Tuesday, April 08, 2008

LA And NYC Have Similar Congestion Problems, Face Different Roadblocks To Change

Yesterday New Yorkers lost out on a chance to improve their mass transit system when the congestion pricing debate was stifled in the Assembly up in Albany. Now we have a $17 billion dollar shortfall in our MTA capitol plan. On the upside, at least we have an expansive transit system, unlike our cosmopolitan neighbor across the country, where Los Angelenos depend on clogged streets and myriad freeways to get to and fro.

California Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) came up with an idea to add a tax for motorists to approve and then subsequently pay in order to increase the necessary cash for a budget that can begin to get a handle on Los Angeles's ridiculous congestion problems. However, it isn't their state government that is the biggest obstacle as of yet, it is some of the opinions in the local papers that are surprisingly thickheaded.

From The Orange County Register:

Congested traffic is easily verifiable. If it went away tomorrow, politicians would be unable to persuade voters to tax themselves to fix it.

Global warming at best amounts to less than a degree of temperature increase during the past century. If the recent several-year cooling trend is an indication, global warming may be going away. But because the only "proof" of long-term catastrophic consequences lies in contrived computer models, politicians like Mr. Feuer can insist even as temperatures decline that doomsday still lies ahead unless people tax themselves to fix the problem.

Los Angeles County motorists should ask Mr. Feuer what global temperature would persuade him that a new tax is unneeded. Global warming, now conveniently rechristened "climate change," is perfect for demagoguery. Those advancing the cause won't explain how they will know we have won the global warming fight, let alone what the ideal temperature is supposed to be.

Climate has changed as long as the Earth has spun on its axis. It's been considerably warmer in recent centuries than today, and during those periods humanity simply adapted, indeed, flourished with fewer cold-weather deaths and more abundant crops.

But facts don't deter schemes like Mr. Feuer's to raise $400 million in additional taxes to pay for already funded transit projects. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority would have to place the issue on the ballot if AB2558 becomes law, and probably would do so because the agency would reap the bounty.


Um, it looks like facts do not deter the OC Register as well. They are one of the few and far between that still believe there is no connection between cars (that create pollution) and the environment (that suffers from pollution) among other vehicles (pun intended) of pollution into the atmosphere.

Now that of course is the OC Register, comparable to a conservative paper here in NYC. Unfortunately there are others with similar demented thinking, as Streetsblog LA points out.

From Streetsblog LA:

Slightly closer to home than San Bernadino, the Santa Monica Daily Breeze also seems offended that Assemblyman Mike Feuer would make a link between global warming, air pollution and congestion and that he would actually try to do something about it.

Here's a novel way to combat global warming: Get Los Angeles County drivers to pay a new tax to combat traffic jams.

Confused? That would be the only reason to vote for Assembly Bill 2558. If the author, L.A. Democrat Mike Feuer, were serious about dealing with either issue he'd come up with a better plan than lumping them together.

Feuer was quoted in the Orange County Register as saying the people in the Los Angeles region have had it when it comes to traffic and air quality. Well, yes. But now he's talking about three problems: global climate, local traffic and air pollution.

The Breeze is acting like there's no relationship between these three things, even though it's pretty well documented that climate change is caused in part by the air pollution created by cars. I think their point is that it will take more than just LA to reverse climate change, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything at all. That's the kind of thinking one would expect from the Washington Times, not a newspaper in Los Angeles.


Unfortunately it is a paper in Los Angeles and one among at least a few. And in Santa Monica, geez, I expected better from a small local paper in that neighborhood. Why is it that we have so much trouble trying to fix the problems we create for the environment (and inherently ourselves)? People need to wake up and talk back to boneheaded newspapers like these and replace stalwarts in our government (like Shelly Silver). True change comes from within, not vestiges of the past like certain editorials and politicians.