The latest step toward creating a new transit future for the South Bay was taken with the approval last November of two county transportation sales tax measures. Spending plans approved as part of Santa Clara County's Measure A and Alameda County's Measure B were heavily tilted toward transit. Added to projects already proposed or underway in these two counties and San Mateo County, the Measure A & B plans will reshape the South Bay transit network.
Measure B in Alameda County is a renewal of an existing transportation sales tax. An earlier attempt at renewal failed in June 1998 when critics claimed it did not give enough funding to transit alternatives. After extensive coalition building and a restructuring to cover 20 years instead of the original 15, the measure succeeded with an 81.5% approval in the November election. Measure A in Santa Clara County is a successor to a transportation sales tax and plan which were passed in November 1996 as linked measures. The earlier plan's 16 specific traffic relief projects, from pavement repair to light rail extensions, are now being implemented. Because the new measure was placed on the ballot by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), it includes only mass transit. It was approved by a 70.4% vote in November.
Although BART from Fremont to San Jose was a feature of both measures, and largely responsible for Measure A's success, other transit districts will also benefit from the sales tax plans. Measure A will fund VTA light rail extensions, including connections from San Jose Airport to the current light rail system and BART. It will also provide funding to electrify Caltrain. Alameda's Measure B will fund a high-speed connection between Oakland International Airport and BART, and provide operating funds for AC Transit, Union City Transit, WHEELS, and the Oakland-Alameda Transbay Ferry. It will also help to fund the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) rail system. Measure B also includes highway, bicycle and pedestrian improvements. (see list of projects in the Measures.)
The two measures cover decades—Measure A begins when Santa Clara County's current sales tax expires in 2006 and will be in place for 30 years; Measure B will start in 2002 when Alameda County's current tax expires, and will last for 20 years. The funds will be added to those available from local, state and federal sources, including some money earmarked for specific projects in recent state transportation plans. In addition to BART to San Jose, the benefits of these various funding resources will include expanded bus and light rail service, upgraded Caltrain service and facilities, and a plan to provide rail across the Bay in the Dumbarton Corridor.
BART's new extension to Millbrae, part of the BART/SFO (San Francisco International Airport) project, is scheduled to open in mid-2002, bringing service farther down the west side of the Bay into San Mateo County. With the funding provided by the November ballot measures, BART is now poised to move farther down the east side of the Bay and, for the first time, into Santa Clara County. Although an extension from central Fremont to Warm Springs, just north of the Santa Clara County line, was among the first extensions planned by BART, it was was placed on the back burner several years ago after political and funding setbacks. The new plans will take BART through Warm Springs to downtown San Jose, possibly by 2010.
County sales taxes will not be enough to ensure that this happens. Although Measure A includes $2 billion for BART and Measure B includes $166 million, additional federal and state funding will be needed. Some initial state funding for planning was provided by Governor Davis last year. However, the Fremont/Warm Springs extension alone is estimated at $546 million. In addition, the city of Fremont would like to see an additional station included along the first stage of the extension, which would cost approximately $100 million. Although there is no funding currently for this Irvington station, it has been included in Fremont plans for separating roads from railroad tracks along the extension route.
In southern Alameda County, AC Transit is restructuring routes to bring buses closer to riders. Growing employment centers in Fremont, Newark and Union City have created the need to move employees from BART to workplaces as well as taking residents from homes to BART. New routes are based on a grid system instead of circuitous neighborhood travel, shaving time off trips for riders. Buses will also run earlier and later in the day, and more bus shelters are being added. These changes are intended to help current riders and attract new users.
AC Transit is using federal funding to implement several other projects to increase service efficiency. The Satcom project is a satellite tracking system which can locate buses very accurately, allowing dispatchers to check on whether a bus is on schedule, determine whether it has broken down, and suggest alternative routes around accidents. The entire fleet is expected to be Satcom-equipped in less than two years. AC Transit is also testing traffic signal priority systems along congested corridors. This technology keeps a signal green longer when a bus is approaching, minimizing traffic delays. It has been tested in San Leandro on Hesperian Boulevard, and another test is planned for San Pablo Avenue in Oakland.
Along the Berkeley-Oakland-San Leandro corridor, between Berkeley and the Bay Fair BART station, the district is considering implementing bus-rapid transit or light-rail to speed up trips and improve the quality of the ride. The five bus lines which operate in this corridor carry 20 percent of AC Transit's total ridership, approximately 45,000 riders per day. A recent study indicated that the most feasible route along the corridor would be along Telegraph Avenue through Berkeley and Oakland, to Jack London Square in Oakland, then south along International Boulevard/East 14th Street to the Bay Fair BART station in San Leandro. A special transit lane could be built along this route, allowing buses or light rail trains to avoid most red lights and traffic congestion. While light rail is faster and could better meet the demands of increased ridership, new low-emission buses are less expensive and quicker to implement.
Some of the projects from Santa Clara County's 1996 transportation sales tax are already coming into operation. One of them is the Tasman East light rail line linking North San Jose and Milpitas. This extension of the Tasman line and the new station in Milpitas at I-880 are scheduled to open in May 2001. The station will offer connections to buses and a park-and-ride lot. The Tasman line will be extended to Alum Rock Avenue by 2004. The Vasona Corridor light rail line between San Jose and Campbell will also open in 2004, and an extension from east San Jose to downtown is being planned. Starting in 2006, the new tax will fund additional lines.
Caltrain's Ponderosa Project is a rehabilitation program begun in April 1999 by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), which operates rail transit service extending from San Francisco to San Jose and south to Gilroy. The project, which is just finishing, has renovated eight stations, refurbished 9.4 miles of track and reconstructed grade crossings and bridges between Santa Clara County and San Francisco. Two new stations were also constructed, the San Mateo Transit Center and a station at Hayward Park in San Mateo County.
The Ponderosa Project is the first step in an upgrade of Caltrain which will take several years. The upgrade is needed to respond to increases in service planned in the next 10 years, from 78 to 114 daily trains in the San Jose-San Francisco segment and more than 16 daily trains between San Jose and Gilroy.
The overall upgrade program, the Caltrain Rapid Rail Program, adopted by the JPB in 1998, is extensive. It also includes a centralized signal system, electrification and a Caltrain express, utilizing passing tracks for faster service. The electrification component will benefit from funding from the new Measure A, but is already in the environmental assessment phase. The primary objectives include:
Converting from diesel power to electricity would require installation of overhead wires along the Caltrain tracks, and building up to five power substations for feeding power to the lines, depending on the way power is transmitted along the system. The JPB would also purchase electric-powered locomotives or locomotive/passenger car combinations to replace the diesel-powered locomotives (and some of the current passenger cars if motorized passenger cars are used).
Electrification is a necessary step if Caltrain is to eventually extend service from its current San Francisco station into the planned Transbay Terminal (see Dec 00/Jan 01 issue). Because the extension would need to be at least partially underground, diesel locomotives could not be used.
Another component of the Rapid Rail Program, the Caltrain Express train service, is also in the initial planning stages using state funding. It will use an extra rail line that will be constructed as a "passing lane" for express trains, allowing them to stop at only a few stations and pass around the local trains at the other stations. The express trains are projected to take 45 minutes instead of 95 minutes to travel between San Francisco and Diridon station in San Jose. They are proposed to run approximately every half-hour. Computerized traffic control, the third track, and express service are anticipated to begin in 2003.
Passenger rail service across the Dumbarton Bridge is another project which could receive funding from both sales tax measures. This proposal would replace the current bus service across the bridge with commuter rail, originating at the Union City BART station, crossing the Bay, then using Caltrain tracks to travel alternately north to Millbrae or south to Palo Alto and Diridon Station in San Jose. Trains would be stored on the Peninsula during the day and carry riders east again in the afternoon commute period. The cost would be shared between Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. While Santa Clara's Measure A allocates $40 million directly to this project, Alameda County's $14 million for Dumbarton Corridor improvements is not specifically designated for commuter rail. Measure B does contain funding for a multi-modal station at Union City BART to serve riders on BART, ACE, the Capitol Corridor intercity rail, and Dumbarton Corridor bus or rail passengers.
Both ballot measures contain funding for the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) rail service from San Joaquin County to San Jose. Measure B will provide $40 million for operations, and track and station improvements; Measure A will provide $20 million. ACE service has proved enormously successful, and will soon include a third daily round-trip, with a fourth train expected by the end of the year. ACE plans a fifth train in 2003 and a sixth train in 2006 or 2007. ACE trains use Union Pacific tracks, but discussions are underway to allow use of Caltrain tracks between Santa Clara and San Jose. This would allow an additional stop in downtown Santa Clara and provide layover space on Caltrain property for idle trains.
BART administers the Capitol Corridor intercity rail service operated by Amtrak between San Jose and Sacramento. Although this service was not included in the sales tax measures, it continues to be well-used, and new trains are being added.
Although a number of these projects are already underway, details of those in the sales tax measures are just beginning to solidify, and there are many uncertainties left in the planning process. For example, although the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments has approved moving forward with the Dumbarton Corridor rail proposal, discussions are continuing with Alameda and Santa Clara on the appropriate sharing of costs.
Meetings on the BART extension also began directly after the election, since Alameda County must update an environmental study and Santa Clara must begin one. At its January 11, 2001 meeting, VTA established the South Bay Transit Corridor Policy Advisory Board, with representatives from the VTA Board, the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency/Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority. There is also a proposal to discuss regional transit priorities at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to ensure that additional federal funds which will be needed to make the San Jose extension a reality do not come at the expense of other regional transit projects. Other concerns which have been voiced include the lack of a guarantee in Measure A to prevent diversion of money designated for light rail and Caltrain to BART if BART has cost overruns, and disagreement over the specific route through Santa Clara.
Despite the uncertainties, it is obvious that the future of the South Bay will include growing and interconnected transit systems, due to the determination of the voters and their public agencies to use all possible avenues to address the transportation challenges created by the region's growth.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
BART: 510-464-6000;http://www.bart.gov
Alameda County Transportation Authority: 510-893-3347; http://www.acta2000.com
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA): 408-321-2345; http://www.vta.org
AC Transit: 510-891-4777; http://www.actransit.dst.ca.us (for information on Berkeley-Oakland-Fremont corridor, click on MIS icon on home page)
Caltrain: 650-508-6248; http://www.caltrain.com/caltrain
Peninsula Rail 2000, a nonprofit organization (maps and other information on Caltrain electrification and the Dumbarton corridor): http://www.rail2000.org
Altamont Commuter Express (ACE): 800-411-RAIL; http://www.acerail.com
San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG): 650-363-4100; Richard Napier, Executive Director, pw*rnapier@co.sanmateo.ca.us
| Santa Clara County Measure A | ||
|---|---|---|
| Administering Authority: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | ||
| Project | Description | Amt from tax |
| Light Rail | East Valley to 87 | $500 million* |
| BART | to San Jose | $2 billion* |
| Trolleys | low floor cars | $170 million |
| Caltrain | double tracks, electrified | $325 million |
| Caltrain | new trains | $100 million |
| Caltrain | Palo Alto depot | $45 million |
| Buses | El Camino Real, Hwy 17 | $32 million |
| ACE | Altamont trains | $20 million |
| Airport** | people mover to BART, light rail | $200 million* |
| Dumbarton*** | rail to Caltrain link | $40 million |
| New buses | zero-emission | $250 million |
| Other trolleys | unspecified routes | $1.1 billion |
| Operating costs | all transit | $1.1 billion |
* $830 million federal funding needed for BART and light rail
** total project cost estimated at $400 million
***Dumbarton project conditioned on Alameda and San Mateo counties
contributing their share
| Santa Clara County Measure B (partial list of projects) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Administering Authority: Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority | |||
| Project | Description | Cost | Amt. from tax |
| BART | BART to Oakland airport connector | $130 million | $65.8 million |
| BART | Fremont/Warm Springs | $546.3 million | $165.5 million |
| ACE | operating costs, infrastructure | $40.1 million | |
| Carpool lanes | Interstate 680 | $36 million | $25.8 million |
| Oakland | improve access from I880 | $7.8 million | $6 million |
| Hwy 238 | widen, rebuild | $102 million | $66 million |
| Hwy 84 | move in Livermore | $70 million | $70 million |
| Bicycle routes | expand & improve | $80.6 million | |
| Transit | operating funds | $311.9 million | |
| Paratransit | operating funds | $148.6 million | |
| Local streets | maintenance, improvements | $318 million | |
AC Transit was the local sponsor of a workshop titled Bay Area Forum on Environmental Justice in Transportation this past November. The workshop was co-sponsored with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Its purpose was "to bring together Bay Area regional and local transportation officials, community `grass roots' representatives and federal administrators to discuss environmental justice/social equity issues and requirements and to identify opportunities to enhance meaningful participation of the entire community in the transportation decision making process."
Environmental justice can be defined informally as the environmental movement meeting the civil-rights movement, merging the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, was issued to all federal agencies in 1994. It added low-income populations to the Title VI definition of minority populations based on race, color and national origin. For a family of four, a household income of $17,000 or below would currently be considered low income. Differential exposures of these groups to environmental hazards are to be assessed and the potential effects and mitigation measures are to be discussed with the affected community.
Under the executive order, all transportation policies of FTA and FHWA and projects using federal funds must be examined in the light of environmental equity. At the workshop, Leslie T. Rogers, Regional Administrator of FTA, stated that, although safety remains the highest priority for the U.S. Department of Transportation, consideration of environmental justice affects every decision. Transit proposals must fit into the community and involve the public, from the initial route planning stage to location of maintenance facilities. Disproportionate adverse effects on many social and economic parameters, including health, pollution, employment opportunities, community cohesion, access to services and aesthetics, need to be mitigated if they occur.
Katiann Wong-Murillo, Environmental Specialist with FHWA, pointed to the award-winning community process used by Hawaii-Oahu Trans as a good model for public involvement in transportation planning. Realistic representations using video in community-by-community meetings led by civic leaders resulted in meaningful input from over 2,000 Oahu residents.
Mark Brucker, Transportation Planning Coordinator for the Environmental Justice Program of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), described ways that air and water pollution can disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. They are more likely to live near highways and to depend on food from the Bay; even if they are equally exposed to pollutants, they are less likely to have health insurance.
Brucker observed that our growth patterns create environmental justice issues, though the EPA has not attempted to quantify the differential impacts on protected classes. Cameron Yee, Policy Director of People United for a Better Oakland (PUEBLO), also noted that suburban residents generate two to four times the vehicle miles traveled and air pollution per person compared to central city residents of Oakland and San Francisco.
Marc Brenman, Senior Policy Advisor to the Department of Transportation Office of Civil Rights, said that we now need to speak in many tongues in order to assess environmental justice issues. He described the Executive Order issued by President Clinton in August 2000, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). Agencies need to prepare materials and design outreach programs to provide full access to communities with language proficiency problems. Community participants suggested the public schools as the best source for identifying relevant languages in the area; cultural events could be places to gather and disseminate information.
Treatment of environmental justice by agencies around the country has not yet assumed a uniform format for assessing adequacy. For example, Brenman said he first became aware of the need for greater attention to environmental justice when he noticed the relative thickness of sections devoted to endangered species compared to people in Federal Environmental Impact Statements he was reviewing.
David Ekern, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Transportation, Minnesota, said the state adopted six environmental justice principles to consider for context-sensitive design in 1997, as part of its public involvement process, `Hear Every Voice':
A local example of how environmental justice issues have shaped a major Bay Area transportation project was the Cypress Freeway in Oakland, which was damaged beyond repair in the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989. The replacement project was dramatically affected by organized citizen involvement:
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) will prepare an equity analysis of the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan, according to Steve Heminger, MTC Executive Director. MTC has a Minority Citizens Advisory Committee and programs like Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) and the Low-Income Flexible Transportation (LIFT) program and is a partner in the Smart Growth Initiative. Although these programs are related to environmental justice, it has been suggested that MTC form an Environmental Justice Working Group to provide a more comprehensive focus and oversee a truly inclusive public process.
In workshop break-out sessions, participants focused on effective outreach and principal concerns to be considered in achieving environmental justice. Some of the points made included: To ensure inclusive public input, agencies have to go to groups rather than simply expect the public to come to them; they should tap into community-based organizations. To bridge the gap between transportation users and providers, planning should not be project-driven but should, instead, respond to users needs.
Some agreed-upon principles were the need for:
Some problems with the regional planning process that impact equity are:
Jacky Grimshaw, representing Transportation & Air Quality Programs for the Center for Neighborhood Technology of Chicago, summed it up well when she said, "If you have real public outreach to determine the needs of the community and plan to address those needs, you will have environmental justice."
Joyce Roy/Eva Bansner
For more information:
AC Transit: Georgia DeTro, 510-891-4867; gdetro@actransit.org
Federal Highway Administration: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ej2000.htm
PUEBLO: http://www.peopleunited.org
Oahu-Trans: http://www.oahutrans2k.com
Minnesota DOT: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/publinvolve/
As Californians have been scrambling to cope with the immediate effects of the energy crisis, attention has also been directed to the problem of assuring medium- and long-term, reliable sources of power. Air quality impacts associated with energy production are among the possible effects of proposed solutions on other aspects of our lives which will need to be considered.
For years, California has imported an increasing proportion of the electricity it uses from areas that have surpluses to export, much of it from the Pacific Northwest and Canada. High construction costs and rigorous air quality regulations in California, among other factors, have made building more power plants a less economical choice than importing power, as long as other areas have had surplus power to sell.
Into this scenario was thrust the confusion caused by the process of deregulating the state's huge and complex power industry, resulting in the current power shortage.
The state had already taken steps to remedy the tight electric power situation. The California Energy Commission (CEC) has approved licenses for 8 power plants, 2 of which are in the Bay Area, in Contra Costa County. Four of the fifteen licensing cases currently being considered by the CEC are also Bay Area sites, in San Francisco and in Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties. Ten more licensing cases are expected to include 3 in the Bay Area—1 in Alameda County and 2 in San Mateo County.
Combustion processes such as those used for generating electricity from diesel fuel or natural gas cause the emission of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), an air pollutant. While about 85 percent of the NOx emissions in the Bay Area come from motor vehicles and other mobile sources, most of the remaining Nox emissions, from stationary sources, are from power plants. Over the past 15 years the trend has been for NOx emissions to decline, so that they are now about a third of their level 15 years ago. When the new power plants are built which will make the state and the Bay Area more energy self-sufficient, NOx emissions can be expected to increase.
The Bay Area has met the national and state clean air standards for NOx. However, besides being a harmful air pollutant in its own right, NOx is also a precursor of the air pollutant ozone. NOx and volatile organic compounds react together chemically in the air on warm, sunny days to form ozone. The Bay Area has not attained either the national or state ozone standards.
To minimize NOx emissions, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) has required older power plants to install the Best Available Retrofit Control Technology. New plants must have the Best Available Control Technology to minimize emissions. However, during the current energy crisis, the existing power plants are being pushed to the limits of their capacities. Added to that, the power grid—the generating plants and the transmission and distribution systems—is aging and therefore diminished in efficiency. These factors can be expected to increase NOx emission levels.
Now a surprise element has been added to the NOx equation. To offset the power outages from the rolling blackouts that are made necessary by acute shortages of electricity, some facilities rely on diesel-fueled auxiliary generators. Their use is more frequent, as power outages move from emergency occurrences to techniques for rationing limited supplies of electricity. In addition, sales of back-up generators to other power customers are booming, as they prepare to keep their electricity on. At present, mitigation of emissions from these stand-by generators is not required, so a marked increase in NOx emissions can be expected.
As the state strives toward assuring future power supplies and repairing the flawed deregulation process, the Air District will work with the legislature and the CEC to promote energy efficiency and protect air quality. The Air District will also require continued compliance with the California Environmental Act, including public participation in the process.
Adelia Sabiston
New homes in Contra Costa and San Mateo Counties will now be built with cleaner burning fireplaces, under recently passed ordinances. Contra Costa's regulations were the first countywide woodburning regulations in the state, and affect unincorporated portions of the county. They require secondary combusion chambers on the small woodburning "builder box" fireplaces popular in new homes, and on existing fireplaces if they are affected by remodeling which requires a county permit. New open hearth or masonry fireplaces will need smoke cleaning devices.
Using cleaner woodburning fireplaces, or substituting gasburning ones, is a major step toward reducing particulate emissions during the winter months. For more information on pollution from fireplaces, and guidelines on their use, contact the BAAQMD, 415-771-6000, or http://www.sparetheair.org
For more information on the county ordinances: Contra Costa County, 925-335-1046; San Mateo County, 650-363-4572.
Beginning in April, drivers will see a new signal light on the back of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) buses. The new triangular "Yield" signs, used with flashing indicator lights on a bus leaving a bus stop, will signal drivers that they must let the bus merge into traffic. Drivers must yield the right of way to the bus or be liable for a fine, starting at $35.
The Yield to Bus program is being launched by VTA and the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, the first agencies in the state to participate, during a test period for a new state law. The test will extend from April 2, 2001 to January 1, 2003. The program will be monitored by the California Highway Patrol, which will report on its effectiveness at the end of 2002. The new law is intended to encourage transit use in congested areas for commuting and also for trips to school, shopping and social and cultural activities.