Mileage Taxes and Bike Lanes Stoke Controversy As the Planet Burns
As SANDAG, the agency vested with looking at and acting on regional issues, looks to move ahead with its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), perhaps it’s time to ask what the alternatives might be.
The RTP isn’t some silly shopping list drawn up by transportation nerds. It’s a state-mandated bit of planning supposedly addressing the needs of tomorrow. One of those needs involves envisioning ways to cope with and lessen the impacts of climate change.
It’s a bad look for elected officials, who are ultimately responsible for the makeup of SANDAG’s board, to deny the myriad consequences of what’s coming down the pike. So they don’t.
Instead, we see rampant what-aboutism, foolish fiscal concerns, and a heaping cup full of NIMBYism. In recent weeks there’s been much discussion about the viability of bike lanes and/or fixed transportation modes, along with the ever increasing drum beat of fear-mongering about in-fill development. (I’ll get to neighborhood density in a future posting, I promise.)
***
Retired/unretired reporter JW August penned an article about bike lanes on 30th Street for Times of San Diego that I initially searched for under the “opinion” tag. I incorrectly assumed that any article making a case for something with more holes than Swiss cheese was an op-ed.
I get it. Cutting back on easy access parking seems like it should be a bad idea, and anticipating increased utilization of non-automotive transportation is an iffy proposition. It is apparently a big deal that there aren’t already traffic jams in the bike lanes.
Go figure, making a systemic change in the way things are laid out takes time to catch on. Venture on over to see the crowds at Bob Filner’s supposedly horrible idea for Balboa Park’s Plaza de Panama to get an idea of what’s possible.
Bike lanes done right (I’ll be honest, I don’t know that these are) have a counterintuitive effect on the small businesses nearby.
Proposing bike lanes always creates controversy as mom and pop businesses worry about their livelihoods. Actually having bike lanes is a different story, with surveys in cities world-wide showing no or positive impacts. The latest research shows fewer cars are often good for business.
The Times of San Diego story picks up on a wealth of misinformation utilized by opponents of the North Park bike lanes, starting with the assertion that the change was sprung on the community with no notice. (It came after much debate in a variety of forums)
No mention was made by August of the inflated petition bandied about as proof of neighborhood opposition, which included signatures from localities far from the impacted area (40% of the submitted signatures were from outside the county.) None of the area businesses that signed on in support of bike lanes were interviewed for the story.
The argument by opponents to the bike lanes in question concerning utilizing Utah Street for cyclists ignores the reality that the street ends long before riders could get to their destinations. Also unmentioned is the hostility displayed by drivers toward cyclists and the number of pedestrian and rider deaths occurring locally. The semi-protected bike lanes on 30th are a blessing in that sense.
A significant portion of the population is so dedicated to car supremacy that a little road rage along the way is considered acceptable. Three fourths of all car-bike accidents end up with no citation being issued. Every bike rider I’ve ever talked to has stories to tell about vehicles making aggressive moves because getting to WalMart quickly really is an emergency.
The point I wish to make isn’t about the specifics of the 30th Street bike lanes; it is that doing what needs to be done to prevent a looming natural disaster is being prevented by little grievances. Global warming is being enabled by a thousand cuts as much as it is by the Chinese burning coal.
And I know 1.7 miles of bike lanes aren't going to do squat to curb greenhouse gasses. But a lot of little things are part of the bigger picture. One of those things is planning for neighborhoods that are inclusive of many things people now use their cars for.
A neighborhood full of single family dwellings doesn’t have the population density to support many businesses and services. Infill housing construction can change that equation.
Dedicated (and safe) bike lanes are just one tool of millions needed. In the case of personal transportation, our communities need to become less car centric– a lot less car centric. Smart cities are encouraging and building the infrastructure now to make a future possible that doesn’t include getting on a freeway to buy toilet paper.
***
Up next in my magical mystery tour of excuses for not doing anything would be the mileage tax included in SANDAG’s vision for how they’re going to pay for improvements going forward.
Given the number of grifters who’ve jumped on the No Mileage Tax bandwagon, you’d think it was just around the corner. In fact, there is no legal basis for charging such a tax, and the SANDAG plan assumes that the State of California will do the political grunt work to open the door. In 2026.
The justification for a mileage tax is okay, I guess, once you get past the fact that it’s regressive, making the people who can least afford it bear too much of the burden. (Of course, any progressive taxation will be called a job killer, so we have to live with what’s possible rather than what’s best).
California’s revenues from gas taxes are doomed as it switches to more environmentally friendly modes of transportation. A mileage tax would mean everybody would be contributing to the cost of maintaining the road system.
The Howard Jarvises of the world would prefer for this mode of taxation to wither away, so monies for feeding starving children can be diverted. State and local governments, on the other hand, have an interest in protecting their income stream; and the status quo, no matter how unfair it is, is always better than nothing.
As far as SANDAG is concerned, a mileage tax is just part of a bigger picture when it comes to revenue streams. A bunch of their planners must have been spiking their coffee with Everclear, since they baked in an assumption that voters could approve three sales tax increases in coming years.
The fact is that the state mandated Regional Transportation Plan(RTP) is supposed to include some notion of how things will be paid for. Keeping the present system of financing in place will eventually pay for little more than spot fixes to existing infrastructure, meaning that nothing can be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Friday’s Union-Tribune has battling op-eds about SANDAG’s vision. The writers (Supe Desmond, along with Mayors Bailey of Coronado and Minto of Santee) of the doubters' version reel off a litany of unfulfilled past predictions and cast doubt on whether any proposal will actually reach fruition.
They argue against approval of the RTP, saying the future lies in technology, electrified cars, and autonomous vehicles. (I’m still waiting for my Jetsons’ flying car.)
Vehicles driven by artificial intelligence are a huge failure, generating more lawsuits than time saved. The raw materials involved in mass producing mods of transportation that primarily carry one person at a time represent their own threats to the environment.
Uber, which not long ago promised a world where car ownership would be passè, sold its self-driving division off at a huge loss.
Unless somebody's promising “beam me up, Scottie” systems, technology isn’t going to get us out of this mess.
Pro-RTP writers (San Diego’s Mayor Gloria, along with Encinitas’ Blakespeare, and National City’s Sotelo-Solis) all agree they are now against any mileage tax. Given the effort to poison that well, I don’t blame them.
Their arguments use words like “equitable” and “transit friendly,” and advocate for “alternatives” to automobiles as a mode of transport. It’s all warm and fuzzy, and I get it.
Nobody dares say the truth, namely that our current system of getting around is unsustainable. Casting doubt of the supremacy of the automobile is heretical.
We’re not going to accomplish anything new by continuing to do what we’ve always done in the past. That said, the future these days is more unknowable than ever. But having a plan, one that can be adjusted, is better than not having a plan.
As is true with Biden’s Build Back Better plan, what we’re looking at spending right now for the future of transportation in San Diego is a mere pittance compared to what will be needed if the status quo remains.
https://twitter.com/NevoMagnezi/status/1469388428101832705?s=20
Hey folks! There’s a change coming to Words & Deeds in 2022. I’ll be moving from WordPress to Substack, which hopefully will mean just a few changes in formatting. Stay tuned for exciting details.
Email me at WritetoDougPorter@Gmail.com