Posted on 02/13/2005 2:41:55 PM PST by calcowgirl
Transportation reform next on state's agenda
Fancy Bay Bridge not in the plan, environmental reform, toll roads are
State transportation secretary Sunne Wright McPeak returned to familiar ground when she laid out for the Oakland Chamber of Commerce her and her boss' ambitious vision to restore California's golden luster.
Her boss, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, is expected to reveal details of his "GoCalifornia" initiative any day. It will feature toll roads, converting some carpool lanes into tolled "HOT lanes," streamlining the state's environmental laws and promoting high-density housing in urban areas near mass transit.
On Friday, McPeak offered the clearest, most comprehensive articulation to date of Schwarzenegger's transportation, environmental and development reforms. It's a matter of California's economic competitiveness, she said.
"We have to start thinking of California as golden again. We must build our infrastructure, which we've neglected for decades," she said. "We've got to build the state. That's the business we are in. We are building the future of California."
The still vague GoCalifornia plan gave McPeak the opportunity to delve into an issue that has been a hallmark of her career, first as a Contra Costa County supervisor, then as leader of the Bay Area Economic Forum: the mismatch between where Californians live and where they work.
"If we do not interrupt the land-use patterns, even though we'll spend billions on transportation, $300 billion in the next 20 years, there will still be a doubling of congestion. That's unacceptable," McPeak said.
An infusion of new cash sources — private investment in toll roads and Indian gaming money — is the best way to do better, she said, promising to build in 10 years the highways and rail lines that normally take 20 years to complete.
McPeak noted that the rapid development of the Central Valley and other inland areas remote from job centers is gobbling up prime agricultural land, causing monster two-hour commutes, jamming up freeways and blocking the shipment of port cargo. "We've concluded that land-use pattern is dumb," McPeak said.
She announced that the administration will introduce legislation that will require each city to meet its housing needs for the next 20 years. McPeak did not offer specifics but did highlight the BART-to-San Jose project.
Santa Clara voters overwhelmingly passed a sales tax to raise $2 billion toward a southern extension from Fremont to San Jose. But the project is in doubt because the federal transit administration has not endorsed it and a state promise of $725 million appears to have evaporated with the sagging state budget.
"We're not going to put that kind of money up and have a parking lot on the Sunol Grade and Altamont Pass," McPeak said, noting that along the proposed route cities are 60,000 units short of their fair share of housing.
McPeak's central point: California faces a sharp housing crisis, caused by lack of supply. Supply can be remedied by better zoning and cities can be induced with state transportation money into making more land available for houses.
Improving the housing supply and building vital transportation links can be accomplished by loosening environmental laws. She told East Bay business leaders that $1 billion is spent every year on reports and lawsuits, not actually improving or protecting the state's ecology.
McPeak talked about the Bay Bridge fiasco, repeating past claims that a switch in design will save money and time, and warning, "If the Legislature proceeds with the (tower), be prepared for a time delay and, therefore, further cost increases."
Contact Sean Holstege at
sholstege@angnewspapers.com.
bttt
bttt
Ping! Here we go!
hahaha, two bumps for the price of one.
This one is loaded, huh?
Lock and load.
Just curious, do you have any views on the proposal for new tollways?
Tollways are increased taxes.
From what I've seen, current budgets have continued to bypass Proposition 42 funding of transportation (and are planning to do so for the next two years, according to the proposed "spending control" measure). It leaves us with highways in need of repair and is prohibiting the investment in new infrastructure.
The people of California have been consistently paying taxes to fulfill transportion needs. Unfortunately, Sacramento has continued to divert those funds to other social programs.
Now, they are going to make you pay again.
Well I can understand the problem with diversion of transportation funds. But are you sure that if there were no diversions, there would still be enough money to cover highway needs? Because if not, either:
1) the roads don't get built
2) increase taxes are needed for roadbuilding
3) toll financing provides a way to privatize roadbuilding and get them (and the users) to fund it instead of a tax increase (confiscation without choice.) However it is important that the state put the risk of default on the toll builder.
Perhaps hard to calculate given that so much money is diverted to transit(which almost never covers its operating costs), but I guess that was mentioned on the prop. initiative (though percentages or amounts likely were not, correct?) But I bet the diversions to non-transportation programs sure weren't ever mentioned on the ballot.
As for the Bay Bridge--I guess they're just going to let it collapse like an accordion again. I'm sure that's better than withholding the monthly stipends from the San Francisco shopping-cart set.
Apparently, Arnold is all for it.
Well tollways would definitely bring in enough money to take care of the budget problem for centuries with all the people on the roads out there (at least in so.cal).
And maybe than you all will get a taxcut. Sounds like you all need one bad.
CA need more roads and more lanes. Toll or not, it matters not. I can't think of anyplace where a new project can overcome the enviro's and the NIMBY crowd. CA roadbuilding days are over.
Smart growth warehouses people, it doesn't improve the housing supply per se because someone has to subsidize all the smart growth housing they are building. Usually its the private individual who unknowingly buys a house for his neighbor when the cost is shifted to the price he is paying for his home. And they don't even get to pick the person they are buying the house for, the government does. Don't you think that gives the government way too much power over what is supposed to be a free market for housing?
If people knew how much smart growth was really costing America, they would revolt!
We have a smart growth development going in, in Santa Cruz County that will be 300 apartments, 700 sq feet with no kitchen. They will share a communal kitchen.
This is right in line with the UNs biodiversity treaty. It says if they are to allow us to stay an industrialized society, only a billion people should be allowed on the planet. If we want to keep our friends and family alive, we have to revert to a peasant society-- no kitchens is very medieval, doncha think"
****
Posted by hedgetrimmer to pbrown
On News/Activism 02/04/2005 10:48:14 PM PST · 420 of 784
The Global Biodiversity treaty has already decided how many humans should be allowed to live on the planet.
1.An agricultural society - "in which most human beings are
peasants ... should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people..."
2.An industrialized world society - "at the North American standard of living ... would be 1 billion."
3.Semi-industrialized society - As the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.
You've heard of governor Moonbeam. If Schwarzenegger keeps it up, he's going to be known as governor Lowbeam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.