- The TPPS (pp. s-1 to s-2) of 25 June 2016 addresses the legal standing to use Measure A funds for "all or a portion of the cost of public facilities" [to include] "transportation purposes including … the construction ... maintenance and operation of streets, roads, highways …” [ellipses in the report].
- The TPPS also cites CVAG Executive Committee authorization as of 2000 to use regional transportation funds to reimburse costs associated with locating bicycle lanes in the street travel way and with right of way and construction costs incurred to provide a paved bicycle lane adjacent to the motor vehicle travel way.
- In regard to the Regional Transportation Plan, the TPPS cites state guidelines in preparing the RTP to integrate multimodal transportation network policies into transportation plans and consider accelerating programming for projects that retrofit existing roads to provide safe and convenient travel by all users. The TPPS further cites Assembly Bill 1358 (California Complete Streets Act), Senate Bill 99 (Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013), and Assembly Bill 101 (Chapter 354, Statutes of 2013) to include active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking.
- How is it that 2 out of 13 votes is a majority? I hear echoes of Donald J. Trump, speaking long in advance of his election: "We was robbed!"
- What is it about Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage that positions these cities as the strongest voices? I believe the two cities exhibit a sense of privilege that is based on richness—and I don't mean a richness of culture.
- Since this vote was to approve the entire TPPS, were the voters representing Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage truly serving the interests of their communities? For if a majority of representatives had voted not to accept the TPPS, the report would have to be rewritten. Would the winning TPPS then have slashed all budgets for transportation projects? Would Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage vote in favor of only the TPPS that sends most construction to their cities?
- The TPPS states clearly, "CVAG has assembled more than $75 million to pay for CV Link, with much of the funding coming from outside of the Coachella Valley. The diverse funding sources reflect the air quality, public health and transportation benefits of the project."
- The California Office of Traffic Safety lists 637 pedestrians and cyclists killed or injured in Riverside County in 2013. Of these,
- 32 in Cathedral City,
- 8 in Coachella,
- 14 in Desert Hot Springs,
- 3 in Indian Wells,
- 33 in Indio,
- 4 in La Quinta,
- 30 in Palm Desert,
- 34 in Palm Springs,
- 7 in Rancho Mirage.
- Total: 165 pedestrians and cyclists in 2013 deaths or injuries.
- A cross-valley dedicated (Class I) path for pedestrians, cyclists, and NEVs could vastly improve the odds of surviving a trip using alternative transportation.
- Ameliorating the deaths and injuries of 165 pedestrians and cyclists should be higher priority than "dangerous roads and unfilled potholes" that Hobart prefers.
- Apparently the legal system agrees that the cities in the Coachella Valley are responsible for pedestrian and cyclist safety, and one can cite the judgment against Indian Wells for $5.8M in the death of cyclist Dr. Gerald Brett Weiss. Although the judgment may have been paid from a liability pool, in which numerous California cities lump their finances together to protect each other from costly lawsuits, Indian Wells will be responsible for re-paying the pool over time.
6. Hobart cites two proposed amounts for the CV-Link. One is true: $99.4M: One is false: $193.5M.
CV-Link estimated cost is $99.4M.
- The TPPS estimates $99.4M for building the 50-mile route from Desert Hot Springs to Mecca and the Salton Sea. This amount is less than 3% of the total budge of $3.433B for all transportation improvements planned for the next 5 to 10 years.
- The estimated cost for CV-Link is $1.98M per mile. Let's compare this estimate to building city streets. Smart Growth America estimates the cost of implementing Complete Streets to be "as little as $6 million per mile or double that" [page 13], while "new arterials can cost the city $5 million per mile or up to twice that amount." Though his figures are presented in cost per foot, Andrew Alexander Price cites an equivalent cost of $5M per mile. The American Road & Transportation Builders Association agrees with these estimates generally. Their FAQ says, to construct a "new 2-lane undivided road [costs] about $2 million to $3 million per mile in rural areas, about $3 million to $5 million in urban areas."
- It's more difficult to find similar information for building multiuse paths similar to CV-Link. The City of Detroit planned to spend a total of about $35.4M to build a 25-mile path ($1.41M per mile). Jefferson County WI planned to spend $5.1M to build 10.76 miles of multiuse trail ($0.47M per mile). Los Angeles plans to develop a 51-mile multiuse path in the Los Angeles River, and is beginning feasibility and design (no cost estimate published).
- The Regional Active Transportation Projects identified in the TPPS are not part of the CV-Link. The estimated cost of these projects is indeed a total of $193.6M.
- The Active Transportation program was established by the state legislature through the Complete Streets Act. The program "plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, defined to include motorists,
pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation, in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan."
- The TPPS lists 384 projects that meet the requirements of the Complete Streets Act. None of these projects are part of the CV-Link route. Instead, the projects are improvements to existing streets that promote pedestrian, NEV, and cyclist safety on the city streets.
7. Citing that "only 286" NEVs are registered, and that golf carts will be disallowed from using CV-Link. (Hobart once again objects to state and federal mandates that transportation planning should include alternative transportation, including cyclists and pedestrians.)