A bike-share vendor demonstration at Civic Center in December 2010 (this is not necessarily what the system will look like). Photo: SFBC/Flickr

The system will include 500 bicycles at approximately 50 stations in downtown San Francisco, plus another 500 bikes and 50 stations located near Caltrain stations in Redwood City, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San Jose. The scope is more ambitious than San Francisco’s previous proposal for bike-share, but smaller in scale than the world’s most successful systems.

“A large-scale citywide bike-share will make it easier for locals and visitors alike to see San Francisco by bike, and help our city reach the goal of 20 percent of trips by bike by 2020,” said San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Deputy Director Kit Hodge.

While the SFBC is looking forward to the pilot launch this summer, Hodge said it “also believe[s] that the pilot should be quickly expanded into a robust, big-enough-to-succeed phenomenon that have proven successful in Paris, China and London.”

SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said San Francisco stations will be “centered in SF’s employment- and transit-rich Downtown/SOMA corridor between the Financial District, Market Street and the Transbay and Caltrain terminals with connections at Market Street BART stations and the Ferry Terminal.”

The system will launch “just in time for America’s Cup,” said Rose, as a key component of the “People Plan” announced by Mayor Ed Lee last April. Bike-share will be part of the initiative to encourage the hundreds of thousands of spectators expected to travel to the Embarcadero this summer to get around by foot, transit, and by bike.

The July launch was pushed back a few months from its original spring schedule, but Rose says the SFMTA is “confident that all the work we’ve done over the last year to ensure that the project meets the needs of all of our project partners throughout the region will yield a better result when we deliver the pilot later this year.”

The program is not San Francisco’s first plan for bike-share — a previous plan for a meager pilot of 50 bikes was dropped in late 2009 when Clear Channel backed out of a partnership with the city, after which then-Mayor Gavin Newsom pledged to launch a larger system. Santa Clara County’s VTA was set to launch the region’s first bike-share in 2010, but delayed its own program until it could be integrated into this broader regional system. Agencies are currently selecting a vendor to operate the system.

Stay tuned to Streetsblog for more details as the program develops. For more information, check out the SFMTA’s website, which includes this presentation [PDF].

Map of San Francisco bike share areas. Specific locations are to be determined. Image: SFMTA

Regional locations for bike share stations along the Caltrain line.

A new video from the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) lays out the vision for transforming El Camino Real into a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor connecting the Palo Alto Transit Center and Downtown San Jose.

It’s part of VTA’s Valley Rapid project, a set of three BRT routes planned in Santa Clara County. The El Camino project will speed up the 522 bus line with transit-priority features as the Grand Boulevard Initiative revamps the corridor into a more walkable environment.

The project is expected to begin service in July 2016, the same year San Francisco’s first BRT route is set to open on Van Ness Avenue.

Check out the website for more details.

Paris bike sharing program Velib. Flicr photo: Gilles Couteau

Getting to work or school in the Bay Area by shared bicycle could be a reality soon, as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Bay Area’s regional transportation planning body, awarded more than $4 million to a regional bike share program as part of $33 million for a host of innovative projects around the Bay Area meant to reduce driving and curb emissions.

The MTC has made a small but significant first step in addressing the greenhouse gas reduction targets mandated under SB375 and AB32. MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger acknowledged the connection between funding innovative pilots and the 15 percent per capita greenhouse gas reduction target adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for the Bay Area by 2035.

In his routine report to commissioners, Heminger said the MTC was the last of the four major municipal planning organizations to adopt the SB375 Sustainable Communities Strategies targets, so they had “the luxury of learning from everyone else’s mistakes.” Still, he argued, “we are off to the races.”

Today’s $33 million in Climate Initiatives Program grants go to projects that were ranked based on cost and benefit analysis, as well as potential for innovation. The regional bike share program piggybacks off the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA) bike share pilot, which has been in development for more than a year. VTA secured a $500,000 grant from Regional Measure 2′s Safe Routes to Transit program to fund design and capital costs for an initial deployment of approximately 100 bikes. VTA had convened a working group and a feasibility study and had enlisted the support of private sector employers, such as Google, Apple, Adobe and Cisco.

“VTA is committed to smart, sustainable strategies that invest in the urban cores and transit corridors that promote walking, bicycling and transit,” said VTA Board Chair and San Jose City Council M ember Sam Liccardo.  “The pilot bike-share program will make the commute for Santa Clara County residents greener and more affordable.”

With the $4.29 million MTC grant announced today, the program will increase to approximately 1,000 bicycles at up to 100 kiosk stations, including nearly 500 bikes at 50 kiosks in San Francisco and the remaining 500 at Caltrain stations in Redwood City, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San Jose. The VTA will coordinate with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), SamTrans, San Mateo County and Redwood City. The total project cost is approximately $7 million with $1.4 million in funding provided by the BAAQMD and $1.3 million in funding from the other partners.

“Bike sharing that works regionally as well as in San Francisco will provide greater connectivity and make the system more useful,” said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. “As bicycling increases in San Francisco and the Bay Area, key projects like this will encourage others to add bicycling to their travel solutions.”

In the Bay Area, the transportation sector accounts for more than 50 percent of air pollution. While smaller bike share programs in the United States have failed to transform their host cities like Paris’ Velib or Barcelona’s Bicing programs, U.S. cities have been jumping at the opportunity to add publicly accessible bicycles to their transit profile.

“The SFMTA is proud to work with its regional partners on this important effort to increase bicycling,” said SFMTA CEO Nat Ford. “Services like bike sharing will strengthen San Francisco’s and the region’s sustainable transportation network.”

Because the program is now regional, VTA’s initial timeline to implement bike sharing in 2010 has been pushed back significantly. According to VTA spokesperson Brandi Childress, the program would likely not go online until early to mid 2012. Despite this, said Childress, the VTA and its partners believe they can address the last-mile problem with bicycles, thus eliminating the situation where core transit lines are often just far enough from people’s homes that driving appears to be a more convenient option, even for those seeking to minimize their environmental footprint.

“Innovative programs like bike-sharing solve the problem for those people who want to take transit but can’t quite make that last mile or so of the transit trip work for them,” said Childress. “That connection and confidence needs to be there to make public transportation more competitive to the automobile.”

Photo: barolodrinker

The VTA used an initial $75,000 from their general budget to hire Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) to conduct the planning work, but applied for a $500,000 Safe Routes to Transit grant to implement the pilot, money that will come from bridge tolls collected by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). VTA has learned that the project has been ranked for funding, though it might not get the money for a month or two.

"Bikes in general are given short shrift in suburban sprawling areas," said Chris Augenstein, Deputy Director of Planning at VTA. "We can do a lot more to make bicycles a real mode and integrate them into everything we do."

VTA's Augenstein countered any doubts about the agency's approach to the project, arguing that by doing extensive market research and intercept studies, they will be targeting the project to expressed need. "We don't have all the answers, but we want to put our feet out there in the deep end," he said. "By focusing on the Caltrain stations where you have bike capacity problems, we think we're taking a logical step. Nobody really knows how [bike sharing] is going to fare in the Bay Area, but that's the whole purpose for the pilot."

Photo: richardmasoner

Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Executive Director Corrine Winter echoed Beasley's concern, though she was also clear to point out that the new leadership at the DOT was very encouraging. "We're very happy with the vision of what's going to happen," said Winter, who said that between the Mayor, Councilmember Liccardo, and Larsen, all the important players are talking the talk. "How does the vision turn to reality-- that comes down to dollars."  Winter also noted that among 447 staff at the DOT, only two work full-time on cycling, a fact she argued would have to change.

"If the city really wants to see this project come to reality, they need to have more people [working on it]," she said.

San Fernando Bikeway and 4th Street Cycle Track

John Brazil of San Jose DOT's Bicycle and Pedestrian Program said the two biggest priorities for his department in moving forward with the bicycle plan are to make cycling in San Jose safe and convenient, so that it would be as commonplace to see throngs of cyclists commuting to work in his city as it is in Portland, Oregon or other cycling hotspots. Brazil noted that despite a large budget deficit, bike plan improvements will be built out, should the plan be adopted.

In addition to working with the Valley Transportation Authority on a trial bike-share program, Brazil said two projects in particular would capture the public's attention over the next two years. The first is the San Fernando bikeway, a painted, buffered bicycle lane from Diridon Station a mile and a half to downtown destinations, such as San Jose State University. Because Caltrans doesn't currently recognize colored bicycle lanes, however, Brazil said the city has to complete a rigorous experimental pilot process with the agency to convince it that adding paint will fit within its street engineering guidelines. Funding for the project will come from a mix of internal budget apportioning and external grants.

The second project of note is a bi-directional, physically separated cycle track on 4th Street from St. James Street to San Carlos Street, intersecting the San Fernando colored lane and linking up Japantown and destinations north with the downtown core. The DOT intends to remove a lane of vehicular traffic to make room for the cycle track, move the parking lane off the curb, and run the cycle track curbside. Numerous technical difficulties still need to be worked out, particularly the challenge of minimizing turning conflicts at the intersections where bi-directional bicycle traffic would create signal and visibility issues. Brazil estimated that this project would take 1-2 years to clear Caltrans experimental process designation, but hoped San Jose's example, if successful, would make it easier for other cities to follow the lead with the innovation.

2020 Plan Objectives

• Bikeway Network - Complete 500 miles of the Bikeway Network
• Mode Share - Achieve 5% of all trips taken by Bike
  
• Safety - Reduce bike collision rate by 50 percent
  
• Parking - Add 5000 bike parking spaces
  
• Validation - Achieve Gold-level Bicycle Friendly Community status from LAB

• Bikeway Network – Complete 25 miles of new bikeways each year
• Mode Share – Increase bike mode share by 1% from baseline every two years 
• Safety – Reduce bike collision rate by 5% from baseline each year 
• Parking – Install 500 new bike parking spaces each year 
• Validation – Achieve Silver-level Bicycle Friendly Community status by 2013 and Gold-level by 2020.
  

In our ongoing coverage of the adverse affects of traffic engineers' over-reliance on automobile level of service (LOS) measurements, we've examined how new amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would allow local jurisdictions greater freedom in choosing whether they want to develop their cities for cars or for transit, cycling, and livable streets.  Simply put, if the CEQA amendments are codified, cities all over the state could become more like San Jose.

While San Francisco labors with the development of its auto trip generation (ATG) metric and could spend a year or more setting a development impact fee that would go to improving transit, cycling and pedestrian safety, San Jose completed a citywide transportation environmental impact statement (EIS) in 2002 and adopted its vision for sustainable, transit-oriented growth in 2005 [PDF]. What's more, this transportation and land-use plan moves San Jose ahead of the curve compared to other cities in meeting the requirements under AB 32 (carbon reduction targets) and SB 375 (limiting sprawl).

"We want to grow up, not out," said Hans Larsen, Acting Director of San Jose's Department of Transportation (DOT), noting the city couldn't accommodate the 400,000 new residents expected by 2030 within San Jose's current boundaries by adding more sprawling developments and more traffic. "We had a policy conflict between our growth plan, which was really smart-growth, and our transportation management policies, which have historically been oriented toward providing enough capacity for cars."

Because new development will inevitably bring additional car trips, no matter how well situated near transit, the DOT conceived of a development impact fee that is applied to improving pedestrian safety and the sustainable transportation network. In determining the impact fee, the DOT looked at how much, on average, developers traditionally spent on LOS mitigations to increase car capacity. This number, $2,000-3,000 per auto trip generated by the new development, is assessed for developments that create 400 or less net new peak-hour trips. If the project will create more than 400 new peak-hour trips, a fee is determined in the process of environmental review.

Through the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative (SNI) started by former Mayor Ron Gonzales, communities located in the SPAs developed lists of neighborhood priorities, most of them related to transportation and livability. The auto-trip fees from new developments are then distributed by the DOT to meet the needs elaborated in the community's priority list.

In the process of creating this very strong link between new development and efficient transportation, the DOT designated Protected Intersections along transit corridors. At these intersections, no matter how bad auto LOS would degrade with a transportation or development project, the city will not widen the streets, soften turning radii, or otherwise add vehicle capacity. In fact, the only mitigations permissible are those that calm traffic further, improve transit and bicycle accessibility, or make pedestrian conditions safer. The DOT created an initial list of approximately twenty Protected Intersections when it completed the citywide transportation EIS and the public has added a handful more in subsequent negotiations with the DOT and City Council. 

Because of the broader economic downturn, the policy has yet to realize the full benefits of using development fees to improve sustainable transportation. Four development projects in the SPAs, totaling more than 3,000 residential units, have been approved by the city since the plan was adopted, but none of them has started construction, according to Pineda. The project closest to completing its financing obligations, a residential development that would build on the existing parking lot at the San Jose Flea Market, will provide $1.7 million in impact fees, much of which will go to improve streetscape and pedestrian conditions in a nearby commercial district as established in an SNI priority list.

BRT corridor currently. Photo: San Jose DOT.

BRT corridor as envisioned when develiopment impact fees are applied to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements. Image: San Jose DOT.

Muni has lost $180 million over three years because of PTA fund raids. Flickr photo: skew-t

"The Supreme Court has affirmed once and for all what we always maintained was true: that it's illegal to shift dedicated state transit funds away from transit agencies and their riders," said Joshua Shaw, Executive Director of the CTA. "This decision validates our position that this practice has been illegal since even before 2007, and that the definition of mass transportation adopted by lawmakers since then to mask these diversions is illegal."

As we've written, the governor has repeatedly raided the Public Transportation Assistance (PTA) fund while in office, to the tune of $1.19 billion in 2007-08 alone, while touting himself as a green governor who's leading the fight against global warming. Had Schwarzenegger not touched the fund, the MTA would have received nearly $180 million over the last three years, BART would have gotten $30 million last year, and AC Transit upwards of $26 million in 2008.

Said MTA Chief Nat Ford: "California has made a strong commitment to be in the forefront of environmental leadership, and properly funding public transportation is crucial to building a sustainable future. The state Supreme Court's decision should help transit agencies like the SFMTA better serve existing customers and make our services more attractive to Californians who are looking for ways to make healthier, more environmentally-friendly transportation choices."

The CTA, in partnership with other transit agencies, said it now hopes to work with the Schwarzenegger administration and the Legislature to restore the funds.

"We're very hopeful that the high court's decision will now enable us to work with lawmakers to restore these funds and help us to meet the ever-increasing demands for transit services in California," said Michael Burns, the general manager of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the governor's Department of Finance, said he was disappointed with the ruling but that it is the end of the legal road. He said the issue will go back to the lower court to "determine a remedy" and added "there will be no hard and fast ruling." Palmer said it will likely mean "we'll have to figure out how to come up with an additional billion dollars in budget solutions by the end of the year." 

It's unclear how soon transit agencies could see the funds replenished. The CTA's Shaw was quoted in the Mercury News as saying it's possible the repayment could be spread out over several years.

After reports of fare inspectors and drivers telling Muni passengers they can't take photos on Muni's buses and trains, the MTA is being forced to craft a photo policy and make it public. The San Francisco Appeal and WHAT IM SEEING both have stories today about Muni's elusive policy, which MTA spokesperson Judson True told the Appeal will be posted online soon, and "will say that non-commercial video and photography will be OK as long as it doesn't disturb transit."

If that's the case, it will put Muni in the middle or front of the pack nationally, depending on the specifics. New York City's MTA may be the leader in that regard, since its policy states that photography is always okay, and ancillary equipment such as tripods can be used by members of the press. The CTA in Chicago has a similar policy, though it's less clear whether members of the press require special credentials.

Boston's MBTA may be the most draconian. Citing terrorism concerns, its policy states that while non-commercial photography is okay, transit police will ask all photographers for identification, and will escort photographers off the premises if they refuse to provide it. According to a post from a local blogger, Boston transit police have gone beyond the policy's bounds in some instances.

Read about other local agencies' policies after the break.

Locally, BART is happy to allow amateur photographers to snap away, but requires anyone engaged in "commercial, educational or non-profit activity" to obtain a $250 permit, in addition to paying a "location fee." It's not clear whether that applies to members of the press, but passengers who wish to document their ride don't need a permit.

Other local agencies, including AC Transit, Caltrain, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and SamTrans, do not have photo policies posted online. Most agencies don't publicly post photo policies, it seems, until they start having well-publicized incidents like the one shown in the above video.

Let's hope Muni leans towards the more liberal end of the photo policy spectrum, and clearly states that all photography is okay without any license, as long as it's not disruptive and isn't going to show up in any commercials or TV shows.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's promotion of Dump the Pump Day 2008. Flickr photo: Metro Library and Archive

Muni and BART won’t be participating in National Dump the Pump Day today, an event sponsored by the American Public Transportation Association and intended to raise awareness of the economic and environmental benefits of riding transit.

Last year, BART drew a record number of riders on a combined Dump the Pump/Spare the Air free transit day. The 2007 Dump the Pump Day led to a more modest bump for BART, without the incentive of free trips.

Neither BART nor Muni disputed the inherent effectiveness of transit awareness campaigns, but each cited their own reasons for staying out this year.

Muni did participate in Dump the Pump Day in 2006, but the agency is now inclined to create its own campaign, said Murray Bond, the MTA’s deputy director of external affairs. “Instead of buying ads now to use what basically are canned national campaigns, we’re going to run our own campaign after the new fiscal year starts on July 1,” said Bond.

He said Muni would run ads it shot last fall, which are more provocative and eye-catching than those produced for Dump the Pump Day.

“This is San Francisco. When we do things here, we try to do things upbeat, to get people’s attention,” said Bond. “Not that Dump the Pump isn’t good, but we think this thing, it’s all visual.”

Though Bond wasn’t thrilled with the Dump the Pump visuals, Muni’s campaign shares very similar goals: “The point we’re making is how inexpensive it is to ride a bus to work, or streetcar, or light rail, as opposed to what it costs to operate a car,” said Bond. “And at the same time, it’s clean, it’s green.” Similarly, APTA President William Millar says the purpose of Dump the Pump Day is “to make a difference in their wallet, as well as in the environment.”

A 2006 VTA ad for Dump the Pump on the side of a light rail vehicle. Flickr photo: richardmasoner

Affirming BART’s support for the event in spite of its absence this year, BART spokesperson Linton Johnson wrote that BART was “stretched too thin this year” to participate, but noted that they had participated every other year since Dump the Pump Day’s inception, and would again next year.

Transit agencies across the country are promoting the event in diverse ways, which raises the question of whether in the future Muni could simply use its own, more provocative ads in conjunction with the existing Dump the Pump campaign, allowing for better regional coordination while not sacrificing style. Since that won’t be happening this year, let’s hope Muni’s ads are as provocative, interesting, and effective as promised.

Photo by bvohra via Flickr

Andrew Casteel, Executive Director of the Bay Area Bicycle Coalition, urged commissioners to start funding SRTS, SRTT and bicycle network improvements within the first two years of the RTP.  Citing climate action plans in Portland, Oregon, to realize 20 percent of all trips in the city by bicycle by 2030, Casteel said, "The more available infrastructure for bikes, the more people will shift into bikes as a mode of transportation.  The investment in bicycling can be done quickly.  Completing out that network has a lasting effect after it's put there.  It does continue to create that mode shift."

Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition Executive Director Christine Culver echoed praise for increasing funding for the regional bicycle network and for SRTS and SRTT funding, explaining how she traveled by bicycle to Golden Gate Transit from Marin into San Francisco, then took BART to Oakland.  "I like Safe Routes to Transit; this rocks!"

While most of the public comment was laudatory, some expressed concern the RTP fails to make meaningful inroads in meeting climate change goals set out in AB 32 and SB 375.  Stuart Cohen, Executive Director of TransForm, called it a "test run," and said the commission needs to reevaluate the way it plans RTPs and should think outside the box.

"Our objectives used to be congestion relief and mobility, and now it's saving our planet and some pretty imperative stuff," said Cohen. "There's a lot of discussion about how far regions can go in really addressing vehicle miles traveled. What is becoming clear is that if any region is going to lead the way, it's going to be ours.  There's not a lot of innovation that I'm seeing coming out of the other MPOs."

Bob Allen, Executive Director of Urban Habitat, said that the RTP falls short of taking important steps that would make the MTC a leader in the country and globally on climate change.

Your own analysis shows that this plan is not enough.  We can all agree that infrastructure spending in an infrastructure plan is not going to be enough.  You're going to need to get the authority for future congestion pricing, for changes in land use patterns.  You're also going to have to invest the money you do have in your infrastructure plan more efficiently and more equitably.  That's going to mean things like seriously taking a look at what committed projects mean, what happens when you have serious cost overruns on projects that are not meeting your goals.

The most contentious part of the meeting centered around the MTC's commitment of $2.1 billion for future High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane money to Santa Clara County's Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), or roughly one-third of the total expected revenue from the lanes, to make up for revenue shortfalls from a floundering economy and over $1 billion in cost overruns for BART to San Jose.

Advocates claimed that committing the money to one county before there was even legislation granting authority to establish HOT lanes was putting the cart before the horse and thwarting the process that they said should be open and transparent.

MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger acknowledged the commission was moving ahead before they had legislation, but saw no problem with it. "I would consider the issue that is before you today in the plan and the placement of the $2B as a placeholder, which is subject to change and probably will change. I will acknowledge that we are jumping the gun to some extent. But I think that's a reasonable planning assumption to make and I don't think it has to prejudice this process.  We need to make some kind of commitments now, at least on a provisional basis."

MTC Commissioner Dean Chu of Santa Clara County defended the commitment of the money, explaining that legislation authorizing HOT lane funds would grant 95 percent of revenues collected in a corridor to go back to the same corridor for discretionary spending and that $2.1 billion was commensurate with the revenue expected to be generated by Santa Clara County drivers.

MTC Communications Director Randy Rentschler confirmed to Streetsblog that HOT lane studies estimated that Santa Clara County would generate $2.6 billion of the expected regional revenues of $6 billion over 25 years and indicated that the share the commission was committing was actually less than the 95 percent the legislation would grant.

The MTC passed the RTP with the provision committing HOT lane money to the VTA, though commissioners and staff agreed that the decision was open to review and most advocates preferred to focus on the positive benefits for bicycling.

"While much of the RTP is still fairly lame, and HOT lanes for submarines will soon be the vogue, this is a very big victory for regional bike advocacy," said SFBC Program Director Andy Thornley.

Most operators anticipated the crunch brought on by the elimination of the STA fund and have adjusted as best as possible, with AC Transit already raising fares and the MTA discussing a fare hike, service cuts, and additional hiring freezes.   The $4.5 billion in lower sales-tax revenues (TDA funds in transpo-speak), will make transit operations even more difficult. 

The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in Santa Clara County and SamTrans in San Mateo County will see some of the worst hits proportionate to their size.  The first graph below shows the overall expected operational deficits over 25 years, assuming current conditions with no positive change in STA or TDA funding over that period:

Light blue is shortfalls for the major operators prior to the new TDA and STA forecasts made available yesterday.  Red is the current expected shortfall, should there be no change to expected revenues.

This graph shows the trends relative to operator size and operating expense:

Large operators like the MTA appear better equipped to absorb the blow of decreased revenues

Although this meeting was nothing like the tumultuous affair last month, where nearly 200 bus riders protested the use of $70 million in stimulus funds for the Oakland Airport Connector, MTC spokesperson John Goodwin said he had never seen such a marked tightening of expected transportation revenue since he'd been at the commission.   "These are new numbers just since December and reflect some very difficult challenges we face," he said.

MTC staff acknowledged that the perennial operating deficits and funding problems could not be ameliorated within the scope of a 25-year plan, but needed a bold new plan in the near term.  In addition to advocating for steady funding from the state and federal levels, MTC staff called for a comprehensive new study across every transit operator's jurisdiction to improve productivity from existing capacity before raising fares or cutting service.  Referring to the MTA's Transit Effectiveness Project as a model, MTC staff asked its commissioners to consider authorizing such an expansive study at their meeting in April.

When asked how much such a study would cost, MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger refused to give details.  "We need to scope the study first.  I'll give you that answer in April," he said.

Advocates seemed to support an inter-agency study to squeeze as much productivity as possible from existing operations, while eliminating redundant services, but urged caution, keeping in mind the sensitivity of transit riders. 

Carli Paine of TransForm applauded the notion that MTC would advocate for federal and state operatining funding and argued fare increases should only be a last resort.  "We need to be careful to look at raising fares for new revenue as a deterrent to riding transit," she said.  She also reminded commissioners that while the TEP is a good model on how to increase efficiency, there are still major concerns for how MTA will pay for implementing the TEP's recommendations.

Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates was the only commissioner to give guidance to staff on how the study should be conducted, requesting they analyze dynamic car-share programs and transit-oriented-development in conjunction with transit efficiency. 

Public comments on the proposed revisions will be taken by the MTC until April 8th.  Readers can send comments via mail to 101 Eighth Street, Oakland, CA 94607, Attn: Public Information; via E-mail to info@mtc.ca.gov; or via fax to 510.817.5848, Attn: Public Information.

For a more detailed analysis of regional funding challenges, see today's excellent report on Transbay Blog.