President Obama will be in town to designate the San Gabriel Mountains as a national monument on Friday. Also, should the U.S. increase their export of oil? Then, author Ethan Elkind delves into the past, present and future of Metro rail in the South land.
How will national monument status change the San Gabriel Mountains?
On Friday, President Obama will be in town to designate the San Gabriel Mountains as a national monument. The move will carve out nearly half of the Angeles National Forest to create the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument. It’s something Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park) has been pushing for since she introduced a bill this past summer. Currently, the US Forest Service manages the mountains, but budgetary issues have lead to maintenance concerns like graffiti and litter.
Supporters say the designation could mean more funding for park maintenance and cleanup and more protection for wildlife. But opponents balk at the decision, saying the President’s executive order skirts the democratic process. They also question the motivation behind it -- with no apparent money currently attached to it, they wonder what the designation will actually do other than acknowledge the San Gabriels’ beauty.
Will the new monument status change the current use of the mountains for cyclists or drivers? Some of the shoreline areas of the East Fork of the San Gabriel River are heavily used during the summer, and it can get quite crowded and even unhygienic because the area doesn't have many restrooms. There also are not safe trails to get down to the river from many roadside parking areas. Would monument status do anything at all to improve parking or restrooms and access to these areas that are already heavily used?
Guest:
Char Miller, Director of the Environmental Analysis Program at Pomona College; Author "Public Lands, Public Debates: A Century of Controversy"
Judy Nelson, Mayor of Glendora
In controversial move, US begins exporting crude oil for first time since 1970s
In late July, a tanker loaded with 400,000 barrels of American oil, left Texas for South Korea. This export of oil stands-out because it is the first in nearly forty years. Oil has been essentially banned from export since the 1970’s due to the impact of OPEC’s oil embargo. US oil refineries (where oil is processed), benefited from the ban, because crude was kept and processed in the United States. But, many believe times have changed, saying the ban should be re-examined in light of global shifts.
These days, America is likely perceived as a more reliable exporter of oil than Russia or the Middle East. Shale oil drilling has ramped up in the US by about 70 percent over the last six years -- and it continues to grow leading to gluts in certain parts of the country. Shale oil found in the US is light compared to the heavy crude found in Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. Experts say US oil refineries, geared to process the heavy crude, aren’t equipped to process the amount of light crude coming at them fast enough. Supporters of the ban say increasing crude oil exports could cause a rise in gasoline and heating costs -- hitting Americans at home and at the tank. Critics of the ban say American exports would lower the international benchmark, leading to more stable oil prices. Supporters say, Americans could leverage high levies on the exported oil and use those taxes as a political tool, increasing tension with the countries, degrading national security. Critics say America can assist its allies by serving as a new source of crude.
Should the US increase their export of shale? If not, what’s to be done with the glut of the light crude? What might be the impact on gas prices and job creation at home, short-term compared to long-term? What impact can exporting more oil have on national security? How does OPEC influence decision-makers when it comes to exporting oil?
Guests:
Jeff Peck, a lobbyist for CRUDE -- a group of refiners that want to keep US oil supplies at home.
Erik Milito, director of Upstream and Industry Operations for the American Petroleum Institute from American Petroleum Institute (API)
Parking sign makeover aims to spare Angelenos parking citations
Confusing, even conflicting parking signs in Los Angeles have often led to expensive parking tickets for Angelenos. Now, the City Council is responding to years of gripes about parking poles, which often have three or more signs. The Council has asked transportation officials to test out a new, simplified sign.
Councilmember Paul Krekorian tells KPCC that the city owes it to drivers to make parking restrictions easier to understand.
"I think everybody in every part of Los Angeles has had that exceptionally frustrating experience of finally getting lucky enough to find a place to park," Krekorian said, "and then as you get out of your car, trying to translate the hieroglyphics of the park restriction signs. It can get immensely confusing, and we hear this all the time from people."
The new style of parking sign will have grid-like features — kind of like a daily organizer — so that drivers can easily tell when and where it is legal to park. You might see those signs around parts of the city over the next 45 days as part of a trial run from the L.A. Department of Transportation.
A New York graphic artist has created the new sign design — using green and red blocks to simplify what are sometimes cryptic messages.
What do you think about the City Council’s plan for new parking signs? Do you have a better idea? Which neighborhoods or streets have the most confusing signage?
your favorite (or least favorite) parking signs.
Guests:
Paul Krekorian, LA City Councilmember for the 2nd District, including Studio City, North Hollywood, and Van Nuys
Michael Brouillet, founder of Park Safe LA, an iPhone app that helps Angelenos decipher parking signs
This story has been updated.
The past, present and future of Metro rail in Southern California
The automobile reigns supreme in Los Angeles. But that wasn’t always the case. Once upon a time, Los Angeles actually had a rail and streetcar system, but that era ended in 1961 with the death of a passenger rail line that ran from Los Angeles to Long Beach.
Today, Metro’s rail system is enjoying renewed support. Measure R passed in 2008 with just over 67 percent of the vote. It imposes a half-cent sales tax for LA County to partially fund a dozen rail projects. The Purple Line extension, which would lengthen the line to La Cienega in the west side of the city, is expected to open in 2023. And construction is underway for the Foothill Gold Line extension.
The rail system isn’t without its critics. There’s the age-old charge that in putting so much emphasis on rail, Metro is abandoning the riders it needs to serve the most: low-income Angelenos that commute by bus. Concerns have also been raised about how expensive—and how slow—it is to get these projects off the ground.
Will Metro’s rail system be able to transform Los Angeles the way it envisioned and get car-shackled Angelenos out of their automobiles and into public transport?
Guests:
Ethan Elkind, Associate Director of the Climate Change and Business Program, with a joint appointment at UC Berkeley School of Law and UCLA School of Law. Author of the book, "“Railtown: The Fight for the Los Angeles Metro Rail and the Future of the City"(University of California Press, 2014)
Art Leahy, CEO, Metro