Last Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a century-old New York law that limited the right to carry concealed handguns outside the home. How will states respond to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen? What are the implications for other constitutional rights?
We’ll discuss on Your Call today, when I’ll be guest hosting. Joining the program will be:
- Chip Brownlee, reporter at The Trace, the only newsroom dedicated to reporting on gun violence
- Jess Bravin, a Supreme Court Correspondent with The Wall Street Journal
Tune in at 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live at 10am PT. What comments or questions do you have for our guests? Call 866-798-TALK to join the conversation!
UPDATE: Here’s an op-ed I wrote in CalMatters on this subject, published on June 14th. The Commission ultimately deadlocked on the decision and will revisit in October.
California is supposed to be a model for the world on how an advanced economy can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the state is not on pace to meet its legislated 2030 climate goals, and part of the problem is that state leaders are falling behind on deploying renewable energy. A recent controversy in the Mojave Desert over the iconic Joshua Tree is emblematic of the state’s challenges building the clean technology necessary to limit catastrophic climate change.
The goals are aggressive. The state requires its electricity grid to be completely carbon-free by 2045, including an interim target of 60% of grid power from renewable sources by 2030. This goal requires tripling the current annual build rate of solar and wind facilities. While state policy makers and industry leaders envision siting these clean energy projects all over the state, including offshore wind turbines and smaller-scale distributed solar resources in existing urbanized areas and brownfields, a substantial portion of that solar energy will need to come from utility-scale installations in the state’s vast, sun-soaked desert region. But the legal obstacles there could soon become formidable.
Specifically, the Center of Biological Diversity petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission in 2019 to list the iconic western Joshua Tree as a “threatened” species under the state’s Endangered Species Act. If state leaders were to affirm that petition, it would have the potential to undermine the state’s ability to meet its climate goals by effectively placing much of the Mojave Desert off limits to clean energy.
In its review of the Center’s petition, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife assessed the science last month and recommended not listing the species. It found that the trees are “currently abundant and widespread” with up to five million of them currently growing on a combined total estimated range of 3.4 million acres, in both their northern and southern desert areas. As with virtually all species, the department expects climate change to impact Joshua Tree habitat (though the species is still expected to persist in high numbers) through the end of this century. But as the temperature increases and rainfall patterns change (assuming it becomes more dry), lands to the north and at higher elevations could provide a refuge, with future climatic conditions similar to their present-day ones.
The commission will make a final determination in June. But if the commission overrules the department’s recommendation and lists the Joshua Tree as threatened, the consequences for California’s clean energy goals could be dire. Developers will either be prevented from building solar power in much of the Mojave Desert or will face costly mitigation measures to do so, which would diminish this needed deployment in one of the prime solar-generating areas of the state. Globally, it would hinder the state’s ability to show the world that a renewable build out in an advanced economy is feasible.
To be sure, these desert ecosystems are fragile, host unique species and are iconic in their majestic scenery – as is the Joshua Tree itself. No one (I would hope) enjoys seeing Joshua Trees cut down, even if it’s for a critical cause like climate change. But how much desert land are we talking about? The California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the state’s grid operator, currently has 19,000 megawatts of solar power and energy storage facilities in its queue that are located in the Joshua Tree’s southern range. Even if all these facilities were built (and some will almost certainly fall out), they would occupy only a tiny fraction of the range of the species. It’s a relatively small footprint for a technology that California desperately needs to deploy to benefit us all.
To put this desert deployment in context, a state energy agency report last year found that in tripling its annual build rate of clean energy, California will need to go from a 2019 deployment of 12.5 gigawatts of utility-scale solar to 69.4 gigawatts by 2045 – an almost 6-fold increase. Those 19 gigawatts of desert solar power and storage would therefore greatly help the state meet the long-term deployment needed to completely decarbonize the grid.
But perhaps worse, if the California Fish and Game Commission chooses to list the Joshua Tree as threatened for the sole reason of a warming climate, then under that logic, virtually any species could be listed as threatened, given the climate disruption the entire planet faces. That justification would in turn make it virtually impossible for the state to deploy precisely the clean technology we need to avoid making the situation worse, from energy storage to wind to solar.
All of us — humans, plants and animals — are threatened by the emergency of climate change, unless we take the necessary steps like deploying more wind and solar energy to combat it. The technology exists to stop climate change from worsening. What we lack is the political will to get it done. The Fish and Game Commission now faces that same test, whether to follow the department’s scientific findings or place yet another obstacle in the path of clean energy.
Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) and UCLA Law’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change & the Environment released a new policy report today, Driving Equity: Policy Solutions to Accelerate Electric Vehicle Adoption in Lower-Income Communities. The report highlights key policy solutions to ensure that California’s electric vehicle (EV) transition is equitable and inclusive. Top-priority strategies include increased rebates and incentives for lower-income vehicle purchasers; financial and infrastructure support for charging networks; and funding for greater outreach by community-based organizations.
To achieve ambitious state greenhouse gas emission reduction and carbon neutrality goals, California must significantly reduce emissions from transportation, which is the single greatest source of statewide and national emissions. California has made significant progress to date through its ambitious incentive and regulatory programs, recently surpassing 1 million cumulative EV sales and representing nearly 40 percent of all EV sales nationwide.
But any California resident will know that today most EVs are higher-cost models, with base prices over $40,000 or $50,000 for newly released vehicles, federal tax credits unavailable for legacy manufacturers, and base-price models hard to locate. Most are driven by residents of higher-income areas and single-family homes with private or workplace charging access.
California will not effectively and equitably phase out fossil fuel vehicle sales in the next 13 years (as required by executive order) unless all Californians have access to affordable EVs and robust charging infrastructure that meet their transportation and community needs.
To address this challenge, CLEE and the Emmett Institute convened state, local, industry, and environmental leaders to develop priority solutions to increase EV adoption in California’s lower-income communities. Participants laid out a vision for an equitable EV transition that would place community stakeholders at the forefront of investment decision-making; embrace public transit and active transportation priorities while ensuring connectivity through affordable private and shared vehicles; include abundant public charging and support associated grid infrastructure; and ensure availability of durable EVs, including pickups, to meet a range of driver needs.
The group identified key barriers to this transition including limited financial capacity to acquire new higher-cost vehicles; limited access to convenient and affordable charging; and limited public awareness and relevant outreach. Policy solutions to overcome those barriers include:
- Increasing existing vehicle rebates to lower upfront purchase prices. The Clean Vehicle Rebate Project and Clean Cars 4 All programs, as well as utility rebates, offer generous incentives for EV buyers. However, even with vehicle and battery prices broadly declining, purchase prices are still higher than many lower-income residents can afford. No manufacturer has yet released a full-range economy model, and used EVs are hard to locate. Increased purchase incentives for lower-income buyers could help bridge the gap until more models and used vehicles are available (the CVRP and CC4A programs already include income caps).
- Creating a subsidized charging payment system. While EV charging costs are generally lower per mile than gasoline refueling, ultimately generating cost savings compared to gasoline vehicles, these savings can take many years to accrue. The legislature could create a subsidized card for use at public chargers to incentivize the switch, ensure that lower-income Californians have the financial ability to charge when needed, and promote installation of chargers in a range of communities.
- Funding community-based organizations. Programs like the San Joaquin Clean Vehicle Empowerment Collective have demonstrated the potential of CBOs to provide information, technical assistance, and outreach optimally targeted to the EV interests and needs of under-resourced communities. The legislature could provide direct funding for similar organizations throughout the state to ensure that all Californians are aware of and can access the incentives and benefits available to them.
You can download the report here. Please also join us on May 24 at 1pm PT for a webinar to discuss the report and transportation decarbonization equity with:
- Commissioner Patty Monahan, California Energy Commission
- Jessie Denver, East Bay Community Energy
- Paul Francis, KIGT
This post co-authored by Ted Lamm.
Tonight on State of the Bay, we’ll discuss the Supreme Court’s leaked draft majority opinion reversing the constitutional right to an abortion rights and what California lawmakers are doing to safeguard reproductive rights in the state. Joining us will be Shannon Olivieri Hovis, director of NARAL Pro-Choice California.
Then, we’ll discuss what Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter may mean for San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area, with Emily Birnbaum, tech lobbying and influence reporter for POLITICO, and Laura Waxmann, real estate, housing and development reporter for the San Francisco Business Times.
Finally, we’ll talk to the San Francisco Chronicle’s Soleil Ho about her life as a restaurant critic and her recent nomination for a prestigious James Beard award.
What would you like to ask our guests? Post a comment here, tweet us @StateofBay, send an email to stateofthebay@kalw.org or leave a voicemail at (415) 580-0718.
Tune in tonight at 6pm PT on KALW 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live. You can also call 866-798-TALK with questions during the show.
Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) and UCLA Law’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change & the Environment are releasing today a new policy report: Branching Out: Waste Biomass Policies To Promote Wildfire Resilience and Emission Reduction. The report offers solutions to develop a sustainable market for the residual waste material generated by wildfire treatments on forested and other high fire risk lands.
In response to California’s devastating wildfires over the past several years, government and private landowners are removing excess material at risk of burning, such as dead trees and other vegetation, to create fire breaks that protect lives and buildings. Once cut and stacked, this material risks burning in the next fire, creating additional carbon emissions and air pollution.
Yet rather than leave the waste debris on the forest floor, property owners could potentially use it to create wood products, chips and mulch, or other end uses, which can help defray the costs of wildfire treatments and offset emissions from the production of these products.
To advance this conversation, CLEE and the Emmett Institute convened a small group of experts to discuss opportunities to improve the market for debris material. Several key solutions emerged from the conversation, including for the governor and state legislature to:
- Create a role for the state to serve as a broker for woody feedstock supply, potentially alongside local governments, facilitated through the California Natural Resources Agency.
- Direct the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to support data mapping and brokerage initiatives for regional supply chain management.
- Dedicate resources towards forest resilience workforce and economic development at local and regional levels.
State agencies are already tackling this issue from several different angles. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research oversees five pilot projects intended to improve feedstock aggregation mechanisms. The pilot projects are spread throughout the state, and local leaders jointly manage the entities under combined local land use authorities delegated by local government partners. Meanwhile, CAL FIRE’s Business and Workforce Development Grant program offers up to $24 million to projects that advance the wood products market and workforce.
To avoid the risk of unintended negative consequences, such as clearing of healthy forest material that does not promote wildfire resilience, state leaders could deploy the solutions presented in the report over a limited time period, focused narrowly on debris material, in regions with the greatest need for state support (due to material accumulation or potential for community benefits, or a combination of both). They could also ensure they integrate these practices into the broader forest management and wildfire resilience context.
Ultimately, these vegetation management practices are one component of a broader forest and wildfire management strategy that should include prescribed burn and more intentional siting of population centers outside of high fire risk areas. However, by following these recommendations, the state can ensure that when land managers complete vegetation management actions, they have the option to remove and dispose of the residual waste material in a responsible manner, offsetting emissions and reducing demand for new wood products.
For a full list of solutions and more detailed discussion, view the policy report.
CLEE & UCLA Law will host a public webinar on Monday, May 9 from 4:00pm to 5:00pm Pacific Time to discuss report findings and hear from a panel of experts who will share their insights on the problem and potential solutions. Speakers include:
- Jessica Morse, Deputy Secretary, California Natural Resources Agency
- Phil Saksa, Ph.D., Co-founder & Chief Scientist, Blue Forest
Register to join!
Now that Elon Musk has purchased Twitter with plans to take the company private, what are the potential consequences for the fight against climate change, the crucial issue of our time? Like him or not, the Tesla CEO has arguably been the most impactful private industry actor revolutionizing clean technology. Will the purchase affect his work on clean technology?
It would be hard to overstate Musk’s value to the global decarbonization effort. His company Tesla Motors, guided by his relentless and innovative vision, has helped revolutionize the automobile industry, completely transforming it in the face of legacy automakers who made only a token effort on electric vehicles at best for decades. Now they face extinction from their inability to embrace change. Given the transportation’s sector outsized role in contributing to climate change, Musk’s role in reshaping this industry has helped give the world a fighting to chance to avoid the worst of climate impacts.
As if that’s not enough, Tesla’s work on electric vehicles has also vastly accelerated energy storage deployment of lithium ion batteries, which are central to decarbonizing the electric grid along with intermittent renewables. What’s more, Tesla now has the promise to dramatically scale up heat pumps, an important all-electric means of heating and cooling spaces. The company has improved upon them for use in vehicles, with enormous upside for expansion to buildings.
And not to mention Tesla also has a solar division. Though it has admittedly languished since Musk purchased Solar City from his cousin a few years ago, in the long run solar panels pair perfectly with home battery storage and electric vehicles for consumers.
But all of that progress could be undermined going forward by Musk’s purchase of Twitter. The specific risk for the climate change fight is that Musk might become “distracted” running Twitter (i.e. absent at critical times, with his mental energy no longer devoted to providing critical vision and direction for the company, especially since he already runs a space rocket and tunneling company). If that happens, could Tesla lose its competitive edge?
Perhaps worse, Musk’s deal to take Twitter private is heavily leveraged, and his Tesla stock provides much of the collateral. If Twitter starts to sputter (the company lost $493 million last year, and Musk himself has acknowledged that this purchase is not about making money) and Musk defaults or has to sell, will that devalue Tesla stock, depriving that company of capital for its much-needed global expansion?
On the upside, given his track record, we could assume that Musk has the potential to work some magic for a social media site plagued by controversies over free speech and how it handles misinformation. If Musk can instill more confidence among social media users across the political spectrum in Twitter, while improving debates that counter climate misinformation, perhaps Twitter can be a force for positive climate education. But given the partisan entrenchment of views on both climate policy and science, this seems unlikely to occur.
If by some miracle Musk can turn Twitter into a cash cow, then another upside is that his additional resulting wealth could help bolster not only his proven companies like Tesla but potentially provide him extra funds to invest in new clean tech start-ups that could help reduce emissions in other industries. You never know.
On balance, a better Twitter could be a positive force for society. But given Musk’s key role in the climate fight, it’s hard to see the upside for the critical clean technology we need to reduce emissions and stave off the worst of climate change.
Of course, Musk is free to do what he wants with his billions. And he’s already arguably contributed more to the climate fight than any other company leader. But in the long run, a fight over social media won’t matter much if the world doesn’t get a handle on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Building the mineral supply chain needed to deploy electric vehicles (including cars, buses, bicycles, and scooters) on a massive scale, if done without planning and engagement, could exacerbate environmental and social harms to communities in countries and regions where minerals are mined and processed (and, to a lesser extent, manufactured and later recycled) into usable batteries. A typical electric vehicle battery requires an array of minerals, including lithium, cobalt, and nickel, among others. Many of the locations with the richest supply of these resources are in countries or near communities with histories of governance challenges and exploitation of local and indigenous communities for resource extraction.
Governments, companies, communities, and civil society organizations face a daunting challenge: increase electric vehicle adoption and battery production, while ensuring the highest level of protection for human rights, community consent and input, and the environment.
To address this challenge, UC Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) convened experts in December 2021 to discuss opportunities for increased advocacy and collaboration and to identify policy challenges and opportunities. Our new policy brief highlights key solutions including battery labeling standards, mining law reform, and increased technical assistance. Convening participants identified opportunities for advocates and industry leaders to improve international coordination, advocacy efforts, community engagement, and circular economy practices.
Key barriers and solutions include:
- Barrier 1: Poor supply chain governance. Policymakers lack comprehensive and targeted governance strategies to minimize harm at each stage of battery material’s lifecycle.
- Example solution: Strengthen binding measures. Enhancing binding legal and regulatory measures would support enforcement while promoting global consistency around supply chain sustainability expectations.
- Barrier 2: Lack of attention to community needs and human rights. Current mineral supply chain systems too often fail to incorporate the rights, priorities, and needs of vulnerable groups and communities impacted by mining and processing activities, as well as the transportation activities that support movement of minerals (such as additional pollution from construction and transportation vehicles, or noise from new roads).
- Example solution: Bolster technical assistance and funding. Advocacy organizations, philanthropic organizations, research institutions, and governments could allocate more resources towards supporting human rights and community priorities through funding and technical assistance.
- Barrier 3: Lack of incentives for circular economy practices and demand reduction. A lack of emphasis on circularity, and on strategies to minimize the projected demand for new battery materials while still achieving transportation decarbonization, poses a barrier to a sustainable supply chain that promotes human rights and environmental protection.
- Example solution: Set recycled content targets. Implementing targets for incorporating recycled materials into new battery cells could promote market demand for recycled materials over newly extracted materials.
For a full set of solutions and to learn more, see the policy brief here.
Cross-posted and adapted from co-author Katie Segal’s blog on Legal Planet.
Major League Baseball just announced that the season will be delayed, due to an owner lockout. And most Americans just shrug. The sad fact is that the sport that used to be America’s pastime has seen audience interest decline significantly over the past few decades.
The signs are everywhere: ticket sales have been declining for two decades, and even the World Series hardly draws an audience (viewership declined from 20% of Americans in the 1970s to just 3 percent by 2020). The fanbase is also older and whiter, with an average age now 57, up from 52 less than twenty years ago, with hemorrhaged appeal to Black Americans in particular.
And it’s all the fault of my hometown team: the Oakland A’s. The A’s are the team that pioneered how to hack the rules of the game using then-emerging big data tools, made famous in the 2002 Michael Lewis book Moneyball. The result has been a far slower, less dynamic, and boring game.
As the New York Times detailed, last season saw the longest average game time in history (3 hours 11 minutes), along with the most pitchers used per team (4.43 per game, tied with 2020). Worse, it now takes an average of four minutes between balls put in play. Meanwhile, teams averaged nearly nine strikeouts per game, while stolen bases (0.46 per game) have decreased to a 50-year low.
This is not the way the game was originally played, or even how the game is played in Little League through high school still today.
So what happened? In short, the game has been hacked by Big Data, led by the A’s.
Using complex data formulas, teams have figured out optimal pitching matchups for virtually every batter, leading to relentless and time-consuming pitching changes. Pitchers are now coached and conditioned to throw faster and hit specific, computer-prompted spots, leading to injuries and more strikeouts.
Hitters meanwhile use complex computer analyses of swings to focus on “launch angles” to maximize home runs, even as strikeouts skyrocket. And nobody steals bases anymore, as the data show that is inefficient to do.
Defensively, teams have used algorithms to determine the optimal “shift,” stacking all fielders in the area where hitters are most likely to hit. As a result, screaming liners that use to go for base hits or doubles instead disappear regularly into well-positioned mitts in shallow left or right field.
In short, all the things fans come to see and love about the game are gone: the crack of the bat, great defensive plays, cat-and-mouse games on the basepaths, and dominating pitching performances. Games drag on with little action other than walks and home runs.
And the decline of the game is only going to get worse, due to the rise of other entertainment options like video games, as well as demographic change in the United States that might favor other sports like soccer (interestingly, sports like football and basketball don’t seem to have a worse product due to big data, perhaps due to the contrast with baseball’s more precision-based style of play).
So how can the game fix itself? The current proposals are designed to triage the problems. There’s talk of banning the defensive shift, moving the pitchers mound back to give hitters more time to swing, forcing a pitcher to stay on the mound for a minimum number of batters, and limiting the time between pitches or batting changes, among others.
But these are just cosmetic changes chasing the data revolution. They don’t get to the heart of the problem. Instead, there’s one fix that could solve much of the problem plaguing baseball.
It’s simple: expand the strike zone, and do so dramatically.
With a bigger strike zone, hitters couldn’t be so selective, waiting on a “meat” pitch to belt or trying to work a walk. They would have to put the bat on the ball, generating action, movement, and defensive plays. They also would be less likely to hit into the defensive shift, as they’d have to be more agile to hit pitches farther out of their comfort zone.
That increased hitting would in turn reduce pitch counts and the need for time-wasting pitching changes. In short, you’d see more defense, more action, and shorter games. That’s the game that many of us came to love as children, including me when I fell in love with the Oakland A’s back in the 1980s.
I’m sure there are myriad reasons this change would be tough to implement. Players might push back. Owners may balk.
But unless something drastic is done, the national pastime risks fading into obscurity. Like any failing industry or business, a revamp is needed. Expand the strike zone, or watch the sport wither like many others before it.
Last week, leaders from the Biden Administration announced they would start awarding $5 billion from the bipartisan infrastructure law for a nationwide electric vehicle charging deployment.
I appeared on KTVU News in the San Francisco Bay Area to discuss this investment, which promises to be among the more consequential climate provisions that the administration has passed so far. You can watch the clip here:
I was also interviewed on NPR Marketplace about the spending, and I described why consumer perceptions about the ability to take a long road trip in an EV can loom large in purchasing decisions. You can listen here:
The administration still has another $2.5 billion to spend on EV charging from the law, and this next allotment will go to local communities, including rural and disadvantaged ones that too-often lack sufficient EV charging stations.
I’m pleased to co-author a new study released today by the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) at UC Berkeley Law that identifies the primary factors underlying cost and schedule overruns for rail transit construction and presents policy recommendations to overcome key barriers.
Improving rail transit delivery is critical for meeting climate and equity goals, given that the transportation sector contributes the majority of the state’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Since the bulk of these emissions come from private automobile travel, rail transit—from heavy-rail subways to overhead-powered trolleys—offers low-emission and low-cost commuting and travel options across income levels.
However, in California and throughout the United States, rail transit infrastructure projects have long suffered from cost overruns and deployment delays that reduce the value of investment and erode public trust. These state and nation-wide projects lag international peers.
For example, completed U.S. heavy rail projects (with trains powered from below via an electric “third rail”) cost more than twice as much on average than their European, Canadian, and Australian counterparts, while U.S. light rail projects (powered by overhead electric lines) cost around 15 percent more than similar projects in Europe, Canada, and Australia. In the United States, different governance authorities hold veto power over multiple decision points, and lack of alignment between these authorities can derail regionally-crucial projects.
Some of the largest and highest-profile California projects, such as the second phase of the Silicon Valley Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) extension into San José, are particularly slow and expensive. How can California deliver high-quality rail transit projects while keeping on budget and on schedule? Although transit ridership has fallen during the COVID-19 pandemic, ridership is beginning to rebound and transit agencies are committing billions to new infrastructure.
With funding from California SB 1 research dollars through the UC Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies, CLEE analyzed national and international construction trends and assessed five California rail case studies that offer examples of delivery issues and methods to address them. Common challenges included lack of megaproject management capacity and expertise; project design and scope creep; lack of agency coordination; inefficient procurement and contracting methods; and need for excessive stakeholder outreach.
The five case studies included rail transit projects in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and San José, as well as California’s statewide high-speed rail project (which is not a traditional intracity rail line but will be vital to state efforts to reduce vehicle travel). Drawing on the lessons learned from these five cases, CLEE recommends state, regional and local transit leaders consider:
- Forming regional collaboratives to house permanent expertise not tied to any individual local project, with staff available to consult with or contract out to projects when needed. Such a collaborative could benefit projects like the Bay Area Rapid Transit Berryessa Extension, where multi-agency oversight of different project elements required dedicated coordination and communication.
- Creating a statewide office to provide dedicated staff support/ technical assistance to facilitate coordination among local and regional agencies or offer additional funding to agencies that provide detailed plans for addressing any in-house staffing needs, as applicable. For example, the San Francisco Central Subway involved complex construction in a high-density residential and commercial district with significant overruns and delays, in part because agency staff had less megaproject experience than contractor teams. California High-Speed Rail similarly struggled with sufficient in-house capacity, particularly during its early stages.
- Using project procurement and delivery methods that includes early contractor involvement to ensure the total cost of building expensive projects in dense, complex areas is identified before construction begins. For example, the San Diego Mid-Coast Corridor Trolley successfully utilized the construction manager/general contractor or construction manager-at-risk contracting method (CMGC/CMAR), in which the project owner engages a designer and a construction manager separately during the design phase, and the owner and construction manager negotiate a guaranteed maximum price for construction prior to design completion before starting the build phase. This method helped ensure that this relatively pricey project stayed on budget.
- Legislatively granting master permitting authority to transit agencies with priority rail transit projects (including engineering, street closure, and similar project completion-critical permits) to reduce delays and costs imposed by local governments or large or powerful stakeholders along the route. For example, Los Angeles Purple Line Section 1 leaders coordinated with local governments to align expectations about restricted construction times and locations, as local governments held permitting authority over the transit agency.
- Avoiding the addition of significant, non-essential betterments and limiting bespoke design for extraneous station elements (e.g., complex facades), particularly after the design stage. Multiple case study projects suffered from expensive, over-designed project elements to appease stakeholders along the route with effective veto power and other leverage. Determining who will pay for these modifications is a crucial decision point that can push a transit project over budget and behind schedule, if not appropriately managed. State and federal leaders could condition funding on avoiding outcomes that delay a project or place unreasonable cost expectations on the agency and its contractors.
You can read the full report as well as a short policy brief.
Register for a free webinar on Thursday, January 27 at 10:00am Pacific time to learn about the report’s top findings with an expert panel including:
- Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
- Brian Kelly, CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority
- Therese McMillan, Executive Director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Thanks to my report co-authors Katie Segal, Ted Lamm and Michael Maroulis.
