StreetSmart

Damien Newton
  • 0.0 (0)
  • Politics

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

  1. 6d ago

    StreetSmart 16: Damian Kevitt on the Last Weeks of the Legislative Session

    It is hard for me to believe that in the dozen years since Streetsblog Los Angeles launched the Damien Talks podcast, that I've never had Damian Kevitt, the executive director and founder of Streets Are for Everyone, as a guest on that podcast, SGV Connect, What's Next or StreetSmart. Well, that ends today. The theme for this week's podcast is the end of the legislative session. Including today, there is just over a week left before the legislature goes home at the end of the month. We discuss Senate Bill 1013, which aims to regulate Flock cameras but could impact various automated enforcement systems. Assembly Bill 311, the Consumer Driving Data Protection Act, that incentivizes safe driving through insurance discounts which was thought to be defeated but may rise at the 11th hour.  They also discuss Senate Bill 1167 and Assembly Bill 2346, which address e-bike and e-moto regulations, noting improvements and potential conflicts. SB 1167 has been widely supported by the advocacy community for its effort to categorize and regulate e-bike/e-moto sales. AB 2346 has been less popular because of some provisions which are seen as dangerous to the growth of e-bike sales, but recent amendments have made it more palatable. Locally, SAFE's initiatives include providing free bike valet services at the Long Beach Amphitheater and Hollywood Bowl, with plans for Dodger Stadium. Listeners will note that the vibe of this discussion is a little more relaxed than usual. Kevitt and I have known each other for over a decade after a hit-and-run crash took part of his leg while he was bicycling in Griffith Park. The picture of a "happy warrior" Kevitt used his tragedy to become one of the loudest voices pushing for safe streets for all road users. The following transcript has been lightly edited for grammer and clarity. Damien Newton: So I've done like four or five different themed podcasts over the years, and I think this is the first time I've ever interviewed you. I think this is the first time we've ever done a Damien Squared podcast, unless I'm mistaken. Damian Kevitt: No, I don't recall any other Damien Squared. Did we do? Maybe you were at one of our die-ins or something like that. You did a little, small interview. Newton: Yeah, but we never used the audio for those on the website. It was just to get the quotes. So, yeah, I've been to several die-ins over the years. We were on the steps of City Hall, I think, down in L.A. Kevitt: Yeah, yeah, that's right. Newton: Well, anyway, for those listening, this is the Streetsblog California Street Smart podcast. This is the first podcast of our fall session. We have a few things planned. We're going to be talking about weatherproofing with Metrolink. Obviously, we're going to talk about the legislative session a lot, and of course, some of the things from here will be repodcast with the SGV Connect podcast and vice versa. But we're at the point in the legislature where there are no more hearings. So, if your favorite—or least favorite—piece of legislation needed to go through another hearing, it's done. The list is narrowed down. Assuming I get this up the day we record it, which is Wednesday the 19th, there are only eight more days, including today, of the legislature being in business before bills go to the governor's desk. I'm here live with Damian Kevitt of Streets Are For Everyone, and they've been very busy this session. He's been very busy this session, and we're going to talk about where we are. So let's start with—we did do a pre-show, and you told me about a piece of legislation I wasn't actually aware of that seems to be targeted at Flock cameras, but could have some wider-ranging implications. So why don't you tell us what's going on? Kevitt: Yeah, this has been a bit of a sleeper bill because it doesn't obviously affect road safety, but it does. And that is Cervantes' Senate Bill 1013. Really, the intention of the bill is to put some checks on and rein in the broadness of the use of Flock cameras—to put some privacy checks in there. I'm not personally opposed to that concept. The problem is that the language, as it was written, would affect the use of license plate-reading cameras for bus-lane enforcement, bike-lane enforcement, automated speed enforcement and red-light cameras. They're all using similar technology—not the same purpose, but similar technology. All of those systems, of course, are not for broad mass surveillance used by police departments. Those are for road safety or parking enforcement. But it's the same basic technology, and again, the wording was very broad in this particular bill. Last year, the bill came up and kind of died. It didn't go very far. And this year, we realized fairly late in the legislative season that it was already in the other house—the Assembly. We realized this actually has a chance of getting through, especially with the amount of backlash on Flock and concern in the media. And then we realized that, yeah, it could literally kill almost every single automated enforcement system, whether it's parking or traffic enforcement. Newton: Right. And the concerns that people have with Flock—a lot of the privacy concerns are not necessarily things that would roll over into, say, Hayden AI's way of doing things: the way the information's shared, the way the plates are shared. Because I understand the concerns about Flock, and probably agree with them. I haven't spent a ton of time on it, but I do believe in not sharing information that could get people in trouble over, you know, something unrelated to traffic offenses. But I also, after 2020, after the Black Lives Matter movement, we all seemed to agree we wanted fewer interactions between traffic enforcement officers and drivers to reduce bias and all of that. So unless we're just giving up on traffic enforcement altogether, I don't know how we take what we learned from Black Lives Matter and apply it to traffic safety. Kevitt: Yeah. I mean, obviously, there's a lot that's changing in this area. The use of technology for enforcement purposes—and I say that in the very broadest sense—is a rapidly evolving area. Flock cameras have jumped onto the scene and become very popular, really just in a matter of a few years. And this is not uncommon when you have newer technologies being introduced: legislation takes a little bit to catch up to them. And the question is, how do you do that balance correctly? I know that in the bills that we have worked on—Assembly Bill 645 and a couple of its cousins, Senate Bill 720, which is the red-light camera reform bill—we have made sure there's a tremendous amount of privacy safeguards put into those bills: limiting how long the data can be kept, limiting who has access to that data and, provided that those laws are being followed, making sure that those safeguards are in place. And that's, of course, the other part: making sure that government agencies—the Department of Transportation or Public Works Department—are following them correctly. But provided they are following what's written in the bill, you have all of those safeguards in place. It's not allowed to be shared with, let's say, an ICE agency. And a lot of the concern is connected with ICE. Flock cameras don't have that. So when you start introducing outside changes to address Flock cameras, and they are in conflict with laws and bills that have already been passed on automated enforcement for speed or parking, you end up killing the entire system. Newton: And to be clear, this bill has passed everything it needs to pass except for the full Senate. Do I have that correct? It was an Assembly bill? Kevitt: No, it is a Senate bill. Newton: Senate bill. Kevitt: So, on the floor, we have managed—and there's quite a bit of concerted effort. We alerted some of the manufacturers, or the vendors, I should say, who would be affected. We've alerted other legislators whose bills would have been badly affected. We've been working with Streets For All and other organizations to sort of—not a well-coordinated effort, but coordinated effort. I would like to say well-coordinated, but, you know, a lot of these— Newton: Last-second efforts are just as well-coordinated as they can be. I'm not that far removed from my lobbyist days to remember the, "Oh my God, what's going on right now? We need to get our butts together," sort of end-of-the-session lobbying. Although that was in New Jersey, so at least I had a smaller state. Kevitt: Yes. Anyway, yeah, there's definitely been a coordinated effort on addressing some of these issues. They're very much at the last minute. Honestly, it was going into Appropriations, just finished the last committee, when we all sort of realized at the same time that we've got a problem on our hands. The good news is there have been some fairly major amendments taken. There is really one last amendment that we are asking for, and hopefully in the next day we should have that amendment done. And if we have dodged that bullet—in which case, SAFE, we've been opposed unless amended, and a number of other organizations with us on that—we will remove that "oppose unless amended." I am going to review it. I might even consider supporting it. I have to just review it in a new unit of time, and then it goes on to the governor. And, you know, it's possible it'll actually get passed. Newton: I mean, the backlash against Flock has been a national story, so it'd probably be good politics for a governor that's, you know, might be looking at some of these signings or not signings as a way to make a last statement before he faces a new set of voters. Did I phrase that? Did I phrase that correctly? Kevitt: As we all know, yes. The writing is on the wall, and the question is how he's positioning himself to try to do that. Newton: All right. So, changing gears a little bit. For anyone that does not know, SAFE—as you could p

  2. Mar 17

    StreetSmart 15: Homes Before Highways

    In StreetSmart 15, Damien Newton spoke with Yesenia Perez of the Greenlining Institute about the connection between freeway expansion and California's housing crisis. Perez discussed research behind her recent story at Streetsblog, which found that more than 800 homes have been demolished in the past six years to make way for highway projects, highlighting how transportation investments can reduce housing supply and destabilize communities. The conversation explored how new state data, made available through SB 695, is helping quantify these impacts for the first time. Perez said the Greenlining Institute's "Homes Before Highways" project aims to make that data more accessible, allowing residents and policymakers to better understand where displacement is occurring. Newton and Perez also discussed how these impacts are often overlooked in housing debates, which tend to focus on new construction rather than homes lost to infrastructure projects. Perez argued that clearer data is helping shift the conversation toward real community impacts. Looking ahead, Perez emphasized the need for policies that prioritize avoiding displacement, including alternatives to highway widening and requirements to replace lost housing. Both agreed that aligning transportation spending with California's housing and climate goals will be critical moving forward. A lovingly edited transcript of our discussion can be found below. And last, catch up on old episodes or subscribe: Streetsblog CAL, Apple, Spotify, Libsyn.   Damien Newton: As I said in the intro, I'm here with Yesenia Perez from the Greenlining Institute, and we're going to be talking about displacement issues and the Institute's "Homes Before Highways" program. If her name sounds familiar, that's a good thing—it might be because back in December she wrote a piece for Streetsblog California, which we'll link to in the text accompanying this podcast, called "Displacement in Dollars Down the Drain: The Data Behind California's Highway Expansion Crisis." I should note she didn't originally write it for Streetsblog California—she wrote it for the Greenlining Institute, and they were kind enough to let us cross-post it. So, thank you for being here today, Yesenia. Let's start by talking a little bit about that article—what it covered, since it was based on a lot of research—and then we can get into the Homes Before Highways program you've been working on. Yesenia Perez: Yeah, happy to start with an overview of the article. The core argument I made back in December is that freeway expansion isn't just a transportation issue—it's also a housing issue. It's one of the most overlooked drivers of California's housing crisis. Based on data released in the past year or so, we know that over 800 homes were destroyed to make way for highway expansion projects in just the last six years. Across the state, highway projects have divided communities for decades. A good example is the proposed 101/92 connector in San Mateo, where around 33 homes—and dozens of families—could be displaced in a region already struggling with some of the highest housing costs in the country. The core point is that if California is serious about solving its housing crisis, it has to consider how transportation investments affect housing supply and community stability—even when projects don't ultimately get built, like the 710. The state needs to account for the long-term impacts of investing in freeway expansion. Damien Newton: Yeah, and for anyone not familiar with the L.A. area, there was a decades-long plan to connect the 710 and the 210 freeways. People called it the "unfinished freeway." Metro and Caltrans finally abandoned it around 2018 after years of opposition. But as part of that project, they had purchased a bunch of homes back in the '70s. Many of those homes are still vacant or in poor condition. Some were occupied during the pandemic, and now there are ongoing issues around how to treat those residents fairly. It's been a real mess for the northwest San Gabriel Valley—and it's still being dealt with today. Yesenia Perez: Yeah, and one more thing to highlight is the cost. Even after the project was canceled, Caltrans has spent something like $17 million just maintaining and guarding those empty properties—homes that could be housing people. Damien Newton: Right, and that's something we've covered a lot. We've interviewed residents in those homes multiple times—usually once a year on our SGV Connect podcast. Joe Linton, our Streetsblog L.A. editor, has also done extensive reporting on freeway widenings and their housing impacts. It's something we talk about often, but it still gets lost in broader conversations—even among journalists. There's a section in your article called "Displacement by Design," and it really stood out to me. Legislation like SB 695 has helped quantify that impact, and the numbers are still shocking. Between 2018 and 2023 alone, we're talking about hundreds of homes and businesses—most in L.A. County. So how has your work evolved since that article? Yesenia Perez: SB 695 was really foundational for our work. It required Caltrans to report on highway expansion impacts—lane miles, emissions, and displacement. For decades, we didn't have a statewide picture of how many homes and businesses were being demolished. The data shows that in the last three decades alone, there have been around 10,000 displacements in California tied to highway projects. But it also shows the limits of transparency—it only captures a narrow window and doesn't reflect the full history or future impacts. That's why we created the Homes Before Highways site—to make this data visible and accessible. Between 2018 and 2024, more than 850 homes and businesses were demolished, alongside about 760 miles of highway lanes added. To put that in perspective, that's longer than the distance from Oregon to Mexico. Our map helps people visualize where these impacts are happening in their own communities. Damien Newton: And I think there's real value in that, especially since so much of the housing conversation is focused on building new housing—particularly near transit. The discussion about housing lost to freeway expansion often gets overlooked. When you talk to policymakers or advocates, do you feel like this data is changing the conversation? Yesenia Perez: I do think it is. When people can actually see where displacement is happening, the conversation shifts from abstract policy to real community impacts. You start to see how families are pushed farther from job centers when housing is demolished, and the connection between transportation and housing becomes clear. You can't solve a housing crisis while demolishing homes for freeway expansion. The next step is for policymakers to ask: now that we have this data, what are we going to do with it? Damien Newton: And I think a lot of people assume this kind of displacement only happened decades ago—not that it's still happening today. Once people realize it is, there's usually a strong reaction. So what do you see as the solution? Should we stop highway expansions altogether, or rethink how we approach them? Yesenia Perez: There's no single solution—it will take a range of actions. California has already made commitments through its climate action plans, including acknowledging these harms and calling for policies to reduce displacement. But we haven't seen those policies fully implemented yet. One key recommendation is to change how projects are evaluated. For example, requiring alternatives that avoid displacement—like converting existing lanes into bus or express lanes instead of widening highways. And if displacement can't be avoided, there should be requirements to replace lost housing, ideally with affordable housing in the same community, so there's no net loss. Damien Newton: That makes sense. We're getting close to the end, so I'll ask for any closing thoughts. And just a reminder to listeners: links to everything we discussed will be available with the podcast at cal.streetsblog.org. Yesenia Perez: One thing I want to highlight is that while these conversations can feel discouraging, there's also a lot of positive work happening. In the latest State Transportation Improvement Program cycle, over 300 safety and active transportation projects applied for funding—but most didn't receive it, even though they scored highly. Meanwhile, regions continue proposing highway widening projects that cost more and can worsen congestion. So it's important to recognize that communities want these safer, more sustainable projects—they're ready to go. The question is whether the state will prioritize them. At the end of the day, this is about aligning transportation investments with California's stated goals—on housing affordability, climate action, and equity. The state has made strong commitments. Now it's about following through and making sure investments support those goals instead of undermining them. Damien Newton: Great. Thanks so much for your time today. This is clearly an issue we'll keep covering—freeway expansion has been a major Streetsblog theme for years. But as you pointed out, there are also positive developments worth highlighting. Yesenia Perez: Thank you so much.

  3. Mar 5

    StreetSmart 14.2 - The Governor's Race and High-Speed Rail

    Following up on yesterday's podcast, today Damien Newton speaks with Adriana Rizzo of Californians for Electric Rail and Eli Lipmen of Move California about two major statewide issues: the California governor's race and the future of high-speed rail. The conversation focuses on what transportation advocates should look for in gubernatorial candidates, including commitments to transit funding, affordability, project delivery reform, and standing up to federal attacks on rail and transit. The group also discusses the newly released high-speed rail business plan, potential legislative changes to funding restrictions, and the broader political and fiscal challenges facing transit agencies across the state. A full transcript of the podcast follows below. Edited Transcript Damien Newton: As I mentioned in the intro, earlier this week's podcast focused on legislation specific to the organizations involved. Today, I'm back with Adriana from Californians for Electric Rail and Eli from Move California to talk about two big statewide stories: the governor's race and high-speed rail. Before we start, a quick note: we all work with nonprofits, and this podcast is produced by a nonprofit. We won't be endorsing any candidates today. Streetsblog and Move California cannot make political endorsements, and while Californians for Electric Rail isn't currently a 501(c)(3), we're steering clear of endorsements to keep things clean. If the first letter of every sentence we say happens to spell out a candidate's name, that's purely coincidental. Since we're not talking endorsements, let's talk about what we should look for in candidates. Personally, I often find that when candidates share personal stories about how transit or bicycling has impacted their lives, it gives insight beyond policy statements. That's not foolproof — one of my favorite former L.A. councilmembers, Bill Rosendahl, famously hadn't ridden a bike since childhood — but it's one lens. Eli Lipmen: That's a great segue. Part of our mission as nonprofit leaders is getting candidates onto transit and talking about it from a rider's perspective. Lived experience matters. In this race, though, everything is being framed around affordability and the federal administration. That actually works in our favor. Transportation and housing are the number one and number two expenses for most households. Affordable housing near high-quality transit is central to affordability. This is a kitchen-table issue. It might not dominate headlines every day, but people talk about their commute, car payments, insurance costs. We need multimodal options, and we need a governor who will champion them. We also have a huge opportunity right now. California is building high-speed rail — something almost no other state is doing. What happens under the next governor will be critical for transportation project delivery, active transportation, and safety. Ten people die every day in California traffic crashes. That's unacceptable, and leadership matters. Adriana Rizzo: Transit is key to affordability — and also to standing up to Trump, or at least coping with his administration. We've seen federal transit funds clawed back. High-speed rail has long been a target. Supporting high-speed rail is a way for California to assert its priorities. When the administration announced its intent to revoke funding in early 2025, we helped organize a protest at Union Station. It was one of the first major public pushbacks, and it mattered symbolically. Standing up for high-speed rail and making sure it succeeds is a way the next governor can defend California's vision. Eli Lipmen: That protest definitely rattled them. There's also an immigration angle. During ICE raids in Los Angeles, we saw a 15% drop in transit ridership in one month. Fear impacts ridership, traffic, and system operations. These federal actions ripple through transportation. Meanwhile, Congress must reauthorize the federal transportation bill this year. Caltrans released draft principles that didn't even mention transit operations funding — which is the number one issue for agencies facing fiscal cliffs. That omission was frustrating. Adriana Rizzo: This isn't just California. SEPTA, Chicago Transit — it's a national crisis. In California, agencies are scrambling, and the Bay Area is pursuing a ballot measure to stabilize funding. But historically, state and federal governments provided more operating support than they do now. Since the pandemic, transit advocates have had to fight annually to get operating funds into the state budget. That needs to change. SB 1 is also up for reauthorization in 2027 — another major issue for the next governor. Eli Lipmen: If any gubernatorial campaigns are listening: we have a questionnaire ready. We'd love candidates to talk about their relationship to transit and active transportation. We're even planning a transportation-focused debate. This is something every Californian deals with daily — cost, congestion, safety. Candidates should treat it that way. Adriana Rizzo: Another big issue is project delivery reform. We need new transit lines and service improvements, but costs are escalating. Tariffs, federal funding instability, permitting challenges — it's harder than ever. Reform requires political capital. Dealing with utilities, permitting, entrenched interests — that's tough. But if we want projects delivered on time and at reasonable cost, leadership is essential. High-Speed Rail Discussion Damien Newton: Quick note before we pivot: there's ongoing news involving the High-Speed Rail Authority CEO. We're recording March 2, and things may change before this airs, so we won't speculate. But we're not ignoring it. Let's talk about the new business plan. Adriana Rizzo: The big headline is that the Central Valley initial operating segment is no longer fully funded because of the loss of $4 billion in federal funds. They're also considering removing the Merced stop from the initial segment, potentially adding it later. That will be controversial. More exciting: they're discussing a potential Los Angeles connection by 2040, assuming funding. That includes reducing tunneling between Palmdale and Burbank and sharing more track with Metrolink, including possibly on the Antelope Valley Line. This aligns with our push to electrify that corridor. There's also SB 1411, sponsored by Senator Henry Stern, which would lift restrictions limiting high-speed rail spending to the Merced–Bakersfield segment. That could accelerate work in Southern California or toward the Bay Area. It's promising — but the devil is in the details. We don't want the Central Valley segment abandoned, and we don't want funds diverted to unrelated projects. Eli Lipmen: This is California's opportunity to prove we can still build big projects. Accelerating connections to major urban centers makes sense because that's where ridership is strongest. We're already investing in complementary infrastructure. Aligning those investments is smart strategy. Damien Newton: We've been at this for a while, so let's wrap. Thanks to both of you. Links to your organizations and related coverage will be included alongside this podcast. If you're not listening through Streetsblog California, head to the site for the full list of resources. Thanks again — and I'm sure we'll talk again soon.

  4. Mar 4

    StreetSmart 14.1 - What to look for from the 2026 Legislature

    *]:pointer-events-auto scroll-mt-[calc(var(--header-height)+min(200px,max(70px,20svh)))]" dir="auto" tabindex="-1" data-turn-id= "request-698cf232-0d38-83e8-8a26-70865a1647f6-5" data-testid= "conversation-turn-88" data-scroll-anchor="true" data-turn= "assistant"> Episode 14.1 of the Streetsmart Podcast focuses on the active transportation and transit legislation moving—or stalling—in Sacramento.  Much of this year's legislative energy around safety for bicyclists and pedestrians  is centered on regulating e-bikes, including efforts to distinguish legal e-bikes from high-speed electric motorcycles. CalBike's Jared Sanchez, reviews three pieces of legislation one that deals with licensing and another with clarifying what is and isn't an e-bike, and legislation that would allow municipalities room to create separate speed limits for different vehicles. You can read Streetsblog's coverage of e-bike legislation here, here, and here. Also joining the conversation were Eli Lipmen with Move California and Adriana Rizzo with Californians for Electric Rail. Lipmen advocated expanding automated bus-lane enforcement to include bike lanes, creating a statewide transit stop registry to improve data consistency.  Rizzo expressed frustration over delayed state reports that have stalled broader transit reform proposals. While a few promising bills are advancing, larger structural fixes—especially around transit governance and project delivery—may have to wait. A lovingly edited transcript of our discussion can be found below. And last, catch up on old episodes or subscribe: Streetsblog CAL, Apple, Spotify, Libsyn.   Damien Newton: As mentioned in our pre-show, I'm here with Adriana, Eli, and Jared. In the first half of our podcast, we're going to talk about legislation that is moving—or not moving—in Sacramento that will have larger impacts. We discussed a lot of this offline before we hit record. Jared wanted to talk about some of the e-bike and e-moto bills we've been covering at Streetsblog. I'll link to those stories, including CalBike's action alert, which I think is still live on one of them. Jared, why don't you briefly describe what those pieces of legislation are and how CalBike feels about them? Jared Sanchez: A lot of the political energy around biking and walking in Sacramento—at least in the legislative space—is going toward e-bikes, and not much else, unfortunately. We're co-sponsoring SB 1167 alongside PeopleForBikes, Streets For All, and Streets Are For Everyone, authored by Senator Blakespear. The bill is trying to better distinguish what e-bikes are legally and what other devices are—devices that are really illegal and being operated on our streets. These are often called "e-motos," often go beyond 30 miles per hour, and skirt registration or insurance requirements. The bill aims to better define what is legal on our roads and tackle the e-moto issue—making sure these devices aren't masquerading as e-bikes. It goes after manufacturers and sellers by requiring stronger disclosure documents at the point of purchase and adjusts the vehicle code to better classify these out-of-class devices into appropriate motor vehicle categories, such as mopeds or motor-driven cycles. That would require them to be licensed, registered with the DMV, and insured—just like any other motor vehicle. This bill does other smaller things as well, but we're co-sponsoring it because we see it as the best response to what we're seeing on the roads. Many other bills focus on new limitations or prohibitions on legal e-bikes, and we don't agree that's the right approach. To solve the underlying issue—illegal devices—we need clearer definitions. One of the other important bills is AB 1942. It would require Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikes to have a license plate affixed. Damien Newton: Can you briefly explain what Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikes are? Jared Sanchez: A Class 2 e-bike can go up to 20 miles per hour and allows throttle use—you can pedal, but you can also reach top speed using just the throttle. A Class 3 e-bike can go up to 28 miles per hour. The throttle works up to 20 mph, but beyond that it must be pedal-assisted. Riders must be 16 or older and wear a helmet to ride a Class 3. This bill focuses on the faster devices. Bike East Bay and others, including us, are concerned about licensing. Bicycle licensing hasn't gained support in California, and there hasn't been much interest from the DMV in creating such a program. We were surprised by the bill and hope to work with the author to amend it. Another bill we're watching would require additional written descriptions of e-bike classes, add speedometers to all e-bikes, update lighting systems, and—most concerning to us—create new speed requirements for sidewalks and Class IV bike lanes. It would give local agencies authority to set speed limits from 15 to 20 mph on bike trails and lanes. Many cities already have discretion to do this. We see this as overreach and a distraction from the real issues—illegal e-motos and traffic violence caused by cars. We don't need more enforcement targeting people riding legal e-bikes. Unfortunately, there hasn't been strong legislative energy this year around funding active transportation, addressing traffic violence, or expanding the Active Transportation Program. Most energy has gone toward e-bikes. Damien Newton: There still seems to be confusion—partly because of marketing—about what is an e-bike and what is essentially a small electric motorcycle marketed as an e-bike. Clarifying that could solve a lot of issues. Jared Sanchez: Exactly. That's why we're co-sponsoring SB 1167. The Mineta Transportation Institute released a study recommending better distinctions between legal e-bikes and illegal electric motorcycles. Many of the other bills we're seeing weren't part of those recommendations. Eli Lipmen: Last year, a pilot program allowed cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles to use bus-mounted cameras to enforce parking violations in transit-only lanes. It's been successful—Los Angeles generated about $16 million in ten months. The new bill would make the program permanent and extend it. It would also add stopping or parking in a bike lane as a violation. Surprisingly, that's not clearly defined as a stopping violation under state law right now. This bill would fix that. We're also supporting legislation that would ease regulatory burdens in coastal zones, making it easier to build bike paths and improve transit without lengthy Coastal Commission processes. And there's a transit stop registry bill that would create a statewide unique identifier for every transit stop. It's wonky, but important. Right now, data is inconsistent across agencies and mapping apps. This bill would standardize it and improve the rider experience. Adriana Rizzo: Last year, advocates engaged heavily in the SB 125 Task Force, which was supposed to deliver recommendations to transform transit. The final report came out late—around New Year's—leaving little time to draft legislation. One recommendation was to grow state capacity for transit design and engineering. Studies show in-house staff can be much cheaper than consultants. California has thousands of employees working on highways, but very few focused on rail and transit. We also explored utility permit streamlining, since delays and cost overruns are often driven by utility coordination. But we weren't able to secure authors before the deadline. Another delayed study involves governance reform for the LOSSAN corridor—the Los Angeles to San Diego rail corridor. The report was due in February and hasn't been released. That makes it difficult to pursue reforms this year, even as we prepare for the Olympics. Damien Newton: So in short, some targeted legislation is moving, but broader structural reforms may have to wait—possibly for a new governor and a new legislative session.

  5. Feb 4

    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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

See All (17)

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
    17
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2025
  • Show Website
    StreetSmart