of comparing the growth of this region to the City of Chicago?
I think it just alienates a lot of people (lower income especially) who have
never been to Chicago or have any connection to that City.
*
I would like more information on performance indicators which are the whole
basis of the RTP, especially the mobility indicators.
Hank
Furg
,
Southern California Transit Advocates:
Most
important transportation issues affecting me:
*
Land use - the current development is not conducive to walking and transit use.
*
Transit - complete the proposed expansion of transit service.
*
Slowness of public transit, with it not leveraging our freeway and rail system
appropriately.
My
suggestions:
*
In Pomona, complete Metrolink station.
*
Increase San Bernardino line service on Metrolink.
*
Livable community building in downtown Pomona area surrounding the current
historical district.
*
Improved inter-county transit connections, transfer-free routes between L.A.
and San Bernardino County.
My
Reaction to the presentation:
*
The presentation of high speed rail was interesting, it cleared up some
questions vs. what is stated in the newspapers, but it also introduced more
questions. Create a write-up of this proposal for examination.
*
I would like more information about transit restructuring and highway/freeway
construction proposals.
Ron
Milam
,
L.A. County Bicycle Coalition:
Most
important transportation issues affecting me:
*
Bicycling as a mode of transportation must be recognized by SCAG in the RTP.
SCAG needs to set higher goals for bicycling and seriously commit to funding a
safe and interconnected bicycle infrastructure network.
*
Livable communities - SCAG should work to make existing communities more
livable before we make it easier to live in outlying suburbs.
My
suggestions:
*
Establish a SCAG-wide bicycle infrastructure network with:
- interconnected bicycle lanes, paths and wide shoulders
- bike parking at businesses
- full bike access to all modes of transit
- encourage local cities to adopt bicycle master plans and bicycle advisory
committees
- 10% goal of trips made by bicycle
- significantly greater funding going to bicycle infrastructure each year, "A
billion for bikes!"
My
Reaction to the presentation:
*
Thank you for sponsoring this event. Even more people need to be involved with
all steps of the RTP process.
*
SCAG leadership needs to hear the concerns raised today.
*
I would have liked to see smaller break-out groups working with SCAG members,
one SCAG representative and 80 people is an inefficient use of all of our time.
*
We spent too much time on micro-issues.
*
I would like further information on bicycling and livable communities.
Pete
van Nuys
,
SCRAMTRACK:
My
suggestions:
*
Plan rail service into new communities, not the band-aid Metrolink approach of
new trains on old tracks.
*
Conventional rail is cheaper and competitive with auto commuting.
*
New rail alignments with all freeway improvements would make real sense.
*
Rebuild the AT&SF rail line into Pasadena.
*
Make new rail alignment in southern Orange County inland of San Clemente and
Mission Viejo.
*
Passenger rail stations should be built on arterials, away from freeways, not
compound freeway congestion by building next to freeways.
*
Replace old "Bikeway" signs with yellow triangle "Watch for Bikes" signs.
*
Separate right of way for bicycles is dangerous and incredibly expensive,
widening streets to accommodate bikes into the traffic mix will improve highway
use for all highway users. Separate "second class" bikeways have failed in
Europe and will fail here.
*
I would like further information on southern Orange County rail alignments.
*
I would like further information on southern Orange County human power commute
projects.
An
organization interested in a presentation on RTP is: DeRail the Trail.
Joanne
Kumamoto
,
Little Tokyo Business Association:
My
suggestions:
*
Consider transportation to other than work destinations, see Little Tokyo as a
destination point for education, tourism, shopping, professional services, etc.
*
Improve transportation in Downtown Los Angeles bounded by 1st Street, 3rd
Street, Los Angeles Street and Alameda Street.
*
I would like further information on community, economic and human development.
*
I would like further information on subregional coordinators' group.
Mary
Devine
,
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area:
Most
important transportation issues affecting me:
*
The congestion on Highway 101 and no relief until 2002 when the Santa Clara
River bridge is expanded.
My
suggestions:
*
We are interested in the recreational use of smart shuttles for access to areas
in the national recreation area. We would like to make our park a piece of
more livable communities. We feel this is attainable through public transit.
People will come in cars, they already do. Get people out of their cars or
provide transportation for those who don't own or want them.
My
reaction to the presentation:
*
Very informative.
*
We as an agency are most interested in the Smart Shuttles. I am interested in
the high speed rail and expansion of alternative transportation systems (bike,
bus, electric anything but not cars with gasoline).
Claire
Bowin
,
L.A. Walks:
Most
important transportation issues affecting me:
*
Lack of convenient places to walk/bike to food, jobs, recreation, etc.
My
Suggestions:
*
Increased density!! - to reduce the need for us to get in our cars to go
everywhere.
My
reaction to the presentation:
*
The lack of forethought in linking sprawl and low density to the increasing
traffic demand.
Kent
Strumpell
,
L.A. County Bicycle Coalition:
Great
meeting! I think we are off to a great start for a very constructive
dialogue about transportation and land use issues within SCAG. Here are some
of my comments:
1.
The goal of reaching 2.5% of trips by bicycle in 20 years is way below
what
we can expect to achieve. Bicycles account for 30% of all trips in the
Netherlands,
over 20% in Davis, CA and around 4% in the Bay Area. And, our
climate
and terrain are much better suited to biking than in most of these cities.
The
example of bicycles in Holland is also relevant when one considers that
their
high levels of transit ridership are something we aspire to. Bicycles
are
a major “feeder” to trains in the Netherlands: thousands of bikes
can be
seen
parked at nearly every train station in the country. Bicycles have the
ability
to be an ideal link in our multi-modal transit strategies, too,
between
home, station and destinations.
2.
The cost split Hasan quoted (70% for transit, 30% for highways) neglects a
fundamental component of highway expenses: automobiles. The figures
quoted neglect the maintenance costs of individual vehicles, not to mention the
capital investment in these cars. If these costs were factored in,
transit would be seen as much more cost-effective than highways.
We need to stop thinking about roads and freeways as standalone expenses:
for
users, they are inseparably connected economically to the expenses of the
vehicles
they own and maintain. So, when viable transit options reduce the
need
for high levels of private auto ownership, significant individual savings are
realized.
3.
The perennial lament of budget limitations is not a good enough reason to
curtail
our vision. Our transit problems are simply too big; their impact
will
be devastating to our region’s vitality, competitiveness and quality to
life.
Bottom line: we can no longer afford to continue subsidizing the
private
automobile. Motorists must start paying the true cost of the miles
they
drive. They and developers have been getting a free ride for too long,
which
has encouraged and abetted most of the transportation problems we are
now
saddled with. It is incumbent on SCAG, in concert with other levels of
government,
to shift an increasing portion of the responsibility of paying
for
solutions to those who have created the problems. Unless there are
disincentives
to our present behavior, coupled with better options, there
will
be no way to change the negative trends and projections outlined in the
RTP.
Ellen
Stern Harris
,
Fund for the Environment: Thanks for "validating" my parking. It is the best
incentive I can think of to get people to participate in public proceedings.
There were others there who, I believe, were equally deserving, if not more so.
One friend drove all the way from San Clemente, for example. Perhaps in
setting up future meetings, you could budget for parking validation for
non-governmental, non-corporate participants.
The
refreshments, as you enter, were a nice touch. And you definitely get the top
prize for the very best cookies obtainable. And, that's coming from a diabetic
who should not have even succumbed to a single crumb!
For
introductions, questions and answers, having a few functioning portable mikes
to hand around would be a big help. Meanwhile, I would appreciate your
e-mailing or faxing me a copy of the sign in sheets.
Because
the SCAG planner who made the presentation had not seen the introductory video,
we were subjected to much of the same information being repeated. Someone
should test out video equipment, before it will be needed. Taking up time, to
get the mechanics right, shows lack of consideration for others' time.
If
you could attend the L.A. County Commission on Disabilities tomorrow, in the
Hall of Administration, you would see the enormous value of assistive devices
at such meetings. I have been given a pair of earphones there which makes
everything said, or whispered, crystal clear without there being even a single
mike in the room. They also have a court reporter whose simultaneous typing
appears on a huge monitor. Hard of hearing people can follow along that way.
We
need to take into account that a large number of those who turn out to vote are
the elderly. Many of these people are the ones who still believe in public
participation and are willing to attend meetings. It must be possible for them
to hear what is being said, with clarity.
I
don't think it was just the mike which made comprehension so difficult
yesterday. I believe the accent of the planner was a significant barrier to
comprehension. The speaker may be the best qualified planner, but he is
definitely not the best qualified presenter. He could, working with a coach,
bring his speech skills up to a level where what he has to say could be
understood.
Regina
Taylor
:
The following website is excellent source for studies on all sorts of
transportation issues: www.islandnet.com/~litman Victoria Transport Policy
Institute (Todd Litman); email address is litman@islandnet.com
His
studies/papers available on the net include "Evaluating Traffic Calming
Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts", "Auto Dependency and Economic
Development" and many others.
Thanks
for the public forum yesterday and the staff who made it possible.
Terrie
Brady
:
I oppose the spending of transportation dollars on three elements of the plan:
First,
the truck lanes. They serve no local purpose and are a direct subsidy of large
corporations for the transport of their goods. There are much better uses of
transportation money.
Second,
tollways, HOVs and highway expansion plans. I don't know what an HOV is,
I
would appreciate being enlightened on this matter. However, I oppose tollways
and highway expansion. As you know, as an environmental advocate, every road
that bisects a region, is one more barrier for wildlife to cross. There are
already seemingly insurmountable obstacles to our wildlife in this region in
the form of the 101 and 118 freeways. We do not need more of these.
Third,
the high speed rail. High speed rail again is primarily for transporting goods
long distances. Since railways for this purpose as well as for transporting
people by train already exist, I fail to see the benefit to myself and my
community of this increased development of long distance rail.
I
have heard many arguments that are credible, on the other hand for reinstalling
the local rail lines which were removed in the 1940's. The local rail lines
would also decrease the congestion on the freeways which may be the reason
those have been proposed. I have also heard that the kind of rail that existed
in the 1940's could be built for most of the city for no more money than has
recently been spent on the subway that only runs a few miles. They also
polluted less.
I
support local economies and feel that transportation money should be more
heavily dedicated to the livable aspects of local communities. The pedestrian
and bicycle lane aspect of the plan sounds positive, however it does not seem
to be adequate to counteract these enormous and expensive failings of the plan
that I have listed above.
And
where else can I send these comments?
Patricia
Feiner Arkin
:
If
it's not too late to add a few comments for today's meeting, please allow me to
offer the enclosed, based on some of my own personal experiences as an
interested "civilian"-type citizen:
I
believe transportation planning and implementation as currently practiced by
SCAG, County Transportation Commissions and CalTrans, would benefit from
becoming more AUTHENTICALLY SENSITIVE to LOCAL CITIZENRIES and LOCAL LAND-USE
PLANNING and other local policy considerations (such as efforts to preserve
agriculture, open space and other unique identifying characteristics of
localities).
I
believe that, however well-intentioned, current transportation planning and
planners and the politicians and commissioners who advise and direct them are
in fact too much CAPTIVES OF THE BUILDING, DEVELOPMENT, AND TRUCKING INDUSTRIES
and are INSUFFICIENTLY MINDFUL OF THE INTERESTS OF LOCAL POPULATIONS. Ergo,
the continuing scourge of sprawl and the continuing annihilation of unique
localities and even of once-unique regions.
Therefore,
I think there should be:
1.
MORE, EARLIER, & WELL-NOTICED OUTREACH TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC made by
SCAG, et al., so that the interests of the general public, PARTICULARLY LOCAL
CITIZENRIES, and not just the building/development/suburban sprawl and trucking
industries, are better represented by the efforts of transportation
infrastructure builders.
2.
More sincere effort to focus on RAIL, particularly for transportation of
FREIGHT, rather than so much continued highway-building and highway-widening in
the continued, excessive, unfair taxpayer subsidy of the trucking industry in
preference to rail. AIR-QUALITY issues also play into this reasoning,
particularly in light of recent disclosures about the dangers of DIESEL fumes,
which certainly trucks emit in quantity. (Trains, too, but I'm sure they must
be far more energy and pollution efficient.)
3.
On the subject of undesirable SPRAWL and the role SCAG & other
transportation planners are playing in the furtherance of it, I suggest that it
is imperative that transportation planners begin to think about adjusting their
own mission-statements. It is time to STOP THE OVERT SUBSIDIZING OF
LONG-DISTANCE PERSONAL AUTOMOBILE COMMUTING through the ill-advised continued
building, extension, and widening of highways out into farmlands and open
spaces that lie outside of urban centers. Emphasis needs to be shifted to the
creation of more LIVABLE COMMUNITIES, where work, play, retail &
residential spaces are all better integrated.
Please
feel free to pass on these comments or pose them in the form of questions,
whatever might be helpful to the outcome of the meeting. Thank you.