Photo: TransForm/Flickr

Members of a broad coalition hailing from throughout California are headed to Sacramento next week to push policymakers to save transit funding and enact sustainable transportation planning reforms.

The Oakland-based transit advocacy group TransForm has amassed about 150 advocates to descend on the capitol for its two-day Transportation Choices Summit, the first known event of its kind, where they will meet with state representatives and urge them to prioritize walking, bicycling, and transit.

TransForm State Policy Director Graham Brownstein said the action came out of the organization’s Invest in Transit campaign, launched last year to address the “very, very serious crisis” facing transit systems in California. The state has made dramatic funding cuts totaling more than $4 billion over the last decade, and TransForm recognized the immediate need for “creative policy reforms that will stabilize, and then grow transit funding in California,” said Brownstein.

The cornerstone of the campaign is a push to ensure that a major portion of the revenue from California’s nascent cap-and-trade program will be dedicated to transit operations and affordable housing projects located near transit.

The cap-and-trade revenue could go a long way toward restoring the damage done to transit funding under the Schwarzenegger administration. By selling emissions permits, Governor Jerry Brown’s administration anticipates the cap-and-trade program will generate $1 billion in the 2012-2013 budget and $10 billion annually by 2020, according to TransForm [PDF].

Brownstein said transit agencies need all the help they can get to avert a much deeper statewide crisis.

“Piecemeal, at this point, isn’t going to cut it,” he said. “We’re looking at just billions of dollars that are needed really pretty rapidly, or else you run into a situation where some of these systems that have not had proper maintenance and rehab for years start to really not function, and it becomes much more expensive, and it’s not just a repair, but a replacement kind of an issue.”

TransForm’s proposal is targeted to help the state meet its air quality goals, particularly for disadvantaged communities, as mandated by AB 32, passed by the state legislature in 2006. The goal, said Brownstein, is to combine “the investments in transit infrastructure and operations with transit-oriented development in the right places so that you’re maximizing the drop in people driving their cars, maximizing the increase in the ability of people to take transit, walk, and bike, and therefore you’re maximizing the greenhouse gas reductions, which cap-and-trade is all about, ultimately.”

He also pointed out that investing in transit options benefits low-income communities the most. “You’re maximizing the benefits that accrue to people in this state who are suffering the most because of our over-reliance on cars. They’re suffering because of the hit to their pocketbook, they’re suffering because if they’re low-income they’re much more likely to live next to a freeway or near a port or other facility where lots of polluting motor vehicles are located.”

The coalition will also push for reforms in how the state plans and funds transportation projects, “all of which aim to either increase funding for transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities, consider health and equity impacts as they’re making transportation planning decisions, create some new tools for local governments to have financing to support needed infrastructure and housing investments,” said Brownstein.

The coalition amassed by TransForm has grown to represent “not just the usual do-gooders,” he said, but also local governments and transit agencies, business and labor, affordable housing proponents, and disability advocates. The campaign coalesced to ”stitch these interests together.”

“This has become much bigger than about transit and housing,” said Brownstein. “It’s now really about integration of the various modes of transportation — transit, bike, ped, and cars — and the ways in which we coordinate, or fail to coordinate, transportation and land-use planning to maximize the benefits of these investments.”

The Transportation Choices Summit will take place in Sacramento next Tuesday and Wednesday, May 1 and 2. Registration for the event is still open, and you can also sign a petition to show your support.

Photo: Anomalous_A/Flickr

Improving transit by changing financing, fares, speeds, metrics, territory and maps.

[Editor's note: This article is re-published with permission from the transit-themed March issue of The Urbanist, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association's (SPUR) monthly member magazine. The article, written by SPUR Regional Planning Director Egon Terplan, is based on a discussion paper developed by the SPUR Transportation Policy Board. Read the full paper at spur.org/tsp.]

Every day, Bay Area residents and visitors take more than 1.4 million trips on one of 27 different public transit operators. But for more than a decade, the costs to operate these transit systems have been increasing far faster than any improvements in the service. Unless we make changes now, the system will not be sustainable in the future.

Regionwide, transit carries one in ten people to work. It costs more than $2.2 billion to run these 27 transit systems each year. More than $700 million comes from fares and $1.5 billion is a direct subsidy from a hodgepodge of sources (sales taxes, federal funds, state gas tax revenues). By looking out to 2035, these systems will face a combined $17 billion capital deficit and an $8 billion operating deficit.

In recent years, the costs of running these transit systems have increased far faster than inflation, even as ridership on some bus systems has declined. About 14,000 people work full time for the region’s public transit systems. Wages and fringe benefits account for more than three-quarters of the operating and maintenance costs of transit, and the cost of fringe benefits in particular is rising fast. At the same time, budget shortfalls, unpredictable revenues and service cuts are degrading the quality of public transportation. Transit systems face competition from an underpriced alternative — driving — and often operate in low-density and auto-oriented environments that are not conducive to growing ridership.

Unless there is some change to costs and revenues, with corresponding improvements in service, the viability of transit in the Bay Area is at risk. Recognizing this looming crisis, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the regional agency that funds transportation, launched the Transit Sustainability Project (TSP).

At its most basic level, the goal of the TSP is to highlight the challenges facing Bay Area transit and propose solutions. The fixes would include controlling the rapidly rising cost of running the Bay Area’s buses and trains as well as restructuring the types of service offered. In short, the Bay Area cannot remain economically competitive, nor meet its goals of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, without a transit system that does a better job of getting people where they need to go in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Much of our new investment in transit is quite simply not resulting in better service. This has to change.

SPUR interprets the key findings of the TSP report and offers six suggestions for how to save our transit system.

What Does the Transit Sustainability Project Tell Us About Bay Area Transit?

The TSP made four important findings about cost and service delivery of Bay Area transit.

• Finding 1: Costs are increasing faster than inflation

While inflation increased by 39% from 1996 to 2010, unit costs (the cost to operate a transit vehicle for one hour) grew by more than double that for Muni, SamTrans, Golden Gate and AC Transit and faster than inflation for all other major transit operators except Caltrain.

Unit costs — what it costs to operate a bus or train for one hour — are increasing at almost twice the rate of inflation for most operators (See Fig. 1). In the 14-year period from 1996 to 2010, Muni’s diesel bus unit costs increased from $92 to about $170 (an 86 percent increase). Over that time period, Muni’s trolley costs increased from $73 to $155 (a 111 percent increase). By way of comparison, the consumer price index (CPI)increased only 39 percent during this period. Among Bay Area transit operators, only Caltrain’s unit costs were lower (20 percent). Almost all of these unit cost increases are attributable to ineffective management. Among the most striking causes of cost increase are soaring pension and retirement costs, increases in health care premiums, and work rules that negatively affect productivity but do little to improve the working environment.

If costs had grown in line with inflation, Muni would now have an extra $156 million per year, AC Transit $86 million and SamTrans $30 million. These savings equate to as much as one-fifth of the entire operating budget. There is no way to maintain a viable regional transit system without greater control of this cost inflation.

• Finding 2: Increases in productivity are not sufficient to match cost increases

This chart reflects the overall trend that ridership and service are not keeping pace with costs.

Increases in unit cost are not compensated by corresponding increases in productivity (measured in total passengers, passengers per hour or passengers per mile). In fact, in many cases — passengers per hour, for example — productivity has declined. The productivity trends also reflect real and difficult decisions facing agencies. For several agencies, the rise in costs and decline in ridership reflect policy decisions to continue very slow service in neighborhoods and put little priority on suburban arterials. Overall, this results in slower services carrying fewer people per hour of service.

• Finding 3: Transit speeds are declining, which further exacerbates cost and productivity issues

As the cost to provide an hour of service has increased, the number of miles that hour can deliver (and the number of trips a bus can make in a day) has declined. Traffic congestion results in either service decreases or more costly service.

Among regional operators, Muni averages 8 miles per hour (8.6 for diesel buses and 6.6 for trolley coaches), AC Transit 10 miles per hour, SamTrans 12 and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) 14. Over the last 15 years, speeds have dropped about seven percent. If the Muni trolley coach system’s average speed increased by just one mile per hour, Muni would save about $19 million dollars annually without any service decrease, just by making the buses go faster.

Operating buses and light rail in mixed traffic means that traffic increases and congestion have very real impacts on transit speeds. And slower service means less service or significant increases in costs to maintain the same service.

If an entire bus route normally takes 40 minutes and slows to 44 minutes, it means a single operator can only make 10 one-way trips a day instead of 11. So in order to maintain the same level of service, the agency must put additional buses on the road, which increases costs. It will be difficult to either increase service or hold operating costs steady if transit speeds continue to slow.

• Finding 4: There is no single factor causing these inefficiencies in transit operations

Many parties are responsible for the inefficiency of local transit operations. Transit agencies have not done enough to control the rise in unit costs. Recent contract negotiations at AC Transit (and to a lesser extent Muni) reflect partial savings. But the agencies argue they are not likely to achieve such savings in the near term. Cities too often harm transit by not giving sufficient dedicated space in the streets for buses to operate efficiently. Finally, funding agencies select poor transit investments, which also harms transit efficiencies over time.

Six Ways to Fix Bay Area Transit

Having taken on a study of the issues with the TSP, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission should now take ownership over implementing many of the good ideas to come out of the process. The following suggestions show how to fix transit by improving funding, speeds, fares, competition, information and maps.

• 1. Change the funding of transit operations from guaranteed revenue to incentive pay for more riders

Transit operations should be funded in ways that create an incentive for adding riders, as well as for making the most cost-effective improvements. For example, if the MTC offered to pay transit operators a $1 incentive (or bounty) per new rider, an agency that increased ridership by 1 million trips in a year would get an additional $1 million from the MTC. This would encourage transit operators to consider the immediate impact on ridership when allocating service.

• 2. Establish a regional fare policy that does not penalize customers who transfer between systems

By shifting from a guaranteed funding stream to a bounty paid by the MTC, operators will have a direct financial incentive to increase ridership. Growing ridership is one of the key goals for improving Bay Area transit.

When passengers transfer between BART or Caltrain and a local bus, they almost always pay two fares (there are a few exceptions, such as free transfers from Caltrain to Muni). In general, bus systems have little financial incentive to coordinate schedules with train systems. And the rail systems have no requirement to help pay for the local bus systems, even though they are getting additional riders and fares from these bus systems. This doesn’t make sense. The Bay Area needs a regional fare policy. This is complicated but certainly possible to implement with the Clipper Card as it is rolled out to all agencies. One approach would be for regional rail agencies like BART and Caltrain to pay a bounty to the local operators who deliver passengers to their systems. For example, if a passenger takes a local bus from Martinez to the Concord BART station, BART should share some of the paid fare with County Connection, the local operator. The end result could be better service to passengers, because the local agencies will benefit if they do the right thing — like coordinate schedules, adopt reasonable transfer tariffs and extend their hours of service.

• 3. Establish a new regional capital investment program that invests in speed improvements on key transit corridors

Improving transit speed and service requires investments in things like dedicated lanes for buses, signal priority and other operational improvements. When streets are designed for auto speeds, transit suffers and costs go up. MTC is already proposing a new $30 million pilot program for prioritizing transit on existing city streets to speed service. This annual program is a good start and should be expanded.

• 4. Create a tenured, independent regional transit analysis office to collect and distribute objective information and performance metrics

Just as we have a legislative analyst in Sacramento and San Francisco, we need an independent transit analysis office to both improve the public’s comprehension of the challenges facing transit systems and provide transit operators with clearer information on how and where their particular system should improve. There is already a lot of transit information out there. But there is no office with tenure and structural improving Bay Area transit.

• 5. Allow transit operators to pick up and drop off passengers within each others’ service territories

Today, transit bus operators all have distinct service territories. These territories are monopolies to the extent that one operator cannot pick up or drop off passengers in a territory controlled by another. Operators should be able to pick up and drop off passengers in each other’s service territories. (This would, however, require changes to state law.)

• 6. Produce a single transit map for the Bay Area and move toward common branding

While merging many of the Bay Area’s transit systems is impractical and not likely to achieve significant cost savings, making the entire region feel more like a single system could achieve many of the same results. The Clipper card is one step in the right direction. Creating a single transit map for the region would be another. A further step would be to move toward common marketing and branding. This approach has been taken in Melbourne, Australia, where there are numerous transit operators but the public face of transit is a single brand: Metlink.

What’s Next for Transit?

Bay Area transit systems, while operated separately, are owned by the same shareholders: the people. That simple fact should make improving transit for its owners (i.e., its customers) a top priority. To get the Bay Area’s $1.5 billion in annual transit system investments to produce better results requires much more transparency and direct and accountable financial incentives. These are not revolutionary concepts — in fact, they are the basis of all democratic systems. The system will not get better on its own. It will start to unravel unless we make needed changes. A better and sustainable transit system for the region will make a better Bay Area.

Photo: Myleen Hollero / Orange Photography

A picture is forming of how the SFMTA might address its budget shortfalls over the next two years. The SFMTA Board of Directors and an advisory panel of community leaders seem to oppose any further fare hikes or service cuts for Muni riders while mostly favoring extending parking meter hours to nights and Sundays — a politically challenging yet long-overdue measure.

Yesterday, board members voiced their positions on a list of proposed budget measures [PDF] after Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin reported which ones were generally supported by the advisory panel. The panel has met regularly over the past two months to develop recommendations for SFMTA staff about how to address the agency’s looming budget gap — $19.6 million over the next fiscal year and $33.6 million in the following year — as well as a $120 million backlog in Muni vehicle maintenance and infrastructure improvements.

The panel is expected to submit official budget recommendations to the board later this month, but consensus is starting to form on most fronts. The group is composed of roughly a dozen representatives from the SF Chamber of Commerce, People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER), labor organizations, the SF Planning and Urban Research Association, the SF Bicycle Coalition, the San Francisco Transit Riders Union, and other advocates. SFMTA representatives include Reiskin, Chief Financial Officer Sonali Bose, and Directors Cheryl Brinkman and Bruce Oka.

The panel generally favored proposals including an end to the MTA’s $9 million in annual payments to the SFPD for traffic enforcement (an arrangement which Chamber of Commerce President Jim Lazarus called “ridiculous,” according to the Chronicle), installing new car parking meters in high-demand areas, enforcing an existing regulation on downtown parking garage pricing, and a minor traffic fine increase to offset state-imposed fees.

The panel and most SFMTA directors also favor extending operating hours for car parking meters to Sundays and weeknights — a promising sign for proponents of the measure, which could reduce the number of drivers circling for parking. The board also favored it two years ago, but it was nixed by then-Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Letting the current dysfunctional schedule for metered parking continue costs the agency an estimated $11.8 million each year in lost revenue alone. In addition, excessive demand for free parking spots can lead frustrated drivers to double park — the top cause of Muni delays aside from maintenance and other internal agency issues. Given that pricing parking properly encourages turnover for businesses, Brinkman said she thinks “certain neighborhoods are going to embrace this.”

While Mayor Ed Lee and other officials have touted demand-based parking pricing under the groundbreaking SFPark program, they haven’t seemed willing to apply the same principle to price parking in busy districts during Sundays and weeknights after 6 p.m., as SFMTA staff recommended in a 2009 study.

“Last time, we got a lot of pressure from the supervisors to look at it, and when we put it to the supervisors to tell us which one of them wanted it in their district — guess what — nobody wanted it in their district,” said Director Malcom Heinicke. “I think we need to try a new approach to recognize that we don’t operate through the Board of Supervisors, we operate directly with the community… We need to identify some business corridors that would be willing to explore a pilot program.”

Though one reverend complained that paying for car parking on Sundays would be a burden for churchgoers who drive if they need to re-fill their meters, Brinkman pointed out that that’s an ease-of-payment issue, and that drivers would actually be able to find nearby parking more easily. Parking control officers have for decades looked the other way every Sunday when churchgoing drivers commandeer traffic lanes and bike lanes for double parking, despite the danger they pose to bicyclists.

Also favored by the panel was the installation of 500 to 1,000 new parking meters (estimated to bring in $1 million in revenue), with some members noting the need for outreach in implementation. The panel also supported a $5 increase for traffic citations to offset increases in state-imposed courthouse fees, as well as enforcing existing prohibitions on early-bird and monthly discounts at downtown parking garages built after 1984, which would recover an estimated $6 million per year in forfeited revenue. However, members stopped short of favoring extending that prohibition citywide because they didn’t think “it has a great chance of succeding,” said Brinkman.

The proposed revenue measures could help fund a program to provide free Muni for youth, which Reiskin said the panel also supported. That would require the agency to recoup an estimated $7.9 million in lost fare revenue, or $4 million if it is limited to low-income students. More than 100 proponents of that measure organized by POWER spoke for over four hours at yesterday’s board meeting.

Though directors roundly expressed their support for the endeavor, they differed on how to best implement it. Director Oka said he was concerned that if a pilot program started this year without a sustainable funding source, the agency may be forced to cut it in the future.

“If I’m going to start the program, I want us to be able to continue it,” said Oka. Director Joél Ramos disagreed, arguing that the pilot would “set the precedent as a value” and cause staff to prioritize its funding in future budgets.

Critics of free youth passes have voiced concern about where the money for the program would come from, but Director Leona Bridges, who was appointed largely for her financial background, pointed out that when students can’t afford to ride Muni, they are more likely to be truant at school and their education ultimately suffers.

“You save on one side, but you’re spending money on another side in the criminal justice system,” said Bridges. Ramos also argued that subsidizing free car parking on Sundays and weeknights while denying free Muni rides for low-income youth is “just backwards.”

Proposals taken off the table for panel recommendation include $0.25 increases for paper transfers or cash Muni fares, which all SFMTA board members seemed opposed to except for Heinicke, who argued it would encourage more use of the Clipper card, and therefore faster boardings. The panel also won’t recommend an increase in the developer fee for lost parking meter revenue during construction, which Reiskin and Brinkman said they agreed with because the Transportation Sustainability Fee should account for those costs when it’s expected to go into effect late next year.

The SFMTA is holding town hall meetings on the budget throughout March, and the Board of Directors is expected to vote on a budget on April 3.

Photo: Myleen Hollero/Orange Photography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image via SFMTA. See full PDF here.

The Transportation Sustainability Program (TSP) would reform the city’s transportation practices in three key areas: by eliminating reliance on the automobile-centric measuring stick known as Level of Service (LOS), by instituting a system of development impact fees that fund sustainable transportation improvements, and expediting the review process for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit projects. The details are on the wonky side, but if the city delivers on these reforms, SF could be looking at a much more rapid build-out of transit corridors, bikeways, and pedestrian safety measures.

“This program is taking a look at how we manage, regulate, and mitigate for development as it relates to transportation to develop a process that’s more transparent, equitable, and meaningful, and provides a much better nexus between land use planning and transportation,” said SFMTA Director of Transportation Ed Reiskin.

SF Planning Department Assistant Director Alicia John-Bauptiste presented details [PDF] about the TSP Tuesday to the SFMTA Board of Directors. The program, currently planned for adoption in late 2013, is a coordinated effort between the SFMTA, the Planning Department, the SF County Transportation Authority, and the Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

One key component to the TSP is the Transportation Sustainability Fee (TSF), which would replace the current Transit Impact Development Fee (TIDF) that building developers pay to the SFMTA to account for infrastructure costs due to car trips and transit trips made by users of those buildings. The TSF would be based on offsetting car trips added by a project, and its revenues could only be spent according to a spending plan to directly fund projects that improve transit service and bicycle and pedestrian safety. Developers would receive discounts on the TSF for building less car parking, and it would apply to residential buildings (except affordable housing), which the TIDF doesn’t.

According to John-Bauptiste, many developments and transportation projects will also no longer be required to conduct an environmental impact report (EIR) as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which would lead to major time and cost savings. “Individual projects will be relieved of having to study cumulative transportation impacts because the TSP EIR will study those impacts. Project-specific analysis will be limited to site design issues such as loading docks, curb cuts, and pedestrian and bicycle safety,” the presentation says.

The savings largely come from relieving planners of the need to measure projects using LOS, a tool that grades transportation projects based on how much they might slow down cars. LOS often calls for planners to take measures that “result in inconsistencies with achieving the city’s transit-first policies,” said John-Bauptiste.

A recent cartoon about LOS by Andy Singer.

Image: Andy Singer

“If what we’re concerned about is how quickly automobiles are moving through a particular intersection or roadway segment, a logical mitigation might be to expand roadway capacity, to add a lane of traffic,” said John-Bauptiste. “That is, first of all, often infeasible in a built-out, urban, dense environment such as San Francisco. It, secondly, can often be in contradiction to our policies supporting the bike network or pedestrian safety.”

Instead, the program would implement a new metric called Transit System Performance, which turns the LOS approach on its head by evaluating the transportation network holistically and focusing on reducing driving and improving conditions for transit, walking, and bicycling. This metric was developed as an alternative to LOS over recent years, and in 2009, San Francisco agencies successfully lobbied the state to allow cities to use alternative metrics.

“This is the latest in a long-running conversation about reconciling our practice of CEQA with our city’s wonderful adopted policies,” said Andy Thornley, policy director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. “We decided as a city quite a long time ago that we didn’t want to use LOS in CEQA.”

Under the TSP’s new environmental review system, projects would move so much faster that Reiskin said some improvements currently in development might get finished sooner by waiting until after the reforms are adopted.

“One of the main cost- and schedule-drivers of environmental review is transportation analysis, and that’s for any large development project,” said Reiskin. ”Somewhat ironically, that has created cost and schedule extensions for our own projects, even those that on the surface would appear to be very clearly imparting positive environmental impacts to the city — the Bike Plan is perhaps the poster child for that.”

As another example, he pointed to the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP), which Mayor Ed Lee has said is his #1 priority for Muni. The SFMTA is now at the outset of a 21-month, $2 million environmental review process for the TEP, said Reiskin. The TEP “is really about speeding up transit — a very clearly environmentally-beneficial initiative, but because we currently are under a Level of Service methodology… the TEP is subject to a full environmental impact report,” he said, though he noted that the TSP reforms won’t come soon enough for the project to take advantage.

The SFMTA Board roundly praised the program, and directors Joél Ramos and Bruce Oka emphasized the urgent need to implement it. “Every month that we don’t have a policy like this in place, we stand to lose, who knows, millions of dollars,” said Ramos.

Director Malcolm Heinicke hailed the program as a “creative way to restructure at the more local level to meet our goals and still satisfy the state act.”

“There’s always complaints about the CEQA process. There’s always calls to reform it at the state level,” he said. “It’s impressive that someone is actually doing something about this rather than just throwing up their hands and saying, ‘CEQA screws up everything.’”

Aside from the program’s cost savings, the TSF is expected to generate $630 million over 20 years and leverage $820 million more in other funding. The streams of revenue would fund “a comprehensive and strictly regulated $1.4 billion plan targeted at highly-efficient transportation system improvements,” according to the SFMTA presentation. Every two years, the city would dedicate funds to projects like the Market Street redesign, Muni’s TEP, Bus Rapid Transit on Van Ness and Geary, regional improvements like Caltrain electrification, the bikeway network, and pedestrian improvements.

City staff are currently reaching out to stakeholders for the program. This month, they plan to introduce a legislative ordinance and begin conducting the program’s EIR, which should finish next summer. The program is set to be heard and adopted by the SF Board of Supervisors in fall of 2013.

The SFPD bills millions to the SFMTA each year for services like directing traffic at this recent visit from President Obama. But which services should the SFMTA be paying for? Photo: Steve Rhodes/Flickr

As the SFMTA struggles to provide reliable Muni service, little headway has been made in curbing the amount it spends on staff overtime and work orders issued to other departments.

Supervisors David Campos and David Chiu, who held a hearing on both issues yesterday, say the continued the lack of transparency and accountability is frustrating.

“We’ve been having this conversation as long as I’ve been here,” Chiu told SFMTA Chief Financial Officer Sonali Bose at yesterday’s Government Audit and Oversight Committee meeting, where the supervisors found little explanation as to why the agency has agreed to dole out ballooning sums of money to other city agencies for services in recent years.

“I almost feel like we’re wasting our time, at times, by having these hearings,” said Chiu. “We are not seeing results, but I hope with this new administration that that will change.”

“I think that the single biggest challenge that the MTA is facing,” said Campos, “is not a challenge of lack of funding, but is a challenge of mismanagement.”

The $62 million to be spent this year on frequently vague, inadequately documented work orders is down compared to the $66 million spent in FY09-10, a rate that has doubled in the past decade.  However, where exactly that money is going remains “a bit of a black hole,” said Chiu, and critics have scrutinized both the SFMTA and the agencies who are billing it.

“From my perspective, I just don’t understand why it’s been so difficult to get a better handle of what’s happening in the black box of $60 million-plus that are being spent on this,” he said.

In April of last year, an audit by the City Controller’s Office found weak oversight of the SFMTA’s payments to 25 departments including the Police Department, the City Attorney, the Department of Technology, and the Department of Public Works. Many of the agreements, according to the audit, did not include accurate descriptions of the services provided, proper signatures, or even a memorandum of understanding establishing fee rates and performance measurements.

Critics like then-Supervisor Bevan Dufty blasted the SFPD for collecting nearly $19 million from the cash-strapped SFMTA through excessive work orders for services like traffic enforcement, injury crashes, dignitary escorts, and directing traffic at special events.

The SFMTA made some progress in buckling down on work order procedures within the few months after the audit was released, said Tonia Lediju, the Director of Audits for the City Controller’s Office. The agency has since established MOUs with all departments which it pays to perform work, though many lack the proper signatures and charter-mandated performance standards.

“We’ve come a long way, but there’s still some way to go,” said Bose.

But procedures aside, the audit doesn’t address whether or not the SFMTA should be paying for the services in the first place, the supervisors argued.

“I don’t feel like this audit helps to clarify that big question,” said Chiu. “I feel like we’re focused on the trees and not the forest.”

When asked about the guidelines SFMTA staff uses to determine which work orders are appropriate, Bose said it generally agrees to any work order which the agency “is getting any value from.”

Reducing work orders would not only help balance the SFMTA’s budget, but also help fund services like free Muni for low-income youth, argued dozens of speakers from POWER, a social equity advocacy organization. Chiu agreed, pointing out that “over the next six weeks, the amount of money that will be spent by the city on work orders will be the equivalent of what it would cost to get free Muni in San Francisco.”

Another major budget-buster for the SFMTA is overtime costs, which are projected this year to nearly double the budgeted amount at $57 million, but the agency is only now developing an official policy aimed at curbing them.

Debra Johnson, the SFMTA’s Director of Administration, presented a plan [PPTX] to reduce overtime by addressing issues like vehicle breakdowns, special events, staff shortages, and under-budgeting. One major boon, she said, will be new part-time operators joining the work force as part of the new labor agreement reached in June. That should reduce the need for full-time operators to work overtime at peak hours.

Overall, the agency aims to cut overtime by 10 to 15 percent in the next fiscal year, said Johnson.

The supervisors were optimistic about reform under the new administration of Transportation Director Ed Reiskin, who brings a strong track record from his tenure as director of the Department of Public Works.

Reiskin, who was unable to attend the hearing due to a family emergency, said in an op-ed in the SF Examiner yesterday that he agrees overtime must be curbed but generally defended the validity of work orders.

But the SFMTA’s lack of accountability for controlling costs in recent years, the supervisors said, is to blame for its current budget crisis.

“In the private sector, if overtime costs continued to be as high as they are, someone would be held accountable and not have their job at this point,” said Chiu.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has relented on his push to strip Transportation Enhancement funding from the six-month surface transportation extension, clearing the way for Senate passage last night and a White House signature today.

Sen. Barbara Boxer says dedicated funding for bike/ped projects is preserved, though Sen. Coburn appears satisfied that Transportation Enhancements is dead. Photo: AP

In exchange for releasing his stranglehold on the Senate (and the estimated 80,000 workers that could lose their jobs, at least temporarily, if the FAA bill lapsed) Coburn will get to insert his language into the long-term bill, when this latest extension expires.

According to CQ Today, Coburn said, “We’ve got an agreement that the next bill will be an opt-out for people on enhancements.” James Inhofe, the top Republican on the EPW committee which wrote the bill, “seems to have played a key role in brokering the deal,” CQ Today reports.

After the vote, Boxer quibbled with Coburn’s description of what will be in the next highway bill. Boxer said she and Inhofe had worked out “reforms” in the transportation enhancements section of the bill and met with Coburn to discuss them before the deal was worked out.

“We felt he would be pleased with the reforms,” she said. “It gives flexibility, without doing damage to the important programs in there.”

Boxer said Coburn made clear that he was “not going to vote for any more extensions” but allowed the current highway funding extension to move forward. “There’s not an opt-out,” she said. “You’ll see what we did. But no, there’s no opt-out. . . . There’s still dedicated funding. It gives more flexibility to the states as to how they will use that funding… It’s flexibility for the states within the transportation enhancements program.”

Clearly, Boxer is in a tight spot, having to placate some of the most conservative members of the Senate while also satisfying the active transportation advocates, in her state and around the country, who have held her feet to the fire on saving dedicated funds for bike/ped programs.

Sen. Coburn’s staff, meanwhile, is alarmed by Boxer’s comments. With the Senate out of session for the week, Coburn is back in Oklahoma and his aides are conferring with him. “Senator Boxer made an agreement with him to include the opt-out provision,” one staffer told Streetsblog. “The fact that she went on the record saying something that is in opposition to their agreement is concerning.”

Streetsblog could not reach the EPW Committee for comment before this story was posted, but we’ll update it if we hear more about exactly what was decided. It may just be a shuffling around of programs, with the essentials of bike/ped dedicated funding maintained, just in a different form.

Coburn was under intense pressure from senators on both sides of the aisle yesterday who wanted to avoid a weekend session, as well as the partial shutdown of the aviation system and the furlough of thousands of workers.

State DOTs and the transportation construction industry have been urging Congress for two years now to pass a long-term bill to restore some certainty to the business. They say the constant extensions create a chilling effect on new projects. Still, given the looming possibility of no extension at all, they are welcoming the six-month extension at current funding levels.

Voting against the extension last night were some of the most conservative members of the Senate. In addition to Sen. Coburn, Jim DeMint (R-SC), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Pat Toomey (R-PA).

In 2008, Bruins for Traffic Relief Rallied for the Measure R transit sales tax which despite earning nearly 70% of the vote barely passed. New legislation seeks to lower that threshold from 67% to 50%.

A series of amendments proposed by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) to SB 791 would lower the threshold of voter approval for new taxes to fund transportation improvements from 67 percent to 50 percent.

“SB 791 empowers local communities to meet their local transportation needs, improve regional mobility, and invest in high-priority, job-creating infrastructure improvements,” said Sen. Steinberg.

News of this change broke over the weekend, and already transportation groups such as the Bay Area’s TransForm are providing Action Alerts for Californians to contact their representatives in Sacramento.

The anti-congestion charge, in the form of per gallon fees on fuel paid at the pump, could be used to fund transit, bike and pedestrian projects, toll lanes, and the safety and maintenance of state highways and bridges. The charge would be levied on the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel and, for electric cars, on vehicle registration, and could be implemented for up to 30 years.

Revenues could pay for transit capital, operations and maintenance; bicycle and pedestrian programs and projects; programs and projects that would demonstrably reduce the growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT); conversion of carpool lanes to toll lanes; and improvements “relative to the maintenance, safety and rehabilitation of state highways and bridges.”

“Almost half of California’s greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation,” said Warner Chabot, CEO of the California League of Conservation Voters. “SB 791 will provide Californians with better transportation choices. It will lead to fewer cars on the road and will greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This bill is an environmental milestone.”

As we’ve seen with other proposals that would allow expansion of transit, bicycling or pedestrian networks, there is unity between environmental groups, organized labor and business leaders when it comes to supporting “pro-transit” ballot initiatives.

“The transportation improvements that would be made possible by SB 791 would create desperately needed good jobs in California,” said Maria Elena Durazo, Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. “Every $1 billion invested in transportation creates about 47,500 jobs. SB 791 will put Californians back to work, especially those who have been hit hardest by the recession.”

In 2008, Los Angeles County became the most recent county to pass a tax to fund transportation improvements. Because any voter approved fee requires two-thirds support, it was a long night for transit advocates on November 4, 2008 despite overwhelming support for the initiative. For Denny Zane, the executive director of Move L.A., the coalition founded to support Measure R, Steinberg’s proposal is a welcome change.

“In 2008 voters in LA County miraculously voted to support the Measure R sales tax for transportation by a two-thirds vote in the throes of a collapsing economy. But, it should not require a miracle to ensure the future of our transportation system and our economy,” said Zane. “This bill provides the opportunity for congestion reduction strategies that can be approved by a sensible majority vote, including expanded transit services or highway improvements.”

No hearing date has been scheduled for SB 791, but Streetsblog will cover this legislation if it moves through the Senate and Assembly.

Photo: TreeHugger

This week, the Safe Routes to School National Conference convenes in Minneapolis, a progressive city determined to become the most bicycle friendly in the nation. But even here, far from the nation’s capital, in a region celebrated for its massive greenway system, drama inside the Beltway has instilled an air of urgency to the event.

In 2005, SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act) created the federal Safe Routes to School program to get more kids to bike and walk to school by improving infrastructure and creating encouragement programs that make those active trips safe and appealing. The funding for the program is but a tiny drop in the mammoth transportation budget — a mere 0.25 percent of federal transportation spending. But those dollars have been a crucial foundation in building a wide and growing movement.

Deb Hubsmith, director of the Safe Routes to School National Partnership. Photo: Carolyn Szczepanski

As is the case for so many progressive programs, though, there’s a very real threat that the well of dedicated dollars for Safe Routes to School could dry up in the next transportation bill. That was apparent from the opening moments of the biennial gathering.

Deb Hubsmith, the director of the Safe Routes to School National Partnership and a key player in developing and advancing “Safe Routes” nationwide, appealed to a huge crowd of more than 600 participants for three things: courage, faith and immediate action.

“As you know, we have some challenges,” she said. “Some people might be discouraged by what they’ve heard about Congress and the federal debt. The transportation bill is up for reauthorization and there’s fighting about what will happen with the future. Some say Safe Routes to School is not a federal priority.”

“In the face of this discussion right now, we need to have courage,” she added. “We need to know that some of the best outcomes come from challenges in front of us. When something is at risk it creates an opportunity; do we want to go backwards or have a future with healthy kids and healthy communities.”

The Obama administration seemingly showed its support for that healthy future by dispatching Victor Mendez, the administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. In his keynote appearance, Mendez not only highlighted the success of the program but indicated a need for more dollars.

“Since the program started in 2005, we’ve made more than $900 million available to the states and DC for Safe Routes to School programs,” he said. “All 50 states have funded projects and… the total national program is oversubscribed in terms of need. Maybe 40 percent of all applications actually get funded, which means we need to do a little bit of work in that regard.”

New data, just released by the National Center for Safe Routes to School (the government clearinghouse for SRTS data and technical assistance), shows those in-demand dollars are having a wide impact. As of June, funding has reached 11,371 individual schools and, perhaps more importantly, it hasn’t bypassed the nation’s most vulnerable children.

According to the analysis, while 21 percent of the nation’s schools are defined as low-income, 23 percent of the schools announced for SRTS funding fall into that category. In addition, projects with a specific focus on the inclusion of children with disabilities have been funded in 17 states and Native American children on tribal lands have been the focus of projects in seven states.

When asked by an audience member the best means to convince Congress members to maintain those important dollars in the next bill, Mendez said he couldn’t tell Safe Routes believers to lobby their elected officials. But another big name from Washington — James Corless, director of Transportation for America — did just that in a later session. “One thing I know is that, if none of you in this room work on these things, get active and engaged, we could lose Safe Routes and dedicated bike-ped funding,” he said. “There are just too many things pulling in that direction.”

Safe Routes supporters are already warmed up to flex their political muscle. When Rep. John Mica (R-FL) released an outline for the House transportation bill that didn’t include dedicated funding for biking and walking, more than 60,000 citizens flooded their members of Congress to demand those dedicated dollars. Both Corless and Hubsmith emphasized another, even bigger, uprising has the potential to preserve the Safe Routes program.

Still, the uncertainty has sparked discussions about how to continue the Safe Routes momentum even if Congress pares back, or eliminates, dedicated funding. Some advocates are leveraging private funding from major foundations, community grants and corporate supporters. Others are looking to the health arena, including hospitals, insurance providers, or public health departments with local- or state-funded programs that dovetail with Safe Routes objectives. Local ballot initiatives and bond measures could be a source of new dollars, too, given the successful track record in funding progressive issues in states like California.

But Hubsmith, in her remarks, didn’t even go there.

“We’ve faced these challenges before,” she said. “In 1997, there was talk about killing the Transportation Enhancements program. In 2003, there was another move to kill TE… We need to have faith. As Martin Luther King Jr said, ‘Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase.’ We need to have courage. When we have courage and faith, we can win.”

Carolyn Szczepanski is communications coordinator at the Alliance for Biking & Walking.

The federal transportation bill by Rep. John Mica would focus on the federal highway system, not sustainable transportation.

Public transit programs in California could take a $468 million annual hit under the proposed transportation bill unveiled last week by Rep. John Mica (R-FL). The Mica plan would also potentially result in the loss of 17,565 annual jobs, according to an analysis [pdf] by Transportation for America. Overall, T4A predicts the scaled-down bill would result in a 37 percent reduction in federal investments in public transportation when compared to current levels.

“What you will see, more than likely, is transit agencies taking what money they have available for operations and shifting some of that over into making up that federal cut for the capital expenses,” said Ryan Wiggins, the T4A Southern California field representative. “What they might be forced to do is a combination of fare increases, and/or service cuts.”

“This is the federal government not investing in our infrastructure. That’s what it is,” said Randy Rentschler, a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “I think there are some elements to it that are positive, but often what matters most is the money, and the money is clearly inadequate.”

In San Francisco, SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said Muni would be forced to defer or delay some major capital investment projects, including work on the Central Subway, Van Ness BRT, the replacement of trolley coach and motor coach vehicles, and an upgrade of rail and overhead line infrastructure. It would also force the agency to “defer fleet rehabilitation of motor coach and historic fleet vehicles which will impact service due to lack of available vehicles” and delay the scheduled replacement of 35 paratransit vans, along with other projects.

The bill would also eliminate any federal guarantee for bicycle and pedestrian programs. Wiggins said T4A fears that money which typically comes from federal transportation enhancement funds would all be funneled to big infrastructure projects, and bike and ped programs would get neglected by state transportation agencies.

Dave Snyder, the executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition, was more optimistic, considering the strong advocacy for biking and walking in the state.

“We have some work to do in California to make sure that the kinds of projects that were funded out of enhancements continue to get funded but I’m confident that in most areas of California, anyway, we can maintain that level of funding, if not increase it, thanks to the growing support for this kind of stuff,” he said.

Senator Barbara Boxer, who sits on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has vowed to fight the proposed cuts, and is offering her own proposal.

Rumor has it House Speaker Boehner doesn't want to deal with the transportation bill. Photo: AP/Charles Dharapak

Rumor has it that House leadership has put the kibosh on Transportation Committee Chair John Mica’s plans to get a bill out of committee and to the House floor in July. Supposedly, House Speaker John Boehner has told Mica not to mark up a bill, since it would just languish without a vote anyway.

This information came to us from a trustworthy source who is a few levels removed from the actual decision makers. (Streetsblog has a request in with Mica’s office to confirm.) Because it’s a compelling rumor that makes a lot of sense in the current political context, please indulge us as we run through the possibilities, but do take it with a grain of salt.

All will be clearer next week, when Mica either introduces his bill or he doesn’t — though even that won’t tell us everything, because introducing it and then keeping it stalled in committee would also likely be an acceptable option for leadership — as long as it doesn’t come to the floor.

All this is happening, of course, against the backdrop of the debt ceiling talks, as they rage (or whimper) on, with no solution in sight before an economic meteor (known as “default”) hits the planet. House Republicans are still saying they won’t accept any new taxes, leaving spending cuts as the only way to cut $1 trillion from the deficit. Their recipe for transportation? About a 33 percent cut, bringing transportation in line with current balance in the Highway Trust Fund. (The new formula bars spending based on anticipated revenues.) There’s not a state in the union that wouldn’t feel these cuts, deeply.

So, if it’s true that Boehner has said no to the reauthorization, it actually makes a lot of sense. The House can’t pass a bill with such low levels of spending – there wouldn’t be any support for it. But the Republicans can’t possibly introduce a bill that violates their own spending principles right now, as they’re digging their heels in on spending cuts as a pre-condition to raising the debt ceiling.

Meanwhile, the Senate EPW Committee, by all accounts, is raring to go on its transportation bill draft, but the House usually goes first on all bills related to spending. The Senate could still introduce its bill and start holding hearings, but it’s unlikely to come to a vote until the House has passed its version.

All of this makes a straight extension of the current transportation bill – the option no one wanted – the most likely scenario.

The debt ceiling deadline is August 2, and if there’s no deal by then, there will be tremendous pressure on Congress to stay in session to figure things out. But there’s nothing Congress hates more than missing recess, so that seems unlikely (though right now, consensus seems even more unlikely, so your guess is as good as mine).

Assuming Congress does manage to take its recess, both chambers will be out from August 8 until after Labor Day. The current transportation bill extension expires September 30. What do you think the chances are that both chambers will introduce, pass, and reconcile new transportation bills in the three-and-a-half weeks they’ll have after recess ends? If you said “diddly squat,” you’re a pretty smart cookie.

Would the two chambers just extend the current bill until 2013, when the president election is over, a new House and Senate are seated, and a new conversation can begin on how to raise revenues? That’s more or less the idea behind a two-year bill, which the Senate appears to be supporting. It’s possible the House could come back in September and agree to those terms, but that would be an awfully quick turnaround, especially since Mica’s been insistent that the bill have a six-year duration.

The Senate’s bill, as far as we understand it, would buy Congress enough time to get past the elections, because it does involve a slight bump in spending. But a straight extension of the current bill wouldn’t get us there. The Highway Trust Fund is projected to run dry next summer, so a SAFETEA-LU extension would run headlong into that impending crisis. So Congress will likely have to pass a short-term extension, coming back to the issue in early 2012 — and actually solving it — before the highway trust fund goes insolvent.

The century-old transit tunnel NJ Gov. Christie decided not to modernize. Photo: TSTC

Christie’s decision to kill the project to expand capacity in a train tunnel under the Hudson River had one positive result: it must have made things easier for ­FTA officials to make the cuts required by the 25 percent haircut the New Starts program received earlier this year at the hands of Congressional budget-cutters.

The $200 million federal grant for ARC was one of the biggest on the list of proposed New Starts projects last year. The only other significant change is that the $45 million for “Other New Starts/Small Starts Projects” became $20 million for Alaska’s Denali Commission and for ferries in Alaska and Hawaii.

In its press release, USDOT highlights some of the transit projects that are moving forward:

The New Britain-Hartford Busway will provide commuters traveling between New Britain and Hartford a more efficient and cost-effective alternative to the current daily commute on Interstate 84, the region’s most congested highway. The dedicated busway will provide the area’s relatively large transit-dependent population better access to the 81,000 jobs along the route and across the busway’s 11 stations, promote redevelopment opportunities along the 9.4-mile corridor, and provide faster transit access to major activity centers throughout the area. The FTA anticipates an overall federal commitment of $275.3 million to the $572.7 million project.

Denver’s 13-station Eagle Commuter Rail project, which will add nearly 23 miles of service to Denver’s transit system connecting downtown Denver and Denver International Airport to the east with numerous communities in between. Ultimately, the FTA projects contributing approximately $1 billion towards the $2 billion project, which is expected to create 5,400 jobs during peak construction. This is one component of FasTracks, a multi-billion dollar, multi-year transit-expansion program that will help Denver support smart, sustainable growth, create jobs, and compete for business for decades to come.

The Rapid C Bus Rapid Transit Line will help to relieve traffic congestion in West Seattle, Washington, improve access to downtown Seattle’s 150,000 jobs, and connect the popular Washington State Ferries serving Vashon Island and Southworth among other spots along the corridor. Nearly $21.3 million in discretionary 2011 funds has been budgeted for construction of the $28.4 million project. The C Line, which should be fully operational by the fall of 2012, is expected to create approximately 180 construction, manufacturing, and transportation jobs during the peak construction period.

The Central Corridor light rail project will connect Minnesota’s two largest cities—Minneapolis and Saint Paul—by light rail for the first time. The FTA recently signed a Full Funding Grant Agreement making a long-term financial commitment to the $957 million light rail line, which will carry 40,000 riders along this busy 11-mile corridor. The project, which includes 18 new stations and 31 new rail cars, is scheduled to open in 2014. In addition to serving the downtown areas of the Twin Cities, the Central Corridor line will provide more efficient access to the University of Minnesota, the Midway area, the State Capitol complex, Target Field and the Metrodome, and many neighborhoods in between.

The Austin MetroRapid is a 37.5-mile, 40-stop, bus rapid transit (BRT) system. The FTA is supporting the local vision with a $24.2 million investment in 2011 towards the nearly $50 million project. The project, which is scheduled to open in the summer of 2013, is the first phase of Capitol Metropolitan Transit Authority’s comprehensive and forward-leaning All Systems Go ten-corridor long-range transit plan.

Photo: friedmanlynn

There are a lot of disturbing numbers in Transportation for America’s new report, “Aging in Place, Stuck Without Options.” It says the Bay Area currently has the best transportation access for seniors, but points out that in the coming years a rising number of people over age 65 will live in neighborhoods where transit service is either poor or doesn’t exist.

“In just four years, 62 percent more seniors in the San Francisco metro area will live with poor transit compared to 2000, versus 56 percent more for Oakland metro area and 66 percent more for San Jose metro area,” notes a press release from TransForm, an Oakland-based non-profit advocating for transit and smart growth.

In San Mateo County, as an example, 1 out of 4 residents will be over the age of 65 by 2030, and the number of people over the age of 85 will increase to two and half times the current number, according to the San Mateo County Health System. Sixty percent of baby boomers are projected to have more than one chronic disease, while nearly a third will be obese, and 25 percent will have diabetes.

“If we want to have healthy seniors, we have to invest in reliable, frequent and safe public transportation systems so that people can get where they need to go without a car,” said Jean Fraser, the San Mateo County Health System Chief. “If we develop our communities using the 8-80 rule — so sidewalks, bike lanes, streets, buses and trains are safe and welcoming to kids aged 8 and seniors aged 80 — we will keep both our seniors and our children much healthier.”

As Congress prepares a long-term transportation bill, transit advocates say it’s important that residents urge their representatives to adopt policies to ensure that seniors “remain mobile, active and independent.”

“The situation is already acute in the Bay Area, with annual transit cuts and growing demand,” said Stuart Cohen, the executive director of TransForm. “But now Congress is threatening to further slash funding and take away our flexibility to spend it on our greatest needs; more than ever we need Senator Boxer’s leadership as her committee finalizes the six-year transportation bill.”

Following T4A’s easy link to send a letter to Senator Boxer. More coverage at Streetsblog Capitol Hill.

Barbara Boxer said dedicated bicycle and pedestrian funding will still have a place in the federal transportation bill. Photo: Planetizen

Rather than holding funding at SAFETEA-LU levels, as we previously reported and as the EPW statement indicated, the committee is planning a $339.2 billion bill – current spending plus inflation, plus an expanded TIFIA loan program. That’s $56.5 billion a year. Boxer said the Senate bill would guarantee funding for bicycle and pedestrian programs, which had been in doubt.

TIFIA is currently funded at $110 million a year but demand has far outstripped the availability of loans. Boxer’s committee is proposing to increase that funding nine-fold, to $1 billion a year. She says that amount could leverage $30 billion a year in private investment. They also plan to increase the maximum federal share from 33 percent to 49 percent, with even more favorable terms for rural areas. The TIFIA program will keep its name but be folded into a new, larger program called America Fast Forward.

She’s still leaving open the option of an infrastructure bank, which she says she supports, but she’s always prioritized an expanded TIFIA program over an I-bank, mostly because she believes a program that already exists makes more sense than a brand new one.

Boxer said that including the $30 billion she hopes TIFIA will be able to leverage each year brings the bill over $500 billion – close to the administration figure. (Of course, the administration had leveraging mechanisms in its bill as well, notably the infrastructure bank, and didn’t include the private investment “leveraged” by those entities in its final number.)

She said her committee told the administration, “If you can show us the money, we’re happy to look at it,” but that “right now there isn’t any, so we’re going with what we think we can get through the United States Senate.”

Rep. John Mica, chair of the House Transportation Committee, has “different pressures,” Boxer said, including a House that has voted to use transportation funds for other purposes, but she added that they’re working closely together on the bill.

Boxer is “hoping for a six-year bill” but acknowledged that “we may not wind up with a six-year bill.” Still, she said that while a two-year option was very much “in the mix,” the committee wants the policy changes they make to take effect for six years. According to Boxer’s staff, if they pass this bill as a six-year bill, there will be a $12 billion shortfall every year as compared to Highway Trust Fund revenues. As a two-year bill, there’s a $6 billion annual shortfall. The committee is open to general fund transfers to fill that gap. The bill could also be three, four, or five years, of course, though those options are rarely mentioned.

Advocates for bicycle and pedestrian projects have been nervous about talk of “consolidating wasteful programs,” as Republicans on the committee have long let it be known that they consider bike/ped projects to be “wasteful.” Boxer made it clear that she disagrees (though she does agree that other “enhancements” like museums don’t belong in the transportation bill). “Certainly any mode of transportation – roads that support alternatives such as bike paths, walkways – will be included and get good attention,” she said, adding that they plan to continue to guarantee federal funds for these programs, not just leave it up to the states (though that part is not yet finalized).

She reiterated her support for indexing the gas tax to inflation but quickly discarded it as a non-starter – and besides, the question of how to pay for the bill is the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, which will be looking for ways to make it viable. The chair of the Finance Committee, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) is one of the “Big Four” of the EPW Committee who has agreed to the current principles, so that’s a good start.

“We’re ready to rock and roll,” said Boxer. The committee plans to start hearings on the final draft of the bill in two weeks and mark it up before the July 4 recess, meaning they would finalize the bill and send it to the full Senate for approval. She said Majority Leader Harry Reid is “elated” that the four major committee members have found bipartisan agreement on such substantial elements of the bill, which staff members say is already 150 pages long (though not in standard legislative formatting).

The Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over transit, and Commerce, with control over rail, haven’t written their pieces of the bill yet. So far, we expect the highway/transit split to remain 80 percent/20 percent. Expect the debate over high-speed rail in the Commerce Committee to be intense.

Sen. Barbara Boxer indicates the Senate transportation bill will hold spending to current levels, hints it will be a short-term bill. Photo: Bumpshack

It is no secret that the four of us represent very different political views, but we have found common ground in the belief that building highways, bridges, and transportation systems is an important responsibility of the federal government, in cooperation with state and local governments and the private sector.

They say their bill, called Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21):

• Funds programs at current levels to maintain and modernize our critical transportation infrastructure;
• Eliminates earmarks;
• Consolidates numerous programs to focus resources on key national goals and reduce duplicative and wasteful programs;
• Consolidates numerous programs into a more focused freight program that will improve the movement of goods;
• Creates a new section called America Fast Forward, which strengthens the TIFIA program to stretch federal dollars further than they have been stretched before; and
• Expedites project delivery without sacrificing the environment or the rights of people to be heard.

Nothing about an infrastructure bank, which is likely still a major sticking point. We’ll also be interested in hearing more about their decisions about transportation enhancements – those “beautification” projects the Republicans love to rail against, also known as bike and pedestrian infrastructure. We also wonder how much EPW has worked with the Banking and Commerce Committees so far to work out the language on transit and rail.

The joint statement indicates that Boxer may be softening her insistence on a six-year bill. They specifically say, “Our goal is to attain the optimum achievable authorization length depending on the resources available.” Sounds like a two-year bill to me, if they’re shooting to maintain current funding levels. And we already know that sounds like a two-year bill to Max Baucus, chair of EPW’s Transportation Subcommittee and head of the Finance Committee, which the four senators say they’re collaborating with to explore options for the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund without increasing the deficit – i.e., without transfers from the general fund.

We’re still not expecting to see a completed bill for a little while… the initial Memorial Day target has been pushed back to “sometime in June.”

Bike and pedestrian advocates are urging supporters to contact Senator Barbara Boxer today to tell her to retain dedicated funding for active transportation in the Senate transportation bill. Photo: CNN Politics

Advocates are rallying supporters to contact Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-California), and urge her and other senators to retain federal funding for bike and pedestrian programs.

Jeffrey Miller, president of the Alliance for Biking and Walking, says this marks an urgent opportunity to preserve funding for those important programs. “Senator Boxer is frankly our last hope,” said Miller. “If we don’t act now, dedicated funding for biking and walking programs may be written out of our transportation system for the next six years.”

The Senate occupies the key middle ground between the House GOP and the White House. House Transportation Chair John Mica (R-Florida) has indicated his desire to eliminate the federal commitment to bike-ped funding. While the Obama administration has repeatedly signaled its support for bike-ped programs under the banner of livability, if dedicated funding for bike and pedestrian projects isn’t preserved in the Senate version of the bill, there is little hope that they will reemerge in the conference committee process and get into the final bill, Miller said.

Biking and walking advocates are concerned that Boxer, who has generally been supporter, is being pressured to compromise and eliminate the programs, said Miller. Both the Alliance and the League of American Bicyclists are calling on their members to email Boxer, thank her for her past support and urge her to continue federal support for bicycle and pedestrian programs.

“At this very moment, she is negotiating with other senators who don’t think bicycling and walking are an important part of the transportation bill,” said Miller. “She needs to know we have her back on this issue and she shouldn’t give up on these crucial programs.”

“Transportation Enhancements, Safety Routes to School, and Recreational Trails are important programs for transportation, safety, and health that have a huge impact on the funding available for bicycling and walking projects,” said Bike League director Andy Clarke. “It is critical that these programs are included in the Senate draft. Otherwise, it will be nearly impossible to add them later in the process.”

Editor’s note: Matthew Ridgway is a principal at Fehr and Peers, a transportation design and engineering firm that routinely consults on bicycle and pedestrian projects throughout the Bay Area.

Within the world of bicycle and pedestrian planning, there are some cities that have been successful in securing significant resources for pedestrian and bicycle-related projects. These funds come from a variety of sources and the organizations that are the most successful understand the funding cycles and ways to package projects so that they will be win local, state, federal and private grants.

More importantly, programs that are sustained over time (the only way to affect change) are not entirely reliant on grant funding – they have more reliable funding streams, often general fund, that allow the programs to sustain themselves regardless of the ever-changing funding conditions. In talking with these agencies, a common theme emerged about the real constraint to implementing more bicycle and pedestrian projects.  It is not just funding – it is staffing.

Jason Patton, PhD, is the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager for the City of Oakland. He was the first to say something to the effect of ‘I don’t need more funding, I need more staff.’ But then I heard it from Chadrick Smalley, Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency; Eric Anderson, City of Berkeley; and Aleida Chavez, City of Albany.  So I decided to dig a little deeper into the specifics. On Oakland’s situation, Jason writes:

We estimate that it takes 0.25 full-time-equivalent staff (FTE) of work by staff in the Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Program to deliver a bicycle project with $100,000 of construction costs. This staff time includes planning, feasibility, funding, outreach, approvals, design, project management, and construction management.

Bicycle projects take a lot of staff time to develop and deliver. For bike racks, each location is investigated in the field to ensure that the location has suitable clearances. We then notify the adjoining tenant and the property owner of the proposed installation. We then resolve issues on a case-by-case basis. Following installation by City crews, we verify that the work was completed as designed. For bikeways, we have a technical process that addresses planning, feasibility, and design. We then mail all addresses within one block of the project area and then address the comments received. Projects that remove travel lanes or on-street parking require approval by City Council. Each project must also be cleared under the California Environmental Quality Act.

We have 2.0 FTEs in the Oakland Program, of which about 1.3 FTE is available to deliver bicycle and pedestrian projects (it requires 0.7 FTEs to respond to public requests, provide technical assistance to other City projects and programs, and perform other miscellaneous administration), which means we have a capital project capacity of $520,000.

On the funding side, we receive $350,000 per year from Measure B (Alameda County’s transportation sales tax) and $150,000 per year of Transportation Development Act Article 3 (a statewide sales tax) funds for bicycle projects. These two sources amount to $500,000 per year, roughly equivalent to Oakland’s capacity of $520,000 per year. In very general terms, we can deliver about 10 miles of bikeways and 100 bike racks per year with this funding level.

We apply for grants, but typically for projects with larger scopes of work and thus higher capital costs. We are not aggressive in pursuing grants, because we do not necessarily have the staff capacity to deliver grant-funded projects in a timely manner. With more staff, we could easily win more grants and build more facilities.

In sum, bicycle facilities are inexpensive to construct because the main building blocks are low cost: roadway stripes, signs, and bike racks. However, it is very time consuming to develop a technically sound project that meets the diverse needs of the public. For road diet projects in particular, the costs associated with feasibility, outreach, and design are more than the cost to actually construct the facility.

Eric Anderson, Berkeley’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator concurs, adding more local details and noting that the variability in grant funding availability is a barrier to increasing bicycle and pedestrian program staff:

We’re in roughly the same situation as Oakland.  We have 1.0 FTE dedicated to bike/pedestrian projects but in reality we have a lot of different staff working on these types of things. This situation works well when we’re in “business as usual” mode where we have the occasional capital grant for projects around $1M or less and our Engineering Division is able to handle this grant-billable work with their regular staffing levels. To take advantage of capital funding and make more progress on implementing our bike and pedestrian plans requires more staff, yet we can’t justify the staff without consistent funding to keep them billable. The funding streams for bike and pedestrian capital projects are (even now, even here in the Bay Area) too scarce and variable.

Chadrick Smalley of the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency adds:

The question, when looking at each individual opportunity, is whether the grant application, and then administration, whatever the effort needed, is worth the time.  I’m to the point now where I realize I cannot take on any more – I’m way over capacity – and it’s unfortunate because I feel like we leave money on the table.

Iris Starr, Division Manager of Infrastructure Plans and Programming at City of Oakland Public Works Agency sums it up well.

Despite what seems to be a considerable amount of money available for design and construction (of bicycle and pedestrian projects), it cannot be spent as fast as would be possible – primarily because staffing levels are so low.  And, why are staffing levels low? Generally, it is because the funding streams for bicycle programs are insufficient to support ongoing work- rather, facilities must be developed on a grant by grant basis, which is (ironically) not sustainable. In the cities that are dedicated to the rapid realization of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, the staff is supported by additional funds (other than grants and formula monies). This approach allows staff to more quickly extend the network by going after and using all grant funds that can be captured. With dedicated staff, cities can ensure bicycle facility continuity, attend to real-time operations and maintenance issues, and respond to new opportunities as they arise.

A speaker testifies at today's Caltrain Board of Directors meeting. Photo: Aaron Bialick

The Caltrain Board of Directors declared a fiscal emergency for the third year in a row today as a step toward enacting severe service cuts to help close a $30 million deficit. At the meeting, dozens of speakers representing Peninsula families, city agencies and organizations plead with the board not to close stations next month.

“For the last ten years, Caltrain has either relied on one-time emergency funding or declared a fiscal emergency,” said Shirley Johnson of the Caltrain Bikes ONBoard project of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. She criticized the board for relying “year after year” on a fiscal emergency, which grants them the ability to quickly execute service cuts without environmental review. “It’s wrong,” she said.

If the proposed cuts are approved, service on the system would be reduced to peak-hour trains only, which agency staff says carry 80 percent of its ridership. However, the suspension of service at up to 16 stations along the corridor was heavily criticized as an ineffective means to save operational costs.

“The $30 million deficit has been created by our county governments decommitting from the funding necessary to offset these costs,” said daily rider Tom Gormond. ”The actions being proposed… will do nothing in terms of reducing the primary problem of all commuter railroads – the high amount of fixed costs that are required to provide service.  In fact, they will have the opposite effect by reducing ridership and increasing the need for greater amounts of government support.”

“Obviously, ever increasing amounts of government support will not happen, so the demise of Caltrain is almost ensured,” he added.

The majority of the roughly 1,350 public comments received prior to today’s meeting focused on station closures. Many speakers argued they would cripple the mobility of Caltrain-dependent communities.

“Without Lawrence Station, we wouldn’t be able to have our daughter go to her school, plain and simple,” said June Moss, a single mother of two, who echoed the sentiments voiced by many students and parents at the hearing.

“Caltrain is the central component of the transit infrastructure serving our burgeoning biotechnology industry,” said South San Francisco Mayor Kevin Mullin, who argued with other Peninsula city officials, developers and employers that station closures would undermine investments in transit-oriented development along the corridor.

“Our city’s sole Caltrain station will be critical in servicing” the 6,000 new employees at an office complex planned nearby, he said.

Real estate located within one-half of a mile of Burlingame station is estimated to be worth $100 million more than other development due to its proximity, according to Mayor Terry Nagel.

“I consider Caltrain the aorta, and I consider the rest of these agencies the veins,” said rider Victoria Carmona, who praised the vital role of Peninsula transit agencies. “I feel that if you cut them off, the result will be necrosive. You may never get the ridership back.”

An increase in the gas tax, parking fees, and seeking advertising revenue were among the suggestions roundly urged by speakers as dedicated funding sources to help close the budget gap. Some riders voiced their willingness to pay higher fares to retain service.

“Isn’t this an educative moment for our young students to learn about sustainability issues?” reflected Father Paul Sheridan, President of Bellarmine Preparatory School, which is near the College Park Station. “Isn’t it ironic,” he asked, “that a lot of press is on the high-speed rail, whereas it’s the local service that’s being threatened?”

A final vote on service cuts is scheduled for April 7.

Photo: Myleen Hollero/Orange Photography

A proposal to give thousands of low-income public school students free Muni passes is on its way to the SFMTA Board for approval after the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution Tuesday. It followed a passionate show of support from dozens of speakers at Monday’s City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee hearing.

“We need to make good on the promise that we made to our low-income children and their families, and we need to do that as soon as possible,” said Supervisor David Campos, who sponsored the resolution along with six other supervisors. “We believe that this approach is the most expeditious way to implement a program whose funding has already been approved and set aside by the MTA Board of Directors.”

If the program is approved, about 10,000 low-income students would receive free passes from March to May. A proposal approved last February led the SFMTA to allocate the money for student passes discounted at $10, but distribution and access to student data presented logistical challenges.

“The intent was to provide a discount Muni pass to our San Francisco youth with the easiest access possible,” said Chris Armentrout, the San Francisco Unified School District’s (SFUSD) liaison to the Board of Supervisors. A long-term program to establish the Lifeline Youth passes for sale at the original $10 price is expected to start next year, he said.

The SF Youth Commission, which has campaigned for discounted youth passes for several years, was the force behind both proposals.

The commission was created by voters “to advise [the Board of Supervisors] on the unmet needs of San Francisco’s Youth,” according to Director Mario Yedidia. Thirty thousand of the city’s 58,000 public school students live on incomes low enough to qualify for free or reduced lunches – an “exceedingly high” and growing number, he said.

Long-distance school assignments and recent school bus service cuts have made transportation increasingly difficult for students. “There are no such things as neighborhood schools anymore,” said Joy Sun, District 4 Youth Commissioner and a student at Lowell High School. “We all have to bus to school, and all school buses in high schools are mostly cut right now.”

Secondary public school students determined by an application process to be in the greatest need and living below 130 percent of the poverty line would be eligible to receive monthly passes, said Armentrout. Passes have already been distributed to roughly 2,000 homeless and transitional youth, a process which faced fewer hurdles than the rest of the program.

“This is not just an issue of students trying to get to school, but it’s also an issue of criminalizing our youth,” said Beatriz Herrera, an organizer for POWER, which advocates for free transit and was represented by many speakers from disadvantaged communities at the hearing. “A lot of them have friends who have been ticketed – not just once but many times. It’s really sad that they’re avoiding Muni agents and police officers just trying to get to school.”

Several speakers, as well as Campos and all the supervisors on the committee, voiced the need for the future expansion of discounted transit passes to students and youth beyond the SFUSD system.

SFMTA Local Government Affairs Liaison Janet Martinsen voiced the agency’s support for the resolution and said the Board of Directors will hold a hearing on approving the program at their next public meeting March 1.

Image: Reuters

As expected, the President is trying to simplify the federal transportation program, consolidating 60 programs into five. The Post reports that those would be “limited to making investments only if Congress agrees on a financing plan that would not increase the deficit.” Politico reports that transportation would come from a “single trust fund covering highways and passenger rail systems like Amtrak.”

Insiders say there’s no gas tax hike planned (no surprise there) but there is funding to start a National Infrastructure Bank.

President Obama is also calling for increases in education spending, education research, and broadband access.

He plans to raise revenues by increasing some taxes on the wealthy, teeing up for another battle with Republicans, and ending oil and gas subsidies.

Among the cuts: community development block grants would lose $300 million, $1 billion would be cut from large airport grants, and nearly $1 billion would be trimmed from a fund that finances water treatment plans and other infrastructure projects, according to the Post.

We’ll be hearing more from the Department of Transportation in a few hours and will bring you more news when we have it.