Where will extensions in the Bay Area regional rail system take place? How can we boost passenger service on already heavily-used freight rail lines without compromising freight operations? How will regional rail schemes drive land use shifts that will give rise to transit-oriented development? What are the most optimal alignments for a high-speed rail entry to the Bay Area from the Central Valley over Altamont Pass?
Questions like these are the reason behind the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan, required by Regional Measure 2, which is now getting under way. Four transportation agencies—the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) and the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA)—will be working jointly to prepare the plan over the next two years, assisted by advisory committees and consultants.
According to Ashley Nguyen, MTC Senior Planner, "The Regional Rail Plan will establish the vision and framework for the development of a comprehensive rail system serving passengers and freight in the Bay Area. Our approach is to not be fixated on the state of regional rail in 2005, but rather to engage in visionary thinking about what regional rail could be in 2050 and work backward to find ways to get us there."
The Regional Rail Plan has two major components: regional rail development and integration, and California high-speed rail connections to the region. The emphasis will be on creating an integrated, coordinated rail network that will work seamlessly for travelers and freight movement and will make the best use of rail capital improvement and operations funds in the region.
Regional rail development and integration includes integration of passenger rail systems, better interfaces with connecting systems, rapid transit expansions, and transit-oriented development. The Plan will look at coordinating the use of stations and other facilities, governance, fares, involvement in land-use planning by rail services, and access for pedestrians and bicycles, with the goal of creating tightly coordinated service for riders and greater cost efficiency for agencies.
For planning purposes, the regional rail system to be considered includes four different types of service:
Local services, such as light rail in San Francisco and Santa Clara County, will not be evaluated except in terms of how they connect to the regional rail systems in the Plan. The region is defined as the nine-county Bay Area but the Plan must also consider other rail facilities and commuter corridors that connect with the Bay Area. This means that careful consideration will be given to activities within areas ranging from the Central Valley and the Sacramento area to Salinas and Monterey.
High-speed rail connections planning will be done as an alternatives analysis of various alignments between the Central Valley and the Bay Area, which will contribute to the CHSRA program environmental documents that will be prepared concurrently with the Regional Rail Plan.
The two components are interrelated and will be integrated to form the final Regional Rail Plan. Because there are implications for regional rail systems from each of the potential high-speed rail alignments, the Plan will include three scenarios, one for an Altamont Pass alignment, one for a Pacheco Pass alignment, and one that assumes no high-speed rail comes to the region. The alternatives will be described, showing how they might develop over time frames of 5-10 years, 20-25 years, and beyond 25 years, and considering how the regional rail system would function in each time frame under each scenario.
The four agencies involved in the Regional Rail Plan make up the Project Management Team, which will be supported by a team of technical planning, engineering, and public outreach consultants. The Project Management Team will be advised by the Regional Rail Steering Committee, which includes the four agencies as well as representatives from the freight railroads, rail passenger operators and county congestion management agencies. There will also be an advisory group comprised of Bay Area specialists in regional planning, which will assist the Project Management Team and Steering Committee. The Plan is slated for completion by May 2007, with adoption by MTC by June/July 2007.
During the preparation of the Regional Rail Plan, three other closely related studies will be in progress. These include:
As freeways throughout the region become more congested and gas prices rise, commuter and intercity rail services are gaining favor. However, rail systems are expensive, even when tracks are already in place. A comprehensive plan is needed to maximize rail investments and provide the best service to rail passengers while protecting freight capacity. In approximately two years, the Bay Area should have such a plan.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
Ashley Nguyen, MTC, 510.817.5809
Regional Rail Plan website, http://www.bayarearailplan.info
The State Coastal Conservancy and other agencies have launched the Bay Area Watershed Plan process. The watershed plan will become part of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (see June/July 2005 issue), but will also be a stand-alone project that will be used for multiple purposes, similar to the Uplands Habitat Goals Report. It will be a tool for prioritizing watershed and habitat restoration projects. For more information: http://www.bayareawatershedplan.net
The Rohnert Park casino proposed by the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and Station Casinos may sit next door to retail development, a hotel and a performing arts center on tribal land, although plans are not definite. Station Casinos projects in other areas have placed casinos next to shopping centers, outlet malls and movie theaters. Under current plans, only the casino would be built on land exempt from state and local regulation because it is in federal trust, meaning that other development would be subject to regulation and taxation similar to other local businesses, but if plans change, local businesses may be concerned about competitors operating under different rules. (See August/September 2005 issue).
"Cleaning Up Diesel: Fuels and Technologies" is a regional workshop sponsored by the Ditching Dirty Diesel Collaborative. It will be held from 1-5 pm, Friday, October 14th in Oakland, and will cover alternative fuels and technologies, including the four "R's" of diesel reduction: repower, refuel, replace and retrofit. For more information, contact Joel Ervice, 510-302-3316 or joel@rampasthma.org
The Association of Bay Area Governments will hold its Fall 2005 General Assembly at the Marriott City Center in Oakland on October 27 from 8 a.m. to 4 pm. The topic will be "Affordable Housing: Myths and Reality—A Home for All". For more information: 510-464-7900 or http://www.abag.ca.gov
Golden Gate Transit and Golden Gate Ferry fares are getting a makeover, and most riders will benefit from the change. The plan is to simplify the fare table, reducing ten fare zones to six and 300 possible fare combinations to fewer than 60. For example, on Routes 40/42 between the East Bay and Marin there will now be a single fare instead of 30 options. Mary Curry, Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District spokesperson, says, "These changes will be particularly helpful to our Hispanic population, who are a growing segment of our ridership, especially in Marin."
Proposed changes also include increasing the youth discount and defining the youth fare as ages 6-18 on both bus and ferry, but eliminating the ferry weekend Family Fare and group rates. Discount ticket books now used by both Golden Gate Transit and Golden Gate Ferry commuters will be phased out when TransLink smart cards become available on the systems, anticipated to occur in 2006.
Impatient with federal administrators for failing to take the initiative in addressing the issue of global warming, numerous state and local governments have taken steps to curb the production of greenhouse gases (GHG) (see sidebar). California has developed state regulations to curb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and several of its cities and counties have programs to encourage reductions in GHG emissions.
Carbon dioxide (CO2), the compound most responsible for global warming, is emitted by industrial facilities, power plants, motor vehicles, and other sources that involve combustion, mainly of fossil fuels. Many of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (Air District) rules and programs to reduce air pollution also reduce CO2 emissions. GHGs and criteria pollutants have similar sources and the Air District believes that the goals of reducing both types of emissions have significant benefits. In addition, because global warming accelerates the production of ozone, the principal constituent of smog, addressing GHGs will help in the fight against ozone.
To further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Air District Board of Directors adopted a resolution in June establishing the Climate Protection Program and acknowledging the link between climate protection and programs to reduce air pollution. To address climate change, efforts by the Air District may include:
More than 550 cities and counties worldwide, 140 in the US with 27 of these in California, participate in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Cities for Climate Protection Campaign. The five-step program consists of calculating GHG emissions, setting a target to reduce emissions below the 1990 level, making a plan to meet the target, implementing the plan, and monitoring and adjusting the plan.
Four Bay Area counties—Sonoma, Marin, San Francisco, and Santa Clara—have programs addressing climate change, and Contra Costa County has recently adopted climate protection policies. Sonoma County and all of its eight cities—Cotati, Novato, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, and Windsor—have passed resolutions to reduce GHG emissions by 25% below 1990 levels. The Greenhouse Gas Inventory Project was completed in November 2003. Sonoma County has completed the first two steps of the ICLEI Campaign, and Santa Rosa, the first step. The remaining cities are working together on the first step.
In 2002, Marin County adopted a resolution to reduce GHG emissions. To date, it has completed the first two steps of the ICLEI Campaign, setting an emissions reduction target of 15_20% below the 1990 level. In addition, the County has incorporated climate protection into its General Plan and implemented measures to reduce energy and water use and waste. Two cities, Fairfax and San Anselmo, also participate in the ICLEI Campaign.
The City and County of San Francisco passed a resolution in 2002 to reduce GHG emissions by 20 percent below the 1990 level by 2012. In September 2004, San Francisco released a Climate Action Plan that included implementation strategies, including energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and GHG reductions in the transportation and solid waste sectors.
Santa Clara County adopted a resolution to form a partnership with the Air District to achieve the ICLEI goals. The county and the cities of Palo Alto and San Jose participate in the Sustainable Silicon Valley Initiative, the goal of which is to develop and implement a regional Environmental Management System (EMS) for the entire area and its participating industries, organizations, and jurisdictions. The first two significant issues to be addressed are energy and water usage. Because reductions in CO2 levels are a good indicator of reduced energy use and improved energy efficiency, a Valley-wide goal has been established to reduce CO2 20% below the 1990 level by 2010.
In 2002, the California legislature directed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt regulations to reduce GHG emissions from on-road motor vehicles. The new CARB regulations go into effect beginning with 2009 model-year vehicles and set increasingly stringent GHG emission levels for passenger cars and light-duty trucks. By 2016, emissions must be 25-34% below the 2002 level. The Legislature also enacted a bill establishing the California Climate Action Registry, a non-profit voluntary registry for GHG emissions. Its purpose is to aid companies and organizations operating within the state to establish baselines for GHG emissions and then track future reductions.
Globally, the United Nations developed and adopted the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), by which industrialized nations would voluntarily reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. Countries began signing the FCCC at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This goal proved to be too ambitious, and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol required nations to commit to an average 5.2% decrease in six GHGs from 1990 levels by 2012. In 1998, President Clinton signed the Protocol, but the Senate did not ratify it, and in 2001, President Bush withdrew from it. Of the industrialized nations worldwide, four have not signed—Australia, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and the US. The US, which is the world's largest producer of GHG, promotes a voluntary program of GHG reductions.
Adelia Sabiston
For more information:
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/climatechange.htm (includes links to local jurisdictions with programs)
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, http://www.iclei.org/
Start with the fact that a gallon of water weighs 8 pounds, and it becomes obvious that transporting thousands of gallons of water per day means substantial energy use by water and wastewater agencies. Add the energy used in treating water for its "end use"—businesses, homes, even lawns and fire fighting—or treating wastewater for discharge, and collectively these agencies accounted for at least 10% of the electricity used in California in 2001.
Comments at a series of state workshops during recent months indicate that current known electricity use for water conveyance, treatment and use is now 12% of the state's total, and all energy use by this sector, including agricultural groundwater pumping, unmetered residential use and natural gas for water heaters, is probably close to 20%. Clearly, energy savings from changes in water use could bring substantial relief to the state's tight energy supplies.
At a workshop held in San Jose in August, water and wastewater agencies came together with state agencies and public utilities to address the need to reduce energy use. Participants shared some of the new ideas, and reassessments of standard practices, that have already been stimulated by rising energy costs and concerns about reliability.
Some water agencies can benefit from the energy involved in moving water. Many water suppliers already generate hydroelectric power as water flows from their reservoirs and dams. While large dams are the traditional location for hydropower generation, rising energy costs are inspiring smaller projects. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) plans to capture power during water releases from Briones Reservoir to its Orinda treatment plant, by replacing a decommissioned pump with a turbine. Although the project cost is estimated at $1.5 million, it is anticipated that it will result in a positive cash flow after six years with full payback in 10 years.
Wastewater agencies can also generate power in co-generation plants, using the methane gas produced during treatment. EBMUD produces 70% of the electricity needed for its wastewater treatment plant from co-generation. As a result, wastewater treatment energy costs, which rose from $2 million in fiscal year 2001 to almost $3 million the following year, now average $1.7 million per year.
Many agencies are already taking advantage of grants and other incentives to place solar arrays on roof areas and other facilities. Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) has placed solar panels on attractive carports in the parking lot at the administration building and is looking at other possible locations, including placing panels on the surface of reservoirs. Stan Kaut of SCVWD noted, "Reservoir panels would produce the most energy at just the right time, during peak usage times when people also need water, are using it at high rates and electrical costs are at the maximum." However, he said that SCVWD would need funding, such as the rebates from the California Energy Commission or the California Public Utilities Commission, which have recently been decreased, to make reservoir solar panel installation feasible for the district.
Whether or not an agency is using its own capacity to generate power, conservation is a tried and true answer for energy as well as water—and often the two go together. Water conservation programs that are already standard in many agencies can contribute to energy savings, because pumping less water to customers means less energy use for the supplier. Water-saving devices, particularly if they also reduce the need for heating water, can add to energy savings.
Internally, agencies can adjust operations to pump less. Supply schedules at SCVWD are coordinated to minimize pumping from one local storage facility to another. Rather than importing water to recharge groundwater storage and then pumping the groundwater for customers, SCVWD allows some customers to connect directly to the district's raw water source. Although one of the district's multiple sources of supply is the Delta, SCVWD prefers to use local surface water when possible; it is calculated that the district could use up to 120,000 megawatt hours per year obtaining water from the Delta, because the water must be lifted over the 700-foot Coastal Range to reach SCVWD reservoirs.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) takes pride in its supply lines from Hetch Hetchy in the Sierras, which bring water across the Bay and into the SFPUC system completely by gravity, generating power at points along the way.
When agencies must pump water, they may be able to save energy costs, although not the energy, by timing their operations for non-peak periods when energy costs drop, a strategy known as "time-of-use". Because EBMUD has multiple pressure zones, it is necessary to pump to reservoirs at different levels and maintain enough water in each zone to serve that zone's customers as well as feed reservoirs in lower zones. This is a complex operational problem, and adding a timing factor has further complicated decisions for operators. Joe Young, Operations Supervisor at EBMUD, described the district's "$500,000 Clock", named for the savings it has delivered to the district. The clock is a 24-hour clock located in the Oakland Control Center, with a sector marked in red to show when operators should not be pumping, yellow when rates are high but pumping is allowed, and a sizeable green sector when operators can pump freely. If pumping is done during peak "red hours", operators are required to report on the reason for the decision. Young summarized the program by saying, "Tell the operators what the objective is, give them the tools, and stay out of the way."
EBMUD is also implementing a program to improve time-of-use operation for the 20 pumping plants in the Walnut Creek and San Ramon Valley area, hoping to shave another $500,000 per year from an electric bill which ran $2.6 million in 2003.
For energy regulators and suppliers, the next step in saving energy beyond time-of-use is demand response—adjusting use during critical periods when energy supplies in the state are particularly low, similar to other businesses which participate in the state's Flex Your Power campaign by turning off lights and taking other steps to reduce energy use. PG&E's Critical Peak Pricing (CPP) program provides incentives during summer months, May through October, by discounting energy used during partial-peak and off-peak hours, while substantially increasing the cost of power used between noon and 6 p.m.
Although CPP compliance is voluntary this year, by 2006 all water/wastewater agencies will be required to comply unless they opt for a changed time-of-use rate. However, because CPP events involve only a day's notice and occur randomly throughout the summer, EBMUD's Young and SCVWD's Kaut are dubious that water agencies would be able to modify their energy management practices to take advantage of the incentives. Young stated, "It is very hard to change our distribution operation for one day on a random basis—operators may make mistakes if there are too many changes. It is more productive to lower the base load profile than to randomly attack the peak." Kaut emphasized that energy management in California is a collaborative partnership activity, and cited the need to work with air quality management boards on regulations to allow operation of backup diesel generators during power crises.
Several speakers, including Bob Kinert from PG&E's Demand Response Program, noted that a major concern for water and wastewater agencies is service reliability, a factor that is more important to many customers than cost. Kinert encouraged agencies to take advantage of free assistance and loan programs from PG&E and state agencies to put together Integrated Energy Management Plans which balance reliability, cost and the nature of agency operations.
With less than a 7% reserve this summer, and population growth (particularly in hot inland areas) making larger demands on aging power plants in future years, the state must insist on both energy efficiency and a strong demand response program, according to Wally McGuire of Flex Your Power. Although the issue was not directly addressed, the time is probably coming when water agencies will be discussing time-of-use rates with customers, especially large ones such as businesses.
Flex Your Power has a demand response component, Flex Your Power NOW, as well as a water and wastewater component, called Flex Your Power at the Tap, described by David Todd, Land and Water Use Program Manager for the California Department of Water Resources. Todd suggested that energy companies and water/wastewater agencies should find areas of mutual interest such as saving electricity by saving water, saving electricity and natural gas by saving hot water, and improving cooling tower efficiency.
While water users may not realize that part of every water bill is an energy bill, water and wastewater utilities are keenly aware of the impact of energy costs on their budgets and their rates for consumers. Working with energy agencies and public utilities, they will be trying to increase their energy efficiency and decrease energy costs while maintaining reliable customer service, a goal which will have benefits for all concerned.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
Flex Your Power: http://www.fypower.org/briefing_room/
Shahid Chaudry, Water Energy Program Manager, California Energy Commission, 916-654-4858, schaudhr@energy.state.ca.us
Joe Young, EBMUD, 510-287-0147, joeyoung@ebmud.com
Stan Kaut, SCVWD, 408-265-2600, skaut@valleywater.org
A core element of the Transit-Oriented Development Policy recently adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is financial support for station area planning (see June/July 2005 issue). An initial round of grants, totaling $3.3 million, was approved by the commission in July for station and corridor plans, as well as up to $300,000 for consulting assistance over the next two years for station plans and Corridor Working Groups.
The grants include the Alameda Point Ferry Terminal, Fairfield Multimodal Station, Menlo Park Dumbarton Rail Station, Hacienda (near the Pleasanton BART Station), BART to San Jose corridor planning including the Santa Clara Station, San Leandro Bus Rapid Transit Station, SMART corridor planning and Santa Rosa Station, and corridor planning for e-BART in Contra Costa to determine priorities for station planning.
Commuters throughout the region breathed a sigh of relief when the threat of a BART strike was averted in July; no one had looked forward to cramming more cars onto Bay Area roads. However, if the strike had occurred, it would have provided a showcase for ongoing improvements in transportation techniques that are already easing the flow on crowded roadways. For example, commuters could have called 511 to plan trips and for other services, such as reports on the time needed to drive from one freeway location to another.
Many of these improvements are drawn from a collection of increasingly high-tech techniques known as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) which build on the existing capacity of roads and transit to improve efficiency and to create smooth trips. Most of them are described in the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan's System Efficiency Section, and are coordinated through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Regional Operations Program. If all the cutting-edge technology proposals in the 2030 Plan are funded and implemented, Bay Area riders will feel they are truly in a new century.
Some ITS programs are already familiar to the region's drivers; others are just beginning to be explored. Among the familiar programs are ridesharing information—now incorporated into the regional 511 transportation information services—and incident management programs such as the Freeway Service Patrol tow truck service and emergency call boxes. Transit riders on some systems have already been using a trial version of the TransLink ticket, a stored-value ticket that can be can be recharged and reused, and is usable on multiple transit systems. Ramp metering has been expanding in the region; a recent Caltrans report on I580 in Pleasanton showed metering eliminated a bottleneck for eastbound traffic during the afternoon peak period while also decreasing traffic that formerly cut through city streets.
Newer programs include express bus corridors using traffic signal preemption, and real-time monitoring for speed and traffic flow on major freeways, with the information provided to drivers. At the suggestion of Caltrans, financial estimates for new freeway segments in the 2030 Plan now include the costs of systems management components such as loops embedded in the pavement for monitoring traffic flows. A program to provide more real-time data on the location and arrival times of transit vehicles was approved by MTC in July. Grants, funded by Regional Measure 2, were awarded to eight transit districts around the region to install or increase the use of automatic vehicle location technology, including signs and kiosks at transit hubs. This will address some recommendations of MTC's Transit Connectivity study, completed in January 2005 (see October/November 2004 issue).
Yet to come, but envisioned in the 2030 Plan, are advanced ITS projects to develop and implement integrated data collection and communication systems that would allow better communication between emergency responders to help clear traffic incidents and inform drivers of hazards. This effort would be aimed particularly at roadways, but recent security alerts on BART have also raised the issue of communications between BART and emergency responders, especially for incidents in BART tunnels.
Integrated data and communications systems could eventually provide real-time driving information for carpool lanes and major streets as well as general freeway traffic. Driving information is already available for some heavily traveled freeway segments in the Bay Area, and more segments will be added this year, creating an extensive network by the time that MTC and other Bay Area groups host an international ITS conference in November (see box below). Real-time driving information, coupled with in-vehicle maps, can inform drivers about traffic conditions and roadway hazards and allow drivers to avoid bottlenecks by taking alternative routes, thereby easing traffic jams.
Tight government finances and limited opportunities for freeway expansion mean that existing roads will be more heavily traveled. Innovative technology can improve transit service to attract more riders and take drivers off the road, and technology can also provide tools to fit more drivers on the road at the same time without increasing congestion. While it may not always be as noticeable as new freeway lanes or transit stations, ITS can be a bargain for Bay Area travelers.
Leslie Stewart