The Bay Area has the somewhat dubious distinction of having 28 different transportation agencies within its nine counties. Transportation funding, a complex system governed by overlapping laws at different government levels, becomes sheer chaos when state and federal legislators are beset by representatives from all over the region lobbying for different projects. A unified regional voice is difficult to achieve, but the effort is being made once again because in the past it has proved very effective.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) passed the Regional Rail Agreement, Resolution 1876, in 1988 to set regional priorities for rail projects and prevent valuable funding from being lost in the political tug-of-war. The most notable success from that policy is probably the extension of BART to the San Francisco Airport. With all but two of the top-priority projects listed in that resolution now completed, MTC passed Resolution 3357 in April 2001 to guide development of the Regional Transit Expansion Policy (RTEP), a new policy setting priorities for both rail and bus projects. The RTEP is being prepared in conjunction with the state-mandated Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update (see Aug/Sept 2001 issue). Although there is no legal deadline, the RTEP will be considered with the RTP at MTC's December meeting.
A very small portion of the funding apportioned by the RTP is available for transit. The RTEP is intended to focus regional transit funding, both existing and potential, on a set of expansion and improvement projects which will move commuters faster and give them new transit options. "Lifeline" transit access for transit-dependent riders, MTC's other priority for transit improvement, is not included in the RTEP, but is addressed in the RTP.
As the RTEP has emerged over the past year, it has changed and evolved. Originally intended to replace the 1988 Regional Rail Agreement, it now includes the express bus/HOV lane/rapid bus component from the MTC Blueprint developed in 2000 to supplement the previous RTP. Criteria have been developed and refined, and terms and conditions have also been defined to clearly indicate MTC's commitments and transit agency responsibilities.
For some projects, funding is in place or nearly so, and these projects are eligible for the RTP. Projects that aren't yet fully funded but which are included in the RTEP can count on regional funds allocated by the RTEP when their other funding materializes; meanwhile they will receive regional support in advocacy efforts.
Resolution 3357 established financial and performance criteria for ranking proposed projects in the RTEP. In addition to the amount of support already pledged to the project from various sources, financial criteria include the ability to cover operations and maintenance costs for at least ten years. The operating plan must also demonstrate that the expansion will not harm existing transit service, to avoid adverse impacts on lifeline service from new projects.
Two projects, the Caltrain extension to downtown San Francisco and BART to Warm Springs, benefit from a criterion supporting projects that were originally listed as high-priority in the Regional Rail Agreement. While there was no commitment to consider lower-priority projects from that agreement, several of them, including the Oakland Airport Connector and Dumbarton Rail, are also included in the draft RTEP.
Performance rankings will be applied within the subsets of projects which are or are not eligible for the RTP. Performance criteria include: supportive land-use policies, such as housing and employment densities near transit stations; cost- effectiveness; connections with other transit systems; ways to access the system; and project readiness to begin construction. Most projects score high on criteria such as access and land-use policies. In contrast, only a few projects will close gaps in the regional transit network.
Cost-effectiveness, measured as the cost to switch a rider from auto to transit, varies widely, with express buses and the first phases of Capitol Corridor and Caltrain Express projects coming in at less than $15 per new rider. AC Transit's Bus Rapid Transit project also ranks high on cost-effectiveness, although it lags behind others on connections to other systems and project readiness. On the other hand, Muni's Third Street Central Subway light rail project, which ranks high on virtually every criteria except closing a regional gap, is anticipated to cost over $30 per new rider, because few potential transit riders now drive that route. Caltrain's downtown extension and the associated Transbay Terminal project, and Caltrain's rapid rail/electrification project, are also expected to have a high cost per new rider. An additional criterion for cost- effectiveness, the Federal Transit Administration's "transit user benefit" measurement, has not been applied because the methodology for calculations is not yet available, but may change some of the cost-effectiveness rankings when it is used.
Transit advocates have emphasized the importance of using the cost-effectiveness criteria. In addition, they would like to have the lifeline transit program included rather than run on a parallel track as MTC now proposes. They also want to be sure that the results of ongoing studies, such as the new Bay Crossing Study, several other transportation corridor studies, and AC Transit and Muni strategic plans, will be incorporated into the RTEP. They are concerned that planning for new sources of funding, such as gas tax money, needs to be done in a thoughtful and comprehensive way, and feel that the RTEP process is moving too quickly to accommodate these planning needs.
MTC officials emphasize that with a 20-25 year timeline and no crystal balls included, the RTEP is destined to be amended as circumstances change. The Dumbarton Rail project will move ahead as soon as the affected counties finalize agreements for operating the service. Several other projects may progress faster if local sales tax measures are instituted or reauthorized. Two projects scheduled in the RTEP for study, Napa/Sonoma rail and and a 30th Street BART station in San Francisco, may become full-fledged candidates for funding during the next decades.
Meanwhile, some funds are not available immediately, such as money from the federal New Starts program which is allocated until 2007 to the BART/San Francisco airport project, and bridge tolls which cannot be allocated to the Caltrain extension and the Transbay Terminal until seismic retrofit work is completed.
Allocations of regional funds are set by the RTEP, with all money now identified being used. If projects change or costs increase, sponsoring agencies must find the additional funds or possibly cede their RTEP funding to other needs.
The exception to this could be if new funding sources provide a new pot of regional money. For example, it is now certain that a measure will appear on the March 2002 state ballot to permanently devote gas tax funds to transportation. If Proposition 42 passes, this could mean up to $600 million for transit in the Bay Area over the next 25 years, according to figures from the Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition. Also, if local sales tax funds become available for certain projects, money already allocated to those projects will be shifted to other projects on the list.
The Regional Rail Agreement in 1988 enabled the region to obtain funds for most of its high-priority projects. If there is similar unified support for the projects in the final RTEP, the potential for successfully completing these transit expansions is very high. However, with greater pressure from advocacy groups on decision makers, the transit environment in the Bay Area is changing. Getting the most benefit from the RTEP's unified voice will be a continuing challenge for all involved.
Leslie Stewart
*RTP-eligible projects
For more information:
MTC: Therese McMillan, 510-464-7828; tmcmillan@mtc.ca.gov
Regional transit advocacy: Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition, 510-740-3150; http://www.transcoalition.org
Some Bay Area residents are discovering the virtues of car-sharing. They can have the use of a car on an as- needed basis without the burden of ownership—or, you might say, instead of owning one car they can share in the ownership of many cars.
One such program, which has quickly accelerated since starting in early 2001, is City CarShare. It is based in San Francisco and is expanding operations to Oakland and Berkeley in the East Bay. The goal for this non-profit's first year was 500 members. There are already 900 members who share 31 cars, most of which are green VW Beetles, stationed at 12 sites.
City CarShare has received start-up funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation, the City of San Francisco and numerous environmentally-oriented foundations, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District funded a direct-mail brochure. Oakland and Berkeley are also providing funding for expansion into their cities. City CarShare expects to be self-supporting in three years.
Members pay a refundable $300 deposit plus a monthly fee of $10. They all receive a "smart key." When they need a car, they reserve it over the Internet and pick it up at a nearby parking garage. They are charged $2.50/hour and $0.45/mile, which covers gas, maintenance and insurance.
By and large, members use the vehicles in the evening or on weekends. City CarShare is in the process of expanding its program to businesses so that cars will not sit idle during business hours. Businesses would have use of a car as needed, without the cost and headache of owning a fleet of vehicles.
Car-sharing is neighborhood based. A similar concept, called station-cars, is linked directly to transit. There are two examples of this concept in the Bay Area, Caltrain's CarLink II, and a program run by Hertz at the Fremont BART station.
Carlink II is a pilot program aimed at Caltrain commuters, with start-up funding of about $750,000 from Caltrans. Their 27-car fleet of 2001 Honda Civics is based at Palo Alto's California Avenue Caltrain Station. Honda donated the vehicles and is using them to test innovative technologies including a built-in global-positioning navigation system.
Individual members who pay $300/month and use the car to travel between home and the station can keep it overnight and on weekends. Companies pay $350/month to use the cars during the day. These costs include insurance, gas and 1000 miles of travel. The aim is to maximize use of the cars by some users driving them between the station and work and other users driving between their home and the station.
Hertz has a similar pilot program for individual users which began in May at the Fremont BART station. Rates start at $325 and include maintenance, gas and 1000 miles of travel.
Shared-vehicle systems have been working in many cities in Europe for over ten years, but the Bay Area is only the fourth region in the US, after Portland, Seattle and Boston, to implement this concept. Shared use of cars makes both environmental and economic sense. One very significant result of implementation of such systems in urban areas could be a decrease in parking requirements, thereby making housing more affordable.
Joyce Roy
For more information:
The CarSharing Network: http://www.carsharing.net/
City CarShare: (415) 995-8588 http://www.sfcarshare.org/
CarLink II: (866) 276-5303 http://www.gocarlink.com
Flexcar
Portland: (503) 328-3539
Seattle: (206) 323-3539 http://www.flexcar.com/
The most basic form of transportation is walking, but it has been overtaken and almost eliminated in some areas by devotion to the automobile, resulting in roads with no sidewalks and dangerous multi-lane intersections. Transportation planners in the region are taking a new look at ways to encourage pedestrians, including a focus on pedestrian safety issues.
Walking, either by itself or in combination with transit, is a way to beat traffic congestion in crowded urban areas. For non-drivers in many areas, walking is sometimes the only option. However, pedestrians are often discouraged by obstacles or dangerous conditions. While statistics show that only three percent of collisions in 1999 on California highways and arterial streets involved pedestrians, pedestrians were involved in 22 percent of the fatal accidents.
In response to a growing number of studies, reports and projects concerned with pedestrian safety in the region, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) established a Regional Pedestrian Safety Task Force in early 2001. Task force members represent planning organizations, traffic and public health departments, law enforcement agencies and community advocacy groups.
There are many pedestrian safety programs and projects already underway at the local level, and the task force and its steering committee have served as forums for exchanging information and exploring ways to coordinate or consolidate efforts in the region. As the next step, the task force sponsored a Pedestrian Safety Summit in October 2001 to comment on draft proposals for a regional pedestrian safety program. Comments helped form a set of recommendations which will be presented to MTC at its December meeting.
To avoid replicating local programs, the recommendations focus on five needs which must be addressed at the regional, or even the state, level:
Data Analysis— MTC will establish a regional program to improve the quality of data available on collisions, providing better figures on the number of pedestrian trips, severity of injuries, and accidents occurring in locations other than public roads, such as parking lots. By mapping data on collisions involving pedestrians, cities can develop a valuable tool to identify and understand pedestrian safety issues in their communities. In one Oakland neighborhood, collision mapping showed a clear concentration of collisions near schools, many affecting children under 14. Data analysis of pedestrian-related collisions by MTC will assist in developing collision maps for every city in the Bay Area that does not already have them. A uniform set of maps will also allow determination of the most hazardous locations for pedestrians.
Technical Assistance—A technical assistance program will assist local agencies with determining the need for new pedestrian safety projects and programs, developing grant applications, and evaluating the effectiveness of existing programs. Some projects, such as countdown signals in San Francisco and illuminated crosswalks in Oakland, have already received similar assistance from MTC's Traffic Engineering Technical Assistance Program.
Resource Guide—As pedestrian safety has emerged as an issue in transportation planning, keeping track of the various activities and suggestions has been difficult. MTC has already developed a guide to existing resources on pedestrian safety. Updates to the guide will be posted on the Web, and will include information on local and national projects and programs, contacts for the agencies and advocacy organizations involved and the appropriate links.
Pedestrian Safety Laws—Education and enforcement, together with engineering, are considered the "building blocks" of pedestrian safety. Existing laws intended to promote pedestrian safety and right of way are often ignored or misunderstood, and enforcement activities may not receive support from the community or the courts. Region-wide education of pedestrians and motorists will aim at increasing understanding and voluntary compliance with the laws.
Funding—Pedestrian safety programs, such as the Safe Routes to School Program, face an uncertain future as budgets tighten. Regional coordination could help MTC and the state Legislature obtain a stable, long-term source of funding for pedestrian safety improvements.
Safety Summit participants were concerned about access issues as well as safety concerns, and they added to the list of draft suggestions. One which was popular was to integrate other MTC-supported projects with pedestrian safety, particularly at the design review phase, so that regional approval of a project also improves safety. Another participant spoke to the need to help cities update their engineering and design standards for transportation projects to bring pedestrian safety into the picture. One person noted that although MTC can mandate good pedestrian access in approving projects, community members don't always understand that their input is needed, or they bring the request too late in the process. Several comments stressed the need to keep communities involved and informed on how to contribute to project planning so that pedestrian safety is included. Participants also supported the concept of a regional funding set-aside for pedestrian safety.
Some of these additional areas may be explored when the task force becomes a permanent subcommittee of the Planning and Operations Committee of the Bay Area Partnership, a group composed of transportation agencies around the region. Approval by the Partnership of the new Regional Pedestrian Committee, made up of staff from local agencies and interested members of the public, was expected at the end of November. Following approval of the task force recommendations by MTC in December, expanded pedestrian safety activities at the regional level could begin as early as January 2002.
Leslie Stewart
"Everyone is a pedestrian sometime and should feel safe."
Opening of mission statement for Regional Pedestrian Safety Task Force accepted by MTC's Elderly and Disabled Committee, Sept. 2001
For more information:
Jeff Georgevich, MTC, 510-464-7820; jgeorgevich@mtc.ca.gov
A coordinating point for local pedestrian safety groups is the San Francisco Bay Area Pedestrian Education Group (BAYPEDS), 510-428-2534; http://www.baypeds.org
In October the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) announced its FY 2001/2002 funding awards for transportation-related clean air projects from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Regional Fund.
Funds for ridesharing programs and projects will go to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority, and the Associated Students of San Jose State University. Bicycle projects received funds—racks in Walnut Creek, a path in Fairfield, and bike lanes in Novato, Marin County, and Alameda County. Traffic management projects submitted by San Mateo, Fairfield, Orinda, the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, and Alameda County were winners.
Shuttle bus service projects by San Leandro, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (for Caltrain), and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (for the ACE commuter trains) received funds. Funds to purchase fuel cell buses were awarded to AC Transit (9 buses), Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (3 buses), and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (3 buses). Purchases of natural gas vehicles won funding for Oakland (10 refuse trucks), San Francisco (15 trucks), Sonoma County (3 transit buses), Petaluma (4 transit buses), and Union City (2 transit buses).
The TFCA accrues from a $4 surcharge on motor vehicle registration fees in the nine Bay Area counties. AB 434, passed in 1991, provides that 60 percent of the money thus generated goes into the TFCA Regional Fund administered by the Air District and is awarded for programs and projects in the Bay Area on a competitive basis. The other 40 percent is returned to the counties of origin, to be administered by county-designated Program Managers and used for local programs and projects that implement transportation control measures (TCMs) in the Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) prepared under the California Clean Air Act.
Criteria used to evaluate the applications for grants from the TFCA Regional Fund were adopted by the Air District Board and are periodically reviewed and amended. A project can score a maximum of 100 points.
The most important criterion is TFCA Funding Effectiveness, worth 60 points, which measures effectiveness in reducing air polluting emissions and encourages projects that include funding from sources other than TFCA grants in excess of required matching funds. To calculate funding effectiveness, the TFCA money requested for a project, from both the regional fund and the county fund, is divided by the amount of reduction of emissions of reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter over the life of the project as calculated by Air District staff.
Criterion 2 awards up to 15 points for Other Project Attributes that are deemed desirable but are not reflected in the analysis of TFCA Funding Effectiveness.
Criterion 3, Clean Air Policies and Programs, awards up to 10 points to to governmental bodies applying for a grant who describe their policies and actions to implement TCMs in the Bay Area CAP, especially land use and transportation policies that reduce motor vehicle use.
Criterion 4, Disadvantaged Communities, gives up to 10 points for projects that improve transportation options for residents of one or more of the 135 census tracts, in 44 Bay Area communities, identified as economically disadvantaged. The applicant must identify the census tracts the project will serve, what proportion of the total project services will be delivered to the identified tracts, and how the project directly benefits residents of the identified community.
Criterion 5 awards up to 5 points for projects that Promote Alternative Transportation Modes (transit use, ridesharing, bicycle use, or walking) or reduce single occupant vehicle trips (shuttle service, ridesharing, bicycling, or Smart Growth projects). Air District staff estimate the number of users or beneficiaries of a project.
Applications for TFCA Regional Fund grants may be requested from the Air District by phone or e-mail. FY 2002/2003 applications must be submitted to the Air District by April 30, 2002.
Adelia Sabiston
For further information:
Dave Burch, 415-749-4641
Applications: 415-749-4994 or e-mail tfca@baaqmd.gov with name, address, phone number and agency name.
Dioxins are some of the more challenging of the air toxics that contaminate the environment. Dioxins and dioxin- like PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are formed when materials containing chlorine compounds are burned. Sources that have been identified are diesel exhaust, woodburning stoves and fireplaces, and incinerators of medical waste, municipal waste, and sewage sludge. Dioxins are very stable; rather than breaking down into less toxic substances, they tend to be deposited on soil and water. There they persist and may be taken up by living organisms, such as fish, thus entering the food chain. Because there may be substantial pre-existing dioxins recirculating in water, soils, and sediments, new emissions account for only a fraction of the total dioxins present in the Bay Area's environment.
Dioxins have been shown to cause cancer, and other serious health problems such as birth defects and liver damage. About 95 percent of the dioxins enter the body by ingestion and are deposited in the body fat, where they accumulate and are retained because of their stability. Most dioxin exposure is estimated to be from breast milk or eating animal fats.
Dioxins are listed by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) as a toxic air contaminant and by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a hazardous air pollutant. Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA has also listed San Francisco Bay as being impaired by a number of pollutants including dioxins and PCBs.
Studies that have been done on dioxins have often been limited in scope and sometimes contradictory, leaving many unanswered questions. To gather data that will lead to the better understanding of dioxins, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District), the ARB, and the EPA have established the first urban area dioxin air monitoring network in the US. In August four monitoring sites for dioxins were set up in Richmond, San Francisco, and San Jose and at Fort Cronkite in Marin County. Monitoring sites in Crockett, Livermore, and Oakland will be added in the future. Also in the network are 4 monitoring sites that the ARB and the South Coast Air Quality Management District have established in southern California. The information obtained will provide better data on ambient concentrations of dioxins, improved assessment of human exposure, and a better basis for risk management strategies.
The ARB is also conducting 12 individual stationary source tests at such facilities as medical waste incinerators, refineries, drum reconditioners, landfills, secondary metal recovery and industries using catalytic oxidizers. These tests will provide a better inventory of the stationary and mobile sources of dioxins. Because the amounts of dioxins emitted are so minute, the collection procedures and analyses must be painstaking and precise. For this reason, it may be six months before data becomes available.
Earlier estimates by the Air District showed that about 39 percent of the dioxin emissions in the Bay Area come from wood burning and diesel engines. Public concern over dioxin exposure is illustrated by the City of Palo Alto's adoption of a woodsmoke-related Dioxin Reduction Policy. This policy focuses on citizen education and incentives to convert wood-burning fireplaces to gas.
Since 1970, dioxin emissions in the Bay Area have declined steadily because of the Air District's Toxic Air Contaminant Control Program, the adoption of woodsmoke ordinances by Bay Area cities and counties, and various regional, state, and federal toxics programs. The dioxin control measures that may be developed as a result of the new dioxin monitoring network, together with adoption of additional woodsmoke ordinances by local governments and continuation of the existing programs, could further decrease the rate at which dioxins are contaminating the environment.
Adelia Sabiston
The Air District's model woodsmoke ordinance is online at http://www.baaqmd.gov/pie/modelwood.htm
The Bay Area Water Transit Authority has awarded a $25,000 grant to the Blue and Gold Fleet to test biodiesel use in an operating ferry (see Aug/Sept 2001 issue). Blue and Gold, which is contributing $57,000 to the test funding, began running its "Oski" ferry, a 400-passenger vessel, on 100 percent soybean oil in October. The ferry was selected because it is one of the oldest and most polluting in the five-vessel fleet.
The Water Transit Authority, charged with developing a plan for increased ferry transit in the Bay Area, is concerned about added pollution from diesel-powered ferries. Biodiesel, which can also be derived from other vegetable oils or recycled grease, is an increasingly popular alternative fuel. It does not require expensive changes to engines, although the fuel cost is higher than diesel. While most emissions from biodiesel are cleaner than diesel, Blue and Gold is also testing a system to lower nitrogen oxide emissions, which tend to be higher with biodiesel.
LS
Although the Bay Area saw substantial participation in recent workshops held by the Smart Growth Strategy Group and the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development, a study just completed by the Public Policy Institute of California reports that 68% of the population is not even familiar with the terms "smart growth" or "sprawl".
The League of Women Voters is providing a framework for forums convened by local Leagues and community organizations that invite everyone to deliberate the issues involved in creating desirable and vital communities.
The League's Choices forums project, founded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, is part of a grassroots and collaborative effort to foster ever-higher levels of public engagement in California around fiscal, infrastructure, and land- use reforms: the aim is to link citizens and citizen leaders to the policy makers and policy outcomes critical to achieving sensible, long-term reform.
If not already engaged in political issues, people don't immediately think of reform as the solution to the problems they see. The community forums are a training ground to engage the public in thinking about issues of sustainable communities—land use, governance and fiscal reform necessary to improve the overall quality of life for everyone in a community or region. One goal is for participants to gain a better understanding of the complexity of the problems of growth and equality and a more realistic expectation of solutions.
These forums provide a venue for citizens' voices to be heard and for diverse members of the community to become involved with elected officials and policy makers. Specific outreach efforts seek to include under-represented groups, who would not otherwise participate in policy discussions. The goal is to empower participants, helping them to recognize that they have a role in the process and that their views are needed for equity to occur, while providing a platform for direct exchange with local officials.
The forums can set the stage for grassroots involvement for reform of the many arcane processes within the state. They also propel participants on a learning curve that might otherwise take many years, one that will foster development of mature solutions to entrenched problems.
A community forum can be convened on any topic related to quality of life. The League will provide a no-cost facilitator and moderator of the forum and help with community outreach and bringing together an audience.
For more information: Seena Clark, LWVC Education Fund Forums Project Director, 510-568-2388; seenaforums@earthlink.net.