Lizzeth Henao's Blog: Health and the Environment

Much to Love! Public Transportation: Less Congestion, Cleaner Air, More Jobs.

2010-01-19T22:49:01Z

There have been recent developments in public policy that should have positive effects on transportation policy, and specifically on the next SAFETEA-LU bill. Last December, the EPA found that greenhouse gases (GHG) are a threat to public health and welfare and that automobile emissions cause and contribute to global warming. Secondly, as NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, nears its 40th anniversary, the White House hopes to expand the scope of NEPA to require federal agencies to take into account climate change when approving transportation projects.

Most recently and perhaps most importantly, the Department of Transportation changed the rules by which transit projects receive federal funding by eliminating a much-hated Bush-era rule that promoted “cost-effectiveness” above all other criteria. This change, long advocated by environmental justice and civil rights activists, will be joined with another much heralded reform: environmental benefits will join the list of official factors in evaluating proposals. These welcomed changes are a direct challenge to the “old ways of doing things” and will encourage much needed environmental reforms to the movement of goods and people.

There is great potential for car-centric Los Angeles to benefit from these positive changes in transportation policy. As any Angelino can tell you, two of our most pressing problems are congestion and smog, and connecting the two is not a huge leap. Even with California’s tougher vehicle smog emission standards, residents of the South Coast Air Basin are exposed to air pollutants that have a detrimental effect on their health one third of the year (according to air monitoring data by the California Air Resources Board). Some critics deride the connection and argue that the solution to congestion is to build more highways. This reminds me of a quote I saw at a transportation meeting that read “Trying to cure traffic congestion by adding more capacity is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt.” Thankfully, developers who want to build more highways for the sake of additional lanes that will only be congested in the future will now have to consider the project’s contributions to climate change under NEPA’s expanded scope before being given the green light (and federal funding).

Clearly, there are better solutions to the problems of congestion and smog than creating more highways. In fact, reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) and increasing public health vis-à-vis reduced GHG emissions can be achieved in a number of ways. The most controversial, but perhaps most effective, solution involves pricing strategies. Although few politicians want to commit career suicide by talking about levying (more) fees on motorists, there is a growing consensus among economists that congestion pricing, in the form of toll roads or fees during high peak times, is a viable solution. (See Justin Horner’s blog on San Francisco's congestion pricing.)

Another solution, made more feasible thanks to the rule changes by the DOT, is to expand public transportation systems so that motorists are encouraged to switch modes of transportation. Studies, using the cost-analysis model, have found casual relationships between ridership and cost and convenience. While I strongly advocate for a free public transportation system, it is more feasible at the present time to increase the convenience (by way of expansion) of public transportation in order to encourage increased ridership.

Last fall, Los Angeles voters took a step in this direction with the passage of Measure R, a half cent sales tax specifically for transportation. Thanks in large part to Measure R funding, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is expanding the network of available public transit with several simultaneous projects, including bus, light rail, and traditional rail expansions.

As noted in the MTA’s website,

Measure R is expected to contribute funds towards the Expo light rail line on the Westside, a light rail connector in downtown Los Angeles, a Crenshaw corridor transit project, extension of the Metro Gold Line, the Foothill Extension of the Metro Gold Line, a rail connection to LAX, a Green Line Extension to the South Bay, a San Fernando Valley I-405 Corridor transit project, North-South Corridor transit project in the San Fernando Valley, a West Santa Ana Branch corridor project and a Westside subway extension.

The MTA is also increasing the city’s bus fleet with more buses, new rapid bus lines, and the creation of the city’s first bus-only lane along the heavily traveled Wilshire Boulevard. NRDC has been involved in the creation of this project from its beginning, advocating for the environmental benefits of having a dedicated lane for buses. Even under its current proposal of operating only during morning and afternoon rush hours, it is expected to improve travel time by as much as 24%. Is there a greater incentive to hop on a bus than to see one zoom by as you’re stuck in bumper to bumper traffic?

MTA’s proposed expansion of bus and rail services highlights the need to connect all regions of our vast city and county. From the Westside to the Foothills to the San Fernando Valley to Santa Ana, expanding the public transportation options available to commuters will facilitate the transition from car-dependency to car-freedom. A decade ago, few people could imagine subway lines connecting Hollywood to Pasadena but that’s exactly what we have today in the form of the Red and Gold lines. Data from November 2009 shows that both lines accounted for more than 4 million monthly boardings! Expanding bus and rail services to as many places as possible is the key to reducing our city’s congestion and air pollution.

I am greatly encouraged by the recent changes in transportation policy, both on a national and local level. We are seeing a convergence of thinking of the public health implications of transportation policy and the need to fund public transportation as a way to mitigate those implications. And as an added benefit, funding public transportation projects also generates much-needed jobs for our economy. (An analysis of the stimulus spending shows that “funds spent on public transportation were a more effective job creator than stimulus funds spent on highways. In the 10 months since ARRA was signed, investing in public transportation produced twice as many jobs as investing in roads.”) Funding public transportation is a win-win situation from both public health and economic standpoints. Los Angeles is taking steps in the right direction and will soon be a city as accessible by public transportation as it is by freeways. I can smell the cleaner air now.

Death to the Blacktop Gods and Other Goals for Transportation Policy

2009-12-17T18:12:03Z

I find it remarkable, in light of the media and political circus around health care reform, that Congress in the coming weeks will be debating an issue that will also have an enormous immediate impact in Americans’ daily and long-term living…transportation policy!…and no one in the media is really talking about it in this context. Of course, I don’t expect transportation policy to grab the headlines or spur protests, but it should.

Tomorrow, December 18, 2009, the SAFETEA-LU omnibus transportation bill is set to expire. However, the House passed a jobs bill yesterday that includes an extension of SAFETEA-LU until September 2010 and the Senate will likely follow suit. Despite these changing deadlines, this is still a perfect time to initiate public debate on what the next transportation bill should look like.

For the last fifty years, transportation bills were known as highway bills, which says a lot about where politicians funneled taxpayer money. These bills made construction of new roads easy while creating roadblocks (literally and figuratively) for projects aimed at improving public transit. Politicians bought, and then sold, the idea that the economy depended on pouring asphalt over every possible avenue of commerce, and not much importance was placed on creating successful public transit projects. And while this idea may have worked in post-WWII America, this blind faith in the blacktop gods is no longer necessary for the prosperity of our nation.

In the midst of the longest recession in our recent history, momentum is building for a restructuring of our economy around environmental issues, mainly renewable energy and green technology. NRDC President Frances Beinecke’s recent blog highlights the incorporation of green jobs in President Obama’s job recovery strategy. The old paradigm of environmentalists vs. labor is slowly changing, thanks in part to the creation of groups like the Blue-Green Alliance and a newfound understanding that job creation and environmentally sustainable projects are not mutually exclusive.

Akin to economic issues and job creation, we also need to incorporate environmental concerns in our transportation policy. At a time when international leaders are meeting to create new international agreements aimed at combating climate change and the EPA is moving forward to begin regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, our transportation policy needs to reflect current environmental and not just economic needs. Without this, the work of our climate negotiators in Copenhagen may be paved over.

Next blog: How to incorporate environmental concerns in the next transportation bill and what these changes could mean for public transit in Los Angeles (something of particular interest to me as one of the approximate 500,000 daily transit riders in Los Angeles). Stay tuned!

Negative health impacts of freeway expansion: A NO BRAINER!

2009-11-07T01:24:48Z

The California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) wants to dramatically expand the 18 mile stretch of the I-710 freeway that runs from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to East Los Angeles, through mostly urban, low-income, minority neighborhoods. Due to very questionable projections from the Ports that, despite being in the worst economic climate since the 1930s they expect their cargo growth to more than double by 2030 from current levels, the PTB (powers that be) are considering expanding the I-710 by as many as 14 lanes.

Last week, NRDC staff members Adriano Martinez, Morgan Wyenn, Sherry Goldberg, Linda Escalante and I joined forces with members from Communities for a Better Environment, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, Long Beach Alliance for Children, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and concerned community members along the I-710 corridor to convince the I-710 EIR/EIS Project Committee to develop tougher environmental protocols to measure the health impacts of the freeway expansion. The Project Committee is made up of mainly elected officials in the I-710 corridor, and it is charged with providing direction on policy to the agencies that want to build the additional lanes of highway.

Concerned activists and experts spoke to the Project Committee of the health risks associated with the current I-710. There are numerous schools and day care facilities less than ¼ of a mile from the I-710. The 1.6 million residents along the I-710 Corridor are disproportionately impacted by local sources of pollution and as a result have higher coronary heart disease, emphysema and diabetes mortality rates compared to LA County. Mothers who live close to freeway traffic during pregnancy have more premature and low birth weight babies than the general population. The speakers implored the Project Committee to use scientifically- based standards in the environmental impact reports and studies in order to gauge the magnitude of the negative health impacts associated with the freeway expansion. Only by doing this can real mitigation measures be examined and health risks minimized. The Project Committee tabled three of the four proposed recommendations but did agree to use the significant thresholds used by the district's air quality board (SCAQMD, South Coast Air Quality Management District) to assess the health impacts of their projects. Even this victory is a very modest one because the usual SCAQMD significance thresholds may inadequately protect residents near highways and do not account for the cumulative impact of pollution, furthering harming communities that are already subjected to the highest cancer risk in the Southern California area.

Last week's meeting highlighted the need for constant community involvement in decision making. I left with the impression that some Project Committee members still need to be convinced that there are negative health impacts for people who live near freeways despite substantial scientific evidence. I suppose people still question whether cigarettes cause cancer and whether climate change is real. It is just really frustrating when their neighbors, constituents, and friends are impacted by this highway pollution. How many more asthma attacks and premature deaths from this pollution do we need to suffer before these people pull their heads out of the sand?

Maywood's water woes

2009-10-28T22:51:04Z

The City of Maywood is the third smallest city in Los Angeles and one of its densest, with about 28,000 people living in a 1.14 square mile area. Despite the city's small size, it has faced a number of big problems in the past and now faces the biggest challenge of all: trying to make the city's water supply safe and potable.

The simple issue of safe drinking water is a complicated one in Maywood. Besides having three privately-owned water companies supplying the city's water needs, the city also houses a Superfund site resulting from ground water contamination due to chemical mixing operations in the 1940s through the early 1990s. All the water companies claim that the water is safe to drink and say that they have conducted testing to substantiate their claims.

However, despite these claims, on any given day, the water can be shades of brown and emit a foul odor. Because of the water companies' unwillingness to respond to the city residents' concerns, the residents have successfully organized to make changes to improve the water quality on their own. Besides voting in progressive politicians to the city council, they were successful in conducting independent community water tests in 2006 which showed levels of manganese above the federal secondary maximum contaminant level. Although manganese is a naturally occurring mineral, there are fears that long term exposure could lead to neurological damage. More studies are being done on the subject. The city residents also successfully contributed to the passage of AB890, which aims to clean up the drinking water by issuing mandates to the water companies to reduce the manganese levels and bring the water to the same standards as that of nearby neighborhoods.

Last night, NRDC lawyer David Pettit and I had the privilege of attending a community meeting where community residents shared some of their horror stories. With a big jug of brown sludge in front of us on the table, we heard residents talk about how the water is so dirty that it has ruined their clothes when they attempt to wash with it, how the bad smell being emitted from the water makes them nauseous and how they have to buy bottled water for their everyday needs. One particular comment that stuck with me was a resident who said he doesn't even give the dog the city's water for fear of getting it sick. David and I expressed NRDC's commitment to working in solidarity with community groups and pledged an ongoing conversation with the city residents on their water problems.