Brian Stokle's map envisions how the Bay Area region could possibly be connected by future transit projects -- some planned, some only envisioned -- including high-speed rail, BART extensions, and BRT lines. Image via The Atlantic Cities

Imagine the freedom of being able to hop on a nearby train or bus to reach virtually any place in the Bay Area (and beyond) on an integrated network of reliable transit.

That’s the vision cartographer Brian Stokle sought to lay out in a map featured in the latest issue of SPUR‘s monthly magazine, The Urbanist. In a recent article in The Atlantic Cities, Urbanist editor Allison Arieff says that the map, along with another map of existing regional transit that Stokle created, “have generated a lot of conversation (and some controversy) — which is exactly what they were meant to do”:

The majority of the projects, routes, and modes shown in Stokle’s proposed “Future” map (or some might argue, “Utopian”) reflect current Bay Area planning. However in some cases, the mode or route has been changed. In other instances, some new routes have been suggested. For example, BART to Livermore and Dumbarton Rail are two projects that are not included in this map. Instead, access to Livermore from BART is provided by bus rapid transit, and the Dumbarton corridor is served by rapid bus service. New projects that are not currently part of planning, or are in their early phases include projects like the Oakland Emeryville streetcar down Broadway, Capitol Corridor crossing at Vallejo, and 101 Rapid in the Peninsula.

Some ideas are old, some more novel. In San Francisco, the controversial Central Subway (now under construction) is shown extending all the way to Lombard and Van Ness to meet the coming BRT line, which is also extended to connect the Transbay Terminal to Marin County via the Golden Gate Bridge (where a BART line was fought off in the 60′s).

What would it take to bring a comprehensive vision like this into reality, and which projects could be feasibly built? Regional planners are currently figuring that out as they develop the Bay Area’s 25-year Sustainable Communities Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan. Next month, staff from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area’s transportation financing agency, will present a list of the transit projects they determine to be the most beneficial and cost-effective to build in the coming years. Stay tuned to Streetsblog for more on that.

In the meantime, check out Stokle’s map of the existing regional transit network — one of SPUR’s ideas for saving transit – after the break.

Stokle's regional map of existing transit systems. Image via The Atlantic Cities

For some more wonky urban planning treats, head over to Stokle’s blog Urban Life Signs to check out his other creations, like illustrations of Valencia Street’s various incarnations over the past 129 years.

Photo: Myleen Hollero/Orange Photography

As Streetsblog Capitol Hill has been reporting, H.R. 7, the federal transportation bill being pushed by House Republicans, would be disastrous for transit riders and crippling for programs that fund pedestrian and bicycle safety.

In the Bay Area, the damage would be especially severe: “California receives a huge share of the federal funding for public transportation because of our extensive systems, and the House bill could end up zeroing out federal support for transit,” said Stuart Cohen, executive director of TransForm, a Bay Area transit advocacy group that lobbies at the state and federal level. Instead, transit “would have to battle in the ever-shrinking general fund.”

Transportation for America spokesperson David Goldberg told the San Francisco Examiner today that about $638 million annually could be withheld to Bay Area transit agencies, which “could ultimately lead to service cuts, fare increases and deferred maintenance on vehicles.”

Yesterday, Bay Area mayors Ed Lee of San Francisco, Jean Quan of Oakland, and Chuck Reed of San Jose expressed their opposition to the bill in an op-ed in the Examiner, calling on Congress to protect their cities’ transportation funding:

While roads and bridges are a critical component of California’s infrastructure, diverting vital funding for sustainable modes of travel is unwise. If this wrongheaded approach moves forward in the House, the nation’s transportation network will take a giant step backward to a “roads only” policy for dedicated funding…

Cities throughout California are dependent on a robust multimodal, accessible transportation system. Maintaining mobility in our communities is fundamental to our overall economic vitality, getting people to their workplaces, daily appointments and to downtowns for shopping.

We’ve seen that cities, particularly those in California, continue to drive our nation’s economic resurgence. To choke off our most important resource for transportation infrastructure would be devastating to our recovery. We mustn’t stay silent as the House considers this legislation.

“At a time when Muni needs over $7 billion just to mantain a state of good repair over the next generation, it could see devastating cuts — hundreds of millions over the next five years — to funding that now goes to maintain their system,” said Cohen.

“Improving mobility in our transit-first city is fundamental to improving our Muni system, our bike networks, pedestrian access and safety, taxi service, and car and ridesharing  resources,” said SFMTA Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin. “Both regionally and nationally, cities have depended on a strong multi-modal, accessible transportation system to further our economic resurgence. If members of the House turned their back on us now, it would slow any progress indefinitely.”

Cohen said the bill could also undermine the region’s “ability to provide great innovative models and pilot projects that can lead us to a new, more sustainable transportation system.”

“Some of the Bay Area’s most innovative programs are currently funded by federal sources,” said Cohen, including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transportation Climate Action Campaign, which will fund projects like regional bike share.

Improvements for safer bicycling and walking would also lose all dedicated federal funding under the bill, which has been expressly opposed by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and Walk San Francisco. SFBC Deputy Director Kit Hodge told the Examiner that the organization is “appalled” by the proposal.

Cohen said programs like Safe Routes to Schools could still hunt for funding from local sources, “but we’ve been depending on federal funds for many infrastructure improvements near schools.”

H.R. 7 was recently split into three separate bills, and the latest reports indicate the House may not vote on the transportation component until after the President’s Day recess — a sign of weakness but far from a guarantee that the bill will fail. Advocates are calling on opponents to urge their congressional representatives to defend bicycle, pedestrian, and transit funding in favor of a better bill.

“Even though the House bill is not likely to pass as currently proposed, we fear that this is really the House Republicans drawing a new marker in the sand,” said Cohen. “As the Highway Trust Fund and the general fund continue to deteriorate, some of these proposals that now seem far-fetched could receive real consideration. We must take these threats seriously and have everyone join Transportation for America’s coordinated campaign for a bill that promotes efficiency, equity and sustainable jobs.”

Images: MTC

For more than 15 years, bicycle advocates in San Francisco and the East Bay have pushed for a west span path to connect bike commuters to the east span path expected to open between Oakland to Yerba Buena Island by 2014.

“We’re very encouraged that Caltrans and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) have come up with a design that works for the west span and the touchdown on either end,” said Dave Campbell, the program director for the East Bay Bicycle Coalition.

“This new study not only affirms the feasibility and benefits of the pathway, it also puts this important project in line for funding,” said San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Executive Director Leah Shahum. “Now, the city and the region are showing their commitment to connect not only the East Bay and San Francisco, but also San Francisco’s own neighborhoods, which is critical as Treasure Island is developed. This is an exciting step for a much-needed bridge between communities.”

The project would still take up to ten years to plan and construct once the estimated $500 to $550 million in funding is secured, said John Goodwin, spokesperson for the MTC, which manages regional transportation funding. Last night’s presentation of the project study report, funded by toll revenue, was just one step in developing the project initiation document, expected to be completed next summer, which will allow agencies to begin the funding search. After that, roughly five years of planning and five years of construction lie ahead.

The study report “shows that the project is possible, but not that it’s affordable,” said Goodwin.

While the cost has risen about $200 million from its original 2001 estimate, potential transbay bike commuter Tina Crawford pointed out to KTVU today that “we spend a lot more on transportation options for cars so I think it’s about time we offer this alternative and have a showcase for bike commuting in the Bay Area.”

Despite the lengthy project timeline, advocates praised MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger for helping to push reluctant engineers and staff to take on the daunting design and funding challenges.

Engineers from Caltrans and the Bay Area Toll Authority last night presented a number of possible ways [PDF] to connect the path to downtown San Francisco and the bridge’s east span across Yerba Buena Island. The impact of the additional weight would also have to be mitigated, possibly by counter-weights and shortening the suspension cables, they said.

In downtown San Francisco, the west end of the path would have to navigate around the existing off-ramp as well as buildings and other planned developments, but engineers presented several possible configurations. The ramp could land bike riders and pedestrians in parks planned for the areas near the highway offramp, or on the short and narrow Lansing Street. One proposal would even connect to the roof of the planned Transbay Terminal, where stairs and elevators would provide the only way down. In any case, ADA requirements would mean the path would have to avoid including steep slopes and narrow passages.

On Yerba Buena, planners must also determine the best way to connect the east and west spans of the bridges by navigating the island’s terrain. Nine alternatives had already been considered and put aside, including a path suspended through the bridge tunnel above motor traffic, due to reasons including the lack of right-of-way, poor user experience, and interference with Coast Guard operations.

Advocates and officials said they plan to begin searching for funding after the project initiation document is completed and a preferred alternative is chosen next summer.

One proposal for a downtown off-ramp.

Another proposal includes two variations that would land the ramp adjacent to a planned dog park.

One proposal for the connection on Yerba Buena Island.

The project schedule.

Supervisor Scott Wiener. Photo: Dennis Hearne Photography

For the last 16 years, Jon Rubin has served as the Mayor’s appointee on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area’s regional transportation planning and funding body, originally appointed by Frank Jordan in 1995. Last week, Rubin was forced to resign and turn over the seat to Supervisor Scott Wiener, whose four-year term begins May 1.

While it’s true the Mayor was looking to strike a compromise because the Board of Supervisors was deadlocked over its appointment between Wiener and Supervisor David Campos, as reported by the Chronicle, sources told Streetsblog that a behind-the-scenes effort has been underway for some time to get Rubin replaced. Some advocates and City Hall insiders who didn’t want to be identified said they were disappointed with Rubin’s record on the commission, and felt he hasn’t been aggressive enough on San Francisco’s behalf.

Rubin, the president and CEO of the Peninsula Coalition, did not respond to requests from Streetsblog for an interview.

In a letter [pdf] to the MTC dated April 13, Mayor Ed Lee said he was appointing Wiener for “his special familiarity with the problems and issues in the field of transportation.” Wiener currently sits on the plans and programs committee of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority Board, and is a regular Muni rider. As we’ve written, he holds great promise on sustainable transportation issues, and hired transit advocate Gillian Gillett as one of his staffers.

Wiener told Streetsblog that he wants to make sure San Francisco “is getting the funding and priority we deserve for transit projects that don’t just benefit the city, but the entire region, whether it’s Transbay, or Caltrain, which we depend on.”

Wiener said funding for Muni will also be a priority. He said he was looking forward to working with Campos “to strengthen San Francisco’s voice on the MTC, not just for our own funding needs, but as such a transit hub in the region, and making sure we’re a full and active participant.”

The District 8 supervisor has been critical of an effort to give Alameda and Santa Clara counties more representation on the commission. A bill currently pending in the Assembly, AB 57, would give each of those counties one more seat, potentially diminishing San Francisco’s influence, along with the seven other Bay Area counties.

Wiener sponsored a resolution [pdf] passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors earlier this year opposing the legislation, and pointing out that a similar effort was defeated in 2004.

“San Francisco acknowledges that San Jose and Oakland are critical hubs in the Bay Area economic web, as both of these cities have international airports and combined are home to more than 50 percent of all transit commuters in the Bay Area,” the resolution stated. “This argument ignores the fact that San Francisco is the destination for upwards of 500,000 commuters on weekdays, nearly half of the population of San Jose and nearly the population of Oakland; and by ignoring this fact, this expansion proposal denies San Francisco equal representation via an opportunity to also gain a seat on the MTC.”

Campos will serve as the Board of Supervisors representative on the MTC replacing former Supervisor Chris Daly. His nomination is expected to sail through the Rules Committee next week, and then go to the full board for approval the following week in time for the next MTC meeting April 27.

Advocates were very pleased with both appointments.

“We applaud the Mayor’s appointments to key local and regional transportation leadership positions this week,” says Leah Shahum, the executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. “First, with his appointment of Joél Ramos to the SF Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors and now with the support of both Supervisors Scott Wiener and David Campos for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Mayor Lee is setting San Francisco up to become an even better place to ride a bicycle, walk, and take public transit. This is positive news for San Franciscans who want more great options to move around the city and the Bay Area.”

Image: OneBayArea

Local governments in the Bay Area have begun a coordinated regional effort to shift toward more sustainable urban planning mandated by the state’s landmark anti-sprawl bill, SB 375, which set ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and called for better integration of land use and transportation planning.

Last week, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) released its Initial Vision Scenario, which lays out preliminary strategies to accommodate population growth in the region over the next 25 years while achieving a 15 percent GHG reduction.

“The Initial Vision Scenario is a tool to advance dialogue among the Bay Area’s regional agencies,” said Ezra Rapport, executive director of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). “Through this collaborative planning effort to strengthen the character and qualities of our neighborhoods and communities, we can tackle the region’s population growth with a mix of housing, while preserving open spaces, protecting our economy, and getting residents where they need to go.”

The overview marks the first stepping stone in developing a Sustainable Communities Strategy, also known as Plan Bay Area, aimed at mitigating the impacts of a potential regional increase of 2 million residents. By directing new housing and job development into walkable, transit-accessible areas, the Initial Vision Scenario projects 97 percent of development could be absorbed within the current urban footprint but would still fall 3 percent short of the mandated 15 percent target.

“This initial scenario is a good start, but we also need to do more to reach our goals,” said Stuart Cohen, executive director of TransForm, the transit and smart-growth advocacy group. The plan is expected to advance into a more detailed strategic scenario before an MTC vote in July, and advocates are pressing officials to produce the most effective plan possible.

“We want to see the most successful strategies replicated at a regional scale. Critically, we need to do much more with innovate demand management and pricing incentives to help reach the targets,” said Cohen. “The lowest-hanging fruit is going to be what we’ve been neglecting – which is how we actually reduce demand on our transportation system and make it much easier to avoid trips or make shorter trips.”

A number of promising programs have already been developed at a local level that could “provide a bigger bang for the buck than just adding supply,” he said.

For one, the SFMTA’s Transit Effectiveness Project is “a perfect example of something that can reduce operating costs per mile while expanding ridership,” noted Cohen. He also praised city initiatives taken in downtown Berkeley to expand access to transit passes and implement demand-based parking pricing by working with employers.

“Without having to invest in lots of infrastructure, we can make much better use of what we already have, bringing more people onto transit and reducing costs for Bay Area residents,” he said.

Stephanie Reyes, policy director at the Greenbelt Alliance, says that ”cities have really stepped up to the plate” despite the current economic realities. “We’re trying to accomplish a lot as a region,” she said. ”It will be absolutely essential that we invest our limited regional transportation dollars in ways that will help us achieve our goals.”

As the plan develops, it will aim to take into account economic and market factors that the Initial Vision Scenario does not. “We do need to be realistic with our limited resources and think about what constraints we have,” said Reyes. “We need to redirect our resources to places that are growing sustainably.”

The benefits of expanding the regional bicycle network should not be underestimated, noted Cohen. Although the MTC previously estimated it would only yield a 20 percent increase in ridership, “What we’re seeing in places like Portland is that as soon as you get to a point of having a network that people are comfortable on, you start to get exponential increases,” he said.

Cohen said the Initial Vision Scenario falls short of accurately evaluating the benefits of smaller-scale pedestrian and bicycle improvements. “By getting the modeling [of those improvements] right, not only are we more likely to predict that we will achieve the targets, but it will shift investments in a way that do reach those targets.”

In particular, he said improved services that benefit low-income communities, such as Safe Routes to School, should be a top priority. “There is a host of programs that can achieve health, equity and environmental outcomes, and we’re going to be pressing for those.”

Flickr photo: Lucius Kwok

Communities from San Francisco to San Jose may be saved from much of the expected crippling Caltrain service cuts. A new Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) plan being developed could make up much of the agency’s budget deficit for the next two years, said MTC Public Information Officer John Goodwin.

A large chunk of the coming fiscal year’s $30 million budget deficit could be balanced using short-term funding sources like fare and parking fee increases, employee contributions, diverted capital funds, and collected money owed by other transit agencies, MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger told members at Wednesday’s Planning and Allocations Committee meeting. That could allow Caltrain to lessen the impacts of its expected budget cuts which would slash all but rush-hour train service and shut down up to seven stations.

“It’s late in the game, but the game isn’t over,” said Goodwin. Riders will still likely see “a reduction of service of some sort, but much less draconian than the proposal that has been the subject of public hearings in recent weeks,” he said. Approval of heavy cuts by the Caltrain Board next month seemed imminent without an alternative plan, but just what service would be retained by the new proposals is yet to be determined.

New hope for staving off the funding crisis means the Caltrain Board of Directors may postpone their vote until May. Goodwin said service reductions would still help make up about $10 million in the plan along with fare and parking fee increases as well as efficiency savings from an expiring contract with Amtrak. Capital funds reserved for system projects, including those for electrification and $5.5 million for the Dumbarton Rail project, are also being eyed for operational savings.

A fix for this fiscal year would allow time for the MTC, SFMTA, Valley Transit Authority (VTA), and SamTrans to broker a two-year plan to pursue long-term funding sources to fix the agency’s structurally unstable budget. Payments made to SamTrans on loans to the VTA and SFMTA, amounting to $8.9 million according to the Examiner, could be a part of that.

The agencies would also have time to pursue more permanent measures urged by riders, city officials, and other Bay Area organizations such as a regional gas tax, which could be seen on the November 2012 ballot.

Colin Miller of Urban Habitat holds up gravestones in memory of bus lines that have been cut. Photo: Reginald James

Editor’s note: This story is being re-published from Race, Poverty and the Environment, a magazine produced by the social and environmental justice non-profit, Urban Habitat.

Fifty-five years to the month after the start of the Montgomery bus boycott, people of color can sit wherever they want on the bus—when and if one arrives. Bus operators all over the country are slashing routes in response to deepening deficits. This loss of service denies people who depend on transit their civil rights in deep, daily, grinding, unmistakable ways.

Bus riders in Oakland and throughout western Alameda and Contra Costa Counties have lost nearly 15 percent of their AC Transit routes in 2010. Deeper cuts were forestalled by the drivers’ union, Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 192, which refused to agree to a new contract unless the agency postponed further service reductions for at least three months. Now it looks like those cuts will be back on the table in January, and riders and drivers plan to protest at tomorrow’s AC Transit meeting.

“We are the heart throb of this city,” AC Transit driver Lorenzo Jacobs said, speaking at a May 2010 public hearing against the cuts. “When you start cutting service, you’re cutting opportunities out there for people who are doing whatever they’re doing in their lives. When you cut lines, you’re affecting people’s lives, their everyday lives,” he said.

The service cuts directly impact Oakland youth, who need AC Transit to get to school because the district doesn’t run yellow school buses; they hurt seniors and people with disabilities who can’t drive, and low-income families who can’t afford cars. Lack of mobility cuts off opportunities for work and education, enforces inequality and persistent segregation. African-Americans and Latinos are far less likely than whites to own cars. Nationally, around 62 percent of city bus riders are African American and Latino. Nearly 80 percent of AC Transit riders are people of color.

Bus riders and their allies who take on this 21st century civil rights fight confront institutional obstacles at every turn. In their efforts to protect and expand service, they contend with financing policies and decision-making structures that are stacked against them, and they lack access to the courts to seek redress. And few political leaders champion the needs of transit riders in general and bus riders in particular.

Funding priorities from the federal government on down shortchange bus riders while favoring drivers and rail passengers. Eighty percent of federal transportation funding goes to highways, and only 20 percent goes to transit. Virtually all of the  $500 billion in the Federal Surface Transportation Authorization goes to capital costs versus supporting day-to-day operations of buses.

On a regional level, the San Francisco Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) privileges costly expansions over core urban operations. It consistently slights bus operators in favor of rail services such as CalTrain and BART that have a much higher proportion of white and wealthier riders. While AC Transit was looking at a $56 million deficit, the MTC was working hard to help BART find an additional $70 million to build  the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC) tram project. That $70 million was needed to replace federal stimulus funds BART lost by failing to follow proper civil rights guidelines when they approved the OAC.

The structure of the MTC itself disenfranchises city-dwellers and people of color. The 19-member commission controls transportation planning and funding for nine counties in the Bay Area. Because each county gets two seats at most, residents in large urban counties–like Santa Clara, which includes the 930,000-person city of San Jose–get far less representation than smaller and less diverse counties like Napa, with its 135,000 people.

Protestors at a Save Our Ride rally. Photo: Urban Habitat

Challenging the unfair distribution of transportation resources in court has been much harder since a 2001 Supreme Court decision barred individuals from filing lawsuits over transportation policies that have discriminatory impacts on the basis of race, color or national origin. By taking away the “private right to action,” the Alexander v. Sandoval decision deprived transit activists of a legal tool that has played a key part in civil rights cases.

After more than a year, the movement centered in Montgomery won the legal end to Alabama’s segregation laws. Today’s transportation justice advocates are pushing for civil rights in transit on many levels. Riders and drivers have joined forces to try save bus service in dozens of cities around the country, as they are doing in the East Bay. These efforts should gain fresh energy with the inauguration of the new national leadership of the ATU, which represents bus drivers in many U.S. cities.

A Bay Area coalition of civil rights, faith-based, community and environmental groups is pursuing legal challenges to discriminatory funding. The non-profit law firm Public Advocates filed the administrative complaint on behalf of Urban Habitat, TransForm and Genesis that cost BART the stimulus funds for the OAC. In a follow-up complaint, they have charged MTC with failing to ensure that agencies and programs it funds are respecting civil rights. In addition, Public Advocates has filed a class action suit against MTC’s funding practices, which is pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Undaunted by the hostile climate in the new Congress, the new national coalition called  “Transit Riders for Public Transportation” (TRPT) aims to flip federal transit funding priorities and secure legislation restoring individuals’ right to sue over discriminatory transit policies. TRPT draws together grassroots groups from all over the country who put transportation central to the fight for civil rights, recognizing that low-income communities and communities of color will remain trapped in second-class status until the transportation system serves everyone equally.

Bob Allen is the Transportation Justice Program Director at Urban Habitat. Marcy Rein is a freelance writer and frequent contributor to Race, Poverty & the Environment.

Photo: Myleen Hollero/Orange Photography

You’d think the Tea Party had descended on San Mateo County, what with the piqued rhetoric in the media over San Francisco’s congestion pricing study. I don’t like to invoke Sarah Palin’s jargon, but I keep coming back to her horrible phrase “lamestream media” when I see yet another story that paints San Francisco transportation planners as greedy car-hating vampires and gets the facts on the pricing study so terribly wrong.

Take John Horgan, a columnist for the San Mateo County Times, who calls San Francisco the Boondoggle by the Bay and the Duchy of Dysfunction, while lamenting that the poor “plebians” on the other side of the city’s “moat-like pay gate” should boycott San Francisco businesses and frequent those in San Mateo if the pick-pocket plan ever passes..

Running with a similar trope, Mike Sugarman of CBS 5 calls the proposal a “border war,” while erroneously painting a scenario where he drives across the charging zone line, forgets something back in Daly City and ends up paying $12 for crossing the line four times (in each of the four pricing zones being studied, a daily charge to a driver would be capped at $6). Sugarman then sticks his microphone in the face of a bunch of drivers and asks them if they would pay for something they currently get for free. Hmm, can you kids guess what the answer is going to be?

You have to wade through 2:20 of bad reporting to get to the first two factual items in Sugarman’s piece, when he says San Francisco is only studying congestion pricing and it wouldn’t go into effect before 2015 at the earliest.

Ken Garcia at the San Francisco Examiner takes the crusade on factual reporting even further, misrepresenting almost everything about the congestion pricing study, conflating the various options for congestion zones into one big tax-happy, driver hating city of lunatics. And on a stylistic quibble, I don’t think Garcia could have stuffed any more puns into his day-after Thanksgiving report (see Jon Stewart’s recent bit on media abuse of puns), from trotting turkeys to gravy to squash and communal platters. If the Examiner had editors, they could have trimmed several hundred words worth of fat from that holiday bird and left us merely with specious claims about money grubbing supervisors “taxing” the “privilege” and “pleasure” of driving.

A London-style cordon encompassing the northeast section of the city. Cordon boundaries would be at 18th Street to the south and Guerrero and Laguna Streets to the west. Image: SFCTA.

This recent round of press attention started when the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) held a media breakfast on November 10th to update transportation reporters on the agency’s priorities and projects for the coming year.

As we have written before, according to the models run by the SFCTA, without any action, traffic in San Francisco during rush hours will get significantly worse as the region grows, leading to an increase in traffic related costs. The SFCTA predicts a 20 percent increase in traffic delay in San Francisco by 2030, rising to 30 percent by 2040, or the equivalent of adding 40,000 more vehicles per day in the already busy downtown.

In response to this expected traffic growth, the SFCTA has proposed several pricing options, including a London-style cordon that would use transponder (such as FasTrak) and camera technology to charge drivers crossing certain streets during the peak periods. SFCTA staff would prefer a northeast cordon, where the charge boundary would be at 18th Street on the southern border and Guerrero and Laguna Streets on the western edge.

In the cordon scenario with a morning and evening charge of $3 (with a maximum of $6 daily) the SFCTA predicts raising $80 million net for transit and non-driving mobility options like bicycling and pedestrian improvements, with traffic reductions of up to 12 percent, emissions reductions up to 16 percent and transit speed improvements of up to 20 percent.

The day after the November 10th press briefing, the three other reporters present wrote stories on the SFCTA’s plan to present its board of directors, who are the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, with an update on the progress they have made and to ask permission to continue studying further, including the possibility of a pilot.

Cue the madness.

Though none of the stories misrepresented the facts, the Chronicle story led with a first sentence that said congestion pricing could cost drivers $1,560 a year (writer Rachel Gordon presumably multiplied 260 work days per year times $6 to get that figure). Unfortunately, the article posits the four pricing scenarios being studied, but doesn’t make clear that they would not be simultaneously enacted (which Garcia concludes in his op-ed).

Fueled by members of the San Mateo political class taking opportunistic pot-shots at the study, especially Daly City Councilman David Canepa, the salient number has become that $1,560 driving tax.

“It’s making people crazy thinking this is just a money grab,” said Tilly Chang, SFCTA deputy director for planning. Chang said the SFCTA has met many times with San Mateo county officials and staff, explaining the various scenarios under study and emphasizing the benefits. “We really want to have a more thoughtful and informed conversation so that we’re listening to each other and hear each other. They’re missing the point that this is a shared regional problem.”

In my conversations over the past year with the SFCTA planners doing the study, they made it clear that the most effective pricing zone option for reducing downtown traffic, speeding up Muni and raising significant money for improving city streets is the northeast cordon. They noted that the southern boundary option would not have the desired traffic reduction in downtown because 70 percent of the peak period drivers to the northeast cordon are coming from a San Francisco address to begin with. True, San Mateo drivers don’t pay tolls to drive into downtown San Francisco like Marin and East Bay drivers do, but they represent only a small fraction of traffic in the target pricing neighborhoods.

Perhaps the most disappointing piece of disinformation came from Adrienne Tissier’s op-ed in the Examiner yesterday. Tissier is a San Mateo County Supervisor and is about to become the chair of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the region’s transportation and planning authority. In her op-ed, Tissier plays up the same tax-hungry bogeymen as the columnists, but she also makes the irrational assertion that congestion pricing will increase traffic by encouraging peak-hour commuters to travel at different times.

Um, Ms. Tissier, this is exactly the point of congestion pricing: it reduces peak period traffic and encourages some people to choose a reasonable transit alternative, which according to the SFCTA, includes 80 percent of those currently driving downtown. If this is Tissier’s attitude for San Francisco, I fear for the region, where she will be presiding over the recently announced target of reducing greeenhouse gas emissions 15 percent by 2035. No serious planner believes this can be accomplished without adequate pricing of driving.

“We understand that we’re a culture addicted to our cars,” said the SFCTA’s Chang when asked to explain why this issue has blown up in the press. “We know from any 12-step program, there’s anger, denial and blame and then you get through to acceptance and understanding the issues and the problem and maybe then the acceptance needed to make a change.”

“Doing nothing is just going to relegate us to a region in decline,” she added.

Photo: Jackelyn Ho/Muni Diaries

The BART Board of Directors had a heated discussion today about most things Clipper, from the large number of EZ Rider customers who have yet to transition to the universal smart card, to the ease with which customers can scam Clipper cards on BART and other operators.

Despite a more visible outreach and marketing campaign in the works, there are still 40,000 active EZ Rider accounts and 7,000 daily boardings with the card. Several board members feared a scenario where a flood of last minute Clipper adopters try to beat the deadline, overwhelming stations agents and customer service representatives with the burden of refunding so many EZ Rider accounts.

Adding to the challenge, BART currently has different cut-off dates for using EZ Rider for transit and parking. On December 8th, BART customers will be able to pay for parking with Clipper and on December 15th they will no longer be able to use the EZ Rider card, but there is no cut-off date yet for parking.

“It’s going to create a lot of confusion for passengers. I think there are going to be an enormous amount of questions,” said BART Board Vice President Bob Franklin, who explained that having numerous different deadlines for cutting off EZ Rider usage for transit but no deadline for parking would only increase confusion. Though he said some of the problem could be chalked up to procrastination on the part of customers, he argued BART and MTC could improve the outreach and be clearer with deadlines.

“I’m a big believer in this card, I want to honor our commitment to MTC,” he said. But, he argued, “There is going to be a crunch. That’s my concern, that we can’t deliver by December 15th.”

“I think it hurts the acceptance of the card,” he added.

Board President James Fang was more blunt with his criticism of the process, saying, “The bigger problem is that MTC is trying to dictate to us what we’re supposed to do.” Fang proposed establishing a committee of BART directors such as Franklin and Tom Radulovich to work with staff to improve communication of their concerns with MTC.

Radulovich and numerous other members also raised the issue of Clipper’s negative balance and the difficulty of adding fare to the cards at retail outlets. Though BART staff said most stations would begin to get new vending machines in March that allowed customers to add value to cards, currently the only way to do so is online, at Walgreens and some other vendors, or at the few San Francisco Muni Metro shared stations.

“Asking people to leave the station to recharge their card is dumb,” said Radulovich. “I don’t know who’s idea it was to roll out Clipper before we had a way to add value in stations. I can’t believe MTC and BART would want to put our customers through that.”

Radulovich argued that station agents would be the target of customer ire given the way the system currently functions and said it was particularly difficult for customers who didn’t have credit cards or customers of limited means who only operate with cash. He even raised the question whether the current system ran afoul of federal Title VI civil rights policies because of the difficulty low-income riders might have.

Director Joel Keller and Gail Murray raised concerns that Contra Costa County had too few retail outlets selling Clipper cards, a problem they said was exacerbated for seniors.

“It’s very difficult to find a Clipper Card location that is convenient. It’s very difficult for seniors to go get their card,” said Murray. “In Contra Costa, the only place I know of is County Connection. You can’t even get to County Connection on BART.”

As Streetsblog reported, MTC’s policy for anticipating the difficulty of adding fares is to program the cards to go negative, or assume debt of up to $10 during a single ride.

MTC spokesperson Randy Rentschler defended the policy, saying the most cost-effective way to handle the transition of the many transit agencies using Clipper was to go with a negative balance. According to MTC’s statistics, even with the widespread publicity of the issue in the media last week, single use of Clipper cards hadn’t grown significantly. While there was an uptick, the number is still far below a threshold they considered alarming, thought they are monitoring the issue every day.

“Can people scam the system because it’s not perfect, sure,” said Rentschler. “It’s better than not having it. We’re going through a transition and we’re not trying to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think it’s overwhelmingly good.”

Rentschler told me MTC would take the concerns raised by BART directors seriously and would not dismiss anything they said, but he declined to comment directly on any of the BART directors’ complaints. He argued the Bay Area needed a single fare medium, but with the complexity of 26 Bay Area transit operators each with different policies and instruments, there would be no absolutely seamless way to roll out Clipper without upsetting some interests.

“Clipper is the electronic solution to what is fundamentally a political problem and that is that everybody wants to have local control of their transit system,” said Rentschler. “You can have fewer operators or you can have technology. We chose technology.”

“We want it to work for their customers, we want it to work with all customers.,” he added. “More than anything else, we think we’re going to have a good run with BART, but it’s not going to be perfect.”

Photos: Matthew Roth

AC Transit riders took solace in the news on Tuesday that the agency plans to restore service that was cut twice this year after a labor arbitrator settled a contract dispute. Transit advocates worry, however, about the agency’s long-term solvency and have called on elected officials to develop significant revenue measures for funding buses in the East Bay.

The arbitration panel in the AC Transit labor negotiation reached a decision on a contract between the transit district and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 192, which represents 1,750 of its bus drivers and mechanics, saving the agency $38 million over three years. The binding decision calls for increased contributions from the members to their health and benefit plans, as well as work rule and holiday changes.

AC Transit had cut service in March by 7.8 percent, or $10.3 million in service hours and in October by 7.2 percent, or $11.4 million in service hours. Fare increases this year amounted to an increase of 25 cents per trip for local riders and $10 for the price of a monthly pass. Transbay riders have been paying an increase of 50 cents per trip and $16.50 for a monthly pass. Youth, senior and disabled riders saw a hike of 15 cents per local trip and 30 cents for Transbay trips.

Because of the arbitration decision, AC Transit also expects to halt an additional round of cuts approved to go into effect in December, including the elimination of weekend service on lines affecting nearly 25,000 riders, what transit advocates and church groups lamented as a “death spiral.”

“There are no winners or losers in this arbitration,” AC Transit Interim General Manager Mary King said in a statement. “Both AC Transit and the union focused on what is best for the riders and taxpayers of this district and what is in the long-term interest of maintaining public transit for the people we serve.”

Mashasin Abdul Salaam, left, of Genesis, looks on as a coalition member is interviewed by KRON.

Though transit advocates were pleased with the impact on service in the near term, they lamented the agency’s inability to improve service above restoring recent cuts and worried similar budget deficits would return imminently.

A coalition of community groups and church leaders rallied this week to kick off a campaign calling on elected officials throughout Alameda County to fight for increased operating funds for AC Transit with the same vigor they stumped for capital projects like the Oakland Airport Connector. Many of the groups in the coalition, like Urban Habitat, Public Advocates and Genesis, fought the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and BART over spending federal stimulus money on the OAC. They’ve created a pledge they hope to get Alameda County elected officials to sign, promising to do everything in their power to improve AC Transit’s financial situation.

“We don’t see [labor concessions] as a long-term sustainable solution to AC Transit’s funding problems,” said Bob Allen, transportation policy director for Urban Habitat. “It gets us out of the latest round of really serious cuts. It doesn’t get us off the trend that we have going forward, with MTC, the state and the federal government not providing adequate operations funding. This is a short term solution that is balanced on the backs of people who work, push the system forward, put service on the street.”

Allen said the MTC had funded “mega-projects” throughout the region to the detriment of keeping buses running. “We want to see the same kind of effort to get funding to put service on the street, to reach our climate change goals, to get kids to school and get people to work.”

At the rally, the coalition got commitments from Assemblymember Nancy Skinner, Alameda County Supervisors Keith Carson and Nate Miley, as well as Gayle McLaughlin, the newly elected Mayor of Richmond.

“We don’t need to keep widening our highways. We realize that only impacts public health with more pollution and only drags us further into the global warming crisis we’re in,” said McLaughlin, to loud applause.”We need it understood that mass transit is the wave of the future, is for the needs of our community and is something that is just. I love the words ‘transportation justice.’ Let’s keep pulling together for transportation justice.”

McLaughlin talked of her own city’s general plan, but said they couldn’t achieve the benefits of smart growth, emissions reductions and improved health without AC Transit.

“What good is it to have transit-oriented development if you don’t have the transit?” she asked.

Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin addresses the crowd on Tuesday.

Mashasin Abdul Salaam, co-chair of the Genesis Transportation Task Force, applauded the politicians who stepped up to sign the pledge, which reads simply, “I stand in solidarity with AC Transit’s ridership. I pledge to do anything within my power to fight continuing service cuts and fare increases. I will continually endeavor to restore AC Transit’s service to its pre-2010 levels and to fight against the gradual diversion of AC Transit’s resources.”

Salaam and the coalition called out the political leadership who were ardent supporters of the OAC, what Salaam called “the skytram,” saying they had not done enough to adequately fund AC Transit. The politicians included Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, Oakland Councilmember Larry Reid, Alameda County Supervisor and MTC Chairman Scott Haggerty, Alameda County Transportation Commission Chair Mark Green, State Assemblyman Sandre Swanson, U.S. Representative Barbara Lee and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Urban Habitat’s Allen called it the “optics” of press events for new capital construction versus job preservation.

“I think a lot of people feel it doesn’t look as good to stand beside a bus driver in the morning and say this bus driver wasn’t cut. Preserving jobs is not looked at the same as ‘creating’ them,” said Allen.

“It’s a problem of how people operate politically, what things feed what constituencies and ultimately is there enough power in the communities that are affected that they’ll stand up,” said Allen. “I think political officials look at those capital projects as serving people who vote more. If they’re putting up a project that gets people to work but also attracts voters, maybe more middle class voters, more affluent voters, more white voters who tend to come out, that plays better to those people, in their minds.”

Image: BART

As transit operators across the Bay Area transition to the Clipper card, one of the bigger challenges each faces is communicating the timeline to their most loyal customers, those who buy high value and monthly passes.

The deadline to transition to Clipper for the  50,000 BART riders who have used EZ Rider cards for transit trips over the past few years has already been pushed back by more than two months, to mid-December, and now BART is concerned the 41,000 remaining EZ Rider account holders will experience an unpleasant surprise when the system is turned off next month.

“We are worried what the impact is going to be on our customers,” said BART spokesperson Linton Johnson. “We’ve tried and tried to gently encourage them to switch over to Clipper because the deadline is coming.”

Though originally slated for October 1st, the transition was delayed due to “concerns pertaining to Clipper system features and technical readiness,” according to a document [pdf] prepared by BART general manager Dorothy Dugger for the board of directors. Directors were expected to discuss the progress of the transition at a board meeting today, but that meeting was canceled due to a lack of quorum.

“Significant progress has been made on key issues pertaining to the EZ Rider/Clipper transition,” Dugger writes, noting that 9,000 EZ Rider customers have already canceled their accounts, presumably in the transition to Clipper. Though there are still 41,000 EZ Rider accounts open, that doesn’t mean all of those customers don’t also have a Clipper card.

“BART High Value Discount product auto load sign-ups have increased from 5,700 in June to 26,000 in September, an indicator that the Clipper High Value Discount product is gaining in acceptance as a substitute for EZ Rider,” writes Dugger. “Some of these 26,000 HVD auto load Clipper users may also still have an EZ Rider account open.”

Though it seems confusing, the rationale is that many EZ Rider account holders use the cards to pay for parking and for transit trips, according to Johnson. During the transition process, they haven’t been able to pay for parking with a Clipper card, a problem that is expected to be remedied by December 1st. Adding to the confusion, Johnson explained, even when Clipper is accepted for parking in December, BART will be required to maintain the EZ Rider website for customers to sign up for Clipper parking, as mandated by federal banking rules that distinguish paying for parking and transit trips, even on the same fare medium.

BART director Tom Radulovich said he has complained numerous times to BART and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which administers Clipper, about the inconvenience of the transition to customers. “MTC is saying you have to carry two cards around, that’s insane,” said Radulovich.

The MTC defended the transition, saying there are challenges in uptake for any new technology. “BART has done an outstanding job of communicating with its EZ Rider customers,” said MTC spokesperson John Goodwin. “I think we’ll see a late move from EZ Rider to Clipper and it will go smoothly.”

Johnson said BART had done everything it could afford to do to alert EZ Rider customers, including sending numerous emails to them and announcing it in press releases, but he said BART was anticipating funding from the MTC for advertising that never materialized. Because BART’s own advertising is booked as much as twelve months out, said Johnson, the channels BART has for communicating to its riders have been limited. “We just don’t have the advertising dollars to get there.”

“Our biggest fear is when the drop-dead deadline comes, we’re going to have people very upset they were given no time and no warning,” he said. “The bottom line is it’s not going to reflect well on BART, MTC or Clipper.”

“We don’t like that, we want to get the word out,” he added.

Photo: Matthew Roth

Of all the ways you can use your Clipper smart card for payment on transit agencies throughout the Bay Area, you probably didn’t realize you could use it like a credit card, spending up to $10 more than the value on the card. And you probably didn’t realize it’s set up with the perverse economic incentive to game the system, whereby you can scam distance-based fare operators like BART out of most of the cost of your trip.

Or maybe you did and you hoped to fly under the radar?

Here’s how the scam works, and mind you it is especially effective on BART, where you don’t have fare inspectors or conductors to check your Clipper card and catch you. At any retailer or vending machine that sells Clipper, load the minimum $2 dollars on a new Clipper card. Buy a bunch of them this way, if you like. Pay cash and do it at a Muni Metro vending machine in downtown San Francisco if you really don’t want to be traceable. Then ride BART where ever you desire and you will never have to pay more than $2.

Let’s take Civic Center to the San Francisco Airport, a trip I made over the weekend to see if the scam worked as a Streetsblog tipster had suggested. I bought two $2 cards at the vending machine, paying $4 in cash. When I tagged into the system at the fare gate, the card had a $2 value. I rode to SFO, a trip that should have cost me $8.10. When I tagged out at the International Terminal fare gates, instead of an “Insufficient Fare” warning, which I would have seen had I been using a $2 traditional BART fare card, my Clipper card subtracted $6.10, leaving me with a balance of $3.90 of someone else’s money.

After completing my return trip to Civic Center with my other $2 Clipper card, I ended up with $16.20 worth of BART rides for $4. If I had entered BART at one of the terminus stations, like Pittsburgh Bay Point, and traveled to SFO round-trip, I could have gamed BART for $21.80.

Because the cards still register the negative balance, and I would have to pay that down before I could add a positive balance to the card upon re-loading it, the smart thing to do would be to throw away the cards. At a cost of $2 per card to manufacture, I’m essentially paying for the privilege of adding two pretty blue cards to the landfill.

What a steal!

Of course, someone has to pay for the scam and that would be the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the regional transportation planning body that administers Clipper (though in the end it’s the taxpayer who foots their bill). MTC settles its Clipper debts every day with the transit agencies participating in the program, so BART would have been repaid the cost of my trips from regional funds allocated to the Clipper roll-out.

MTC spokesperson John Goodwin acknowledged that Clipper cards can “go negative,” which he said the MTC programmed into the card to help customers get out of a transit system where there aren’t fare machines or customer service personnel to help them add value to their cards.

“It’s a built-in convenience to the system, based on the goodwill that people will re-load their card,” said Goodwin.

According to Goodwin, Streetsblog’s inquiry represented the first time an “enterprising journalist blew the lid off this” (actually, Stanley Roberts at KRON appears to be first). He said the Clipper program managers were looking into whether or not there is “wide-spread abuse of this system,” though he acknowledged that they had not determined what the threshold was for that abuse. He also acknowledged that MTC “wouldn’t be able to answer precisely the question how many people are scamming the system.”

He could say that in August, the most recent month for this data, there were only 152 cards out of more that 100,000 that had only been used once. He also knew that in October 5 percent of 247,700 Clipper cards in use had a negative balance. Beyond that, the agency had not finished evaluating the potential for this type of fraud. Goodwin said the “ability to go negative is a standard feature in most smart-card programs” and he said he believed that “north of 95 percent are using the card correctly.”

“We designed the system based on an expectation that the vast majority of our customers are honest,” he added.

Though MTC has no current plans to reprogram the software to eliminate the ability to go into debt on the card, Goodwin said there were numerous options at their disposal if they thought there was widespread abuse, including lowering the card’s debt balance or charging a small amount for each card.

BART’s spokesperson Linton Johnson said his agency knew of the scam, calling it “Clipper’s dirty little secret,” but he declined to provide further comment on the matter.

Tom Radulovich, a BART Board director, said he was disappointed with MTC, which he said was botching the implementation of Clipper. “One of the things we were promised with [Clipper] was that it would be harder to scam the system, but it turns out there is a pretty easy way,” he said.

Radulovich said he had tried to get BART staff and MTC to retrofit BART’s Add-Fare machines in its stations to accommodate Clipper, but MTC was reluctant, preferring to rely on retail outlets like Walgreens to fulfill that role. While that might make sense in downtown San Francisco, it was a ridiculous proposition at a BART station like Orinda, he said.

“They didn’t want to retrofit the Add-Fare machines. They didn’t want to pay for that. They’ve not been willing to put the money forward,” he argued.

Radulovich said MTC could avoid the scam by making the debt option possible only for someone who registers their card with Clipper so they have a record of the user. But, he argued, MTC were transportation planners, not operators, and they didn’t have experience with customers like BART did.

“They’ve been in such a rush to declare success, they don’t care if agencies are losing money,” he said. “Scamming the BART system is a flaw and that is definitely something they should fix.”

Flickr photo: AgentAkit

As Bay Area transit agencies transition from paper passes to the Clipper smart card, operators like the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), which runs Muni, are hoping their most loyal customers take the switch in stride. To this end, the SFMTA started selling its November Muni A Fast Passes and disability Regional Transit Connection (RTC) passes online this weekend, and the agency is working overtime with targeted outreach to familiarize the nearly 50,000 A Pass and RTC users how to load their re-usable Clipper cards before the November 1st deadline, when those paper passes will no longer be accepted for Muni service.

“We have more than 40,000 customers who use the “A” pass and more than 7,000 who use the RTC stickers, so it’s critical that they make this transition as early as possible,” SFMTA Executive Director Nat Ford said in a release.

Even before the mandatory switch for A Pass and RTC holders, Muni customers have increasingly adopted Clipper on their own accord. When MTC officially announced the transition from Translink to Clipper on June 16th, Muni realized only 20,000 average weekday boardings using the smart card. As of October 8th, Muni had 108,000 average weekday boardings, a five-fold increase and half of total Bay Area Clipper usage. Of the slightly more than 40,000 current A Pass users, roughly one third already use Clipper. RTC pass holders will automatically be given Clipper-compatible cards when they renew, either online or in person at vendors or SFMTA customer service centers.

The SFMTA began deploying customer service ambassadors in August along with the Clipper street teams that have been providing information and customer service since the end of 2008 in Muni Metro stations. According to the SFMTA, since December 2008, the Muni Clipper street teams have distributed more than 70,000 adult cards and accepted more than 20,000 seniors and youth applications [sample Clipper outreach schedule pdf here for this week]. The SFMTA also noted it has undertaken an aggressive internal campaign to inform SFMTA employees, especially frontline Muni personnel, of the Clipper transition and how to assist customers. This campaign includes an orientation and multiple update videos as well as in-person training, of note after Muni operators on cable cars had reportedly been unable to work hand-held Clipper card readers.

Clipper use across the Bay Area is on a steady rise, but because Muni carries so many passengers, the transition from older fare media to the reusable card will be the bellwether for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which administers Clipper. MTC had come under fire for its early outreach in Chinese and concerns about staffing the Clipper customer service center with Cantonese speakers, but MTC spokesperson John Goodwin said they were working to resolve the concerns.

Goodwin pointed to the selection of the Chinese name for Clipper “Lu Lu Tong,” which essentially connotes “the go everywhere card” in translation, as an indication of MTC’s progress. Goodwin explained the name selection process, which involved a focus group of nearly 100 people across the Bay Area and in China, where they narrowed down approximately two dozen names to three finalists. BART Board President James Fang made the final decision, according to Goodwin, given his central role spearheading the translation process.

Overall, Goodwin said the MTC was pleased with the Clipper transition, noting across all agencies they are seeing an average increase of 10 percent each week. Acknowledging there have been “growing pains,” Goodwin called Clipper “a great success.”

Asked if he’s concerned with the looming deadlines at Muni and AC Transit for complete transition from paper passes (AC Transit Adult 10 ride and 31 day passes will no longer be sold in their old format after October 31 and no longer accepted after December 31st), Goodwin said, “I can’t characterize my feelings as being worried about it, but I recognize at the same time that a lot of people are resistant to change and accept it grudgingly,” he said.

Ultimately, Goodwin added, “they’ll be glad they did.”

Bay Area Clipper Card Stats

Average weekday Clipper boardings through October 8th:

• 215,124 – Total
• 2,124 – Caltrain
• 4,400 – Golden Gate Ferries
• 8,150 – Golden Gate Buses
• 32,550 – AC Transit
• 59,900 – BART
• 108,000 – Muni

Monthly “A” Fast Pass customers can get their Clipper cards from any Clipper retailer, by visiting clippercard.com or by calling 877.878.8883. Please tell us about you experience with Clipper in the comments.

Photo: Matthew Roth

As the Bay Area’s larger transit agencies transition away from paper passes to the universal fare payment smart card, Clipper, transit operators and planners insist the card will lead to greater convenience and simplicity, which they hope will increase ridership and enhance the attractiveness of transit. At its simplest, in theory, a transit passenger would pair a credit card with Clipper, set it to auto-fill whenever the balance on the card goes below a set dollar amount and never again have to consider how to pay or when to pay for a transit trip.

Despite these hopes, transit advocates and neighborhood groups have decried problems with Clipper’s early outreach and implementation, and they fear the complete roll-out of the program will be mired further.

“The promise of electronic payment technology is huge. I’m really happy to see it moving forward, but the implementation so far is pathetic,” said Dave Snyder of the Muni Transit Riders Union.

Snyder said there were already too many problems with unreliable readers, which he said degrades the public’s perception of the transit operators and the program in general. He said even when Clipper works perfectly, it will be slower than flashing Fast Passes to Muni operators, so transit delays could increase if the readers malfunction. He argued that all-door boarding would help address potential delay.

Despite those concerns, and considering the large capital expenditures and net annual expense to operators participating in Clipper, representatives from various transit operators believed Clipper would prove, on balance, to be superior to the current array of fare instruments at each individual operator and would hopefully entice new riders to the systems.

“For a lot of people, their life is just going to be a lot better. That’s the win,” said Randy Rentschler, spokesperson for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the regional transportation planning entity administering Clipper.

“We want to make transit as simple and easy and friendly as possible,” said BART spokesperson Linton Johnson. “Carrying 16 different tickets is ridiculous. I think this is a wonderful idea and certainly is going to benefit our riders.”

“We certainly think it’s worth it. There are some real clear benefits to using a card like this,” said Clarence Johnson, AC Transit spokesperson. Among the benefits Johnson listed were reductions in fraud, faster boarding times and ease of payment. Johnson noted the only complaint they had heard was the need for more Clipper vendors in North Richmond.

AC Transit is nearly finished rolling all of its old passes over to Clipper. According to Johnson, youth passes have already been converted, while adult 10 ride and 31 day passes will no longer be sold in their old format after October 31 and no longer accepted after December 31st.

“It’s good for our customers. It makes riding our system easier and allows for a better regional commute,” said Muni spokesperson Paul Rose. “Our number one goal is to look out for our customers and this does just that.” Rose said Muni will begin phasing out paper A Fast Passes by November, followed by student and senior passes and finally all Fast Passes by March 2011.

Convincing the riding public that Clipper is as beneficial as the operators believe will require hard work, particularly those who don’t have easy access to computers and those whose primary language isn’t English. Advocates in San Francisco’s Chinatown and Visitation Valley have been upset and disappointed with the limited outreach in Cantonese. They also note the Clipper customer service center hasn’t had a full-time Cantonese speaker.

Marlene Tran of the Visitation Valley Asian Alliance said Muni and MTC were failing her constituents by not providing more information in the language their customers understand. She said she was upset the “Chinese” line through Clipper’s customer service number was in Mandarin, not Cantonese. Given the large senior population, who she said wouldn’t be able to access the Clipper website, a customer service line had to be intelligible.

“If you don’t have the key, how are you going to get inside to know what you’re looking for?” she asked. “I feel this is very disrespectful. They should provide the language needs for the people.”

A new Clipper ad near the MTC offices and Oakland Chinatown. Photo: Matthew Roth

In addition to the language concern, which MTC has said it is addressing, advocates in San Francisco’s Chinatown were upset with the reduction of vendors in Chinatown selling Clipper cards versus Fast Passes.

“I think there is a distance between what they’re saying and what we’re seeing,” said Deland Chan, a planner at the Chinatown Community Development Center (CCDC). Chan noted the MTC and Muni had met with CCDC, but she was concerned they were not fully addressing the effect the transition will have on Muni customers in the neighborhood. After raising concerns with Muni in a previous Streetsblog post about the agency’s failure to reach out to the Chinese language media in the area, Chan said they had advertised in some papers, but the translation “has been really terrible.”

Chan was pleased to note the MTC planned to set up a booth at the August Moon festival in Chinatown this weekend to conduct demonstrations of Clipper fare machines and card readers, but CCDC’s request that Muni pilot all-door boarding on Stockton corridor buses as Clipper is rolled out has not been addressed. She said given the early concerns, the full transition to Clipper in the beginning of 2011 had the potential to be very problematic.

“I want to express appreciation that we’ve met,” she said, “but I want to see more action.”

Snyder of Muni Transit Riders Union echoed Chan’s concerns and further argued the MTC and operators were not thinking about the longer term benefits that could be realized by smart card systems. Snyder said if the region were serious about convenience to the customer, operators should figure out a better fare policy for riders who use multiple systems. Clipper could, he argued, lead to a regional fare system that did better to facilitate increased transit use.

He also said Clipper should copy London’s Oyster Card price capping policy, whereby operators charge only the equivalent of the cheapest ticket option over a given time period. For instance, if  a Muni customer decided not to buy a Fast Pass in October, but traveled more than expected and spent the equivalent value on single rides, Clipper would automatically default to the Fast Pass and stop charging for additional rides in that period.

Though none of the transit agencies interviewed for this story were actively considered such fare options, all agreed they could add convenience (because BART doesn’t have a monthly pass, Johnson said it was hypothetically interesting, but politically much more challenging). MTC said Clipper technology could facilitate such a policy, but each agency would have to adopt such a business model independently.

As to the criticism, Rentschler acknowledged the concerns and said characterized them as growing pains. He also acknowledged that issues like the proper translation were being addressed. “It’s a new thing for us to be running this big retail fare instrument,” he said, but he argued the customer would ultimately be pleased with the result. He also pointed to the sharp uptick in Clipper usage over the past few months and said it would continue.

“We’ve had a great deal of success on Clipper so far.”

Use of Clipper for transit boardings over the previous year. Source: MTC.

How Much Does Clipper Really Cost?

Coming up with a comprehensive price tag for Clipper is difficult and some depends on the volume of users projected over the length of the contract. According to documents provided by MTC, the capital costs of Clipper (and Translink, before the re-branding) from inception in 2003 to the terminus of the current memorandum of understanding (MOU) in 2019 is expected to be $141 million. To date, the region has spent more than $100 million installing fare equipment with the participating operators. Most of the funding comes from regional toll money, coupled with some federal and state grants, though the MTC didn’t provide a more specific breakdown detailing the sources.

In addition to capital costs, the system will require a net annual outlay from participating transit operators, even after the savings associated with the elimination of printing paper passes, vendor payments, fraud, etc. MTC holds a design-build-operate-maintain contract with Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc. that lasts for 13 years, concluding in November 2019. According to MTC, under the contract, Cubic provides system operations and maintenance services and MTC oversees Cubic’s performance. The contract calls for two types of payments to Cubic, fixed and volume-based. The fixed fees cover basic operations of the system, such as ensuring that the customer service center is open for business no matter what the customer volume is, though payments to Cubic increase as a result of volume-based fees associated with customer use of the system.

MTC and the participating transit operators will divide the costs of operating and maintaining the Clipper system, but essentially, MTC pays all of the fixed monthly costs and operators pay the volume-based costs. Operators will divide the total volume-based costs according to formula: Each operator’s share is based on one third of the dollar value of revenue collected by the Clipper system for a particular operator and two thirds on the volume of transactions processed by the Clipper system for a particular operator.

Thus, for Muni, operating costs in 2010-2011 are expected to be just over $2.5 million, rising to nearly $6 million by 2018-2019 [pdf]. For BART, the costs it bears this year will be $1.8 million and nearly $4.8 million in 2018-2019. Adding all the operating costs together, participating transit agencies will pay more than $115 million over the term of the MOU.

Still, this total doesn’t include cost savings from switching over to the new fare media. While BART and AC Transit didn’t have analysis of the overall cost savings, Muni prepared a report for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in July that detailed costs and savings from the transition [pdf]. According to the report, over the course of the MOU, Muni will save over $17 million in expenditures due to Clipper efficiencies, while expending over $43 million. The net $26 million over ten years will be paid out of Muni’s operating budget.

Flickr photo: jovino

According to Thomas Sanchez, chair of the Urban Affairs and Planning Department at Virginia Tech and a Brookings Institution fellow, the FTA's action against BART was unprecedented and perked up the ears of transportation policymakers around the country.

On the other hand, Sanchez said he wasn't necessarily surprised with the action at the MTC because of a previous lawsuit by Public Advocates, Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which provided significant evidence in his mind that the MPO wasn't fulfilling its Title VI requirements. Sanchez said the commission had been asked numerous times by advocates like Urban Habitat to conduct an equity analysis of its funding practices in general, and had grown quite vocal with OAC complaints.

"I personally think it's a positive from a standpoint of accountability and transparency and holding these organizations accountable for a fair amount of federal money they are getting," said Sanchez.

While Sanchez said the BART OAC case was significant because the FTA withheld money rather than merely exchanging pointed letters, the MTC should have had better mechanisms in place to monitor BART and should have acted on the advocates' complaints of improper equity analysis.

"It's their responsibility, not only that the subcontractor follows through with the work, but the letter of the law," he said.

An FTA official in Washington confirmed to Streetsblog that no other MPO was currently under similar scrutiny and that the complaint by Public Advocates against BART had led to the request of documents from the MTC. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the the first step is always to help the grantee come into voluntary compliance, and that in this particular situation the agency was obligated to follow up to see what the MPO was doing to monitor its subrecipients.

The FTA official also noted that while it might have appeared that withholding the money from BART for the OAC was a sanction, the issue was more about the tight timeline for allocating stimulus funds. The FTA did not believe BART would be compliant with Title VI by the time the money had to be obligated, so it denied the funding request.

The MTC subsequently distributed the money to transit operators throughout the region in accordance with its Tier II spending contingency.

MTC spokesperson John Goodwin told Streetsblog last week the organization would "work with the FTA to meet their deadlines." When contacted for this story he said he had nothing new to add to his comments from last week. Neither MTC Commission Chair Scott Haggerty nor Vice-Chair Adrienne Tissier replied to Streetsblog's requests for comment.

Wynn Hausser, a spokesperson for Public Advocates, said he doesn't believe the MTC has the proper procedural requirements in place to monitor Title VI compliance of subrecipients and the probe will ultimately demonstrate the shortcoming. 

MTC Commissioners Question Governance and Projects

Perhaps surprisingly, several MTC commissioners interviewed by Streetsblog agreed with the advocates and argued the FTA probe could compel the Bay Area to reconsider how it spends billions in federal funds, including past allocations for projects they contend never went through proper equity analysis.

"I think it would be fair to say that was a red flag, that it was alarming," said Santa Clara County Supervisor Dave Cortese, an MTC commissioner representing the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Cortese listed numerous concerns with MTC procedure and representation and called into question several funding decisions in the region, which to his knowledge sailed through the commission without equity analysis.

"I do think there is a lot the MTC should be concerned about," said Cortese. "If the FTA knows the half of it, they should be concerned."

Cortese said he hoped the OAC wouldn't become the only poster child for the region's failure to comply with Title VI and argued there were programmatic issues throughout the region. Cortese listed several other projects where the MTC had moved hundreds of millions of dollars without conducting equity analysis. He said the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) had de-prioritized the Capitol Expressway light rail project, which had undergone equity analysis and would have served low income communities of color, in favor of BART to San Jose.

"[The VTA] defunded a project that their own equity criteria said was needed. That's a $300 million example," said Cortese. "At what point does MTC have an obligation to say that's not right? To what extent does MTC have the tools to do something about it?"

He also noted MTC had moved money from the Dunbarton Bridge rail project to BART's Warm Springs extension without an equity analysis. "I don't remember anyone ever doing that analysis," he said.

"Lots of money gets moved around politically without a lot of analysis on civil rights and equity," added Cortese.

San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, who sits on the commission and has been an outspoken critic of the current OAC project, said fellow commissioners didn't want to consider anything but the nearly $500 million tramway. He said the commission never seriously pushed BART to study other options, such as the bus rapid transit proposal by the transit non-profit TransForm.

"Although the Oakland political machine was able to turn out a large number of people saying build the project, it seemed pretty clear the benefits were not there on the OAC," said Daly. "I think TransForm has done a really good job of debunking that. If your real concern was the economic vitality to the airport, you would run a BRT or other transit option that serves the people of the area."

Daly also complained that MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger had recently supported a $20 million funding swap at the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to make up for the gap that resulted when the FTA didn't give BART the $70 million in stimulus funds it expected. Daly said he wasn't supposed to catch the funding swap issue and when he did, MTC staff was not pleased.

"Obviously Heminger and MTC are moving ahead with trying to figure out how to fund the OAC without all this and that's fine. But to do it under the darkness of night, I thought that was pretty low," said Daly.

Urban Habitat's Bob Allen questioned the funding swap as well. "The level of effort and coordination the CTC is doing with the MTC because this is a pet project is embarrassing," he said. "Where was the level of effort when the operators were bleeding jobs?"

"When a capital project goes over budget by $100 million, there's always an explanation. When a transit operator like AC Transit encounters health care cost increases, they say it's mismanagement. They don't go out of their way to do crap for the operators," said Allen.

Supervisor Cortese also expressed concerns about the representational structure of the commission itself. Despite having 25 percent of the population in the Bay Area, Santa Clara County is not proportionately represented, and East San Jose, which has a strong people of color and low income community population, doesn't have a significant voice on MTC, said Cortese.

Cortese's appointment by ABAG created temporary parity, but when his term ends, he said, Santa Clara County will only have two permanent appointees and neither of them would represent the half million people of East San Jose. "That's a permanent structural failure," he said. 

Impact of the Probe

Source: Tom Sanchez.

The potential problems at MTC are not necessarily novel among MPOs around the country, as Sanchez noted in a paper on democratic governance and demographics in transportation planning. In the paper, he wrote that 88 percent of MPOs are governed by whites, while the regions represented by MPOs are only 61 percent white. He also indicated MPO boards are over-represented by suburban interests because of "one area, one vote" governance structures.

Without better representation by communities that are supposed to be protected by Title VI, Sanchez argued MPOs would not really engage the public and fulfill their responsibility to the law. MPOs should do more than pay lip service to public involvement in decision making:

Community-based groups that assist transportation agencies should be encouraged to improve outreach processes and strategies to identify culturally diverse groups and facilitate their involvement. Such efforts are greatly needed to support information dissemination about transportation and related land-use impacts. Mechanisms are needed that allow formal recognition of coalitions of community representatives on MPO advisory committees and decision-making boards.

"That's really who they answer to, that's who pays the bills, the public," Sanchez told Streetsblog. Sanchez said the MPOs are ultimately public bodies and should be responsive to complaints raised by the public, not just "blow them off," as he said MTC had done previously with concerns raised by advocates like Urban Habitat.

"If the public isn't happy, then your customers aren't happy. What do you do, tell them too bad?" he said. "From a public relations standpoint and a good practices standpoint, that doesn't seem like a good way to do business."

Urban Habitat's Allen hoped the FTA action would ultimately lead the MTC to reconsider how it conducts business in the region, including its adherence to the letter of civil rights law and a reconsideration of its representational governance.

"Changing the structure of MTC would change the investment outcomes," Allen said. He argued transit operators should be directly represented on the commission and it should better reflect geographic equity.

Allen said since the FTA investigation of BART, the staff there has had an open line of communication with the advocates about their overall equity analysis, though he said Urban Habitat disagreed with the sufficiency of BART's OAC equity analysis (the FTA recently sent BART notice that it had complied with the necessary requisites for its OAC fare analysis).

Looking forward, Allen hoped the FTA's probe into the MTC would compel commissioners to take civil rights seriously and not just lead them to "check off the boxes" required by the law. "We want to make sure they're going as far as we think they need to go to comply with federal civil rights compliance."

Beyond the Bay Area

Advocates for transit and social justice are taking cues from the MTC action to influence their regional MPOs beyond the Bay Area. The Los Angeles Bus Riders Union (BRU), which made history in 1996 with a successful Title VI challenge against the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, has been closely watching the BART and MTC cases.

"I feel like this is a historic move for those of us who advocate on behalf of the transit dependent, working class communities, and communities of color," said Esperanza Martinez, lead organizer for the BRU. Referring to President Obama and FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff, she added, "It speaks to the real possibilities and opportunities that have been created through the new administration."

"It sets a precedent for agencies like the MTC to tread more carefully in terms of how they make choices on how they spend local, state and federal funding to build projects that have discriminatory impacts," she added.

MTC's Executive Director Steve Heminger, foreground, listens to public testimony against MTC's plan to use federal stimulus funds for the Oakland Airport Connector last year. Photo: Matthew Roth

The federal inquiries started after Public Advocates, a civil rights law firm in San Francisco, filed a formal complaint with the FTA over BART's failure to conduct an equity analysis for its fare policy related to the construction of the controversial Oakland Airport Connector, an elevated tramway that would connect the Oakland Coliseum BART station to the Oakland Airport. As a result of the complaint, the FTA investigated BART and found it didn't conduct the necessary fare analysis as required by federal Title VI civil rights law and denied $70 million in federal stimulus funds for the project. The FTA subsequently initiated a full investigation of the transit agency across all its applicable practices.

Because the MTC has given substantial funding to BART over the years and specifically for the OAC, the FTA in February requested the MTC provide justification of its Title VI compliance [PDF].

MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger argued in a March letter [PDF] that transit agencies such as BART, as subrecipients of federal funding, are responsible for ensuring they have done their due diligence and that they are not using the money on projects that discriminate against people of color or low-income communities. Heminger essentially took a narrow view of several FTA rules, saying because MTC is "not a State DOT or State administering agency," it was not responsible for mandating Title VI compliance for that funding.

In FTA's most recent letter, Director of the Office of Civil Rights Cheryl Hershey pointed to several other broad requirements, including an FTA Master Agreement the MTC signs each year, that mandate the MTC monitor Title VI requirements, even of its subrecipients.

Wynn Hausser, a spokesperson for Public Advocates, said the FTA letter and the possibility of a full formal investigation into MTC should be a wake-up call for a commission they have sued for discrimination in its funding formulas. The 2007 Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission lawsuit alleged MTC was subsidizing trips for wealthier white people at transit agencies like BART and Caltrain at a higher rate than they do at agencies like AC Transit, where 80 percent of riders are people of color.

"We've been after the MTC for years with our lawsuits," said Hausser. "We've had to turn to Washington and fortunately we have a very brave FTA administrator who's willing to stand up against tremendous political pressure and do the right thing."

A chart created by Public Advocates that shows how much MTC subsidizes riders on various transit systems, as well as the racial make-up of that ridership.

The MTC's spokesperson, John Goodwin, was particularly abrupt in his response. "We can confirm receipt of the letter," he said. "Our legal guys are scrutinizing it and we will work with the FTA to meet their deadlines."

To remedy their concerns, the FTA has demanded the MTC produce numerous documents, including:

• MTC's documented process for investigating Title VI complaints
• A description of actions MTC took to investigate the Title VI complaint filed by Public Advocates against BART and alleging BART was not in compliance with Title VI
• A description of the penalty MTC assesses against a subrecipient for being in breach of contract as a result of failure to comply with Title VI, as well as a description of how MTC determines a subrecipient is in breach of contract….
• Provide copies of the subrecipient compliance reports as required by FTA….
  

Goodwin insisted the MTC would work to meet the requirements from the FTA, but Hausser didn't believe they will be able to comply because they don't have the requested documents.

"We have filed Freedom of Information Act requests of these documents and we have not received anything that looks like what they're being asked for," said Hausser, who noted Public Advocates had received tens of thousands of pages of documents through the Darensburg case. "That's not to say they don't exist, but if they do, we should have them."

Despite numerous requests for clarification, Goodwin would not comment further, except to say he was not aware of any other metropolitan planning organization (MPO) like the MTC in other areas of the country undergoing a similar review by the FTA.

Hausser said the FTA's letter should be alarming to other MPOs in California and beyond and that the FTA action signaled a change in Washington under the Obama administration to seriously consider the civil rights implications of transportation funding.

"If I were an MPO in another city, I would be sitting up and taking notice," he said.

Both Hausser and John Knox White, the OAC project manager for TransForm who has advocated BART and the MTC support a more affordable bus rapid transit airport connector, argued the FTA letter repudiated the MTC's contention that the matter was a mere technicality.

"It definitely shows a systemic issue with the way these major transportation projects are planned and implemented," said Knox White. He and other advocates have repeatedly argued the MTC and BART are merely paying lip service to civil rights, and are failing to do the necessary analysis to meet the FTA's criteria. Both Knox White and Hausser point to the recent actions by the federal government as vindication of their position.

Knox White, however, doubted the agencies would change overnight and pointed to what he characterized as BART's vilification of the advocates who objected to the OAC as proposed.

"Is the Bay Area going to step up and be the gold standard on civil rights they want to be, that they feel they are, or is this just going to be another time where we cut people out of the public participation process," said Knox White, who echoed Hausser's assertion that the FTA under former President George Bush didn't enforce civil rights laws with the same vigor the current FTA does.

"Is the Bay Area worse than everywhere else?" he asked. "I'm not sure I'm ready to make that determination, but there are significant problems. It's clear we're not setting the gold standard on this."

Photo: Keenahn

"Bay Area residents should be really excited about the 15 percent target. That's because it's high enough to trigger the transportation and land use changes we need to make the region more livable and affordable, especially as our population grows significantly by 2035," said Marta Lindsey, the communications and development director at TransForm.

Lindsey sent out an alert last week urging people to write emails to the MTC, fearing the commission would adopt a lower target of 10 percent, which its planning committee recommended at a meeting earlier this month.

"It's a realistic target given MTC's modeling and the kinds of investments and policies we already know really move the needle in terms of how much people drive their cars," said Lindsey.

Under the groundbreaking anti-sprawl bill, SB 375, most of the state's 18 MPOs are required to set a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions for passenger vehicles and light trucks by 2020 and 2035. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recently adopted a set of draft targets (PDF) for the four largest MPOs (the Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego), which represent 80 percent of the state's population. Each MPO will then be required to development a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) to show how it will meet its target. CARB is expected to adopt final targets in September.

The recommended target for the MTC was between 3-12 percent of 2005 levels by 2035. The commission's 8-4 vote for 15 percent followed a presentation (PDF) by Executive Director Steve Heminger and testimony from a diverse group of advocates who urged the MTC to adopt the stronger target. The dissenting commissioners -- James Spering, Bill Dodd, Bill Glover and Amy Worth -- represent Contra Costa, Napa and Solano counties.

Draft targets recommended by the California Air Resources Board. Sacramento's target is among the highest because the region is forecast to have the most growth. While most MPOs are required to recommend targets by June 30, Sacramento's MPO, SACOG, will not consider them until August.

In his presentation, Heminger told commissioners that combining an aggressive focused growth strategy (which would amount to a 12 percent reduction) with traffic diversion management programs such as telecommuting (a 3 percent reduction) and road pricing (8 percent) could probably bring the Bay Area toward an 18 percent target reduction by 2035. But he acknowledged that the region is less advanced in pursuing "road pricing, employer trip reduction, or 'smart driving' programs," which in many cities and counties are politically unpopular.

"It took us 20 years to get a congestion price on the Bay Bridge, so at that rate, god knows how long it will take to get the rest of the roads priced up," said Heminger. "That's tough politics. It's tough duty. It requires, in many cases, action by the Legislature, the Congress, whereas a lot of these land use strategies can be pursued on your own authority."

Using what the Natural Resources Defense Council has called a flawed model, Heminger calculated that a 25-cent fee per mile driven would be necessary to meet the MTC's 18 percent target. He estimated the fee would generate $14 billion annually, costing the average household about $4,500. The money could be used to fund more transit services and subsidize affordable housing, low-income tax credits and commuter costs.

Amanda Eaken of NRDC, who served on CARB's Regional Targets Advisory Committee along with Heminger, said the estimate was "significantly conservative" and that the agency wasn't properly calculating the impact of the costs of driving. She said such a fee, when considering that trip lengths have been repeatedly demonstrated to change with higher costs, would have a much more significant impact on reducing GHG emissions if the model allowed trip lengths to change. In an email, she explained it further:

Even a layperson can understand that if the model doesn't allow trip length to change as a result of higher cost, something is wrong. The estimate is further conservative because none of the modeled scenarios actually re-invested the $14 billion generated through the fee to estimate the GHG reduction potential of providing higher quality transit and other transportation options.

Eaken cited a figure from Elizabeth Deakin, a planning professor at UC Berkeley, who she said estimated that a 2. 5-cent VMT fee "would get you a four percent reduction. So, extrapolating that out, your 25-cent fee would get a 37 percent reduction. Now that's illustrative and there are certainly issues with that...but there are serious issues with this model."

Still, Eaken, in her blog post on The Switchboard, praised the MTC for its action. "This vote represents a significant improvement over MTC's starting place just a couple of months ago, when their adopted RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) would have increased GHG emissions by 2 percent per capita over 2005 levels."

Her testimony was followed by Cary Knecht of Climate Plan who said that a much more modest fee of four cents would be all that is necessary to achieve the reduction.

MTC graphic

One of the most compelling figures was a chart showing the difference in health care cost savings for each of the proposed targets, a point that was hammered home in public testimony by Julie West, the executive director of the Bay Area chapter of the American Lung Association.

"The difference between a 10 percent target and a 15 percent target is 40 million dollars in health care savings, lost productivity, school absences and premature mortality. So, a strong implementation of SB375 is a top priority for the public health community, as you can imagine."

She noted that the Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the Northern California Council of Hospitals, the American Academy of Pediatrics, local health departments and every local medical association had signed a letter of support in favor of the stronger target. "We support a strong implementation of SB375 to combat the negative outcomes associated with communities designed for cars from asthma, to obesity, to traffic injuries and deaths."

Several speakers testified that the higher target will also benefit and impact low-income communities and communities of color, particularly those who have been moving away from urban centers.

"We think that low-income communities are gravely impacted moving farther and farther away from the cities and it costs more money for them to use the public transportation system and we'd like to see subsidies and some type of protected measures implemented to reduce the economic impact on the low-income communities as they're trying to get to work," said Azibuike Akaba, a policy associate overseeing the public health and equity impacts of SB375 for the Regional Asthma Management and Prevention program, or RAMP.

Parisa Fatehi of Public Advocates pointed out that her organization, along with 49 signatory organizations, including TransForm, sent a letter (PDF) to CARB's Chair, Mary Nichols, calling for the agency to consider six steps for a social equity approach to its target setting recommendations that "account for all races and social economic backgrounds."

"What does that mean? For example, increasing housing and transit affordability, improving what we call the jobs-housing fit, will mean that all workers can live closer to their jobs, vital services and grocery stores and health care, and thereby reduce their vehicle miles traveled," she told the commissioners.

Henry Hilken, the research and planning director for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, said much of the hard work implementing SB 375 will involve reaching out to communities to build support for the kind of ambitious land use and pricing changes that will be required to set the Bay Area on a path toward more sustainable communities.

"We think it's going to be critical, in moving forward in the coming years, to really engage local governments, the public, businesses in a really frank discussion as to what those local land use decisions mean, what pricing decisions mean. Quite honestly, that's probably more important than the specific number that's set for the region."

Photo: Matthew Roth

What a difference a year makes. Yesterday, BART's meeting was lightly attended and only a few members of the public gave testimony.

Staff presented a $777.4 million Fiscal Year 2011 preliminary Capital Budget [PDF], up significantly from FY 2010's $584.8 million. Most of the year-over-year increase is attributable to approximately $136 million more spent to expand the system this coming year compared to last year, with projects such as eBART, the Warm Springs Extension, the Silicon Valley Extension and the Oakland Airport Connector expected to go into some form of planning, design or build phase. According to the budget presentation, the increase of capital spending will come from state and federal grants that have already been in the pipeline.

Over the long-term, however, BART's capital outlook is sobering. Staff said the agency faces a projected $6.8 billion shortfall of capital funding needs over the next 25 years, a stat that is consistent with other transit operators around the region. This daunting problem has prompted the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the region's transit planning body, to start a 2-year Transit Sustainability Project, an attempt to rectify this funding scenario.

Long-range capital funding picture isn't too rosy. Image: BART.

BART's Board of Directors spent the better part of an hour discussing what to do with the remainder of the money: whether to give some of it to riders through a temporary fare rollback, spend it on maintenance and facility upkeep or, perhaps, put it into reserves for a rainier day.

Staff presented the board with various spending packages for the remaining $9 million, including one with a fare reduction emphasis, one with a facility improvements emphasis and one with a financial stability emphasis.

Board Chair James Fang, who represents part of San Francisco and is up for re-election to the board this year, has publicly recommended a fare rollback of up to four months, which he believes would not only show kindness to riders, but help stimulate the economy.

"I think that stimulus into the economy is good not just for our economy but the entire district and that's why I'm an ardent supporter of the fare rollback," he said.

Director Lynette Sweet, who represents parts of Berkeley, El Cerrito, Oakland and San Francisco, urged her fellow directors to save the money for upcoming operating deficits, which could arrive as early as next year, according to BART staff budget projections.

"Last year at this time we were looking at a much different picture, a much bleaker picture," said Sweet, who described the current budget situation as an "embarrassment of riches." Rather than spend the surplus now, she argued, saving it could help the agency arrive at the "same situation next year, being embarrassed by these riches."

Board members will vote at their June meeting to approve the FY 11 budget and resolve the operating surplus issue.

Oakland Airport Connector

Despite the magnitude of the debate around the Oakland Airport Connector project over the past year, and the stern action the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) took by denying BART $70 million because the agency hadn't conducted proper civil rights and equity analysis on the project, BART's board spent barely 10 minutes discussing a proposal to authorize General Manager Dugger to adjust the OAC contract for inflation.

This move will add nearly $3 million to the price tag of the project and would placate the remaining two contractors who have committed to continue until at least June 7th, assuming BART finds funding to fill the hole left by the FTA civil rights action.

During the public comment period for this agenda item, Stuart Cohen, Executive Director of TransForm and one of the people who filed the initial complaint with the FTA about the project, announced that his non-profit had secured funding from a national foundation to conduct an in-depth study of the Hegenberger corridor. TransForm has hired Kittelson & Associates (KAI), a national transportation consulting firm to conduct a more thorough study of alternatives to the Oakland Airport Connector and to provide more detailed analysis of bus rapid transit options instead of the elevated tramway design currently in favor with BART staff.

"What we had heard from many of you when we presented our RapidBART proposal was that it wasn't detailed enough, that it was a sketch-level analysis," Cohen told BART's board. "We're being supported by a national foundation to provide that level of detail that many of you asked for and were never given."

TransForm formally requested that BART participate as a partner in the study and turn over the data that was collected during the development of OAC as well as the data that was collected during the analysis of the RapidBART service. GM Dugger said after the meeting it was too early to decide whether they would participate.

After Cohen's presentation, BART Director Gail Murray, who represents Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek, asked somewhat pointedly, "I just wanted to know if you are also bringing this forward to AC Transit because we are rail people, they're bus people. So why wouldn't you also involve them?"

Cohen said AC Transit and numerous other partners are invited, though he jumped on Murray's comment to illustrate what he considered the problem with the project. "I think the framing of the question is the problem we have here in the region. You are rail people and they are bus people and we didn't evaluate what's the best thing for that corridor, we evaluated what's the best rail project for that corridor," said Cohen.

The TransForm study will parallel BART staff's mad scramble to find funding to replace the federal money, a process the advocates and Director Tom Radulovich, who represents San Francisco, said wasn't happening in public and wasn't transparent enough. They accused BART of not following the spirit of the federal civil rights guidelines that had gotten the agency in this problematic situation in the first place.

"This action today assumes that that capital project will go forward exactly as it is," said Radulovich. "If we're really serious about [civil rights], let's not just do a bunch of meetings and do what you were going to do before. Use what you learn in that process to reshape the project."

The hasty action on the matter was enough to prompt Director Bob Franklin, who represents Berkeley and previously supported the OAC, to abstain from voting, though in the end all other directors except for Radulovich voted to give staff the authorization.

GM Dugger called the funding plan proposal a "work in progress" and said BART is working with regional and state funding partners to identify replacement funding. On the issue of public process and the FTA civil rights guidelines, Dugger said they were working diligently to meet their obligations.

"I have every confidence that the funding plan will be extensively debated in public," said Dugger. "In my 18 years at BART, I can't think of a project that has had longer public debate."

She said that as soon as staff members have the plan, they will present it to the board for public discussion, likely at the June or July meetings.

The Clipper Card readers at the Lake Merritt BART Station. Photos: Matthew Roth.

In the February 3rd letter, FTA Office of Civil Rights Director Cheryl Hershey argued that MTC relied on BART's assurances that it had conducted proper equity and fare analysis for the OAC, but there wasn't evidence the MTC had a mechanism in place to check the veracity of BART's claims. Given that the FTA subsequently found BART's civil rights policies inadequate, the federal agency wanted MTC to produce documentation to explain its policy on civil rights adherence by fiscal subrecipients like BART.

Hershey noted that despite public testimony by Bob Allen of Urban Habitat at an MTC meeting on July 8, 2009 and a subsequent letter warning of BART's "failure to produce the required equity analysis for this project," the MTC proceeded with support for the OAC.

In the letter, Hershey wrote:

As you are aware, BART is a subrecipient of the MTC, and, therefore, MTC is responsible for ensuring its subrecipients comply with Title VI, the DOT Title VI regulations, and FTA Circular 4702.1A. Your agency is responsible for documenting a process that ensures that all MTC subrecipients are in compliance with the reporting requirements of FTA C 4702.1A

The fact that BART has not conducted the necessary service equity analysis for the OAC project or fare equity analysis raises concerns that your agency does not have procedures in place to monitor its suprecipients.

MTC responded to the FTA's investigation a month later [PDF] with a long list of subrecipients for FTA grants and made the crucial argument that many categories of FTA funds that go through the MTC, including the $70 million of stimulus funds in question for the OAC, go to recipient agencies (as opposed to "subrecipient") that have to assume responsibility for complying with FTA civil rights guidelines on their own.

At the MTC Commission monthly meeting today, MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger told Streetsblog he stood by his interpretation of the FTA guidelines for the OAC money and a number of other categories, though he said the FTA has yet to respond to the MTC's letter and the review is still open.

"We haven't heard back from them," said Heminger. "So I think the ball is in their court."

Click to enlarge. Map of transit headway, where blue is an increase in dealy between routes and red is a decrease. Image: MTC.

Transit Sustainability Project and the Clipper Card

Heminger also updated his commissioners at the meeting on the launch of the Transit Sustainability Project, a regional study to determine how the MTC could promote the consolidation of transit service among the 26 Bay Area transit operators and make existing service more cost-efficient.

Heminger called the project a "big deal" and noted that the transit agencies he'd met with were not exactly thrilled with the study.

"I think it's fair to say there is a fair amount of nervousness among the transit operators and a fair amount of defensiveness," Heminger told his commissioners.

Heminger also pointed to a new map the MTC compiled that shows transit headways from 2006-2009, where service to customers had declined particularly acutely in the East Bay. The data didn't reflect the last year, as agencies like the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), which runs Muni, recently instituted 10 percent cuts.

"What we have found collectively is that we're on an unsustainable path and the purpose is to put these agencies on a stable footing," said Heminger, comparing transit service to an accordion, with increases during good economic times, decreases during bad. "That doesn't do the agencies or their customers much good."

MTC spokesperson Randy Rentschler told Streetsblog the rationale for re-branding the cards had to do with how "technological" the word "TransLink" sounds.

"Many of these cards around the world are kind of whimsically named," said Rentschler, noting the analogous card in London is called the Oyster, in Hong Kong the Octopus and in Seattle the Orca. "Clipper kind of emerged because it has an association with the Bay Area, not just because of the Clipper ships but because of the Clipper planes," said Rentschler.

The overall transition to a replicable smart card across the agencies cost $1.8 million, according to Rentschler, of which the late transition to "Clipper" was $500,000. The cards will be activated on June 16th and some operators, such as BART, had already adopted the new branding in some stations.

The only concern Rentschler had with the new logo was that there are only eight triangles and there are nine counties in the Bay Area. Rentschler wouldn't speculate which county had been left out.

Image: MTC

The report rightly points to endemic land-use and auto-centric development problems in the Bay Area that make transit less attractive for many than driving: "The Bay Area's transit system operates under the difficult combination of unpredictable revenue sources and unsustainable cost structure on the one hand, and underpriced auto alternatives and insufficiently transit-supportive land uses on the other."

One of the more troubling aspects of the report, as KALW's Nathanael Johnson wrote on the Bay Area Transit blog, is that the picture is only going to get worse without a significant change in course. Operators have already cut service and raised fares, but new capital costs will add additional burden and farebox recovery rates aren't going up.

The report also contends that transit operators have fallen short in performance. Since 1997, after adjusting for inflation, transit costs in the Bay Area have increased by 52 percent, while revenue hours of service increased by only 16 percent and ridership increased by only 7 percent.

"That is a terrible return on our regions' transit investment and it should cause us to think long and hard before committing future funds to such a low-yield strategy," the report concludes.

The report compares Bay Area transit systems to a patient with chronic illness, and the most recent two-year difficulties as a spike in the fever: "When the fever passes, this patient will not be restored to good health. Unless fundamental changes are made, the underlying, chronic conditions will reappear, and all energies will be channeled into the struggle to cope, with no real hope of thriving."

While the report is negative and cautionary, the MTC states rightly that while the current system is unsustainable, it is not "on a path of irreversible decline" and transit is vital to the health of the region's economy.

Furthermore, the growing imperative to combat climate change, according to the report, "means that our growing population must learn to drive less -- and to take transit more often."

"Both have pointed the way to a more rational system," according to the report.

Though the report's authors acknowledge they "have more questions than answers as to how the region's transit system can be repositioned to achieve higher levels of efficiency and service effectiveness," they make repeated reference to a solution that has come up numerous times at recent MTC meetings: Consolidate some of the 28 transit agencies that currently operate in the Bay Area with the goal of attaining efficiencies and reducing redundant service.

Without a transition from the current unsustainable course of action, the report says, "we will fall short of the resources our regional transit system needs by a cool $1 billion a year over the next quarter-century."