http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/government-and-politics/20131220/south-pasadena-la-canada-flintridge-join-forces-against-710-freeway-extension
By Zen Vuong, December 20, 2013
SOUTH PASADENA >> The City Council strengthened its and other
cities’ ability to fight off the proposed SR-710 freeway extension.
In
a 5-0 vote, members elected to join the “5-Cities Alliance,” comprising
South Pasadena, La Canada Flintridge, Glendale, Pasadena and Sierra
Madre. All five cities oppose extending the 710 Freeway, which has been
debated for decades.
Newly appointed Mayor Marina Khubesrian called the compact historic.
“Financially,
you know people are willing to put up money, and that really makes us
really confident,” she said. “And I think it sends a strong message to
Metro and the politicians on the board looking at this issue. We are
serious and basically we are going to put our money where our words
are.”
Together they have $250,000 to spend on studies that they hope will support their stance against connecting the SR-710 freeway.
The
California Department of Transportation and Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transportation Authority are working together to publish a draft
environmental impact report by spring 2014. The five options are “no
build,” traffic management solutions, light rail, bus rapid transit and
freeway tunnel.
The Alliance would allow participating cities to
save money and share information related to SR-710 North studies. It is
meant to eliminate expensive, patchwork consultant work.
Every city that agrees to the Memoradum of Understanding(MOU)
will contribute $50,000. South Pasadena will be responsible for the
safekeeping and management of the quarter million dollars.
Each
city will issue a request for qualification for study consultants: South
Pasadena, transportation; Sierra Madre, air quality; Pasadena, legal
and California Environmental Quality Act; La Canada Flintridge, soils
geology and seismologist; Glendale, safety and security.
Once the proposals come back, the Alliance members will evaluate the contenders and decide to whom to award the contract.
Councilwoman Diana Mahmud called the agreement “a tremendous step
forward for our city and for the effort to fight Metro on its proposed
construction of the tunnel.”
Councilman Richard Schneider said the MOU has been incubating for a while.
“We’ve
wanted to do something like this for years to spread the expense as
well as the authority to undertake these studies,” he said. “And I think
this will have a tremendous impact on any body that sees five cities
acting together on an issue like this.”
Alhambra, a strong
proponent of the extension, isn’t enthused with the Alliance. Mayor
Stephen Sham said he has no right to tell the five cities they can’t
join forces but said there is a process that should be followed. People
should have more faith in a draft EIR drafted by Metro and Caltrans
agencies, he said.
“If (the Alliance) says regardless of what the report says, I’m
going to do whatever — then I can’t do anything,” Sham said. “If you’re
sick, you don’t want to say I want to take this medicine versus the
other. You want to say I want to talk to the professional. But you want a
cure.”
South Pasadena reached out to Los Angeles, which has said
it is against building a tunnel. It would be too difficult for each of
Los Angeles’ 15 districts to send a representative, Gonzalez said.
Realistically, he said, the only way LA could join is if it sends one
representative from the mayor’s office.
Public agencies or cities that oppose or are concerned about the
potential impact of the SR-710 extension could join the Alliance ex post
facto. Member cities must unanimously agree to admit them, and the new
constituents will have to deposit funds to the fiduciary agent, South
Pasadena.
Cities who choose to leave must give 30 days written notice. Any uncommitted monies will be returned, Gonzalez said.
“We
felt that this is the most fair and most efficient way to move forward
to make sure the interest of all the cities are adhered to and also that
we give a fair shake of the environmental impact report that is
forthcoming,” he said.
Good news for people who
drive to work: The tax break you can claim for parking costs will go up
in January. Bad news for people who ride the buses and trains: Your tax
break will go down. A lot.
Yes, that's bass-ackward. And yes, you've been through this drill before.
Right now, drivers and transit riders alike are allowed to set aside
up to $245 a month in pretax income to pay for parking or fares on
public transportation. That means they don't pay taxes on the earnings
they spend commuting to work, assuming their employer participates in
the program.
The parking benefit,
including regular cost-of-living increases, is cooked into the federal
tax code. But the benefit for transit riders is not. It goes up or down
depending on the whims of Congress.
Because lawmakers haven't acted to extend the current benefit
provisions, the maximum set-aside for transit is scheduled to drop to
$130 a month Jan. 1. The maximum for drivers, meanwhile, will
automatically rise to $250.
In 2008, when gas prices were through the roof, the cap for drivers
was $230 per month while the transit cap was $120. Lawmakers brought
them to parity as part of the 2009 stimulus package. The idea was to
give transit riders a little more spending money with which to boost the
economy, but it was also a matter of fairness. Why should drivers get a
bigger break?
But the increase for transit riders is subject to renewal. That
didn't happen in 2011, so the transit cap dropped to $125 a month in
January 2012, just as the parking cap increased to $240. Congress
brought them into line again as part of the deal struck in January to
avoid the so-called fiscal cliff.
The change was retroactive, creating a headache for human resources departments everywhere. And here we go again.
Around Chicago, the lower benefit limit would mostly affect Metra
riders. (A monthly CTA/Pace pass is $100.) But the benefit also applies
to Amtrak, vanpool rides and water taxi shuttles. There's also a move
afoot in Congress to apply it to bike-share programs, such as Chicago's
Divvy.
Some New York commuters would end up paying an extra $1,000 each
year, depending on which transit options they use. Employers also would
have to pay higher payroll taxes. In 2010, they saved about $300 million
thanks to the transit benefit.
Hello, Congress! On what planet does it make sense for the government
to offer incentives for people to drive more? Certainly not here on
earth, where we have too much pollution and not enough fuel. In Chicago,
we have too many cars on the roads and a perfectly good mass transit
system, if you forget for a moment about the endless aggravations of the
Ventra fare card rollout. Allowing the mass transit break to drop is
bad public policy.
But renewing it was a low priority for Congress in its end-of-year
rush. The lamest excuse: There's no point in extending this and other
expiring tax breaks because lawmakers are going to reform the whole tax
system next year. We'll believe it when we see it. (Wasn't 2013 supposed
to be the year they finally reformed the immigration system?) At any
rate, a tax overhaul likely would eliminate many such breaks.
Until that happens, lawmakers should restore transit parity. Either
of two pending bills — one in the House, one in the Senate — would tie
the transit benefit level to that of the parking benefit. No more
on-again, off-again tax break.
Leave it to Congress to impose a penalty on those who take public
transportation. Through their inaction, lawmakers are doing just that.
Again.