Do auto drivers subsidize mass transit?

How fast is California growing?

How many new homes does the state need to meet that growth?

How many homes get built every year?

If the demand is so high why aren't enough new homes being built?

What exactly is "smart growth?"

What's wrong with "smart growth?"

What is "sprawl" and doesn't it contribute to air pollution and development of our "disappearing" rural and wild lands?

How much do we need to invest in our water systems?

What about our wastewater systems?

Have we fallen behind in flood control investment as well?



Does California have an infrastructure crisis?

Yes. We need to spend upward of $116 billion in the next decade to shore up just our transportation system alone and align it with our needs. Throughout the public works arena, the problem is three-fold: a current and acute shortage of capacity; decay of the old system due to age and poor maintenance; and lack of planning for the future.

How did this happen?

Since the 1960s, California's spending on public works declined by 75 percent. Part of the reason is that in approving Prop. 13 in 1978, Californians raised the voter requirement for transportation sales taxes and other special taxes to 66 and 2/3 percent. Since then few jurisdictions have been able to pass taxes to fund road improvements and other public works. Meanwhile, our public works system continued to age and suffer increased wear and tear. Because of political apathy, resistance to new taxes and a variety of other factors, the system has not been maintained adequately, nor has it been expanded enough to meet the needs of our state's growing population.

How do we compare to other states?

According to government sources, California ranks 31st in per capita public schools spending, 37th in per capita higher education spending and 49th in per capita highway spending.

If California is 49th in per capita highway spending, which state is 50th?

As of March, 1999, South Carolina.

Won't our transportation needs be covered by the new federal highway bill?

No. Although the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21), marks a roughly 40-percent or $60 billion increase over previous federal-aid transportation program, the six-year legislation barely scratches the surface of our transportation needs. The $217 billion in federal spending is less than half of the nearly $430 billion of improvements needs on all roads, bridges and transit systems nationwide.

Of the $217 billion, $177 billion is earmarked for highway work. However, the TEA21 law is so flexible in it spending priorities that more than half that amount can be spent on non-highway projects, such as bike paths, light rail lines and bus service.

TEA21 also sets aside $9.3 billion for specific "demonstration projects" throughout the country. In California, $920 million of that money is set aside for projects ranging from earthquake retrofitting of bridges to lane widenings. The problem is that these earmarked funds do not come close to covering the full cost of the projects. In all cases, other funds will be needed to complete the work.

Lastly, TEA21 provides only six years of funding. California's transportation needs extend far beyond that period. It's estimated that the state's transportation needs exceeds $100 billion over the next 10 years alone.

Isn't an awful lot of money just sitting in the state Highway Account?

In March, 1999, the surplus in the Highway Account, from which state road projects are funded, was estimated at $1.6 billion and was expected to grow to $3 million by year's end.

Why is so much money just sitting there?

For starters, most of the money is earmarked for specific projects waiting to be built. Although the money is still in the account, it is already committed to the funding of future projects outlined in the State Transportation Improvement Program. One of the biggest causes of the delay in putting that money to use is Caltrans' inability to contract out design and engineering services. Before voters approved private engineering in the Nov. 2000 election, Caltrans had to use its own design and engineering staff, which could not handle the volume of work. Nonetheless, Caltrans contracted out only 6 percent of its design work. The national average for state transportation agencies is 50 percent.

Another reason is that the environmental review for highway projects is so demanding that projects can now take 10 years to get environmental clearance. Projects can also be held up by pressure from politicians or special interests groups.

Why doesn't the gas tax we pay at the pumps take care of our transportation needs?

Californians pay nearly 46 cents in federal, state and local taxes on every gallon of gas they buy. That money is intended for transportation improvements. In the past, however, large portions of that money have been spent on projects that have nothing to do with transportation at all. For example, $460 million in federal gas tax collections went to such projects from 1992 to 1996. Those projects include things like a berthing facility for Franklin Roosevelt's presidential yacht in Oakland. At both the federal and state levels, large amounts of gas tax revenues traditionally have been shifted into other funding categories to mask budget deficits or to pay for emergency services. In California only about half of the taxes on vehicles and gasoline have been making their way to road projects. In fact, more than $800 million in state gas taxes and other transportation funds have been borrowed from the state Highway Account since 1980. Little of it has been repaid. The good news: New rules enacted in both Washington and Sacramento have made it more difficult for transportation gas taxes to be used for other purposes or to be borrowed indefinitely.

The other bad news: the state gas tax is not enough. Last year the state Legislative Analyst's Office recommended boosting the state gas tax to upgrade and maintain road and highways. Various studies suggest the need for a hike of at least a dime. A penny gas tax raises $140 million a year. An 11-cent hike would be needed to cover the loss of the half-cent transportation sales taxes expiring in more than a dozen of the state's 18 most urban counties in the next 10 years. That loss is estimated at as much as $1.5 billion a year.

Won't congestion be solved if we build all the projects listed in the Regional Transportation Plans that have been drawn up around the state?

No. The plans do not address all our roadway needs. In 1996 the state Commission on Transportation Investment found that even if all the projects outlined in the in then-current Regional Transportation Plans were completed, near-gridlock conditions on urban state highways would still double from 22 percent to 45 percent by the year 2012.

Isn't it true that we "can't build our way out of congestion?"

Saying we can't build our way out of congestion is like arguing that we shouldn't buy shoes for our children because they will cause their feet to grow. But by not building, we fail to address the growth-driven need for more lane capacity. That only makes congestion worse. All over California, communities direly need to add lanes to existing roads and improve interchanges and other highway features to keep up with traffic growth. Just imagine how much worse congestion would be if recent highway improvements in your area had not been made. In fact, a Texas Transportation Institute analysis on highway congestion in the nation's largest urban areas indicates that expanding highway capacity has a significant impact on the ability of a region to reduce traffic congestion. The analysis found that the rate of congestion increase is significantly lower in regions that were aggressive in adding additional road capacity.

But don't new lanes just cause more traffic?

No. The so-called "induced traffic" is a myth. Motorists are not sitting in their cars in their driveways with keys in hand waiting for new highway lanes and roads to be built. Studies show that most of the increase in driving on newly improved highways comes as people switch from driving on secondary and neighborhood streets.

Furthermore, new roads do not cause an increase in automobile travel. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation the number of miles Americans have driven in the past 30 years has more than doubled while new road mileage has increased only five percent.

Another study by the Federal Highway Administration found that 78 to 94 percent of new traffic is from factors other than the new capacity. Those factors include population growth, increased auto ownership and declining transportation costs.

The fact is that new capacity is a response to, not a cause of, road and highway usage.

Why not pour more money into mass transit?

Although it serves a segment of the population, mass transit is expensive and inefficient. In the Bay Area alone, it costs more than $1 billion a year to operate the region's more than two dozen transit agencies. The taxpayer subsidy for transit has been tens to hundreds times greater than the penny-per-passenger-mile subsidy for highways. Between 1989 and 1996, transit funding increased by 42 percent nationwide, even while ridership fell by 11 percent.

In the Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's 20-year spending plan overwhelming favors public transit. The plan devotes two-thirds of its funds to public transit, despite the fact that transit's share of the travel market is only 6 percent and shows no sign of increasing.

The vast majority of taxpayers show no inclination at all to shift from driving cars to using buses or rail. In fact, overall ridership on public transit dropped 7 percent between 1983 and 1990. Thirty years ago, one in every eight American workers commuted by mass transit.

Today, that number is one in every 20. In the Bay Area, fewer than one in 10 Bay Area residents use BART regularly. The federal Environmental Protection Agency's Bay Area statistics show that 36 million fewer area residents rode mass transit in 1996-1997 than in 1982-1983.

What's more, transit agencies predict that as our population grows, transit's share of vehicle miles travel will decline even further. For example, the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Authority predicted that by 2001, Bay Area residents will take 2 million more car trips on an average weekday, compared with only 161,500 more public transit trips.

Even so, highway opponents argue that if they can't build enough highways to keep up with demand, they should stop trying and instead funnel more money into transit. This is the same as if Ford decided to make Edsels again instead of Tauruses because Tauruses sell so fast.

Do auto drivers subsidize mass transit?

How fast is California growing?

It's estimated that our population will grow from 33 million today to nearly 50 million in the next 20 years.

How many new homes does the state need to meet that growth?

California must build more than 200,000 homes a year, according to the state Department of Housing and Community Development.

How many homes get built every year?

Less than half the number needed. In 1998, 93,800 single-family homes were built. In 1997, the number was 84,780. In California, builders start 3.5 new homes for every 1,000 people. The national average is 5.5.

If the demand is so high why aren't enough new homes being built?

A number of factors come into play - availability of land and water supply, cumbersome and inefficient regulatory processes and opposition from community and environmental groups.

What exactly is "smart growth?"

Definitions vary. The basic premise is that housing growth should be contained by urban limit lines and redirected toward the urban core with an emphasis on transit-oriented development. The goal is to make our cities more livable while curbing peripheral development. "Smart" growth philosophy opposes highway improvements and single-family homes.

What's wrong with "smart growth?"

As espoused by no-growth groups, a number of things. Its land-use restrictions can push development farther away from the urban job centers. Its anti-highway bias can worsen congestion. Its "urban cram" approach can congest cities. It emphasizes spending additional millions on inefficient transit systems in the delusional hope that people will stop driving cars. In general, "smart" growth can exacerbate some of the problems it seeks to solve. "

What is "sprawl" and doesn't it contribute to air pollution and development of our "disappearing" rural and wild lands?

"Sprawl" is a perjorative term for suburban growth. The fact is that only about 5 percent of the nation's urban land is developed, while 75 percent of the population lives on only 3.5 percent of the land. Also, more than 75 precent of states have more than 90 percent of their land in rural uses. More than five times as much land is set aside in national parks, wilderness areas, federal forests and federal grazing lands than has been developed for housing and industry. As far as pollution is concerned, the number of vehicle miles traveled increases with population density, thus city drivers, not suburban ones, cause most of the pollution.

How much do we need to invest in our water systems?

In January of 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency's first report to Congress on drinking water infrastructure said the nation needed to invest $138.4 billion to bring the nation's water suppliers up to safe, modern standards. The California Department of Water Resources 1998 10-year plan called for 124.5 million in capital improvements needed to preserve and enhance the quality of our drinking water. Meanwhile, many cities are still dealing with water pipes that are more than 100 years old and treatment plants that are in dire need of updating to protect the people they serve from microorganisms.

In addition, the state Department of Water Resources estimates that by the year 2020, demands for water will more than double statewide, creating a statewide shortage of 2 million to 4 million acre feet in a typical dry year. Bay Area residents use about 1.2 million acre feet of water a year. To prevent shortages, upstream holding capacity must expand. Downstream, local water districts will feel the same growth pressure unless they invest in their systems. In 1996, for example, the Santa Clara Valley Water District forecast an annul supply shortage of 10,000 acre feet by the year 2020.

What about our wastewater systems?

In 1998 the state Water Board estimated a gross need of $2.9 billion over the following 10 years to continue funding local wastewater treatment and related programs.

Have we fallen behind in flood control investment as well?

Yes. The state Dept. of Water Resources in 1998 forecast a 10-year need of $833 million for projects, including levee construction, erosion control projects and land easement acquisitions.


Updated 1/17/01