Image: BART

"Given the fact that the initial Title VI complaint against BART was well founded, I am not in a position to award the ARRA funds to BART while the agency remains out of compliance," wrote Rogoff.

In his letter, Rogoff said he was sure the project opponents that filed the original complaint with the FTA would proceed with further lawsuits, jeopardizing the tight timeline on stimulus funds. He advised BART and MTC to reallocate the money or the region would risk losing the funds altogether.

"The likelihood of protracted litigation with the parties that made the initial complaint is extremely high," wrote Rogoff. "Given this situation, and the fact that we are now only 3 weeks away from the March 5 deadline, I must bring these discussions to a close so that we can work together to ensure that the ARRA funds can create and preserve jobs in the Bay Area."

As a contingency plan, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which oversees transportation planning in the Bay Area, had planned to meet on February 17th to decide whether to reprogram the $70 million if BART did not meet its obligations. The MTC will likely move the $70 million to the region's transit agencies by pre-established funding formulas, rather than risk losing the money outright.

OAC opponents were delighted with the news.

"We think this is a victory for BART riders, transit workers and the community of East Oakland," said Wynn Hauser, spokesperson for Public Advocates, the legal team that filed the FTA complaint. "These are serious civil rights violations and we applaud FTA for following through on not only the letter but the spirit of Title IV. They are not saying you have to pay lip service, but you have to do this work."

"Now low income people and communities of color will be able to shape the project that they were originally denied so they can share in the benefits," he added.

John Knox White of TransForm, a transit and smart growth advocacy organization, said the decision vindicates the position TransForm and its allies have taken for more than a year. "Through this, BART has repeatedly tried to keep the public out of this process," he said.

White also pointed to the benefit the $70 million will have to maintain service and avoid fare increases at transit agencies across the Bay Area, including Muni, BART, and AC Transit, which all have budget deficits.

"FTA's decision allows MTC to put this money to transit agencies, including BART, who desperately needs it now," said White. "It's a win for everybody."

As for how this affects Muni's budget concerns, spokesperson Judson True said: "It's too early to say exactly what impact this will have on our operating budget." But, he noted, "We've done the work required to be ready to receive any funding that MTC directs our way. Since the stimulus bill first passed, we've been prepared for this eventuality."

According to True, of the $17.5 million Muni would receive, $4.3 million will go to preventive maintenance, which is essentially operating expenses. The remainder would be programmed toward light rail vehicle rehab.

Neither BART nor MTC were immediately available for comment.

More from FTA Administrator Rogoff's letter:

Since my letter of January 15, FTA staff and BART have worked diligently but unsuccessfully on the development of a corrective action plan that might be acceptable. I am required to now inform you that your plan is rejected. I ask that you immediately get in contact with Region IX Administrator Leslie Rogers for the purpose of pursuing alternative projects for the Bay area that can be obligated prior to the March 5 deadline.

I am required to reject your plan for the following reasons. Based on the timelines submitted by BART, there is no way the agency can come into full compliance with Title VI by September 30, 2010. The requirements of ARRA dictate that any funds not disbursed by September 30, 2010, must be lapsed back to the Treasury. And since I cannot allow BART to draw any funds for the OAC project prior to coming into full compliance, it is clear that pursuit of the OAC project would result in the funds either being reallocated out of the Bay area or lapsed. Both scenarios are unacceptable to me as I am sure they are to you. Let me say that, based on FTA's experience in other cities, BART is being realistic in admitting that the process of coming into full compliance will take considerably longer than the 8+ months that remain before the September 30 deadline. I appreciate and respect your honesty in this regard.

Given the fact that the initial Title VI complaint against BART was well founded, I am not in a position to award the ARRA funds to BART while the agency remains out of compliance. Moreover, it is clear that, if FTA were to pursue such a course, the likelihood of protracted litigation with the parties that made the initial complaint is extremely high. Given this situation, and the fact that we are now only 3 weeks away from the March 5 deadline, I must bring these discussions to a close so that we can work together to ensure that the ARRA funds can create and preserve jobs in the Bay area.

The efforts of the last few weeks have not been wasted. Wholly separate from the fate of the OAC project, it is imperative that BART, as a recipient of FTA funds, come fully into compliance with Title VI as soon as possible. The plans developed between our staffs over the last few weeks lay the groundwork for BART to achieve that important goal.

Photo: Matthew Roth

Democracy in action, I suppose. Long-time bicycle advocates from the East Bay and San Francisco converged on this meeting, hoping to convince the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) to support using some of the new tolls ($5 on all bridges as of July 1, with $6 congestion pricing on the Bay Bridge during rush hour, and for the first time, a half-price toll for carpoolers) to fund a new west-span bicycle/pedestrian/maintenance/safety lane to make the bridge safer, and to finish the transbay route for bicyclists and pedestrians too, not just motorized vehicles. But that effort was bureaucratically sidetracked before this meeting even started.

Surrounding the MTC hearing room were bicycle advocates from around the region. Photo: Chris Carlsson.

The BATA's legal advice from a prior meeting was that they have no authority to allocate toll monies toward this new path, in spite of language in the law that allows for maintenance and safety improvements, which the new path unambiguously represents.

Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates has asked for a second legal opinion from the State Legislative Counsel, which he said will take 2-3 months to get. Moreover, he followed the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) chair's admonition to the assembled cycling advocates to save their comments for another time (since the question of funding and building a new west-span side path would not be addressed in this meeting), by stressing that the fight was no longer at BATA or the MTC but had moved to the state Legislature in Sacramento.

It's hardly a surprise that the MTC wanted to duck this issue and pass the buck to Sacramento. The 15-member MTC is a lopsided status-quo minded entity. That was revealed again today when San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, responding to several public commenters who were casual carpoolers and feared the new toll would wipe out the phenomenon, proposed the $2.50 carpool toll be reduced to $2.00. A roll-call vote went 13-3 against the proposal, only Daly, Tom Bates, and Bay Conservation and Development Commissioner Ann Halstedt voting for it.

One comment from an employee of the Bay Area Air Quality Control District pointed out that casual carpooling reduces congestion, saves money for those who do it, AND builds community, but the majority of the commissioners were not inclined to tinker with their staff's proposed new toll schedule. Nor did any of them choose to question the formula by which truckers have new tolls phased in over 3 years, denying the bridge budget $60 million according to their own calculations (recreational vehicle owners also showed up to challenge their being classified as trucks for purposes of bridge tolls, which will raise their bridge-crossing costs by 150%).

There is a long and charming local history of bicycle advocates who have pushed BART, Caltrain, the Golden Gate Bridge, and local bus systems for greater accommodation for bicycles and cyclists. It's a thankless, Sisyphean task, and we can all be thankful for those folks who have stuck with it.

That said, I've always been astonished at the eager sincerity a lot of people bring to these governmental processes. As far as I can tell the system is deeply broken. The inordinate emphasis, even at this very late date, on automobiles, freeways, "level of service," etc., seems to always trump common sense efforts to promote the incredibly modest beginnings of a new infrastructure. After all, there are state laws mandating major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. How is that going to be achieved without an alternative as obvious as a Bay Bridge bike path?

It was Jason Meggs and some stalwart friends a decade ago who rode bikes across the Bay Bridge to dramatize the absurdity of denying access to a central transportation artery. But most of the energy these days goes into attending these hearings with homemade signs, with earnest behind-the-scenes message making so as not to offend the commissioners, or become unseemly or too aggressive.

The urgency of altering how we live day to day gets quite lost in these processes. The moods of commissioners, the technical language in obscure appropriations bills, the muscle-bound lobbying strength of corporate behemoths, together become the focus of political action, rather than the terrain of our daily lives. I like the slogan "Bridge the Gap" just fine, but I couldn't help but feel that the real gap needing bridging at today's hearing was between the building trades workers out front clamoring for "jobs" and the bicycling advocates inside who were firmly but cautiously seeking support for a maintenance lane to be added to the west span.

I wondered if anyone had spoken with the building trades folks about supporting the bike/ped/etc. lane? Or has thought to propose a much broader alliance on local projects? (And what is it with union workers and their leaders that they always abdicate control over deciding what work is worth doing to those with the purse strings? Shouldn't workers be central deciders in how their work is employed in our communities?) What about a massive overhaul of local roads and bridges, adding Copenhagen-style bike lanes on every street and span? Think how much work that would be! Oh but we can't pay for it is the immediate rejoinder.

And if you accept the narrow constraints of institutional political reality as it is, then the argument is lost. But what about repealing Prop 13, at least as it applies to major corporations in California? What about ending the U.S. empire's military bases in over 100 countries around the world? Why is the U.S. spending as much on guns and bombs and death and mayhem as the rest of the world combined? Why did the federal government give away $1.5 trillion to the wealthiest owners of businesses instead of embarking on the much-promoted "Green New Deal" that if done honestly, might have provided resources for just this kind of drastic and dramatic reorganization and rebuilding of our urban physical infrastructure?

Common sense is trivialized and marginalized in the public process.

The west-span bike lane is a pipe dream for now. But by making it contingent on a massively expensive new lane being added to the existing bridge (and done under the design and control of the brazenly anti-bicycle Department of Highways, oops, I mean Caltrans), aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot?

A bike/ped/safety/maintenance lane could be put on the top deck of the Bay Bridge in two weeks if we had the political vision to do it. Here's how: Admit that traffic on the inbound west span rarely exceeds 30 mph and make that the new speed limit during rush hour. It's a pretty drive anyway, who cares if you have to go slower? And most of the time you can't get near 30 mph anyway, given the congested traffic. Narrow the five lanes from 12 feet to 10 feet, take the new 10 feet of space and barricade it with a cement railing. Voila! You have a bike/ped/safety/maintenance lane. The other five lanes are open during rush hour, but only 4 lanes are open the rest of the time, leaving a buffer lane next to the bike/etc. lane for additional safety. When traffic is light and only four lanes are open, the existing 50 mph speed limit can prevail... If we wanted to do it, we don't have to wait 3 months for a new legal opinion, and then another 2-plus years for another toll increase, and then 5-7 years for design and building of this new lane.

We could do it by March 1. Why not?

A proposed alternative to the Oakland Airport Connector. Image: TransForm

The potential relief from this scenario is in the form of $70 million in federal stimulus that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, at its meeting tomorrow, could direct to the region's transit agencies instead of to construction of the Oakland Airport Connector (OAC), which faces a large hurdle for failing to comply with federal social equity rules.

As reported here yesterday, the complaint filed by several Bay Area groups specified that BART had not conducted the required social equity analysis to determine how the service would impact low income groups, and that if it did, it would find that the project benefits relatively affluent airport passengers at the expense of airport workers and everyday transit riders.

"We see it as Robin Hood in reverse," said Rev. Scott Denman of Genesis, which coordinates a social justice transit collaboration with faith-based organizations. Denman added that the money being proposed will go to BART customers with means who can afford an airline ticket, while general transit service continues to be cut and fares continue to rise.

"I feel like lunch money is being stolen to pay for dessert for people with full stomachs," said Denman.

Advocates also said the OAC was a boondoggle to large contractors when the region needs to maintain current critical transit service jobs. With that calculation clear in Muni riders' minds, the pressure on MTC to direct stimulus dollars to the region's transit agencies instead of to the unpopular airport connector is growing. Rescue Muni today joined the chorus of organizations opposing the OAC.

Despite the fact that Muni passengers have a great deal to lose from this decision by the MTC, the MTA Board of Directors did not mention the possibility of this stimulus funding at their meeting last week with the lengthy discussion over Muni's budget deficit. Let's hope they are pressuring the MTC behind the scenes.

East Bay advocates have been organizing in earnest and have planned a rally before the MTC Commission meeting at 9 am at MTC headquarters, 101 8th Street, Oakland.

"This is not a 'turn people out, even though we are going to lose' moment, this is a 'Grab the brass ring and win' moment," said John Knox-White of TransForm.

UPDATE 8:03 pm: The Mayor's Office released this letter from Nathaniel Ford, executive director of the MTA, indicating the agency's eagerness to spend the stimulus money if the MTC "opts to release its $70 million ARRA commitment to the OAC."

The Mayor's spokesperson, Tony Winnicker, and Ford in his letter, were very careful not to impugn the Oakland Airport Connector. "It's not in San Francisco's interest -- or any city's interest, for that matter -- to [attack a project approved by the regional governing body]." But Winnicker went on to write, "we absolutely need the funding, will put it to good use benefitting Bay Area transit riders immediately and have respectfully requested the money from the MTC."

Image: TransForm

The gravity of the situation has not been lost on the MTC. In a letter from MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger to his Commissioners about BART and the FTA [PDF], Heminger quoted the stern warning from FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff:

If BART were to fail in any respect to make progress or to meet its deadline as established in the action plan, FTA would have to de-obligate the ARRA funds for the Project and would be prohibited by law from re-obligating those funds to alternative projects in the San Francisco Bay Area [emphasis original].

As a result, Heminger noted in the letter, the Commission has several options, including a reaffirmation of its commitment to the OAC, with the attendant risk of losing the money if BART doesn't meet it's obligations to the FTA, or redistribution of the funds to operators according to MTC funding formulas. MTC staff will present its recommendation to Commissioners by this Wednesday's regular MTC meeting.

Bob Allen, Transportation Director of Urban Habitat, said he found BART Board Director James Fang's surprise with the FTA ruling to be disingenous at best. According to Allen, he stood before BART Directors at meetings starting in early 2009 and repeated the same refrain, "If you don't do this analysis, you own the outcomes. You are responsible for any civil rights outcomes that could come from this."

Given the risk that BART won't satisfactorily comply with equity analysis, advocates are organizing a rally before the Wednesday MTC meeting, where they will call on the Commissioners to revisit a plan to redistribute the $70 million to transit operators.

"Wednesday’s vote will decide once and for all whether these stimulus funds are about creating the maximum number of jobs and serving people in a down economy, or are gambled on a disastrously expensive and slow pet-project," said TransForm's John Knox White in a statement. "The Bay Area could lose that $70 million altogether later this spring if and when it is found there is a better alternative to the airport that doesn’t harm low-income commuters. This is not Las Vegas; the Bay Area simply can’t accept a gamble with such bad odds."

If the $70 million were redistributed for transit operations, Muni, for instance, would get enough revenue to cover the agency's current deficit. "With MUNI fare increases and across-the-board service cuts having just gone into effect," said Sarah Karlinsky, Deptuty Director of SPUR, in a statement, "We hope that the MTC makes the most of this opportunity to ensure that more service cuts and higher increases won't have to take place in a couple of months.”

The MTC originally had the option of allocating the $70 million in stimulus funds to transit operators last spring, but decided on the OAC as its first priority. At the time, MTC's Heminger explained to Commissioners that the money could go to transit operators according to established funding formulas should the OAC run into problems. Though transit advocates like TransForm, Urban Habitat, Public Advocates, and Genesis at the time had warned that BART hadn't done proper equity analysis of the OAC, neither the MTC Commission nor the BART Board believed their argument. Public Advocates later filed an administrative complaint with the FTA over BART's minority policies and compelled the FTA compliance review of December 2009 that led to this point.

"The MTC commissioners who voted for the OAC project are the ones that put things at risk and now they have the chance to make sure the funds stay in the region for transit service and jobs, said Allen.

The $70 million could be split among all Bay Area operators accordingly (courtesy, TransForm):

• $17 million to BART, which faces a $25 million budget shortfall and will be voting on January 28 on whether or not to cut 74 positions layoffs and whether to institute another round of fare increases.
• $17.5 million to MUNI, which currently faces a $16.9 million operating deficit and will be voting on March 2 on a proposal to cut 230 jobs and implement service cuts.
• $6.7 million to AC Transit, which plans to cut its service by 8.4% in March and is looking at a possible further 7% cut later this year.
• $12.2 million to VTA, which has depleted their financial reserves and faces a $50 million operating deficit next fiscal year despite recently cutting service by 8 percent and raising fares.
• Another $17 million that would be divided among Caltrain ($2.7 million), Golden Gate ($2.4 million), SamTrans ($2 million), Vallejo ($2 million) and other Bay Area transit systems.

After more than than 15 months of delays spurred by weld fabrication and inspection issues, the first steel sections for the highly publicized signature span glided across the Bay Thursday afternoon.

"This is the moment we will actually see this bridge come to life," Caltrans spokesperson Bart Ney said to a small group of journalists at a press event.

When the barge carrying eight 1100-ton sections arrived at Oakland's Pier 7, it was ahead of schedule for a change.

Upon seeing the cargo for the first time, Metropolitan Transportation Commission executive director Steve Heminger said, "it's about time."

The freighter, called the Zhen Hua 17, arrived six days early, and could have coasted through the Golden Gate one day sooner if not for this week's El-Nino-like storm surge, which pummeled the Bay Area with high winds and heavy rains.

Rough seas Wednesday forced the freighter into a holding pattern about 40 miles off shore from the Golden Gate, and was one of three ships delayed that day.

Even in better weather, San Francisco bar pilots navigate large vessels through the Bay's gauntlet of narrow shipping channels, sand bars and whipping winds.

The vessel's Chinese crew, shown here on deck during a break in Thursday's heavy rains.

Pete McIsaac, president of the San Francisco Bar Pilot's Association, said, tempest aside, part of the reason bar pilots couldn't board the ship has to do with the shape of its hull.

Most container ships have flat-sided hulls, allowing the bar pilot's ship to safely bob alongside the massive sealiners until weather permits boarding. The Zhen Hua 17 is much different: narrow at the waterline, its hull drastically flares to 32-meters wide at some points, much like the hull of an aircraft carrier.

That type of hull can "completely destroy the boat if there's a sea running," McIsaac said, like Wednesday's 12-foot sea swells that have been tossing around the smaller bar pilot boats.

Thursday's choppy seas threatened to keep the freighter stranded. But when the storms broke around noon, the 225-meter long Zhen Hua 17 had a date with the bar pilot who assisted it into the moor at Pier 7, the project staging area just south of the existing Bay Bridge.

"We've been at the whims of the weather with this ship coming in," said American Bridge project engineer Mike Flowers, whose firm is the prime contractor on the project.

The first of four shipments for the suspension span deck floats on the Zhen Hua 17 at Pier 7 in Oakland.

It was a much different story at the start of the voyage. The skies were clear over Shanghai's Changxing Island at the end of December, and the only thing raining from the sky was confetti.

There, at the expansive facility of Zhenhua Heavy Industry Company - known better by its former name of Zhenhua Port Machinery Company, or ZPMC for short - more than 2,000 workers have labored for years virtually around the clock to churn out the steel for this project. According to a Caltrans press release, executives from ZPMC and Caltrans brandished scissors for some ceremonious ribbon-cutting and workers lit firecrackers for good luck as the 25-year old vessel waded through the Yangtze River and into the mouth of the vast Pacific Ocean.

Caltrans and American Bridge engineers in Oakland, while perhaps not as superstitious, were not as celebratory either on the rainy grey afternoon. A cluster of journalists slogged out to the Port to catch a glimpse of the hulking Zhen Hua 17, which was skirted at the pier by a smaller tugboat called the Millennium Falcon.

"It's not something that played out well for some big public event," Ney said, "And that's fine because we're focused on getting the bridge built."

Flowers said internal discussions among project mangers led to the decision to wait to break out the champagne until the next shipping milestone, when the tower sections arrive in late spring or early summer. (Note how project managers talk in seasons with this project, not months.)

"The tone for the Bay Bridge team is extreme exuberance, we've been working really hard on getting these segments here," Ney said.

Birds take flight on the grey Thursday afternoon against the background of the freighter.

Using the aptly named Left Coast Lifter, a mammoth red-white-and-blue floating crane parked in the Bay, crews have erected thousands of temporary steel formwork just east of Yerba Buena Island in the gap where the completed parallel concrete roadways abruptly end.

Over the next 10 days, as crews complete the task of unloading the more than 5,000 tons of steel from the Zhen Hua 17 onto barges that can carry two of the 80-foot-long sections at a time, Ney said crews must first check to see how the pieces have shifted during the trans-Pacific trip.

Massive yellow structures on the freighter called "sea fasteners" ensure the safe passage of each of the delicately fabricated deck sections, Ney said, by absorbing impacts and allowing the sections to travel stacked one on top of another.

Because the signature span is a so-called self-anchored suspension span, the bridge is built in reverse, with the temporary trestle supporting the deck until the tower and cables are in place. In all, there are 28 sections comprising the deck and another 20 sections for the four tower legs that will eventually rise 525 feet from the marine foundations waiting off Yerba Buena Island.

Shallow waters off the island's coast hinder even the specialized Left Coast Lifter from immediately positioning the goods at the future spans' westernmost end.

Flowers said that crews will first hoist the 1,100-ton sections next to the more centrally located tower foundations and onto a cradle - essentially a tray sitting atop the trestle rails. Then, using a system of hydraulic jacks, crews will push each piece hundreds of feet along the falsework.

A smaller tugboat, the Millennium Falcon nudges the hulking Zhen Hua 17, which transported more than 5,500 tons of steel for the suspension span of the new Bay Bridge.

These sections will be over land, not sea, and will hover above the formal naval torpedo building - once used to house munitions - on the rocky island below.

Flowers expects that task will get underway in mid-February, after his team and Caltrans jointly scrutinize the sections, checking to ensure the bumpy sea voyage did no harm.

A heavyweight in the shipping crane industry with almost 80 percent of that global market, ZPMC is relatively new to bridge building and struggled - as Caltrans engineers said most fabricators would - to meet the exacting weld quality demands imposed by Caltrans. This resulted in widespread repairs and a backlog of work for some 200 inspectors on site in Shanghai.

But take a look around the Port of Oakland and you'll find more evidence of ZPMC's handiwork, like the behemoth shipping cranes that grace the shoreline, one scenic backdrop for the Bay Bridge construction. And the Left Coast Lifter was also built by the Chinese fabricator. Although the paint job was ZPMC's idea, according to one Caltrans public information officer.

Despite the flurry of recent activity for the project, more than two decades will have elapsed from that October 1989 day when the magnitude-6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake rattled the Bay Area, to the estimated bridge opening in late 2013.

What's one day more?

Time is of the essence for replacing the Bay Area's busiest bridge, which carries 280,000 vehicles daily and is second only to New York City's George Washington Bridge. With the seismic clock ticking away and last autumn's eyebar failure putting the existing structure back underneath the media microscope, officials say the sooner the better.

And with public awareness amplified by talks of a likely toll increase and charging carpools to cross the bridge, some of those 280,000 drivers are sure to be watching Caltrans' every move.

The red-white-and-blue Left Coast Lifter, the largest floating crane on the West Coast, idles behind the Zhen Hua 17, a freighter carrying steel for the Bay Bridge's signature span.

Prompted by spiraling interest rates, decreasing toll revenue and the undertaking of the $750 million seismic retrofit of the Antioch and Dumbarton bridges, drivers should expect to pay at least $1 more to cross six of the region's bridges. Congestion pricing on the Bay Bridge will set the toll between the current $4 to a peak-rate of $6, with carpools now expected to contribute a proposed $2.50 via mandatory electronic toll tags.

With bridge tolls set to increase by July 1, at least commuters will finally be able to see whatever it is that they're paying for because by then construction of the suspension span will be well underway.

Leaps and bounds made in the field of seismic engineering prompted the 74-year-old bridge to be replaced - rather than retrofitted. The original structure was expected to be in use for more than 100 years. Caltrans has designed the new bridge to operate for 150 years and withstand the kind of major earthquake the U.S. Geological Survey says is probable in the Bay Area.

"This isn't the type of bridge you build once in a lifetime. This is the type of bridge you build once," Ney said.

Photo: pbo31

The MTC allocated $80 million over the next three years, including $28 million that had previously been earmarked for highway ramp metering lights. Cohen said the MTC had received more than 500 letters from constituents around the region clamoring for the climate money and that senior staff had been refreshingly receptive and committed to dialoge.

"They were quite open in letting us help shape what the project will look like."

Long a priority for TransForm, the sustainability funding will focus on four key components:

1. Climate action plans - the money will assist county and city leaders in developing climate action plans or implementing strategies already in developed plans. Cohen expected to see many more innovative parking campaigns like SFPark, SFGo and pricing and congestion mitigation.
2. Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) -  This will be the first regionally funded SRTS program with money for every school in the region, allocated by county based on the number of children attending the schools. "They are actually doling out transportation money based on the safety and welfare of children," remarked Cohen.
3. Educational outreach - Though this component is largely undefined, it will likely include money for education strategies around the relationship between climate and transportation choices.
   
4. Evaluation models - Money to help to establish a meta evaluation program to make sure all of the regional projects funded with MTC money have similar, diligent metrics.
   

"If we can't translate these changes on the ground up into this regional model, decision makers won't allow these effective strategies to compete for dollars with larger infrastructure projects," he added.

The MTC has yet to define what stakeholder input will be, but some projects will likely start to be selected for consideration by this summer, according to Cohen, who said the region's planners have so often focused on improving or increasing capacity on roadways for cars, they've failed to develop strategies for reducing driving, which will be mandatory when California climate legislation like AB 32 and SB 375 reduction requirements take effect.

"We're so focused on supply, we're missing out on all these creative strategies to reduce driving," said Cohen. "The lowest hanging fruit is transportation demand management, getting more folks to use the programs and to reduce the [car] trips they are taking."

Photo: kpmarek

The three toll increase scenarios are:

• Option 1: $5 toll for autos and motorcycles, $3 for carpools and $6 per each additional axle for trucks
• Option 2: $5 toll for autos and motorcycles, $0 for carpools and $10 per each additional axle for trucks
  
• Option 3: Same as Option 1 for six bridges except for San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, which would charge $6 for autos and motorcycles in peak hours and $4 for autos in non-peak hours (M-F), and $5 for autos on weekends

Of all the options, number 3, which essentially works out to congestion pricing on the Bay Bridge, is generating a good deal of debate. TransForm, which advocates for smart growth and alternative transportation funding, would like to see the increased congestion fee during peak hours, but would like the fee during non-peak hours on the Bay Bridge to be $5, like the baseline that would be adopted at all the other bridges.

"If BATA's proposal is to increase the base toll to $5, then they should use the base to be the non-peak toll at the Bay Bridge, not a number that's lower than any other bridge," said Transform's Carli Paine. Paine also said her organization opposes Option 1 because it would discourage carpooling. "Simply put, let's not try to raise the revenue on carpoolers, who are doing what people should be doing."

Paine also said a big fee increase should come from commercial vehicles, because BATA data showed trucks have a greater impact on roadways and over time aren't paying enough in fees for upkeep, particularly trucks that aren't registered in California and don't pay taxes in the state.

The East Bay Bicycle Coalition's (EBBC) position is similar to TransForm's, though it would like to see language in the resolution that would require BATA to use a portion of the Bay Bridge fee increase to complete the Bay Bridge paths. EBBC Executive Director Robert Raburn said that the new paths would be a benefit for all users of the bridge (vehicle breakdowns and maintenance requiring lane closures currently cause significant traffic delays) and would cost approximately $200 million, just over one year's projected revenue from the toll increase.

"We have to bridge the gap. We've made a tremendous investment in the East Span," said Raburn. "There are only a limited number of attractions on Treasure Island at present. Right now cyclists don't have an option [to go from the East Bay to San Francisco], particularly when you have the BART blackout. Oakland is closer to the downtown San Francisco district than Marin is to downtown San Francisco and the Golden Gate Bridge gets loads of bicycle traffic."

Raburn's proposal will likely be met with resistance, in part because the funding mechanisms in place at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the parent body of BATA, cannot easily transfer toll money for new projects, according to MTC spokesperson Randy Rentschler.

"This toll increase is being used for seismic measures," said Rentschler, who added that Regional Measures 1 and 2, which fund bicycle, pedestrian, and transit projects, are beneficiaries of toll money, but are already programmed and leave little room for projects like the west-span Bay Bridge path.

"We need this toll increase in part because this debt strategy requires it," said Rentschler. "We tried in state law to authorize a future vote to do more measures with toll money, a 'Regional Measure 3' or similar, but that failed.  This is not about doing more stuff, this is about funding the stuff we've got."

You can take an MTC survey here. Written comments will be accepted until 4 p.m., December 21, 2009; written comments should be submitted to the BATA Public Information Office at 101 Eighth Street, Oakland, California, 94607-4700; or faxed to BATA at 510.817.5848; or sent via e-mail to tolls@mtc.ca.gov.

OAC image: BART

Most of the political class lined up in opposition to the council resolution and in favor of completing the OAC as an elevated people mover under the current design. A late letter of support from Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums urged several provisions, including intermediate stops and hiring requirements, but did not set up parameters for their inclusion in the project. Most speakers honed in on the need for job creation in Oakland, which is suffering from more than 17 percent unemployment, though disagreement raged over whether or not the construction jobs (estimated from 689 to 15,000, depending on the job creation metric used by the speakers) merited the public outlay of funds.

After testimony from more than 100 public speakers late into the night, at 1:15am this morning Nadel and Kaplan conceded they didn't have the votes to carry the resolution opposed to the OAC and the council approved an alternative resolution introduced by Councilmember Ignacio de la Fuente to support the OAC with three provisos mirroring Dellums':

• Bind local job requirements (50 percent of hires from the region, 25 percent from Oakland) with penalties for non-performance, versus BART's current non-binding hiring objectives
  
• An intermediate stop funded by BART out of project funding that is allocated, but may not be needed for the project if construction costs reduce the contractor bids below the expected $522-552 million price tag
  
• An analysis of the OAC Fare with regards to social equity impacts, particularly if bids come in lower than expected

Councilmember Larry Reid, who has been a proponent of OAC for more than 20 years, argued that rejecting the fixed rail connector would prevent Oakland from maintaining its regional competitiveness with other airports. "This is a regional airport," he said. "If we are going to be competitive with San Francisco or San Jose, we need this to be seamless.  San Francisco has always been one of our competitive modes."

Reid also urged his colleagues not to put the entire responsibility of funding one or two intermediate stops on BART, but suggested they levy development impact fees within the Coliseum Redevelopment Area to supplement BART. He even referenced an unnamed developer he had been lobbying intensively over the past nine months to site a large commercial development along Hegenberger, one he suggested would benefit greatly from the stop.

Councilmember Kernighan said she was swayed by TransForm's arguments for a lower-cost bus alternative, but was concerned that delaying the project now to study an alternative would set the timeline back by five years and result in the re-allocation the OAC's multiple sources of funding to other counties in the region. According to Kernighan, who said she checked her numbers with the MTC, BART, the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA), and TransForm, in the best case scenario, Alameda County could only hope to retain a maximum of $115 of the more than $500 million of project dollars, of which only $7 million could go to funding bus operations at AC Transit (for basic funding numbers click here, scroll down).

"Some people have said the Oakland Airport Connector is a really bad project. I don't think it's a bad project, it's just an expensive project," said Kernighan. "It's a little bit wishful thinking to say that, 'if we don't build this over-priced connector, the East Bay is going to have oodles of money.'" 

Council President Jane Brunner went further, calling MTC Spokesperson Randy Rentschler and ACTIA Executive Director Christine Monsen to the lectern, where she ran down each line item of OAC funding and asked where the money would go if they didn't build the connector. In almost every case, argued Rentschler and Monsen, the money would be reprogrammed elsewhere and would not benefit the corridor.

Ultimately, the Oakland Council's provisions were not formally agreed to by BART and the resolution does not have statutory authority over the operator. BART Spokesperson Luna Salaver confirmed that BART is not compelled by the resolution, but said they wanted to maintain good relations with the city:

We do seek to partner with all the local entities that we serve.  I know that [BART Director] Carol Ward Allen made a commitment to make sure that many of the jobs that were created would go to Oakland residents and under-served contractors.  In terms of a fare, there has always been this issue by the opponents of the connector.  $6 was never set in stone. The board is the entity that would have the final say on what the fare would be, not an engineering estimate. It would be based on the realities of the economic situation when the connector opens.

As for the intermediate stop, Salaver said that has always been on the operator's radar and has been the intention should funding be secured. When asked whether BART would use the balance of the up to $150 million in TIFIA loans it has sought from the FTA if construction bids come in significantly lower than $500 million to build an intermediate stop, Salaver said should would have to consult with the project manager. BART would clearly have a competing incentive to return the FTA loan and keep its debt obligations lower.

Although the OAC is now closer than ever to moving forward, opponents are pinning their hopes on a Title VI lawsuit filed by Public Advocates against BART for failing to analyze the impacts of the current OAC project on minority and low income residents of Oakland. The FTA received the lawsuit in early September and has until early December to respond. For a detailed account of the case, read Transbay Blog's excellent coverage here.

Though the site reminds you that it's still in beta and needs your feedback to make it better, they've done a great job linking you to beautiful hikes and day trips without the need to sit in bridge traffic. By partnering with 511.org, the site uses up-to-the-minute transit information to make your trip planning as convenient as possible. Please check it out and let the site managers know if there are bugs to work out or content they are missing.

Also, if you're headed out this weekend for a hike, why don't you see how well the route planner works and let us know the results.

Data SF App Showcase

Not to be outdone in the cool use of data department, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced a new facet of the city's Data SF website, this one showcasing the various applications that have been created for computers and mobile devices using city data sources.

"We are trying to turn San Francisco’s government into an organizing platform for civic engagement by giving our residents the tools to build the kind of government that works for them," said Mayor Newsom. "This is just the beginning. We hope creative developers will build countless more apps never dreamed of in City Hall."

In addition to faves like Routesy, the app showcase has several applications that map crime data and one that tracks cabs.  Pretty good use of city data so far, though we're still anxious to see a cool application expanding on the city's bicycle map, perhaps featuring user feedback on routes, major potholes, etc. Does that already exist, Streetsbloggers?

Images: Rael Fratello Architects

Ronald Rael, Principal at Rael San Fratello Architects and Professor of Architecture at UC Berkeley's graduate program, has developed a plan that would preserve the existing cantilever and truss section of the Bay Bridge and transform the span into a park and mixed-use development. In homage to the High Line, Rael's project is dubbed The Bay Line (PDF).

Rael and Berkeley have submitted their proposal to a design competition sponsored by UCLA, but have not made a formal proposal to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) or Caltrans, both of which are not likely to support any more changes to construction of the Bay Bridge.

Though MTC spokesperson Randy Rentschler hadn't seen the proposal, he called any attempt to preserve the old span a "pipe dream." "We won't leave it up for the same reason we are taking it down. That is, there is a real chance this bridge segment won't stand up in a quake. Also, keeping it maintained is cost prohibitive."

He added, joking, "Past that, it would be a great permanent location of the Summer X Games."

Rael, however, is quite serious about the project, pointing to many examples of re-purposing bridges and rail infrastructure to house dwellings and parks, including the Ponte Vecchio in Florence, the Promenade Plantee in Paris, and the Belt Line in Atlanta. Rael envisions the project as an important use of existing infrastructure to promote urban density and has a proposal to pay for the necessary seismic retrofits, which he points out, would be billions cheaper than the ballooned cost of the new self-anchored suspension bridge that is being built for cars.

"The bridge does need further seismic upgrades, however it was initially considered that a seismic retrofit of the old bridge would cost $200 million—something we've taken into account in our proposal," said Rael. "Instead, it was decided a new bridge would be better because it was estimated that it could be built for a few million more than the $200 million retrofit, at $780 million. As I understand it, the new bridge is now estimated to cost $6.2 billion to complete."

By promoting many uses of the bridge, including rents for retail and residential, the project would help pay for its own maintenance. Rael does project an upfront capital shortfall of $350 million, which he proposes recouping through bridge tolls or commercial rental over 40 years.

The upper deck would include a 1.9 mile bicycle and pedestrian pathway (with amazing views, no doubt) as well as tennis courts, a climbing wall, and 15 acres for planting gardens and growing crops. The lower level mixed-use development would include a number of pre-fabricated residential units, swimming pools, retail development and cultural amenities, such as museums and an open-air amphitheater.

Given the successful fundraising for the High Line and a very real need to maximize the potential of existing urban infrastructure, is The Bay Line less of a pipe dream than one would think?

A demonstration model of new TransLink fare gates. Photo: Michael Rhodes

The project will cost $29 million, $11 million of which will come from the federal economic stimulus plan. The Board of Supervisors approved the plan at its meeting on Tuesday. Muni has long planned to replace its aging fare gates, but San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) Executive Director Nat Ford said the stimulus funds were essential to getting it done now.

"We have been working on this project literally for almost a decade to replace these fare gates and had a significant gap in terms of our funding," said Ford. "The $11 million that we received to support this project closed the gap, and we will be rapidly installing the fare gates."

"I think everyone who uses the Muni system is well aware that our existing fare gates and fare machines are well past their useful life. They were installed over thirty years ago."

In place of the transfers that riders now receive at Muni Metro fare gates, riders who do not already have TransLink cards will be able to purchase limited-use paper TransLink cards at the new ticket vending machines. Unlike the current fare boxes, riders will be able to use a variety of mediums to pay for their tickets, including cash, coins, and credit cards. Riders will also be able to purchase regular plastic TransLink cards, like those already in circulation, at the machines.

New Muni TransLink ticket vending machines will accept cash, coins, and credit cards. Photo: Michael Rhodes

MTC commissioner Anne Halsted said Muni's successful TransLink pilot project made implementing a full TransLink fare gate system possible. "Thanks to the successful rollout of TransLink on the Muni system over the last eight months, when the MTA needed to replace its aging fare gates, it decided all the new fare gates will accept only TransLink, so we're all going to be converting in the future," said Halsted. "This is going to establish Muni as the real leader in this movement."

"I'm a San Francisco resident, and a Muni rider, and a TransLink advocate and customer," said Halsted. "This electronic TransLink fare payment card is a big part the MTC's strategy for ensuring greater coordination among the 28 Bay Area transit agencies."

Muni currently has about 6,000 daily TransLink users. Of 1,200 Muni TransLink users surveyed during the trial period that begin last December, Halsted said 83 percent said they were satisfied or very satisfied, and 92 percent said they would recommend TransLink to a friend. Ford confirmed that TransLink is now essentially fully operational on Muni buses, streetcars and light rail vehicles.

Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc., a San Diego-based company, assumed the TransLink contract with MTC earlier this summer after purchasing Vix ERG's Concord, California operations center. BART had encouraged the MTC do get rid of Erg earlier this year, citing the company's problems in implementing projects similar to TransLink in other regions.

MTA executive director Nat Ford demonstrates how TransLink ticket vending machines will work. Photo: Michael Rhodes

A full rollout of TransLink in Muni's light rail stations by fall 2010 is a lofty goal, considering that some kinks are still being ironed out: riders still report frequent occurrences of buses and trains with TransLink readers that are not operational, resulting in lost revenue for Muni. Still, with both BART and Caltrain soft-launching TransLink fare payment earlier this month, it's beginning to look like a significant component of regional transit coordination may really be coming to fruition, well over a decade after first capturing the imagination of the region's transit planners.

Flickr photo: b3nda

One of the positives to come of the high drama around the BART strike was the public dialogue it engendered among riders, the media, transit geeks, and transit operators. How were those hundreds of thousands of people going to find a way to work, particularly given that more than 60 percent of BART's passengers are suburban commuters who use the system to get to and from work, most of them in San Francisco, and there are few other options to get across the Bay from the east?

The number of stories on the strike were legion, though most of them covered little more than the back and forth of the negotiations and included the man-on-the-street interview about how greedy the union was. One thing that wasn't covered, but which was important to BART, was the concern that a strike would compel many people away from the system to their cars or other means of transport, and the fear those riders might not have readily come back.

"People can form new habits fast," said BART Director Tom Radulovich. "Our ridership is already declining, so even a brief work stoppage of a few days could have accelerated that decline, putting the whole district, labor and management, into a worse position financially."

Radulovich also wished the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), or another entity that could coordinate the many transit operators, had a reserve of buses to use for these types of situations, so that the options weren't between a strike and horrible traffic. If there were more buses that could be operated while BART was down, then the impetus for a transit-only lane across the Bay Bridge would have been greater.

The MTC argued that it wasn't in the position to stock a reserve fleet. "It would cost a great deal of money to have a huge reserve capacity and maintain that huge capacity and the public is not going to put up with that," said MTC spokesperson Randy Rentschler. "They are going to put up with the temporary inconvenience before that."

Although there are many transit operators spanning various modes, like ferries and buses, there is no immediately sufficient replacement for BART's service. Because of spacial efficiency, a couple hundred thousand drivers compelled to go underground (think MacArthur Maze fire or Loma Prieta) fit a lot better on BART than a couple hundred thousand riders coming above ground to find a seat in crowded buses and ferries, to carpool, or to sit alone in a car in epic traffic.

"One thing about the Bay Area is that we have very linear travel patterns because of our geography," said Rentschler.  Add to that the "confusion of having many operators, and [the Bay Area] suffers from the sense of not being cohesive."

The MTC had been planning contingencies for a BART strike for months, but a labor action, said Renstchler, unlike a natural disaster or a large fire, doesn't command the same kind of response from the other transit agencies. "My agency doesn't have the power to reorder the priorities when these things happen to upset regular service.  When you have an earthquake, you can say we have this problem that people understand.  When you have a strike, that isn't the case."

One of the priorities Rentschler referred to is the very nature of transit operators with county-wide constituencies: operators do run more frequent service on the most-used lines, but they also consider their geographic base, even if that means far-flung buses might run at less-than-full capacity for segments of service. MTA's farebox recovery hovers around 20 percent, AC Transit's recovery is below that, and VTA's is less still.

With so little of each agency's money coming from the farebox and so much of it coming from taxes, there isn't a direct incentive to cut redundancy for efficiency, except when the overall budgetary picture is as bleak as it is now. Even then, without a mechanism for making smarter cuts, like the MTA's Transit Effectiveness Project, there is no guarantee that efficiency will be improved by shrinking funds.

"There is a societal obsession with efficiency," added Rentschler. "But efficiency and redundancy don't always go hand in hand."

Flickr photo: schlick33

Despite gridlock expected on the roads as hundreds of thousands of BART riders move to other transit operators or their cars, Caltrans doesn't plan to alter its traffic management across the Bay Bridge.

"At this point we're going to operate within our standard traffic management. We're going to adjust metering lights as is necessary," said Caltrans District 4 spokesperson Lauren Wonder. She noted that Caltrans engineers would be out monitoring traffic throughout the day starting on Monday and for the duration of the strike in order to gauge the traffic impacts as they arise. "We are looking at possibly changing hours on HOV lanes, but if you make it too restrictive, you might alienate a portion of the community and make those other mixed flow lanes even more crowded."

While she didn't rule out the possibility of converting a mixed-flow lane into a transit-only lane if deemed appropriate by Caltrans engineers, that option is not expected, said Wonder, in part because AC Transit and other transit operators are running at near-capacity conditions and don't have that many more buses to put into service.

"You have to look at the big picture and if a transit-only lane would result in more overall traffic," she said.

AC Transit spokesperson Clarence Johnson said his agency expects to beef up its service and put every available bus and driver to work, particularly along BART corridors and the Transbay route, to "help commuters cope with the paralyzing impact of the walkout." The agency has worked with Caltrans, the City of Oakland, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to temporarily convert the West Grand Avenue on-ramp to the Bay Bridge into HOV and bus-only, thus facilitating buses on their entry to the bridge past the horrendous back-up expected at the toll plazas.

MTC spokesperson John Goodwin echoed Wonder's concern that converting a whole lane across the Bay Bridge to transit-only might not have the desired effect of expediting travel given the dearth of buses to use it. Goodwin also said there was no way they would convert a vehicle lane to a bicycle lane, suggesting instead that cyclists use the various ferry services to get across the bay. All ferries can be found at 511.org, though Goodwin noted that East Bay Ferries and Baylink Ferries had already committed to adding service during the strike.

Goodwin and Wonder both encouraged riders to make use of formal and casual carpooling options, which can be found at 511's rideshare page, as well as Park and Ride and BART parking lots, which will be open and free in various locations and will be served by AC Transit.

When asked if a mandatory carpool option would be considered, as was done in New York City after the September 11th attacks, Wonder said no option was off the table, but she highly doubted any such action would be taken. "I don't think that a mandatory carpool has ever happened before, even with Loma Prieta."

In San Francisco, where traffic will be untenable if BART riders choose to drive in large numbers, there are no plans to create additional temporary transit-only lanes.

"We're going to be working closely with our PCOs and the traffic deployment to keep crucial transit corridors open," said MTA spokesperson Judson True. "For us, it's all hands on deck and we're going to do the best we can given the challenging situation."

BART Director Tom Radulovich said he had heard some talk of BART running shuttles through the Transbay Tube with managers at the helm, but that there were no concrete plans. He said he had also heard BART could consider paying for private bus companies to transport customers across the Bay Bridge. BART spokesperson Linton Johnson had not responded to our requests for clarification by the time of this writing.

Radulovich stressed that San Francisco's downtown will be a mess if agencies don't coordinate to manage the streets intelligently. "The worst outcome would be everyone drives and clogs downtown streets, then the limited transit that is running won't be able to move.  Unless there's proactive management of our streets and the Bay Bridge, that's exactly what's going to happen."

MTC's Goodwin said his agency has been working for months planning for a strike, which could have come when BART's contracts expired at the end of June. "I wish there was more that could be done, but in light of the budget squeeze, there's only so much. In the past, we might have been able to make up the difference for the transit operators with the State Transit Assistance Fund, but that was slashed in the last state budget negotiations."

"This is going to be an inconvenience for a lot of people, but it's not going to be a catastrophe," he added. "People in the Bay Area have proved over and over again, from the fire on the [MacArthur Maze] exchange in 2007 to the Loma Prieta earthquake, they are resilient. My advice is: plan ahead, pack your patience, you're going to get where you're going."

Click to enlarge: A map of Muni lines that displaced BART commuters can consider taking during a strike. Photo courtesy SFMTA.

AC Transit spokesperson Clarence Johnson said the BART strike could be "a real nightmare" for people who need to cross the Bay. Unlike nearly every other agency in the Bay Area, AC Transit does plan to provide some additional service, depending on how many extra buses and drivers are available. Johnson said the agency doesn't have "a whole lot of extra buses" or drivers though, and it won't be adding any new routes to substitute for BART service. Johnson said he isn't sure how long AC Transit could handle the extra strain caused by the BART strike.

While it won't be providing extra service, Muni will prioritize service along routes that duplicate BART service, including the 14 Mission, 49 Van Ness-Mission, J Church, and N Judah (to and from Caltrain at 4th and King.) This will mostly be limited to making sure these lines run on schedule and runs aren't missed, however, so these routes are still likely to be packed.

Caltrain, VTA, Golden Gate Transit, and SamTrans will all operate regular service.

Bicyclists who need to cross into the city from the East Bay may be best off taking a ferry. Most ferry providers will operate additional service, and some already have extra capacity available, so East Bay commuters may want to consider the ferry over other means of travel. AC Transit is also an option for bay-crossing bicyclists, but their buses will likely be full to capacity, and only carry two or four bikes per vehicle (though additional folding bikes are welcome on board if there is space.)

Randy Rentschler, spokesperson for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, said residents should plan ahead, since the capacity provided by "BART can't be replicated" by other agencies, especially given current budget constraints.

A BART strike will test the region's ingenuity, especially given that BART has 85,000 more daily riders now than it did in 1997, when its last strike occurred. "The people of the Bay Area have shown to be resourceful and resilient," said Rentschler, who also encouraged telecommuting, carpooling and flexible work hours.

If bicycling or walking to work is not an option, we wish you luck navigating a BART-less Bay Area. 511.org has more exhaustive information about each transit agency's plan and other commute options during the strike.

What have we missed? Please add it in the comments section. And how do you plan on getting to work Monday morning without BART?

Image: transit.511.org

I'm not trying to downplay the utility and convenience of 511 Transit, but I think that's the first time I've heard "interagency cooperation" and "heroic" in the same sentence, at least for transit. Of course, it's also the first time I've heard of Government Computer News magazine.

But the site is a great utility for those of us who have regular commutes and you can find a whole lot of information for transit operators you might not be familiar with when making those non-routine trips around the Bay Area.

Tom Spiekerman, 511 Transit project manager for the MTC, said the site's recent redesign makes it “faster, smarter... and easier to use. Even the quality of the information is improved, thanks to new data collection and aggregation processes — and a lot of valuable customer feedback from website visitors. As a result the online trip planner is now among the best of its kind anywhere.”

According to the MTC, the 511 Transit page registered nearly 1.7 million individual user sessions in July 2009, a 47 percent increase over the monthly average in 2008. And the online trip planner at the 511 Transit page generated more than 1.5 million itineraries last month, compared to a monthly average of about 1.1 million in 2008.

What do you think, dear readers? How useful is 511 Transit for you and do you use the site often or prefer other outlets?

Photo by Bryan Goebel.

"I’m not campaigning for anything. This is not a stepping stone to anything. I’m doing this because I was asked to do it, that’s all.  I didn’t campaign for it," said Nolan, in a recent hour-long interview with Streetsblog at the Polk Street office of Project Open Hand, where he is the executive director.

Nolan doesn't fudge at all around the issue of the MTA Board not being independent. All of its members are appointed by the Mayor, and they seem very reluctant to break from his wishes. "We’re just kidding ourselves if we think it's a totally independent body, it just isn’t.  The only way that would be the case really would be if we were all elected by the people." 

In our interview, Nolan tackles questions about the accountability of the MTA Board, his role as chair, the budget process, the Bike Plan and parking. Nolan seems to get parking issues, and he's a fan of Donald Shoup's book, "The High Cost of Free Parking." So why isn't he stronger on the issues?

"I would say watch over the next two or three months about what the real choices are going to be and I expect increasingly I’ll play a more active role." 

The interview was recorded on June 17th, 2009. Read highlights below the break.

Highlights:

• On his role as MTA Board chair: "I’m very interested in the notion of governance.  The organization I now work for, Project Open Hand, did a thing that most organizations never do, they took time out years ago to try to figure out what a board should do.  And just because, like in our case here, you're a very good peeler of vegetables or something, doesn’t mean you're going to be a great member of the board.  It's a distinct important function and boards almost never do that.  When you get appointed to this you get sworn in and you just start.  And since I’ve been on so many boards, non-profit boards as well as the transit boards, two years on the (MTC) commission, I have a good sense of that.  And so I think I’m trying to help my colleagues understand it's an important role, but it's limited.  And I think that the fact that I run pretty good meetings.  I think I give people enough chance to do what they want, but I don’t tend to just carry over things, let’s say."
• On Supervisor Avalos' proposed charter amendment to have half of the MTA Board appointed by supervisors, half by the Mayor and one elected: "I can’t imagine who would run for that one seat quite frankly.  Running a city wide election in San Francisco would be hugely expensive.  Maybe somebody could, I don’t know, it certainly wouldn’t be me, I'll tell you that.  And the way I see Supervisor Avalos’ thing, it really gives the board pretty much all the power, because even the Mayor’s appointees have to be approved by the full board.  So the only one that’s truly independent presumably is the elected one.  If people want a truly independent body, election is the way to do it, but it has to come with a revenue stream that’s guaranteed somehow, like in San Mateo County, SamTrans has two half cent sales tax measures". 
  
• On fixing Muni: "I think the big thing, we need a whole lot more money and the contribution I’m proudest of at Muni, being on the MTA board, is I have forced the agency to eventually say what would it take to achieve 85 percent on-time.  And the answer was $100 million to $150 million more a year.  And Prop A, as good as that was, gave us $26 million more a year, which was lost in work orders.  But even if we got all $26 million its nowhere near what we needed.  What I learned as a San Mateo County supervisor from observing things that worked and things that didn’t is a little formula.  And that is people have to appreciate and understand the value of the problem you’re trying to solve, number two you have to present a solution that makes sense to rational people, three you have to be candid about the cost both literally and figuratively.  And four you have to divide that cost as equitably as possible, both literally and figuratively and five you have to either develop, maintain or enhance confidence in the administering institution."
• How is San Francisco doing as a Transit First city? "Oh C+, B- maybe.  I wish we could have in the budget done more in terms of the parking, that balance between drivers and buses and everything.  We’ve got a long way to go there.  I’m very excited about the bike plan, by the way.  I just see anecdotally way more bicycles on the streets than before, it's growing.  And I think the number one problem that the bike coalition people tell us is that some people are not riding because they're afraid, they're scared out there, the dooring and all that stuff.  But if we can almost double the number of bike lanes and all these amenities for bicycles, I think that’ll help move us towards the transit first city.  And I know the argument is make Muni so dependable and reliable and cost effective that people want to ride it.  Well 700,000 people a day do already, so it's a good start, considering the population is about 765,000."
• On parking: "I think we’ll almost assuredly see weeknight parking extended to ten o’clock. If we aren’t able to do that, there are very few things that are really readily available to us without doing serious damage to the system.  And we had three options of service cuts and we only went to option two, option three is much more drastic.  And I say charging for parking during week day nights, as far as I’m concerned on Sunday as well, is a small price to pay for the overall good of the entire city.  So I’m very open to that, I appreciate the study and I know it's already ongoing."
  

Will this resemble your commute on Wednesday, July 1st? Photo: a7an

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) just sent over a press advisory suggesting that Bay Area residents prepare their contingency plans for getting to work starting next Wednesday, July 1st, in case BART workers don't get the contract they want and go on strike. Such an action would cripple the region's transportation network and send over 330,000 regular BART riders scrambling to find another way to travel, most likely forcing them onto already crowded freeways.

"Tomorrow puts us a week out, so it's potentially very serious," said MTC spokesperson John Goodwin, though he didn't give indication that they put out the release to raise fears about a strike. "BART is a critical part of the bay area transportation network. If that part of the network were to be lost at any time, that puts a lot of strain on the rest of the network, particularly the road system. None of the other agencies, which are operating under severe financial duress, will be able to pick up the slack. With that option off the table the best thing people can do is arm themselves with information and figure out what works best for you." 

The last time BART workers walked off the job around contract negotiations was in 1997, when BART had 85,000 fewer riders that it currently does.

From the MTC release:

Thousands more vehicles than usual are expected to crowd onto Bay Area streets, highways and bridges if there is a work stoppage at BART. Commuters are advised to carpool, take an alternative transit service, avoid peak driving periods by traveling earlier or later than usual, or even work at home if possible.

MTC urged regular BART commuters to plan ahead for the worst by using the 511 Transit Trip Planner, which "offers the ability to plan door-to-door transit trips that include or exclude BART. In addition to the 511 Transit Trip Planner, 511.org offers a RideMatch Service to help commuters instantly find a short-term or long-term carpool match, and an interactive map of carpool lanes and Park & Ride lots."

Get your popcorn, kids, it could be a very interesting beginning to the new month.

Photo: MTC

“The chance to work for the Obama Administration as part of the FTA is unbelievably exciting,” said McMillan. “I am prepared to take on this new responsibility because of the rich and unparalleled experience that has been afforded me in my career at MTC. I look forward to a great new relationship with FTA in Washington.”

McMillan led the review of the MTC’s public involvement program, including refinement of Federal Title VI and Environmental Justice Outreach procedures.  She served as Chair of the California Coalition of Regional Transportation Planning Agencies for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, vice-chair in 1997 and 1998 and received a Resolution of Commendation from the California Transportation Commission for that service in 1999. McMillan joins FTA Chief Peter Rogoff in leading a staff of more than 500 in Washington, D.C., and 10 regional offices around the United States, and managing an annual budget of approximately $10 billion plus $8.4 billion in Recovery Act funds.

“Ms. McMillan brings real-world experience and a history of achievement to FTA," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "She will be a valuable asset to the federal public transportation program and the Department’s senior management team.”

FTA's Rogoff said, “I couldn’t be more thrilled to bring Therese onto the FTA leadership team. Her many years of experience delivering projects to the people of the Bay Area can now be brought to bear on the transportation challenges we face across America.  Therese’s hands-on experience working across transportation modes will enable her to deliver on the President’s vision for transportation investments that truly improve the quality of life of all citizens.”

MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger praised his deputy, “Therese has been a leader in charting a clear regional policy direction that combines the Commission’s planning and financing missions. Her departure is a big loss for MTC but a huge win for the FTA.”

Heminger himself was rumored to be on the shortlist for the USDOT Secretary LaHood's position, even garnering a letter of support from the Califonia legislative delegation. In an interview not long after LaHood was picked for the top transportation post, Heminger said he was happy to remain at one of the "most progressive" metropolitan planning organizations in the US. Perhaps now the MTC will have a bit more sway in DC.

Flickr photo: pbo31

"This is really to put us on record as saying we really think the funding ought to be used in different ways," said Chiu, who plans to ask the two MTC Commissioners representing San Francsico, Supervisor Chris Daly and Jon Rubin, to "take this up as their issue at the MTC."

The resolution points to the MTC's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) proposal for $6.4 billion in highway expansion projects over the next 25 years, which "will encourage sprawl and increase greenhouse gas emissions," while public transit agencies are projected to have shortfalls for capital needs: a $4.5 billion deficit for Muni and $7 billion for BART.

"We wanted to talk about some of the trade offs of investing in highways, particularly highways where you have public transit corridors that ride alongside," said Chiu. The resolution acknowledges how "poorly-designed highways often serve as barriers to the movement of sustainable transportation modes."

Tom Radulovich, the executive director of Livable City who sits on the BART Board of Directors, helped craft the resolution:

MTC's regional transportation plan makes it abundantly clear: the region must choose between highways and transit, because there is nowhere near enough money to fund both. Unless we choose to stop pouring money into highway expansion, transit will get more crowded and unreliable, our local streets will continue to fall apart, and transit fares will go up and service will get cut. Unless we stop building highways, we will not be able to meet our environmental goals, protect the climate, or preserve our greenbelt.

In response, Randy Rentschler, a spokesperson for the MTC, called the RTP "the most transit-friendly plan of any metro area in the entire country." He said that many of the decisions the MTC has made about highway expansion have been at the voters request, including Proposition 1B in 2006.

“This notion that my agency is so powerful that we’re able to essentially bend every decision is just simply not the case. The fact that the Board of Supervisors wants to make this statement, look, that’s just fair game. I get that. That makes perfect sense, that given where we are with transit, whatever we can, let’s do more of it.  But it also doesn’t reflect basic factual points that are out there that the voters have spoken on and there’s little to do about changing that.”

But Radulovich said he hopes San Francisco will "start a regional movement to pull the plug on freeway expansion, and fund a linked-up regional transit network instead," and he noted the groundbreaking movement that stopped seven freeways from being built in the city in 1959:

2009 is the 50th anniversary of San Francisco's Freeway revolt. San Franciscans realized back then that freeway building was ruining the city's environment and destroying its livability, and set itself on a different path. Despite the wavering political support for transit over the years, San Francisco is a success story – we invested in transit, and added tens of thousands of jobs to the city without adding any new freeways – in fact, we removed a few. San Francisco set an example that cities around the world are now following. Now it's time for the rest of the region to choose the path towards a sustainable and livable future.

Updated 4:20 p.m.

Flickr photo: kate at yr own risk

The SFBC has organized Energizer Stations along some of the busiest bicycle commuter routes and will host several Commuter Convoys with elected officials and agency directors along critical bike routes being considered for improvements, such as Second, Fifth, 17th and Townsend Streets, Kirkham Ave., Alemany Blvd., and dozens of others. These bike tours will converge on the steps of City Hall at 8:30am for a press conference celebrating Bike to Work Day and the upcoming decision on the Bike Plan that will double the miles of bike lanes in San Francisco.

“As part of this year’s Bike to Work Day, we are asking our City leaders to experience the thrills and the challenges of biking in San Francisco on the dozens of streets that are being considered for dramatic improvements next month,” said Leah Shahum, Executive Director of the SFBC.

Around the Bay Area, 450 teams of bicycle commuters have been riding since the beginning of May in the Team Bike Challenge, a month-long competition where teams compete to win a grand prize Peak Racks bike rack that will be placed in a public location of the winning team’s choice. As part of the Team Bike Challenge, established bicycle commuters recruit their colleagues, friends, neighbors and local “bigwigs” to bike for most of their May trips to work, school and other destinations.

“As a participant in past Team Bike Challenges, I have found that using my bike can get me anywhere I need to go quickly, with a lot less stress,” says Santa Clara County Supervisor Ken Yeager, who also serves as a member of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which funds a major portion of the Bay Area’s Bike to Work Day activities. “It’s also a great way to get your exercise in before the workday.”

Nearly half of the 2,100 miles of continuous and connected bicycling corridors planned for the Bay Area already have been completed, according to MTC’s just-adopted 2009 Regional Bicycle Plan. The $1 billion that MTC has committed to help finance the Regional Bikeway Network will help to complete the on-street portion of these
corridors.

 “MTC is pleased to support Bike to Work Day as part of our overall strategy to improve mobility and the environment in the Bay Area,” said MTC Spokesman Randy Rentschler.

In Downtown San Francisco, the SFBC is offering special all-day bike parking at its Market Street and Battery Street Energizer Station.  SFBC Program Associate Marc Caswell said that while the organization hadn't heard an abundance of complaints from members about being denied access to office buildings with a bicycle, they wanted to test the waters to see if it is a bigger problem than expected.  Streetsblog readers who do have problems with bicycle access to buildings are encouraged to send us an email at tips@sf.streetsblog.org.

For more information on Bay Area Bike to Work Day activities, click here.

San Francisco Commuter Convoy locations are as follows, with push-off from each location at 7:45 am:

• Richmond: Blue Danube, 306 Clement St at 4th Ave (with Supervisor Eric Mar)
• Marina: Peet's, 2156 Chestnut at Steiner St
• Nob Hill: It's a Grind, 1800 Polk St at Washington (with Board President David Chiu, and Chair of the MTA Board of Directors Tom Nolan)
• Sunset: House of Coffee, 1618 Noriega St at 23rd Ave. (with Supervisor Carmen Chu and Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting)
• NOPA: Sacred Grounds, 2095 Hayes St at Clayton (with Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi and DPW Director Ed Reiskin)
• North Potrero: Coffee Bar, 1890 Mariposa at Florida (with Planning Director John Rahaim and City Attorney Dennis Herrera)
• Portola Heights: Creighton's Bakery, 673 Portola Dr at Teresita Blvd
• Castro: Peet's, 2257 Market St at Noe St (with Supervisor Bevan Dufty)
• Outer Mission: Nervous Dog, 3438 Mission St at 30th St (with Supervisor David Campos)
• Bayview: Road House, 5191 3rd St at Thomas St
• Excelsior: Mama Art Cafe, 4754 Mission St at Russia St (with Supervisor John Avalos)