Traffic: Rodney Dangerfield in Sacramento

Why does transportation get so little respect in Sacramento? That's the question Rong-Gong Lin II and Jeffrey L. Rabin of The Times ask after agencies lost $1.3 billion in the state budget. It's not the first time, they report:

"In the last six years, the governor and state lawmakers have tapped the per-gallon gas tax and the separate sales tax on gasoline to balance the budget. These cuts are obvious to anyone who drives or takes mass transit. For many years, congestion has been growing much faster than road construction."

So why? Here's one possible answer:

"The bond measure was clearly seen as a message from the electorate that they wanted to see transportation improvements," said Brian Taylor, head of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UCLA. But faced with potential cuts to prisons, healthcare and schools, taking the budget knife to road programs can often seem the least harmful, at least in the short term, he said. "For example, if you're planning on widening a freeway . . . [but] you don't fund it this year," Taylor said, the freeway will still function, "albeit more slowly."

Comments

[yours truly, Johnny Dollar]

Cathy: "what if, what if what if, what if...."
1) What if...you change jobs
2) What if...you change schools
3) What if...you change husbands (47% of California women have).
4) What if....

[russell]

LA is considered a source of riches not only by politicians who continuously mine it for donations and tax revenue, but also for financial institutions and big corporations. People here need to realize the vast wealth generated by the area is being pumped out of here faster than Sac and DC can spend it. We need local institutions like good government and banks to stem the bleeding. Wake up people, this city looks like it is on the verge of collapse not because people don’t work hard or there is not enough money. This city is a feedlot and sharecroppers plot for all manner of greedy people. We need to start looking out for No. 1. We are never going to get the funds we need waiting for it to come back from Sac or DC, among other things.

[Cathy]

This idea of moving near your work is unrealistic. What if you are married and your husband works in the Valley and you work downtown? What if you buy a house and then lose one job and take another, farther away? What if you are trying to improve your lot in life and working all day and then going to school at night in a different area of town? My husband tried to take the bus to school, but the buses don't run very often late at night, so itwas impossible. We need a network of public transportation, 24/7.

[yours truly, Johnny Dollar]

Greg, you have "growth" confused with "illegal population."
You're ignoring the new Mexican national anthem: 'Oh give me land
lots of land under starry skies above;"DON'T FENCE ME OUT."

[Dan W.]

We want low crime, good schools, great health care and traffic improvements all with no funding. Guess that's why they say we live in LALAland. Can't wait till next year.

--------------

This is the great lie of the conservative movement – that a society can have low taxes, strong defense/fire/police protection, effective social services and solid public infrastructure. Reagan and both Bushes ran up HUGE deficits, even when their allies controlled Congress because of their slavish belief in this “something-for-nothing” brand of conservatism. Who wouldn’t want to believe in something-for-nothing?

However, liberals are to blame to in that they aren’t willing to challenge this fallacy, and they put other spending priorities ahead of infrastructure.

We can also blame the system for having term limits – the wrong solution to the wrong problem -- which motivates politicians to think of their next office and winning short-term instant gratification for constituents instead of any long-term planning or legislative legacy.

Infrastructure gets the short shift because there isn’t enough of a motivated constituency for it. People complain about the lack of transportation alternatives, but they don’t follow it up with action. If taxes are raised or education is cut or social security is tampered with, people come out of the woodwork and make politicians feel the heat. With infrastructure, it is too easy to just shrug one’s shoulders. Usually it takes a crisis or infrastructure to get built. Remember how quick the I-10 Freeway was built after the 1994 earthquake? It was built ahead of schedule and in budget. Imagine that same state of urgency applied to our public transportation infrastructure.

When we don’t invest in infrastructure we end up with tragedies like the levies breaking in New Orleans.

So in order for transportation projects to get funded we have to make politicians feel the heat. Transportation is cut in the federal and state budget all to often because the leaders negotiating the budget believe they can get away with cutting it in favor of something else. When the citizens show that this is a passionate issue for them, as much as other issues, the politicians will notice.

So don’t just write blogs here, write your federal, state, and local officials, and get involved with your MTA Service Sector organization. Join a transit advocacy group and pools your resources. I really like the aims and goals of the Southern California Transit Advocates and The Transit Coalition. Remember, the one reason why the BRU gets listened to, despite their idiotic ideology and ridiculous bus-only approach to mass transit is that their supporters are passionate and make themselves known. This is how Mayor Villaraigosa went from advocating a “Subway to the Sea” when he took office to calling for “less rail and more buses” on camera during the recent MTA fare increase debate.

We have to stand up to single-occupancy motorists who are clinging to L.A.’s past and to myopic bus-only advocates willing to sacrifice L.A.’s environmental and economic future for their narrow aims and general inertia. But we can make ourselves known.

Don’t just get mad, get organized. Even if all we did is write one letter a day to an elected official or even one a week, it would make a big impact. Hard letters are generally taken more seriously than e-mails.

Good luck!

[Robb Briggs]

One way to raise money could be to charge tolls on rural freeways... like I-5 through the central valley, or I-15 north of Victorville. A $10 toll on automobiles (more for trucks and trailers, which cause more road wear) could raise hundreds of millions of dollars per year for those specific roads or for the transportation budget in general. Relative to the cost of the gas required to get between LA and the either Bay Area or Las Vegas, $10 is just a small fraction. And it's not like those freeways are traveled on a daily basis by very many people; the net impact on individuals should be minor.

I drive to the Bay Area perhaps 4 times a year; I wouldn't mind paying $80 if it was earmarked toward adding an additional lane on I-5, funding High Speed Rail, or other worthy transportation projects.

[Ken Alpern]

Both parties, for different reasons, treat transportation as an afterthought and as the lowest priority to be addressed in this state. I remain optimistic, though, that as the problem continues to worsen, this issue will continue to weigh large in the minds of voters, and will have to be addressed by anyone willing to be elected or reelected.

[Greg]

I would love to see a California politician seriously consider his or her legacy as seen in the light of 30 years hence, rather than just covering their butt until election time. Of course, this would require the impossible - an electorate that thinks in a longterm time frame as well. I'm judging from the amazing amount of Nimbys and BRU types who are actually opposed to expanding our meager rail transportation network - for a city of 4 million and definitely growing.....

[Cathy]

Well, what about a moratorium on development then, until we can fund the infrastructure?
No, that won't happen because there are people getting rich at the expense of those who have to live in the mess. I didn't realize how bad it has gotten until I started running south from Hollywood down to Wilshire. All the homes replaced by really crappy cheap apt. buildings that will probably collapse in the next earthquake. Cars parked in every available space, including lawns. And the roads look exactly like they looked 30 years ago. Don't know if I should give up my apt. and buy a Hummer and live in it, or go to Afghanistan and learn how to make IED's.(Not seriously, for those literal-minded types)

[Cathy]

Well, what about a moratorium on development then, until we can fund the infrastructure?
No, that won't happen because there are people getting rich at the expense of those who have to live in the mess. I didn't realize how bad it has gotten until I started running south from Hollywood down to Wilshire. All the homes replaced by really crappy cheap apt. buildings that will probably collapse in the next earthquake. Cars parked in every available space, including lawns. And the roads look exactly like they looked 30 years ago. Don't know if I should give up my apt. and buy a Hummer and live in it, or go to Afghanistan and learn how to make IED's.(Not seriously, for those literal-minded types)

[if it walks like a duck and if it sounds like a duck,]

Sacramento is telling the driving public, this perceived traffic problem will solve itself when people move closer to their work or work closer to where they live. And Sacramento can continue to reduce road funding.
It's a win win situation; little Janey and little Johnny's parents may even be home at a decent hour to parent their latch-key curtain climbers of an evening; and, their parents may even get to have breakfast with them before everyone heads out the door...parents to their work-place which now may be, oh say, 5-or-less miles away; and little Janey and little Johnny may go to their K-12 public Day-Care Centers (aka: LAUSD holding facilities).

[sam i am]

We want low crime, good schools, great health care and traffic improvements all with no funding. Guess that's why they say we live in LALAland. Can't wait till next year.

[David in Tarzana]

I thought when Arnold ran for Gov. that he said he would only touch the per gallon gas tax his first year and after that it was off-limits. Am I remembering this correctly?

[m]

...so that begs the question, what would have to happen for the transportation to get so out of hand that it becomes a higher priority or at least enough of a priority to get all of the money initially intended for it? Is it once people flee from the cities/state since they are so angry and frustration that there is no longer tax/gas money coming in? Is it once people can't even get to their jobs because the streets and traffic are so clogged with traffic that it takes more time than people have? Is it only once people start having so many health problems and dying that the state is losing more money by ignoring transportation than it would to fix transportation? Is it only once there is a mandate from the federal government for greener transportation standards? Are they only waiting for a major earthquake or some other natural disaster to destory everything currently in place and making it unusable? Is there nothing?