A little thinking may lead you to say, “Yeah, of course these folks pay more. There are fewer stores in low income communities, and suburban areas have ready access to a number of large, cost-efficient supermarkets.” Say what you want about Wal-Mart, but I’m sure they run a leaner ship than your corner liquor store.
But what the study found was that it was not income alone that determined the difference, but rather income plus mobility:
I again find that while nonpoor and poor households with access to cars have no systematic difference, the poor households without access to cars do, and their likelihood of using the nearest supermarket [Ed. as opposed to the costly, inefficient corner store] is substantially lower after controlling for store distance…What critically affects a consumers price search behavior is not her residential area or the poverty level per se but whether or not she owns a car.
Now, let me say from the outset that this is NOT an argument for expanding car ownership, and Dr Talukdar doesn’t think so, either. Nearly half (48%) of all the poor households in the study did not own a car, and it’s likely not because they didn’t want one.
What he does call for, however, is “appropriate city planning of public transit infrastructure that ensures easy access between between poor inner-city neighborhoods and large, commercial shopping centers.” Good thinking.
I think the author could also have added a number of other planning-related recommendations (permitting/encouraging local food production, easing mixed use development), but little could tip the scales faster than getting folks to where the lower prices are now on transit.
As continued transit cuts further isolate poor Californians from job opportunities and vital social services, we now also know that the resultant decline in mobility raises household costs for even the most basic day-to-day necessities.
So, to summarize, we know that transit creates more jobs, is safer than car travel, helps the environment, improves public health, reduces household transportation costs, reduces housing costs and (thanks to Dr Talukdar) makes many other things cheaper, as well—especially for those who need to avoid high prices the most.
]]>This is clearly good news for transit advocates. Not only does transit spending give us more jobs bang for the buck, but those jobs are in occupations and industries particularly hard-hit by the recession.
This week, the California Legislature is once again tackling multi-billion dollar budget challenges, and once again, transit is on the chopping block. At the same time, the Legislature is making moves on a jobs bill.
Hopefully, they can put two-and-two together when they take a look, like I did, at the numbers from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on job creation from stimulus spending in California. To wit:
So, investments in transit resulted in almost three times the number of jobs for half the price. Or, if you took a look at the rate of job creation per billion dollars, that’s 4,543 road jobs per billion versus 25,786 transit jobs per billion.
Anyway you look at it, investment in transit is a good deal: for the economy and for the environment.
]]>The first item up was the Administration’s proposal to switch taxes on gasoline to free up money for the general fund. In an earlier post, I explained the scheme and its likely impact on public transit funding in California: a $1.5 billion cut. Indeed, the non-partisan Legislative Analysts Office says the “proposal permanently eliminates state transit funding.” Not good.
Testifying for NRDC this morning, I was pleased to hear the initial comments from many of the Senators. Senator Alan Lowenthal was “appalled” by the proposal’s impact on transit; Senator Mark Leno told of San Francisco’s continued transit funding problems and wondered how this proposal would help things; and Senator Joe Simitian wisely pointed out the likely ridership impacts of further cuts and fare hikes, particularly on those “discretionary” riders who will once again choose their cars, leading to more air pollution and road congestion.
And when it was time for testimony, I was surprised by the breadth of opposition to the proposal. Transit agencies and the California Transit Association were clearly opposed to these cuts, as was the United Transportation Union. Environmentalists like NRDC, EDF and CALPIRG raised obvious objections, as these cuts baldly undermine our commitment to reducing global warming pollution. California’s counties were concerned about the future of their local street and roads money, and CalTrain and Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor raised questions of the future of intercity rail in California. The Sacramento Air Quality Management District and the American Lung Association feared more local air pollution from more driving, and the California Association of General Contractors and the Southern California Contractors Association expressed reservations about a new approach to transportation funding that sacrificed transit and did little to get shovels in the ground.
James Earp, of the California Alliance for Jobs, and Vice Chair of the California Transportation Commission, summed up the general mood when he said the plan was “bad advice” and a “faulty proposal.”
I left a bit early, but didn’t hear a single voice in support all morning.
Clearly, we need solutions, and the hard work of banging one out for transit funding is in the works. But it’s also a rare pleasure to see so many come together to chase a clearly bad idea out of the room. Hopefully, it will stay out.
]]>Everyone knows the story: California’s state government is in the midst of a fiscal nightmare, and Californians themselves are facing high unemployment, housing problems and the whole range of everyday troubles that come with living in a deep, deep recession. Make no mistake: balancing the budget means some serious cuts. The question is whether the cuts are done wisely. We should not be undermining the state’s recovery, frustrating the efforts of Californians to pull themselves out of this mess, or forsaking our environmental goals and responsibilities to the planet.
With these cuts, the proposed Budget manages to do all three. Further cuts to already struggling transit agencies mean 1) more layoffs, as transit agencies can no longer afford drivers and mechanics; 2) less mobility, at a time when access to jobs and social services is crucial; 3) higher transportation costs, as riders pay more for other ways to get around; and 4) more pollution, as transit riders switch to less efficient car and taxi travel, clogging up already congested motorways.
So what’s the Administration’s plan? It's complicated, but most briefly, the Budget proposes to eliminate the sales tax on gasoline and raise the excise tax on gasoline. Since much of the sales tax on gas is set aside for transit, while the excise tax is not, switching and manipulating these two levies allows the Administration to take money set-aside for transit and use it to deal with the General Fund deficit.
Now, if this were the first time transit was kicking in to help with the budget, I’d say we all have to do our share. Unfortunately, despite widespread support for transit among Californians, transit has been hit up early and often, contributing more than $3 billion to budget solutions over the past few years. I think they’ve done their part. The proposal is doubly frustrating because it comes on the heels of a major victory for the California Transit Association earlier this year, when a court ruled that previous efforts to raid transit funds were against state law.
We are moving backwards if we think that making it harder and more expensive to get to work or school, throwing more people onto unemployment, and putting more pollution into the air are the ways to get California on its way to recovery. Public transit is an investment that pays dividends: better jobs, more freedom of movement, and a cleaner, safer transportation system.
We need to be putting more into transit, not cutting through the bone. Fortunately, Assemblymember Michael Eng, Chair of the Assembly’s Transportation Committee, told Streetsblog San Francisco that it was "absolutely incredulous" to cut transit at a time when it's needed "to get working families to their jobs and stimulate the economy."
So, at least someone seems to get it in Sacramento. The Governor needs to seriously reevaluate these cuts.
]]>The map outlines how agencies have responded to cuts in the State Transportation Assistance (STA) Program:
Since its creation in the early 1970s, the STA program had been the only ongoing source of state funding dedicated specifically for day-to-day transit operations (although, STA funds were also available for capital expenditures). California is now one of only 13 states that does not provide any state program funding specifically for transit operations.
Over the past three fiscal years, STA cuts alone have totaled $1.97 billion.
View STA Program Aftermath in a larger map
The map lays out in painful detail what readers of this blog already know: fare hikes and service cuts are the order of the day. Zoom in and click on the pins to find out what’s happening in your neck of the woods.
This just in: the Regional Targets Advisory Committee, a body of planners, environmentalists, and other experts convened to recommend the framework for implementing California’s groundbreaking land use and climate bill, SB 375, has also spoken to the importance of transit in a recent report. To wit, they recommend action to
Address the discontinuity between the elimination transit funding in the budget and mandates of SB 375. Public transit is a key tool in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The state of California has approved mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but has eliminated funding for public transit in the state budget. The state should ensure that its budgets are consistent with its policies on greenhouse gas reductions.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
]]>The biggest finding for climate change advocates is this: despite the most challenging national economic crisis in generations, a state budget that has been cut by tens of billions of dollars, and an unemployment rate of more than 10%, nearly a majority of Californians (48%) still insist on tackling global warming right away. The balance of Californians suggest we wait until the economy or state budget improve. NOBODY says do nothing.
For environmentalists with a transportation orientation, the numbers are even better. When asked which option is the closest to their view about planning in their region for 2025:
And let’s just break that 77% down a little bit:
| Central Valley | 74% |
| San Francisco Bay Area | 82% |
| Los Angeles | 78% |
| Orange/San Diego | 75% |
| Inland Empire | 71% |
| Asians | 84% |
| African Americans | 82% |
| Women | 81% |
| College Graduates | 81% |
Clearly, Californians are continuing to send the message that business as usual in transportation isn’t cutting it. Whether it’s about quality of life, environmental concerns, or worries about the state’s fiscal health, more highways are not what Californians want.
In fact, support for transit is a long-term trend, and it’s only getting stronger. In August 2006, the support number was 70% and in August 2004 it was just 67%. Yet despite this clear increase in support, and the growth in transit ridership statewide, Sacramento has decimated transit funding and transit agencies across the state are struggling to keep service strong.
The business community is getting on board, too. Earlier this month, Lucy Dunn (CEO of the Orange County Business Council) and Carl Guardino (President and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group) jointly wrote in an opinion piece:
Unless policy leaders start looking for a solution to restore transit funding, everybody — rich, poor, young and old — will face worse traffic congestion and air pollution and experience greater difficulty getting to where they need to go
And Californians instinctively recognize not only the importance of transit, but the need to make our entire transportation system more efficient. The environmental benefits of such an approach are made clear in a new publication, co-sponsored by NRDC, and released earlier this week: Moving Cooler: Transportation Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. This first-of-its-kind study looks at nearly 50 measures and combinations thereof, assessing their potential to save fuel, reduce heat-trapping pollution and save consumers money.
California’s policymakers would be well-advised to read Moving Cooler. As the Kinks said, Give the People What They Want.
]]>Well, it appears someone has been either a) reading this blog or b) listening to any of the thousands of others who have been saying the same thing, because good news just came across my desk.
To wit, the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee is considering a bill that would, in part, allow transit agencies to use up to 10 percent of the funds received from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the "stimulus" funds) to cover operating costs. And they even got the talking points right:
SEC. 1202. This section provides additional flexibility to transit agencies in how they may use up to 10 percent of the formula grants provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The act provided $6,900,000,000 to transit agencies for capital investments. However, the economic downturn is bringing severe distress to many of these agencies, and they now face lay-offs, furloughs and significant cuts to their transit service. These cutbacks would occur at a time when demand for such service is rising, and they work against the very purpose of the Recovery Act investments. [emphasis added]
If I were you, I’d let your Senators know you think this is a sensible idea (FYI, California’s own Dianne Feinstein sits on the Committee).
]]>