MTC, Regional Transportation Plan, SB 375

A missed opportunity, and the shortcomings of regional planning

Gearing up to prepare the next update to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has been evaluating a new policy framework to determine when a transportation project is considered to be a regional commitment.  Projects that are committed will be included in the next RTP.  Projects that are not committed could be included, but they would first be subject to a benefit-cost analysis and would have to be approved separately by the Commission.

At what point is a project far enough along in the process to be “committed”?  We looked before at the two policy choices that were being considered.  There is more detail in that previous post, but the brief recap is that with “Option 1,” a project is committed if it has been environmentally cleared, e.g. the project has an EIR certified under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  With “Option 2,” a project is not committed until dirt has turned and construction is underway.  Of these two options, I supported Option 2 because it would expose commissioners to a benefit-cost analysis for more projects, thereby empowering them with greater discretion to decide whether even older projects are still worthy of pursuit.  The Planning Committee also supported Option 2 and voted to move it forward to the full Commission.

At its April 27 meeting, however, the Commission unfortunately retreated from the committee recommendation, voting in favor of the less rigorous Option 1.

Part of what made this vote disappointing was that some committee members who supported Option 2 a few weeks ago changed their minds and voted for Option 1.  These fickle commissioners include the now-ousted Jon Rubin (who frankly surprised me when he supported Option 2 in the first place, but ultimately opted to cast a less-than-stellar vote as his final vote on the Commission) and Sam Liccardo (a San Jose councilmember whom I suspect was concerned about placing too many obstacles in front of the full BART extension).  Had these committee members continued to support Option 2, the vote would have tilted the other way.

Other commissioners, albeit too few in number to change the vote, recognized that projects should be included based on their intrinsic merit and ability to satisfy performance targets.  These commissioners include San Francisco supervisor David Campos (who, despite being newly appointed, honed in on the issue quickly, or at least picked up on the right cues), and BCDC commissioner Anne Halsted (who was willing to engage and grasped the value of Option 2 in the climate target discussion).

Fourth bore of Caldecott Tunnel under construction.

Had the new committed projects policy been in place a few years ago, building the Caldecott Tunnel's fourth bore would have been subject to performance review and Commission approval under Option 2 but not Option 1. Image: courtesy of Caltrans.

Over the past few years certain high-profile projects, like Warm Springs and the Caldecott Tunnel fourth bore, have moved forward into construction phase and are deemed committed no matter what.  The practical implications of choosing one option over the other will emerge as the next project cycle takes shape.  As a matter of principle, though, the Commission’s vote demonstrates an unwillingness to take responsibility for ensuring that taxpayer dollars are invested wisely, and a reluctance to engage in true planning, as opposed to mere assembly of a to-do list.

Although this is disheartening, it is not surprising.  Even when sitting on a regional board, commissioners are still elected local officials at heart, interested in moving projects forward with a minimum of delay and controversy.  Whether a particular local project is the best and most cost-effective way to meet identified regional performance targets is a different and sometimes even conflicting question, however, and it is precisely the question that commissioners would have confronted more robustly had Option 2 moved forward.  Although Option 1 is an improvement on previous policy, even Option 1 does not go far enough.  Under Option 1, projects that have been environmentally cleared are insulated, and it is true that environmental clearance is itself a major milestone that is reached only after a project has been subjected to significant public comment.  But environmental laws like CEQA are designed primarily to disclose a project’s impacts to the physical environment.  They are not designed to effectively engage the issues that are central to deciding whether a region should commit funding to a particular transportation project.  Having that latter discussion requires an additional layer of regional oversight, which Option 2 would have provided. Moreover, as the Oakland Airport Connector demonstrates, projects can change significantly in cost and scope if they are left in limbo for years after being cleared.  Yet Option 1 shields those changes from scrutiny.

Option 2 would also have put MTC in a better position to meet the Bay Area’s obligations under Senate Bill 375.  One of the principal takeaways from the Initial Vision Scenario is that meeting the regional target of 15 percent per capita reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is more than simply a matter of concentrating growth in the right places — for despite its optimistic assumptions, even that scenario fell short of achieving the 15 percent target.  MTC will need to bring to bear more tools in order to craft an RTP and Sustainable Communities Strategy that does meet the target, and one critically important tool is the Commission’s role in selecting the projects that will be included in the next RTP.  Option 2 would have subjected more projects to a performance assessment, thereby empowering the Commission with greater discretion to approve or reject projects.  That decision would take into account the project’s benefits and costs; the extent to which the project meets the Bay Area’s growth, mobility, equity, air quality, and health goals; and a consideration of whether the project moves us closer to or further from achieving the SB 375 target.

But it is Option 1 that has moved forward.  More projects will be spared that exacting level of discretionary review, and we may need to rely more on other strategies to meet the target.

About these ads

Discussion

4 thoughts on “A missed opportunity, and the shortcomings of regional planning

  1. MTC continues to be the retrograde engine of waste, terrible design, unneeded projects, and pollution increases.

    Posted by david vartanoff | 4 May 2011, 10:22 am
  2. Solutions will come organically from serious people on the ground: business owners and community members (citizens), and sometimes corporations (Audi street treatment of Powell).

    I’m not sure what Audi is receiving from SF in return for its smallesse, but it is nicer than what existed before.

    The solutions will be both actual work (ie, people setting up parklets, eventually with concrete to become permanent) and social/ political pressure (SFBC lobbying)…

    The alternatives (solutions) have to be fun to capture public imagination and support. (ie, park[ing] day)

    Posted by ken | 26 December 2011, 3:56 pm
  3. Having BART run across the new bay bridge would make both bart and teh bridge into more of a tourist attraction, but at probably insanely high cost. As side benefit, we’d stop making use of the underwater tube – no idea how quake safe that is. Another idea for BART would be to run freight rail on it. But the cars couldn’t be too heavy… hm.

    Thoughts? These would highlight the economic sense of rail as well of no longer hiding it underground or in hinterland ROW.

    I guess the next chances for “moar rale” are: San Ho, Livermooore and Pittsburgh Baypoint+.

    “Highspeed” rail is a nice idea but I doubt it’ll be built. Our luscious state and govnor are more worried about keeping prison guard mercenaries and govt folks employed than throwing down the gauntlet for serious regional planning. We’ll have to look to China and the BRICs for that…maybe. ;)

    Posted by ken | 26 December 2011, 4:05 pm
  4. The commissioners mentioned here seem more concerned with short-term electability and a facade of fiscal responsibility than anything else. Perhaps that’s a fault of the election cycle, but one wonders how any major transportation initiative can gain ground when so many do not appear willing to make long term investments necessary to really change environmental harm and functionality of the transportation system.

    I tend to agree with the first commenter, David. Market forces always drive changes most quickly and effectively, but I also think that collective intransigence is no excuse.

    Posted by Beckley | 5 January 2012, 12:20 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Subscribe

RSS Feed Facebook Twitter Flickr

Photos

R-62A Subway Cars #2446/2447 - West Side IRT at 125 St

R-62A Subway Cars #1671-1674 - IRT Flushing Line

More Photos

Archives by Month

Archives by Topic

Archives of all blog posts, organized by topics and themes. Click here for more.

Links

Links to some of our favorite urbanist and transit blogs, websites, advocacy groups, news sources, and government agencies. Click here for more.


If you are interested in California water issues, you may want to check out my other blog on that topic.

Copyright © 2007-2013 Transbay Blog.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 53 other followers