Don't let this 17 minute film will fool you! The MTA's draft plan blows more money than it should on cars.
The MTA's Draft 2008 Long Range Plan (and the accompanying video above) contain some encouraging language regarding pedestrians, cyclists, and the expansion of mass transit. However, the MTA's policies contradict the rhetoric in the Draft 2008 Long Range Plan.
The MTA quite literally mismeasures our roads, seeing things only from the point of view of a private automobile user. Focusing solely on auto-centric roadway performance measures ignores the negative impacts of such a system.
Further, the MTA does not technically consider walking, bicycling, or mass transit use to be transportation! This seems like an absurd claim, and yet the MTA discriminates between "transportation" projects and projects that cater to pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users.
A moderately sized crowd in a lavish MTA HQ at Union Station for Thursday evening's LRTP meeting.I like to complain when I write online, but instead of only offering up criticism, this time I have two suggestions to address the problems I've defined above. My suggestions are at the bottom of this post.
The Long Range Transportation Plan is put together by the MTA's Countywide Planning & Development Department. The heavy pro-auto bias of this department cannot be emphasized enough, in my opinion.
Mismeasure of Our Roads
The MTA Coutywide Planning Department's bias in favor of private cars is so deep that projects in other modal categories (i.e. walking, cycling, or transit use) are measured based on their impact on private automobile speed, accessibility, and volume.
In 2007, for example, when considering whether or not to fund new bicycle or pedestrian facilities in the MTA's bi-annual, multi-billion dollar, Call For Projects the MTA barred any funding to bicycle projects that would "... have to be relocated or removed to allow for construction of a future transportation project." (pg.19 of the MTA's 2007 Call foor Projects guide).
Another bizarre twist in the how the MTA evaluate transportation projects: a bus carrying 90 people is considered the equal of a single occupant vehicle. This occurs because roadway performance is based on "vehicle" levels of service, and not the speed that PEOPLE are being moved on the streets. A "vehicle" in this case could be either single-occupant car or a bus loaded with people - it is all the same to the MTA's Countywide Planning Department.
Due to these auto-centric roadway measurements, projects that would move hundreds of thousands of people faster, cheaper, and cleaner than private cars are routinely rejected. The Long Range Plan must include a different set of roadway performance measurements.
"Transportation" a Codeword for Cars
The MTA receives billions of dollars every year from various sources, and typically segregates that money into separate pots for different modes of transportation.
The word "transportation" is rather obviously defined as any method of moving a goods or people.
To the MTA, however, "transportation" has another meaning. As mentioned above, the MTA insists that a pedestrian or bicycle project using the roadway (the "right-of-way") must not impair the construction of a ".. transportation project." The implication being that bicycles and walking are not a modes of transportation.
Clearly, the MTA has shoved pedestrians, bikes, and transit users to the side.This is not a minor quibble over language - this word game pushes bikes, buses, and pedestrian projects out of contention for billions in "transportation" funds the MTA spends every year. "Transportation" must be redefined in the Long Range Plan - it must be broadened to include all modes of transportation in order to allow those modes access to billions in general transportation funds.
New Measures for the Road
Roadway measures must move beyond Level of Service, Average Daily Trips, Vehicle Miles Travelled, and auto commute times.
The roadway must be measured based on its ability to move and provide for the needs of people. This can be achieved by using a set of scientific measurements of the MTA's planning and projects.
To determine the impact a project has on an area, neighbors need to be surveyed to find out about how socially connected they are, and how liveable their neighborhoods are. High automobile speeds reduce the number of friends people have a street. High speeds also scare people into their houses – and keep them from socializing, shopping and caring for one another.
Retail sales tax revenues need to be mapped against other measures of roadway performance to measure the effects of the MTA’s projects. High auto speeds in busy, urban, on-street commercial areas correlate to poor business performance.
This crash, in 2007, a repeat of several that occur at this intersection yearly, is seen as a fact of life when cars are all that are planned for in the roadway.A comprehensive crash, injury, and fatality tracking system needs to be assembled and made accessible to the public, the press and politicians to demonstrate that the MTA is saving lives – and not endangering them with high automobile speeds in crowded residential or commercial areas.
General surveys of people using the right of way need to be conducted – to ensure that all of a neighborhood’s demographic and ethnic groups, as measured by U.S. Census data, are able to freely use the sidewalks and streets as they see fit – the young, the old, and the infirm alike.
These, and several other different scientific, observable, measurements MUST be implemented to ensure that the MTA starts serving the interests of its constituency – and not just automobiles.
Continuing the Discussion
I went to a Long Range Transportation Plan public meeting last night in Downtown L.A. to communicate my sentiments, and I intend on doing it in writing as well. You can submit your suggestion to the MTA on their LRTP input page or by emailing the MTA at metroplan@metro.net
Streetsblog LA blogged the West Hollywood LRTP meeting and several other transportation sites in L.A. (i.e. MetroRiderLA)are covering the issue - join the discussion on other blogs, develop your ideas, and submit them to the MTA before the April 25, 2008 deadline for public input on the Long Range Transportation Plan.
I've written about these issues before, and you can check out one particularly long post entitled, "Councilmembers, Lemme Save You Some Time" if you're looking for something else to read.
Posts
3 comments:
Nice summary, and great ideas. I agree that when Metro talks about transportation and mobility they tend to focus on "reducing congestion". Everyone to see "less traffic". Well, number one, that's never going to happen, and number two, who cares. What we need not to "reduce congestion" but to "provide alternatives". The goal of these alternatives should not be "to reduce traffic" they should be to "provide mobility".
Thanks for the kind words!
Their rhetoric reflects politics right now: people want better sidewalks, slower cars in their neighborhoods, etc. The MTA talks a good game - their presentation looks and sounds great.
It is their internal policies that stink.
Fortunately, I don't think it will take too much effort to convince Countywide Planning to amend their road measurement policies. Also, a simple MTA board order to officially define "transportation" would go a long way in making sure that modal discrimination is either stopped or at the least exposed.
The truth is, we can move just as may people, or more, using modes other than the private automobile.
When the MTA studies a new bus line, and it considers the bus to have a negative impact on "mobility" and "traffic" (they define these terms to be auto-centric) - that is an absurd situation.
Serving people, and not cars, should be central to the MTA's mission. Right now, we only count if we're driving.
This metrics issue is so vital. It's so idiotic that they measure success almost exclusively based on auto traffic. If you succeed in motivating change in that arena you will have done us all a big service.
Post a Comment