Switchboard, from NRDC › Morgan Wyenn's Blog

Growth isn't so green at the Port of Long Beach's Pier S project

2011-11-30T20:26:36Z

Morgan Wyenn, Project Attorney, Santa Monica

The Port of Long Beach is still the cause of frightening levels of toxic air pollution in harbor area neighborhoods, despite the progress the port has made in reducing its air pollution levels. They are now proposing to build a new cargo terminal at the port, on a piece of land called “Pier S.” While they are proposing to include a host of technologies to reduce the air pollution from this project, the reality is that we just do not yet have enough technology to reduce the air pollution down to safe levels.

The port feels pressure to continue to expand and grow its operations to maintain a market share of our country’s international trade, and this pressure is being used to justify expanding operations that emit huge amounts of air pollution that increases the cancer risks, asthma rates, and other health problems for the nearby residents. Because of the air pollution from the Port of Long Beach and the neighboring Port of Los Angeles, and the other polluting industries located in the area, the community next to the ports already faces elevated risks of contracting cancer from exposure to air pollution and suffers from asthma rates that are twice the national average. The residents in this area have a 60% higher risk of getting cancer from air pollution than residents elsewhere in the region. These harbor neighborhoods are some of the most polluted and least advantaged in LA.

In 2006, the Port of Long Beach—along with the neighboring Port of Los Angeles—released a plan called the Clean Air Action Plan, that contained the ports’ path forward to reducing their harmful air pollution. In this landmark plan, they promised that they would never move forward with a new project that would increase cancer risks for nearby residents by more than 10 in 1 million. But one of the proposals for the new cargo terminal at Pier S would have a cancer risk for residents that would violate this promise. And, under all of the proposals the port is considering for Pier S, the cancer risk for the people working at Pier S—from this project alone—would be more than 50 in 1 million. This is an unacceptable risk the people living and working in the harbor area should not bear.

All the pollution-reducing technologies and other measures that the port has proposed to include would not reduce these high cancer risks. So, the question is this: should the port build a new cargo terminal, at the cost of such high increased cancer risks?

Another question also worth asking is: is there a better use of this land? There are currently two additional proposals to build and expand rail yards a few miles from the port—called the Southern California International Gateway (SCIG) and Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF), directly adjacent to several schools and neighborhoods. Rail yards are extremely polluting operations, and community residents and environmental organizations are outraged over the locations of the two new proposals. In its environmental analysis, the port spent a few sentences explaining that they did not want to consider putting a rail yard at Pier S, even though it would reduce the need for the SCIG and ICTF projects, or at least reduce the need for them to be such big operations.

I think three things are clear. First, the port must do a full analysis to consider whether it should build a rail yard on Pier S instead of a new cargo terminal. At the very least, this would allow the port’s Board of Harbor Commissioners to be able to make an informed decision about whether Pier S can help solve the problem of where to put new rail yard operations.

Second, the port simply cannot move forward with a project that would increase cancer rates beyond the level it promised in its own Clean Air Action Plan. The port is currently considering three different alternative plans for the project, and one of the plans has a cancer risk that exceeds the level promised in the Clean Air Action Plan; the port’s adoption of this alternative would violate its own clean air plan.

Third, if the port moves forward with the Pier S project, it must do everything possible to reduce the project’s air pollution impacts to the harbor area residents. While it has already proposed requiring many pollution-reducing technologies, there is more it can do. We are submitting to the port a list of ways to make their mitigation measures stronger. Additionally, one of the measures that the port is already considering is to give $8.4 million in grants to programs that will mitigate against the negative air pollution impacts, such as programs that install air filtration devices in classrooms. While this is commendable, it is simply not enough money to really mitigate against this project’s contribution to the area’s air pollution problems. The port must give more to programs that provide life-saving relief.

The port is currently accepting comments from the public on their proposal—the deadline to submit a comment is Friday, December 2. To learn more about the project, you can read their environmental analysis and submit a comment to Cameron@polb.com.

New website offers opportunity to weigh in on how to fix LA's traffic

2011-11-08T20:09:55Z

Morgan Wyenn, Project Attorney, Santa Monica

Los Angeles' City Planning Department just launched a new website for folks to discuss and express ideas about our city’s transportation problems. If you’ve ever complained about LA’s traffic or wished LA had better public transportation options, this site is for you.

ideas.LA2B.org is designed to be “an interactive virtual ‘town hall’ website dedicated to soliciting ideas and conversations about mobility and transportation.” It’s an online forum, where anyone can post ideas and comment on other people’s ideas.

This effort by the city is unique in that they are trying to foster online public dialogue on ways to improve how we all get around the perpetually traffic-choked region. The ultimate goal is to collect comments and ideas, and then incorporate them into the Mobility Element of the city’s General Plan.

It is a pretty interesting and easy-to-navigate website, and I encourage people to check it out. It could be cool if a lot of people participate to really get an active stream of input from people across the city.

The site is brand new and the discussion is just beginning, but the more people participate, the better it will be and the better LA’s transportation options may be in the future.

Check it out, and join the discussion!

Air Pollution Can Make You Fat

2011-10-13T17:06:23Z

Morgan Wyenn, Project Attorney, Santa Monica

I often come across studies about the negative health impacts of air pollution. I recently learned about one such study that is particularly troubling.

A study published last year found that mice exposed to particulate matter 2.5—a kind of air pollution released by diesel engines, coal-fired power plants, and many other sources—had more abdominal fat and insulin resistance, even if they ate a normal diet. The mice exposed to air pollution had larger and more fat cells in their belly area and higher blood sugar levels than mice eating the same diet but breathing clean air. These negative impacts can increase the risk for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

We already know that air pollution, and in particular, the type of pollution in this study (tiny particulates that are 2.5 microns or smaller) increases the risk of having asthma, triggers asthma attacks, and increases cancer risks. Now we are learning that it is linked to obesity and diabetes too.

There is no doubt that a healthy diet and regular exercise is important to staying healthy. But it is maddening that folks living near industries, ports, railyards, truck routes, and highways emitting particulate matter 2.5 face an additional major hurdle to being healthy, just by breathing the air.

Read more about the study here and here.

One Railroad Company Takes A Great Step to Clean Up its Trains at the Southern California Ports

2011-09-30T02:46:55Z

Morgan Wyenn, Project Attorney, Santa Monica

This week is full of good news for the people breathing the air near the Southern California ports. First, major components of the Port of Los Angeles’ Clean Truck Program was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday. And today the Port of Los Angles and the neighboring Port of Long Beach announced that the trains at the ports are being upgraded with cleaner engines. Read the LA Times story about it here.

Trains are notoriously polluting and unfortunately our nation’s railroad companies have not cleaned up their act. Trains emit diesel particulate matter and nitrogen oxides—these are nasty pollutants that cause cancer, asthma, and premature death. Although communities across the state, public health, environmental, and environmental justice organizations, and some of our federal and state agencies have for years tried to get the rail industry to reduce its harmful air pollution, railroad companies have not done nearly enough.

Air pollution from trains both within the port and between the port and nearby railyards is no small problem. These emissions account for 11% of the Port of Los Angeles’ 271 tons per year of diesel particulate matter emissions and 12% of its 8,216 tons per year of nitrogen oxides emissions,[1] and 8% of the Port of Long Beach’s 271 tons per year of diesel particulate matter and 9% of its 8,400 tons per year of nitrogen oxides emissions.[2]

One railroad company—Pacific Harbor Line—is taking a great step to reduce this toxic pollution. PHL transports cargo by rail around both the adjacent ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. They are retrofitting these trains’ engines with “Tier 3-plus” engines, which will emit 85% less diesel particulate matter and 38% less nitrogen oxides than the trains’ previous engines. These upgrades are partially paid for by a $12 million dollar grant by the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program, which provides funds to help pay for the purchase of cleaner engines.

NRDC applauds PHL for taking this great step to reduce their harmful air emissions, and we also thank the ports for their work to help make this happen. This upgrade is a great example of what other railroad companies need to do to take responsibility for their air pollution.

[1] Port of Los Angeles 2010 Air Emissions Inventory.

[2] Port of Long Beach 2010 Air Emissions Inventory.

LA's Transportation Agency Adopts Another Great Environmental Policy, Implementing Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

2011-09-22T23:34:48Z

Morgan Wyenn, Project Attorney, Santa Monica

This morning the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) adopted a Renewable Energy Policy; they are now officially on a roll adopting strong environmental policies. Last month they adopted a landmark Green Construction Policy. Both policies seek to reduce the agency’s environmental impacts, promote green technologies, and help LA grow green. By continuing to move forward with these policies, Metro is truly representing the interests of Los Angeles residents and helping our great city become a more sustainable community.

Metro was already planning on installing solar panels at their new El Monte Station and are looking into the feasibility of capturing the wind energy in its subway tunnels. And they already get over two megawatts of power—meeting 2% of their energy needs—from solar panels on a few of their existing structures.

The renewable energy policy adopted this morning goes further, requiring the agency to:

Optimize energy efficiency retrofits;
Consider renewable energy technologies for every capital asset and project;
Incorporate this consideration into the early development stages of each project;
Consider particular criteria in this analysis, including the environmental benefits, the long- and short-term costs, whether the project uses land efficiently, the ability of the project to offset peak non-renewable energy consumption, the ability of the project to enhance price and supply certainty, and whether the project utilizes locally-manufactured equipment;
Use 33% renewable energy by 2020[1]; and
Report back in 18 months and every year thereafter on the renewable energy projects planned or deployed, and the greenhouse gas emissions and money saved.

Many thanks to Denny Zane and Diane Forte of MoveLA and Forte Green Strategies and to Metro staff for all their hard work on this exciting step forward. NRDC enthusiastically supports this policy and we hope other transportation agencies across the country follow Metro’s lead.

[1] Agency staff is going to report back in 18 months about the feasibility of this goal.

A Victory for LA's Air: LA's Transportation Agency Adopts a Green Construction Policy

2011-08-04T22:34:52Z

Morgan Wyenn, Project Attorney, Santa Monica

The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) voted earlier today to adopt a Green Construction Policy that will significantly reduce the air pollution caused by the construction of LA’s transportation system. The policy requires that all the equipment, vehicles, and generators used to build LA’s growing transportation system meet strict clean air standards. Read more about the policy here and here, and see Metro’s blog about it here.

This is great news for LA, and especially great news for the communities living close to the many construction sites that will dot the county over the next several years and beyond as Metro builds our expanding public transit network.

Construction equipment, vehicles, and generators run on diesel fuel, so they emit fine particulate matter (PM2.5), ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx), and toxic air pollutants that contribute to chronic respiratory diseases like asthma and make people more susceptible to developing certain cancers. Because of these serious health impacts, this policy is critical to make sure that Metro’s construction activities do not contribute to this harmful pollution problem.

This policy is an example of an agency looking at its ecological footprint, taking responsibility, and making changes with creative, forward-thinking policy. And LA now joins a growing number of cities across the country that have adopted similar policies, including Chicago, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Providence, Rhode Island.

NRDC thanks the Metro Board of Directors, and especially Metro Board Chair Mayor Villaraigosa, Metro Boardmember Director Richard Katz, the Mayor’s Transportation Deputy Borja Leon, and Metro staff for their leadership and commitment to adopting a strong policy.

But our work is not over yet. The policy adopted today applies only to projects on Metro property and rights of way—such as the many subway lines and extensions coming our way under the 30/10 initiative. While this is a great accomplishment, the policy does not cover the construction projects that are funded by Metro but that are administered by other entities, such as Caltrans and the cities. Metro is working on a plan to phase-in the policy to cover these other projects, and we look forward to working with Metro to make sure this policy keeps moving forward.

LA's Transportation Agency to Vote on a Green Construction Policy

2011-08-02T23:11:22Z

Morgan Wyenn, Project Attorney, Santa Monica

This Thursday, August 4, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Agency (Metro) is going to vote on whether to adopt one of the strongest green construction policies in the nation. As I blogged about this about a month ago, Metro has been considering a policy that would require that all the equipment, vehicles, and generators used to build LA’s transportation system meet strict clean air standards.

This policy is critical to make sure that as Metro ramps up construction to build a more effective transportation system, all this new construction will not bring dirty diesel pollution into our neighborhoods. Without this policy, communities around LA County will be subjected to years of toxic diesel pollution whenever Metro builds a new project in their neighborhood.

However, the policy currently going before the Board applies only to projects on Metro property and rights of way. While this is a great step, this does not cover all of the construction projects that Metro is responsible for. Much of Metro’s money goes to construction projects that are administered by other entities—namely the California Department of Transportation (known as Caltrans) and the various cities across LA County.

Metro is considering phasing-in the application of the Green Construction Policy to these other entities. NRDC urges Metro to move forward with the phase-in as quickly as possible. These other jurisdictions receive Metro funding for a range of construction projects that bring diesel equipment—and diesel pollution—into communities across LA. These projects must not get a free pass to pollute.

Court Orders Long Beach to Analyze the Environmental Impacts of the Modified Clean Trucks Program

2011-07-19T16:33:45Z

Morgan Wyenn, Project Attorney, Santa Monica

Late last week a federal judge upheld one of California’s most important environmental laws, ruling that the Port of Long Beach acted illegally when it changed its Clean Truck Program without first complying with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Port will now have to do a study of the environmental impacts of the changes it made to its program, with public input and transparency.

The Los Angeles and Long Beach ports are major sources of air pollution, including diesel pollution that harms the health of local communities. About 1/3 of this port-generated pollution comes from the thousands of diesel trucks serving the ports every day. To reduce truck emissions, both ports each adopted their own Clean Truck Programs in 2007 and 2008, requiring the use of cleaner trucks and a host of other important requirements.

The trucking industry trade group the American Trucking Associations (ATA) subsequently sued both Los Angeles and Long Beach, arguing that the programs were illegal. NRDC jumped in the case to help defend these important programs, representing NRDC, the Sierra Club, and the Coalition for Clean Air. Last summer, the U.S. Federal District Court ruled that the Clean Truck Program is legal . But months before that case went to trial, the Port of Long Beach settled with ATA, allowing Long Beach to get out of the lawsuit in exchange for weakening its Clean Truck Program.

The local community was outraged, because the Port of Long Beach not only weakened its program, but did so behind closed doors without any input from the public. Further, the Port did not do any analysis to understand how the changes would impact air pollution levels and the health of local residents. Community members, port truck drivers, public health advocates, and environmental organizations asked the Port of Long Beach to reconsider . We also appealed the port’s decision to the Long Beach City Council. The City Attorney denied the appeal, leaving us with no choice but to take legal action to protect the health of the local residents.

In court, NRDC—representing ourselves and Sierra Club—argued that the Port of Long Beach’s settlement agreement weakened the Clean Truck Program, that this change would increase air pollution, and that the Port violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it changed its program without first performing the required environmental analysis. CEQA requires that a state agency analyze how its actions will impact the environment—and it must do so before taking action. In this case, the Port of Long Beach did not perform any of the required analysis.

Late last week, the U.S. Federal District Court agreed with us. The Honorable Christina Snyder ordered Long Beach to conduct an initial study that will help determine whether further environmental analysis is required.

There is still a long road ahead on the journey cleaning up port operations at our Southern California ports, but this recent court ruling gets us one step closer. We will be watching closely, to make sure Long Beach fully complies with the law. The communities living near the ports that suffer from the significant health problems caused by trucking pollution deserve no less.

Happy Dump the Pump Day!

2011-06-16T14:26:10Z

Morgan Wyenn, Project Attorney, Santa Monica

Today is National Dump the Pump Day! And perhaps there was never a better year to start celebrating than 2011. With skyrocketing gas prices, ongoing legislative and regulatory battles to finally regulate greenhouse gases, and increasing awareness about the negative health impacts of car-caused smog, I say it is time to celebrate this little known holiday.

Transit agencies around the country are offering celebratory discounts and events. In my hometown of Los Angeles—the #1 Most Ozone-Polluted city—the Metropolitan Transportation Agency’s Executive Officer Art Leahy is going to symbolically drive a bus through a giant gas pump. Orange County car commuters can pledge to Dump the Pump and enter a raffle to win prizes from the Orange County Transportation Authority.

I wish you and your family a Happy Dump the Pump Day, filled with bus rides, subway adventures, bicycles, rollerblades, skateboards, and walking shoes!

Building LA's Transit System with Green Construction Equipment

2011-06-14T22:14:38Z

Morgan Wyenn, Project Attorney, Santa Monica

As LA’s public transit agency—the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)—is ramping up construction to build a more effective public transit system, it is also considering adopting a policy to make sure that all this new construction will not bring dirty diesel pollution into our neighborhoods.

My colleagues Damon Nagami and Adriano Martinez have blogged about Metro’s plan to construct 30 years worth of public transit projects over the next 10 years. While the 30/10 initiative will bring us a better transportation system much faster, the construction of this better system will require a lot of construction, and a lot of construction equipment. And construction equipment is some of the most polluting equipment in our region.

Basically, the policy would require contractors working for Metro to use construction equipment, vehicles, and generators that meet modern clean air standards. This equipment will emit significantly less air pollution than the older, dirtier models, in many cases one hundred times less soot. Contractors can meet these requirements by either retrofitting or upgrading existing equipment, buying new equipment, or renting equipment. Our region’s air quality agency (the South Coast Air Quality Management District) can help with these costs by providing millions of dollars of funding towards construction equipment clean up. Additionally, many contractors rent much of their equipment, so under this policy they will instead rent equipment that meets the policy’s standards. The policy contains exceptions allowing flexibility if a particular technology or equipment is not available or would be used for a project for only a few days.

Diesel construction equipment and heavy-duty trucks emit fine particulate matter (PM2.5), ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx), and toxic air pollutants that contribute to chronic respiratory diseases like asthma and make people more susceptible to developing certain cancers. Diesel PM contributes to approximately 2,000 premature deaths in California every year and is especially harmful for children and the elderly. Because of these serious health impacts, it is critical that Metro adopt a strong policy to make sure that any increase in construction activity does not contribute to this already heavy health burden. One of Metro’s key goals is to create a more sustainable transportation system in LA; the equipment and vehicles used to build these projects must further this essential objective.

Led by Mayor Villaraigosa, Metro Boardmember Richard Katz, and Metro staff, Metro has worked for months with a broad suite of stakeholders including the South Coast Air Quality Management District, representatives from the construction and emission control industries, and environmental, environmental justice, and public health organizations to put together a policy that will significantly reduce the air pollution from Metro’s construction projects. This extensive process has led to one of the strongest green construction policies in the nation, clearly exhibiting the green leadership of the City and County of Los Angeles and Metro.

Without this policy, communities around LA County will be subjected to years of toxic diesel pollution whenever Metro builds a new project in their neighborhood. The green construction policy will buffer our communities against this pollution and ensure that developing the long-overdue public transit system in LA will truly clean up our city and give people an option to ditch their cars, rather than bring dirty pollution into our neighborhoods.

The Metro Board of Directors is going to vote on adopting the policy this week. NRDC will be there to urge the Board to move forward with this landmark initiative.

My new favorite book: No Impact Man by Colin Beavan

2011-05-27T19:34:29Z

Morgan Wyenn, Project Attorney, Santa Monica

No Impact Man: the adventures of a guilty liberal who attempts to save the planet and the discoveries he makes about himself and our way of life in the process is a book—and documentary and blog—that follows the adventures of a New Yorker and his family as they try their hardest to reduce their ecological footprints for one year.

Before the No Impact Man experiment, the author admits to feeling frustrated that the government and the rest of humanity weren’t doing enough to address our environmental crises. So instead of continuing to complain that someone else wasn’t fixing the problem, he decided to finally figure out what he and his family can do.

They ate only local foods. They turned off the electricity in their NYC apartment and used a solar panel to power a laptop and one lamp (that means no heat or air conditioning!). They took the stairs (no easy thing in tall NY buildings!). They biked. They used only cloth diapers on their toddler and made their own non-toxic cleaning products. They washed their clothes in the bathtub. And author Colin Beavan takes the reader along for the often comical and consistently thought-provoking ride.

This is a must read for those of us that just go with the status quo because we tell ourselves that one person can’t make a difference. For as the No Impact Man discovers, perhaps the most tangible benefit of living a more eco-friendly lifestyle is the positive impact it has on your quality of life. When they stopped watching TV, the author and his family enjoyed more time together. When they stopped eating take-out and started cooking, they lost weight and felt better. And when they started making these choices, they felt closer than ever to the “good life,” measured by closer relationships, good health and concern for the greater community, rather than measured by the consumption of stuff and entertainment.

This book is especially a must read for those of us that already consider ourselves eco-warriors. I think I am a pretty hard core environmentalist and for years now have tried to live by my eco-conscious values. But in reading about one family’s decision to take things to the extreme for one year, I couldn’t help but ask myself if I could do more.

Good news: LA one step closer to a 7.7 mile bus-only lane!

2011-05-27T00:33:22Z

Morgan Wyenn, Project Attorney, Santa Monica

The LA Metropolitan Transportation Agency (Metro) voted this afternoon to implement 7.7 miles of bus-only lane on Wilshire Blvd. While we preferred the version of the project that was 1 mile longer (totaling 8.7 miles), this is still a great outcome.

But there is still one more step: the LA City Council has to agree. They are expected to take up the issue in June.

This victory is in large part due to the hard work and persistence of the Bus Riders Union. Lead by organizer Sunyoung Yang, the BRU has been advocating for this project for years.

One of the alternatives on the table was a 5.4 mile version of the project. There is much wrong with this alternative, including the fact that it would improve bus times the least. One of the goals of the Wilshire bus-only lane is to make the bus service on this busy corridor faster than traveling by car. The 5.4 mile version would reduce bus times by only a few minutes, while the longer versions (7.7 miles and 8.7 miles) would reduce bus times by as much as 15 minutes. NRDC applauds LA Metro for their leadership in voting for the 7.7 mile project.

NRDC Urges LA to Adopt the Wilshire Blvd. Bus-Only Lane without any Exemptions

2011-05-24T02:40:26Z

Morgan Wyenn, Project Attorney, Santa Monica

The Los Angeles City Council and the LA Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Board of Directors are scheduled this week to select a version of the Wilshire Blvd. Bus-Only Lane that they want the city and county to move forward with. I have blogged about this proposed project a few times (here and here). As a quick recap, this project would reserve one lane going each direction during rush hour on Wilshire Blvd in LA for buses only (and cars turning right). This would slow down the cars traveling on this busy corridor a little bit, and would give bus riders a quicker and more reliable commute.

The latest update is that Metro and the LA Department of Transportation (LADOT) have finished their analysis of all the different versions of this project, and it is now time for our City Council and Metro Board of Directors to pick one.

Metro staff prefers what they are calling “Alternative A-1.” This version of the project would create a bus-only lane for 7.7 miles, exempting the one mile between Comstock and Selby (aka Condo Canyon). City Councilmember Bill Rosendahl has advocated for a different version, called Alternative A-2, which would exempt the entire westside of LA, shrinking the project down to only 5.4 miles.

NRDC urges LA to adopt Alternative A, which will create 8.7 miles of bus-only lane, without any exemptions. And we are not alone. A broad coalition of community members, transportation advocates, bus riders, and environmental organizations support this alternative. So do some of LA’s favorite bloggers and the LA Times.

This project is an important step on our City’s journey to creating a comprehensive public transit system. Alternative A will improve bus speeds and reliability for the commuters that already use this bus line, and will encourage 10% of those commuting on Wilshire Blvd. by car to take the bus instead.

There is no doubt that to reduce LA’s notorious traffic and air pollution problems, we need to encourage single-occupancy drivers to get out of their cars and on to public transit as much as possible. Alternative A is the best approach to a Wilshire Blvd. bus-only lane that will help us achieve these important goals. Staff’s preferred alternative, Alternative A-1, would decrease the project’s benefits, and Alternative A-2 would decrease the project’s benefits even further.

While this project will slightly increase travel time for car users, Alternative A will decrease bus commuting time by a larger margin. The LA Department of Transportation’s recent study found that on the opening day of the project, travel time for a car would increase 10.69 minutes. After implementation, when there will be an anticipated shift of 10% of drivers using the bus instead, the travel time for a car would increase 6.11 minutes over existing conditions. Meanwhile, under Alternative A, travel time for a person riding the bus would decrease by 10 to 15 minutes.

And, frankly, traffic along the Wilshire Blvd. corridor is going to get worse over time even without this project. The 6 to 10 minutes of additional travel time that this project will cause for car commuters is more than outweighed by the significant step forward that this project makes in moving us closer to a comprehensive, efficient public transit system.

Implementation of 8.7 miles of bus-only lane is an important step in LA’s overall shift towards a more sustainable public transportation system. We can no longer afford to avoid taking every possible avenue to get commuters out of their smog- and greenhouse gas-emitting cars and into public transit. We urge the City Council and the Metro Board of Directors to adopt the alternative of this project that will decrease travel bus travel times the most, accordingly inspiring more car commuters to take the bus: Alternative A with no exemptions for the Comstock area or the westside.

Recent Study Finds Alarming Asthma Rates Near Southern California Ports

2011-04-08T22:42:41Z

Morgan Wyenn, Project Attorney, Santa Monica

Almost 30% of households in West Long Beach, California are home to someone with asthma. This heartbreaking statistic is among the findings of a recent study conducted by the Greater Long Beach Interfaith Community Organization, St. Lucy’s Catholic Church, and California State University, Long Beach. 29% of households surveyed are home to at least one adult that has asthma, and 18.9% are home to at least one child with asthma. The number of childhood asthma cases dramatically increased with the length of time the child has lived in the neighborhood; a little over 80% of the childhood asthma cases were kids that have lived in the area longer than 6 years, while only 9% of the childhood asthma cases were kids that have lived in the area for less than 1 year.

Sadly, these findings are not surprising. West Long Beach is surrounded by the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports, the 710 freeway (which is a route for diesel-spewing trucks transporting cargo to and from the ports), and major oil refineries. This community bears the brunt of the pollution from all of these sources, and this study is just one of many documenting the health problems this pollution causes.

NRDC and our coalition partners have been fighting for years to clean up port operations, and will continue to do so. While the Southern California ports have made significant progress, this study is yet another reminder that there is much more to do.

LA's First Bus-Only Lane Hits Some Roadblocks

2011-02-03T23:55:51Z

Morgan Wyenn, Project Attorney, Santa Monica

There is no doubt that we need to start prioritizing public transit over cars, and quick. In addition to emitting greenhouse gases, cars also emit ozone. Ozone is an invisible gas that combines with oxygen and sunlight to form that icky brown stuff on the horizon that LA residents know all too well: smog. Ozone also causes asthma and triggers asthma attacks. A new study released last month found that exposure to even low levels of ozone causes decreased lung function and increased airway inflammation in healthy young adults.

So given what we know about the harmful impacts of our cars’ air pollution, we should be moving forward with changes that will help us drive less and use public transit more. One such change is the rush-hour bus-only lane that LA is currently contemplating for Wilshire Blvd. I blogged about this last summer, when it seemed that the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and the City of LA—backed by local businesses, UCLA students that take the bus to school, the Bus Riders Union, and environmental groups—were moving full steam ahead to implement this project. The staff of the MTA have done extensive analysis showing that this project will improve our bus system and only minimally increase traffic for cars. The buses in their own dedicated bus lane will whiz by all the traffic; and once the people sitting in their cars see that the bus goes faster than the cars, an estimated 10% of drivers will take the bus instead.

Yet sadly this simple but effective project has run into some roadblocks. Several homeowner and resident associations in Westwood and Brentwood have convinced some of our MTA Board of Directors and LA City Councilmembers that the bus-only lane on the west side of town is a bad idea.

They incorrectly argue that the bus-only lane on the “westside” will cause more congestion, will not increase bus speeds, and will block driveways. And, since the portions of Wilshire running through the cities of Beverly Hills and Santa Monica will not have dedicated bus lanes (this is so far just a City of Los Angeles-only project), they argue that the stopping and starting of the bus-only lane will cause confusion for drivers.

All of these concerns are unfounded. MTA’s analysis shows that while the bus-only lane will increase traffic congestion, it will do so by only a few seconds at a handful of intersections, and 29 seconds at one intersection. And in exchange for this minuscule delay, the project will improve bus passenger travel times by an average of 24%! The project will also not block driveways, as drivers entering or exiting the driveways on Wilshire during rush hour can still pass through the bus lane just as they could at any other time of day. And, finally, it is true that segmentation of the bus-only lane is not ideal. It would be much better if the curbside lane all along Wilshire from downtown to the ocean became a dedicated bus lane for the entire journey. However, the segmentation cannot be used as an excuse to not implement the bus-only lane within the full length of Wilshire that is within the City of LA’s jurisdiction.

The City of LA and MTA must continue to be leaders in creating a better transportation system for our great city. Just recently MTA celebrated the retirement of its very last diesel bus, becoming the only major transit agency in the country with a bus fleet that is entirely run by alternative-fuel technologies. It is this kind of leadership that is necessary to move forward with a successful bus-only lane.

MTA staff originally proposed that the bus lane run for 8.7 miles from South Park View Street in the east to Centinela in the west, excluding a small segment around the 405 freeway, and of course also excluding the City of Beverly Hills. But because of opposition from a minority of Westwood residents, on December 9, the MTA Board of Directors proposed cutting a chunk out of the bus-only lane for the part of Westwood known as Condo Canyon. On January 12, the LA City Council Transportation Committee proposed cutting the project back from the westside entirely, reducing the bus lane to only 5.4 miles. And yesterday the full LA City Council asked agency staff to analyze moving forward with this 5.4 mile mini-version of the project.

The Westwood and Brentwood residents that are opposing the bus-only lane for the westside do not represent the views of the majority of the people that will benefit from this project, and do not even represent the views of the majority of westside residents. Like star-sightings and suntans, complaining about the traffic in LA is a mainstay of our city. The bus-only lane offers a great step in the right direction to solve our notorious gridlock. Angelenos want a better public transit system, and it would be a shame if our leaders let the baseless concerns of a minority of westside residents stand in the way.