Author Archive

You are currently browsing tinaandolina’s articles.

LA County Goes Where the State Legislature Could Not

November 23, 2010 in Legislation | Tags: , , , , , , , | by | Leave a comment

Not three months after the State Senate failed to pass AB 1998 (Brownley), one of this year’s top environmental bills which sought to ban single use plastic bags, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 to put in place their own plastic bag ban. The ordinance, passed on Tuesday, affects grocery stores and pharmacies in the unincorporated areas of the county, and includes a 10 cent surcharge on paper bags.

By July of next year, 67 large supermarkets and pharmacies must stop providing disposable plastic bags, and by January 2012 the ban will cover 1,000 stores and 1.1 million people county-wide. Each year, Los Angeles County residents use 6 billion plastic bags which equates to 1,600 bags per household every year.

Plastic bags are a leading cause of both urban and ocean pollution, threatening ocean wildlife and clogging the state’s landfills. Plastic bags are a key ingredient of the Great Northwest Garbage Patch in the Pacific Ocean, which is a swirling mass of garbage twice the size of Texas and growing, filled with plastic debris that is ingested by birds and other wildlife. 

Environmental and public health advocates, along with the California Grocers Association, supported AB 1998, believing a statewide solution was better for businesses and consumers than a county-by-county or city-by-city approach. However, under intense lobbying from the American Chemistry Council and the manufactures of plastic bags, the Senate failed to pass the measure. During the debate leading up to the senate vote, LA County made clear that they were ready to take on the issue if State Legislature failed to do so. Other jurisdictions across the state are now lining up to ban single use bags, hopefully sending a strong message to legislators to reject the plastic industry’s efforts to sell convenience at the price of pollution.

Under the Microscope: Senate Questions Rail Authority’s Ridership Numbers

November 15, 2010 in High Speed Rail | Tags: , , , , , | by | Leave a comment

Last Thursday, the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee held yet another oversight hearing on California’s High Speed Rail project. The focus of this hearing was to discuss UC Berkeley’s scathing analysis of the ridership model used by the High Speed Rail Authority (Authority). The ridership model the Authority has used is the basis for both the environmental review work currently underway and the Business Plan. 

As part of the Authority’s environmental review documents, ridership data is crucial to determining how many trains are needed, and where best to place the tracks, to ensure Californians will ride the train enough to cover the costs of operating the system. Within the Authority’s Business Plan, which is an exceptionally important document outlining the Authority’s plans for funding this mega-project, ridership data establishes how and where the train can be operationally self sufficient, and how much money will be needed from the Federal government and private investors.

In no uncertain terms, the accuracy of the ridership data is crucial. For this reason, once questions regarding the quality of the ridership modeling arose, the Senate asked UC Berkeley for an independent review. As part of their very technical presentation to the Transportation and Housing Committee on the results of that review, Samer Madanat from Berkeley and David Brownstone from Irvine concluded: 

  • Parameters of the CA HSR demand models are biased, which leads to biased ridership forecasts
  • Comparison of Altamont vs. Pacheco [is] tainted by incorrect adjustment of the headway parameters and pre-assignment of travelers to stations
  • Variance of ridership forecasts are certainly understated and likely very large
  • Models should be revised to minimize bias and reduce variance of forecasts.

In short, the ridership modeling needs to be redone. California has only one chance to build high speed rail the right way. The State Senate is asking the tough questions, and now is the time for them to insist on correct answers that are not based on faulty data.

Past Legal Limits? Governor May Have Overstretched With Veto of High Speed Rail Authority Oversight Provisions

October 25, 2010 in High Speed Rail | Tags: , , , , , , | by | Leave a comment

After a year of poor marks and critical reports from the State Auditor, the Legislative Analysis and even UC Berkeley, the High Speed Rail Authority was put on probation like status in the budget the Legislature sent to the Governor earlier this month. However, despite the Authority’s poor performance and the obvious need for state oversight, the Governor line-item vetoed the provisions in the budget that the Legislature had carefully crafted to ensure the Authority did not waste taxpayer dollars. Not only was this action inexplicable considering the fact that the legislature was doing its job and carrying out its oversight responsibility, but a closer look at the Governor’s actions reveal that they actually may not have been legal.

The Governor has the ability to line item veto appropriations in the budget, or even reduce the amount of funding for an item. The Governor can also sign the budget in it entirety or veto the whole measure. However, in a recent court cases challenging the Governor’s prolific veto pen, the California Supreme Court said, “In the context of the constitutionally prescribed budget process, the power to appropriate public funds belongs exclusively to the Legislature. With respect to a bill containing appropriations, the Governor has three options: (1) to sign the bill, (2) to veto the measure in its entirety (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 10, subd. (a)), or (3) to “reduce or eliminate one or more items of appropriation” (id., subd. (e) (hereafter article IV, section 10(e)).

Senator Joe Simitian, who chairs the budget subcommittee that had drafted the oversight provisions and who has taken a leadership role in trying to prevent the High Speed Rail project from become an expensive boondoggle, asked Legislative Counsel to offer a legal opinion on whether or not the Governor’s actions were unconstitutional. Considering the incredible amount of work the Legislature has done over this past year to ensure this project is done right, we are hopeful that if the Governor’s veto can be overturned, the Legislature will take the necessary steps to do so.

Governor Line Item Vetoes HSR Oversight Protection in the Budget

October 18, 2010 in High Speed Rail | Tags: , , , , , , , | by | Leave a comment

On the heels of several critical reports from the Legislative Analysis Office, the State Auditor, and the University of California, Berkeley, detailing the inadequate planning, weak oversight, and lax contract management, the State Legislature put significant strings on the funding given to the High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) in this year’s budget. Specifically, the Legislature insisted that the Authority address some of the criticisms before receiving the second half of their funding. However, in a surprise move, the Governor cut those strings as he line item vetoed the budget.

In the Legislature’s budget, the Authority had to submit a report by February 1, 2011 which includes:

  • A legal analysis of the revenue guarantee the Authority would like to offer the private firm that eventually operates the project – a guarantee, which if backed by state funding, would seem to violate the law
  • A summary of contract expenditures for community outreach, which would likely show their outreach budget spent more on promoting the project instead of reaching to communities
  • A financial plan with alternative funding scenarios since the likelihood of getting the large sum of federal and private funding the Authority is banking on seems remote
  • A copy of the strategic plan
  • A report on the performance of the Program Management Contractor
  • A report on how the Authority has addressed the other recommendations of the Bureau of State Audits.

With his veto pen, the Governor removed these important reporting criteria, which means the Authority does not have to address any of the shortcomings. Another glaring deficiency of the Authority’s work is their ridership analysis. UC Berkeley looked at their ridership modeling and found it deeply flawed. Ridership – how many passengers they think will ride the train – determines the system’s financial stability and informs where routes should be placed to serve the most people. Ridership is the foundation of the Authority’s analysis and it is a critical component to get right. The Legislature recognized this and insisted that the Authority review its modeling and submits a report detailing how they are addressing Berkeley findings. The Governor deleted this provision too.

The Governor’s actions mean the Authority has a full year of funding with no strings attached. After the abundant criticisms that have come forward over the past 12 months, this is disappointing. It is the role of the Legislature to ensure taxpayers dollars are spent wisely and projects, particularly of this magnitude, are closely watched. The Legislature took this role very seriously in crafting the Authority’s budget. The Governor instead gave them a free pass.

Hot Topics

Water Bond
High Speed Rail

Connect with PCL


PCL on Twitter

  • The Planning and Conservation League is being recognized by Friends of the River! PCL will receive an award for... fb.me/YJiXq8Sc 2 days ago
  • Prepping for our San Diego Fundraiser! You’re invited to join us June 14th in La Jolla! To purchase tickets visit pcl.org 2 days ago
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.