StreetSmart

In StreetSmart 15, Damien Newton spoke with Yesenia Perez of the Greenlining Institute about the connection between freeway expansion and California's housing crisis. Perez discussed research behind her recent story at Streetsblog, which found that more than 800 homes have been demolished in the past six years to make way for highway projects, highlighting how transportation investments can reduce housing supply and destabilize communities. The conversation explored how new state data, made available through SB 695, is helping quantify these impacts for the first time. Perez said the Greenlining Institute's "Homes Before Highways" project aims to make that data more accessible, allowing residents and policymakers to better understand where displacement is occurring. Newton and Perez also discussed how these impacts are often overlooked in housing debates, which tend to focus on new construction rather than homes lost to infrastructure projects. Perez argued that clearer data is helping shift the conversation toward real community impacts. Looking ahead, Perez emphasized the need for policies that prioritize avoiding displacement, including alternatives to highway widening and requirements to replace lost housing. Both agreed that aligning transportation spending with California's housing and climate goals will be critical moving forward. A lovingly edited transcript of our discussion can be found below. And last, catch up on old episodes or subscribe: Streetsblog CAL, Apple, Spotify, Libsyn.   Damien Newton: As I said in the intro, I'm here with Yesenia Perez from the Greenlining Institute, and we're going to be talking about displacement issues and the Institute's "Homes Before Highways" program. If her name sounds familiar, that's a good thing—it might be because back in December she wrote a piece for Streetsblog California, which we'll link to in the text accompanying this podcast, called "Displacement in Dollars Down the Drain: The Data Behind California's Highway Expansion Crisis." I should note she didn't originally write it for Streetsblog California—she wrote it for the Greenlining Institute, and they were kind enough to let us cross-post it. So, thank you for being here today, Yesenia. Let's start by talking a little bit about that article—what it covered, since it was based on a lot of research—and then we can get into the Homes Before Highways program you've been working on. Yesenia Perez: Yeah, happy to start with an overview of the article. The core argument I made back in December is that freeway expansion isn't just a transportation issue—it's also a housing issue. It's one of the most overlooked drivers of California's housing crisis. Based on data released in the past year or so, we know that over 800 homes were destroyed to make way for highway expansion projects in just the last six years. Across the state, highway projects have divided communities for decades. A good example is the proposed 101/92 connector in San Mateo, where around 33 homes—and dozens of families—could be displaced in a region already struggling with some of the highest housing costs in the country. The core point is that if California is serious about solving its housing crisis, it has to consider how transportation investments affect housing supply and community stability—even when projects don't ultimately get built, like the 710. The state needs to account for the long-term impacts of investing in freeway expansion. Damien Newton: Yeah, and for anyone not familiar with the L.A. area, there was a decades-long plan to connect the 710 and the 210 freeways. People called it the "unfinished freeway." Metro and Caltrans finally abandoned it around 2018 after years of opposition. But as part of that project, they had purchased a bunch of homes back in the '70s. Many of those homes are still vacant or in poor condition. Some were occupied during the pandemic, and now there are ongoing issues around how to treat those residents fairly. It's been a real mess for the northwest San Gabriel Valley—and it's still being dealt with today. Yesenia Perez: Yeah, and one more thing to highlight is the cost. Even after the project was canceled, Caltrans has spent something like $17 million just maintaining and guarding those empty properties—homes that could be housing people. Damien Newton: Right, and that's something we've covered a lot. We've interviewed residents in those homes multiple times—usually once a year on our SGV Connect podcast. Joe Linton, our Streetsblog L.A. editor, has also done extensive reporting on freeway widenings and their housing impacts. It's something we talk about often, but it still gets lost in broader conversations—even among journalists. There's a section in your article called "Displacement by Design," and it really stood out to me. Legislation like SB 695 has helped quantify that impact, and the numbers are still shocking. Between 2018 and 2023 alone, we're talking about hundreds of homes and businesses—most in L.A. County. So how has your work evolved since that article? Yesenia Perez: SB 695 was really foundational for our work. It required Caltrans to report on highway expansion impacts—lane miles, emissions, and displacement. For decades, we didn't have a statewide picture of how many homes and businesses were being demolished. The data shows that in the last three decades alone, there have been around 10,000 displacements in California tied to highway projects. But it also shows the limits of transparency—it only captures a narrow window and doesn't reflect the full history or future impacts. That's why we created the Homes Before Highways site—to make this data visible and accessible. Between 2018 and 2024, more than 850 homes and businesses were demolished, alongside about 760 miles of highway lanes added. To put that in perspective, that's longer than the distance from Oregon to Mexico. Our map helps people visualize where these impacts are happening in their own communities. Damien Newton: And I think there's real value in that, especially since so much of the housing conversation is focused on building new housing—particularly near transit. The discussion about housing lost to freeway expansion often gets overlooked. When you talk to policymakers or advocates, do you feel like this data is changing the conversation? Yesenia Perez: I do think it is. When people can actually see where displacement is happening, the conversation shifts from abstract policy to real community impacts. You start to see how families are pushed farther from job centers when housing is demolished, and the connection between transportation and housing becomes clear. You can't solve a housing crisis while demolishing homes for freeway expansion. The next step is for policymakers to ask: now that we have this data, what are we going to do with it? Damien Newton: And I think a lot of people assume this kind of displacement only happened decades ago—not that it's still happening today. Once people realize it is, there's usually a strong reaction. So what do you see as the solution? Should we stop highway expansions altogether, or rethink how we approach them? Yesenia Perez: There's no single solution—it will take a range of actions. California has already made commitments through its climate action plans, including acknowledging these harms and calling for policies to reduce displacement. But we haven't seen those policies fully implemented yet. One key recommendation is to change how projects are evaluated. For example, requiring alternatives that avoid displacement—like converting existing lanes into bus or express lanes instead of widening highways. And if displacement can't be avoided, there should be requirements to replace lost housing, ideally with affordable housing in the same community, so there's no net loss. Damien Newton: That makes sense. We're getting close to the end, so I'll ask for any closing thoughts. And just a reminder to listeners: links to everything we discussed will be available with the podcast at cal.streetsblog.org. Yesenia Perez: One thing I want to highlight is that while these conversations can feel discouraging, there's also a lot of positive work happening. In the latest State Transportation Improvement Program cycle, over 300 safety and active transportation projects applied for funding—but most didn't receive it, even though they scored highly. Meanwhile, regions continue proposing highway widening projects that cost more and can worsen congestion. So it's important to recognize that communities want these safer, more sustainable projects—they're ready to go. The question is whether the state will prioritize them. At the end of the day, this is about aligning transportation investments with California's stated goals—on housing affordability, climate action, and equity. The state has made strong commitments. Now it's about following through and making sure investments support those goals instead of undermining them. Damien Newton: Great. Thanks so much for your time today. This is clearly an issue we'll keep covering—freeway expansion has been a major Streetsblog theme for years. But as you pointed out, there are also positive developments worth highlighting. Yesenia Perez: Thank you so much.

Following up on yesterday's podcast, today Damien Newton speaks with Adriana Rizzo of Californians for Electric Rail and Eli Lipmen of Move California about two major statewide issues: the California governor's race and the future of high-speed rail. The conversation focuses on what transportation advocates should look for in gubernatorial candidates, including commitments to transit funding, affordability, project delivery reform, and standing up to federal attacks on rail and transit. The group also discusses the newly released high-speed rail business plan, potential legislative changes to funding restrictions, and the broader political and fiscal challenges facing transit agencies across the state. A full transcript of the podcast follows below. Edited Transcript Damien Newton: As I mentioned in the intro, earlier this week's podcast focused on legislation specific to the organizations involved. Today, I'm back with Adriana from Californians for Electric Rail and Eli from Move California to talk about two big statewide stories: the governor's race and high-speed rail. Before we start, a quick note: we all work with nonprofits, and this podcast is produced by a nonprofit. We won't be endorsing any candidates today. Streetsblog and Move California cannot make political endorsements, and while Californians for Electric Rail isn't currently a 501(c)(3), we're steering clear of endorsements to keep things clean. If the first letter of every sentence we say happens to spell out a candidate's name, that's purely coincidental. Since we're not talking endorsements, let's talk about what we should look for in candidates. Personally, I often find that when candidates share personal stories about how transit or bicycling has impacted their lives, it gives insight beyond policy statements. That's not foolproof — one of my favorite former L.A. councilmembers, Bill Rosendahl, famously hadn't ridden a bike since childhood — but it's one lens. Eli Lipmen: That's a great segue. Part of our mission as nonprofit leaders is getting candidates onto transit and talking about it from a rider's perspective. Lived experience matters. In this race, though, everything is being framed around affordability and the federal administration. That actually works in our favor. Transportation and housing are the number one and number two expenses for most households. Affordable housing near high-quality transit is central to affordability. This is a kitchen-table issue. It might not dominate headlines every day, but people talk about their commute, car payments, insurance costs. We need multimodal options, and we need a governor who will champion them. We also have a huge opportunity right now. California is building high-speed rail — something almost no other state is doing. What happens under the next governor will be critical for transportation project delivery, active transportation, and safety. Ten people die every day in California traffic crashes. That's unacceptable, and leadership matters. Adriana Rizzo: Transit is key to affordability — and also to standing up to Trump, or at least coping with his administration. We've seen federal transit funds clawed back. High-speed rail has long been a target. Supporting high-speed rail is a way for California to assert its priorities. When the administration announced its intent to revoke funding in early 2025, we helped organize a protest at Union Station. It was one of the first major public pushbacks, and it mattered symbolically. Standing up for high-speed rail and making sure it succeeds is a way the next governor can defend California's vision. Eli Lipmen: That protest definitely rattled them. There's also an immigration angle. During ICE raids in Los Angeles, we saw a 15% drop in transit ridership in one month. Fear impacts ridership, traffic, and system operations. These federal actions ripple through transportation. Meanwhile, Congress must reauthorize the federal transportation bill this year. Caltrans released draft principles that didn't even mention transit operations funding — which is the number one issue for agencies facing fiscal cliffs. That omission was frustrating. Adriana Rizzo: This isn't just California. SEPTA, Chicago Transit — it's a national crisis. In California, agencies are scrambling, and the Bay Area is pursuing a ballot measure to stabilize funding. But historically, state and federal governments provided more operating support than they do now. Since the pandemic, transit advocates have had to fight annually to get operating funds into the state budget. That needs to change. SB 1 is also up for reauthorization in 2027 — another major issue for the next governor. Eli Lipmen: If any gubernatorial campaigns are listening: we have a questionnaire ready. We'd love candidates to talk about their relationship to transit and active transportation. We're even planning a transportation-focused debate. This is something every Californian deals with daily — cost, congestion, safety. Candidates should treat it that way. Adriana Rizzo: Another big issue is project delivery reform. We need new transit lines and service improvements, but costs are escalating. Tariffs, federal funding instability, permitting challenges — it's harder than ever. Reform requires political capital. Dealing with utilities, permitting, entrenched interests — that's tough. But if we want projects delivered on time and at reasonable cost, leadership is essential. High-Speed Rail Discussion Damien Newton: Quick note before we pivot: there's ongoing news involving the High-Speed Rail Authority CEO. We're recording March 2, and things may change before this airs, so we won't speculate. But we're not ignoring it. Let's talk about the new business plan. Adriana Rizzo: The big headline is that the Central Valley initial operating segment is no longer fully funded because of the loss of $4 billion in federal funds. They're also considering removing the Merced stop from the initial segment, potentially adding it later. That will be controversial. More exciting: they're discussing a potential Los Angeles connection by 2040, assuming funding. That includes reducing tunneling between Palmdale and Burbank and sharing more track with Metrolink, including possibly on the Antelope Valley Line. This aligns with our push to electrify that corridor. There's also SB 1411, sponsored by Senator Henry Stern, which would lift restrictions limiting high-speed rail spending to the Merced–Bakersfield segment. That could accelerate work in Southern California or toward the Bay Area. It's promising — but the devil is in the details. We don't want the Central Valley segment abandoned, and we don't want funds diverted to unrelated projects. Eli Lipmen: This is California's opportunity to prove we can still build big projects. Accelerating connections to major urban centers makes sense because that's where ridership is strongest. We're already investing in complementary infrastructure. Aligning those investments is smart strategy. Damien Newton: We've been at this for a while, so let's wrap. Thanks to both of you. Links to your organizations and related coverage will be included alongside this podcast. If you're not listening through Streetsblog California, head to the site for the full list of resources. Thanks again — and I'm sure we'll talk again soon.  

*]:pointer-events-auto scroll-mt-[calc(var(--header-height)+min(200px,max(70px,20svh)))]" dir="auto" tabindex="-1" data-turn-id= "request-698cf232-0d38-83e8-8a26-70865a1647f6-5" data-testid= "conversation-turn-88" data-scroll-anchor="true" data-turn= "assistant"> Episode 14.1 of the Streetsmart Podcast focuses on the active transportation and transit legislation moving—or stalling—in Sacramento.  Much of this year's legislative energy around safety for bicyclists and pedestrians  is centered on regulating e-bikes, including efforts to distinguish legal e-bikes from high-speed electric motorcycles. CalBike's Jared Sanchez, reviews three pieces of legislation one that deals with licensing and another with clarifying what is and isn't an e-bike, and legislation that would allow municipalities room to create separate speed limits for different vehicles. You can read Streetsblog's coverage of e-bike legislation here, here, and here. Also joining the conversation were Eli Lipmen with Move California and Adriana Rizzo with Californians for Electric Rail. Lipmen advocated expanding automated bus-lane enforcement to include bike lanes, creating a statewide transit stop registry to improve data consistency.  Rizzo expressed frustration over delayed state reports that have stalled broader transit reform proposals. While a few promising bills are advancing, larger structural fixes—especially around transit governance and project delivery—may have to wait. A lovingly edited transcript of our discussion can be found below. And last, catch up on old episodes or subscribe: Streetsblog CAL, Apple, Spotify, Libsyn.   Damien Newton: As mentioned in our pre-show, I'm here with Adriana, Eli, and Jared. In the first half of our podcast, we're going to talk about legislation that is moving—or not moving—in Sacramento that will have larger impacts. We discussed a lot of this offline before we hit record. Jared wanted to talk about some of the e-bike and e-moto bills we've been covering at Streetsblog. I'll link to those stories, including CalBike's action alert, which I think is still live on one of them. Jared, why don't you briefly describe what those pieces of legislation are and how CalBike feels about them? Jared Sanchez: A lot of the political energy around biking and walking in Sacramento—at least in the legislative space—is going toward e-bikes, and not much else, unfortunately. We're co-sponsoring SB 1167 alongside PeopleForBikes, Streets For All, and Streets Are For Everyone, authored by Senator Blakespear. The bill is trying to better distinguish what e-bikes are legally and what other devices are—devices that are really illegal and being operated on our streets. These are often called "e-motos," often go beyond 30 miles per hour, and skirt registration or insurance requirements. The bill aims to better define what is legal on our roads and tackle the e-moto issue—making sure these devices aren't masquerading as e-bikes. It goes after manufacturers and sellers by requiring stronger disclosure documents at the point of purchase and adjusts the vehicle code to better classify these out-of-class devices into appropriate motor vehicle categories, such as mopeds or motor-driven cycles. That would require them to be licensed, registered with the DMV, and insured—just like any other motor vehicle. This bill does other smaller things as well, but we're co-sponsoring it because we see it as the best response to what we're seeing on the roads. Many other bills focus on new limitations or prohibitions on legal e-bikes, and we don't agree that's the right approach. To solve the underlying issue—illegal devices—we need clearer definitions. One of the other important bills is AB 1942. It would require Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikes to have a license plate affixed. Damien Newton: Can you briefly explain what Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikes are? Jared Sanchez: A Class 2 e-bike can go up to 20 miles per hour and allows throttle use—you can pedal, but you can also reach top speed using just the throttle. A Class 3 e-bike can go up to 28 miles per hour. The throttle works up to 20 mph, but beyond that it must be pedal-assisted. Riders must be 16 or older and wear a helmet to ride a Class 3. This bill focuses on the faster devices. Bike East Bay and others, including us, are concerned about licensing. Bicycle licensing hasn't gained support in California, and there hasn't been much interest from the DMV in creating such a program. We were surprised by the bill and hope to work with the author to amend it. Another bill we're watching would require additional written descriptions of e-bike classes, add speedometers to all e-bikes, update lighting systems, and—most concerning to us—create new speed requirements for sidewalks and Class IV bike lanes. It would give local agencies authority to set speed limits from 15 to 20 mph on bike trails and lanes. Many cities already have discretion to do this. We see this as overreach and a distraction from the real issues—illegal e-motos and traffic violence caused by cars. We don't need more enforcement targeting people riding legal e-bikes. Unfortunately, there hasn't been strong legislative energy this year around funding active transportation, addressing traffic violence, or expanding the Active Transportation Program. Most energy has gone toward e-bikes. Damien Newton: There still seems to be confusion—partly because of marketing—about what is an e-bike and what is essentially a small electric motorcycle marketed as an e-bike. Clarifying that could solve a lot of issues. Jared Sanchez: Exactly. That's why we're co-sponsoring SB 1167. The Mineta Transportation Institute released a study recommending better distinctions between legal e-bikes and illegal electric motorcycles. Many of the other bills we're seeing weren't part of those recommendations. Eli Lipmen: Last year, a pilot program allowed cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles to use bus-mounted cameras to enforce parking violations in transit-only lanes. It's been successful—Los Angeles generated about $16 million in ten months. The new bill would make the program permanent and extend it. It would also add stopping or parking in a bike lane as a violation. Surprisingly, that's not clearly defined as a stopping violation under state law right now. This bill would fix that. We're also supporting legislation that would ease regulatory burdens in coastal zones, making it easier to build bike paths and improve transit without lengthy Coastal Commission processes. And there's a transit stop registry bill that would create a statewide unique identifier for every transit stop. It's wonky, but important. Right now, data is inconsistent across agencies and mapping apps. This bill would standardize it and improve the rider experience. Adriana Rizzo: Last year, advocates engaged heavily in the SB 125 Task Force, which was supposed to deliver recommendations to transform transit. The final report came out late—around New Year's—leaving little time to draft legislation. One recommendation was to grow state capacity for transit design and engineering. Studies show in-house staff can be much cheaper than consultants. California has thousands of employees working on highways, but very few focused on rail and transit. We also explored utility permit streamlining, since delays and cost overruns are often driven by utility coordination. But we weren't able to secure authors before the deadline. Another delayed study involves governance reform for the LOSSAN corridor—the Los Angeles to San Diego rail corridor. The report was due in February and hasn't been released. That makes it difficult to pursue reforms this year, even as we prepare for the Olympics. Damien Newton: So in short, some targeted legislation is moving, but broader structural reforms may have to wait—possibly for a new governor and a new legislative session.      

On this episode of StreetSmart, Streetsblog California editor Damien Newton talks with Marty Beard, CEO of Hayden.AI, about the rapid expansion of automated camera enforcement on buses and city vehicles across California and beyond. Hayden.AI's technology uses forward-facing cameras mounted on transit buses and parking enforcement vehicles to identify cars blocking bus lanes, bus stops, and bike lanes. Beard explains how the data has repeatedly surprised cities, revealing widespread violations — and how enforcement has led to faster bus speeds, fewer collisions, and more reliable transit service. The conversation also explores how camera-based enforcement fits into post-2020 efforts to reduce police traffic stops, addresses common concerns about data privacy and surveillance, and examines why cities see these programs as performance tools rather than revenue generators. Beard also previews emerging uses for the technology, including identifying unpermitted construction that disrupts transit operations. During the podcast Damien references coverage of Hayden AI at Streetsblog and Santa Monica Next several times. Since Next syndicates Streetsblog's coverage of related issues, you can see all of both publications coverage at Santa Monica Next's page for Hayden AI. A transcript of this podcast can be found below. It has been lightly edited for readibility and clarity. Damien Newton So we're recording this podcast remotely on Zencastr. I'm Damien Newton, and I'm joined today by Marty Beard, CEO of Hayden.AI. Thanks so much for being here. Marty Beard Thank you very much for having me. Damien Newton I'll be honest with listeners: in the pre-show I told Marty that Hayden has a lot going on in California right now. Rather than firing off a bunch of narrow questions, I figured it made more sense to let him lay it all out. We've covered some of this work in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica on our local Streetsblog sites, but not as much yet on Streetsblog California. So if you're not following those city sites, you might not have the full picture. Marty, why don't you start by giving us a short overview of what Hayden.AI is and what you're working on right now? Marty Beard That sounds great. At our core, we're a technology company — you could call us an AI company, and that's true — but more importantly, we're a public transit company. Everything we do is focused 100 percent on improving public transit. The way we do that is by installing cameras on transit buses, parking enforcement vehicles, and similar fleets, and pairing that hardware with our software. The goal is simple: keep bus lanes clear, keep bike lanes clear, and allow public transit to do what it's supposed to do. That's our entire mission. We don't do anything outside of that. We operate across the U.S., internationally, and of course here in California. In California specifically, we work with LA Metro, AC Transit, and cities like Sacramento, Culver City, and Santa Monica. While the locations vary, the common thread is always the same: how can technology help improve bus speed, reduce collisions, and ensure bike lanes are usable? Damien Newton Most of the coverage we've done has focused on your cameras being installed on buses — and now sometimes on parking enforcement vehicles — to help cities enforce bus lane and bike lane laws without relying on traditional police traffic stops. Is that a fair way to describe it? Marty Beard Yeah, exactly. Agencies bring us in to do just that. The cameras are installed inside the vehicle — usually a bus — and they're designed to do one thing only: look ahead at bus lanes, bus stops, and bike lanes, and identify vehicles that are illegally parked or blocking access. The system does not identify people. It doesn't analyze broader traffic patterns. It's optimized for a very narrow task: identifying a vehicle obstructing transit infrastructure. When a violation is detected, an image or short clip of the vehicle is captured. That information is then reviewed by the appropriate enforcement agency, which makes the final decision about whether a citation is issued. The benefit is that it's extremely efficient, very accurate, and — most importantly — it works. Damien Newton I covered the Santa Monica pilot when that report came out, and we used the phrase "an epidemic of scofflaws" in the headline because the numbers were pretty staggering. This was along just seven bus routes, over a short pilot period, and the number of vehicles blocking bus and bike lanes was astronomical. Are you seeing similar results elsewhere — that moment of "wow, this is happening all the time"? Marty Beard One hundred percent. There are two things that happen almost universally. First, agencies are surprised by the sheer volume of violations. They know it's a problem, but once they start seeing daily, route-by-route data, the scale becomes undeniable. The second thing is what happens after the data starts coming in over time. Agencies can look at trends and ask: are we changing behavior? And the answer is yes. Bus speeds improve, collisions go down, on-time performance gets better. In some cases, the improvements are dramatic — we've seen 20 percent or more increases in bus speeds on certain routes. That network effect is huge. So first it's "wow, this problem is worse than we thought," and then it's "wow, this is actually working." Damien Newton I imagine timing plays a role here too. After 2020 and the George Floyd protests, there was a push to reduce police interactions for minor infractions, including traffic enforcement. A lot of these so-called nuisance laws just weren't being enforced anymore. So now you have a way to enforce them without those interactions — and maybe also correct some bad habits people picked up along the way. Does that sound right? Marty Beard I think you nailed it. It's also safer for enforcement staff. Parking enforcement is a tough job — you're not exactly the most popular person in the neighborhood. Technology helps because it's consistent and focused. There's this perception sometimes that cameras are spying on everything, but that's really not what this is. The camera is optimized for one specific task: is a vehicle where it shouldn't be? If there's a legitimate reason for that vehicle to be there, the citation won't be enforced. But if someone blocks a bus lane to grab a latte and 45 people can't board the bus, that's a real problem. This helps address that. Damien Newton Last week, our Streetsblog Los Angeles editor noticed something interesting during a SCAG presentation. LA Metro quietly announced plans to expand its AI camera program from 100 cameras to 400. No details beyond a slide. Can you tell us anything about that, or do I need to bug Metro's PR team? Marty Beard You'll need to ask LA Metro directly. What I can say is that we love working with them, and the results speak for themselves. But it's best for them to talk about their plans. Damien Newton They were one of your first major transit agency partners, right? Marty Beard Yes, absolutely. Along with places like New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., LA Metro has been an anchor customer for us. Damien Newton I just want to note for listeners: those are also all cities with Streetsblog sites — purely coincidental, I'm sure. Are you in Boston too? Marty Beard I can't comment on that one. But yes, we do follow Streetsblog very closely — clearly our expansion strategy. Damien Newton We're eyeing San Diego for a Streetsblog site in the next year or two, so keep that in mind. Marty Beard That's actually where I live. Damien Newton Well, there you go — I had no idea. Marty Beard The company's headquartered in the Bay Area, but we're spread across California and the East Coast. Damien Newton Welcome to 2026 — we don't all have to be in the same city anymore. Are there any other expansions or developments you can talk about? Marty Beard What I can say is that we've passed 2,100 installations, and every market we're in is expanding. We're also seeing growing interest beyond bus lanes — particularly bike lanes and parking enforcement vehicles, like in Santa Monica. And we're starting to look at new use cases: where else can this kind of focused, privacy-respecting technology help public transit? Damien Newton Cities do generate some revenue from this, but as I understand it, that's not the primary goal. The goal is improving bus speed and bike lane reliability. I'd guess transit riders and cyclists are overwhelmingly supportive, while drivers are more skeptical. Marty Beard Our biggest supporters are transit riders and cyclists, by far. What surprised me when I entered this space is how little agencies focus on revenue. What they care about is performance: speed, reliability, safety. As a vendor, that means you have to prove it works — and show the data. Damien Newton I don't bike as much anymore, but just walking or running along corridors in Santa Monica where the cameras are installed, things feel noticeably calmer. Less honking, fewer blocked lanes. It's tangible. Marty Beard We see that reflected in the data as well. Damien Newton One concern that always comes up with camera technology is data privacy — especially with fears about data being shared beyond its original purpose. So what happens to the data you collect? Who owns it? Who can access it? Marty Beard It's a completely valid concern. Hayden does not own the data. The transit agencies do. We only collect the violation itself — typically a short video clip or still image of a vehicle obstructing a bus lane, bus stop, or bike lane. No facial recognition. No human identification. Nothing beyond that. The data is captured on the vehicle and sent to the enforcement agency, which makes the final decision. We don't issue tickets. If a government agency asked us for broad location data, we wouldn't even have it. Damien Newton Before we wrap up — is there anything we didn't cover that you want to mention? Marty Beard One emerging area is road construction. Cities want to know: is construction permitted? Is it happening where it's supposed to? Is it unexpectedly blocking transit? Our cameras are starting to help identify unpermitted or unplanned obstructions so agencies can respond more quickly. Damien Newton So the cameras are catching unpermitted construction? Marty Beard Exactly. It's a newer area, but one that could really benefit transit riders. Damien Newton That's fascinating — not something I'd even thought of. Marty, thanks so much for your time. Next time I'm in San Diego, I'll reach out and we'll grab coffee. Marty Beard Sounds great. Thanks again.

In a special AMA episode of the Street Smart podcast, Streetsblog California editor Damien Newton reflects on his first year leading the site while answering reader-submitted questions on politics, transportation policy, and advocacy. Newton opens by thanking listeners for helping the nonprofit newsroom reach its annual fundraising goal, then explains why, as head of a 501(c)(3), he cannot endorse candidates or say who he is voting for in upcoming elections. Newton discusses key transportation debates facing California, including skepticism toward an Uber-backed ballot measure he argues is framed as a safety initiative while limiting legal accountability in crash cases. He contrasts that with the growing urgency of transit funding measures, particularly in the Bay Area, as agencies face looming fiscal cliffs with limited federal support. Asked which cities are doing the best job on street safety, Newton highlights Santa Monica, Long Beach, Oakland, and San Francisco for progress on protected bike lanes and automated enforcement, while sharply criticizing Los Angeles for resisting voter-approved safety reforms. He also identifies e-bikes as one of the most misunderstood transportation issues in the state, citing inconsistent laws and lack of clear guidance. Throughout the episode, Newton emphasizes the power of grassroots advocacy, urging listeners to stay engaged with local officials, organized campaigns, and community groups. He closes by reaffirming Streetsblog's mission to connect transportation, climate, public space, and equity—and by thanking readers and listeners for their continued support.  A transcript of the podcast can be found below. During the podcast, Newton promises some links to old stories: Streetsblog interviews Antonio Villaraigosa in 2012: part 1, part 2. First coverage of Uber ballot measure. Damien's interview introducing Chris Greenspon. SGV Weekly Podcast.   Street Smart Podcast AMA – Lightly Edited Transcript Speaker: Damien Newton Damien Newton As promised during our annual fundraising drive, I'm doing an AMA based on questions you all sent in. I'm Damien Newton, editor of Streetsblog California. This is our first Street Smart podcast of the year—and the guest is me. We did reach our annual fundraising goal. Thank you—that's awesome. So here we go. Question one: Who are you voting for governor? Damien Newton We got a lot of political questions, so I'm going to address this upfront. Streetsblog California is part of a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and I'm its executive director. On an official podcast, saying who I'm voting for would legally be considered an endorsement—so I can't do that. I can share professional impressions. The only current gubernatorial candidate I've ever met is Antonio Villaraigosa. When he was mayor of Los Angeles, his office was responsive, regularly provided quotes, and he did a long sit-down interview with me and one of our interns at the time. I'll post links to that coverage with this podcast. If you run into me on the street and want to ask who I'm voting for, I'm happy to tell you—but not here. Similar questions came up about Phil Brock, Eric Garcetti, and others. I know it's an AMA, but nonprofit rules still apply, and I take them seriously. Question two: What surprised you most in your first year as editor? Damien Newton Tomorrow marks my one-year anniversary as editor. I'm not easily surprised by politicians saying one thing and doing another—but something did surprise me. My predecessor, Melanie Curry, would listen to entire California Transportation Commission meetings. I tried to do that, and honestly, I can't sit through the self-congratulation. The first few hours are often commissioners thanking each other and legislators endlessly. It's mind-numbing. I usually don't start listening until later sessions. That said, the CTC does important work, and we cover it—sometimes positively, sometimes critically. I just can't sit through all the applause. Question three: Thoughts on upcoming ballot measures? Damien Newton It's early, and we don't know all the details yet. My gut feeling is that the Uber-backed ballot measure we covered recently is probably bad—maybe because Uber is pushing it. It claims to be about safety, but it caps what lawyers can recover in crash-related lawsuits. That doesn't strike me as a meaningful safety measure. I'm skeptical. In contrast, Bay Area transit funding measures—even without full details—are likely necessary. Transit agencies face real fiscal cliffs. The state's one-time infusion helps, but long-term funding will require local taxes. Federal help isn't coming. We're going to have to do this ourselves. Question four: Which California city is doing the best job on safer streets? Damien Newton "Best" depends on how you define it. Oakland and San Francisco deserve credit for speed cameras. Santa Monica is rapidly building a connected bike network and expanding camera enforcement. Long Beach has also been a leader among mid-sized cities. There's a pattern—though not universal—that cities with younger councils tend to be more progressive on transportation. I can tell you who's doing the worst: Los Angeles. The city is actively resisting implementation of a voter-approved street safety ordinance. Guerrilla crosswalks exist because residents are filling the void left by inaction. Question: What can regular people do to influence transportation policy? Damien Newton Know who your elected officials are. Join local bike and transit advocacy email lists. When it's time to email or call, flood the inboxes. Communicate constantly—not just about legislation, but about broken signs, unsafe streets, and poor DOT performance. Legislators often hear from fewer constituents than you'd expect. A lesson from Santa Monica: organized community opposition can outweigh formal city council support. That influence works both ways—mobilized people can move policy. Question: Least understood transportation issue in California? Damien Newton E-bikes. People confuse them with electric motorcycles. Cities don't know how to regulate them, and the state hasn't provided enough guidance. The result is a confusing patchwork of laws. We ran an op-ed on this recently and plan to cover it more deeply in a future podcast. Question: Biggest transportation issue lawmakers overlook? Damien Newton The connection between transportation, air pollution, and climate change. Many lawmakers think technology alone—EVs, futuristic transit, high-speed rail—will solve it. I'm generally supportive of EVs and autonomous technology (not Tesla), but they won't get us all the way there. We need more walking, biking, and transit now. Question: How are your kids doing? Damien Newton They're great. They're 13 and 16 now. I don't post photos anymore, but time really flies—I was editing Streetsblog Los Angeles before my son was born. Magic wand question: What would you change? Damien Newton If I could wave a magic wand, I'd get ICE out of Los Angeles, California, and beyond. Transportation and urban policy are deeply tied to who feels safe using public space. That's my answer. Closing Damien Newton If you stuck with me for 26 minutes of me talking to myself—thank you. Email me anytime at [email protected] with story ideas or questions. Thanks for supporting Streetsblog, helping us hit our 2025 fundraising goal, an

On this week's StreetSmart Podcast, host Damien Newton spoke with UC Berkeley professor Zach Lamb about his team's new report, A Safety Dilemma, which examines why some fire departments across the country have opposed street redesigns that add bike lanes, bulb-outs, and other safety features. The research was inspired by a stalled Berkeley project for a protected cycle track that failed to gain fire department approval. Lamb and his team began investigating whether similar conflicts were occurring elsewhere — and found they were. Despite rising traffic fatalities, some fire departments have resisted safer street designs, often citing access or width requirements. Lamb emphasized that fire departments are not monolithic: chiefs, marshals, unions, and rank-and-file firefighters often have different priorities. Cost of living can also play a role, especially in California, where firefighters frequently commute long distances from the communities they serve. The study looked at four cities, including Nashville, where strong mayoral leadership helped align fire and planning departments behind multimodal safety. Lamb said that when city leaders make safety a top priority, departments are more likely to cooperate than to obstruct. Lamb also highlighted Berkeley firefighter Mike Wilson's call to extend the fire service's legacy of prevention—once focused on reducing structure fires—to traffic safety. Berkeley's new Street Trauma Prevention Program embodies that shift, positioning fire departments as proactive partners in crash prevention rather than reactive responders. For more on Wilson's experiences, check out this article from Streetsblog USA. "Designing safe infrastructure is the easy part," Lamb said. "Changing culture is the real challenge." The transcript below has been edited for length and clarity. Damien Newton: In this week's StreetSmart Podcast, I'm talking with Zach Lamb, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He's been researching why some fire departments across the country have, in the ongoing "war for street space," positioned themselves as anti-bike or anti–bike lane. Zach and his team recently hosted a webinar and have a report coming out soon called A Safety Dilemma. I'm going to hand the podcast over to him and let him do most of the talking. Zach, thank you for joining us today. Zach Lamb: It's great to be here, Damien. Thanks for having me. This project grew out of an experience we had here in Berkeley. There was a proposal for a protected two-way cycle track on a popular local commercial street. The project had been designed and was about to go out to bid when it ran aground. The official reason given was that it didn't get fire department approval—it didn't meet certain standards for clear width and other required dimensions. That got us interested in whether this kind of conflict was happening elsewhere, and in the broader relationship between safe streets and fire and EMS response in U.S. cities. We know that in many places, serious injuries and fatalities among pedestrians and bicyclists have increased over the past several years. In response, many cities have begun investing in safer street designs. But at the same time, we've seen growing tension between fire departments—and, to some extent, EMS operations—and those safe streets initiatives. Damien: California seems to have become one of the states most famous—or infamous—for this, depending on your point of view. In Los Angeles, the fire department's union spent millions to defeat a ballot measure that would have created more bus and bike lanes. And up in San Francisco, a firefighter broke ranks on a street project, even doing an interview with Streetsblog San Francisco about why he supported it. We gave him an award for that, but he said he faced backlash from within the department. Do you think there's a reason California is getting more attention for this? Or is it just because we're building more bike lanes right now? Zach: That's a great question. I moved to California about five years ago from the East Coast, and one of the first things that struck me—something that strikes many new Californians—is how wide the streets are here. Even in older cities like Berkeley, the streets are considerably wider than in many other parts of the country. You'd think that would make the geometry problem—how we allocate limited street right-of-way—less severe. But as you said, we've still seen a number of these conflicts. It's also important to remember this isn't universal. As you mentioned, that San Francisco firefighter you referenced took a very different stance. There are cases where fire departments are aligning with safe streets efforts. Damien: Right—and just to clarify, in Los Angeles it wasn't the department itself, but the union that opposed the measure. Zach: Exactly. And that distinction matters. One of the things we're trying to understand is that fire departments aren't monolithic. There are different parts with different priorities: fire marshals who focus on code enforcement, fire chiefs managing operations, and the rank and file represented by unions. They don't always share the same perspective. One reason these tensions may be particularly visible in California is cost of living. In high-cost cities, firefighters often can't afford to live where they work. They commute in from outside communities, which can create a disconnect between the people doing the work and the neighborhoods they serve. Damien: You mentioned different parts of departments having different views. When I was on my local neighborhood council in Los Angeles, we worked on a road diet on Venice Boulevard. A lot of rank-and-file firefighters and the union opposed it, which I can understand—even if the data doesn't back up their fears. If you're driving a fire truck, you want wide lanes, and protected bike lanes and bulb-outs can make the road feel more constrained. But our fire chief supported the project. He emphasized prevention and long-term safety. Some in the community—and even local media—dismissed that as him just following the city line, saying he couldn't contradict the councilmember or the DOT. How true do you think that perception is? Zach: That's a really interesting dynamic. Fire chiefs have to balance a lot of pressures. They need to maintain credibility with their rank and file, but they're also part of city administration and have to work with elected leaders and city managers. We've seen similar examples here in Berkeley. Last year, there were competing ballot measures about street safety. The firefighters' union actually supported the stronger safety-focused version. But when it came to a specific project—the bike lane on Hopkins Street that inspired this research—the acting fire chief sided with city officials who opposed it. Fire chiefs often operate as political actors. They can't always take positions that contradict city leadership. In our research, we conducted four case studies and a national survey to document these conflicts—and, importantly, solutions. We even created what we call a "Conflicts and Solutions Database." Many of these disputes never make the press, or if they do, you rarely get the full backstory. So we chose four cities to study in depth. One of them was Nashville, which has made impressive progress on safe streets under strong mayoral leadership. Their "Choose How You Move" ballot initiative is raising billions for sidewalk, bike, and transit improvements. The mayor made multimodal safety a core priority, embedding it across city plans. When we spoke with people in Nashville—both in the fire department and in planning—they told us the department may raise concerns about individual designs, but they don't take an anti–bike lane stance because they don't want to oppose one of the mayor's key goals. That shows the power of leadership. When mayors make safety central to their vision, it sets expectations for collaboration. Damien: We're recording this on Friday, the 17th. Streetsblog USA just republished an article from the Vision Zero Journal written by Berkeley firefighter Mike Wilson, who's been a progressive voice on transportation issues. He wrote about how fire departments have a remarkable legacy of prevention—reducing fires through prevention efforts—and argued that reducing traffic injuries through street design is a continuation of that same legacy. What do you think about that message? Zach: I completely agree. And I should say—Mike is a big reason this research exists. He's been a wise and powerful voice on this issue. He's a former first responder, now with Cal/OSHA, and he also has a personal connection—a family member was badly injured in a bike crash here in Berkeley. That experience turned him into a leader in street safety and helped launch Berkeley's Street Trauma Prevention Program. Fire departments used to be purely reactive—just putting out fires. But the 1970s America Burning report shifted that mindset toward prevention: enforcing fire codes, requiring smoke alarms, and so on. That shift dramatically reduced structure fires and deaths. Mike argues we can extend that same prevention mindset to traffic safety. Fire departments already respond to car crashes—so why not work to prevent them, too? That's the philosophy behind Berkeley's new program. It's too early to say what the long-term impact will be, but the program has already funded a Street Trauma Prevention Coordinator within the fire department to help align street design with safety goals. Some early signs suggest it's focusing more on public education—encouraging pedestrians and cyclists to be "more responsible"—which isn't where the data shows the biggest gains come from. The real improvements come from better street design and reducing dangerous driving. Still, it's a step toward bridging divides between departments and building a culture of prevention. Damien: Thank you for that. And for anyone listening, a link to Mike's article will be included with this episode. As we wrap up—anything else you'd like to add, or a question I should have asked? Zach: I'd emphasize one big takeaway: these issues exist on multiple levels. Designing infrastructure that works for emergency vehicles is the easy part. The harder part is changing culture. It's not difficult to design mountable curbs or use flexible posts that allow fire access. The challenge is breaking down the divide that's grown between safety advocates and fire departments. Firefighters and EMS personnel respond to horrific crashes—they see the consequences firsthand. From a mental health and worker-safety standpoint, reducing those incidents benefits them too. There are even cases where safety improvements help emergency response—protected lanes wide enough for emergency vehicles, or connected street grids that improve response times. Cities that pre-design and pre-approve standard configurations for things like bike lanes and bulb-outs can save time, reduce conflict, and build understanding between departments that might not otherwise communicate much. Damien: That's a great point. Thank you so much for your time, Zach. When the report is published, we'll make sure Streetsblog covers it. And again, for listeners—there's a link to Mike Wilson's article in the episode notes. Thanks again, and we'll be in touch soon. Zach: Great. Thanks so much, Damien.  

In this episode, host Damien Newton sits down with Zack Deutsch-Gross, the new executive director of Transform, for a wrap-up of California's 2025 legislative session. For a quick recap of all of the legislation we tracked this year, visit last week's legislative wrap-up. For this podcast, the interview covered three pieces of legislation that were central to Transform's agenda: Highway 37 (AB 697): Legislation that fast-tracks a highway expansion project in the North Bay by limiting the environmental review. The legislation passed over Transform and dozens of other groups' objections and is expected to be signed by Governor Newsom. Read Streetsblog's full coverage here. Regional Transit Measure (SB 63): Legislation authorizing a ballot measure to raise billions for Bay Area transit operations was passed and is waiting for the governor's signature. Read Streetsblog's full coverage here. Cap-and-Trade (AB 1207/SB 840): The program was reauthorized through 2045, ensuring billions in funding for transit and affordable housing, though equity and emissions concerns remain. Read an explanation of the deal between Newsom, the legislature, unions, and the oil and gas industry here. The legislation was signed earlier today. Zack also shares his vision for Transform's next chapter: expanding partnerships across housing, climate, health, and democracy; innovating locally while pushing state policy; and ensuring California's climate investments center equity and justice. You can read more by Zack on the future of Transform and how advocacy must change in the current era at Transform's blog. An edited transcript of the conversation can be found below. Transcript: DamienWelcome to this week's Street Smart podcast. We're wrapping up the legislative session with Zack Deutsch-Gross, the new executive director of Transform. If his name sounds familiar, it's because he's actually our first repeat guest. You may also know him from his years of work at Transform. Last time we talked about cap-and-trade, and we'll revisit that today. But first, welcome back to the podcast and congratulations. Zack Deutsch-GrossThanks, Damien. It's great to be here—and I'm the first repeat guest. What did I do to deserve that? DamienIf you listen to our first episode together, I actually said we'd bring you back to wrap up the session. Promises made, promises kept. ZackAnd here I am. DamienBy the way, if his "thanks for having me" sounded insincere, it's because he already said it before we hit record, and I made him repeat it. ZackWe can work on it, Damien. Maybe the third time it'll sound truly genuine. But seriously, I'm excited to be here. There's a lot to cover at the end of this legislative session, so let's get to it. DamienRight. For listeners outside the Bay Area who may not know Transform as well, can you give a quick overview of the organization? And maybe share how things might change—or stay the same—under your leadership. ZackSure. Transform is a nonprofit based in Oakland that focuses on housing and transportation, with equity and climate at the core. For three decades, we've launched programs, built coalitions, and won campaigns for thriving transit, affordable housing, and safe, people-oriented streets. We work in communities like East Oakland, Richmond, and San Jose, piloting mobility options and making sure people can get around safely and equitably. But to bring that work to scale, we also push legislation and shift dollars toward climate-friendly investments. As executive director, my focus is to keep doing what we do well—innovative local work and impactful state policy—while recognizing the different political and budget realities we face today. State and local budgets are under strain, whether from cuts to transportation or safety net programs. Wildfire costs consumed much of this year's state budget. Climate change is now our everyday reality, so stewarding existing public transportation funds isn't just best practice—it's a political necessity. DamienAnd you wrote about this on Transform's blog. We'll link to it in the podcast notes. Anything you'd add here before we move on? ZackJust that while we absolutely need to grow the pie—tax the rich and fund the bus—we also need to think more expansively. Public transportation and affordable housing intersect with health, economic justice, and democracy. Building those partnerships will be a big focus. DamienWe're recording this on Friday, September 19. By the time this goes live next week, none of the bills we're about to discuss may have been signed or vetoed yet. If that happens over the weekend, apologies for being outdated. But the three top issues for Transform this year were: the regional funding measure, cap-and-trade reauthorization, and AB 697—better known as the Highway 37 bill, or as locals joke, "the highway that's going to be underwater." ZackWe've actually called it "the highway for ducks." DamienRight, right. I saw a headline once that called it that, too. ZackHighway 37 is a big deal. It cuts across the northern edge of San Pablo Bay, connecting Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano counties. It's one of the lowest-lying highways in the region—already flooding during storms—and it runs through sensitive wetlands. Instead of focusing on how to provide more resilient, sustainable transportation for people, Caltrans and some local interests have been pushing to widen it into a four-lane freeway. That means more driving, more emissions, and more sprawl in a corridor that really needs climate-smart solutions. Transform, along with a broad coalition of environmental and equity groups, has been fighting this approach. We know there are better answers: expanded transit, managed lanes with express buses, and making sure people in Solano and Napa have real mobility options that don't depend on driving. DamienAnd AB 697—the Highway 37 bill—basically would have smoothed the path for that freeway widening by giving Caltrans a shortcut on permitting, right? ZackExactly. It would've let Caltrans sidestep a key environmental review process. We argued strongly against that, and we hope that the Governor will veto the bill It's important because it would signal that even with pressure from powerful interests, climate and environmental justice considerations can't just be swept aside. DamienSo, win number one. Let's shift to the regional funding measure. That one had a lot of moving parts. ZackYes. The idea was to put a major transportation funding measure on the 2026 ballot in the nine-county Bay Area. The goal was to raise billions for transit operations and capital improvements. But this year's version got really complicated. It included not just operations funding, but also a governance overhaul for transit agencies, new performance requirements, and some controversial provisions about how funds would be allocated. Transform's position was clear: we need operating dollars for transit. Agencies are struggling with post-pandemic ridership shifts, inflation, and long-term funding gaps. Riders are feeling the impacts—reduced service, reliability issues, even safety concerns. Without new money, things will get worse. SB 37 was passed by the leigslature, and we're hopeful the governor will sign it. DamienOkay, let's get into cap-and-trade. This is the big one, and you've been working on it for years. Can you set the stage? ZackSure. California's cap-and-trade program was first authorized back in 2006 under AB 32. It sets a declining cap on greenhouse gas emissions and allows polluters to buy and trade allowances. The revenue—billions of dollars over the years—has been invested in climate programs: high-speed rail, affordable housing, public transit, and more. The program's legal authority was set to expire in 2030. This year, SB 1509 was introduced to reauthorize cap-and-trade through 2045. ZackNow, there's been a lot of debate over whether cap-and-trade is the best tool. Environmental justice groups in particular argue it allows pollution "hot spots" to persist in low-income communities and communities of color. They've pushed for stronger direct regulations and less reliance on market mechanisms. Zack Transform's perspective is: cap-and-trade isn't perfect, but it is a critical source of funding for transit and affordable housing. Without it, those programs lose billions. And as we just discussed, state and regional budgets are already stretched thin. DamienSo it's kind of a balancing act—keep the program for the money, but also recognize its flaws. ZackExactly. The two pieces of legislation, AB 1207/SB 840, tried to thread that needle. It reauthorized the program but also included some reforms: tighter emissions caps, limits on offsets, and more accountability for how revenue is spent.  The bill ultimately passed, which means cap-and-trade will continue. That's a huge relief for transit agencies and affordable housing developers who rely on that funding. But it also means we need to keep pushing for stronger rules to make sure emissions actually go down where they need to—and that communities most impacted by pollution see real benefits. DamienYou've been talking about this for years, and I remember last time you said cap-and-trade is sort of like a bridge: not the perfect solution, but something that helps get us to a cleaner future if used right. ZackThat's still how I see it. California has ambitious climate goals—net zero by 2045. We'll need every tool we can get: regulations, clean energy investments, land use changes, and yes, cap-and-trade revenue to fund it all. DamienSo we've hit the three big ones: Highway 37, the regional measure, and cap-and-trade. Before we wrap up, is there anything else from this session that stood out to you? ZackOne thing worth noting is how much climate impacts are shaping every policy conversation now. Whether it's wildfires, extreme heat, or flooding, lawmakers are realizing these aren't abstract future risks—they're here. And that urgency is reshaping the politics around transportation and housing. Another piece is coalition-building. We saw stronger alignment this year between transit advocates, housing advocates, and equity groups. That's encouraging, because none of these issues can be solved in isolation. DamienSo as you step into this new role as e.d., what's your outlook for the next couple years? ZackI'm cautiously optimistic. We have real challenges—budget constraints, political divisions, and the accelerating impacts of climate change. But we also have momentum. People across California understand that transit, housing, and climate action are interconnected. My hope is that Transform can continue to be a bridge-builder: piloting innovative solutions locally, pushing smart policies at the state level, and bringing diverse partners together around a shared vision for a just, sustainable future. DamienThat's a good note to end on. Zack Deutsch-Gross, new executive director of Transform—thanks for coming back to the podcast. ZackThanks for having me, Damien. Let's not wait too long before the third appearance. DamienDeal. And next time, I won't make you re-record your thank you.  

StreetSmart launched its fall session with guest Melanie Curry, former editor of Streetsblog California. Host Damien Newton welcomed Curry back for her first official appearance since retiring in January, noting her long history covering statewide transportation, housing, and climate policy. Curry discussed her recent article for the California Planning and Development Report on Sacramento's attempt to use an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to revitalize its downtown. The financing tool, designed to help cities fund projects like affordable housing and transit-oriented development without raising taxes, has struggled to gain traction statewide. Sacramento's effort to launch a district around its downtown railyards hit obstacles due to political disagreements and questions about long-term revenue streams. The conversation touched on the challenges California cities face in implementing innovative financing tools, especially as they work to balance growth, housing affordability, and climate goals. Curry explained why EIFDs, despite being on the books for nearly a decade, remain underutilized and how Sacramento's struggles illustrate broader statewide trends. An lightly edited transcript can be found below: Damien Newton Okay, welcome to the Street Smart Podcast. We are kicking off our fall session. I was joking with my wife beforehand that I was going to open this by saying, "Welcome to SGV Connect 140, our legislative wrap-up with Streetsblog California editor, Melanie Curry." Because Melanie is our guest, and I usually do that podcast this time of year. But for the first time in six or seven years, I'm with Streetsblog California. Melanie is here to help us pivot our coverage from the legislature into more local coverage that has statewide implications. Although, I'll be honest, next week's Street Smart is going to be about the legislature again, with Zach Deutsch-Gross from Transform, their new executive director. He'll also share what's new at Transform. But first—welcome back, Melanie. This is your first official Streetsblog appearance, if we don't count the "Melanie C. from Berkeley" article from the summer. Melanie Curry Woohoo! Nice to be back. Damien So for Streetsblog listeners who are excited to hear about what's going on with Melanie—we'll get to that at the end of the podcast. First, policy. Melanie is here because she recently wrote an article for the California Planning and Development Report about Sacramento's financing district that hit a snag. We haven't covered it yet, so I thought she could tell us what's going on, what the project is, and why it's important. Melanie Cool. The Sacramento Railyards project has been going on for years. There's a very large parcel just north of the Sacramento rail station, which is also north of downtown, that had a lot of old brick buildings—former shops and the like. For years, people have looked at it and said, "This would be really cool." But, it was basically abandoned. Development has been slowly happening, but they're still searching for ways to fund it. Some pieces have moved forward, but they haven't found all the funding yet. That's why they're considering what's called an EIFD—an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District. It means they can use future tax money from the development to pay now for the infrastructure needed to make it happen. Complicated, I know, but it's used in other parts of the world. California allowed it a little after 2008. The idea is: when the project is built out, the future tax revenue can be used to reimburse upfront costs. Right now, they're planning anywhere between six and ten thousand dwelling units—so lots of housing. They're also planning retail, offices, flexible mixed use, a big Kaiser medical campus, hotels, a music venue, cultural facilities, open space, and a soccer stadium. Originally, they hoped to include the Kings arena in the project—but that's already been built nearby. So the soccer stadium would mean two stadiums close together. Their vision is essentially to double the size of downtown Sacramento. Again, EIFD stands for Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District, which lets them use extra tax revenue from development and borrow against it now to pay for infrastructure like roads and clean-up. Damien So the difference between this and a traditional bond is: usually a bond is tied to a specific tax—like a half-cent sales tax. Here, the financing is against revenue produced by the projects themselves. Melanie Exactly. And I don't know if there's always a bond involved—it's more like borrowing against future tax income. At first, the city of Sacramento would carry a debt load, but estimates show that at build-out, they'd be making much more from new tax revenue. They hit a snag, though. The project is definitely still moving forward—they're already on their second developer after the first went bankrupt—but the financing expansion ran into trouble. They already had a small EIFD covering the soccer stadium site. They decided to expand it to cover the entire 220-acre Railyards project. But housing has already been built there, and under EIFD rules, if half the residents object, the expansion can't proceed. Residents did object. They want more affordable housing. One project is 100% affordable, but overall build-out only guarantees about 6% affordable. That disagreement sank the EIFD expansion. So the city has to go back to the drawing board. Councilmember Phil Pluckebaum didn't get back to me on what's next. Damien For anyone interested, the city has posted all three of its EIFD projects—including the stadium, the Railyards, and Aggie Square—on one page. I'll link to it in the text that accompanies this podcast. EIFDs seem to be catching on in some places, though not everywhere. Do you think the state will embrace them more widely, or will they stay a niche tool? Melanie Good question. There are about 34 EIFDs statewide, with more being planned. But they're complicated to set up. Unlike redevelopment, you don't automatically get money. And approval can be stopped if residents object. They also can't be used the way redevelopment was, like declaring an area "blighted" and clearing it. Restrictions exist. Still, in areas like the Railyards, which were cleared decades ago, they can work. Developers want to know if they can rely on EIFDs to cover infrastructure costs. The mechanism has worked well in places like Hong Kong, but California is still getting used to it. And just to clarify—it was 2014 when the state authorized EIFDs with SB 628. Then in 2019, they made it possible to bond without a public vote. No link to that one in the podcast text—you'll have to Google it. Melanie They are trying to make the process easier, since it's a way to fund infrastructure. Damien Yeah, especially since federal money isn't coming to California like it did two years ago. Anyway, Sacramento's EIFD is confusing because the soccer stadium project was one EIFD, and the Railyards expansion would be a second, separate process. Other cities seem to be taking smaller steps. Sacramento, by contrast, sees this as a big driver. Melanie Yes, and if Sacramento can eventually expand this, it could be one of the largest EIFDs in the state. The Railyards project itself is a huge infill development—possibly the biggest. Damien All right. Did I miss a question I should have asked? Anything about EIFDs you want to add? Melanie No, just that they're confusing. But I'll add: places like Hong Kong used them very effectively for development around transit stations. That's exactly the kind of thing California should be doing. Damien I was wondering if this might be the subject of a Scott Wiener bill next year—making EIFDs easier around transit-oriented development. Melanie They've already passed two bills to improve the process, but more work is needed. These things take time. Damien It just feels like the kind of wonky but impactful issue Scott Wiener would love. Melanie Yep, definitely. Damien All right, before we wrap—Melanie, how's retirement? Melanie It is great. Damien Tell us about a fun bike ride or trip. Melanie I'm going to talk about transit! I've been taking the bus all over the Bay Area because I finally have time. It's been so fun. I know some people roll their eyes, but I love the bus. You never know who you'll meet, you can make connections, and it makes me feel free in a way I never did when I was working at Streetsblog and tied to my computer. Also—I don't read the news much anymore. Keeps my brain safe. Damien Thanks, Melanie. For our listeners, we'll try to have her back on the podcast in the coming months. Melanie Most excellent.    

Episode 8 of StreetSmart features an interview with Hana Creger, the Associate Director of Climate Equity with the Greenlining Institute. The interview was conducted on June 3 before the budget deals and before the ICE raids sparked protest in Los Angeles. Our brief conversation about the state budget may seem a little dated for those that stay up on the news, but since it was surrounded by the rest of the discussion on how to present our message to win over a broader segment of the public, we decided to leave it as it is. For those keeping score at home, the legislature's budget restores funding for public transit, but not for the Active Transportation Fund (the state fund to help build walking and bicycling facilities.) Creger also discusses polling showing that hammering people about Climate Change and air quality isn't winning hearts and minds. While she doesn't suggest abandoning our environmental goals, she also reccomends discussing how the same fixes that will improve air quality will also improve comuting times and lower costs. A lightly edited transcript can be found below: Damien Newton I'm here with Hannah Creger with the Greenlining Institute. And the topic today is, "how do we advance the issues that we care about?" There's a lot of overlap between the issues that the Greenlining Institute writes about and advocates on and that we write about at StreetsBlog. How do we advance those issues in today's political climate, both nationally and locally?    We are recording this podcast on June 3, it'll probably go up the following week, so there's a chance there will be some changes by then. The state budget, which has to be passed by June 15, but we're dealing with the budget as it is right now.   Let's just start with a little chat about where we are in the budgeting process.   Hana Creger That sounds great. I wish I could sugarcoat it, but folks, it's pretty damn bleak. It's not looking good.    When we're focusing on the issue areas I know a lot of you care about…around clean transportation, around climate…there are some proposed really big cuts. I'm hoping in a couple weeks, maybe it looks a little bit different. I don't think this is a surprise. This is obviously part of a broader trend. But I think what this underscores is we need a lot more money for clean transportation. We need to shift money to the right places. We need to be doing something a bit different, because right now it's just not really cutting it.   Damien I think if you were to talk to people pre November election, the feeling that a lot of California advocates had was that although we could be doing more, generally the ball is moving in the right direction.    In the face of the state budget deficit, and the state of all the federal changes that are happening, that sort of optimism, cautious optimism, guarded optimism… isn't there anymore. Now it feels very much like we're playing defense again.   Hana  2:37   That's pretty spot on. In these dark times, folks are very much looking towards something to grab onto. One thing that I've found to be really interesting at this moment, in the last few months, is to observe how much energy and excitement there has been around this abundance framework.    I know people have a lot of feelings around Ezra Klein, around abundance, and I think it's starting some really good conversations. And I've been thinking, "What is so compelling around this narrative to folks? Why are folks really grabbing onto this at this moment? In some ways, it's offering a visioning around something bold, around this alternative to scarcity.    In this era where we're feeling like we need to be doing defense work, it is setting up a platform around, "How do we build coalitions that are much broader, beyond our specific issue areas that unite housing, climate, tech, social justice folks?" It has a very like strategic villain at the center, which is bureaucracy and all these outdated processes. It has great communications strategies. There's an emotional tone to it, really vivid imagery on what the vision is.    And then, to your point, it came at the right political time, right? Everyone is just running around like chickens with their heads cut off. At the same time, there's obviously a lot that's missing from the abundance framework. I think there's a lot of really good discourse happening right now around, "Abundance for who?"    We shouldn't just build anything. We should make sure we're building the right things. And if we're doing this, we need to make sure we're also having a critique around capitalism and this whole manufactured scarcity.    All that to say, "Yes, in general, it's looking dark. It's looking bleak." And I think it's been interesting that there's trends like this abundance thing..yes, let's explore this. And let's learn from what was really successful around this push. And let's make sure folks are following along with this and are looking for solutions in a way that's inclusive, that still is balancing the need to prioritize communities who have been left behind That's prioritizing the right kinds of projects so that we're not just building more highways, more sprawl, more coal plants, but really doing this in an intentional way.    Damien  When we're talking about budget priorities, this is something that struck me. Streetsblog Chicago has written a lot about what happened in Illinois over the last weekend, which, for you and anyone else who isn't following Illinois politics, they passed their budget. And separately, they were voting on ways to fund the massive transit budget deficit that RTA, which is Chicago's transit system, is facing. They didn't pass anything for it. There were a bunch of different proposals out there, but all the proposals were about where this is where the money could come from: this tax, this fee, this, this, all this, but they were all new taxes.    The legislators, after the budget was passed, didn't want to be talking about new taxes or anything like that. And so they were never able to cobble together a majority.    Here, we're not talking about new taxes. We're talking about reallocating money that exists in other places in the budget to get to funding transit operations., S   Some cap and trade money that's going to be going to CAL FIRE if the governor's budget stays could have an operating subsidy for at least a couple years, until the Bay Area can vote on a ballot measure.    So it's a very different strategy and conversation. But again, as of June 3, at least on the budget front, it doesn't seem to be happening. But if you turn the page to the policy front, it does seem like there is fun, wrong word, good progressive stuff going forward on housing and even possibly on transportation.   (NOTE: A lot has changed since June 3, see our previous coverage of the budget at Streetsblog California.)   Hana At the end of the day, California will need both. We need to grow the revenue sources that may result in, you know, more taxes, et cetera. Obviously, those need to be done in progressive ways so that they're not harmful to low income folks.    We'll also need to be shifting funds from the bad projects to the good projects. We're in a time where we need to get creative. We don't really have another option. And so I'm curious to see over the next few years how we can grow and explore new revenue sources that are progressive…that aren't going to just harm the pocketbooks of low income folks most.    As we move forward in exploring that, and as we're pushing all of our transportation policies more broadly, we need to get so much better at telling a compelling story.    And again, I think that's what abundance did really well. It captured people's imaginations. And to be frank, like, I think our transportation vision largely kind of sucks. We talk about vehicle miles traveled and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.    I am so guilty of that too. I'm in like, no position to be pointing fingers at anyone, but that's just not doing it for folks. One of the things I've been thinking about a lot is how Greenlining is part of the Clean Rides Network…and I can just give a super high level overview? It's uniting over 100 national and grassroots organizations spanning climate, transit, electrification, housing, public health, business and labor. We are focused on scaling up state level change around shifting funds from polluting highways to walking, biking, public transit and electric vehicles. We're working in seven states. We're developing specific state campaign plans, we're doing all this data driven work to really help create a blueprint for how sustainable transportation can cut costs for families, can curb air pollution, and ultimately shorten commutes and just make people's lives better. So that's the background.   So much of it went into this understanding of what is important to people at the end of the day. And so we did some polling, and some message testing across the seven states. And the seven states are California, of course, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York and Maryland. We did polling across that…7000 participants…each state had slightly different results. But there were some trends.    The number one message on why we should create a sustainable transportation system was reducing traffic. The number two message was saving people money. Climate Change and health were the least convincing reasons across all states.    This was both a total knife to the heart as a climate advocate for my career, and a wake up call of, "Okay, cool. No one actually cares about this climate messaging that we've been pulling over for the last few years."    I think this is a bit of a light bulb moment around showing we need to completely reframe all of our policies in a way that isn't telling people we're not completely changing things all together, but we need to be helping make the connection to people…to legislators… on how this policy is fundamentally going to, lower costs for them, or help them get home faster to their families.    As we develop our policy agenda for the future, I really think it's imperative that advocates spend a lot of time crafting compelling messages that resonate with people, kitchen table issues, etc. Of course, we can still be pushing climate safety and other agendas, because they're all connected. At the end of the day, it's not like we're changing our approach altogether. It's just changing the way we connect with people.    Damien In 2007, I went to a candidate forum for Democratic nominee for president being held at the VA here in Los Angeles. Hillary Clinton told the 1200 people in the room and got booed when she said, "Talking about global warming is a dud. When I go to Iowa, when I go to New Hampshire, when people talk I talk about this, or any of the other people on the stage talk about it, people's eyes glaze over. It's not working."   We boo'd her as any good group of environmentalists would at the time, but it stuck in my head, especially after she didn't win the nomination. That message doesn't work broadly, even if it's one that we hammer all the time at Streetsblog. There's a little bit of choir preaching, though, when you're you know Streetsblog California. A) you've got Californians and B) you've got people that are reading Streetsblog.   One of the things that we wanted to talk about is what's happening with congestion pricing in New York. If anyone doesn't know, it's a project where they change the amount of money collected on the tolls for the city based on the congestion. They're raising a lot of money that way, and investing the money back into their transit system.    But there's also been a lot of side benefits. There's a lot less traffic during rush hour going into the Manhattan Borough and the air has been cleaner. The cost of riding the subway has been reduced. For people that live in New York, the reverse commute is actually, I believe, a little cheaper on the tolls if they happen to be going into New Jersey. So there's a money saving issue for New Yorkers.   The project has been out longer and longer, it's been getting more and more popular, even as the Trump administration tries to revoke permits for it. Are you looking at what's happened in New York with congestion pricing and A) thinking,"well, maybe that's possible here" or B), "what  else can we learn from it that's useful for Californians?"   Hana  Yeah, absolutely. I have been applauding this effort from the sidelines. And know that there's been just years and years of work that went into this. Definitely talk about message testing and communication strategy. It was brilliant, what those folks were able to accomplish.    I've definitely thought about this a lot in the context of California. A few years ago, pre-pandemic, it seemed like San Francisco was heading in this direction. Los Angeles has also done some kind of study on it. Greenlining was advising the San Francisco congestion pricing study. There's a few key things that are different around like what congestion pricing would look like in New York compared to California.    In New York, there's obviously a robust enough transit system in place. It's dense enough where if you are low income, you travel by walking, biking or public transit. So if you are driving into the city, you're probably more well off.    California is just built different, right?    So many low income people have no other option but to drive. It is true that, like the folks who do walk by, take public transit, like disproportionately, still are low income, but there's a big percentage of low income folks that have no other option but to drive.    So for the San Francisco study, and I believe, for the LA study, it landed on whether there needs to be discounts available for low income drivers, for drivers with disabilities, for other groups who have a different financial picture, and might need a different situation.   There still is a congestion pricing website that San Francisco has up that has examples of the different price points for different demographics. Last time I talked with those folks…I mean, the pandemic just really put a damper on things, right? Traffic levels were not at the same as they were before, and they were really just trying to revitalize the downtown.    Maybe in the near future there is a possibility: traffic is now absolutely horrendous in the Bay Area. Obviously the same in LA. Assuming that New York congestion pricing continues to be effective and successful, I can absolutely see there being momentum for other regions in California to do the same…to follow in their footsteps, but again, to do it in a way that makes sense for California, which realistically would look like having some kind of scaled approach based on income and other factors.   Damien We were working on congestion pricing when I worked for the Tri-State Transportation Campaign in 2005-2007. So it was a long time coming. Even though I was out here, I was really excited to see it start, and really excited to see it working as well.    I know out here on the LA one was mostly jobs related. I remember the study they did was looking at cars moving west, basically towards the beach cities, towards Santa Monica. I was just reading an article today about Santa Monica adding four or five jobs for every new dwelling. in Santa Monica.    There's a light rail line that goes into Santa Monica, and a bunch of freeways and a few rapid buses, but they're all sitting in congestion because the bus-only lanes don't extend all the way into the city. So, the transit system just isn't there yet.    But…you end up in the chicken and the egg, because it doesn't look like there's a plan to, you know, super develop the transit system that would get there, either.    So anyway, that's just one issue on the ground… that doesn't have as much to do with the messaging when it comes to raising funds.   Speaking of messaging, that's one way they got killed in Illinois on transit funding. One of the things that was voted down, but I think the one that got closest to passing, was a package delivery fee that they were calling the "pizza tax."    When we talk about revenue generation for transportation, we really don't look at all of the trips that are generated by people dropping stuff off at other people's houses. That didn't happen at this scale a decade to decade and a half ago.   Is that something that you think is interesting at all? Adding an extra fee onto delivery services.   Hana I definitely think it's worth exploring for sure.    Man, coming back to messaging: Ooof, that is going to be a tough one, right?    People have become, myself included, so attached to the convenience of being able to get dinner delivered to your door, get your Amazon Prime the next day. Politically, that's definitely a tough one. I think it's an important one.    Specifically in California, that might be considered an additional tax that might require a two thirds vote of the legislator. So I've been mulling that one around my brain for a while. That's a side project I would love for, like, someone to do a legal analysis on: what actually would be required for that.    At the end of the day when we're in a tough spot. I think we need to be really open and innovative. We could have some fees on private jet or yacht usage. We were just so far talking about  transportation specific versions, but we could get really creative outside of the transportation specific space: a fee on luxury vehicles or something…a road user charge.    Back to transportation, stuff has definitely been capturing a lot, a lot of hearts and minds in the transportation nerd community…which I know probably all the listeners, including myself, are a part of…is inevitably going to be the future. The gas tax is declining significantly. The state of California is already heavily researching what it will mean to replace the gas tax with these road user fees based on how many miles you drive on the state highway system.    A lot is going to change in the funding and revenue landscape in the coming years. A lot is fairly certain, like the road user charge, and then there's a lot of uncertainty.  I'm excited to work with other partners and advocates to figure out  what can be, what is the next frontier of revenue in this era.   Damien   When we're getting such, let's say, uneven messaging out of DC, administration to administration on things, it becomes extra hard for as you try to picture like funding into the future.    I'm not necessarily the hugest fan of large EV subsidies. But when the federal government's actually talking about charging people more to buy EV than they do a regular gas car, does it make sense for the state to try and balance that? If we have electrification goals and milestones and all of that set up for our state, how do we plan for the future when every four years we get a totally new set of priorities out of DC when it comes to transportation?   Makes it really hard to do consistent revenue planning at the state level, when you're trying to plan for more than just getting people from A to B. We're talking about efficiency. We're talking about road maintenance. We're talking about transit, bike mode, share, all this other stuff.    There's an extra layer of complication that's been added. When we started doing Streetsblog LA in 2008, there were obviously different priorities between George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. But now the pendulum is just, you know, way back and forth.    You can't see it everybody, but she's agreeing with me, just for the record. There's a vigorous head nod.   Hana  Yeah, vigorous.    As California tries to keep up with, what did you say? "The uneven communications from the feds?" That is a very generous terminology, by the way, very politically correct.   Damien 501, c3, right? Yeah, I gotta stay on everyone's good side.    Hana At the end of the day, we still have to figure out what California's vision, despite these federal swings.    The state of California absolutely should continue to support helping folks get into electric vehicles. We've had billions of dollars in financial incentives and in programs to do so, and it's worked. We have the largest electric vehicle ownership rates in the country.    As we figure out our next phase, Greenlining has long been pushing that we should be prioritizing making sure low income people can access electric vehicles. There are very specific programs that help do that, and they're very successful. They are consistently underfunded, compared to, you know, the programs that have been open to anyone and have essentially subsidized wealthy people buying Teslas. So in this new phase of California, figuring out who she wants to be when she grows up, I would love for the priority to be low income people getting into electric vehicles. We have limited funds. We can't be subsidizing everyone. We're in this budget crisis, right?   Damien Former Los Angeles  mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the subway mayor, running right for governor, trying to break away from the pack by talking about gas prices. Knowing his transportation policies as mayor, and knowing that his son is an urban planner, or at least has a degree in it. I was surprised to see that. But it makes total sense when you talk about the messaging that you guys saw from the polling.    Affordability of transportation is the number one issue. He's staying away from specifics, because I don't know how you lower gas prices without moving off the climate stuff. And he's certainly not going to try to run a Democratic primary being the oil candidate. But it does make sense, I think, especially in this early game, for him to be using this messaging.   How do we get people from place to place without bankrupting them?    I always like to give our guests the last word. Is there anything you would like to add, anything in particular, or any questions I should have asked but didn't that you just want to answer before we go into the wrap up?   Hana This conversation just solidifies for me that we need to build power to win. We are losing. There's a lot of conditions in place that are making it that way. At the same time, advocates and our broader campaigns need to do things differently. We need to frame things differently, and we need to build stronger alliances across sectors.  Coming back to the piece about how economics issues are at the top of mind for people, I always like to quote this Harvard study that found that a person's commute time is the single greatest factor in their chances of escaping poverty, more than crime rates or school test scores.    This helps to solidify when people say, "I'm so mad I'm stuck in traffic," or "It takes me so long to get home." This is a bigger issue than, "Oh, I don't get to watch like, four episodes of Netflix when I get home." This factor is completely inhibiting people's ability to move up the social socio-economic ladder.    I would just love to work with partners to figure out how we can talk about the importance of building a functional, accessible transportation system in a way that actually improves people's lives on a day to day basis…that they can actually see the tangible benefits in their lives.    Because the connection is there. Transportation is connected to literally everything, and it's not that hard to make that narrative gel. I think we need to be a bit more creative about it, myself included. I definitely have not figured all this out. I'm like, very much on the learning edge of being, "Oh, I guess I shouldn't talk about climate like, we need to frame it in different ways." So I'm excited for that. I think it's a good challenge.    Damien Well, thank you so much for your time today. I'm sure we'll have plenty of chances to check back in as time goes on.    Hanna This was fun. Thank you. Thank you. Bye.  

In StreetSmart Episode7, Streetsblog California editor Damien Newton and Sam Speroni from UCLA discussed the unequal distribution of car ownership costs in Los Angeles, using data from 2021 to 2023.    Speroni and his fellow researchers found that while wealthy neighborhoods had high debt per borrower, lower-income areas like South LA had higher debt burdens. Black and Latino neighborhoods faced higher debt per borrower and debt burdens, and higher delinquency rates. The study highlighted the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on automobile borrowing and the need for better data collection to address predatory lending.    UCLA has published two articles on the research. The first covers who has debt and the second where debt is. The policy briefs that the podcast and articles are based on can be found here.    A full transcript can be found below.:   Damien Newton  I'm here with Sam Speroni, with UCLA, and we are discussing the costs of car ownership and how they are distributed, in some cases unequally, across Los Angeles.    Welcome! You and your team studied this issue from 2021 through 2023. Why don't you start out with just a brief explanation of what your research was and why it was important?   Sam Speroni Sure. Thanks Damien for having me. Great to be here.    We were interested in changes in automobile debt as part of both the overall profile of debt for people, but also in geographies, both in Southern California and across California as a whole. This was enabled through access to a unique data set called the University of California Consumer Credit Panel. That panel tracks credit lines for people living in California, and we can see how that changes over time. It also gives us an approximate location of where those borrowers live.    So we're able to look at different neighborhood aspects of the borrowers, and see where we may see some spatial patterns in this borrowing. And so ultimately, we were interested in two research questions. One was, "How the landscape of automobile borrowing, both loans and leases, changed from before to during the COVID 19 pandemic." And then secondly, we were interested in how the landscape of automobile borrowing might differ across different types of neighborhoods in California.   Damien This entire study happened during different phases of the pandemic. How much of that do you think may have impacted the final results, which we'll get into in just a just a second?   Sam  It's a really fair question. I certainly think yes. Some of that we see in our results. For example, we look at quarterly borrowing patterns in one of our papers, and there's an enormous drop in quarter two of 2020 for obvious reasons, and then an enormous spike in automobile purchasing in quarter three. There's all these people that would have bought a car in quarter two and/or needed a car as a result of the pandemic, who might have otherwise relied on other means of transportation. But one of the things that we want to highlight is that generally, not quite to the same degree as a house, but a car is a long term purchasing decision, particularly if you're financing the car.    Typically you're committing to several years of payments when you finance a car. And so, on the one hand, there's certainly some changes in the pandemic, and we can delve into what we found there, on the other hand, the people who bought their cars in 2021 are largely still paying them off.   Damien  One of the things that stuck out to me, is the loan size was also increasing. Not just the number of loans in an area, but the size of the loan was increasing. Most car loans are in the five to 10 year range...I don't think there's very many people who take a 15 year car loan. Most don't last 15 years, but that five to 10 year range...people that bought a car in 2020 are definitely still paying it off.   You also noticed that there was at least some correlation in the racial makeup of a neighborhood and the car loans that the population was getting. Can we go a little bit into that?   Sam So the premise that I think is worth mentioning is that while there are lots of different means of transportation, and many of them are more environmentally sustainable than automobiles, particularly for most of California, the automobile dramatically increases access to opportunities for people of all races, ethnicity, and income brackets. And the reality is that it takes an enormous upfront cost to acquire a car, even an older, somewhat broken down, unreliable car is still an enormous expense, particularly for low income families.    And so cars require this large upfront cost.    And while public transit can step in and provide mobility for those without automobiles at a per ride unit cost. It comes nowhere near providing the same access to opportunities. So we're interested in essentially this group of people that are likely to need a car to increase their access to opportunities, but live in a place where it's basically required to have a car.They may not be facing the same additional obstacles compared to others.    Damien I just wanted to interrupt for a second, because I think a lot of people, when they see a podcast like this on Streetsblog, assume that we're going to be going, "Oh, and the cars are bad, and everyone's bad for having them." And that's very clearly not what we're talking about. And I should have said that up front, and I've actually made a note to say it in the intro, but I wanted to say it now too. We're talking about the world that we live in, not the world we want to live in.    I would prefer to live in a world that wasn't so car dependent, but in a world that is car dependent. People need to get to work to have access to opportunities. And so we're talking here about the barrier of cost and what that means for people's access to opportunities. Yeah, 100% the long term or midterm, depending how you want to define debt, means to the people that are having to put out money to have access to the car and have access to the educational, cultural, right, work opportunities.    We're talking about the world we live in, not the world that we want to live in. I think we're talking here about, how can we make the world we live in a little bit better for people who are getting left behind in the near term?    Sam  So okay... you asked, "Where are we seeing these patterns?" We looked at three measures for debt outcomes related to automobile debt in California. The first is the amount of debt per borrower in a neighborhood. And so that's essentially we add up all of the car loans outstanding balances, and count up the number of people who could borrow, not just who do, but anyone with a credit line in that neighborhood, and try to get a sense of how much is this neighborhood spending on cars relative to the number of people that could buy them. The second measure we look at, we call the automobile debt burden.    What we do is take that same measure of all the car loans and leases in the neighborhood, but instead of dividing it by the person, we divide it by the amount of annual income in that neighborhood. The American Community Survey from the US Census Bureau has a measure of aggregate income in a spatial unit.    We created a measure that looks at how much money people are spending on cars relative to the amount of money they make as a neighborhood. The third is more straightforward, and that's the rate of delinquencies, the rate of loans that are at least 60 days behind schedule in a given neighborhood based on the number of loans that are there. What we find is that there's higher debt per borrower in a variety of different places. We see that in wealthy neighborhoods as well as lower income neighborhoods.    And part of that is that wealthy people buy expensive cars. I don't want to focus on that measure, because what it reveals is just how much money do people spend on cars, and did they finance them? Where I want to focus is on the higher debt burden. And so remember, that's debt for cars related to overall income in the neighborhood.    There's places where there's high debt per borrower that typically signals wealthy neighborhoods that have really low debt burden. Some examples of that are Silicon Valley or Palos Verdes or the Hollywood Hills. Really high debt for cars, but also a lot of money to pay for them. Conversely, there are places with high debt per borrower and high debt burdens. A lot of those are the rural areas of southern and central California.    In Imperial County, the agricultural areas of the Central Valley: those places tend to both spend a lot of money on cars because they are relatively rural and cars are an absolute necessity, but people also have less money to pay for them. Then there are places that tend to have higher debt burden, but maybe not high debt per borrower, and those are typically the lower income areas of Los Angeles, like South LA. We find on the flip side that highly urbanized areas control for all of these other things, like race and income and credit score. Highly urbanized areas tend to have less automobile debt. And so you could think there about a family that maybe has two parents, two children and one car, because maybe one parent is walking distance to work or bikes to work. And we find that in highly urbanized areas, and especially in urban areas around rail stations.   Damien I was actually late for this podcast recording because I had to pick my kid up at school. But until this year, we were a family with one car because we worked from home and had kids that could walk to school. Now our kids go to different schools that aren't walkable, and it changed. I mean, I live in West LA, and I would say an upper middle class neighborhood for Los Angeles. No people have all their money in their houses, so, like, looks good on paper, but not a lot of disposable income to disposable income.    It's definitely changed our lifestyle, having a second car and the cost of it. We're not even we're not talking about the cost of gasoline, oil changes, insurance, etc. We're only here talking about the loan which is significant.   Sam And so when you think about that burden and how much of the percent of money that people are spending on their car, just to finance the car. You add on all of those expenditures on top of it that aren't part of what we're looking at, but are a little more uniform in their nature than maybe the price and financing cost of the car (to get the true cost).    We found in all of those metrics that I mentioned, we found that the outcomes are more adverse for black neighborhoods. So black neighborhoods compared with white and Asian neighborhoods tend to have higher debt per borrower, tend to have higher debt burdens, and, importantly, have higher delinquency rates.    I'll return to that in a second. We also found for debt per borrower and debt burden, in particular, debt burden much higher rates of debt burden in Latino neighborhoods. And so when I refer to black neighborhoods or Latino neighborhoods here, I mean neighborhoods with at least 50% of its population is of that race or race or ethnicity group.   Damien I was going to ask about that, because one of the findings that I remember is that the increase in the size of the loans was the largest in Latino neighborhoods. But then you were talking about the debt burden being highest in African American and black neighborhoods. And I was wondering about predatory lending and how much of that is happening.Why don't you briefly explain what predatory lending is, rather than me do it, and what impact that's had.   Sam  There's two issues that we're concerned with, sort of indirectly, here. One is predatory lending. That's when lenders target specific demographics in providing loans, and may do so in a way that is into the next part: discriminatory practices.    Predatory would be a situation where, for example, an auto dealer would offer a higher interest rate to a woman than a man or to a black person than to a white person. Discriminatory practices may, may exclude those people overall. You may see situations where, where somebody who is a white man, might have an option of six different lenders, and they can pick the best of those options.Somebody on the on the the wrong end of discriminatory practices, which typically is black, Latino or women in automobile lending, somebody may only have two choices in their choice set for loans, and they may be the two worst interest rates. In our study, when we look particularly at debt per borrower, which counts the interest rate and the debt burden, we're controlling for income in our statistical models, and we're controlling for credit score. If we were just thinking that this is a function of the ability to pay or a function of a recorded history of credit, then we would expect race and income, race and ethnicity, to not have any effect on what we're seeing in our metrics.    Almost the opposite of what we see. We see strong correlations, particularly with Latino neighborhoods, but also with black neighborhoods for debt per borrower and debt burden. And we see strong correlations with black neighborhoods and delinquency rates. And so that getting to your predatory practice: if someone who isn't being discriminated against has all of these choices, and they pick the best loan for them, then they're less likely to default on that. They may also be in a position where they've been given a bad loan that maybe the bank wanted them to default on.   Damien What is there to do about this? New laws to try and address this? I mean, there are already laws that say you can't discriminate, so what do we do? The Streetsblogger in me is hoping that we'll go back to those bike lanes, and talk about making communities that are more walkable and bikeable, and communities that have workplaces near job centers and all that sort of stuff. But I'm going to guess that you've got some other things to say.   Sam It's an interesting time to talk about data and research in our current national environment, but one of the things that became clear to us is the advantages that we had in this project is that we had access to a really comprehensive administrative data set. We were able to see different financial patterns for a variety of different people, but we knew very little about the people themselves. We knew stuff about where they live. And so we can draw some conclusions about where where these loans are, but it was much more difficult to understand who the borrowers are themselves, outside of their neighborhood.    One of the things that we found as a gap that could be addressed...that could help address those laws that do already exist... is a standardized data collection about borrowers for automobile loans. This exists in some capacity for home mortgages. And there's, there's some work from the UCLA Lewis Center and one of our colleagues here, Jose Loya about what, what we know about borrowers that help us to understand how we can make that process more fair. We have made laws to say that you can't discriminate in lending, and that includes automobile lending, but there's very little that we can do about that if we aren't able to recognize there's a problem.    And so while we're able to say we have some problems at the neighborhood level, we can't even say definitively that they're individual based problems neighborhoods that are 50% or more of a given race or ethnicity group. We can be pretty confident in that, but we're able to get a lot more confident and work toward resolutions if we have those data attached to the loans themselves. That's a important first step: developing a way that we can evaluate whether discrimination is occurring or not in automobile.   Damien Do you think that's the next step? Taking the data to like the next level, or is there, is there something else that you think needs to be done.   Sam In the short run, Damien, yeah, the sort of the low hanging fruit here is to have a to be able to give in a value, a metric that can be evaluated for the laws that already exist. In the long run...to what we talked about earlier, we looked at the world we live in now, but there are things that we can do in the long run. (And yes, we can get back to not bike lanes and public transit and so in some cases.)    One of the things that we found is that automobile debt burden. And remember, that's all the debt in the neighborhood compared to all the income. And so automobile debt burden is lower in places that are closer to rail transit stations. And some of this is a little bit of chicken and egg. On the one hand, a rail station may enable families to have lower car ownership. On the other hand, those families that wanted lower car ownership may have moved near a rail station and so it is a little difficult to tell exactly how that goes. What does become clear from this is that whether there's self selection there or not, households living closer to rail stations tend to have lower automobile debt. We used rail stations, thinking that that proxies a higher quality of transit service than the state the bus typically offers when we're looking at a statewide data set.    The other thing to highlight, though, is what works in parts of Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento and San Francisco. But I don't think that the public transit, increasing public transit supply as much addresses the issues in, say, the agricultural region of the Central Valley and Imperial County. Where I think the state resources can be directed to help those who live in rural communities that are 100% car reliant to fairly and affordably afford an automobile, and to help with that upfront cost in a way that can be less discriminatory and predatory.   Damien All right, so I always joke that we're approaching our artificially created time limit, but we are getting close to a half hour, so this is when we start to wrap up. Is there anything you would like to add or have a closing thought here?    Sam  We talked earlier about how we're focusing on our study here and in our discussion today about the world we live in. In planning, we often think about the future in a good way. What a lot of us in transportation planning are focused on is, how can we make things better in the long run? And in a lot of cases, I think we sometimes shortchange the medium, and in particular, the short run. I'll give you an example. My first career was as a high school English teacher. It was really tempting to think about how we could move the needle of educational inequality and improve outcomes for kids.    A lot of that requires a long runway. It was an interesting challenge in that role, and a difficult challenge to understand that the students in front of me in a given year did not have the luxury of that long runway. That they're there now.    What this research highlights is there are people now, and these data are already a few years old, there are people now who face these challenges. We can improve that by building out a more robust, more frequent transit system.    There are important ways that we need to focus on helping people now. And so while I agree public transit can be part of this solution. I really encourage people who are listening to this to also think about what are the immediate solutions that we can offer for people who are in financial precariousness because of their need for an automobile now.   Damien  That's a great city council speech. I think you're ready to run for office now. There are city council elections in your city, I think next year. So you know, work on pulling papers. And thank you so much for being here today. And again, I wasn't kidding earlier when I made a joke that I was late to the podcast and Sam was sitting here waiting for me. So I want to call out his extra patience and my appreciation for that   Sam Damien is worth the wait. Thank you.   Damien  Links to his research and summaries and all of that stuff is all available in the text that accompanies this podcast if you're listening somewhere that is not Streetsblog California, you can find it at c, a, l, dot, streets blog, dot, O, R, G, you.  

There's lots of legislation pending in California that will impact the way California grows and tries to address the global climate emergency. One of the most important decisions the legislature has to make is whether, when, and how to reauthorize the state's cap-and-trade program. In short, the program charges the state's largest polluters a fee and uses the money generated to pay for programs to battle Climate Change and Global Warming. The program sunsets in 2030 unless the legislature and governor reauthorize it. Today, StreetSmart talks with Zack Deutsch-Gross, the policy director of TransForm about the program and why the state shouldn't wait until the last second to reauthorize cap-and-trade. For more on the program you can listen to the podcast below, read a transcript of our discussion, or read this blog post Deutsch-Gross wrote for TransForm. Damien Newton - So thanks for being here with us today. A lot of regular Streetsblog readers will be able to pick up our conversation right away. But just in case, why don't we start with a brief discussion of what is cap-and-trade and why it's important that we're talking about reauthorization of this program right now. Zack Deutsch-Gross - Happy to be chatting with you today.  So for listeners who don't know, I work for an organization called TransForm. We work to reshape transportation and housing decision making in a way that centers community needs and combats the climate crisis. We've been doing this work for about 30 years, and that includes making sure that we have a viable cap-and-trade program that is investing in these fundamental priorities. Cap-and-trade started off about two decades ago as a way to reduce carbon emissions. Apologies for those who this is familiar to, but it sets a cap on the amount of greenhouse gases that are being produced in the state and then sells the right to pollute in the form of allowances. The state gets money from those allowances to reinvest in solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as infill affordable housing and public transportation. Right now, today, the program generates about $4 billion dollars a year. DN - How is that $4 billion dollars invested right now? ZDG - About 60% of the program is continuously appropriated. That includes 25% to high speed rail, 20% to a program called "affordable housing, sustainable communities" which builds infill housing and supportive transportation infrastructure to reduce emissions. The remaining 15% goes to two programs: the Transit Intercity and Inner City Rail Corridor Capital Program, and the "LCTOP," the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, funding vital transit and housing needs that we know are strategic and necessary to reduce GHG emissions. The other 40% is appropriated discretionarily by the legislature to additional reduction programs, including wildfire prevention. DN - The original program had a deadline on it which is coming up. It's not tomorrow, but it's in a couple of years. So the state is now beginning to talk about what changes, if any, do we want to make as we reauthorize the program? It seems as though reauthorizing the program is a slam dunk, that it's going to happen. Cap-and-trade has gotten some flack from the left and the right over the years. You've written about this, and the link to the blog post that you wrote will be included with the text that accompanies this podcast for people that want more. But how can the state reauthorize this to make it the best program possible? ZDG - First, we need to reauthorize it. You know, the allowances that are sold every quarter are already dipping as there's uncertainty on the program. While it doesn't expire until 2030, reauthorization in this cycle of the legislature is really important to keep making progress on reducing our emissions and investing in vital programs. TransForm's advocacy and our vision has three pillars. One is supporting and maintaining these vital investments in affordable housing and sustainable transportation. The second is to add some flexibility to these transit programs. Streetsblog listeners are familiar with transit agencies across the state that are facing fiscal cliffs. And so, we want some flexibility to make sure that we're not operating life-size model train sets. The third is to reinvest and center environmental justice and frontline communities in the cap-and-trade program and GGRF, the greenhouse gas reduction fund, which funds these programs. We know frontline communities are the ones bearing the cost of this pollution and the allowances are de facto permits to pollute. And so it's fundamental to TransForm and our allies, 50 organizations across the state, that have supported the principles we put together: we support and stand with EJ and frontline communities and their demands to make this program just, equitable, and help achieve our climate goals. DN - On past episodes of StreetSmart, we had two people discussing high-speed rail. They looked at reauthorization of the cap-and-trade as a way to keep funding going for that project as there's federal uncertainty. On another, we had Juan Matute, my old friend with UCLA, who was talking about the transit fiscal cliff and operations. The cliff is especially steep for the ones that are reliant on taxes more than they are farebox recovery. He was talking about cap-and-trade as a possible way to help fill that in the long term need . Of course, there's also legislation to authorize ballot measures for more taxes and all sorts of different things going on to try and fix transit.  Is it possible for cap-and-trade to sort of fund those programs and these other programs that you were talking about and still center environmental justice? Or, are too many people putting too many hopes on it? Is it possible for this program to sort of be the stop gag that everyone's hoping it'll be? ZDG - It is a great question. I think the answer is yes. And it is going to take more than just cap-and-trade to solve the climate crisis, to address the transportation needs in the CARB scoping plan, which says we need to double public transportation ridership. That's double the investment. So cap-and-trade can't do everything. It can't be everything for everyone. But we see it as a vital step towards making these investments. And certainly, if we were to reduce the funding for transportation or housing through cap-and-trade, it would be detrimental to affordability and equity.  There is a solution. I would point to the California transportation budget, which continues to build and expand highways at the expense of vital transportation and active transit investments.  We see cap-and-trade and building partnerships between transportation, housing, environmental justice advocates as a way to get the best possible outcome for this program and also build the power necessary to take on the highway builders and the industry that wants to build highways through black and brown communities, wants to increase our emissions, and increase the cost of driving instead of investing in in transit, walking, biking and solutions we know communities need. DN - Given the imminent rollback of the minimal federal environmental program protections and given the rollback…well the expected rollback of transit and transportation funding at the federal level… stuff is all almost definitely going to happen unless the courts step in. Does that change the calculus of what we should be doing when we talk about cap-and-trade or any sort of state funding? Or has this been baked into the planning since the November election in how we have to plan how to do our state transportation funding? ZDG - I think it absolutely increases the urgency. California needs to be a climate leader. It has historically been so, and it's increasingly necessary given the federal uncertainty. Unfortunately, sometimes our elected leaders are more interested in recording podcasts than taking bold action. DN - Hey, hey, hey, we're recording one now. ZDG - You're right. Podcasts are great. They're a key part of the solution, but we need to be involved. DN - I know what you're referring to. I wasn't actually offended. ZDG - Good. Hopefully your listeners will too.But no, we need to do more. I think we can't rely on the federal government to solve California's transportation and housing needs. We need to be showing that California is a model for a clean, green, thriving economy. And that starts with the cap-and-trade program that centers the communities most impacted by the climate crisis and invests in affordable housing and sustainable transportation that makes California more affordable and accessible for everyone. DN - So there has been legislation introduced to reauthorize the cap-and-trade program.  Do you have any sort of feeling on whether this is legislation that's going to be moving this session, if this is something that's a placeholder? You've made the case that there's no such thing as doing it too early, especially as uncertainty around the long term future of the program might reduce the amount of money it brings in in the short term. But is there the political will at the moment to really bring this up as a discussion, or is it something that's probably going to wait until we have a new governor? ZDG - We think cap-and-trade needs to move, if not in 2025, then in 2026. And in part, that's because, again, we're already seeing the auction revenues dip due to uncertainty. There are two bills in the legislature, AB 1207, which is Assemblymember Jackie Irwin, who's the chair of the Assembly cap-and-trade Working Group, and SB 840, which is by Senator Limon, chair of the Senate Climate Working Group. And those are the bills we see as the way to drive the cap-and-trade discussion forward in the legislature, that will become the bones of a reauthorized program. So we've been meeting with both assembly members and senators on those working groups to share our priorities and drive home the urgency for the legislation to move forward. Given the fires and the devastation that that's caused, that set some of these conversations back a little bit, but on the whole, the legislature does understand the urgency of moving the reauthorizing of  cap-and-trade. DN - A big part of the legislative discussion this year is going to be talking about recovery and the wildfires, but I'm unsure how that impacts other legislation that we want to see moving. When I look at the legislative list that TransForm has out and the ones that CalBike has out, the ones that other groups have out, it looks like there's just a massive list of bills, most of which look pretty good. But like with the legislature having to contend with everything else and the political reality that next year we're going to be in a governor's race, it's hard to figure out what is and isn't going to move and what is and isn't Newsom going to be willing to sign. Which is why I was wondering if there's going to be the push behind it. But I guess we're at a bit of a wait and see. ZDG - The reality is the climate crisis is here. And so we need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. If we're just reacting to the next set of climate devastation, which will come and continue to come, we can't take the proactive steps we need to invest in the systems and programs that are going to help mitigate the climate crisis and combat the climate crisis and lower emissions. So there's a real challenge for advocates, for our elected leaders to be able to address the crises that folks are facing. And again, including like the affordability crisis in California right now, but also take bold steps. And they're all related, right? These crises and our solutions are all connected to, but the climate crisis and the world we need we need to build. DN - Is there anything else you would like to say, anything we didn't touch on or anything you really want to just rehammer to draw attention to the urgency of cap-and-trade reauthorization? ZDG - I would leave listeners with the understanding that housing and transportation are the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions and the highest household expenses for Californians. They're also key to addressing the climate crisis. And a lot of our laws and policies to streamline housing production are premised on high quality transit. So we need to be thinking of these issues as intersectional, that housing and transportation are key solutions to the climate crisis. That takes investment and that takes political will. And if we don't start with building that political will, particularly with the communities who have been most impacted, we're not going to see the real change we need.  The thing I draw hope from is the power building across coalitions and multi-sector power building that we're doing around cap-and-trade and and throughout the state to address the climate crisis and advance affordability and equity for all Californians.

Episode 4 of the StreetSmart podcast features Monica Mallon and a discussion of the VTA strike in Silicon Valley. If you're not familiar with Mallon, she is a one-person advocacy machine focused on transit in the Bay Area Peninsula, specifically the VTA. When bus drivers and rail operators were on strike Mallon documented the various ways she commuted to and from the office on foot, Caltrain and even Amtrak for a series of social media videos. My favorite is this one, where she walks for 14.3 miles. But it was this one earlier in the strike that caught the attention of the local media. A court order has put VTA workers back on the job, but they are still working without a contract. In this podcast, we discuss what Mallon thinks will happen next in the strike, what she hopes people learn by watching her videos, and why it's important that people get involved in the issues they care about. You can follow Mallon on Instagram, Twitter/X, TikTok, and BlueSky. You can catchup on her video series on the strike (or any other transit issue) at any of her channels. DN - As mentioned in the pre-show, I'm here today with Monica Mallon, who is  an independent advocate. But if you are writing about VTA, covering the strike or anything else, I don't know how you do it without talking to her.  Thank you for being here today. MM - Thanks so much for having me. DN - We are hoping to get this podcast up today, but you never know how things are going to work editorially. We are recording on April 3rd of 2025. I only use this specific date because things move fast in a strike environment and if we don't get this up quickly, things may have changed. So if things have, it's my fault as a podcast editor, not "us" the interviewer and interviewee.  Why don't we start with what is the current state of the strike? They are not physically striking because of the court order, but there is not an agreement either. So where does that sort of leave VTA service at the moment? MM - It's very much up in the air right now. ATU members are working without a contract and full service was restored earlier today. So all bus service and all light rail service (are currently running.) But, they're working without a contract. So it is a little bit of this middle ground situation. And then there's also the appeal. I'm So we'll have to see. DN - Right. And the appeal is an appeal of the court order that they have to go back to work. It's not an appeal of anything else. The negotiations are happening separately from the legal appeals. MM - Yes. So there's been a lot of discussion about the negotiations as well. APU is saying VTA isn't coming to the table. VTA is saying APU isn't coming to the table. So there's a lot of back and forth there. But, hopefully those talks are able to continue soon. DN - I know VTA reached out to the governor's office to help mediate. It would seem that if both sides are posturing that the other one won't come to the table, that maybe a third party mediator would be useful. At least you'd have someone to say, "Hey, we were here and this is who did and didn't show up." We haven't had a transit strike like that down here in Southern California, but it seems like we have a teacher strike every three years and in those both sides always claim the other isn't willing to negotiate. MM - Yeah, it seems pretty common. And I think it would be really helpful to have some sort of third party there to mediate and also just be able to show who's the one that's not coming to the table and also just to help resolve the issue quickly. DN - I find it odd that when there's a strike going on to that the agency that's being struck against is, regardless of whether or not they are in the right or in the wrong in the negotiations,in an odd place because most of the time they talk about how great their workers are and how essential they are.  And then all of a sudden they're having to argue about the dental program. The flip side of it is the union members usually are very proud of their jobs at whatever agencies where they work.  Has the strike rhetoric gotten ugly or uglier than you think might be necessary? MM - There's always been a lot of conflict between VTA and ATU. They're always kind of coming after each other a little bit here and there. But I guess on the VTA side, there has been a little bit more aggression from VTA, because they're trying to get ATU to accept the offers that are on the table. But I haven't really seen anything that's too out of the ordinary. If anything, I felt like the strike was pretty quiet and I didn't see a lot of coverage of it. I didn't see business leaders and political leaders speaking up about it…especially on the rider impact side. I don't think there was really anything in those first few days that was said about riders really at all from anyone other than what I was saying or just random riders that were being interviewed by the news. DN - I was about to say that I only really saw the local Bay Area news coverage which was: here's a press conference from VTA, here's a press conference from ATU, here's a person who was stuck out in the rain. And the person being interviewed in the rain is saying, "I don't care. I just want to get on the bus." It's not hard to find someone that feels that way when they have to walk in the rain. But, you did something interesting and unique. You chronicled your own trips to work online during the strike. Once you had to walk 11 miles each way? MM - Yeah, I walked 11 miles home a couple of times. Once it was partially raining, it was really windy. It was not like the perfect California weather a lot of the time.  And when the strike happened, I knew that I could take the easy way out and do what everybody else is doing and just use ride shares or get rides from people, but I decided to showcase what actual riders were going through and highlight the more difficult aspects of the strike and what it's actually like if, you're completely without transit and not using ride shares or getting rides from people or renting a car or something like that. It was a really interesting experience. I was trying all these different things: walking a bit and taking Amtrak, and walking a bit and taking Caltrain. And then sometimes even just walking the whole distance home and documenting it and showing that it's so much more difficult to get around when you don't have access to transit. It's pretty easy to do these commutes on a bus or on a train. But when you're walking, it can take, in my case, three and a half hours. DN - That was one of the useful things (about her video series) because as people are looking at things from a statewide position, they hear there's a transit strike in the Silicon Valley and everyone's taking rideshare. But there's a lot of VTA riders…it's a hundred thousand passengers a day…and not all of them are choice riders.  Probably, the majority of them aren't.  And so the impacts of what that strike for them is being shown in these short videos that you put and edited together. Links to some of them are going to be in the text that accompanies this podcast at Streetsblog California and wherever else it is that people are downloading this from. If people want to watch those videos, you are showing what the impact was. You show  going on for the  people that are transit dependent and not to hop in a rideshare…or do you guys have Waymo? Could you take a Waymo? MM - I think Waymo actually just started here, but it wasn't fully ready in those earlier days of the strike. But I guess that's probably something that people might use these days. DN - (laughing) First trip's free. So that's the time to use it, right? MM - (laughing) Yeah, yeah. DN - Ok, but you said it was you decided to do these because you wanted to show people…you wanted to humanize what the strike is for the people that were impacted, for transit riders. MM - It was one of those moments whereI thought, "What if I just actually showed what it's like when there's no transit to show why transit's essential?"  Even during the pandemic, we did have transit running. Here, I could tell the story that there are people that are essential workers that need to get where they need to go. And, we're able to tell that story.  But this is just a situation where there's absolutely no service at all…not even the Sunday schedule or reduced service. People were really scrambling to get around because with VTA, most riders don't own cars.  Most riders aren't choice riders. A lot of riders are young and don't have a lot of options.  I was hearing…because I was documenting my struggles and what I was going through…I was hearing a lot of other people were walking as well or just spending hundreds of dollars a day on rideshare. Especially in the earlier days, people didn't think the strike would last very long. So they were calling out of work or not showing up to school. But as it started to drag into the second week, I think people had to really figure out what to do. You just can't miss that much work and expect to keep your job at that point. DN - So as we mentioned, they're working without a contract right now.  What do you see as sort of the best case scenario going forward? Because VTA is basically saying that they can't afford the contract that the ATU transit workers are demanding. And ATU is saying it doesn't make financial sense for us not to get what we're demanding for our workers to be able to maintain a healthy quality of life in the area that they're servicing. What do you see as the sort of end game for this? I mean, at some point they have to reach an agreement. MM - There really needs to be some compromise.  There's truth to what both sides are saying, but the reality is the federal government isn't providing operations funding and we have to live within our means. Something has to give, whether it's cutting service or raising fares, if we want to increase the salary.  Like there has to be a balance of all that. And the budget does have to balance without getting federal operations funding because that's just not something that's not feasible right now.  The board doesn't really want to use all the reserves and bet on that to provide the raise, and keep the service, and not raise fares.  It's not possible to give everybody what they want. So there has to be some sort of balance and compromise and everyone is going to need to give a little bit at some point. DN -  Senator Wiener is pushing to get more money put in the state budget (for transit operations.) Is there any thought on a short-term continuation and then see where things look a year from now? There's also been talk of a transit fund ballot measure in the Bay Area, I know VTA would get some of that.  Or is everyone just trying to get the negotiations done and we'll just see what happens down the road with these other measures? MM - They probably want to solve this problem first. At least on the board side, they want to solve it in a way that's going to be sustainable for VTA's future without expecting any additional funding. Because I know that there's this feeling that things are really difficult at the federal level and tax measures aren't pulling very well right now. They want to make sure that they're not getting themselves into this deep hole and then slashing service.  We all know how that sort of thing goes and that's happened a number of times at VTA which is why VTA already has lower service levels compared to other agencies in the Bay Area. There's a lot of concern there…just trying to figure out some sort of balance that allows them to move forward for the time being and then potentially look at new revenue sources later on in the future. DN - Is there anything you would like to say or add that maybe we haven't covered on or something you'd really like to emphasize about the strike or VTA or a transit service in the Valley or pretty much anything at all that you just want to shout out? MM - It was just this really interesting experience where we got to see what life was like without transit for an extended period of time. As a rider and advocate, it made me a lot more grateful for the service that we had and just how easy it can be to just hop on the bus and get where you need to go compared to what I was doing during the strike, which was at times walking three and a half hours home. I just remember that first day when I was able to get on the bus, even though I didn't have the light rail, which is what I normally use.  It was still so much faster and I was just grateful to be on a nice warm and dry bus going home. It just really was something that made me appreciate what we have. It also showed how important it is to keep speaking up for transit. I was working a full-time in-person job while this was happening, but I still took every opportunity to advocate for myself and advocate for other riders. DN - You take the time to advocate for yourself and other riders while having jobs that were not "transit advocate" for a big chunk of your adult life and you deserve a ton of credit for that.  I was telling you off camera, I was talking to a person at Transform who's the subject of our next podcast. When I mentioned that we were doing something on VTA, the first thing he said was, "You got to talk to Monica." And I was like, "Yes, that's good. That's who I'm talking to." There's a lot of people that see you as the VTA advocate, the go-to VTA person. And this has mostly been volunteer work over the years. I think you mentioned once or twice you've had some gigs with some of the advocacy groups, but for the most part, this has just been something you're passionate about. MM - I've mostly just been doing it completely for free because it's something that I really care about and I hope the other advocates out there know that.  If you feel like there's not a lot of advocacy in an area, you can just step up and become that person. You're going to learn a lot through the process and figure out how to do things and figure out what works best. I've certainly learned a lot over the years. and I didn't start at the place that I'm at now where everybody kind of knows who I am. There's a lot of people that respect my work. And it certainly took time to build a platform and to build expertise and credibility and all those things and relationships with reporters and things like that.  But anyone can do it. You can do it while you're working a full-time in person job. It's about having the passion and the drive for it and just finding those little opportunities where you can tell a good story like the one that I was able to tell during the strike. DN - Thank you for everything you do. And thank you for joining us today. Again, links to all of your social media and some of the highlights from the past month or so are going to be available in the text that accompanies this podcast. But it's just at MonicaMallon on the Twitter X site. MM - Yeah. DN -  That's where I follow you. Are you on Blue Sky or Instagram or any of those other ones? MM - Yeah, pretty much on everything as MonicaMallon and then the TikTok where I was documenting everything is at TakeTransit. DN - Taketransit? MM - Yeah. DN - That's ironic because…you weren't taking transit.  Thank you again for everything that you do and for being with us today. And I am sure we'll talk soon, although hopefully not about this. Hopefully this will just get worked out.

The StreetSmart podcast returns with an episode where we discuss how transit agencies can best fight global warming by encouraging more people to ride transit and by eliminating freeway widenings. This episode's guest is Bryn Moncelsi, the Deputy Director of Climate Resolve. The interview is divided into two parts. First, we discuss how transit agencies often overlook one of the most basic ways that transit can be made more comfortable and attractive for all riders The second part of the podcast goes more into policy. We discuss LA Metro's dual role as transit agency and highway expander. It was only recently, after a push by advocates, that Metro started admitting in its own reports (read Streetsblog coverage of said report here) the damaging role of freeway expansion in L.A. County has had the region's efforts to battle global warming. Catchup on past episodes of StreetSmart here. Transcript: Damien Newton I'm here with Bryn Moncelsi, the Deputy Director of Climate Resolve. We are going to be talking about climate change. And one of the ways we can fight climate change and improve transportation together is by encouraging people to ride transit. And you've done some studies and work on that topic. So first off, thank you for being here with us today. I think this is your first time on any of our podcasts which is surprising because we've crossed paths many times over the decades. Bryn Moncelsi Thanks for having me. I think that might be right. So good to be here. Thanks for having me. Damien Transportation and climate change are obviously big issues. One of the things we wanted to talk about is things that transit agencies can be doing to make their services more appealing, because obviously every person that rides transit is a person that's not riding in a car or driving a car. So let's talk a little bit about transportation and climate change and some of the work that you guys are doing right now at Climate Resolve. Bryn  Thanks. Yes, I thought we could start out by talking about how days are getting hotter, extreme heat waves are becoming more extreme and and longer, more intense. And when that happens, it's maybe harder to convince people to get outside of their own private air-conditioned bubble cars and want to be out waiting for the bus, or walking to the bus stop. But it just becomes all the more crucial that we make our sidewalks and our bus stops a little more inviting, a little more hospitable to people out there in their urban environment. We love street trees and want to see all the street trees out there. But also at bus stops, there's a lot of opportunity to get more bus shelters out there. Who doesn't love a good bus shelter? Damien Now, and this is an issue that's been ongoing, at least in the city of Los Angeles, where I live. I actually remember a piece, one of Sahra Sulaiman's first pieces with us, and she's been with us for a dozen years now, was called Desperately Seeking Shade. And it included a photo essay of South LA and people standing out in extreme heat ah with no shade around them waiting for the bus. Is that a barrier? Just the inability to find a comfortable place to wait for the bus? Bryn  Yeah, and it's something that really became on our radar back when we were doing a lot of organizing in the EnviroMetro Coalition, and we were conducting our equity survey where we looked at what transit dependent folks really want to prioritize investments in. That's what led us towards caring about frequency, and reliability of the bus network, but also bus shelters as really, really important, in what affects people's quality of life. We're finding stories of people who would not go to school, not go to work if it was a really hot day and they just couldn't bring themselves to go out there in that heat. So it is a really important thing that affects people's transportation choices…and their health, frankly. Damien I have a bus stop right outside the house I live in. It's a Big Blue Bus stop, and for those that aren't from the area, that's Santa Monica's bus service. I live in LA, but I have a Santa Monica bus stop outside my house. But anecdotally, I've seen over the past couple of years a big decrease in the number of people that use that bus stop. And it wasn't until I started taking my notes for this conversation a couple of weeks ago that I realized that the dip in me seeing people standing there was because the big tree that's also right in front of my house was cut down a couple years ago.  Like in my head, I had assumed ridership never recovered from COVID. But the bus stop is really used by UCLA students. There's lots of apartments around me that are full UCLA students. But I think the drop is because the tree is gone. The UCLA students are still here. Bryn  When we want to talk about bus shelter provision, I'd say there's kind of two areas we could break it down as. It's like, where are we putting bus shelters? And so we were doing a lot of advocacy there when the City of LA redid their contract for how the ad agency that was responsible for installing these bus shelters decides where to place them. And it used to be driven by where they could generate the most ad revenue. And so in 2020, when they redid the contract for those bus shelters, we were really proud to get integrated heat equity metrics into the system.  So rather than add revenue driving where these bus shelters would go, it was then ridership and heat exposure to target. The goal was within five years, we'd have 3000 new shelters and at least 75% of all trips and transfers would be protected by bus shelters. So, location is a really strong equity driver. But then what you're talking about, too, is the quality …what do these bus shelters consist of because there can be big disparities there, too. Whether you've got a tiny sliver of shade that ends up in the middle of the road where people aren't actually trying to wait for the bus, or if you have a more functional shelter that has features that serve the people who want to be there waiting for the bus. So some of what we've done in more recent years has been engaging with bus riders about what sort of features they would like to see in their bus shelters. What is their ideal bus shelter? We've come up with designs and worked on renderings to get those visions out there. And so, it's things like having different angles of shade so that depending on where in the sky the sun is, you're directing shade to the sidewalk where people are trying to wait. We've done designs around bench types so that you can accommodate bodies of all shapes and sizes. Things like security buttons and lighting are really important to people, especially taking trips later at night to make them feel safe. And then the hardest thing to troubleshoot has been trying to integrate hydration stations into bus shelters, too, so people can get a refreshing drink of water while they're waiting. Damien We're talking about L.A. because this is more local for both of us. But this is not an L.A. issue that bus shelters are not what we would hope they would be. This is, at best, a statewide issue, probably a national issue. It's the type of infrastructure that America hasn't completely invested in as much as some of the European and South American countries that we compare ourselves to. Bryn We've had a little bit of a shifting the buck, pointing the other way because, at least in our region, our largest transit service provider, Metro, is not the one that then has jurisdiction over the sidewalks. So, there's a little bit of pointing to the cities that it's their responsibility. And no one is quite stepping up and owning that as their mandate. Damien You mentioned the goal of 3000 more bus shelters. Do we know how they're doing as far as reaching that goal or a promise? Bryn  It's been a slow start. The LA City's budget shortfalls have led to some hiring gaps and hiring freezes that have been getting in the way of getting some of the permit approvals. But, I have a lot of faith in the vendor that has the new contract. They've been doing a lot of good design work, engineering work, kind of trying to make it as smooth as possible to get the approvals and get going. So our latest advocacy on that front is to try to lift some of the hiring freezes and get those staff positions filled so that that bus shelter program can start moving. Damien We mentioned there's lots of different levels of bus shelters for people in Los Angeles. The sombritas made the news a couple years ago as a "budget way" to try and do bus shelters. They got panned by the press. Is it worth trying to do something in an area where there's nothing, even if it's not the ideal situation? Or do you think this is something where we should be waiting until we can do an investment for an integrated shelter? Bryn We're pushing for higher quality bus shelters. You get what you pay for. We saw some attempts of putting just umbrellas stuck in the back of benches and those disappeared pretty quickly. When you give communities lower quality investments, it gets vandalized, it disappears. It's not there to serve needs for very long. Damien And I think you mentioned that there was a lot of outreach you were doing and that the company that's going to be putting the shelters is doing. And I wanted to echo the importance of doing that. People that follow Streetsblog in LA may know I've been the Santa Monica Next editor for a couple years. And they put in a bunch of new bus shelters with these like tiny little chairs and these cool looking shades. And it was supposed to be this cool modern design. And everybody on the West side made fun of them. And the city council wondered, "How could this happen? We're supposed to be the standard. These are supposed to be the best bus shelters ever."  If you went back and looked at the city council hearings from when they approved the design, the same council members that were losing their stack were the ones that voted to approve the shelters. Literally, it was the same people. We could track their votes. To be fair, they probably didn't remember. It was a couple years later. I don't think that they were intentionally doing that. But people can see something in a rendering and it might look cool to them. But then the people that are actually riding the bus just have a different experience and different expectations for what the shelters will look like. I'm guessing that's something that you guys see all the time as you do this. You have people that really want to design something that looks cool. Unless you have people that ride the bus and know what the sun is like at a certain time of day at a shelter, you end up with a design that might look cool from the street, but isn't practical for the people using it. Bryn We've really been trying to center that rider experience and get designs that are responding to real needs and not just kind of what looks cool, but what can actually make people's commute…make people's transit riding experience better. Damien So talking about LA Metro, we had a second topic we wanted to talk about with them, unless there was something else we wanted to hit on bus shelters. Bryn No, we can move on, but the main point is we're trying to make transit a better quality experience so we can entice more people to choose that as their daily transportation option. Damien A lot of the mainstream press will focus on two things when they talk about transit: safety perceptions and fares, and sometimes maybe the reliability of schedule. And Metro does pretty well with reliability of schedule. So we don't hear that one very much down in LA…at least not as much as some other transit agencies.  So the rider experience is important. It's supposed to be, I feel like if I say fun, people are going to take it the wrong way, but it's supposed to be an enjoyable experience to be on transit. And that starts from the moment you leave your house, the first mile, last mile, the wait at the stop and  when you get off the bus or train Bryn  Yeah, there's a Danish planner, a famous urban planner, named Jan Gehl, and he has this phrase that says that transportation should feel like a good party that you don't necessarily want to end. So I think, you know, solving for like the fastest time getting from point A to B doesn't always need to be the guiding light if you can make it a more enjoyable experience. And I know that's part of why I choose riding on the bus. I feel like those little interactions with people around you in the community just kind of brightens my day. It's a nice way to start and end the work day. Damien It's been almost 20 years since I moved here and it's still very strange for me that the transit agency and the people that are in charge of the highway expansions are the same people. I mean, obviously not the same engineer sitting at his desk at Metro, but the same organization. Metro and vehicle miles traveled has been a big coverage for Joe Linton at Streetsblog LA. this is We're going to again talk about the LA thing, but this is not a phenomenon that is unique to Los Angeles throughout California, um where you have long range plans that um even in an era where we really understand how climate change and the number of miles one travels in a car are connected, we still have agencies that have transit right in their name um that are doing projects that increase VMT. Bryn To some extent it does kind of sometimes feel like the left hand is not talking to the right hand. You have folks at Metro whose main job was to make traffic flow smoothly on highways. And they were looking at a range of "solutions", which I'm doing in air quotes, being limited to investments you could make on that highway system rather than thinking of the bigger picture. If we invest in other modes and try to reduce the number of vehicles and driving that's happening on those highways, that's ultimately the more sustainable, feasible option in a region with a growing population that's trying to achieve greater density, we need to achieve that mode shift. But so there's been some needed focus, and I will give credit where credit's due to Metro CEO Stephanie Wiggins for doing some org chart reorganization, making sure the highway team was brought under the larger multimodal planning team.  So, there are some more interactions there for planning for all modes and not in their separate silos. But in this day and age, you'd think we would have turned the page already and not see highway widening as an option that's in our playbook. But, unfortunately, there are still enough of these legacy dinosaur projects that were thought of a long time ago and are just hard to erase off the books.  So there's still some advocacy on that front, of trying to stop the pouring fuel on the fire that's happening in the highway widening camp that could make it a lot more possible for us to achieve some of the the road reconfigurations, the dedicated bus lanes, the bike lanes if we create more space for our other modes out there. Damien My job before I moved to California and started Streetsblog LA was I worked for a group on the East Coast called the Tri-State Transportation Campaign. I was their New Jersey person.  Ironically, a large part of my job was driving around the state because the places I was going to One of my bosses, the former executive director who was now a consultant, used to say, "There's no such thing as a defeated highway project. They're only delayed indefinitely, at best."  We used to sort of roll our eyes at her defeatism. And then right after I moved out here in 2008, the project that I was most proud of having defeated, we defeated it by getting it defunded, was a right highway widening right through protected forest lands in Northwest New Jersey. And it was funded by the Obama stimulus, which funded "shovel ready projects." And even though the towns that were along the route didn't want it anymore…it was jobs and stimulus… and that damn widening happened anyway.  In California that's not as true. That massive 710 widening, where they were so desperate to do it, they were going to dig a tunnel under Pasadena for a couple of years. That's not happening. Now they're even selling off the land around it. So it's not as true here, but I always get nervous when I see these highway projects on the books that are quote unquote defeated. They're still out there somewhere. Bryn It's still happening. It's piecemeal. It's like a little bit here, a little bit there. I see it as death by a thousand cuts. We are still adding lane miles to the state highway system. Caltrans released a report last Friday with a five year look back at the number of lane miles that were added to the system and buildings that were destroyed or relocated. It's still happening. We can't quite claim that we've learned all our lessons there. I want to bring it back to Metro and the increased focus they've started to have on some of the VMT increasing projects that are in their portfolio.  Back in 2019 when they last did their climate action plan…I should mention that I have the honor of chairing Metro's Sustainability Council. And so we get to work pretty closely with staff as they're doing draft analyses and reports and this climate action plan was no exception to that. And so when we were looking at an earlier draft of that climate action plan, it did not include the highway expansion projects. It was only looking at all the good stuff they're doing by expanding transit service to lower greenhouse gas emissions. We raised a red flag there. We said, "This is not the full picture. You gotta be looking at both sides of the ledger and also accounting for the projects that Metro continues to fund that are increasing VMT." And to Metro's credit, they took it on. They decided, "It's time we start facing the facts and not turn a blind eye to that and realize the impact we're having." I'd credit that as kind of a first step in the right direction.  It kept evolving as we were increasing the board's knowledge and getting more awareness of the negative impacts, the VMT increasing impacts, that these highway projects were having. Then it was last year when the Metro board adopted a new set of VMT reduction targets. In the books, the official target is a 15% reduction in daily VMT, which if people are familiar with the Air Resources Board scoping plan, you'll know that we need to be getting to a 25% reduction to meet our state climate goals. Damien I was about to say, that sounds low to me, based on the numbers I've been hearing, but okay. Bryn They also set a stretch goal. Their climate action stretch goal is a 27% reduction. We need to keep getting them to think about what's not included yet in those targets, which is just taking highway expansion projects off the table. What they've looked at so far is just mitigating the impacts, but if you're still adding VMT and then decreasing it elsewhere, it's still hard to get to that total reduction that that we really do need to be getting to. Damien In San Diego, I know a couple of times that the SANDAG, their regional planning organization, will pass these long range plans that have all these great transit projects and other things in it,  but those are a little bit down the road.  We're just going to do the highway widenings first. This isn't just a San Diego thing, though. This is something that we've seen around the state where there are these regional long-range plans that over 30 years pencil out to be pretty good. But it just so happens that all the bad stuff's the first five years.. Bryn  There's some truth to that. I have a bone to pick with some of our long range planning, too. There's this like black box model that things go into and magically pricing our roads is what kind of makes it all pencil out at the end and shows that we can meet our targets. But yet, like congestion pricing. I don't know. It doesn't seem to be moving too quickly. So it feels a little bit like a tech fix. Like someday we'll implement this and then we don't need to worry as much about what our infrastructure investments are looking like in the meantime. Damien Did you almost bring up congestion pricing?  Bryn  Did I? But we can't call it by that name. We got to... Damien No, no, that's a New York thing. When Mayor Villaragosa had that plan to densify downtown Los Angeles and for some reason decided to call it "Manhattanizing Los Angeles." So immediately the entire region hated it before we even heard what any of it was. Can't say congestion pricing. Yeah. But there's been some interesting studies for that with the West Side. And I think the variable price variable pricing toll lanes or HOV lanes, I can't even remember what we call them here, um had some ah interesting results like where they've been tried in Orange County and little bit farther out from downtown L.A. Bryn Yeah, and something we're trying to raise some awareness about, too. There's a pretty persistent myth out there that it's not allowed to convert general purpose highway lanes into managed lanes, either HOV or HOT toll lanes. But I'm here to tell you it's a myth. We've gotten Caltrans legal to do some analysis showing that it's both feasible and somewhat straightforward. I think that that myth out there persists and kind of keeps leading agencies to think that their only option is to widen roads. And really, there are better ways to price and manage how those lanes are used. So, we don't need to keep just widening, widening, widening, but we can find smarter ways to use the existing infrastructure and get some higher quality other options out there as well. Damien Back at the Tri-State Transportation campaign before she was the bike queen of New York City, ah Jeanette Sada Khan actually sat on our board of directors.  Everyone remembers that she closed some streets to cars, she helped create this great bike network, but she was actually also a very big proponent of congestion pricing in New York. I cut my teeth on urban planning with this idea that congestion pricing is not something to be scared of, no matter what term we use to define it.  When they wanted to widen the Garden State Parkway, one of the two big toll roads in New Jersey, our messaging was, "Okay, but if we do it, we should do congestion pricing because if you price it correctly, there will always be a congestion-free alternative. You'll never have to widen the Garden State Parkway again."  And this messaging actually worked. People were excited about it. They ended up not widening the Parkway because in the end, the toll revenue wasn't going to pencil out. But before people knew what congestion pricing was and what it meant, just that argument that "there will always be a congestion-free alternative and we'll never have to pay for a widening again" worked. It is true. If you price it correctly, there will always be the option to skip congestion. And I understand the Lexus lanes argument, which I haven't heard in a long time because I don't think people drive Lexuses anymore. We'd have to call them like Tesla lanes now or something. But I understand the argument but if there's not a congestion free option then there's not one for anyone regardless. If the money is going into transportation, improving bus not just reliability and e-buses but also perhaps bus shelters and their bus riding experience these are these can be wins for everybody. Bryn Well, we've had such a disparity for so many decades now in what our transportation funding goes towards. It's been both at the federal level and at the state level. It's been on average like an 80 percent 20 split, 80 percent going towards supporting people driving alone in their cars. For some time, part of the justification behind that was that a lot of our state money was coming from the gas tax. And so they were seeing it as the people who are taxed need to benefit from what the funds go towards. And there was kind of a narrow view of how car drivers could benefit, right? Damien Yeah. Bryn  Instead of seeing the possibilities for them with mode shift and in having options out there; it was seen as, "We just need to make it easier, smoother for people to drive."  We have an opportunity ahead of us as we start to shift away from the gas tax. I see it in the VMT mitigation world as well in thinking of how funds that are dedicated for transportation for car oriented projects can then start to be more expansive in serving other modes as well. Damien All Well, we are starting to push up against our time limit and I'm actually a little late on saying this. I usually say it at the 25 minute mark, but I just heard the word "congestion" and thought this is my opportunity to talk about my favorite topic that none of my friends outside of the transportation world agree with me on. Maybe they'll listen to the podcast. BUT…is there anything you would like to cover as we start to approach our time limit? Any other thoughts you'd like to add on any of the topics we covered today or or anything else?  Bryn Moncelsi It's been a real pleasure and I've become a true believer that there are modes that feel a lot better to take than driving in a car alone. If you're someone out there who's felt that road rage maybe there's something else better for you. It's on us to create those better options. So it motivates me every day and I appreciate you taking the time and yeah, and covering these important topics. Damien Thank you for the time today. This is our fourth of our Streetsblog California podcast we've ever done. So you're in our first five. I guess you'll get a certificate down the road or something. But thank you again for being here with us today. And I'm sure there will be plenty of chances to talk as time goes on. So thank you. Brym Thanks, Damien. Take care.    

This week's StreetSmart brings in not one, but two experts on California High-Speed Rail Joining me are Adriana Rizzo and Roger Rudick. Adriana Rizzo is with Californians for Electric Rail, a non-profit advocacy group that is "dedicated to connecting transit advocates and railfans with environmentalists, unions, good government advocates, and other supporters of environmentally-friendly, union-made, cost-effective rail." Roger, hopefully you know. Also, a quick programming note. These first three episodes were a sort of "proof of concept" and feature a auarter of people that are very much in the Streetsblog family (a board member, a past board chair, an editor and a three-time contributor). We're using these episodes to get listed on the podcast distributors including itunes and to book more guests. We'll be on hiautus for a week or so and we'll be back with a weekly schedule of podcasts. If you have any ideas for future podcasts, either topics or guests, feel free to reach out to [email protected].   Past Episodes: "Demystifying the CTC with Jeanie Ward-Waller," here. "State of Tranasit Funding in California with Juan Matute," here. Transcript: Damien Newton So as mentioned in the pre-show, I'm Damian Newton. I'm here with Roger Rudick of Streets Blog San Francisco and Adriana Rizzo of Californians for Electric Rail. I'm going to note here, we are recording the audio, but I can see them and they both just wave to me.   So hi.   Roger Rudick Hi.   Adriana Rizzo Hello.   Damien So today we are talking about high-speed rail. It's a big issue that we cover a lot at Streetsblog California. Roger's with us, even though he's the Streetsblog San Francisco editor, because he's done a lot of that coverage over the years. But let's just start off with the basics.   In some of the pieces that I was working on earlier this week, I saw Republicans saying, not a single track has been laid yet. But that's not true, if I understand….   Roger I mean the Caltrain electrification project and the upgrades to Caltrain did involve adding some tracks here and there.    Adriana  You could actually ride a high-speed rail already if you ride electric Caltrain, I would argue.   Roger Yeah.   Adriana That's one of the early success stories of California high-speed rail.   Roger That's a totally valid argument, yeah.   Adriana  They've already had a 54% increase in ridership, you know a lot better service. They're saving money on diesel fuel. They're paying less for energy than they were before that. So, caltrain electrification wouldn't have happened without that funding from California high-speed rail. That's a huge success story already, but second of all construction has been underway on 119 miles of right of way in the Central Valley between a little north of Madera and Turlock.  So, that is the majority, but not quite all of the initial operating segment, which will be from Merced to Bakersfield. And they've been building dozens of bridges, a viaduct…a lot of intense construction on this project. And they've actually recently switched the track lane phase a couple of weeks as of a couple of weeks ago.   Roger I think one of the things the Republicans or the people making those arguments, so I'll assume they're being genuine about it, failed to understand is: what Adriana was just describing is the hard part. Building those viaducts, clearing the right-of-way. One of the things that you don't see, unless you're specifically looking for it, is there are just you know mile after mile after mile of area that's been acquired, graded, and tamped down and just made ready for tracks.   So you know now they've established the railhead, which is just the terminology for where they're going to start, you know building the tracks and alerting them.   After that, it's basically a giant robot that puts the tracks down. And then when that's done, another robot goes through and starts putting up electrification poles. I mean, there's a lot of humans involved, obviously, but a lot of this is automated, and it's sort of the easier part. So, to say they haven't laid tracks is just not true in a literal sense. But the major track work is just getting underway, and it's also not the major challenge here.   Adriana  If you travel through the Central Valley, you will see there's quite a lot of structures that involve heavy engineering. Sometimes people say, "Oh, why do they have to build all that stuff? It's flat?"    Well, it's like there's all of these rivers and other features and roads and other features that you need to do to build some kind of structure to run a train over.    The Central Valley segment is going to be entirely grade separated, which is really important if you want to actually run a train at 200 miles an hour. If you're running it, if it's not grade separated, you get cars or freight trains crossing into your right of way. That's really dangerous to have something going at 200 miles an hour. They might not be able to stop in time.   All of this stuff that they're building is really important for having a grade-separated route that can actually run at 200 miles an hour. You can contrast that with Brightline West, which gets a lot of praise for being cheaper, allegedly, than California high-speed rail. That's running in a freeway median.   With the grades that they have on that Freeway median, they are not going to be able to run at maximum speed for that entire time between LA and Vegas. And there are a lot of disadvantages to not doing it the way you know California is doing it.   Roger I think it's important to point out they've also made a lot of comparisons to the original Brightline in Florida and talked about how much cheaper that supposedly is. But Brightline in Florida, while it seems like it's a great service, is not high-speed rail.   They took a diesel locomotive, coupled it to some train cars, and you know the diesel has a nice fancy front and nice paint and everything, and it looks like a beautiful train…but It's not high-speed rail. It's just not going really much faster than the stuff that we already run in the state. So those cost comparisons are kind of absurd. And, as Adriana pointed out, that you Bright Line West, they're building in the middle of a freeway. So the grade separations and everything are done already, which, as I mentioned, are the hard part.   I'm weird about this, but I like to travel on the slower trains sometimes, so I do take Amtrak to the Central Valley pretty regularly.   Adriana  Me too.   Roger And you see a whole lot of the construction out the windows of the high-speed rail project. And there's actually points where you see these big viaducts that go over the Amtrak tracks, because you've got to have everything separated.   Roger There just can't be anything in the way. And when you go, as I have, on true high-speed sets and or systems in Europe…I've been on the one in France…I've been through the tunnel more times than I can remember. I've been on high speed rail in Germany and Belgium and in Japan…   There's no interference with the tracks. The tracks are fenced in. They're isolated. There's no grade crossings. And to be fair to the High Speed Rail Authority, a hell of a lot of the work that they've had to do and pay for wasn't actually technically about the trains. It was about the highways that they have to reconfigure to get over the tracks.   And in a lot of cases, what started as a smaller two-lane road in the Central Valley,  they built it up to more multi-lane roads, more Caltrans freeways.   I've seen a bunch of these crossovers. And somehow that ends up on the ledger of the High Speed Rail Authority, which I don't truly understand. But that's sort of the way we're doing it in this state.   Adriana I could speak a little bit about why exactly is a high-speed rail authority paying for these gold-plated highways that are along the road.    There's a couple of reasons. One of them is the local design standards.    So California high-speed rail has had to adhere to local design standards in every county or local government that does…in a lot of cases are requiring these roads that are built to go 65 miles an hour. To grow capacity when they're really questionable whether that's really needed. You would hope you'd be able to override or have its own set of statewide design standards for these roads.    The second reason is local permitting.    California high-speed rail needs local cities and utilities to provide construction permits for them to start building. Many cities in the Central Valley have used this to extract different concessions from California high-speed rail, including building all these roads and and and whatnot for them.   If the high-speed rail authority were able to self-certify, to issue its own construction permits, or if the cities were required to issue permits unless there was some sort of obvious violation, then we would be able to avoid a lot of these expensive roads that we're paying for with rail money.   Roger So bottom line, it could have been done a lot more cheaply. That's part of the reason it's been so expensive is a lot of stuff that has to do very little with actually running a train or building a track.    The other reason it's been so expensive is that it's often misreported that the original cost estimate was something like $32 billion dollars back in 2008. I think it was 45.    Nonetheless, the cost estimates have more than doubled.   A lot of that is because of the reasons we were just discussing. But you know good luck trying to do any kind of a major project where every time the congressional majority changes or the president changes, suddenly all your funds are being cut off or even attempts are being made to pull back that you have to fight.   That greatly increases cost. I don't think you can exaggerate how ridiculous that is.   If you had given the high-speed rail authority the 45 billion that it wanted in 2008, would it have finished it for 45 billion? Probably not. California doesn't seem to be able to get anything done on cost and on budget.    Would it have ended up going up two times the price or two and a half times the price? No. A lot of that is attributed to just the political games that keep getting played with the high-speed rail authority, which, as you know you know, we've written a ton about over the years.   Adriana  Additionally, I also like to mention that those additional cost estimates were made before all the design work had been complete, and we still haven't even completed all the design work for the entire system, just for the Central Valley portion. Those cost estimates were probably not very realistic to begin with. ah There's a lot that can change in the process, but a lot in the cost that depends on specific aspects of the design process.   Adriana And this was exacerbated by some of these political conditions, as Roger was saying. So they were forced to start construction due to federal funding deadlines in the Obama era before they had finished design. And this led to a lot of change orders where they had to go back and change all their contracts, redo a lot of what they said they were going to initially do, and have already committed funding to after because the design changed because they just started building and started work before it was done. A lot of other countries approve the funding after things are fully designed, and then you can have a lot less uncertainty about your costs.   Damien This is one of the things that comes up a lot when people are bad mouthing the project because obviously voters in 2008 approved a bond for high speed rail. We always say,"This has been voter approved." The counter argument is, "voters didn't really know what it was going to cost."   Roger But all the subsequent polling has still shown that if you put it back on the ballot it would pass, which is why I think the opponents don't want it put back on the ballot…or at least I've never seen a serious effort to do it. All the polling has shown it, you know a small majority still supporting the work. So that argument really is pretty vacuous.   Damien I wrote a piece for Streetsblog  LA…I can't remember if we've done one for Streetsblog California over the years…where I actually went and looked at the candidates for office that made "high speed rail stinks" part of their campaign.   We looked at how they did in elections. And the answer is pretty poorly. No seats have ever been flipped over high-speed rail as an issue that I could find.   Maybe there's something farther away from LA.   Roger Their election managers didn't read the polling, obviously.   Damien But down here, if you listen to the radio or read the newspaper, which has been getting better, but you know, the LA Times has been the la one of the loudest cheerleaders against the project…So, if you read the newspaper or listen to any sort of political show, even some of the left leaning ones, it sounds like this is a giant political loser, but I have never actually seen it lose.   Roger You're right. And actually, if you go to other countries and look at the history of their high-speed rail projects, and I'm including the original, I guess it's the Tokyo Osaka Shinkansen line in the 1960s, they went through a lot of this too. The challenges they faced were much greater because at the time high-speed rail was unproven.   We have an advantage if we're building something that's standard around the world. We have the disadvantage that we've never done it before. I think that moving forward things will go more smoothly, once there's a minimum operating segment,  the Central Valley segment is running, that people will, the naysayers will, melt away. We do haveCaltrain running, and that doesn't seem to have had much effect on a lot of the naysayers.   Damien Well, but it's only been running since September. It's only running up in the Bay area. Caltrain was previously existing. I've seen zero coverage of Caltrain outside of the expansion, outside of, well, Streetsblog, train magazines, and a few of the smaller publications up in the Bay. I haven't even seen it in the Chronicle or anything like that.   Roger Fair enough. Fair enough.    Adriana, to remind me where they are right now, but they've got bids out for high speed rail equipment, or they're they're shopping for it, or what's what's the status for now?   Adriana Yeah, and they put out a request per purchase for the rolling stock backfill trains. I believe they've selected a vendor and they've shown some preliminary design ideas of what the trains are going to look like.   Roger Oh yeah, that I know they've done. Yeah, the interiors, but are they looking at TGV or a German train?   I think it's probably going to be one of the other.   Adriana So they've selected Siemens as a vendor. Roger Siemens OK. As soon as they're able, I would hope that they could do some kind of  a new stunt.   You could call it and just get one of those train sets. If they have to drag it out to the capturing quarter, but bring it into one of the cities where people can take a look at it. um And work with Amtrak to get some discounts so people can get out to the Central Valley and experience it.    It's really important to make it tangible. You know, that said, I wonder if anyone's ever done any research about how many people in California have actually ridden one of these systems while on holiday somewhere or on a business trip?   I have noticed that the opposition has changed. It used to be "high-speed rail has worked in other countries, but it's not going to work here for some mysterious reason." Now they're making the argument that "High-speed rail would be great. California is just not capable of building it."    I don't think that argument is going to work because they are building it. In a few years, there's actually going to be some trains running.   I think the state has to be mindful on continuing or doing a better job of communicating with the voters of California and the taxpayers, the people who are actually paying for this, so that they don't get bought up or or buy into the narrative that was promulgated by the LA Times for so long…a lot of which was nonsensical.    The writer, who shall not be named, was quoting farmers who didn't want the tracks going through their property and didn't want to lose their property. Sometimes homeowners, famously on the Peninsula, NIMBYs…but he was quoting them as experts or not even naming them and never mentioning, "Oh, yeah, this person lives a few feet from the tracks or this person is going to lose some of their land."   And that's where that narrative came from. It just got repeated over and over and over again by television and other broadcasters who just didn't check to make sure that the articles that they were referencing were valid, and a lot of the times they weren't.    Streetsblog wrote a bunch of pieces pulling those stories apart. It actually wasn't challenging to do. I mean, you just had to find out who this person they're quoting. I remember a story that the LA Times ran claiming that the High Speed Rail Authority wasn't paying farmers for their land when they used eminent domain.   It was total garbage.   It's just utter nonsense. It was made up. The LA Times ran a lot of stories like that. I'll totally stand by that accusation if anybody wants to challenge it. Adriana  This has become a bigger issue. It's almost like a symbol. It's like high-speed rail is this mirror for your views on California. Right wingers really love to hold this up as this example of blue state incompetence. California is a failed state, that sort of thing. But a lot of those arguments don't have a lot of teeth once you dig into the details.   Once the project is complete, it's really going to be a great example of California pride, a really shining example of the best that our state has to offer. But it has become this almost culture war issue to attack California on. We've seen that with some of the political opponents of high-speed rail. So recently, it has been congressional Republicans who have vowed to defund high-speed rail, Kevin Kiley is spearheading that.   More recently, some California Republicans have introduced bills to basically get rid of all of the state funding for it and redirect that to highways, which is absolutely despicable.   Roger Well, not as despicable as claiming that it was about fighting the LA fires, which was just revolting and really just gross.   Adriana  That's true. Yeah. Yeah.   I think hopefully those state level attacks won't get too far. But I do think we are in trouble right now in terms of the federal funding, given the Trump administration. Elon Musk has long been an opponent of California high-speed rail.    He launched his completely vaporware hyperloop idea in order to just distract the media from supporting high-speed rail. He's continued to attack it through his quasi-governmental doge office. There is a very real threat of the current administration taking and axing the federal funding for this project.   Roger And by the way, that Hyperloop nonsense, the Hyperloop scam…the original paper that Elon Musk wrote, the white paper, um there were some...   Damien Do you think Elon Musk really wrote it?   Roger Huh?   Damien Do you think Elon Musk actually wrote it?   Roger You may have, I don't know, but...   Damien Because on one hand, it's nonsense, so maybe.   Roger But it was supposed to float on a cushion of air like a hockey puck was what he claimed. There were some NASA engineers who looked into that. And I remember when I read it…I'm not a physicist, but that doesn't really make a lot of sense that that would work. A hockey puck is very, very light. A heavy thing is not. I don't understand how that would work. Is he talking about a hovercraft and a vacuum? How would that work?   And sure enough, it wouldn't. Some NASA engineers looked into it and wrote a paper and it would just sit there in the tube and be unable to move. So, it was definitely a con from the beginning. But now we have him "helping to run the country." And he's certainly got his sights on it. I would say the response from the state should be, "Okay, you want to turn this into a big political football? Let's get it finished."   If the trains start running and we're able to finish the thing, the opposition is gone. There were opponents to the English Channel link in the UK. There were, as I mentioned, opponents in Japan. Once these systems get going, they'll become part of your society, part of your fabric, part of your everyday life.   So anyway, you know my recommendation for the state is you know is kind of to write off Washington because I just don't think we're going to get any love from them about pretty much anything. And we have such a huge economy. There's absolutely no reason we can't finish this thing ourselves.   Adriana Prior to the Biden administration, the majority of the funding was actually coming from the cap-and-trade.   The bipartisan infrastructure law provided $3.3 billion dollars for the project, which was a big big infusion of funds. But it has been primarily state funded. That's going to be the way forward. And the ap-and-trade program is getting reauthorized later this year. So that's going to be an important moment, too, that could be make or break for the future of California High-Speed Rail, I think.   One thing I was not able to find out any more detailed info about…I'm wondering if you do, Roger, has all of that bipartisan infrastructure law money has already been spent or allocated because Trump is currently impounding like all of unspent bipartisan infrastructure law money and refusing to send it out to states. So that could be another potential issue for high speed rail.   Roger I think it's been allocated, but do they get it secured in an escrow account that they'll be able to access or is there some way for Trump to claw it back? I know he tried to do that in his first term and was unsuccessful.   Fortunately, we seem to have a surplus in the state budget. We seem willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on freeway expansions. It's not like we can't just move forward. And cap-and-trade has obviously been pivotal, but I really wish they would work on some new legislation to fund the entire state rail plan that would include money for bridging the Tehachapis…getting high speed rail into the L.A. basin.   But, Gavin Newsom has been supportive at times and kind of lukewarm at others. If it is going to be a political football, I wish the state would focus on trying to win that game.   Damien Well, I mean, it's more or less than a couple of weeks after when the state released its electrification plan, that rail electrification plan to Great Ballyhoo, and obviously the fires happened.   Adriana Yeah.   Damien So that's going to take some of the air out of the thing, but I haven't heard it mentioned outside of conversations I've had about either this particular episode of this podcast ah or other conversations internally.   Adriana So the News Administration did put out a press release for its release and they tied that to a kind of big photo op media event that they did around the beginning of the track lane phase in the Central Valley. So I wouldn't say that it's been totally ignored, but yeah, agreed.    I do think it would be nice to see more energy around the state rail plan outside of our very niche transit communities because it's  really ambitious, it's really transformative, and it's going to bring benefits to every part of the state. I think we should all be talking about more but maybe let's talk a little bit about what's in the state rail plan because it does very much tie to high speed rail.   Damien That was the last bullet point on our outline, so this is excellent timing.   Adriana  States are required to release, starting the Obama administration, states were required or suggested to release these state rail plans, talking about the rail infrastructure. Our last one was in 2018. The latest state rail plan calls for this ah statewide integrated rail network with a lot more service than we currently have.   Adriana And it's all a large portion, and about 1,500 miles of it will be electrified. That's the goal. So California High-Speed Rail is the spine of this. These other projects are building off of California High-Speed Rail in some way.    We've got Metrolink electrification that's in the state rail plant.   They've got a new high speed rail line to Arizona that's in the state rail plan. We're talking about Capitol Corridor electrification, a second Transbay tube that's going to connect Caltrain to the East Bay.    There's a lot of big ambitious investments in here, and they really only make sense if you do high-speed rail.   Roger The spine of the system. That's how it's been sold since the beginning with the idea being that all of these other lines will feed into it.   And that follows the European models that you have, especially the ones I'm most familiar with, the French model where you have built the first spine between Paris and Lyon.   Most of their lines were electrified outside of that area already. So they were able to have trains slow down and continue to other cities in the country. And then they built new high-speed lines as they went. And that's a great model for California. Unfortunately, we're 100 years behind. And we don't really have mainline electrification except the Caltrain corridor now. So the state rail plan is aspirational and it's great.   I hope Adriana knows more about this, but getting a fix on getting this actually funded, so it becomes a project.   Adriana  Part of the state for and part of the state rail Caltrans has indicated a commitment to to take a more active role in planning and coordinating for regional projects. They've already sort of taken on some role for Link 21. There was a bill that passed last year that incurred that incentive by the man to take more of a role with the low sand corridor that remains to be seen what they've actually done there.   And, you know, I think if there's a lot of really good reforms in this bill that are basically moving towards Caltrans taking on a lot of the capacity planning capacity, a lot of the project management for the for implementing the state rail plan, which would be really good.   Roger How about building it? Forget about planning it. Why not have Caltrans build it? That's what I keep asking.   Adriana I agree, they should,.   Roger We are talking about fundamental transportation. We're not talking about making ice cream cones here. We're talking about moving people around.    Adriana  Yeah, totally with you there, Roger, but I think there's a step in the right direction at least.   Roger I'm spending so much time dealing with Caltrans about adding bike lanes to state highways that go through cities and things like that. It's frustrating because you hear a lot of stuff about, oh yeah, we'll get involved or not.   Adriana  We talk a lot of time about a just transition for Caltrans engineers. A lot of these people have skills building freeway interchanges and whatever that could easily translate to building viaducts for rail or things like that.   We'd really like to see some of those folks get moved towards projects that are good for the environment rather than building highways.   Damien We're hitting the end of our time limit here. Is there anything you guys want to add sort of as closing thoughts? But I interrupted you. So why don't you say what you were going to say, and then we'll do closing thoughts.   Adriana I was just going to talk a little bit more about some of the benefits we're already seeing from high speed rail and then other stuff that we could see if we continue in the short term, if we continue to invest in that. So we've already talked about Caltrain electrification. There's also the 1300 jobs that have been created from building the Central Valley segment, which is pretty substantial.   And then another thing is Link Union Station, which is what LA has chosen to use their high-speed rail funding for, which will allow free running at Union Station.    So what that means is that once that's done, you'll be able to have a single seat ride from like the San Fernando Valley to Irvine or from you know Riverside to Glendale or something like that. And it's going to make MetroLink run a lot better.   Roger On the other hand, sorry to interrupt, but Metrolink could be doing that now. They would just have to reverse the trains. It would take a little bit longer, but Amtrak does that on the Los Angeles corridor.   Adriana Yeah, but I think there are some issues with the capacity and some and the design of the station that would make that challenging.   Roger Of course, Union Station needs to straighten out. it's ah just  asking those tracks to do a lot more than they can do right now in that configuration.   Adriana  We need some leadership from Metrolink in Southern California for Metrolink electrification. The state rail, the high-speed rail plan, calls for the electrification from Burbank to Anaheim, where it's going to share tracks just like Caltrain does.   If We had some commitments from SoCal electeds, we could very easily start doing that very soon before they even finished the tunnel work, just to get some immediate benefit from that and make it easier to help the LA section going.   Roger Yeah, I should have been working on that when Caltrain and everybody in Northern California was lobbying…just just don't complain when the majority of the funds are going to Northern California.   Damien Well, you know, we'll get around to it. We got a lot to worry about when it comes. You know, we got a lot going on. We have the rail out to the San Gabriel Valley thing. I mean, we're very busy.   Roger Uh-huh. Okay. I wasn't picking on LA as a whole. I was picking on Metrolink and things that are related. At least that was my intention. All I know is Metrolink is running a hydrogen train thing way out in Riverside, right? And every time I talk to anyone from Metrolink over the years and decades, actually, at this point, and brought up electrification, I always got poo-pooed.   Damien The only reason we're using hydrogen is we never quite figured out how to bottle rainbow energy like we had hoped.   Adriana LA Metro is doing a lot of very ambitious rail expansion, like rail and subway, light rail, subway expansions, but Metrolink is a very troubled agency with a very dysfunctional governance structure, I would say, and they're really not empowered to do much of anything right now.   Damien No, I think I think that's fair. Juan and I were talking about this on our second podcast.    I just took the train to Oceanside the other day. The amount of trains I would have had to take to actually go to Carlsbad, my final destination,  was difficult even though Metrolink has an Oceanside stop and a Carlsbad stop.   Roger And the San Diego coaster, which is the Metrolink for San Diego, but for whatever reason, it's not the same agency.   They're not aligned and the train will pull in and pull out two minutes before you could have made the transfer and it's just it's…   Damien I mean, usually I don't like talking at the same time as someone else in the podcast, but as we are both talking at the same time, it exemplified the confusion of how difficult it was.   Adriana The state rail plan does talk about this issue. And they do, they call for statewide schedules that align to maximize transfers across all systems, which is, really, really great.   To make that happen, it's going to need some kind of governance reform. Californians for Electric Rail put out a white paper in the beginning of 2024, calling for the Coaster and SurfLiner to be consolidated, management for those to and to be consolidated under one agency.   Whether it's a regional regional agency or whether Caltrans ultimately takes control of all state agencies, either way you're going to need some kind of consolidation of governance to get this greater level of coordination in terms of fares and schedules that riders really need.   Damien On that note, we drifted into local rail, but it does all tie in. In the end, I think I'm going to say thank you both for being here. We'll probably touch base again a little later on in the year when we have an idea of what the legislature is or isn't doing on high-speed rail.   But thank you both for being here today. We went a little over, but it was ah it was fun talking to you both.   Adriana Great. Yeah. you too. Thanks so much, Damien.

Welcome to the second episde of the Streetsblog California podcast, StreetSmart. In this podcast, I'll be talking to experts about various topics, policies, programs, and people that I'll be covering as part of the beat at Streetsblog California. Our guest in this episode is Juan Matute, the Deputy Director of the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies, a contributor to Streetsblog's sister publication Santa Monica Next and one of the foremost experts on transportation, land use, and how technology can be used to enhance transportation systems. Transit funding in California is in a strange place at the start of 2025, with federal priorities having shifted away from promoting alternatives to driving gasoline powered vehicles and with the long-term impact of COVID-19 on transit operations still somewhat unclear. Matute cuts through a lot of the confusion in this podcast to explainw where the state is and what the governor, legislature, and cities can do to maintain and improve transit operations. Damien Newton Thanks for being here today.   Juan Matute It's nice to be here. Thank you, Damien.   00:10.28 Damien So we are talking transit, as I mentioned in the intro. Every transit agency in the state seems to have some sort of different major funding issue. A lot of this stuff started during COVID. A lot of it has been structural for years going forward. The example I used in sort of our pre-show conversation was Foothill Transit out in San Gabriel Valley. If you talk to them, they say they're good. They're funded for now. They're able to do their e-bus expansion, all that sort of stuff.   But if you read any headlines from the Bay Area, it sounds like every other agency is planning to close tomorrow unless something happens. um So can you sort of explain what's going on with the overall transit funding picture? And maybe we'll get into some more specifics, depending what our time looks like.   Juan Yeah, so in California, transit operations get most of their funding from local tax sources and from fares of people who write them. And so the availability of local tax sources and the farebox recovery ratio, so the percentage of fare revenues  as a fair revenues as a percentage of operations, vary throughout the state.    So we're speaking in Los Angeles County, which has four half-cent sales taxes for transportation, which bring a great deal of funding for transit operations for LA Metro, Foothill Transit, Long Beach Transit.   And that allowed those agencies to  have fairly low fares prior to the pandemic and fairly low farebox recovery ratios. An agency like LA Metro or Big Blue Bus or Long Beach Transit or Foothill Transit was reliant on fares to cover, let's call it between 17% and 25% of its operating costs. It's lower now than during the pandemic, but that is a percentage of revenue that's relatively low and easier to make up through other sources. So the state has come in and given a lot of money to transit agencies.    That's in contrast with agencies like Metrolink, BART or Caltrain, which prior to the pandemic were reliant on fares and other directly generated sources of revenues :advertising, rentals, park and ride is a big one for these commuter rails.   But those are all really related to ridership, either first order or second order effects. Their recovery ratios prior to the pandemic were around 47%. Caltrain was exceeding 75%. So that meant that they weren't as reliant on tax subsidies for operations, but they were also much more sensitive than some of these other agencies with lower farebox recoveries to ah changes in ridership affecting their bottom lines, which is what we're seeing ah with Caltrain, BART, Metrolink,and even San Francisco Muni.   Damien Now, Muni, though, is mostly buses. Because when I first looked at this, I saw a lot of the agencies that were struggling were rail. As you mentioned, Metrolink is a commuter rail down in LA County. Caltrain, I mean, they've got "train" right in the name. So even if you're not familiar, Muni is, I believe, mostly buses. but ah So it's not really a mode issue. It's how much is funded by taxes and how much is funded by fares.   Juan Yeah, it's not a mode issue. I mean, Muni ahas some light rail, even a street, and even a cable car.   They're one of the most diverse rail agencies in terms of different types of rail that they offer.    But, San Francisco Muni has more local support, was re less reliant on fares prior to the pandemic, but is also having challenges because Muni would pick up trips going into the central business district of San Francisco from Caltrain and BART, which are also having the ridership challenges. So that's kind of how they're entangled in the current decline.   Damien So you have a spiral effect there too. If the agencies that are supplying people for long distance trips for your local trip are not seeing ridership, then you're also going to see a decrease in your own ridership. I guess that makes sense if you think about it.   So let's talk a little bit though about possible solutions. We covered in Streetsblog California last week and in the podcast with Jeanie earlier this week, that a lot of environmental groups are hot on this issue and they are encouraging the governor and the legislature to do something about it.   But, is there something the governor and the legislature can do about it? The governor has been preaching…I don't want to say austerity…but his budgets have been lean on climate issues since his climate budget a couple of years ago when there was a big surplus. Is there a chance the state's going to sort of come riding to the rescue for transit operations?   Juan It's very unlikely.   There are a lot of possibilities that doesn't require billions of dollars raining from the state and there was maybe a glimmer of hope in 2024 so that if the state suddenly came into money that transit operations would be a major expenditure ah from that money.    I haven't looked at the latest…well the  LAO fiscal update isn't out yet. ah So there may be some money, but I think it's now clear that that money is going to disaster response and recovery. That has jumped in line in terms of need and priority. And so the state, um while it may be able to shore up some of the agencies, so I think we'll have to look towards ah the many, many opportunities for non-fiscal assistance for California's transit agencies.   Damien Now, what does that look like? It sounds to me like non-fiscal aid would be that they would be reducing service, or is there something I'm missing?   Juan I've been part of ah about a year's worth of conversations from stakeholders across the state as part of this California Transit Transformation Task Force that was stood up in response to SB 125, which was a funding measure that brought a lot of extra funding to California transit agencies, which they could use for operating or capital support.   That group has identified a number of measures that could really help transit agencies. So if you think of what costs money, it's driver operators, vehicle maintenance, and then large capital projects. Those end up being big chunks of money.   So for the operator side, it is possible to, and there has been prior state legislation to, exempt ah bus lanes and other bus priority projects from CEQA, but the state could look to go a step further.    We are seeing these lines in some of the data that  is available on these routes actually. These facilities have recurrent congestion that slows buses during peak hours. People are spending another 30%, 40% of time on that bus. And that's delaying everybody. It's taking longer. But it's actually having a cost on operations where the transit agency needs to pay that operator an extra 30%, 50% for that run because that bus is stuck in traffic.    So moving towards faster implementation of transit priority bus lanes, transit signal priority, queue jumps, etc. would be a way to actually reduce the cost of providing a given level of transit service. It also allows agencies to think more about what types of capital projects that they may want to pursue in the future.   Damien I was and was going to ask about that because that's been a common theme in the past couple of weeks or months since the election. What can California be doing with its own capital dollars, not the ones it's reliant on from the federal government to to improve things on the ground, not just for transit agencies, but to reduce car dependency. The letter last week was talking about how we know we may not have a partner on electric vehicles anymore. Since that was a big part of our climate plan, ah how much of our climate plan do we have to change?   So, let's take that thought and tie it into what you were just talking about with capital.   Juan Yeah. Well, the idea is doing more with less. So, well I'll set aside the issue of electrification of transit fleets for a second.   Right now, many of the new rail projects, not all, but many of the new rail projects being pursued in this state for billions of dollars would be more cost effective (and pretty much as operationally identical in terms of the number of people, how frequently it runs, and how fast the vehicles can go) as bus rapid transit projects.   There's a preference for light rail projects because the minimum design standard for a light rail project usually includes some sort of grade or or physical separation, so lane exclusivity, if not grade separation, but there are often grade separations and intersections….   Damien ….Yeah, light rail's generally faster than the yards.   Juan Light rail is generally faster, but that's usually as a result of design choices.   If we were to make more light rail style design choices for lane exclusivity, for preemption…even for targeted grade separation for bus rapid transit. Now, bus rapid transit that would score well on the ITDP's a bus rapid transit index (a group that basically offers scores to bus rapid transit facilities.)    And the US usually gets poor scores because anytime we're redesigning the streets, considerations about accommodating existing automobile traffic usually take priority over the idea of having a well-designed, higher functioning, high efficiency, a higher capacity ah transit system. And so because of those political choices, we end up with a choices between various watered-down BRT project that maybe is going to take us long to build as a rail line because of community opposition and a more expensive light rail project that would serve the same number of people.   There's been many of these in California's history. The Van Ness BRT was one of them for many years, but that was actually constructed and was quite successful. In San Francisco, Muni is loving having that facility.    Another example is the the Pasadena to North Hollywood Bus Rapid Transit, which has encountered opposition from multiple cities and has been and designed to the point where it will not be as effective as a transit service in the future ah because people were concerned about impacts to vehicle users, both those driving and also to a certain extent parking.    Agencies are forced with this like long slog for a sub-optimal BRT project versus maybe finding three, four, or five times the money as needed  for light rail, where they think they'll get more lane exclusivity and preemption, but perhaps not.   I think that there should be a third choice, which is like a high-quality, cost-effective bus rapid transit project where you could, instead of finding five times the money, you could roll out five times the network route length. Rather than fighting over which area of LA gets the next right light rail line or which area of San Diego or Fresno or Sacramento is getting the next light rail line, you can move forward with more high quality bus rapid transit lines at the same time, rather than just fighting on a piecemeal basis.   Damien So while we're talking about capital improvements, we can talk about the "T word" because President Trump's impact on transit in the state is going to be real, a although probably not as much operations because that we don't get operations money from the federal government, but we do get capital money, i.e. new electric buses or i.e. funding to build those ah BRT lines or those light rail lines.    As we look at things, we probably don't have as good a federal partner as we had two weeks ago. But what is it? Do you have any forecast this early on on what that means for the state's capital projects?   Juan So rural transit and paratransit to get state or federal funding for operations…I'll be looking towards those. I have been made aware of through work, an executive order that includes um stopping programs associated with accessibility. I'm a bit concerned that that will be defined in a way that means reducing federal support for the paratransit service that offers access to people with disabilities. But we'll see how that plays out within the industry. I know that there's sometimes ambiguity and interpretation of these types of executive orders.    I think there is a concern for service now that primarily obtains its operating funding from the federal government: rural and accessible services. California can flex a lot of its money, so we have a very large state with  the most state motor vehicle fuel tax revenues of any other state by a function of our size or demand for petroleum and then also ah the share of the cost that is the percentage of tax or excise tax and other fees.   Damien Cap and Trade….   Juan So there's money there and there are ways to flex that money. It's not as straightforward as just saying, "I'm going to take this dollar from this pot and put it in that pot." Some pots may be that straightforward, but there are other things that the state could do and say, "Hey, you know this is an incentive that we're um you know including for certain types of projects." There's ways for the state to flex its existing money. In California, we have very low property taxes and higher income and sales taxes, and that's how the state operates. Very low property taxes as a percentage of both assessed valuation and then assessed valuations are limited.    There has not been a lot of momentum in the past on the idea that a new transit line or an existing transit line ah would be able to collect some revenue from property owners who benefit from increases in accessibility from that transit line.  This is a version of value capture finance, which is the method by which a lot of the highly successful transit systems in Asia fund their capital and operations.    There may be opportunities legislatively to say, "hey, we are rebuilding these neighborhoods with a lot of transit oriented development as a result of a lot of our climate and housing affordability and multimodal policies." They all point in the direction of increased densities and reduced parking for new developments near transit.   What the state could do is say, "We're going to give transit agencies or counties or other some other entity the ability to assess an additional fee or collect an incremental growth in property tax revenues from the area around a major transit stop," which is a legal definition in California. That would help to  fund capital operations maintenance of that line. So that's a possibility that does not rely on federal money at all. It's a state choice.   Damien If you were to, I don't know if it's possible to describe the outlook for transit and transit riders in the state, and say," this is good news for transit riders or this is bad news for transit riders" because so many systems are experiencing different things and there's so many different ways that transit agencies are funded.   Juan It's a big diverse state and a lot going on. And so there's it's really hard to characterize transit in California with a one-size-fits-all approach.   So that doesn't happen.    Well, it does happen constantly, but it doesn't happen effectively.   Damien Right, it's hard to do well.   Juan It's hard to do well.    So, ridership is a challenge. Ridership, a lot of our systems have been oriented towards commutes because a lot of transportation planning has been oriented towards central business district commutes for 30, 40 past years.   Damien But, this is true of the whole world for the most part.   Juan What?   Damien This is true of the whole world of the most part, that transit has been built around getting people to and from work. And you'll have separate lines or separate stops that are for something else. But for the most part, transit has been a get to work sort of thing.   Maybe in the largest cities, you'll have other stuff ah you built around.   Juan Well, yeah, but Caltrain has different commuting markets. And so going from the peninsula in the San Francisco Bay Area, going up and down that peninsula, there's a lot of really expensive housing and really successful companies all the way from San Francisco down to San Jose.    That means that the workers And the residents in that area are often higher income, well statistically higher income than other areas in California. And so that's a different transit market even than just any standard metro line, where you still have the commuter rail dynamics, where it may be more professional workers that are going into the CBD, a more upper middle class connecting from the suburbs.   But Caltrain has that in a more ah greater extreme. We'rein a period of economic uncertainty. There just seems to be a lot of uncertainty associated with how policy changes will have an effect both the actions of government, but also the macro economy.    Frankly, one of the roles that transit provides is providing affordable mobility for people who would otherwise not be able to be mobile. Transit agencies can see more riders during a recession or periods of higher unemployment. In that way, it's kind of a social safety net that ensures that people are still able to get around to their doctors appointments, check-ins, even if they get a new job, even if they aren't able to make payments on their cars. And we've seen how the used car market skyrocketed during COVID. It's gone but back down a bit. But cars are still fairly expensive to acquire and maintain versus what they were 10 years ago. And so transit's there as a safety net to catch.   Those will be priced out of driving themselves or having every adult in a household driving themselves. And that could help increase transit ridership in a way that makes us really grateful for having the transit system exist because it is functioning as a safety net, allowing people to still get around and access opportunities, social, economic, educational, health, whatever.   Other changes that might affect ridership is if there's a federal executive order about return to office, so working in person.   Damien Yeah, that's true.   Juan If that has some downstream effects on private employment, state employment, other forms of employment. I know there have been trends ah for return to office, but I don't know if people will look at what the federal government has done and you may see more infrequent commutes or  more frequent commutes into central business areas as a result, which would also be a transit market.   And so there are ways that ridership could go up as a result of the uncertainty and some of the things we're seeing in a way that helps some of these other agencies that rely on Farebox recovery ratio, or that really accentuates the need for having transit service as part of a mobility safety net in California. And in that case, there would be more political interest in doing some of the things I mentioned earlier in this conversation to make sure that transit can succeed, even if there's not tons of money raining for the federal government.   Damien All right. Well, we are closing in on the end of our time. So do you have any closing thoughts for us or should I go right into our outro, as we like to call it?   Juan Transit is public space and it's becoming more excludable as a result of some state changes that allow transit agencies to prevent people from coming onto their systems based on the history. But all public space is pretty much managed through both government and social norms and expectations. Everybody can do their part by just riding transit and using it for their mobility. If you haven't been on transit for a while and you're somebody who's more concerned about what you've been hearing…I've been riding transit with my family during the peak of the pandemic but even just last weekend to get around. I don't find it unsafe. I don't find it too disorderly. It's always a little bit disorderly. So I'd encourage people to get it back out there and try it if they haven't in a while.   Damien All right. Well, thank you so much for your time today. You are our second guest. So everyone is probably mentally comparing you to Jeannie right now…our third guest, our third guest will get away from that. People will stop doing those comparisons, but thank you.   Juan No, I'm looking forward to listening to Jeanie's, which I will already have done when the listeners listen to this one.   Damien Well, thank you again. We'll talk to you probably this summer when some of the legislation's moving.   Juan Okay, that's good.  

Welcome to the first edition of the Streetsblog California podcast, StreetSmart. In this podcast, I'll be talking to experts about various topics, policies, programs, and people that I'll be covering as part of the beat at Streetsblog California. Our guest in the first episode is Jeanie Ward-Waller, who is currently the interim director with Climate Plan and the Director of Transportation Advocacy with Fearless Advocacy. Of course, her work throughout the years at Caltrans, Calbike, and the Safe Routes to Schools National Partnership has been regularly covered at Streetsblog. Today, we discuss the California Transportation Commission, the appointed state board that reviews and approves billions of dollars in grants every year. Ward-Waller explains how the board works (and doesn't work), and what to expect at their long, two-day meetings. It just so happens that one of those long meetings is this Thursday and Friday. Our second podcast, that looks at the funding picture for transit agencies statewide in the COVID-Recovery and Trump eras will feature UCLA researcher Juan Matute and will be live in one week. A transcript of the interview can be found below. Damien Newton So welcome to the inaugural podcast of our first StreetsBlog California podcast, which we're calling Street Smart. At least we still are as of the recording.   Jeanie Ward-Waller Woo hoo!   Damien Newton Sometimes we change at the last minute here, but right now we're calling it Street Smart.   Jeanie Ward-Waller Awesome.   Damien Newton And the yeah again, if you haven't read any of our introduction pieces: the concept for this is we're going to, as the new StreetsBlog editor comes in, they usually do lots of calls to catch up and find out information that maybe isn't widely publicly known or just even find out things about people or organizations that aren't as widely covered outside of Streets Blog. We thought, "wouldn't it be cool if we did those meetings and recorded them so that anyone that reads Streetsblog could listen to them or read them. So this is our first one of those and we brought a Streetsblog celebrity for it to make sure that you listen to at least the first one. So welcome Jeannie Ward-Waller.   Jeanie Ward-Waller Thank you so much, Damien. I'm really excited to be your inaugural guest. Damien Newton Inaugural guests on past podcasts that we've done include a newly elected council member and in our San Gabriel Valley it was a mayor. So…I guess you should run for office soon.   Jeanie Ward-Waller That's right. Feeling lucky!   Damien Newton So, our topic for today is the California Transportation Commission. Streetsblog has covered it in depth in the past, and for a long time we were one of the only news outlets that covered it.   Although, weirdly, in the past couple years Politico's started covering it, which has been cool. But since this is sort of our beat, and because it's a committee that doesn't get a lot of widespread publication coverage or radio coverage, we thought we would start by explaining what is the CTC to people just joining in. The plan is for this podcast to be going up on Monday the 27th and they happen to be having a meeting on the 30th and 31st of January in just a couple days. So anyone Googling CTC will see this podcast and then they can learn all about it.   Jeanie Ward-Waller Very cool.   Damien Newton So why don't we just start out with the basics? What is the California Transportation Commission and why should people care what it does?   Jeanie Ward-Waller Great question. And again, thank you for inviting me on to StreetSmart. Very excited to be here. So The CTC is a little known transportation agency at the state level that has a really outsized impact on transportation funding in the state of California. It is a commission. It's a board. Members are appointed. There's 11 voting members. Nine of them are appointed by the governor. Two are appointed by the legislature, one from each house.   And then there are also two ex-officio members which are the two transportation chairs in the legislature. So it's a fairly small group, but know they are essentially responsible for allocating, we call it programming, or sort of promising awarding funding to transportation projects in the state… primarily state funds.    They also have an oversight responsibility for federal funds…really, really big programs like Caltrans State Highway Operation and Protection Program, which we lovingly refer to as the SHOPP program, which is funded to the tune of about $5 billion a year. CTC approves SHOPP projects, and they also have responsibility for oversight on Caltrans work with those funds. They have a pretty small staff…about 30 staff.    But, they have a huge responsibility because they literally allocate billions and billions of dollars in every single meeting.    They meet six times a year. And their responsibility is really significant.    So the wonkiest wonks of state transportation advocacy tune into every meeting. We regularly have policy items and funding programs that we have comments on. But  it's not a space that gets a lot of participation by just general members of the public because they are, as I said, a small commission that hasn't gotten a lot of attention other than from Streetsblog.    Of course, Melanie religiously watched commission meetings for her whole time and was really great at covering it. So just appreciate Streetsblog so much for ah for being the lens into.   Damien Newton I made my Zoom reservations today for those meetings, so I'm ready.   Jeanie Ward-Waller Yes. Get them on your calendar now…   But yeah, the meetings are long. I think most of their meetings are scheduled to run a day and a half. So it takes some endurance to stay on and hear all of the decisions that they're making at every meeting.   Damien Newton A lot of times when people hear about transportation grants they assume it's from Caltrans, or the state agency.   Do the Caltrans like grant programs have to be approved by the CTC or are they separate, or sometimes both. Jeanie Ward-Waller Not all of them.    Caltrans does have a few programs that they're responsible for awarding and managing and administering. Many are in CTCs per view. And then, some can be awarded by the federal government. The federal government has their own set of discretionary programs. Caltrans helps to manage the funds because they have a fiduciary responsibility that's given to them, sort of delegated to them by the federal government.   Even at the regional level, MPO (metropolitan planning organizations) also have their own sets of grant programs. So there's grants that can come from agencies all over the place. But, CTC has some of the big, really important ones. Streetsblog often talks about the Active Transportation Program. That's a beloved program that advocates have been pushing for a long time to get more funding.   And that is in CTC's responsibility to award and administer, although they lean on Caltrans staff to provide quite a bit of support for that program too.   Damien Newton The last podcast I recorded was actually Melanie's goodbye podcast. And in it, she mentioned that CTC gets really annoyed with her because she uses the term "rubber stamp" for a lot of the proposals that come through. And when you describe the makeup of the board where you have nine people appointed by the governor and only two people appointed by something else, is the reality that we see a lot of things just sort of rubber stamped as to whatever the governor wants? Like how often will you have governor appointees arguing with each other?   Jeanie Ward-Waller Not often.    I think it's fair criticism from Melanie and part of the frustration, frankly, from the advocacy community that we do feel like there's rarely real honest discourse and dialogue and questioning of projects once they get to a commission meeting.    One of the rare really high profile examples that actually even the LA Times covered was about a year ago at their, was their January meeting a year ago when Commissioner Joe Liu raised some really important questions about a big project that was getting funding from the the Trade Corridor Improvement Program, which is one of those big grant programs that CTC awards. And he had some legitimate questions about the environmental impacts, air quality assessment, traffic analysis that Caltrans and the sponsoring agency, which is the San Bernardino County Transportation Agency did not receive well. And Joe really took a lot of flack and unfortunately, was not reappointed after that meeting. That was his last meeting.    And a couple of others  agreed with Joe: Commissioner Lugo and Commissioner Grisby. At the prior meeting, they had sort of agreed with Joe and said, "hey, let's not allocate funds to this project now and bring it back in January and  get some of these questions answered that Joe was raising." And that kind of discord and split vote is extremely rare at CTC. By the time the projects get to CTC, they really feel baked. It's too late for dialogue. From an advocate perspective, that's really concerning because we feel like that kind of scrutiny should happen in public. It should happen at a public meeting. And because transportation is so hard to influence at the early steps of project development. We don't necessarily have a view into what's happening with that project. The decision making, the environmental analysis…Environmental documents are thousands of pages long. No average member of the public, or even us as professional advocates, have the time and the capacity to dig through and read all the details and it's super technical.    So we would like CTC commissioners to bring some of those hard questions to a public meeting and have those discussions in public, but it rarely happens and I think it's been discouraged. From what I understand, CTC really wants those meetings to be very cordial and have agreement amongst the group at least publicly so it's a frustration for us for sure.   10:18.73 Damien Newton To build off that question and the frustration you're expressing, how much does it matter then who the commissioners are? Because I know several years ago when Tamika Butler was first appointed, there was celebration because it was breaking up sort of the monopoly in several senses that had dominated the CTC.   And she stepped down under some conflict of interest concerns because she was working for a transportation consulting firm at the time. But I mean, I know there's some really good people on it right now. But does it matter that much if the rubber stamp mentality and cordiality is so important?   Jeanie Ward-Waller Absolutely.   I absolutely think it matters. And from the perspective of the coalition that I work with, we continue to do the work to organize and identify good people who have expertise, who bring a different perspective that would be willing to serve on the commission. So, we actually just sent a letter to the governor's office recently  with with some more recommendations of," hey, these are good people that um  represent different parts of the state that aren't maybe aren't represented on the commission at the moment that are willing to serve and are really interested in serving on CTC and providing it input to the decisions."   So, we're not deterred, but I think um it's challenging. The change that I have seen over the last several years with having more diverse perspectives on the CTC, equity being maybe one of the biggest and most important, that are now often centered in discussion. It's not always like a real deep dive on what are the equity impacts of a particular project but they talk about equity a lot in the reports that they get and the introductory statements and the agencies that come and present to CTC. Equity is very much becoming part of the dialogue.    And hopefully that is going to have an impact over time. But  it takes a long time to change these systems. So I think we're still waiting to see that then become deeper in the analysis and the discussion around projects and around funding allocations. like How are those things influenced by um by all of the dialogue and all of the discussion and time that's spent talking about equity?  I don't know if that's a partial answer to your question, but I think it has made a real difference to bring new perspectives to the commissioners that are actually sitting on the dais. But it's not totally changed um the process and some of the bigger concerns about funding allocations that ah we would like to see.   Damien Newton No, I think it was important to address that because I realized the rubber stamp question might have sounded too discouraging to people after I listened to the answer, which I've heard before, versions of it from you and Melanie before.   But as I was listening, I thought, "I don't want to make it sound like we're telling advocates not to be involved, that it's just a rubber stamp anyway."    Jeanie Ward-Waller It takes a long time to change. Changing the culture, changing the folks in the decision making structure, all of these things are like steps in the right direction.    I do feel like we're getting to an important tipping point in some of the bigger decision making and I'm hopeful.  I'm not deterred and certainly the folks that I work with,  we continue to show up, we continue to advocate really strongly at CTC and and continue to try to shift the perspectives on the board.   Damien Newton So, you mentioned active transportation, which is a program we've covered a lot that's administered by the CTC. It seems that the biggest issue people have with this program, the biggest negative issue I should say, that people have with this program, is that it's too popular and there's never enough money for it.   But that's not really something the CTC can do anything about. If anything, the CTC has actually been asking for more money for this program because it's so popular.   14:31.39 Jeanie Ward-Waller Yeah. Yeah, that's right. We were very pleased, and I want to commend the CTC in a big way, for putting the active transportation program at the very top of their list of priorities in their annual report to the legislature this year. So they are asking, in pretty clear terms, that the legislature put more money for ATP in this year's budget and also start to look at a longer term solution that would try to solve the problem of not enough funding to this program year over year into the future.   Damien Newton You're talking about a dedicated funding stream, like a certain percentage of this tax pays for the ATP every year.   Jeanie Ward-Waller And ATP does have a dedicated funding stream now. There is a base funding allocation that's continuously appropriated, that's state and federal transportation dollars. But the base funding has never met the need, right? Every single cycle of ATP has been oversubscribed by many times. And then we saw a one-time augmentation of general funds three years ago when there was a big budget surplus and the governor did his "big climate budget."    But that funding has unfortunately been clawed back each of the last two years. And the clawback has actually ended up eroding the base funding because CTC had programmed that whole one-time allocation, which was a billion dollars. They promised that money to projects. And so actually, as the money's been pulled back from the one-time allocation, they've had to use the base funding to meet the promises that they've already made.   And so this last cycle, and I think Melanie covered this pretty well, the cycle that was just awarded in December, a month ago, um there was only $84 million dollars available statewide and they received two and a half billion dollars in applications. So it was oversubscribed by 30 times and they could have funded hundreds of projects. At least several dozen that scored really highly. Instead they finished ninth in the statewide competition.   So 300 applications, many dozens that were great, scored well, and…they funded nine. To just even think of the wasted resource that goes into all of those cities and counties preparing applications, preparing these projects and applying…it costs a lot of money because they often hire consultants.    This year has put it into more stark relief than ever before. There's more ATP projects out there to fund than frankly even the highway projects that applied to the big two highway programs "congested quarters" and "trade quarters" programs. Those two programs received the same amount of applications in terms of dollar amount.   The demand just grows every year for ATP. It's not like we're meeting the need and we're just going to be done at some point funding active transportation. The applications of ATP grow every single grand cycle. So demand is just increasing for these kinds of projects. They're so popular.   Damien Newton When LADOT cut its local slow streets program and eliminated it, I remember testifying or writing a letter to them basically saying, "I don't know why you would ever consider cutting this program. In my neighborhood, the most conservative estimate is that it had 80% approval when we did our surveys. and the neighborhood association, which didn't like it, really pushed people to vote against it.   So I'm pretty sure that the 80% is actually low.   Like, why would you ever cut this program? It's got like apple pie approval ratings. And I feel like it's the same thing for ATP. Everybody loves the program. Why wouldn't you be desperately trying to find ways to put more money into it?   Because it's just a program that makes people happy.   Jeanie Ward-Waller It's a great point and I'm hopeful that that's actually the way the legislature is going to feel that way this year. We've been making the rounds as a coalition, educating members about this program and also just reminding them of the great projects that have been funded in their districts.We get really positive response. Since it's CTC's top priority,  the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee showed up to CTC last month and said, "I really care about this. I want to make this one of my top priorities." We're hopeful that this is the year that we really do break through and get more funding for this program.    But I totally agree with you. I've been involved in this program since its inception in 2012. That was the year I moved to Sacramento and started working in transportation. And so it in some ways feels like my heart is with this program and I've seen it come so far.   And now that we have 10 years of history of projects that have been funded out of this program, we've funded projects in every district all over the state. So many communities have benefited.   So, we have a strong constituency that supports this program now.   Damien Newton This program is part of what was included in a letter that you and 60 plus other advocacy groups sent to the CTC and a couple other boards this week that made the case that now is the time to be investing in active transportation and progressive housing policies, and transit operations.   The federal government's lack of support for electric car programs in the next couple of years is going to mean that the state is going to struggle to meet its climate goals on a system that's built around expanding electric vehicles.   Jeanie Ward-Waller I think the president made it very clear on his first day with all those executive orders that he has no commitment to addressing climate change. Equity is not a priority, right? They've canceled all DEI initiatives in the federal government, which I think is gonna have a really big impact on some of the most exciting programs that came out of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the last federal transportation bill that was enacted under the Biden administration.   Programs like Reconnecting Communities, there was one called Neighborhood Access and Equity, Safe Streets for All. There were a whole slew of programs, carbon reduction programs, new discretionary programs that were created and awarded by Buttigieg as transportation secretary that are dedicated to climate and equity safety for all modes, right? Not just , people in vehicles.   Given the statements and the initial orders from the Trump administration, we can anticipate that like most of those programs will go away. um And that's really unfortunate because all of those goals were very aligned with our priorities in California.    What our letter said is we want the state government to be the backstop for this stuff. If we lose a partner at the federal level in these efforts, we need to actually push harder at the state level and and the regional and local level in California on these things that we know we really care about that are California's values.   We're really encouraging CTC, Caltrans, the Air Resources Board, they do our climate planning and they're also the agency that regulates vehicle emissions, and then also HCD, which is the housing and community development department. They of course are responsible for our housing policy. Where we build housing is super important and influences the transportation and the climate goals significantly.    We think there's a lot that is in the state's control. And we really encourage the state to step it up, especially over the next four years when we may backslide. We may really backslide electric vehicles. I mean, our ah regulatory power may be diminished, but also things like the EV incentives, investment in EV charging that we've gotten from the federal government.    If a lot of that goes away, the state's going to have to make up for that. And one way we can make up for it is, frankly, by trying harder to reduce driving by providing people alternatives to not driving. That can be another way that we move further on our climate goals without needing federal support and on the electrification side of things.   Damien Newton So since this is a concept podcast where people can come and listen to it whenever we tried to keep the things that were too specific to what's happening at this moment towards the end.   So since we're at the end-ish, why don't we talk about, is there anything really exciting on the CTC agenda that'll be at the end of the week that this podcast is being first podcasted?   Jeanie Ward-Waller So this letter that you and I were just talking about… our advocacy coalition will certainly be showing up at the CTC meeting next week to make sure that commissioners saw our letter, understand our recommendations, and feel some urgency to respond and to take some leadership in these areas. So that's one that's one thing that  you'll definitely hear.   In addition to that, again this is where I get turned into a super transportation wonk, there are a couple of planning documents that Caltrans and CTC are going to be presenting on that are policy items on their agenda. So, we'll certainly have comments. There will be other places on the agenda where we'll have some comments to make.   One is in support of a bill that we worked on last year, SB 960, which was authored by Senator Weiner. This is one that requires Caltrans when they are doing SHOPP projects, they have to build complete streets and transit priority everywhere where those needs are identified in planning documents.   25:49.49 Jeanie Ward-Waller So um so that, the plan is called the state highway, um sorry, ah system management plan.   So that's one of the items that we'll definitely be tuning in to to hear from Caltrans on, what are they thinking for their next update to that plan, and how are they going to be incorporating complete streets and transit priority as SB 960 requires? So pretty wonky, but exciting for those of us who have worked on his policies and been deep in the weeds. We're anxious to see progress.   Damien Newton All right, well, we're already up against our time limit. Doesn't it feel like we just started? I bet people that are listening are going to be like, how could they be approaching a half hour already?   Jeanie Ward-Waller It's just so riveting.   Damien Newton Yeah, yeah my broadcast expertise says definitely pick on your content at the end of every at the end of every podcast.   It makes you relatable.   But, future topics are going to be just as wonky. So if you enjoyed this, the next one's probably going to be ah about a week and a half from now. And we're going to be talking specifically about the state of transit funding.   Certainly there will be some Trump in that as well. But we're going to be talking about some different agencies and what's going on and what the state can and can't do on this issue over the next couple of years.   Jeanie Ward-Waller Awesome Yeah.   Damien Newton Like, what do transit agencies need to be doing in a broad sense in your post lockdown era, which we're still in and probably will consider ourselves in for several, several years is work from home is still a thing ah because we're not in Northern Virginia or DC. So work from home is still a thing. And how does all that change everything? Anyway, though, thank you for being here today.   Jeanie Ward-Waller So important. Thank you so much, Damien. The stuff is super wonky, but it's also so important. So thank you for diving in deeply and for...   Damien Newton Yeah, I'm definitely going to tell Juan Matute. He has to listen to this and match your energy for the next podcast.   Jeanie Ward-Waller Good luck.