MetroRiderLA

Image courtesy of Telstar Logistics via Flickr.

• Super Tuesday Fallout: Proposition 91 goes down
• Hilary Clinton tells LAist her plan for public transportation
• Feds include new Inland Empire Metrolink line in budget
• The streetcars make their gradual return

Image courtesy of tatianes via Flickr.

• Street Heat LA guest posts on Emerald City about HOT lanes
• Bus service cuts coming, your input is needed!
• Green LA girl says NO on Prop 91

I’m thrilled about the thread on Prop 91. I think it’s one of the best things we can do on this blog: discuss political matters as they relate to transit.

So I propose we take the opportunity to discuss the upcoming February election.

As mentioned, Prop 91 has direct implications on public transit. Prop 92 (which mandates spending on community colleges and restricts fees) has indirect implications (by tying up funding that might be used on other things, including transit). And Props 94-96 may generate revenues by expanding gambling, although most of these funds aren’t restricted to any programs (as far as I know).

I’m not aware of other issues on the ballot. Perhaps there are local issues someone can bring up?

And of course, there’s the little matter of the president! Does any candidate (in any party) have a very strong pro- or anti-transit platform? This issue isn’t covered much in the popular media, that’s for sure!

Last, but not least, I’d like to nag you all to register to vote by Jan 22. You can start the process online here.

Proposition 91 is one of the odder measures on the ballot. The proponents have urged a “no” vote, and no one seems to know of any supporters. Thus, you get snarky blog entries and misinformed editorials stating that “no one is supporting the measure”. This couldn’t be further from the truth, and Proposition 91 is important to saving transportation funding.

The reason is that Proposition 1A had a loophole in it to permit the state Legislature to borrow money from transportation funding, as long as they pay it back in three years. In 2008-09, it appears that this will be the case and the County of Los Angeles will lose $61 million for roads and public transit in the unincorporated areas. “But”, one might say, “this is only for emergencies.” Well, Governor Schwarzenegger just declared an “emergency” over declining property tax revenues that we knew were going to happen a long time ago. “It’s a loan”, one could say, but unfortunately, counties and cities don’t have the same ability to issue bonds as the state does. Budget cuts to local transportation departments are going to be made, which means more potholes, worse sidewalks, and reduced transit. The problem with deferred maintenance is that waiting three years for the loans to be paid back could mean that roads need a higher degree of reconstruction, doubling or even tripling costs when a simple layer of asphalt could have done the job. People’s property values go down with poorer sidewalks. The ridership on transit doesn’t come back when the money comes back. You could go on.

Proposition 91 will permanently close the loophole and protect valuable transportation funding. The real reason that the proponents are opposed to it is the deal that was cut when Proposition 1A was placed on the ballot in 2006. By pushing up the issue, and agreeing to permit loans to be made, the proponents agreed to oppose the measure, and to use their space in the ballot book to write an opposition piece. But that doesn’t mean that us voters have to honor that deal.

For more information, please visit www.yeson91.net.