Disclosure: I am working on a part time, short term basis for TransForm on the Oakland Airport Connector campaign. However, the thoughts expressed in my posts on this subject are my own and should not be construed to be those of TransForm.
You hopefully have already noted that the MTC hearing on the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) is tomorrow (Wednesday) at 10am, but you might not know about the nationwide transportation day of action on which the hearing coincidentally falls. Several advocacy groups will be joining together to hold a mock funeral to mourn the loss of transit lines in the Bay Area due to lack of funding for operations. After the funeral, advocates will march to the MTC hearing to urge them not to provide further funding to the OAC.
Though the timing of these two events is coincidental, they are tied together quite closely. While the state and federal government have been slashing operating funds, the stimulus bill has pumped tons of money into capital improvements for transportation. So while BART and MTC may end up wasting more than half a billion dollars on the OAC, including $70 million in stimulus funds, BART, AC Transit, and Muni are slashing service and raising fares.
It's time we get our priorities straight, not only by prioritizing public transit over highway expansion, but also by prioritizing operations funding within transit funding. What is the use of a shiny new bus if we can't afford to pay someone to drive it? What is the use of an extension to the Oakland Airport that will only draw 400 new riders a day, when it will suck funding from the entire BART system?
Please attend the funeral tomorrow to mourn public transit losses and then head over to the MTC meeting to win back some of this transit funding by halting funding to the OAC.
Disclosure: I was recently hired to work part time on a short term basis for TransForm on the Oakland Airport Connector campaign. However, the thoughts expressed in my posts on this subject are my own and should not be construed to be those of TransForm.
On Tuesday morning, the Oakland City Council, via the Public Works Committee finally had a chance to review the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC). The last time they had reviewed the project was in 2006, and it has changed greatly since then, with projected ridership plummeting and costs growing. And the Public Works Committee members seemed to understand this well, asking pointed questions of BART and agendizing the project as an action item for their first meeting in September, when they return from recess.
Before the committee deliberated, BART and TransForm gave 10 minute presentations. BART’s presentation was the same one they’ve been giving for weeks – I think I’ve seen it three times now. I don’t have a copy of the Powerpoint slides, but here are the key points in it:
The first page has renderings of the OAC stations that are entirely inaccurate now. The airport station shows a covered walkway directly from the station to the terminal, even though this was taken out of the project due to costs long ago.
On ridership, BART concedes that its financial model shows that there will only be 4,350 riders in 2020 but explains that this is a very conservative model and makes the arguments that its 13,000 ridership projection from the EIR is still valid (I’ll get to why that’s wrong later)
BART explains away eliminating the two intermediate stops, essentially blaming it on Oakland for building a Walmart at one of the proposed stops and then saying that one day in the future the other stop “could” be built. (Yeah, because BART is so good about building infill stations.)
John Knox White from TransForm followed with a new presentation, which mostly focused on ridership. You can read the entire presentation, but the short version is that while the 2002 EIR projects 10,200 new riders per day, a lot has changed since then. The fare has increased from $2 to $6, AirBART ridership has increased much more than expected, and the intermediate stops have been taken out. The reality is that BART’s own numbers show that there are only projected to be 440 new riders per day. Yes, you read that right, half a billion dollars for 440 new riders per day! In contrast, a rapid bus would cost an estimated $60 million and bring in 700 new riders per day. You should check out the full presentation for all the images and numbers, but this one alone is quite telling:
Last night, the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1555, unanimously rejected BART's contract offer.
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1555, is the second-largest union at BART, with about 900 members. Members voted throughout the day on whether to accept or turn down the proposal, which includes a three-year wage freeze, a small raise in the fourth year, reductions in health and pension benefits and changes to work rules.
The decision on whether to strike will not be made until BART's largest union, Service Employees International Union, Local 1021, which accounts for about half of BART's 2,800 unionized workers, votes on management's offer Thursday.
"Negotiations are about meeting the other side halfway, and we don't feel that BART executives have been doing that up til now," said [1555 President Jesse] Hunt.
BART spokesman Linton Johnson, speaking for district administrators, described the vote as disappointing but not ending the chance to broker an agreement that meets management's cost-savings goal of $100 million over four years.
For the time being, any strike would wait for these negotiations. They've been pretty on and off for a few weeks now, but bargaining in the current state of budget flux can be quite treacherous. The importance of BART to the Bay Area's economy cannot be overstated. It is a critical link for commuters throughout the region. Hopefully the negotiations will go forward in good faith and will result in a fair contract that keeps BART moving.
The California State Legislature isn't exactly the most popular group of people these days. As the state budget crisis worsens - and as California's bond rating takes another hit - Californians are losing what little patience they had for their legislators, who remain unable to produce a budget solution. It's not for lack of trying, as the 2/3rds rule and Republican obstinacy has produced the ongoing delays and deficits. But it reflects poorly on the legislators, who are facing some of the lowest approval ratings ever.
It doesn't help matters when the Legislature proposes something that is manifestly stupid, wasteful, and unnecessary. And that is what has happened regarding high speed rail on the peninsula, where the legislature has caved to Peninsula NIMBYs at the possible cost of $1 billion in stimulus funds:
An obscure sentence inserted deep in a massive state budget bill could delay construction of the proposed high-speed rail route from San Jose to San Francisco, potentially costing the region more than $1 billion in federal stimulus money, high-speed rail planners said Monday.
The language requires that as a condition of getting $139 million next year from the state budget to hire staff and engineering firms, the state High Speed Rail Authority must study "alternative alignments" to the route along the Caltrain tracks, approved by the authority last July.
Though the bill has passed both chambers of the state Legislature, its fate is uncertain because it remains part of the bigger state budget imbroglio.
This is ridiculous. The CHSRA already studied the Peninsula corridor, already studied the Altamont alignment, and already concluded that the Caltrain corridor is the best solution. They spent 11 years on these studies. Neither the Legislature nor the Peninsula NIMBYs have any place calling for another study just because they didn't like the outcome of the first one.
This is especially troubling given the financial implications of the Legislature's meddling:
On Monday, Rod Diridon, a former Santa Clara County supervisor who sits on the high-speed rail board, said that restudying the route could jeopardize federal stimulus money that requires eligible projects have construction started by September 2012.
"If it were to stay in, only our corridor in the whole state would be penalized, and all the federal stimulus money would go to Southern California," Diridon said.
The San Jose-to-San Francisco route will be seeking $1.3 billion in stimulus money, Diridon said. Two other proposed high-speed-rail routes near Los Angeles also will be seeking similar amounts.
The Peninsula NIMBYs would be perfectly happy with this outcome - their goal is to kill the HSR project in their own backyard, and have shown no regard for fiscal responsibility (such as their proposal of an extremely costly tunnel without offering any method of paying for it). (See this Calitics post for background on the dispute.)
But it would cost the state as much as $1 billion in HSR stimulus, which translates into thousands of jobs and a not insignificant boost to the local economy on the Peninsula, which in turn means rising tax receipts in Sacramento. I'm not surprised at the Peninsula NIMBYs for not caring about any of this. I am surprised at the Legislature for being incredibly reckless by approving this proposal.
More below, including the mystery of who is actually responsible for this idiocy...
Disclosure: I was recently hired to work part time on a short term basis for TransForm on the Oakland Airport Connector campaign. However, the thoughts expressed in my posts on this subject are my own and should not be construed to be those of TransForm.
The campaign for a better connector is really heating up. The Oakland Port Commission directed their staff to work with BART to look at alternatives to the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC). Don Perata sent a hard-hitting letter to MTC arguing that the OAC is “too much money for too little transit and economic value.” And just last Thursday, several Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA) members strongly questioned the project and asked staff about alternatives.
Doesn’t it seem like it’s time for the Oakland City Council to weigh in? Larry Reid and BART don’t think so.
Last Thursday, Councilmember Nancy Nadel asked the Council Rules Committee to put a review of the OAC on the agenda for the July 14th Public Works Committee meeting, which she chairs. Specifically, she asked to agendize the “Discussion And Possible Action On The Bay Area Rapid Transit’s (BART) Design And Construction Proposal, Funding Status, Local Job Projections, And Projected Ridership For The Oakland Airport Connector Project.”
It seems commonplace for the Chair of the Public Works Committee to ask to review a half billion dollar public works project that the Council hasn’t reviewed in many years and which has changed substantially over time. So when the item came to Rules Committee, it was largely expected that they’d put it on the agenda.
BART and Larry Reid didn’t want that to happen though. Kerry Hamill, from BART, spoke to the committee and urged them to hold off hearings until after recess, in September. Her stated reasoning was that the RFP was just released and that BART wouldn’t have solid numbers until then. The problem with that argument is that BART has been approaching agency after agency for funding, so although the final financial numbers may change a bit when proposals return, the numbers are solid enough to present to MTC, the Port, and ACTIA, which means they should be ready to present to Oakland.
Got back from the CD-10 Candidate forum at a standing room only packed auditorium at the Jewish Community Center on Tice Vally Rd in WC. It is always great to see the real candidates in person. This time, we actually have many liberal Dems and no crazy people running - not always the case. I started working at 6 AM today so my comments are SNARK and POSITIVES. I go alphabetically just like the flyer: http://www.lamorindademoclub.o...
SNARK
Tony: Show up on time for a job interview
Joan: Work on your presentation
Mark: No one really cares about your old restaurant
John: The giant golden bear in the parking lot?? Guess you won't need that for a governor's campaign at UCLA. Should have run in CD-03
Adriel: I am not allowed to vote for you because I am over 40 and am not a twitter. Wait a minute my party line is ringing...
Anthony: Experience can actually be a good thing
Last week, Don Perata joined the effort to stop the wasteful overhead Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) by sending a hard-hitting letter to Metropolitian Transportation Commissioner and Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty. On July 8, the MTC will be voting on providing even more funding to the OAC from Regional Measure 2 funds, and Perata is not pleased about this:
As the author of SB 916 – which placed regional Measure 2 on the ballot-, I must oppose the Oakland Airport Connector project. In short, the proposal is too much money for too little transit and economic value.
While the connector was included in the menu of RM2 transportation projects, that election was in 2004. The world has since changed dramatically. And so has the project. In 2003 when the project was proposed, only $30M was needed to complete funding for the $230M connector. In fact, we told the voters (in the ballot pamphlet) that this was "the final portion of funds needed for direct BART service" to the airport. Project costs have now increased by over $300M and the RM2 dollars needed have quadrupled. Even more damning, the ridership predicted in 2003 has fallen substantially from 13,540 to fewer than 4500 by 2020. This fails any cost-benefit analysis on its face.
Advocates have been making these arguments for months, to the MTC, BART, and the Port Commision, and most of our pleas for reason have fallen on deaf ears. But I'm hopeful that these elected officials will find it more difficult to ignore the former State Senate Democratic leader and the likely future mayor of Oakland.
While we are all concerned about the 2/3 rule for the budget, and, of course, the 2/3 rule for revenues. But what about that other, other 2/3 rule? The one for the ballot, that requires a 2/3 vote of the people for increases in revenue.
It's a real pain too. In fact, that rule caused the defeat of two measures that were supported by over 60% of the electorate. These were two parcel taxes that would have allowed the school districts to ave the jobs of teachers. Take Measure E in Redwood City for example:
In the midst of a deep economic recession, voters rejected Tuesday a parcel tax measure that would have helped the Redwood City School District weather cuts in state funding.
With all precincts reporting, Measure E had 62.1 percent of voters in favor of the tax compared to 37.9 percent opposed, short of the two-thirds approval it needed to pass, according to returns from Tuesday's election. (SJ Merc 6/2/09)
You're talking about 62.1% of the population wanting to do something, but some out-dated, ridiculous law blocks them from taxing themselves. The same thing happened in Pleasanton, where over 61% approved the parcel tax. At some point, the voters of California need to at least give themselves enough credit to decide something with a simple majority.
How are we to govern under these rules? It simply isn't possible for the people of California to constantly be fighting battles at these ridiculous thresholds. Would any sort of business operate like this? These are local taxes for crying out loud, yet the state constitution is once again blocking the will of the people. Not for some greater purpose, not for civil rights (looking at you, Prop 8), but simply because some organization thought they could screw up the state a little further.
Not only is the initiative system broken beyond repair, the entire constitution has got to go. It's time to Repair California.
A couple weeks ago, the BART board made a terrible decision by approving the wasteful overhead Oakland Airport Connector (OAC). As dto510 wrote, quoting Director Radulovich, they mortgaged the system for “blingfrastructure.” But the OAC is still not a done deal because several sources of funding need to fall into place for the project to be fully funded.
The next stop for the OAC is the Oakland Port Commission Aviation Committee meeting this Monday, June 1st. The committee will vote on taking the first step on funding the OAC to the tune of $44 million. In the grand scheme of this half billion dollar project, $44 million might not sound like that much, but let’s look at this amount in context.
When the OAC project was first proposed, it was touted as a $130 million project. I couldn’t find out how much BART had hoped the Port would commit at the time (if anything), but it was clearly less than $44 million. Colleagues who have been involved in this process longer than I have told me that as the price tag of the OAC rose, BART kept going back to the Port, asking them for more and more money. The Port Director kept saying yes, but the Commission never actually voted on the $44 million, and I guess BART just assumed they’d come through in the end.
The Port Commission should emphatically vote no on this funding. A lot has changed in the past few years. Traffic is down both at the airport and at the port, which means that the Port is in a much worse financial position today. To pay this $44 million to BART, the Port will have to borrow the money, and with interest, the total cost to the Port will be $70 million. Ultimately, this $70 million will come from the $4.50 per passenger fee that they currently charge to airport travelers.
San Francisco's Presidio will host a tribute to fallen soldiers, Monday, with a parade beginning 10:30 a.m. at the Main Parade Ground, Sheridan Ave. and Montgomery St., followed by an 11 a.m. program with special tributes to Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and to the Buffalo Soldiers. That night, I'll join Sen. Mark DeSaulnier at the vigil at the Lafayette Crosses.
(Becks has been watching BART like a hawk in her posts here and at Living in the O. I had a chance to meet her the other day, and boy, she knows her transportation issues. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Yesterday, the Airport Area Business Association (AABA) sent an email to its membership asking them to write to the BART Board in support of the Oakland Airport Connector and to speak at tomorrow's meeting. My first thought was that this is incredibly short-sighted (or naive) of them because the OAC is going to do nothing for businesses surrounding the airport, since there are no intermediary stops. A free rapid bus, in comparison, would do a lot for the area businesses by making transit cheaper and by adding an intermediary stop.
But once I stopped banging my head against the wall trying to figure out what reasoning AABA could possibly have for supporting the OAC, I quickly found my answer by reading some of the contents of the email: (EDIT by Brian for space, see the flip)
Next Thursday, transit advocates have what will probably be our best chance to change the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) from an incredibly wasteful rail connection with $6 fares into a much cheaper rapid bus connection that could potentially be free for riders. At the last meeting, 11 of us spoke out against the current OAC project and in favor of a bus solution, and we made a huge difference, with the BART Board nearly unanimously agreeing to postpone the vote so more studies could be done on a rapid bus option. Imagine what a difference 50 or 100 of us could make next week.
Please join us at the BART Board meeting to reclaim transit funding for BART, AC Transit, and other Bay Area transit agencies and to secure a project that make sense for the region:
What: BART Board Meeting on the Oakland Airport Connector
When: Thursday, May 14th @ 9am (TransForm recommends showing up by 8:30 if you’d like to get a seat in the Board room; if not, there is an overflow room.)
Where: Kaiser Center – Third Floor, 344 20th Street in Oakland
If you cannot make it to the meeting, but want to tell the BART directors how you feel, please send an email via TransForm’s action page. You can find a pre-written message there, but I encourage you to take the time to personalize the email, as non-form letters are always more effective.
OK, now that you’re on board to take action, onto the fun stuff. BART has put transit advocates in a similar situation to the one we just had in Oakland, when redevelopment staff refused to look into alternatives for the surface parking lot so advocates (well, mostly me and dto510) had to do research into displaying public art. Though the BART Board directed staff to look into a bus rapid transit (BRT) alternative, we weren’t convinced they would so TransForm went ahead and did the research themselves and produced a phenomenal report in two weeks about a bus alternative that they’re calling RapidBART. Pictured below is what RapidBART would look like, exiting the Coliseum BART station.
You might be forgiven for thinking that, between the passage of Proposition 1A last November (the good Prop 1A, authorizing $10 billion in bonds to build high speed rail from SF to LA) and President Barack Obama's strong leadership for HSR, including securing billions to start funding projects, that all is well with California's high speed rail project.
Unfortunately, that's not the case. A group of well-organized and wealthy people along the Peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose have been increasingly successful in throwing up major roadblocks to the system's planning process. What began as a classic "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY) opposition to the high speed trains has now grown with the city of Palo Alto reversing its previous position of support for the project. As we've explained at the California High Speed Rail Blog the Palo Alto City Council is making dishonest and inappropriate claims about the HSR project in an effort to undermine and compromise its effectiveness.
The issue involves how the existing Caltrain corridor will be upgraded to handle high speed trains. Currently trains cross streets "at-grade" - a very dangerous situation that leads to frequent and often deadly accidents. High speed trains cannot use at-grade crossings - the trains have to go over or under the cross streets. The California High Speed Rail Authority proposed the most affordable and effective solution - "above-grade", i.e. an overpass.
This led to breathless and frankly ridiculous whining from some Peninsula residents who lived near the rail corridor. Despite an above-grade solution being safer than the existing rail solution, some claimed that it would make their communities "ugly" - a few even took to labeling it a "Berlin Wall" (which is odd because the CHSRA wasn't planning to include barbed wire or gun towers). There's already enough right-of-way along most of the corridor and very few houses would have to be taken to build this.
As yesterday's SF Chronicle explained, several Peninsula cities are now demanding a tunnel be built instead of an above-grade solution. The problem is that a tunnel could cost around $5 billion, money that the state and federal governments don't have.
Even though above-grade HSR can be implemented effectively, the absurd demand for a tunnel has merely grown, and many now advocate a "tunnel or nothing" approach. They convinced the city of Palo Alto to demand that the CHSRA study cutting the HSR trains off at San Jose and forcing passengers to transfer to Caltrain to finish the trip to SF (which is unworkable and will destroy ridership) or move the trains to the median of Highway 101 (which is poor urban planning and would do nothing to help improve Caltrain).
Peninsula NIMBYs realize that few Californians are going to take them seriously. After all, why should we let a key piece of 21st century infrastructure be held hostage to a handful of wealthy homeowners who refuse to admit that the 20th century is over? So instead of attacking the project, they are trying to attack the people who are building it. Their hope is that if people will question the credibility of the CHSRA, then they will either question the credibility of the HSR project itself and/or support state legislative "solutions" that will undermine or destroy the project.
Unfortunately it seems they may have been able to dupe Senator Joe Simitian into helping them accomplish their anti-HSR goals:
Simitian said the community's message was "loud and clear." The subcommittee agreed to hold off on authorizing the funds and urged rail-authority officials to expand their outreach efforts.
The senators heard from about 30 concerned Peninsula residents who made a morning trek to Sacramento to lobby for more oversight and transparency.
"What we really asked for is for them to change the structure of who is running this," Palo Alto Vice Mayor Jack Morton, one of the speakers, said.
"It's quite clear that the high-speed rail staff is insensitive to the community and has no ability to be responsible for the funds," he said.
Simitian said the nature of the rail authority has changed over the past few months from a small study group advocating a high-speed rail line to an organization actually building the line. Now is the time to consider changes that would bring more oversight and more community outreach to the process, he said.
As far as I can tell, Palo Alto vice mayor Jack Morton misled, and may have openly lied to, the Senate subcommittee here. There's more at the HSR blog on this, but the short answer is that the CHSRA has been holding a series of public meetings over the last few years. Palo Alto residents have been claiming that the routing of HSR trains along the Caltrain line was a "surprise" - which is not a credible argument since that routing was in the Prop 1A wording and was prominently reported on by local media. Peninsula NIMBYs are also trying to claim that CHSRA officials have made contradictory statements, but as far as I can tell, they're just upset that the CHSRA will not guarantee them a tunnel.
Considering that the CHSRA has never had stable funding, and even now cannot access the $10 billion Prop 1A bonds owing to the state's financial crisis, demanding the agency reform before backing further HSR planning is putting the cart before the horse no matter the context. But it's even worse that Sen. Simitian is apparently letting a small group of vocal HSR opponents drive the process. He needs to stand up to them, and stand up for high speed rail, and insist that the project be built properly yet affordably - and that Palo Alto along with the rest of the Peninsula understand that the 20th century is over, our dependence on cars is over, and high speed rail WILL be built along the Caltrain corridor.
Last week I attended the BART Board meeting to weigh in on their brilliant plan to fully finance the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) through borrowing up to $150 million. The meeting was frustrating at times (and incredibly long), but in the end, Director Bob Franklin negotiated a compromise to bring the loan resolution back in two weeks, after they could get further information from staff. Though this win is temporary, it’s incredibly important because it gives advocates two more weeks to share our ideas with BART directors and to organize our community to call for a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) alternative.
Most of the more than two hour discussion on the OAC consisted of BART directors, staff, union members, and business interests talking about how great this project was and patting themselves on the back for finally getting the funding in place for this project that has been in the works for two decades. They also repeatedly called this a “legacy project”, just what Obama was thinking of when creating the stimulus bill.
But I’m not going to relive those moments here – they were just too maddening. Instead, I wanted to share the real highlights of the meeting, the speeches that kept me from exploding and rekindled my hope for sensible transit.
Though transit advocates, including me, only learned about this hearing two days ahead of time, eleven of us spoke out against the OAC and in favor of a cheaper alternative, like BRT. Every one of the advocates was compelling, but Stuart Cohen, Executive Director of TransForm, was especially convincing. Cohen presented the possibility of how BART could use existing committed funds to build a BRT airport connector and could use some of these funds for operating costs down the road. Based on his calculations, this would allow the BRT connector to be free, while the current OAC would cost $6 each way!
My favorite part of the meeting came after the public speakers weighed in, when Director Tom Radulovich of San Francisco, my new transit hero, spoke up. He was incredible! He asked all of the important questions and echoed the concerns of transit advocates.
I had a fun, lighthearted post planned for today, but thanks to BART, that will have to wait another day. Because shockingly, BART has gone and pissed me off once again. You might remember my post in February about the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC). If not, I’ll refresh your memory. The OAC is an absurdly expensive project that was basically dead due to lack of funding, but was revived when stimulus funds became available. Even though more than 100 people spoke out against applying $70 million of stimulus funds to the OAC, the MTC voted nearly unanimously (except Tom Bates) to fund the OAC.
Transit advocates were understandably upset by this vote, since Bay Area transit agencies desperately need those funds. But we held out some hope that this terrible project still might die and be revived into a cheaper and more useful Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. Why? Because even with the $70 million, BART was still about $100 million short in financing the project, and the MTC made it very clear that they needed to secure the rest of the funding by this June to be eligible for stimulus funds.
Yesterday, I found out what their financing plan is. No, they haven’t found some secret pot of federal or state money. No, they haven’t decided to nix Bart to San Jose and use the savings on the OAC. Their brilliant plan is to take out a loan of up to $150 million.
Yes, you read that right. While transit agencies across the nation, including BART, are raising fares and cutting service, BART is planning to take out a large loan to fund a project that could be completed for the third of the price if converted to BRT. BART staff is of course claiming that ridership on the OAC will be high enough to cover all debt service, but it’s hard for me to believe that, since historically BART’s ridership projections have been wildly high.
The Chronicle featured a really inspiring story yesterday about Mayor Tom Bates of Berkeley. Much like I did last year, he decided to give his car up entirely and to walk and bus around town instead:
The 71-year-old mayor is trading in his 2001 Volvo for an AC Transit pass and a sturdy pair of walking shoes.
“I’m trying to reduce my carbon footprint to the absolute minimum,” he said. “I figure, if I really want to go someplace I can just rent a car.”
Bates’ long farewell to the Volvo began about a year ago, when he started walking to work as a way to lose weight and stay in shape. The 18-minute trek from his home in South Berkeley to City Hall was so invigorating he started walking everywhere he could - to Berkeley Bowl, the BART station, city council meetings.
This is a pretty awesome example being set by a mayor. Now I could take this opportunity to rag on Mayor Dellums for being the least green mayor in the Bay Area, since the Chronicle mentioned he’s chauffeured around in a town car that gets 19 miles per gallon, but fortunately, there’s more to commend Bates for.
As Robert mentioned in his post this morning, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) will be voting this Wednesday on how to use federal stimulus funds. While they’ve scrapped one of their initial wasteful proposals, the Transbay Terminal train box, they are still proposing to use $70 million for the Oakland Airport Connector. V Smoothe summarized the proposed project and its history last week at OakBook:
BART’s Oakland Airport Connector is a proposed 3.2-mile elevated tramway that would ferry passengers from the Coliseum BART station to the Oakland Airport. Since the agency did not have enough funding to finance the project in full, they began seeking private partners to help build the rail line. All three interested parties dropped out of the project last year, citing concerns about profitability. At the time, BART officials said they would drop plans for the elevated train and begin exploring more affordable ways of providing a reliable connection between the station and the airport, such as dedicated bus lanes.
But then of course Congress passed the stimulus package, and MTC staff proposed to use $70 million of the funds to revive the Oakland Airport Connector project.
Now, I can understand why the Oakland Airport Connector is such a tempting project. I’m going to be taking BART to the airport this Friday evening, and a quicker and more reliable connection would save me a lot of time. The problem with the project as currently proposed is that it’s incredibly expensive, and like so many of BART’s projects, relies on ridership statistics that are entirely unrealistic. (They’re predicting that more people would use this connection than take BART to SFO!)
One of my lingering concerns about the Obama Administration has been that they might be tempted to claim victory with the $8 billion in HSR funding added to the stimulus and not follow up on that money, which as we know merely pays for some initial costs. But Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood made clear last week that in fact, the $8 billion in HSR stimulus really is intended as a signal to America that Obama is truly serious about building HSR:
LaHood said that for Obama building high-speed rail networks is, "if not his No. 1 priority, certainly at the top of his list. What the president is saying with the $8 billion is this is the start to help begin high-speed rail projects." He added that the administration "is committed to finding the dollars to not only get them started but to finishing them in at least five parts of the country," although he declined to elaborate on where these projects might ultimately be built.
And don't worry about the right-wing freakout over the Vegas HSR project - California is in better position than any other HSR project in America to use that stimulus funding. We can begin construction in late 2010 or early 2011; no other project is anywhere close to that point.
This couldn't be better news for us in California, where we have long known that at least $15 billion in federal aid, spread out over 10 years, will be needed to build the SF-LA line. Unfortunately the news is tempered by the fact that the Obama Administration's support for HSR did not extend to mass transit as a whole. Here in California the state has decided to zero out the State Transit Assistance account, costing local agencies over $500 million in funding. The federal stimulus isn't nearly enough to make up the difference. And as the San Jose Mercury News reports, that's setting up a situation where HSR may be pit against local transit agencies:
The MTC meeting Wednesday in Oakland could turn contentious, as the current plan calls for allocating $75 million to help build the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco, which would serve as the final stopping point for a high-speed rail line and Caltrain (UPDATE: the MTC now plans to seek train box funds from the $8 billion HSR stimulus, not the general transit stimulus funds - see Transbay Blog for more info) and $70 million to build a BART spur to Oakland International Airport. Those two projects alone would take 43 percent of the $340 million headed to the area in stimulus funds for local transit.
Some want money for those new two projects scrapped or reduced - and redirected to cover the cost of paying for day-to-day transit needs.
But MTC officials counter that building the Transbay Terminal now will save millions of dollars in later costs, and combined with the $8 billion in stimulus funds set aside for high-speed rail could accelerate that program.
I support using that money for the Transbay Terminal, although I'm less certain about whether BART to OAK is all that necessary; the AirBART buses work pretty well (I used them on numerous occasions when I was an undergrad at UC Berkeley, although that was 10 years ago).
But I really hate it when HSR pitted against other forms of transit. I have said it before and I will say it again - HSR and other mass transit need each other to be successful. It should not and must not be an either/or choice. I don't blame the MTC for being stuck in this position - that blame lies in Sacramento and Washington DC. But we transit advocates need to not fall out along modal lines.
I'd like to propose a solution, one that I don't even know is possible under state law but makes a ton of sense to me. The nine-county SF Bay Area region should implement its own gas tax, which will solely be used to fund public transit. I haven't penciled out the numbers so I don't know exactly what the tax amount should be, but it should be indexed to the price of gas, and not a fixed cent number.
This money would initially be used to backfill the loss of STA funds, and allow the federal stimulus money to go to new transit infrastructure such as Transbay Terminal or BART to OAK. Ultimately the STA funds must be restored by a statewide gas tax increase, but it is much more politically possible to implement a gas tax in the Bay Area first than to try and get the Central Valley and the Southern California exurbs to buy into this (they can be brought on board later, once the 2/3 rule is eliminated).
It's very difficult for folks living in the nine counties to evade the tax, with the possible exception of Gilroy residents who might drive to Hollister to fill up. Most folks will simply pay the increase rather than drive far out of their way to get a cheaper gallon of gas.
I'm not sure if this option has been explored by the MTC and the member counties, but it ought to be. It's a sensible solution that would not only help spare transit agencies from "Armageddon" but would itself be a long overdue policy shift that would give a real boost to transit efforts in the SF Bay Area.
Still vivid in my memory is the night in March 1991 when I stayed up to watch the KTLA News at Ten for their breaking news, which turned out to be a shocking video of the LAPD beating the hell out of a guy they'd pulled over - Rodney King. It came against the background of rampant police brutality under the leadership of Darryl Gates, and even as I watched the video I knew that the public reaction would be furious.
At least Rodney King survived the attack. Oscar Grant did not. When he was shot and killed by a BART police officer on New Year's Day it revealed an ongoing lack of accountability from the BART police toward the public they serve. As the San Francisco Bay Guardian noted BART police have been involved in two other shooting deaths that appeared unjustified in recent years.
If that effort is going to be successful, the public needs to mobilize behind the creation of a civilian oversight board - that has real teeth - for the BART police.
Oscar Grant deserves justice, and the officer who shot him needs to be held accountable. We also need to work to ensure that this horrible event never happens again on the BART system. A civilian oversight board is a necessary step in that direction. Properly implemented, it can mandate changes in BART police methods, and provide the public transparency and accountability in police actions. The board can help get to the bottom of controversies and rebuild trust that is clearly lacking.
The civilian oversight board won't solve the problems alone. But it is a necessary part of the long-term solution.
The email we sent out today is reproduced over the flip.
Yesterday 150 former Obama campaign volunteers and staff, and other organizers from around the Bay met in San Francisco to reflect on the successes of the campaign and to strategize about how to support community organizing in the Bay Area and across California. Participants came from San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, Marin, Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County, Tri-Valley, Fremont, Palo Alto and Santa Clara. Most had worked for the Obama campaign, including traveling to other states and organizing hugely successful phonebanks.
We spent the afternoon working on our vision of community organizing, and thinking about the incredible potential of this group working together on a local, regional and statewide level.
