Included in the transit funding are the New and Small Starts grants, which set aside a total of over $1.8 billion for capital investments in transit around the nation. The bulk of the New Starts funding is proposed for major transit projects outside of California.  Three major projects serving New York City (Second Avenue Subway, East Side Access, and ARC) are allocated $612 million.  Other allocations include those for Salt Lake City projects ($180 million), Houston projects ($150 million), Denver projects ($120 million), Seattle University Link ($110 million), Dulles Metrorail ($96 million), Dallas Northwest/Southeast light rail ($86 million), Honolulu Rail Transit project ($55 million), Hartford busway ($45 million), Twin Cities Central Corridor ($45 million), and Orlando’s Central Florida Commuter Rail project ($40 million).  A total of $200 million of Small Starts funding is also included for distribution to several other projects, mostly bus rapid transit.

Although the Bay Area was not in a position this year to receive as much funding as some other parts of the country, the budget nonetheless recommends $50 million for use on three major Bay Area transit projects.  The Central Subway, Van Ness BRT, and East Bay BRT are all considered by FTA to be priorities for funding:

• Central Subway: The $20 million New Starts sum in this budget is a small portion of roughly $950 million in federal funding that the Central Subway is ultimately slated to receive, amounting to 60% of the $1.57 billion project cost.
• Van Ness BRT: The $15 million sum in this budget is a partial allocation of up to $75 million Small Starts for which this BRT corridor would be eligible, assuming that San Francisco opts to construct one of the two serious center lane BRT alternatives (rather than side lane BRT, which would be cheaper to build but would provide only diluted transit benefits).  The maximum $75 million federal contribution would represent 57-63% of the total capital cost of $118-132 million.
• East Bay BRT: The $15 million sum in this budget is a partial allocation of up to $75 million Small Starts for which this BRT corridor would be eligible.  The maximum $75 million federal contribution would represent about one-third of the total capital cost of $235 million.  The exact status of the project is uncertain, in light of a requested swap for operations money. Nonetheless, AC Transit continues to move forward with environmental work and has not abandoned the project.  A match of local funding has also been retained for the time being, so it is good to see that FTA has prioritized this BRT corridor.

Numerous other areas around the country also received grants, including: $1.25 billion for Florida’s Tampa-Orlando corridor, $1.2 billion of HSR/Amtrak funding for the Northeast (of which the high-speed grant was just $485 million), $1.1 billion for Chicago-St. Louis-Kansas City, $823 million for Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Twin Cities, $620 million for Charlotte-Raleigh-Richmond-Washington, $598 million for the Pacific Northwest, $400 million for Ohio, $244 million for Chicago-Detroit-Pontiac, $17 million for Iowa, and $4 million for Texas.  The list quite rightly hones in on the known priority corridors: Florida, but also the Midwest routes that are planned to feed into Chicago, which were awarded a total sum just shy of California’s (albeit distributed for use by several states).

California’s piece of the stimulus pie, meanwhile, includes the $2.25 billion to be used to complete various projects along four high-speed segments (San Francisco-San Jose, Merced-Fresno, Fresno-Bakersfield, and Los Angeles-Anaheim), including environmental review, engineering, stations, track, signaling, and right-of-way acquisition.  California also received $94 million to be used for the Capitol Corridor ($23 million to increase capacity at San Jose Diridon and construct a universal crossover between Davis and Sacramento), Pacific Surfliner ($51 million of improvements toward 110 mph service), and $20 million for other corridors.  That funding was awarded to both the High-Speed Rail Authority and Caltrans, and it does not appear that more specific project-level (or even corridor-level) allocations were announced by the federal government for the bulk of the funds. Of particular interest is the fate of the $400 million request put in for the Transbay Transit Center’s train box, whose funding was controversially put into jeopardy by the Authority’s resurrection of the once-rejected Beale Street Alternative.  Although the released materials were silent as to that question, the Examiner looked into the issue and determined that $400 million has indeed been reserved for Transbay, in spite of the Beale Street discussion.

In mid-2009, the Bay Area’s heavy-hitters on transportation put together their heads to produce the Peninsula Corridor Investment Strategy.  The result of that effort was a recommended list of projects, of varying levels of utility, that would begin the process of preparing the Transbay-Diridon corridor for its impending transformation by high-speed rail.  So it’s reasonable to expect that funding priorities at least in the Bay Area will draw on that list.  Also, this is not strictly speaking HSR stimulus news, but it is certainly relevant: the expected $171 million TIFIA loan, which has been included in Transbay’s funding portfolio, was finalized.

Map courtesy of the White House.

But it is not useful to expand transit networks and purchase new vehicles unless we have the tools in place to successfully operate and safeguard the security of the existing network in the long-term. That can be in part achieved by giving operators the flexibility to use federal dollars for operating costs, if not by funding operations outright. And as we have seen, transit ridership in this country has reached its highest point since 1956. Now is the time to capitalize on that success, not to shy away from it.

The report also documents — painfully — how the defects of this policy have played out across the country, clarifying how cutting off lifeline transit routes directly contradicts our alleged commitment to equity, increasing mobility, and improving the environment. The report includes several case studies that demonstrate the need for a true paradigm shift in the next transportation reauthorization.

Fare increases around the nation. Courtesy of Transportation for America.

Unsurprisingly, in light of the zeroing out of State Transit Assistance (STA) operating funds in the current (and future) budgets, California has the dubious distinction of containing within its borders an especially high concentration of the worst fare hikes. California, despite passing landmark climate change legislation, has repeatedly robbed supposedly safeguarded transit funds to balance the state budget, and the effect is pronounced, as the above map (excerpted from the report) shows. That situation will hopefully be set right at least in part, if the state’s highest court deems those raids to illegal.

Meanwhile, the report lists Muni and BART as having two of the highest deficit projections in the nation, as a percentage of operating costs (17% and 8% respectively). Muni and BART have also instituted some of the steepest increases in the nation to base fare (33% and 17% respectively). This is, as we know, only part of the story here in the Bay Area — where numerous operators, large and small alike (including AC Transit, Caltrain, County Connection, SamTrans, Tri Delta Transit, VTA, and Wheels) join still further operators throughout California in raising fares and/or slicing service in response to budgetary challenges.

The strategic plan identifies ten high-speed corridors (California, Pacific Northwest, Chicago Hub Network, South Central, Gulf Coast, Florida, Southeast, Keystone, Empire, and Northern New England), in addition to the Northeast Corridor. The identified corridors are based on the previously designated 90 mph corridors:

Courtesy of FRA. Link to full-size map (2.28 MB PDF).

To be maximally successful, a high-speed train system cannot stand in isolation; a high-speed corridor is greatly benefited by the presence of feeder lines that run at slower speeds, but which supplement and augment the high-speed service by increasing the number of accessible destinations of the entire rail system. This country has plenty of track that could be used for just that purpose, but a great deal of it is in poor, neglected, unusable condition. Passenger rail has also played second fiddle to freight (a priority that is reflected in the FRA’s requirements for compliant trainsets that are not ideal for passenger service), and Amtrak service is slow and unreliable. Recognizing these obstacles standing in the way of the growth of passenger rail, the strategic plan declared that FRA would need to revise its safety standards to facilitate high-speed rail, and it recommended agreements between states and railroads to ensure that federal investment in existing railroad infrastructure will realize the envisioned boost to intercity passenger service.

The plan wisely establishes a few definitions to ensure that everyone is on the same page as regards terminology. “HSR-Express” refers to the type of service that pops into mind immediately when one thinks of high-speed rail: 150+ mph service, few stops, and a dedicated, grade-separated reight of way, basically functioning in lieu of an airplane or long-distance highway trip. “HSR-Regional” service is somewhat slower, 110-150 mph with more stops, and drawing some shorter-distance trips. “Emerging HSR” would cover 90-110 mph feeder service; it would share track and utilize Positive Train Control, and as ridership grows, Emerging HSR corridors could be incrementally upgraded. And finally, there is 79-90 mph conventional rail. High-speed service is roughly targeted for 100-600 mile long routes with moderate to high population density.

The strategic plan also defines three types of work that would be eligible for the $8 billion of stimulus funding: (a) “ready to go” projects (i.e. environmental review under NEPA and preliminary engineering are complete) that are of “independent utility”; (b) intercity (Section 301) and high-speed (Section 501) corridor programs; and (c) funding for planning work, so that states can ready themselves to snatch up any stimulus money that might be available in the next round. The strategic plan includes a timeline: applications for (a) and (c) above would be due by August 2009, with grants made in October 2009; applications for (b) are due by October 2009, with grants made in December 2009. A second round of applications is anticipated for 2010.

To be sure, mostly everything remains to be fleshed out at this point — including where the funds will go, and further details from the states themselves about projects and corridor alignments. Some of those details will be revealed soon enough, as states apply this summer for grant money from the $8 billion of federal stimulus funds dedicated to high-speed rail. And yes, the $13 billion that the stimulus and budget combined will allocate to high-speed rail is only a drop in the bucket of the investment we will need to make to truly turn around passenger rail in this country. But we have, at least, finally started the process of building a national rail network; and based on the the plan’s strategies, as painted in broad strokes, it is a promising start.

With the notable exceptions of VTA’s light rail system and San Francisco Muni generally (both of whose ridership growth per mode fell behind the national average), ridership increases for major Bay Area transit operators not only reflect, but in most instances actually outpace, the national trend. Our commuter rail operators (ACE, Caltrain, and Capitol Corridor) significantly outpaced the national average, as did bus ridership for AC Transit and VTA:

APTA’s statistics also noted that some of the largest jumps in bus ridership occurred in cities with population under 100,000 (9.3% increase for smaller communities, compared to a 3.9% average increase across all bus operators). This trend was also reflected in the Bay Area. Some of our smaller bus-only transit operators enjoyed comparable increases in ridership, e.g. Fairfield-Suisin Transit (9.73% increase), Tri Delta (9.91% increase), and Rio Vista Delta Breeze, whose 3,400 daily bus riders in 2007 jumped to 8,400 in 2008. WHEELS ridership increased just 5.35%.

So now that outgoing Mary Peters will officially be replaced by Republican Illinois Rep. Ray LaHood as the new U.S. Secretary of Transportation, all we can say is: seriously? The news comes right on the heels of news that the much-anticipated federal stimulus package will be hastily applied to shovel-ready road projects that will only prompt more driving, and transit advocates have erupted in protest over President-Elect Obama’s excessive commitment to expanding our nation’s system of roads and bridges. Yours truly is not exactly a devoted fan of MTC’s Steve Heminger, who was one of the top candidates for the post, but he at least has a developed transportation record. For LaHood, there is a record, albeit a somewhat spotty one. Encouragingly, though, that record shows Ray LaHood crossing party lines on transportation issues. This year, he co-sponsored HR 6030, a bill that amends the Internal Revenue Code, allowing a tax credit for half of the cost an employer incurs to furnish its employees with tax-free transit passes. He voted in favor of Amtrak reauthorization and the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act, and he has advocated on behalf of bicyclists. That strikes us as more of a minimum for someone filling this post under an Obama cabinet; is that as good as we can do? LaHood has served on the House Appropriations Committee, but he has not worked specifically on funding for transit. Some have expressed optimism about his managerial skills. Still, what truly matters is the underlying policy that Obama will drive once he is in office. He has pledged in the past that he will to do battle with climate change, and we hope that Obama will not undermine the importance of the role for progressive transportation and land use policy in that battle. What does it say that Obama has chosen this appointment as a sacrifice to bipartisanism, and what does that reveal about Obama’s commitment, or lack thereof, to this increasingly critical issue? Quite a lot, we fear — but not too much, we continue to hope; we refer you to the title of this post. Update (19 Dec 2008): CQ transcript with brief LaHood blurb here.

1. Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle, WA
2. Sheridan Expressway, Bronx, NY
3. The Skyway and Route 5, Buffalo, NY
4. Route 34, New Haven, CT
5. Claiborne Expressway, New Orleans, LA
6. Interstate 81, Syracuse, NY
7. Interstate 64, Louisville, KY
8. Route 29, Trenton, NJ
9. Gardiner Expressway, Toronto, ON
10. 11th Street Bridges and the Southeast Freeway, Washington D.C.

Embarcadero Freeway. Credits: Telstar Logistics (top), Wayfaring (bottom).

Since San Francisco’s infamous Freeway Revolt, the Bay Area has enjoyed first-hand examples of successfully reborn neighborhoods that bloomed on the land once occupied by freeways, but then returned to human access. Given the successful revitalization of San Francisco’s Embarcardero — the addition of spacious pedestrian plazas; the adaptive reuse of the Ferry Building; and historic streetcar service so well-used that it is apparently “too popular for its own good” — it is easy to forget that before the 1989 earthquake, there was a functioning double-decker Embarcadero Freeway that viciously sliced the waterfront off from the rest of the city. Meanwhile, empty fenced lots that still remain on and near the redesigned Octavia Boulevard in Hayes Valley retain an eerie deadness that feels decidedly out of place, when set off against the density that characterizes the rest of the neighborhood. Those empty lots serve as a keen reminder of the Central Freeway that once stood there. But one day, they, too, will be filled with new homes, in accordance with the zoning controls adopted in the Market-Octavia Plan that was approved this past spring. And yet, for these successes, we might have done even better. It would be a bit much to hope for the removal of Interstates 580 and 880 in Oakland, but what if they had never been constructed? Instead of thousands of drivers using freeways to speed past largely neglected neighborhoods in East Oakland, what if those thousands of people rode trains through subway tunnels aligned under East 14th Street and MacArthur Boulevard, with a neighborhood station serving each of the commercial districts that are strung along those two thoroughfares? It is a fun thought experiment to consider what the Bay Area’s urban landscape would look like had our transportation network developed to look more like that of Europe, and less like California.

None of the top ten freeways in the CNU list are in the Bay Area, or even California. If the choice was yours to make, which freeways would you demolish (either in California or elsewhere)?

But the most revealing part of the article was not the part glorifying San Francisco, but rather, the part indicating that the Bay Area, taken as a whole, could be much more walkable than it is now. The Bay Area region fell in third place, “well below the greater Washington, D.C., and Boston regions,” according to the Chron. This reflects the fact that while the Washington, D.C. area has allowed Metro to shape dense land use patterns near stations (even for stations outside of the central core), the Bay Area has been slower to allow BART to have the same effect. We should be careful about discussing density and walkability in the same breath, as they are not equivalent. An older suburban downtown whose buildings front directly onto the street is quite walkable, if not particularly dense, and on the flip side, high-rises alone cannot make a neighborhood truly walkable if the street level fails to provide safety and amenities for pedestrians. But well-planned density that is sensitive to the street provides the extra bodies that make a walkable district that much more bustling and successful.

Courtesy Beyond DC.

Consider Bethesda, Maryland, pictured at right. Located on the D.C. Metro Red Line, Bethesda is a great example of how dense, walkable districts can bloom around rail nodes, even in an otherwise suburban setting. (Check out this Google satellite map of Bethesda. It shows how the densely urbanized streets that are within easy access of a Metro station are very clearly delineated from the suburban neighborhoods further from the line.) The Bay Area, by contrast, is adamantly low-rise, not just in the suburbs, but also in most neighborhoods in San Francisco and Oakland. In general, only the urban downtown districts make any attempt to reach for the sky — so we have not truly leveraged the potential inherent in most of the rail nodes scattered around the Bay Area. The idea of mid-rises or even shorter high-rises at places like San Leandro and Millbrae BART stations might seem unthinkable — but the Bay Area’s conception of cities, walking, and transit would be quite different if even suburban cities had permitted miniature skylines to sprout at their rail stations. It is also interesting to note that the different development patterns have given rise to contrasting effects on transit ridership. Both BART and Metro are slightly over 100 miles long, and the two systems are of comparable age (Metro is just a few years younger). And yet, while BART reported an average of 367,570 daily riders last quarter, Metrorail set a record last Friday, July 11 of 854,638 riders — a higher ridership than BART can even support as long as its service patterns require operation of four routes through a single transbay tube. What explains the pronounced difference? The fact that Metro has twice the number of stations as BART for approximately the same amount of track certainly goes a long way toward making the system accessible to more people. But another factor (though certainly not the only other factor) that explains the difference must be that Metro has helped give rise to dense, walkable cities, which feed the system with a natural ridership base that is largely missing from BART because the land use around BART stations (already too few to begin with) is often not that intense.

Courtesy City of Union City.

Efforts have been made all around the Bay Area, with varying degrees of success, to transform rail-accessible downtowns into greater and denser places, including at BART’s Richmond, El Cerrito del Norte, Hayward, and South San Francisco stations. A 450-unit TOD with retail just broke ground today at Pleasant Hill BART, and still another phase of the project will add about 300,000 square feet of office and conference space. Meanwhile, one station south of Pleasant Hill, a transit village at Walnut Creek BART proposed by BRE Properties would include a mixed use development featuring about 600 residential units, office and retail space, fourteen bays for County Connection buses, and the implementation of market-rate pricing in the BART parking garage; the project, which the City Council has greeted with some skepticism, is up for environmental review. San Leandro has compiled a strategy for transit-oriented development, and one of the largest transit village plans — including about 75,000 square feet of retail and commercial space and close to 2000 units of housing — will crown a confluence of BART, commuter rail lines, and bus routes at an intermodal Union City Station, a rendering of which is pictured directly above. On the Peninsula, Redwood City has grand plans of downtown renewal centered on its Caltrain station, but despite plans to add about 2500 homes, residential development has been somewhat slow to trickle in. Further east, along the congested Interstate 580 corridor, a few projects in the pipeline will add hotel rooms, retail space, and close to 900 rental and condo units near the infill West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station currently under construction.

Transit villages have also been planned at Oakland BART stations, but here I am more critical — in part because the potential is greater, but also because when discussing these developments in Oakland, the conversation is at least as much about urban revitalization as it is about TOD. At the 19th Street Station in downtown Oakland, a couple thousand new homes (provided through several projects discussed on this blog in the past) will help breathe new life into the neighboring Uptown and Valdez downtown subdistricts — but such a transit-rich downtown location would ideally support much denser housing than the collection of Forest City low- to mid-rises currently under construction. Meanwhile, at the Fruitvale BART station, plans to build retail and over a thousand combined units at Fruitvale Gateway and Phase II of the transit village project — both of which would supply some of the new residents and additional vitality needed to fulfill the historical prophecy of the Fruitvale District as Oakland’s second downtown — have not moved forward, leaving just the 47 residential units and a substantial amount of commercial space included in Phase I of the transit village. At MacArthur Station, plans have long been in the works to build densely over BART’s surface parking lots, but they have morphed from the originally envisioned 800 units, including a 20-story tower and a 22-story tower — to 675 units in four- to six-story buildings, joined by retail and a seven-story parking garage. Here is a rendering of that project:

Courtesy MacArthur Transit Community Partners.

In the past couple of years, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has done a better job of encouraging cities to pursue dense growth near transit nodes — although these plans, as the above discussion indicates, have not nearly risen to the level of my personal dream of miniature skylines dotting the Bay Area, linked by high-quality, frequent rail transit service. But there has been some progress, and some mixed results as well. Increasing density within walking distance of BART and Caltrain stations will make central downtown districts more walkable, successful public spaces, and ultimately, we should go further than we have to date toward maximizing the potential of these rail connections. This whole discussion began with the announcement that San Francisco proper is America’s most walkable city. We certainly can and should celebrate this fact, but let us not stop there. Regional problems have regional solutions — and we cannot overlook the importance of reproducing San Francisco’s success, to the extent that we can, in cities across the Bay Area.