Begin the Diversions

Heading south on Reseda at 2:15 on a weekday afternoon it is not unusual to hit a clog, but today is different. It's like we're waiting in line for American Idol try outs. What's the delay? Twenty minutes and four blocks later we find out. They are resurfacing a stretch of Reseda between Roscoe and Saticoy, so the two lanes of southbound traffic have to be diverted onto one of the northbound lanes. The Roscoe stop is on the south corner, but the driver lets people off on the north before merging to the left. On the south corner, a half dozen people wait, unsure what to do since the street in front of them has been torn up and blocked off from traffic. In other words, the bus can no longer pull up to the curb, so where will it stop? As the light turns green and the bus finally heads south into the northbound lane they find out--the bus just drives on by as they wave their hands hopelessly in the air.

Not surprisingly, at any given time there are over a dozen major resurfacing projects taking place on the streets of Los Angeles. The Bureau of Street Services has an annual budget over 170 million. Most of this budget comes out of general revenues collected on all city residents, whether they own cars or not. This makes sense since streets are vital to urban infrastructure. Only the most hard core libertarian would argue local streets be privately funded--each person choosing whether to surface in front of their house or not, making driving to the grocery store a bumpy adventure constantly moving from asphalt to gravel to dirt to cobblestone.

In Europe, mass transit was early on recognized as an equally important part of the transportation network that required publicly funding. By contrast, in the U.S. it was considered a private business which not only should be self-sustaining but also taxed, helping to fund the construction of roads. This logic, not--once again it must be emphasized--a GM conspiracy, is largely responsible for the collapse of public transportation in U.S. cities, including L.A.

This does not mean the auto lobby was without influence on public policy. One of their biggest victories was convincing both states and the federal government to create highway trust funds. These funds created out of gas taxes and other auto related fees were dedicated solely to the construction of highways helping to create the fantastic "freeway" systems that dominate cities. States created constitutional amendments prohibiting the diversion of these funds to anything but highways. This sounds reasonable until you realize that cars have to eventually leave the highway and go on local streets, paid for by local municipalities. In the 1970s cities recognized the need for public transportation, and a small slice of highway funds began being diverted to mass transit, but by then the damage had been done.

Non-divertability is still a bad idea, so I am opposing proposition 1A, which extends the restrictions on California's highway fund. Yes, it is now called the "transportation fund", and a sliver goes to mass transit, but the problem with non-divertability is it gives the illusion that car drivers are paying their way. As has been pointed out, gas taxes would have to be at least twice as high to cover not just the cost of local streets but also police and emergency services that keep drivers from killing one another any more than they already do.

On the other hand, to redress the legacy of transit neglect, non-divertability might be a good idea. No money should be diverted to building highway lanes until all California cities have fast and convenient public transportation.

Madaboutla's proposition recommendations:
State:
1a no
1b no---more highway lanes/more smog.
1c yes--I'm not a big supporter of state bond measures, a way to redistribute wealth to Wall Street elites, but housing is in more of a crisis than transportation.
1d no--of course we need money for education facilities, but progressive taxation, not bonds is the answer.
1e no--isn't flood control precisely the cause of ecological disaster?
83 no--even victims rights groups oppose this malicious measure.
84 yes--more bonds, but this flood control measure has a conservation focus.
85 no--sure children should let their parents know if they're in trouble, unless their parents are the trouble.
86 yes--higher cigarette prices, fewer deaths.
87 yes--higher gas prices, fewer deaths.
88 no--a new kind of regressive tax.
89 yes--public campaign financing is a start.
90 no--"property rights"=land theft.
City:
H yes--affordable housing bonds.
J yes--what the heck?
R yes--term limits are bad but lobbying limits are good.