Comments on: Can MTC Take the Heat?

By: When commitment isn’t a virtue « Transbay Blog

When commitment isn’t a virtue « Transbay Blog — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:34:09 +0000

[...] scrutinizing for desirability and cost-effectiveness both outdated freeway expansion projects and large transit projects that were likely to under-perform relative to their price tags. Later that year, Jerry Brown, in [...]

By: Can MTC Take the Heat? Redux « Transbay Blog

Can MTC Take the Heat? Redux « Transbay Blog — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:59:37 +0000

[...] the Regional Transportation Plan (Transportation 2035)? Remember when we were peeved by MTC’s unwillingness to heed the sage advice of the Advisory Council, the body that encouraged MTC to reevaluate $191 billion worth of [...]

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:50:00 +0000

Hi rzu, I hope I didn’t give the impression that the content of this post is a complete summary of issues with MTC — far from it. Equitable distribution of resources is another topic very worthy of discussion, and it does actually connect to the rider increase point. One part of the equity discussion is obviously allocating sufficient resources to non-glamorous-but-awfully-useful transit (buses). But transit expansion is not mutually exclusive from improving service to transit-dependent populations. It depends largely on what system is being expanded. While BART serves CBDs very well (see: downtown San Francisco and Oakland) and connects wealthier suburbs to those CBDs, it skirts by and speeds through low-income and transit-dependent neighborhoods (see: the vast majority of East Oakland), essentially by treating them as equivalent to the suburbs whose stops must be minimized so as to make a BART commute competitive time-wise with a freeway commute. But adding and improving service where it’s needed — i.e. better geographic coverage with additional lines, is already a step up in that respect. And so much the better if they do not cost several billion dollars apiece to build.

One main reason why I focus on the environmental slant here is it happens to be something in which I am especially interested, but also because I think it provides a useful tool by which MTC can be held accountable.

By: rzu

rzu — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:51:00 +0000

The MTC has also failed in its commitment to fully fund the Lifeline Transportation Network and treat it on an equal footing with the Regional Transportation Expansion Plans. What this means is that many of the new projects that are funded in the RTP provide a minimal benefit for choice riders – while vital improvements that could help low-income and other transit-dependent populations are overlooked.

I’m not arguing that there isn’t a benefit to attracting new transit riders, but we cannot forget that there are serious equity concerns when we are talking about public transit systems and funding. Why is it that the MTC prefers to support expensive new rail projects (like BART to SJ) while paying lip service to providing round-the-clock access to low-income neighborhoods and the jobs and services they cannot access except on public transit?

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:31:20 +0000

David, whatever could you be talking about? Translink was rolled out on July 15! Didn't you notice? ;-) Yeah, the fourth bore is definitely going to use up a chunk of the freeway overview post. And I would rather not get started on Translink and land use.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:16:00 +0000

MTC, bringing us.the ‘fourth bore’ disaster, translink perhaps this decade perhaps not, delaying Caltrain to downtown in vain hope of BART down the peninsula,
And NO effort at land use policy iniatives to reduce sprawl.