Fighting to protect transportation funding

California officials are counting on Washington to inject billions of dollars in transportation money to help revive the state economy. But a public advocacy group said the state’s wish list of projects would undermine efforts to repair and modernize the state’s crumbling infrastructure and reduce U.S. dependence on oil.

The California Public Interest Research Group reports the state plans to spend 31% of road money on creating new capacity instead of addressing long-deferred maintenance and repair projects. By contrast, the group said, Massachusetts would commit 100% of its road funds to repairs.

"We can’t afford to waste precious resources on new highways at the expense of ready-to-go projects to repair and maintain existing roads and bridges and expand public transportation," said Erin Steva, a spokeswoman for CALPIRG.

The group also faulted Caltrans’ list, saying 37% of the funds would flow to public transportation. CALPIRG called for a higher percentage, noting the record ridership on California’s mass transit systems, which have been hit by severe cutbacks in recent years.

This proposed percentage is less than in Tennessee, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, CALPIRG said.

Caltrans spokesman Benjamin DeLanty defended the list, saying it was an initial response to a request from members of Congress for possible projects and may change as federal legislation and state needs evolve.

"We note that the list provided included a fairly even distribution among capital, maintenance and mass transportation projects," DeLanty said. "However, that list continues to be a work-in-progress and is not definitive."

-- Patrick McGreevy

Photo: Los Angeles Times

Comments

[alex]

Where and how this money is spent will greatly shape the future of California. As San Francisco has already learned, adding rail to a congested city does not improve the congestion. It just leads to more building and more density. Now the residents of that city are being forced to consider congestion pricing as a way to deal with the over development of the center city.

The location of our future transportation projects (both freeway and rail) will determine the location of future real estate development to a great extent. Developers (whose contributions fund much of our local politician's political campaigns) always want to build in the locations with the greatest profit potential and the least risk. For Los Angeles (because of the Expo Line, the Wilshire Subway, et al) it means we're going to get even more skyscraping condominiums and office buildings on the Westside and Downtown where traffic congestion is going to get far, far worse.

What this city needs is a regional transportation plan that realizes that the major benefit of freeway and rail projects is increased real estate development and to redirect our transportation projects into areas where local leaders want them because of the economic benefits. We also need to stop conning the public that rail projects improve traffic congestion. The residents of San Francisco (and New York and London et al.) have had to learn that's not true the hard way. Finally, let's stop letting the profit motive of real estate tycoons determine the future of Los Angeles and make policies that actually benefit the residents of our city.