Adrian Martinez's Blog: Living Sustainably

Mayor Villaraigosa, Let’s Promote Biking and Walking in Los Angeles

2010-05-01T03:27:53Z

LA Streetsblog today posted an article about Los Angeles’ Mayor Villaraigosa promoting more biking and walking. This is very smart thinking for the Mayor of the city that ranks highest on the list for ozone pollution, traffic congestion, and fuel wasted from congestion. We need to think hard about creating more viable, less-polluting transportation options in Los Angeles.

Conveniently, there is an upcoming opportunity to do something about it. The Department of Transportation recently released its second round of criteria for the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER). This program provides a unique opportunity for Los Angeles to find dollars for biking and walking projects.

For example, in the last round of TIGER grants, the Department of Transportation provided $23 million for the Philadelphia Area Pedestrian and Bike Network. The Department of Transportation provided the following description of the project—

The overall project will repair, reconstruct and improve 16.3 miles of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that will complete a 128-mile regional network in six counties around Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey. TIGER funds will be used to improve the primary commuter routes closest to downtown, in some of the communities hardest hit by the current economic downturn including Southwest Philadelphia and Camden, NJ. Non-motorized commuting options will connect residents in these areas to more prosperous communities that provide employment opportunities, including Philadelphia and Cherry Hill, NJ.

These are the types of projects we should be pushing in Los Angeles if we want to execute the Mayor's vision of more biking and walking. The guidelines for the next round of TIGER grants will use “Innovation” and “Partnership” as criteria. What is more innovative than pushing non-auto travel in the nation’s smoggiest city? Also, what about the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and the South Coast Air Quality Management District partnering together on a biking/walking project that promotes non-auto travel, fights obesity, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and reduces air pollution? I just hope our agencies in Los Angeles aren't afraid of the TIGER this time around.

California Tops the List for Filthy Air

2010-04-28T21:38:44Z

The American Lung Association released its most recent installment of State of the Air today. If trophies were awarded for securing top spots for filthy air, California would have a truck load of trophies coming our way. California secured 8 of the top 10 cities with ozone-polluted air. We have five of the top ten cities with year-round particulate pollution. Finally, we have seven of the top ten cities with short-term particulate pollution. This is quite an accomplishment, and this should serve as a call to action to our politicians in Washington D.C., Sacramento, and in cities throughout California that we need to do better. We cannot sit idly by as our friends, family members, and children are forced to breath polluted, unhealthy air.

While this California pollution epidemic poses severe health threats, it provides us an opportunity to rethink how we do things in the Golden State. There have already been significant efforts undertaken by the California Air Resources Board to adopt life-saving measures to reduce diesel pollution from trucks, construction equipment and ships. It is no surprise that all three of these landmark regulations have been attacked by industry lobbyists—to read more about the various obstructionists tactics used to stop these life-saving measures, go to these links: truck obstruction, construction obstruction, and ship obstruction.

Even with these measures, there is more work that needs to be done. For example, we need to continue to push cleaner vehicles and power sources. In Los Angeles, we need our decision-makers to stand up to the oil refineries to make sure they are adopting state of the art pollution controls. We also need to rethink how our transportation system works in our major urban areas. Instead of building road after road that will only exacerbate our chronic air pollution problems, continue our addiction to foreign oil, and drain our funding, we should support more efficient ways of transporting people. Finally, in places in the San Joaquin Valley, we need to make sure agricultural sources of pollution are reducing their fair share.

Beyond the public health and environmental justice concerns with our failure to meet clean air standards, we are facing big economic consequences. Dr. Jane Hall of California State University at Fullerton has determined that residents of the Los Angeles region are paying a hefty price for failing to meet federal clean air standards: $1,250 per person per year, according to a recent study she released. She estimated the cost of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley is $1,600 per person per year.

So, in the upcoming months as our California political leaders and voters are asked to weaken air pollution regulations, delay action in adopting strong measures to clean the air, or fund bad projects that will exacerbate our air pollution woes, we should stand up and say no. The American Lung Association's report confirms that California needs to continue its leadership with precedent setting efforts to push clean air technologies and strategies. California has achieved great strides in reducing pollution over the decades, but this report confirms that we have a lot more work to do.

Let’s Keep a Pork-Free 30/10 Initiative in Los Angeles

2010-04-22T18:22:16Z

My colleague, Damon Nagami, recently posted on the positive attributes of the 30/10 initiative that is being pursued by Mayor Villaraigosa in Los Angeles. This initiative seeks to jump start transit projects approved by Los Angeles voters through their approval of Measure R last fall. However, with many good transportation ideas, there are attempts to dilute them and continue Los Angeles’ obsession with roads.

The Los Angeles Streetsblog recently posted a quick article that asked whether the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“METRO” or “MTA”) will try to overload the 30/10 initiative, which should be designed to jump start transit funding with a bunch of highway projects. Today, METRO will decide whether to support 30/10, but there have been significant attempts to add some fine print by the METRO Board. The current language being pursued by METRO goes too far to appease the road building lobby and other business interests.

The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Coalition for Clean Air submitted a letter to METRO yesterday asking that it not advocate to load up the 30/10 initiative with a bunch of highway pork projects aimed at expanding our highway system. Beyond the dramatic air quality issues we face in Los Angeles, we have a climate change dilemma that requires significant action to reduce our dependence on roads. My colleague in D.C., Colin Peppard outlines the climate concern in a recent post on the National Journal Transportation expert blog—

Transportation was responsible for 27% of total US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2008. This makes transportation the nation’s second largest end-use emissions source—larger than any other nation’s economy-wide emissions, with the exception of China. Over the past two decades, transportation has also been the nation’s fastest growing GHG source, responsible for 47% of the net increase in emissions between 1990 and 2007. (Transportation also accounts for close to 70% of US oil consumption, but that’s for an energy security post.)

Colin also lays out a good vision for what is needed moving forward--

Practically, what does this mean? It means better road and congestion management and strong consideration of road pricing. It means increasing investment in efficient non-road transportation options, and a real multi-modal freight strategy. It means much better coordination of transportation plans with local land use. And when new road capacity is called for (yes, this environmentalist recognizes that a road is often the best way to get from here to there!), it means being cognizant of the long term energy and climate impacts. And of course, this vision also includes ever-more efficient vehicles running on new low-carbon fuels.

Initiatives like 30/10 help achieve this more sustainable vision. And, supporting a transit-only 30/10 initiative does not mean we will not expand roads. It simply means we will focus the next decade on the transit system, which has been neglected for decades. All in all, I hope Mayor Villaraigosa will stand strong in making sure the 30/10 initiative stays a transit strategy and not just a grab bag to appease the road building lobby and other business interests that want to pave our way out of the Los Angeles transportation crisis. Attempting to expand one road after another has been used in Los Angeles for decades and is fraught with peril. It is time for us to take a fresh approach that will make Los Angeles a more transit-oriented city.

Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation, Makes the Case for Better Transportation Options Again

2010-04-06T19:54:50Z

Today, Ray LaHood, the Secretary of Transportation, posted an interesting blog entry related to providing more options for people to transport themselves. I particularly like the following statement he makes in the blog post--

That's why I told Green Inc, "This is not just Ray LaHood’s agenda, this is the American agenda; people want alternatives to the automobile."

You see, it turns out I'm not the only one who thinks America can increase access to public transit and safe walking and bicycling.

In the hyperpolitical Washington, D.C., there are going to be attacks to any proposed change from the business-as-usual approach. However, at the end of the day, biking and walking is not a conservative, moderate or liberal issue. People just need to get around, and our government needs to provide better options for transportation that can help us kick our addiction to oil. If I want to ride a bike, I should have infrastructure to do so. For example, in Los Angeles, there are some bike lanes that mysteriously end leaving bikers with no designated routes to travel. It's untenable to think projects that fix this problem and allow safer bicycle transport should not be funded. At the end of the day, bicyclers are at a disadvantage because they don’t have thousands of pounds of steel protecting them as they travel.

We should thank Mr. LaHood for continuing to listen to Americans and pushing this issue despite some in the peanut gallery trying to stop this more rational approach to funding transportation projects.

Creating Jobs One Community Buffer At A Time

2010-02-17T00:57:11Z

It had been a while since I traveled down to the waterfront area of Wilmington, California. Most of my recent meetings have been in East Los Angeles or further North in Wilmington. However, last week, I had the good fortune to attend a meeting sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency related to Health Impact Assessments. On my trip down to Bannings Landing, a community center in Wilmington, CA, I noticed large stretches of green fencing. At first, I did not recognize what was happening, and I figured it was just another terminal expansion at the Port of Los Angeles. Then, it dawned on me that this was the construction of the 30 acre community buffer that had been promised as a result of the expansion project at the TraPac terminal. Masked behind large green fences, many people were working to prepare this 30 acre Harry Bridges buffer zone. There was even a sign on the fence with a number to call for those interested in a job on this project. This buffer zone would not have been constructed and would not have been employing people today if community advocates and environmental groups had not stood up to the original inferior proposal for the expansion at the TraPac terminal.

The key to understanding how this buffer came about requires looking back to the original TraPac project that was proposed in 2003. At that time, the Port of Los Angeles and the Army Corps of Engineers wanted to move Harry Bridges Boulevard, a street used by many diesel trucks, to further encroach into the community of Wilmington. Residents and organizations like Coalition for a Safe Environment, Communities for a Better Environment and NRDC fought back against poor proposals related to this project using the environmental process afforded by the California Environmental Quality Act. Concurrently, knowledge of the significant and potentially devastating impact of port operations on communities continued to grow.

When the TraPac project resurfaced in 2007, it came back in a much better form and included a large buffer area of 30 acres that will serve to provide some distance between the community of Wilmington and the impacts from TraPac terminal. This buffer will also provide a nice landscaped area to improve the aesthetics of the community of Wilmington, a community that has been battered by the negative impacts of port operations for decades. This mitigation project could not have come at a better time because it simultaneously improves livability in Wilmington and employs people at the same time.

Sometimes organizations, like NRDC, are unfairly characterized as opponents to economic growth. These claims are simply a bunch of bogus unsubstantiated rhetoric used to inflame emotions. I view the work that environmental and community groups do as essential to making conditions better and more livable in port communities like Wilmington. The Wilmington community should feel proud of its victory—it stood up to the nation's largest port and demanded that the impacts from port operations be reduced. Luckily, groups and individuals working on Wilmington issues have allowed me to work to improve the TraPac project to bring benefits to an otherwise disparately impacted community. And if working to protect the community from increased pollution concerns was not great enough, I also saw many jobs attached to our efforts to make things better.

Another Ozone Study Confirms that the Continued War on Smog is Worth the Effort

2009-03-12T23:38:55Z

In the era of global warming, plain vanilla air pollution -- like smog -- sometimes gets pushed to the side. Some people may consider it the less popular sister of the homecoming queen (CO2). However, this does not diminish the importance of this pollution. In fact, more and more data is mounting up that creates a further call to action to fix America's smog problems. The March 12, 2009 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine includes the results of a nationwide survey that determines ozone exposure is linked to higher risk of premature death. Science Daily includes a brief article on the study on its website. Even with these alarming findings, lobbyists, including those representing the trucking, coal, petroleum, and many other industries, continue to fight tough smog regulations. This is despite the fact that we are losing a medium sized city each year to death from respiratory diseases.

"World Health Organization data indicate that about 240,000 people die each year from respiratory causes in the United States," said Jerrett. "Even a 4 percent increase can translate into thousands of excess deaths each year. Globally, some 7.7 million people die from respiratory causes, so worldwide the impact of ozone pollution could be very large."

According to these World Health Organization's statistics, over the next four years, we will lose approximately 960,000 people prematurely due to respiratory causes in the United States -- that loss over a four year period is greater than losing the entire population of Detroit, San Jose, or San Francisco. Thus, the stakes are high, and this is not just an environmental issue but a moral issue.

The New England Journal of Medicine study found that places like Los Angeles, Riverside, the San Joaquin Valley, and Houston are more vulnerable to premature death because of the higher ozone levels. The increased chances of dying from a respiratory cause can be as much as 50% greater in these most extreme ozone areas. Thus, we need even greater anti-smog leadership in these ozone hotspots. Places like Minneapolis faired better on the ozone front.

All in all, this additional study cements the fact that we need strong plans to reduce pollution in these high ozone/densely populated areas. The timing of this study is also fortuitous because it will hopefully help push the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to adopt a stronger standard for ozone under the Clean Air Act. Two days ago, the EPA, represented by the Department of Justice, asked for more time to review the controversial ozone standards it set during the Bush era -- for previous blogs about the ozone debacle from my colleagues at NRDC, click here, here and here. The court case stems from a lawsuit filed by several states and environmental groups in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. David Baron, the Earthjustice lawyer representing the environmental groups that challenged the Bush EPA ozone standard, identified EPA's request as "an encouraging step."

Luckily, many efforts to reduce pollution concurrently reduce ozone and climate change impacts. A recent NRDC report discusses just this issue -- namely how implementing California's landmark AB 32 legislation will also improve air quality and health throughout the state.

So, today, I am officially reaffirming my commitment as a soldier in the War on Smog. Care to join me?

Building a Regional Movement One Container At A Time

2008-12-24T19:37:19Z

Professor Martha Matsuoka from Occidental College published a very interesting article in Race, Poverty, & the Environment (a project of: Urban Habitat) about the clean and safe ports campaign and the building of regional power "to redefin[e] regional development, [develop] regional scale coalitions, and [rework] power to transform the way the economy works." The article uses several examples from California and beyond to describe how coalition work can help groups with varying interests create blueprints for regions that are more sustainable and equitable. This article could not have come at a better time as we are about to embark on changes and struggles that will define our nation for a long time. Whether it is rebuilding our economy, battling global warming, or rebuilding the infrastructure we use, there appears to be a desire to create a new approach to how our nation works. Professor Matsuoka points out that as these regional coalitions are strengthened, there are new stakeholders with points of views that can no longer be ignored or marginalized.

A particularly important part of the article states:

By redefining the terms of the debate, by engaging in coalitions, and building power (in the face of tremendous odds), Port and goods movement campaigns fuel social movement regionalism and advance the potential for new regional economic development, just community development, and the advancement of progressive national politics.

As we welcome into office a new administration in D.C., it will be important to build on this regional movement that Professor Matsuoka articulates in her article. For example, the era of unconscionable freight practices needs to end. As these regional coalitions now monitor the goods movement system, we need to make sure these interests have a seat at the table in determining how development occurs in the freight system and how to mitigate its impacts (whether environmental or economic). We should aspire to have a freight system that does not stomp on certain communities to provide products that are pennies cheaper to others.

A lot of technology exists to clean up the diesel pollution spewed by the freight system (e.g. cleaner trucks, cleaner fuels for ships, etc.), and we are on the cusp of developing some other technologies that will take us even further in creating a better freight system (e.g. electrified container movement systems). Bringing our freight system into the 21st century is not an easy task because there are many frantically clinging onto the old, inequitable system. However, I hope that in the next decade, we can achieve the ultimate goal articulated at the end of Professor Matsuoka's article -- "good jobs and clean air."