DOT Livability Program

Senator questions whether DOT livability program will hurt financial support for roads

For the second time this year, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., has questioned DOT Secretary Ray LaHood about whether spending money on sustainable community issues with impact financial support for highways. (The Trucker file photo)

The Trucker News Services

5/7/2010

WASHINGTON — The ranking minority member of the Senate transportation appropriations subcommittee for a second time expressed concerns during a hearing Thursday that money channeled toward sustainability initiatives undercuts financial support for highways and might "reflect a view that we want to get rid of auto transportation."

During questioning by Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood defended the $527 million requested in the Obama administration's Fiscal Year 2011 budget for livability efforts at U.S. DOT, according to the Weekly Transportation Report issued by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

LaHood was appearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and Urban Development along with HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan.

The two were testifying about the Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities.

LaHood said highways are not being shortchanged.

"We have a state-of-the-art interstate system in America; we have very good roads," he said. "At DOT, we have an obligation to maintain our roads, to make sure they're fixed up, and in places in the country where they need capacity, we're for that. The idea we're giving up on our road program or don't care about highways is nonsense."

LaHood also underscored, however, the widespread frustration with traffic congestion and how many people want transportation alternatives.

He discussed the importance of meeting transportation needs not with a "one size fits all" approach but rather through understanding the unique priorities and preferences of communities nationwide.

Efforts to create multimodal transportation systems in those communities, he acknowledged, "have to come from the ground up" and enjoy popular support.

Helping Americans gain better access to more transportation options, lowering travel costs, and providing affordable housing are also goals of the partnership.

LaHood cited his agency's efforts to help state and local governments leverage investments in transportation infrastructure to advance sustainable development.

"As I have traveled around the country soliciting input on our surface transportation reauthorization, I heard resounding support for our livability initiative," LaHood told senators. "The feedback has been clear: It's time to rethink how we are investing in our nation's communities."

Bond and LaHood first exchange comments about the administration livability efforts during a hearing before Senate Environment and Public Works Committee during a discussion of a new transportation bill.

“What’s livability?” Bond asked LaHood.

“Communities where people have access to many different forms of transportation and affordable housing and the ability to really have access to all of the things that are important to them, whether it’s a grocery store, drug store access. … These are communities and neighborhoods where people want to live where they have access to all the things that they want,” the secretary responded.

Bond argued livability issues would focus on cities, at the expense of rural areas and pondered whether it was the federal government’s responsibility to build such livability features as sidewalks.

"I've got a lot of constituents for whom livability means having a decent highway," Bond said. "They've got to drive between one town and another town."

Link to story

Congestion Pricing and the Environment

There was some hoopla about the recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal claiming that congestion pricing would actually increase emissions by making driving easier. As a cyclist first, transit user second, and pedestrian third, I'm all for giving these modes advantages over driving, but increasing and/or ignoring congestion is not the way to do that. As the only person qualified to judge the value of my time, I want there to be a driving system priced appropriately that gets me where I need to go when I'm in a rush and willing to pay. Some people will always drive, but if the economics are right, that will be much less common. Giving me the freedom to choose which appropriately-priced mode of transportation I consume for any given trip is no different than any other market. I don't expect chocolate volcano lava cake for the price of grocery store ice cream and I don't expect to cruise through the heart of a major urban area at 55 mph for the price of, well, free. And as a primary user of alternative modes, making driving harder does not make my life easier. If the cost of driving is included in its price, consumers can make informed choices about their travel. It would be nice if bicycle, transit, and pedestrian infrastructure received even a fraction of the attention that our roads get.

As for the actual merits of the WSJ piece, I'll leave it to Streetsblog to point out that every city that has tried congestion pricing saw a reduction in congestion and emissions, while improving the travel times of all modes. It's amazing what good economics will do.

More Streetsblog commentary that is right on point.

Crashes: What's the Cost to Society?

Today AAA released a report (click here to read) detailing the cost of crashes to American society. The study reported that crashes cost American society 164.2 billion dollars a year, more than 2.5x than the cost of congestion, which is $67.2 billion.

In Southern California alone the cost of crashes is estimated to be 11 billion while the cost of congestion is 9.3 billion.

The report proves that there is a cause to be concerned about traffic safety and the emphasis that needs to be put on the issue for congress and the upcoming presidential race.

The report is over 56 pages long, and state newspapers everywhere are reporting about the impact traffic crashes have on their states or cities.

Obama's Transportation Plan

Street heat recently posted the link for President Obama's transportation plan.

You can directly download his transportation plan here.

His plan emphasizes government funding to increase transportation security, Amtrack lines and bicycle and pedestrian traffic. While the idea is nice he also wants to increase rail mass transit options and reduce or eliminate congestion in small to medium cities.

I think Obama needs to read Brian Taylor's Rethinking Congestion paper. I would think medium cities would most likely want controlled congestion rather that less congestion.

Also, Obama's desire to rebuild the walkable city by emphasizing bicycles would be new. After looking at the Bogata BRT system, however, one would think emphasizing a BRT program would make more sense with bicycles.

While Obama's plan has some shortcomings, the emphasis on having citizens use bikes and walking as modes of transportation is refreshing to hear, and a victory for Smart Growth advocates.

RTKL, LA Live, and Parking PODCAST

Listen Here

Yesterday the developers of LA Live, RTKL design firm came to USC and spoke about LA Live. They spoke briefly about the parking situation and how they will widen the roads to increase pedestrian traffic.


Click here to listen or download it

It's pretty long, but there are some worthwhile things to hear and listen too.

Congestion Pricing in New York

Click here for the Congestion Pricing

The Queens Gazette reported on a recent meeting for the Community Board 2 meeting in Queens, NY where two different citizen expressed their viewpoints on Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan.

The plan would reduce vehicle miles traveled by 6.1 percent and an estimated 38.6 percent reduction in the most congested areas.

61% of the citizens at this meeting approve of this plan and 36% would approve the plan even if the money does not go towards improving mass transit.

Other residents at the meeting expressed different opinions about congestion pricing calling it a regressive tax using the London model where the prices have increased by 150% since the programs founding. They also claim that the majority of the congestion comes from taxis and limos therefore they suggest an alternative method to relieve congestion by specifically targeting those vehicles.

Mayor Orders Implementation of Pico-Olympic Plan Despite Opposition

As posted today in the LA Times, Mayor Villaraigosa has ordered transportation officials to implement "mostly" one-way traffic flows on Pico and Olympic Boulevards. This is achieved by removing one parking lane during rush hour in the designated direction as well as adding new striping. Area residents, councilmembers and other officials have expressed concerns over how pedestrian-unfriendly the design is, and several councilmembers have threatened to remove their districts from the proposal. At this point, Villaraigosa is calling for implementation without consulting city planners. Ouch.

Some choice quotations from the article:

It's unfortunate that the planning department is not going to be engaged. Planning and transportation should be joined at the hip. . . . You just don't bowl over the community like that. You have to appreciate who's there. It's disrespectful to my constituents, and it's an insult to my constituents.

-Bill Rosendahl

We were promised answers to our questions. We have not gotten those answers. There has been no meaningful input, and now the plan is happening anyway.

-Mike Eveloff, President of Tract 7260

So what do I think? First of all, I firmly believe that any action taken on Pico/Olympic should first involve input by transportation planners. There is no excuse for this to be railroaded to the point that councilmembers are wanting to bail out.

Secondly, the distance between Pico and Olympic in many parts of the route raise concerns on the viability of these two streets to be a legitimate freeway-alternate corridor. Residents on side streets most likely will see an influx of cut-through traffic.

Thirdly, the elimination of streetside parking to accomodate more auto traffic just demonstrates Los Angeles' lack of cohesion. Some parts of the city government have pedestrian-friendly initiatives, but Mayor Villaraigosa seems content to further the auto-centric status quo.

Finally, I think this plan is that it is a stinker and will lead to far more problems than it solves. Improving the signal timing or using lane control to add a reversible lane down the center are all much better alternatives than eliminating parking to create a virtual freeway. Business will drop on Olympic and Pico, but unlike the merchant in the article, I don't think it will be because of a lack of street parking, but rather because no one wants to walk alongside a virtual freeway.


More importantly, what do YOU think?

£25 SUV Congestion Charge

London Mayor Ken Livingstone will be passing a plan to charge £25 for cars that emits 225g per km of CO2 when entering congestion zones. Cars that emit less than 120g per km will be omitted and cars in between will be charged £8 for entering.

Two questions, where will the money collected from these funds go and how will delivery businesses respond?

Also, if Bloomberg successfully added a congestion zone in NYC do you think a fee like this would eventually be added as well?

To read the full article click here

Los Angeles ranks exactly ranks in the middle for Sustainability

The GoingGreenDC blog recently posted an article showing a list of sustainable cities as reviewed by SustainLane.com

Sustainlane, is an independent online media company that offers peer reviews, where you can quickly find over 20,000 green products and great local businesses.

They recently listed the 50 most sustainable cities in the US and Los Angeles ranked at 25. Right in the middle of the pack. For all the details click here.

While they praise Los Angeles' SustainLA program, their study showed that we ranked 49 overall for metro congestion. On the bright side, LA was ranked 8th overall for mass transit.

Overall, an interesting read for anyone curious about how much progress Los Angeles has made the past few years.