StreetSmart

Damien Newton
  • 0.0 (0)
  • POLITICS

A Streetsblog California podcast talking to experts on various issues that impact how California grows.

  1. 4D AGO

    StreetSmart Episode 13: Marty Beard, CEO of Hayden AI

    On this episode of StreetSmart, Streetsblog California editor Damien Newton talks with Marty Beard, CEO of Hayden.AI, about the rapid expansion of automated camera enforcement on buses and city vehicles across California and beyond. Hayden.AI's technology uses forward-facing cameras mounted on transit buses and parking enforcement vehicles to identify cars blocking bus lanes, bus stops, and bike lanes. Beard explains how the data has repeatedly surprised cities, revealing widespread violations — and how enforcement has led to faster bus speeds, fewer collisions, and more reliable transit service. The conversation also explores how camera-based enforcement fits into post-2020 efforts to reduce police traffic stops, addresses common concerns about data privacy and surveillance, and examines why cities see these programs as performance tools rather than revenue generators. Beard also previews emerging uses for the technology, including identifying unpermitted construction that disrupts transit operations. During the podcast Damien references coverage of Hayden AI at Streetsblog and Santa Monica Next several times. Since Next syndicates Streetsblog's coverage of related issues, you can see all of both publications coverage at Santa Monica Next's page for Hayden AI. A transcript of this podcast can be found below. It has been lightly edited for readibility and clarity. Damien Newton So we're recording this podcast remotely on Zencastr. I'm Damien Newton, and I'm joined today by Marty Beard, CEO of Hayden.AI. Thanks so much for being here. Marty Beard Thank you very much for having me. Damien Newton I'll be honest with listeners: in the pre-show I told Marty that Hayden has a lot going on in California right now. Rather than firing off a bunch of narrow questions, I figured it made more sense to let him lay it all out. We've covered some of this work in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica on our local Streetsblog sites, but not as much yet on Streetsblog California. So if you're not following those city sites, you might not have the full picture. Marty, why don't you start by giving us a short overview of what Hayden.AI is and what you're working on right now? Marty Beard That sounds great. At our core, we're a technology company — you could call us an AI company, and that's true — but more importantly, we're a public transit company. Everything we do is focused 100 percent on improving public transit. The way we do that is by installing cameras on transit buses, parking enforcement vehicles, and similar fleets, and pairing that hardware with our software. The goal is simple: keep bus lanes clear, keep bike lanes clear, and allow public transit to do what it's supposed to do. That's our entire mission. We don't do anything outside of that. We operate across the U.S., internationally, and of course here in California. In California specifically, we work with LA Metro, AC Transit, and cities like Sacramento, Culver City, and Santa Monica. While the locations vary, the common thread is always the same: how can technology help improve bus speed, reduce collisions, and ensure bike lanes are usable? Damien Newton Most of the coverage we've done has focused on your cameras being installed on buses — and now sometimes on parking enforcement vehicles — to help cities enforce bus lane and bike lane laws without relying on traditional police traffic stops. Is that a fair way to describe it? Marty Beard Yeah, exactly. Agencies bring us in to do just that. The cameras are installed inside the vehicle — usually a bus — and they're designed to do one thing only: look ahead at bus lanes, bus stops, and bike lanes, and identify vehicles that are illegally parked or blocking access. The system does not identify people. It doesn't analyze broader traffic patterns. It's optimized for a very narrow task: identifying a vehicle obstructing transit infrastructure. When a violation is detected, an image or short clip of the vehicle is captured. That information is then reviewed by the appropriate enforcement agency, which makes the final decision about whether a citation is issued. The benefit is that it's extremely efficient, very accurate, and — most importantly — it works. Damien Newton I covered the Santa Monica pilot when that report came out, and we used the phrase "an epidemic of scofflaws" in the headline because the numbers were pretty staggering. This was along just seven bus routes, over a short pilot period, and the number of vehicles blocking bus and bike lanes was astronomical. Are you seeing similar results elsewhere — that moment of "wow, this is happening all the time"? Marty Beard One hundred percent. There are two things that happen almost universally. First, agencies are surprised by the sheer volume of violations. They know it's a problem, but once they start seeing daily, route-by-route data, the scale becomes undeniable. The second thing is what happens after the data starts coming in over time. Agencies can look at trends and ask: are we changing behavior? And the answer is yes. Bus speeds improve, collisions go down, on-time performance gets better. In some cases, the improvements are dramatic — we've seen 20 percent or more increases in bus speeds on certain routes. That network effect is huge. So first it's "wow, this problem is worse than we thought," and then it's "wow, this is actually working." Damien Newton I imagine timing plays a role here too. After 2020 and the George Floyd protests, there was a push to reduce police interactions for minor infractions, including traffic enforcement. A lot of these so-called nuisance laws just weren't being enforced anymore. So now you have a way to enforce them without those interactions — and maybe also correct some bad habits people picked up along the way. Does that sound right? Marty Beard I think you nailed it. It's also safer for enforcement staff. Parking enforcement is a tough job — you're not exactly the most popular person in the neighborhood. Technology helps because it's consistent and focused. There's this perception sometimes that cameras are spying on everything, but that's really not what this is. The camera is optimized for one specific task: is a vehicle where it shouldn't be? If there's a legitimate reason for that vehicle to be there, the citation won't be enforced. But if someone blocks a bus lane to grab a latte and 45 people can't board the bus, that's a real problem. This helps address that. Damien Newton Last week, our Streetsblog Los Angeles editor noticed something interesting during a SCAG presentation. LA Metro quietly announced plans to expand its AI camera program from 100 cameras to 400. No details beyond a slide. Can you tell us anything about that, or do I need to bug Metro's PR team? Marty Beard You'll need to ask LA Metro directly. What I can say is that we love working with them, and the results speak for themselves. But it's best for them to talk about their plans. Damien Newton They were one of your first major transit agency partners, right? Marty Beard Yes, absolutely. Along with places like New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., LA Metro has been an anchor customer for us. Damien Newton I just want to note for listeners: those are also all cities with Streetsblog sites — purely coincidental, I'm sure. Are you in Boston too? Marty Beard I can't comment on that one. But yes, we do follow Streetsblog very closely — clearly our expansion strategy. Damien Newton We're eyeing San Diego for a Streetsblog site in the next year or two, so keep that in mind. Marty Beard That's actually where I live. Damien Newton Well, there you go — I had no idea. Marty Beard The company's headquartered in the Bay Area, but we're spread across California and the East Coast. Damien Newton Welcome to 2026 — we don't all have to be in the same city anymore. Are there any other expansions or developments you can talk about? Marty Beard What I can say is that we've passed 2,100 installations, and every market we're in is expanding. We're also seeing growing interest beyond bus lanes — particularly bike lanes and parking enforcement vehicles, like in Santa Monica. And we're starting to look at new use cases: where else can this kind of focused, privacy-respecting technology help public transit? Damien Newton Cities do generate some revenue from this, but as I understand it, that's not the primary goal. The goal is improving bus speed and bike lane reliability. I'd guess transit riders and cyclists are overwhelmingly supportive, while drivers are more skeptical. Marty Beard Our biggest supporters are transit riders and cyclists, by far. What surprised me when I entered this space is how little agencies focus on revenue. What they care about is performance: speed, reliability, safety. As a vendor, that means you have to prove it works — and show the data. Damien Newton I don't bike as much anymore, but just walking or running along corridors in Santa Monica where the cameras are installed, things feel noticeably calmer. Less honking, fewer blocked lanes. It's tangible. Marty Beard We see that reflected in the data as well. Damien Newton One concern that always comes up with camera technology is data privacy — especially with fears about data being shared beyond its original purpose. So what happens to the data you collect? Who owns it? Who can access it? Marty Beard It's a completely valid concern. Hayden does not own the data. The transit agencies do. We only collect the violation itself — typically a short video clip or still image of a vehicle obstructing a bus lane, bus stop, or bike lane. No facial recognition. No human identification. Nothing beyond that. The data is captured on the vehicle and sent to the enforcement agency, which makes the final decision. We don't issue tickets. If a government agency asked us for broad location d

    21 min

  2. JAN 20

    StreetSmart 12: The AMA with Damien Newton

    In a special AMA episode of the Street Smart podcast, Streetsblog California editor Damien Newton reflects on his first year leading the site while answering reader-submitted questions on politics, transportation policy, and advocacy. Newton opens by thanking listeners for helping the nonprofit newsroom reach its annual fundraising goal, then explains why, as head of a 501(c)(3), he cannot endorse candidates or say who he is voting for in upcoming elections. Newton discusses key transportation debates facing California, including skepticism toward an Uber-backed ballot measure he argues is framed as a safety initiative while limiting legal accountability in crash cases. He contrasts that with the growing urgency of transit funding measures, particularly in the Bay Area, as agencies face looming fiscal cliffs with limited federal support. Asked which cities are doing the best job on street safety, Newton highlights Santa Monica, Long Beach, Oakland, and San Francisco for progress on protected bike lanes and automated enforcement, while sharply criticizing Los Angeles for resisting voter-approved safety reforms. He also identifies e-bikes as one of the most misunderstood transportation issues in the state, citing inconsistent laws and lack of clear guidance. Throughout the episode, Newton emphasizes the power of grassroots advocacy, urging listeners to stay engaged with local officials, organized campaigns, and community groups. He closes by reaffirming Streetsblog's mission to connect transportation, climate, public space, and equity—and by thanking readers and listeners for their continued support.  A transcript of the podcast can be found below. During the podcast, Newton promises some links to old stories: Streetsblog interviews Antonio Villaraigosa in 2012: part 1, part 2. First coverage of Uber ballot measure. Damien's interview introducing Chris Greenspon. SGV Weekly Podcast.   Street Smart Podcast AMA – Lightly Edited Transcript Speaker: Damien Newton Damien Newton As promised during our annual fundraising drive, I'm doing an AMA based on questions you all sent in. I'm Damien Newton, editor of Streetsblog California. This is our first Street Smart podcast of the year—and the guest is me. We did reach our annual fundraising goal. Thank you—that's awesome. So here we go. Question one: Who are you voting for governor? Damien Newton We got a lot of political questions, so I'm going to address this upfront. Streetsblog California is part of a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and I'm its executive director. On an official podcast, saying who I'm voting for would legally be considered an endorsement—so I can't do that. I can share professional impressions. The only current gubernatorial candidate I've ever met is Antonio Villaraigosa. When he was mayor of Los Angeles, his office was responsive, regularly provided quotes, and he did a long sit-down interview with me and one of our interns at the time. I'll post links to that coverage with this podcast. If you run into me on the street and want to ask who I'm voting for, I'm happy to tell you—but not here. Similar questions came up about Phil Brock, Eric Garcetti, and others. I know it's an AMA, but nonprofit rules still apply, and I take them seriously. Question two: What surprised you most in your first year as editor? Damien Newton Tomorrow marks my one-year anniversary as editor. I'm not easily surprised by politicians saying one thing and doing another—but something did surprise me. My predecessor, Melanie Curry, would listen to entire California Transportation Commission meetings. I tried to do that, and honestly, I can't sit through the self-congratulation. The first few hours are often commissioners thanking each other and legislators endlessly. It's mind-numbing. I usually don't start listening until later sessions. That said, the CTC does important work, and we cover it—sometimes positively, sometimes critically. I just can't sit through all the applause. Question three: Thoughts on upcoming ballot measures? Damien Newton It's early, and we don't know all the details yet. My gut feeling is that the Uber-backed ballot measure we covered recently is probably bad—maybe because Uber is pushing it. It claims to be about safety, but it caps what lawyers can recover in crash-related lawsuits. That doesn't strike me as a meaningful safety measure. I'm skeptical. In contrast, Bay Area transit funding measures—even without full details—are likely necessary. Transit agencies face real fiscal cliffs. The state's one-time infusion helps, but long-term funding will require local taxes. Federal help isn't coming. We're going to have to do this ourselves. Question four: Which California city is doing the best job on safer streets? Damien Newton "Best" depends on how you define it. Oakland and San Francisco deserve credit for speed cameras. Santa Monica is rapidly building a connected bike network and expanding camera enforcement. Long Beach has also been a leader among mid-sized cities. There's a pattern—though not universal—that cities with younger councils tend to be more progressive on transportation. I can tell you who's doing the worst: Los Angeles. The city is actively resisting implementation of a voter-approved street safety ordinance. Guerrilla crosswalks exist because residents are filling the void left by inaction. Question: What can regular people do to influence transportation policy? Damien Newton Know who your elected officials are. Join local bike and transit advocacy email lists. When it's time to email or call, flood the inboxes. Communicate constantly—not just about legislation, but about broken signs, unsafe streets, and poor DOT performance. Legislators often hear from fewer constituents than you'd expect. A lesson from Santa Monica: organized community opposition can outweigh formal city council support. That influence works both ways—mobilized people can move policy. Question: Least understood transportation issue in California? Damien Newton E-bikes. People confuse them with electric motorcycles. Cities don't know how to regulate them, and the state hasn't provided enough guidance. The result is a confusing patchwork of laws. We ran an op-ed on this recently and plan to cover it more deeply in a future podcast. Question: Biggest transportation issue lawmakers overlook? Damien Newton The connection between transportation, air pollution, and climate change. Many lawmakers think technology alone—EVs, futuristic transit, high-speed rail—will solve it. I'm generally supportive of EVs and autonomous technology (not Tesla), but they won't get us all the way there. We need more walking, biking, and transit now. Question: How are your kids doing? Damien Newton They're great. They're 13 and 16 now. I don't post photos anymore, but time really flies—I was editing Streetsblog Los Angeles before my son was born. Magic wand question: What would you change? Damien Newton If I could wave a magic wand, I'd get ICE out of Los Angeles, California, and beyond. Transportation and urban policy are deeply tied to who feels safe using public space. That's my answer. Closing Damien Newton If you stuck with me for 26 minutes of me talking to myself—thank you. Email me anytime at damien@streetsblog.org with story ideas or questions. Thanks for supporting Streetsblog, helping us hit our 2025 fundraising goal, an

    26 min

  3. 10/22/2025

    UC Berkeley Researcher Explores Fire Department Tensions in the "War for Street Space"

    On this week's StreetSmart Podcast, host Damien Newton spoke with UC Berkeley professor Zach Lamb about his team's new report, A Safety Dilemma, which examines why some fire departments across the country have opposed street redesigns that add bike lanes, bulb-outs, and other safety features. The research was inspired by a stalled Berkeley project for a protected cycle track that failed to gain fire department approval. Lamb and his team began investigating whether similar conflicts were occurring elsewhere — and found they were. Despite rising traffic fatalities, some fire departments have resisted safer street designs, often citing access or width requirements. Lamb emphasized that fire departments are not monolithic: chiefs, marshals, unions, and rank-and-file firefighters often have different priorities. Cost of living can also play a role, especially in California, where firefighters frequently commute long distances from the communities they serve. The study looked at four cities, including Nashville, where strong mayoral leadership helped align fire and planning departments behind multimodal safety. Lamb said that when city leaders make safety a top priority, departments are more likely to cooperate than to obstruct. Lamb also highlighted Berkeley firefighter Mike Wilson's call to extend the fire service's legacy of prevention—once focused on reducing structure fires—to traffic safety. Berkeley's new Street Trauma Prevention Program embodies that shift, positioning fire departments as proactive partners in crash prevention rather than reactive responders. For more on Wilson's experiences, check out this article from Streetsblog USA. "Designing safe infrastructure is the easy part," Lamb said. "Changing culture is the real challenge." The transcript below has been edited for length and clarity. Damien Newton: In this week's StreetSmart Podcast, I'm talking with Zach Lamb, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He's been researching why some fire departments across the country have, in the ongoing "war for street space," positioned themselves as anti-bike or anti–bike lane. Zach and his team recently hosted a webinar and have a report coming out soon called A Safety Dilemma. I'm going to hand the podcast over to him and let him do most of the talking. Zach, thank you for joining us today. Zach Lamb: It's great to be here, Damien. Thanks for having me. This project grew out of an experience we had here in Berkeley. There was a proposal for a protected two-way cycle track on a popular local commercial street. The project had been designed and was about to go out to bid when it ran aground. The official reason given was that it didn't get fire department approval—it didn't meet certain standards for clear width and other required dimensions. That got us interested in whether this kind of conflict was happening elsewhere, and in the broader relationship between safe streets and fire and EMS response in U.S. cities. We know that in many places, serious injuries and fatalities among pedestrians and bicyclists have increased over the past several years. In response, many cities have begun investing in safer street designs. But at the same time, we've seen growing tension between fire departments—and, to some extent, EMS operations—and those safe streets initiatives. Damien: California seems to have become one of the states most famous—or infamous—for this, depending on your point of view. In Los Angeles, the fire department's union spent millions to defeat a ballot measure that would have created more bus and bike lanes. And up in San Francisco, a firefighter broke ranks on a street project, even doing an interview with Streetsblog San Francisco about why he supported it. We gave him an award for that, but he said he faced backlash from within the department. Do you think there's a reason California is getting more attention for this? Or is it just because we're building more bike lanes right now? Zach: That's a great question. I moved to California about five years ago from the East Coast, and one of the first things that struck me—something that strikes many new Californians—is how wide the streets are here. Even in older cities like Berkeley, the streets are considerably wider than in many other parts of the country. You'd think that would make the geometry problem—how we allocate limited street right-of-way—less severe. But as you said, we've still seen a number of these conflicts. It's also important to remember this isn't universal. As you mentioned, that San Francisco firefighter you referenced took a very different stance. There are cases where fire departments are aligning with safe streets efforts. Damien: Right—and just to clarify, in Los Angeles it wasn't the department itself, but the union that opposed the measure. Zach: Exactly. And that distinction matters. One of the things we're trying to understand is that fire departments aren't monolithic. There are different parts with different priorities: fire marshals who focus on code enforcement, fire chiefs managing operations, and the rank and file represented by unions. They don't always share the same perspective. One reason these tensions may be particularly visible in California is cost of living. In high-cost cities, firefighters often can't afford to live where they work. They commute in from outside communities, which can create a disconnect between the people doing the work and the neighborhoods they serve. Damien: You mentioned different parts of departments having different views. When I was on my local neighborhood council in Los Angeles, we worked on a road diet on Venice Boulevard. A lot of rank-and-file firefighters and the union opposed it, which I can understand—even if the data doesn't back up their fears. If you're driving a fire truck, you want wide lanes, and protected bike lanes and bulb-outs can make the road feel more constrained. But our fire chief supported the project. He emphasized prevention and long-term safety. Some in the community—and even local media—dismissed that as him just following the city line, saying he couldn't contradict the councilmember or the DOT. How true do you think that perception is? Zach: That's a really interesting dynamic. Fire chiefs have to balance a lot of pressures. They need to maintain credibility with their rank and file, but they're also part of city administration and have to work with elected leaders and city managers. We've seen similar examples here in Berkeley. Last year, there were competing ballot measures about street safety. The firefighters' union actually supported the stronger safety-focused version. But when it came to a specific project—the bike lane on Hopkins Street that inspired this research—the acting fire chief sided with city officials who opposed it. Fire chiefs often operate as political actors. They can't always take positions that contradict city leadership. In our research, we conducted four case studies and a national survey to document these conflicts—and, importantly, solutions. We even created what we call a "Conflicts and Solutions Database." Many of these disputes never make the press, or if they do, you rarely get the full backstory. So we chose four cities to study in depth. One of them was Nashville, which has made impressive progress on safe streets under strong mayoral leadership. Their "Choose How You Move" ballot initiative is raising billions for sidewalk, bike, and transit improvements. The mayor made multimodal safety a core priority, embedding it across city plans. When we spoke with people in Nashville—both in the fire department and in planning—they told us the department may raise concerns about individual designs, but they don't take an anti–bike lane stance because they don't want to oppose one of the mayor's key goals. That shows the power of leadership. When mayors make safety central to their vision, it sets expectations for collaboration. Damien: We're recording this on Friday, the 17th. Streetsblog USA just republished an article from the Vision Zero Journal written by Berkeley firefighter Mike Wilson, who's been a progressive voice on transportation issues. He wrote about how fire departments have a remarkable legacy of prevention—reducing fires through prevention efforts—and argued that reducing traffic injuries through street design is a continuation of that same legacy. What do you think about that message? Zach: I completely agree. And I should say—Mike is a big reason this research exists. He's been a wise and powerful voice on this issue. He's a former first responder, now with Cal/OSHA, and he also has a personal connection—a family member was badly injured in a bike crash here in Berkeley. That experience turned him into a leader in street safety and helped launch Berkeley's Street Trauma Prevention Program. Fire departments used to be purely reactive—just putting out fires. But the 1970s America Burning report shifted that mindset toward prevention: enforcing fire codes, requiring smoke alarms, and so on. That shift dramatically reduced structure fires and deaths. Mike argues we can extend that same prevention mindset to traffic safety. Fire departments already respond to car crashes—so why not work to prevent them, too? That's the philosophy behind Berkeley's new program. It's too early to say what the long-term impact will be, but the program has already funded a Street Trauma Prevention Coordinator within the fire department to help align street design with safety goals. Some early signs suggest it's focusing more on public education—encouraging pedestrians and cyclists to be "more responsible"—which isn't where the data shows the biggest gains come from. The real improvements come from better street design and reduci

    28 min

  4. 09/22/2025

    StreetsSmart Episode 10: Zack Deutsch-Gross and the Legislative Session

    In this episode, host Damien Newton sits down with Zack Deutsch-Gross, the new executive director of Transform, for a wrap-up of California's 2025 legislative session. For a quick recap of all of the legislation we tracked this year, visit last week's legislative wrap-up. For this podcast, the interview covered three pieces of legislation that were central to Transform's agenda: Highway 37 (AB 697): Legislation that fast-tracks a highway expansion project in the North Bay by limiting the environmental review. The legislation passed over Transform and dozens of other groups' objections and is expected to be signed by Governor Newsom. Read Streetsblog's full coverage here. Regional Transit Measure (SB 63): Legislation authorizing a ballot measure to raise billions for Bay Area transit operations was passed and is waiting for the governor's signature. Read Streetsblog's full coverage here. Cap-and-Trade (AB 1207/SB 840): The program was reauthorized through 2045, ensuring billions in funding for transit and affordable housing, though equity and emissions concerns remain. Read an explanation of the deal between Newsom, the legislature, unions, and the oil and gas industry here. The legislation was signed earlier today. Zack also shares his vision for Transform's next chapter: expanding partnerships across housing, climate, health, and democracy; innovating locally while pushing state policy; and ensuring California's climate investments center equity and justice. You can read more by Zack on the future of Transform and how advocacy must change in the current era at Transform's blog. An edited transcript of the conversation can be found below. Transcript: Damien Welcome to this week's Street Smart podcast. We're wrapping up the legislative session with Zack Deutsch-Gross, the new executive director of Transform. If his name sounds familiar, it's because he's actually our first repeat guest. You may also know him from his years of work at Transform. Last time we talked about cap-and-trade, and we'll revisit that today. But first, welcome back to the podcast and congratulations. Zack Deutsch-Gross Thanks, Damien. It's great to be here—and I'm the first repeat guest. What did I do to deserve that? Damien If you listen to our first episode together, I actually said we'd bring you back to wrap up the session. Promises made, promises kept. Zack And here I am. Damien By the way, if his "thanks for having me" sounded insincere, it's because he already said it before we hit record, and I made him repeat it. Zack We can work on it, Damien. Maybe the third time it'll sound truly genuine. But seriously, I'm excited to be here. There's a lot to cover at the end of this legislative session, so let's get to it. Damien Right. For listeners outside the Bay Area who may not know Transform as well, can you give a quick overview of the organization? And maybe share how things might change—or stay the same—under your leadership. Zack Sure. Transform is a nonprofit based in Oakland that focuses on housing and transportation, with equity and climate at the core. For three decades, we've launched programs, built coalitions, and won campaigns for thriving transit, affordable housing, and safe, people-oriented streets. We work in communities like East Oakland, Richmond, and San Jose, piloting mobility options and making sure people can get around safely and equitably. But to bring that work to scale, we also push legislation and shift dollars toward climate-friendly investments. As executive director, my focus is to keep doing what we do well—innovative local work and impactful state policy—while recognizing the different political and budget realities we face today. State and local budgets are under strain, whether from cuts to transportation or safety net programs. Wildfire costs consumed much of this year's state budget. Climate change is now our everyday reality, so stewarding existing public transportation funds isn't just best practice—it's a political necessity. Damien And you wrote about this on Transform's blog. We'll link to it in the podcast notes. Anything you'd add here before we move on? Zack Just that while we absolutely need to grow the pie—tax the rich and fund the bus—we also need to think more expansively. Public transportation and affordable housing intersect with health, economic justice, and democracy. Building those partnerships will be a big focus. Damien We're recording this on Friday, September 19. By the time this goes live next week, none of the bills we're about to discuss may have been signed or vetoed yet. If that happens over the weekend, apologies for being outdated. But the three top issues for Transform this year were: the regional funding measure, cap-and-trade reauthorization, and AB 697—better known as the Highway 37 bill, or as locals joke, "the highway that's going to be underwater." Zack We've actually called it "the highway for ducks." Damien Right, right. I saw a headline once that called it that, too. Zack Highway 37 is a big deal. It cuts across the northern edge of San Pablo Bay, connecting Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano counties. It's one of the lowest-lying highways in the region—already flooding during storms—and it runs through sensitive wetlands. Instead of focusing on how to provide more resilient, sustainable transportation for people, Caltrans and some local interests have been pushing to widen it into a four-lane freeway. That means more driving, more emissions, and more sprawl in a corridor that really needs climate-smart solutions. Transform, along with a broad coalition of environmental and equity groups, has been fighting this approach. We know there are better answers: expanded transit, managed lanes with express buses, and making sure people in Solano and Napa have real mobility options that don't depend on driving. Damien And AB 697—the Highway 37 bill—basically would have smoothed the path for that freeway widening by giving Caltrans a shortcut on permitting, right? Zack Exactly. It would've let Caltrans sidestep a key environmental review process. We argued strongly against that, and we hope that the Governor will veto the bill It's important because it would signal that even with pressure from powerful interests, climate and environmental justice considerations can't just be swept aside. Damien So, win number one. Let's shift to the regional funding measure. That one had a lot of moving parts. Zack Yes. The idea was to put a major transportation funding measure on the 2026 ballot in the nine-county Bay Area. The goal was to raise billions for transit operations and capital improvements. But this year's version got really complicated. It included not just operations funding, but also a governance overhaul for transit agencies, new performance requirements, and some controversial provisions about how funds would be allocated. Transform's position was clear: we need operating dollars for transit. Agencies are struggling with post-pandemic ridership shifts, inflation, and long-term funding gaps. Riders are feeling the impacts—reduced service, reliability issues, even safety concerns. Without new money, things will get worse. SB 37 was passed by the leigslature, and we're hopeful the governor will sign it. Damien Okay, let's get into cap-and-trade. This is the big one, and you've been working on it for years. Can you set the stage? Zack Sure. California's cap-and-trade program was first authorized back in 2006 under AB 32. It sets a declining cap on greenhouse gas emissions and allows polluters to buy and trade allowances. The revenue—billions of dollars over the years—has been invested in climate programs: high-speed rail, affordable housing, public transit, and more. The program's legal authority was set to expire in 2030. This year, SB 1509 was introduced to reauthorize cap-and-trade through 2045. Zack Now, there's been a lot of debate over whether cap-and-trade is the best tool. Environmental justice groups in particular argue it allows pollution "hot spots" to persist in low-income communities and communities of color. They've pushed for stronger direct regulations and less reliance on market mechanisms. Zack Transform's perspective is: cap-and-trade isn't perfect, but it is a critical source of funding for transit and affordable housing. Without it, those programs lose billions. And as we just discussed, state and regional budgets are already stretched thin. Damien So it's kind of a balancing act—keep the program for the money, but also recognize its flaws. Zack Exactly. The two pieces of legislation, AB 1207/SB 840, tried to thread that needle. It reauthorized the program but also included some reforms: tighter emissions caps, limits on offsets, and more accountability for how revenue is spent.  The bill ultimately passed, which means cap-and-trade will continue. That's a huge relief for transit agencies and affordable housing developers who rely on that funding. But it also means we need to keep pushing for stronger rules to make sure emissions actually go down where they need to—and that communities most impacted by pollution see real benefits. Damien You've been talking about this for years, and I remember last time you said cap-and-trade is sort of like a bridge: not the perfect solution, but something that helps get us to a cleaner future if used right. Zack That's still how I see it. California has ambitious climate goals—net zero by 2045. We'll need every tool we can get: regulations, clean energy investments, land use changes, and yes, cap-and-trade revenue to fund it all. Damien So we've hit the three big ones: Highway 37, the regional measure, and cap-and-trade. Before we wrap up, is there anything else from this session that stood out to you? Zack One thing worth noting is how m

    25 min

  5. 09/16/2025

    StreetSmart Episode 9: Should Your City Be Using EIFD's for Major Projects

    StreetSmart launched its fall session with guest Melanie Curry, former editor of Streetsblog California. Host Damien Newton welcomed Curry back for her first official appearance since retiring in January, noting her long history covering statewide transportation, housing, and climate policy. Curry discussed her recent article for the California Planning and Development Report on Sacramento's attempt to use an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to revitalize its downtown. The financing tool, designed to help cities fund projects like affordable housing and transit-oriented development without raising taxes, has struggled to gain traction statewide. Sacramento's effort to launch a district around its downtown railyards hit obstacles due to political disagreements and questions about long-term revenue streams. The conversation touched on the challenges California cities face in implementing innovative financing tools, especially as they work to balance growth, housing affordability, and climate goals. Curry explained why EIFDs, despite being on the books for nearly a decade, remain underutilized and how Sacramento's struggles illustrate broader statewide trends. An lightly edited transcript can be found below: Damien Newton Okay, welcome to the Street Smart Podcast. We are kicking off our fall session. I was joking with my wife beforehand that I was going to open this by saying, "Welcome to SGV Connect 140, our legislative wrap-up with Streetsblog California editor, Melanie Curry." Because Melanie is our guest, and I usually do that podcast this time of year. But for the first time in six or seven years, I'm with Streetsblog California. Melanie is here to help us pivot our coverage from the legislature into more local coverage that has statewide implications. Although, I'll be honest, next week's Street Smart is going to be about the legislature again, with Zach Deutsch-Gross from Transform, their new executive director. He'll also share what's new at Transform. But first—welcome back, Melanie. This is your first official Streetsblog appearance, if we don't count the "Melanie C. from Berkeley" article from the summer. Melanie Curry Woohoo! Nice to be back. Damien So for Streetsblog listeners who are excited to hear about what's going on with Melanie—we'll get to that at the end of the podcast. First, policy. Melanie is here because she recently wrote an article for the California Planning and Development Report about Sacramento's financing district that hit a snag. We haven't covered it yet, so I thought she could tell us what's going on, what the project is, and why it's important. Melanie Cool. The Sacramento Railyards project has been going on for years. There's a very large parcel just north of the Sacramento rail station, which is also north of downtown, that had a lot of old brick buildings—former shops and the like. For years, people have looked at it and said, "This would be really cool." But, it was basically abandoned. Development has been slowly happening, but they're still searching for ways to fund it. Some pieces have moved forward, but they haven't found all the funding yet. That's why they're considering what's called an EIFD—an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District. It means they can use future tax money from the development to pay now for the infrastructure needed to make it happen. Complicated, I know, but it's used in other parts of the world. California allowed it a little after 2008. The idea is: when the project is built out, the future tax revenue can be used to reimburse upfront costs. Right now, they're planning anywhere between six and ten thousand dwelling units—so lots of housing. They're also planning retail, offices, flexible mixed use, a big Kaiser medical campus, hotels, a music venue, cultural facilities, open space, and a soccer stadium. Originally, they hoped to include the Kings arena in the project—but that's already been built nearby. So the soccer stadium would mean two stadiums close together. Their vision is essentially to double the size of downtown Sacramento. Again, EIFD stands for Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District, which lets them use extra tax revenue from development and borrow against it now to pay for infrastructure like roads and clean-up. Damien So the difference between this and a traditional bond is: usually a bond is tied to a specific tax—like a half-cent sales tax. Here, the financing is against revenue produced by the projects themselves. Melanie Exactly. And I don't know if there's always a bond involved—it's more like borrowing against future tax income. At first, the city of Sacramento would carry a debt load, but estimates show that at build-out, they'd be making much more from new tax revenue. They hit a snag, though. The project is definitely still moving forward—they're already on their second developer after the first went bankrupt—but the financing expansion ran into trouble. They already had a small EIFD covering the soccer stadium site. They decided to expand it to cover the entire 220-acre Railyards project. But housing has already been built there, and under EIFD rules, if half the residents object, the expansion can't proceed. Residents did object. They want more affordable housing. One project is 100% affordable, but overall build-out only guarantees about 6% affordable. That disagreement sank the EIFD expansion. So the city has to go back to the drawing board. Councilmember Phil Pluckebaum didn't get back to me on what's next. Damien For anyone interested, the city has posted all three of its EIFD projects—including the stadium, the Railyards, and Aggie Square—on one page. I'll link to it in the text that accompanies this podcast. EIFDs seem to be catching on in some places, though not everywhere. Do you think the state will embrace them more widely, or will they stay a niche tool? Melanie Good question. There are about 34 EIFDs statewide, with more being planned. But they're complicated to set up. Unlike redevelopment, you don't automatically get money. And approval can be stopped if residents object. They also can't be used the way redevelopment was, like declaring an area "blighted" and clearing it. Restrictions exist. Still, in areas like the Railyards, which were cleared decades ago, they can work. Developers want to know if they can rely on EIFDs to cover infrastructure costs. The mechanism has worked well in places like Hong Kong, but California is still getting used to it. And just to clarify—it was 2014 when the state authorized EIFDs with SB 628. Then in 2019, they made it possible to bond without a public vote. No link to that one in the podcast text—you'll have to Google it. Melanie They are trying to make the process easier, since it's a way to fund infrastructure. Damien Yeah, especially since federal money isn't coming to California like it did two years ago. Anyway, Sacramento's EIFD is confusing because the soccer stadium project was one EIFD, and the Railyards expansion would be a second, separate process. Other cities seem to be taking smaller steps. Sacramento, by contrast, sees this as a big driver. Melanie Yes, and if Sacramento can eventually expand this, it could be one of the largest EIFDs in the state. The Railyards project itself is a huge infill development—possibly the biggest. Damien All right. Did I miss a question I should have asked? Anything about EIFDs you want to add? Melanie No, just that they're confusing. But I'll add: places like Hong Kong used them very effectively for development around transit stations. That's exactly the kind of thing California should be doing. Damien I was wondering if this might be the subject of a Scott Wiener bill next year—making EIFDs easier around transit-oriented development. Melanie They've already passed two bills to improve the process, but more work is needed. These things take time. Damien It just feels like the kind of wonky but impactful issue Scott Wiener would love. Melanie Yep, definitely. Damien All right, before we wrap—Melanie, how's retirement? Melanie It is great. Damien Tell us about a fun bike ride or trip. Melanie I'm going to talk about transit! I've been taking the bus all over the Bay Area because I finally have time. It's been so fun. I know some people roll their eyes, but I love the bus. You never know who you'll meet, you can make connections, and it makes me feel free in a way I never did when I was working at Streetsblog and tied to my computer. Also—I don't read the news much anymore. Keeps my brain safe. Damien Thanks, Melanie. For our listeners, we'll try to have her back on the podcast in the coming months. Melanie Most excellent.

    19 min

  6. 06/11/2025

    StreetSmart Episode 8: Greenlining Institute's Hana Creger on How We Need to Change to Win

    Episode 8 of StreetSmart features an interview with Hana Creger, the Associate Director of Climate Equity with the Greenlining Institute. The interview was conducted on June 3 before the budget deals and before the ICE raids sparked protest in Los Angeles. Our brief conversation about the state budget may seem a little dated for those that stay up on the news, but since it was surrounded by the rest of the discussion on how to present our message to win over a broader segment of the public, we decided to leave it as it is. For those keeping score at home, the legislature's budget restores funding for public transit, but not for the Active Transportation Fund (the state fund to help build walking and bicycling facilities.) Creger also discusses polling showing that hammering people about Climate Change and air quality isn't winning hearts and minds. While she doesn't suggest abandoning our environmental goals, she also reccomends discussing how the same fixes that will improve air quality will also improve comuting times and lower costs. A lightly edited transcript can be found below: Damien Newton I'm here with Hannah Creger with the Greenlining Institute. And the topic today is, "how do we advance the issues that we care about?" There's a lot of overlap between the issues that the Greenlining Institute writes about and advocates on and that we write about at StreetsBlog. How do we advance those issues in today's political climate, both nationally and locally?    We are recording this podcast on June 3, it'll probably go up the following week, so there's a chance there will be some changes by then. The state budget, which has to be passed by June 15, but we're dealing with the budget as it is right now.   Let's just start with a little chat about where we are in the budgeting process.   Hana Creger That sounds great. I wish I could sugarcoat it, but folks, it's pretty damn bleak. It's not looking good.    When we're focusing on the issue areas I know a lot of you care about…around clean transportation, around climate…there are some proposed really big cuts. I'm hoping in a couple weeks, maybe it looks a little bit different. I don't think this is a surprise. This is obviously part of a broader trend. But I think what this underscores is we need a lot more money for clean transportation. We need to shift money to the right places. We need to be doing something a bit different, because right now it's just not really cutting it.   Damien I think if you were to talk to people pre November election, the feeling that a lot of California advocates had was that although we could be doing more, generally the ball is moving in the right direction.    In the face of the state budget deficit, and the state of all the federal changes that are happening, that sort of optimism, cautious optimism, guarded optimism… isn't there anymore. Now it feels very much like we're playing defense again.   Hana  2:37   That's pretty spot on. In these dark times, folks are very much looking towards something to grab onto. One thing that I've found to be really interesting at this moment, in the last few months, is to observe how much energy and excitement there has been around this abundance framework.    I know people have a lot of feelings around Ezra Klein, around abundance, and I think it's starting some really good conversations. And I've been thinking, "What is so compelling around this narrative to folks? Why are folks really grabbing onto this at this moment? In some ways, it's offering a visioning around something bold, around this alternative to scarcity.    In this era where we're feeling like we need to be doing defense work, it is setting up a platform around, "How do we build coalitions that are much broader, beyond our specific issue areas that unite housing, climate, tech, social justice folks?" It has a very like strategic villain at the center, which is bureaucracy and all these outdated processes. It has great communications strategies. There's an emotional tone to it, really vivid imagery on what the vision is.    And then, to your point, it came at the right political time, right? Everyone is just running around like chickens with their heads cut off. At the same time, there's obviously a lot that's missing from the abundance framework. I think there's a lot of really good discourse happening right now around, "Abundance for who?"    We shouldn't just build anything. We should make sure we're building the right things. And if we're doing this, we need to make sure we're also having a critique around capitalism and this whole manufactured scarcity.    All that to say, "Yes, in general, it's looking dark. It's looking bleak." And I think it's been interesting that there's trends like this abundance thing..yes, let's explore this. And let's learn from what was really successful around this push. And let's make sure folks are following along with this and are looking for solutions in a way that's inclusive, that still is balancing the need to prioritize communities who have been left behind That's prioritizing the right kinds of projects so that we're not just building more highways, more sprawl, more coal plants, but really doing this in an intentional way.    Damien  When we're talking about budget priorities, this is something that struck me. Streetsblog Chicago has written a lot about what happened in Illinois over the last weekend, which, for you and anyone else who isn't following Illinois politics, they passed their budget. And separately, they were voting on ways to fund the massive transit budget deficit that RTA, which is Chicago's transit system, is facing. They didn't pass anything for it. There were a bunch of different proposals out there, but all the proposals were about where this is where the money could come from: this tax, this fee, this, this, all this, but they were all new taxes.    The legislators, after the budget was passed, didn't want to be talking about new taxes or anything like that. And so they were never able to cobble together a majority.    Here, we're not talking about new taxes. We're talking about reallocating money that exists in other places in the budget to get to funding transit operations., S   Some cap and trade money that's going to be going to CAL FIRE if the governor's budget stays could have an operating subsidy for at least a couple years, until the Bay Area can vote on a ballot measure.    So it's a very different strategy and conversation. But again, as of June 3, at least on the budget front, it doesn't seem to be happening. But if you turn the page to the policy front, it does seem like there is fun, wrong word, good progressive stuff going forward on housing and even possibly on transportation.   (NOTE: A lot has changed since June 3, see our previous coverage of the budget at Streetsblog California.)   Hana At the end of the day, California will need both. We need to grow the revenue sources that may result in, you know, more taxes, et cetera. Obviously, those need to be done in progressive ways so that they're not harmful to low income folks.    We'll also need to be shifting funds from the bad projects to the good projects. We're in a time where we need to get creative. We don't really have another option. And so I'm curious to see over the next few years how we can grow and explore new revenue sources that are progressive…that aren't going to just harm the pocketbooks of low income folks most.    As we move forward in exploring that, and as we're pushing all of our transportation policies more broadly, we need to get so much better at telling a compelling story.    And again, I think that's what abundance did really well. It captured people's imaginations. And to be frank, like, I think our transportation vision largely kind of sucks. We talk about vehicle miles traveled and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.    I am so guilty of that too. I'm in like, no position to be pointing fingers at anyone, but that's just not doing it for folks. One of the things I've been thinking about a lot is how Greenlining is part of the Clean Rides Network…and I can just give a super high level overview? It's uniting over 100 national and grassroots organizations spanning climate, transit, electrification, housing, public health, business and labor. We are focused on scaling up state level change around shifting funds from polluting highways to walking, biking, public transit and electric vehicles. We're working in seven states. We're developing specific state campaign plans, we're doing all this data driven work to really help create a blueprint for how sustainable transportation can cut costs for families, can curb air pollution, and ultimately shorten commutes and just make people's lives better. So that's the background.   So much of it went into this understanding of what is important to people at the end of the day. And so we did some polling, and some message testing across the seven states. And the seven states are California, of course, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York and Maryland. We did polling across that…7000 participants…each state had slightly different results. But there were some trends.    The number one message on why we should create a sustainable transportation system was reducing traffic. The number two message was saving people money. Climate Change and health were the least convincing reasons across all states.    This was both a total knife to the heart as a climate advocate for my career, and a wake up call of, "Okay, cool. No one actually cares about this climate messaging that we've been pulling over for the last few years."    I think this is a bit of a light bulb moment around showing we need to completely reframe all of our policies in a way that isn't telling people we're not completely changing thing

    30 min

  7. 05/23/2025

    StreetSmart Episode 7: Sam Speroni on Automobile Debt

    In StreetSmart Episode7, Streetsblog California editor Damien Newton and Sam Speroni from UCLA discussed the unequal distribution of car ownership costs in Los Angeles, using data from 2021 to 2023.    Speroni and his fellow researchers found that while wealthy neighborhoods had high debt per borrower, lower-income areas like South LA had higher debt burdens. Black and Latino neighborhoods faced higher debt per borrower and debt burdens, and higher delinquency rates. The study highlighted the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on automobile borrowing and the need for better data collection to address predatory lending.    UCLA has published two articles on the research. The first covers who has debt and the second where debt is. The policy briefs that the podcast and articles are based on can be found here.    A full transcript can be found below.:   Damien Newton  I'm here with Sam Speroni, with UCLA, and we are discussing the costs of car ownership and how they are distributed, in some cases unequally, across Los Angeles.    Welcome! You and your team studied this issue from 2021 through 2023. Why don't you start out with just a brief explanation of what your research was and why it was important?   Sam Speroni Sure. Thanks Damien for having me. Great to be here.    We were interested in changes in automobile debt as part of both the overall profile of debt for people, but also in geographies, both in Southern California and across California as a whole. This was enabled through access to a unique data set called the University of California Consumer Credit Panel. That panel tracks credit lines for people living in California, and we can see how that changes over time. It also gives us an approximate location of where those borrowers live.    So we're able to look at different neighborhood aspects of the borrowers, and see where we may see some spatial patterns in this borrowing. And so ultimately, we were interested in two research questions. One was, "How the landscape of automobile borrowing, both loans and leases, changed from before to during the COVID 19 pandemic." And then secondly, we were interested in how the landscape of automobile borrowing might differ across different types of neighborhoods in California.   Damien This entire study happened during different phases of the pandemic. How much of that do you think may have impacted the final results, which we'll get into in just a just a second?   Sam  It's a really fair question. I certainly think yes. Some of that we see in our results. For example, we look at quarterly borrowing patterns in one of our papers, and there's an enormous drop in quarter two of 2020 for obvious reasons, and then an enormous spike in automobile purchasing in quarter three. There's all these people that would have bought a car in quarter two and/or needed a car as a result of the pandemic, who might have otherwise relied on other means of transportation. But one of the things that we want to highlight is that generally, not quite to the same degree as a house, but a car is a long term purchasing decision, particularly if you're financing the car.    Typically you're committing to several years of payments when you finance a car. And so, on the one hand, there's certainly some changes in the pandemic, and we can delve into what we found there, on the other hand, the people who bought their cars in 2021 are largely still paying them off.   Damien  One of the things that stuck out to me, is the loan size was also increasing. Not just the number of loans in an area, but the size of the loan was increasing. Most car loans are in the five to 10 year range...I don't think there's very many people who take a 15 year car loan. Most don't last 15 years, but that five to 10 year range...people that bought a car in 2020 are definitely still paying it off.   You also noticed that there was at least some correlation in the racial makeup of a neighborhood and the car loans that the population was getting. Can we go a little bit into that?   Sam So the premise that I think is worth mentioning is that while there are lots of different means of transportation, and many of them are more environmentally sustainable than automobiles, particularly for most of California, the automobile dramatically increases access to opportunities for people of all races, ethnicity, and income brackets. And the reality is that it takes an enormous upfront cost to acquire a car, even an older, somewhat broken down, unreliable car is still an enormous expense, particularly for low income families.    And so cars require this large upfront cost.    And while public transit can step in and provide mobility for those without automobiles at a per ride unit cost. It comes nowhere near providing the same access to opportunities. So we're interested in essentially this group of people that are likely to need a car to increase their access to opportunities, but live in a place where it's basically required to have a car.They may not be facing the same additional obstacles compared to others.    Damien I just wanted to interrupt for a second, because I think a lot of people, when they see a podcast like this on Streetsblog, assume that we're going to be going, "Oh, and the cars are bad, and everyone's bad for having them." And that's very clearly not what we're talking about. And I should have said that up front, and I've actually made a note to say it in the intro, but I wanted to say it now too. We're talking about the world that we live in, not the world we want to live in.    I would prefer to live in a world that wasn't so car dependent, but in a world that is car dependent. People need to get to work to have access to opportunities. And so we're talking here about the barrier of cost and what that means for people's access to opportunities. Yeah, 100% the long term or midterm, depending how you want to define debt, means to the people that are having to put out money to have access to the car and have access to the educational, cultural, right, work opportunities.    We're talking about the world we live in, not the world that we want to live in. I think we're talking here about, how can we make the world we live in a little bit better for people who are getting left behind in the near term?    Sam  So okay... you asked, "Where are we seeing these patterns?" We looked at three measures for debt outcomes related to automobile debt in California. The first is the amount of debt per borrower in a neighborhood. And so that's essentially we add up all of the car loans outstanding balances, and count up the number of people who could borrow, not just who do, but anyone with a credit line in that neighborhood, and try to get a sense of how much is this neighborhood spending on cars relative to the number of people that could buy them. The second measure we look at, we call the automobile debt burden.    What we do is take that same measure of all the car loans and leases in the neighborhood, but instead of dividing it by the person, we divide it by the amount of annual income in that neighborhood. The American Community Survey from the US Census Bureau has a measure of aggregate income in a spatial unit.    We created a measure that looks at how much money people are spending on cars relative to the amount of money they make as a neighborhood. The third is more straightforward, and that's the rate of delinquencies, the rate of loans that are at least 60 days behind schedule in a given neighborhood based on the number of loans that are there. What we find is that there's higher debt per borrower in a variety of different places. We see that in wealthy neighborhoods as well as lower income neighborhoods.    And part of that is that wealthy people buy expensive cars. I don't want to focus on that measure, because what it reveals is just how much money do people spend on cars, and did they finance them? Where I want to focus is on the higher debt burden. And so remember, that's debt for cars related to overall income in the neighborhood.    There's places where there's high debt per borrower that typically signals wealthy neighborhoods that have really low debt burden. Some examples of that are Silicon Valley or Palos Verdes or the Hollywood Hills. Really high debt for cars, but also a lot of money to pay for them. Conversely, there are places with high debt per borrower and high debt burdens. A lot of those are the rural areas of southern and central California.    In Imperial County, the agricultural areas of the Central Valley: those places tend to both spend a lot of money on cars because they are relatively rural and cars are an absolute necessity, but people also have less money to pay for them. Then there are places that tend to have higher debt burden, but maybe not high debt per borrower, and those are typically the lower income areas of Los Angeles, like South LA. We find on the flip side that highly urbanized areas control for all of these other things, like race and income and credit score. Highly urbanized areas tend to have less automobile debt. And so you could think there about a family that maybe has two parents, two children and one car, because maybe one parent is walking distance to work or bikes to work. And we find that in highly urbanized areas, and especially in urban areas around rail stations.   Damien I was actually late for this podcast recording because I had to pick my kid up at school. But until this year, we were a family with one car because we worked from home and had kids that could walk to school. Now our kids go to different schools that aren't walkable, and it changed. I mean, I live in West LA, and I would say an upper middle class neighborhood for Los Angeles. No people have all their money in their houses, so, like, looks good on paper, but not a lot of disposable income to

    29 min

  8. 04/14/2025

    StreetSmart Episode 6: Zack Deutsch-Gross and the CA Cap-and-Trade Program

    There's lots of legislation pending in California that will impact the way California grows and tries to address the global climate emergency. One of the most important decisions the legislature has to make is whether, when, and how to reauthorize the state's cap-and-trade program. In short, the program charges the state's largest polluters a fee and uses the money generated to pay for programs to battle Climate Change and Global Warming. The program sunsets in 2030 unless the legislature and governor reauthorize it. Today, StreetSmart talks with Zack Deutsch-Gross, the policy director of TransForm about the program and why the state shouldn't wait until the last second to reauthorize cap-and-trade. For more on the program you can listen to the podcast below, read a transcript of our discussion, or read this blog post Deutsch-Gross wrote for TransForm. Damien Newton - So thanks for being here with us today. A lot of regular Streetsblog readers will be able to pick up our conversation right away. But just in case, why don't we start with a brief discussion of what is cap-and-trade and why it's important that we're talking about reauthorization of this program right now. Zack Deutsch-Gross - Happy to be chatting with you today.  So for listeners who don't know, I work for an organization called TransForm. We work to reshape transportation and housing decision making in a way that centers community needs and combats the climate crisis. We've been doing this work for about 30 years, and that includes making sure that we have a viable cap-and-trade program that is investing in these fundamental priorities. Cap-and-trade started off about two decades ago as a way to reduce carbon emissions. Apologies for those who this is familiar to, but it sets a cap on the amount of greenhouse gases that are being produced in the state and then sells the right to pollute in the form of allowances. The state gets money from those allowances to reinvest in solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as infill affordable housing and public transportation. Right now, today, the program generates about $4 billion dollars a year. DN - How is that $4 billion dollars invested right now? ZDG - About 60% of the program is continuously appropriated. That includes 25% to high speed rail, 20% to a program called "affordable housing, sustainable communities" which builds infill housing and supportive transportation infrastructure to reduce emissions. The remaining 15% goes to two programs: the Transit Intercity and Inner City Rail Corridor Capital Program, and the "LCTOP," the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, funding vital transit and housing needs that we know are strategic and necessary to reduce GHG emissions. The other 40% is appropriated discretionarily by the legislature to additional reduction programs, including wildfire prevention. DN - The original program had a deadline on it which is coming up. It's not tomorrow, but it's in a couple of years. So the state is now beginning to talk about what changes, if any, do we want to make as we reauthorize the program? It seems as though reauthorizing the program is a slam dunk, that it's going to happen. Cap-and-trade has gotten some flack from the left and the right over the years. You've written about this, and the link to the blog post that you wrote will be included with the text that accompanies this podcast for people that want more. But how can the state reauthorize this to make it the best program possible? ZDG - First, we need to reauthorize it. You know, the allowances that are sold every quarter are already dipping as there's uncertainty on the program. While it doesn't expire until 2030, reauthorization in this cycle of the legislature is really important to keep making progress on reducing our emissions and investing in vital programs. TransForm's advocacy and our vision has three pillars. One is supporting and maintaining these vital investments in affordable housing and sustainable transportation. The second is to add some flexibility to these transit programs. Streetsblog listeners are familiar with transit agencies across the state that are facing fiscal cliffs. And so, we want some flexibility to make sure that we're not operating life-size model train sets. The third is to reinvest and center environmental justice and frontline communities in the cap-and-trade program and GGRF, the greenhouse gas reduction fund, which funds these programs. We know frontline communities are the ones bearing the cost of this pollution and the allowances are de facto permits to pollute. And so it's fundamental to TransForm and our allies, 50 organizations across the state, that have supported the principles we put together: we support and stand with EJ and frontline communities and their demands to make this program just, equitable, and help achieve our climate goals. DN - On past episodes of StreetSmart, we had two people discussing high-speed rail. They looked at reauthorization of the cap-and-trade as a way to keep funding going for that project as there's federal uncertainty. On another, we had Juan Matute, my old friend with UCLA, who was talking about the transit fiscal cliff and operations. The cliff is especially steep for the ones that are reliant on taxes more than they are farebox recovery. He was talking about cap-and-trade as a possible way to help fill that in the long term need . Of course, there's also legislation to authorize ballot measures for more taxes and all sorts of different things going on to try and fix transit.  Is it possible for cap-and-trade to sort of fund those programs and these other programs that you were talking about and still center environmental justice? Or, are too many people putting too many hopes on it? Is it possible for this program to sort of be the stop gag that everyone's hoping it'll be? ZDG - It is a great question. I think the answer is yes. And it is going to take more than just cap-and-trade to solve the climate crisis, to address the transportation needs in the CARB scoping plan, which says we need to double public transportation ridership. That's double the investment. So cap-and-trade can't do everything. It can't be everything for everyone. But we see it as a vital step towards making these investments. And certainly, if we were to reduce the funding for transportation or housing through cap-and-trade, it would be detrimental to affordability and equity.  There is a solution. I would point to the California transportation budget, which continues to build and expand highways at the expense of vital transportation and active transit investments.  We see cap-and-trade and building partnerships between transportation, housing, environmental justice advocates as a way to get the best possible outcome for this program and also build the power necessary to take on the highway builders and the industry that wants to build highways through black and brown communities, wants to increase our emissions, and increase the cost of driving instead of investing in in transit, walking, biking and solutions we know communities need. DN - Given the imminent rollback of the minimal federal environmental program protections and given the rollback…well the expected rollback of transit and transportation funding at the federal level… stuff is all almost definitely going to happen unless the courts step in. Does that change the calculus of what we should be doing when we talk about cap-and-trade or any sort of state funding? Or has this been baked into the planning since the November election in how we have to plan how to do our state transportation funding? ZDG - I think it absolutely increases the urgency. California needs to be a climate leader. It has historically been so, and it's increasingly necessary given the federal uncertainty. Unfortunately, sometimes our elected leaders are more interested in recording podcasts than taking bold action. DN - Hey, hey, hey, we're recording one now. ZDG - You're right. Podcasts are great. They're a key part of the solution, but we need to be involved. DN - I know what you're referring to. I wasn't actually offended. ZDG - Good. Hopefully your listeners will too.But no, we need to do more. I think we can't rely on the federal government to solve California's transportation and housing needs. We need to be showing that California is a model for a clean, green, thriving economy. And that starts with the cap-and-trade program that centers the communities most impacted by the climate crisis and invests in affordable housing and sustainable transportation that makes California more affordable and accessible for everyone. DN - So there has been legislation introduced to reauthorize the cap-and-trade program.  Do you have any sort of feeling on whether this is legislation that's going to be moving this session, if this is something that's a placeholder? You've made the case that there's no such thing as doing it too early, especially as uncertainty around the long term future of the program might reduce the amount of money it brings in in the short term. But is there the political will at the moment to really bring this up as a discussion, or is it something that's probably going to wait until we have a new governor? ZDG - We think cap-and-trade needs to move, if not in 2025, then in 2026. And in part, that's because, again, we're already seeing the auction revenues dip due to uncertainty. There are two bills in the legislature, AB 1207, which is Assemblymember Jackie Irwin, who's the chair of the Assembly cap-and-trade Working Group, and SB 840, which is by Senator Limon, chair of the Senate Climate Working Group. And those are the bills we see as the way to drive the cap-and-trade discussion forward in the legislature, t

    15 min
See All (13)

About

A Streetsblog California podcast talking to experts on various issues that impact how California grows.

Information

  • Creator
    Damien Newton
  • Years Active
    2025 - 2026
  • Episodes
    13
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2025
  • Show Website
    StreetSmart