This morning, the BART Board of Directors unanimously supported Alternative 2B as the preferred alignment and certified the the Program EIR.  Although BART to Livermore has been discussed as a possibility for decades, today’s vote puts the project closer than ever to being a reality.  Still, a great deal of difficult work remains, not the least of which is funding.

Alternative 2B is an 11.3-mile extension, projected to attract (for whatever the number is worth) 31,900 riders.  Not surprisingly, then, it is also identified as the “environmentally superior” alternative in terms of air quality and reducing vehicle miles traveled, particularly in the congested Interstate 580 corridor.  It includes two stations: one in downtown Livermore, and another at Vasco Road.  Here is a map of the alignment (click here for a larger PDF):

BART to Livermore, Alternative 2B. Courtesy of BART.

Under Alternative 2B, tracks would be extended east of BART’s current Dublin/Pleasanton terminus along the median of Interstate 580, and then would go into a trench at the Isabel interchange.  There would be a cut-and-cover subway under Portola Avenue and Junction Avenue, with a new subway station in downtown Livermore, as in Alternative 3.  East of downtown, the tracks would resurface and basically follow the Alternative 2A alignment parallel to the Union Pacific right-of-way, heading toward a surface Vasco Road station to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  Both the downtown and Vasco Road stations connect to existing ACE stations, and could facilitate an intermodal transfer with upgraded intercity rail in the Altamont corridor.  A yard and shop would also be constructed east of Vasco Road.

This alignment is notable for breaking the historic pattern of confining the BART right-of-way to freeway medians.  Although Alternative 2B does include several miles of running in the freeway median, the decision to turn the tracks south of the freeway towards downtown demonstrates an evolving understanding of the role BART could and should play in the region.  Rather than simply choosing the path of least resistance along the freeway to shorten suburban commutes, Alternative 2B strives to extract more long-term value from an expensive project.  Alternative 2B could more satisfactorily accommodate transit-oriented development — including the 11,550 housing units that would have to be planned near extension station areas — without disturbing Livermore’s urban growth boundary.  Station sitings near downtown and the laboratory are perhaps the most natural choices, in that they give riders easy access to local destinations and convenient transfer points to intercity rail.

Of course, none of that comes cheaply, and Alternative 2B would be the most expensive of the bunch.  Preliminary estimates peg the cost at $3.83 billion.  It is a hefty chunk of change to extend heavy rail to a suburb with less than 100,000 people — although the Altamont connection would also put Central Valley riders within one transfer of many Bay Area destinations.  It will take a lot of time and effort to secure the diverse portfolio of funding needed to construct the extension.  $95 million is available to preserve right-of-way in this corridor, but many other sources will also have to be considered — including federal New Starts, potential revenue from high-occupancy toll lanes on Interstate 580, and future re-authorization of Alameda County’s Measure B sales tax.

In a key decision on April 20, the Oakland City Council unanimously approved Oakland’s segment of the LPA, which comprises the great majority of the full BRT route.  Oakland’s LPA includes dedicated median transitways on Telegraph Avenue (south of the Berkeley city limit to 20th Street) and on East 14th Street (south of 14th Avenue to the San Leandro city limit), with some shared and mixed flow lanes in Eastlake and along Broadway in downtown Oakland.

On May 17, the San Leandro City Council also approved its own segment of the project LPA.  The San Leandro LPA  proceeds south of the Oakland city limit, featuring dedicated lanes and station platforms in the median of East 14th Street as far south as Sunnyside Drive, where it transitions to mixed curbside operation for the southernmost segment of the route, then terminating at San Leandro BART station.

Berkeley, naturally, went its own direction.  On April 29, the Berkeley City Council fell short of endorsing the build alternative in Berkeley.  With Councilmember Max Anderson absent from that meeting, the resolution failed as 4 pro-BRT votes were matched by 2 votes against the project and 2 abstentions.  Berkeley’s rejection of full-build was accompanied by adoption of a diluted LPA, which discards the dedicated transit lanes and replaces them with mixed curbside operation and potential queue jump lanes.  The lack of dedicated lanes, when taken in combination with other proposed non-BRT changes (mainly converting one-way streets near the University campus to two-way operation), could transform the Berkeley portion of the route into a slow, unreliable northern appendage — hampering reliability on the rest of the line, despite dedicated facilities in Oakland and San Leandro.

This split of support among the three cities — exacerbated by the revelation that AC Transit might eliminate 1R rapid bus service north of downtown Oakland to close its current budget deficit — created fresh concern about what the next step should be for BRT.  Despite staff including 1R truncation as one potential measure to address the budget, AC Transit prefers to preserve the full 1R route.  Still: would Berkeley’s refusal to accept dedicated lanes accordingly deprive Temescal and North Oakland of the transit, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements that would accompany the full-build BRT?  Would AC Transit instead reduce the scope of the BRT project by cutting it off at MacArthur BART, or even downtown Oakland?

There has been an encouraging and re-energizing development this week.  Berkeley Councilmember Anderson, who was not present at the April 29 meeting, has indicated that he would support full BRT.  Councilmember Arreguín, who abstained on April 29, has also indicated that he would support full BRT.  If so, the 4-4 vote on April 29 would become a 6-3 vote endorsing BRT.  The agenda has not yet been set as of the time of this writing, but the current plan is for Berkeley to revisit BRT at its June 22 meeting.

The AC Transit Board of Directors intended to adopt an LPA for the whole project on June 9, incorporating the local preferences of the three cities.  However, the Board continued the item and delayed its decision on BRT until June 23, just one day after the Berkeley meeting.  This will give the Berkeley City Council an opportunity to reverse its prior decision.  The way forward is not crystal clear if that vote gets delayed, or if Berkeley insists on substantial changes, but the process should be straightforward if Berkeley promptly approves the build alternative on June 22.

BRT will be a stronger, more reliable, and more heavily patronized project if it includes dedicated transit facilities in all three cities.  The Berkeley Councilmembers are encouraged to join their colleagues in Oakland and San Leandro by approving the build alternative.

But AC Transit had originally planned to execute a 15% system-wide service cut.  In a revision to its original service adjustment plan, AC Transit temporarily “restored” many of those proposed cuts while undergoing negotiations concerning funding for the BRT project.  So the District must now go back to the chopping block to eliminate 182,000 platform hours of service each year, in order to save about $11.5 million.  If these reductions are implemented as planned, the resulting level of service would be the lowest that AC Transit has provided in a generation.  Indeed, the proposals that are now on the table are all too reminiscent of the significant service cuts that AC Transit made in the 1990s.

Having already taken advantage of many key opportunities to realize savings through means of increasing efficiency, AC Transit is now placed in the difficult position of making more undesirable cuts to lifeline service.  AC Transit planning staff is currently considering three strategies moving forward:

• Reduce weekend service. This proposal seeks to preserve weekday service at the expense of the least utilized weekend service.  Under this proposal, only the most popular routes would operate on weekends.  The routes that would continue to operate on weekends are: 1, 18, 20, 22, 40, 51A, 51B, 57, 60, 72, 72M, 73, 88, 97, 99, 210, and 217.  Other routes would operate only on weekdays.
• Reduce All-Nighter Service. AC Transit already offers skeletal owl service (lines 800, 801, 802, 805, 840, and 851) along its most productive corridors.  This strategy could do one of two things: (i) eliminate all but routes 800 and 801, which mirror corresponding BART corridors and receive funding through Regional Measure 2; or (ii) preserve existing All-Nighter routes, but reduce service on other routes after 10:00 p.m.
• System-wide reduction. This proposal would proportionately reduce both weekday and weekend service throughout the system by about 8%.

AC Transit will not make all these reductions, nor will it necessarily adopt one strategy to the exclusion of the others.  Rather, service planners have indicated that there is considerable flexibility in selecting the specific proposals that move forward in this process, as long as the necessary savings are realized.  Strategic, fine-grained analysis informed by public commentary and real data will be necessary to make the right combination of changes that minimize hardship to riders.

Nonetheless, depending on the proposals that are ultimately adopted, the service changes will make life more difficult for those who depend on transit, particularly those who rely on off-peak and owl service to get to work.  It will be all the more difficult to live in the East Bay without a car.

The proposed reductions to weekend service (strategy #1) and night-time service (strategy #2) hit especially hard.  Minor lines might be considerably less productive than trunk routes, but they are lifelines for those that they serve.  They are important to the success of an urban transit system because they fill out the grid and connect to trunk routes. At the same time, though, it also makes sense to isolate trunk routes from serious cuts, in order to diminish the overall impact and ensure that robust services remain successful.  It’s a delicate balancing act.  Still, given that completely depriving swathes of the inner East Bay of all-night transit service — including important corridors like Broadway, San Pablo Avenue, and MacArthur — is so serious a proposition, it may make sense to instead spread the pain, by judiciously reducing other off-peak service to a level commensurate with demonstrated demand.

The system-wide proportionate reductions (strategy #3) generally either reduce frequency, or narrow the time span of operation of various lines.  A few lines would run on weekdays only, and a handful could be eliminated altogether, including new service that was introduced in the package of March 2010 changes.  There would, however, only be minor changes to Transbay service, since the Transbay lines already suffered an almost 17% cut in the last round.

Given that so many routes have already been redrawn recently, not many map changes are proposed.  The most significant restructuring of routes could occur in Oakland, in part by splitting service on the planned BRT corridor (Telegraph/East 14th Street).  One proposal realigns line 40 service back to Telegraph Avenue and isolates the 1/1R to its most productive segment (East 14th Street, between downtown Oakland and San Leandro).  The 1R would retreat to San Leandro BART, thus abandoning the southernmost segment of the route; only the 1 would run all the way to Bayfair.  Another proposal discontinues parallel service south of 73rd Avenue.  A new line 90 would operate between Eastmont and San Leandro BART via Bancroft, but the southern termini of both the 40 and the NL would retreat to Eastmont.

It bears repeating that AC Transit will not be making all of the above changes.  But the agency must now determine which changes will have the least adverse impact to riders, while still making the necessary reduction of 182,000 platform hours.  Regular riders are strongly encouraged to stay on top of this process and offer commentary, so that AC Transit is armed with the information it needs to make wise changes.  The schedule for putting these changes into effect will be relatively fast-paced.  A public hearing will be held in just one month, on May 26, and the service changes are planned to go into effect on August 22, 2010.

The litigation challenging Pleasanton’s housing cap has been in the works since 2006 and was reinstated in 2008.  In 2009, Attorney General Jerry Brown saw this case as an opportunity to augment his ever-growing portfolio on climate change, which includes not just lawsuits, but also comment letters that inform local governments when their efforts at planning and environmental review inadequately document impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.  Brown initially provided Pleasanton with such a comment letter (PDF), informing the City that its updated General Plan and corresponding EIR were inconsistent, and therefore inadequate, as long as Measure GG’s housing cap was retained.  The Pleasanton situation fits especially well into Brown’s climate change portfolio, because Measure GG, if allowed to continue into perpetuity, would ultimately result in a gross housing-jobs imbalance.  Although Pleasanton was projected to nearly double its workforce by 2025, its residential capacity would remain frozen in time.  That means the vast majority of that workforce would be required to commute long distances from the Bay Area and the Central Valley on Interstate 580 and other heavily congested freeways, thereby increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite Brown’s commentary, the City stuck to its story, claiming that the housing cap was simply an example of a municipality legally bringing to bear its land use powers.  Brown then joined Urban Habitat’s litigation in 2009, which increased the publicity of the case while boosting Brown’s climate change credentials.  In August 2009, the court refused to dismiss the case, and now, in March 2010, the court has finally invalidated the housing cap.

Judge Roesch’s Decision

Last summer, I wrote a post that went into a fair amount of detail describing the General Plan, state housing requirements, Pleasanton’s growth projections, and the nexus to climate change.  I won’t repeat all of that information here, but if you are interested in more detail, or simply would like to refresh on the background, please check out that previous post.

The abridged version is that the state’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is the result of a process that assigns to regions within California a certain number of housing units at all income levels.  The expectation is that regions will plan for the future, in order to accommodate California’s growing population.  The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) then translates those projections to the level of local governments within the nine-county Bay Area, so that each jurisdiction absorbs its fair share of the region’s housing need.  Measure GG is clearly problematic, because over time, ABAG would continue to assign housing allocations to Pleasanton — but Measure GG’s constraints would preclude the City from planning and approving those future units.  From Judge Roesch’s decision (PDF):

It is self-evident that the City cannot comply with the State statue [sic] requiring the City to accommodate its RHNA when the city is not permitted by its local law, Measure GG, to allow the number of housing units to be built that would satisfy the RHNA.

Indeed, Pleasanton is unable to accommodate the 3,277 homes it is assigned for the 2007-2014 RHNA planning period, being only about two thousand units short of reaching the cap.  The City also failed to account for some housing units that it had been assigned in the previous planning period, which ended in 2007.

As of the time of this writing, the Pleasanton City Council has not yet spoken to this issue, nor is it clear whether the City will seek an appeal.  It would be preferable for the City to move on, accept this decision, and carry out the rezoning necessary to comply with the ruling.  The City’s basic premise — that a municipality’s land use powers reign supreme — can only go so far.  Although local governments in California have traditionally retained essentially complete authority over land use decisions, the State has a clear interest in ensuring that all its citizens are properly housed.  The RHNA is a vehicle, albeit a rather weak one, that provides the State with a measure of oversight to ensure that this important interest is fulfilled.  Where the State has provided such a framework to guide local action, State mandates necessarily preempt local regulations.  Again, from Roesch’s decision, quoting the state Supreme Court:

“The Legislature has specified certain minimum standards for local zoning regulations” … even though it “has carefully expressed its intent to retain the maximum degree of local control …” … “Local legislation in conflict with general law is void.”

The City must know it is caught in a tough spot, and its own actions within the past few months suggest that it anticipated an unfavorable ruling.  The City amended Municipal Code § 17.36.060 (limiting building permits for new residential units) so that it allowed an exception to the building permit cap, if necessary to comply with the RHNA.  Introducing this exception eliminated a conflict with state law, at least with respect to the annual building permit cap.

The City also passed an ordinance, which approved the rezoning of three parcels in Hacienda Business Park to permit mixed-use development.  But Section 5 of that same ordinance refused to approve any mixed-use or residential development plan proposed for those rezoned parcels, until “PUD Major Modification for the entire Hacienda Business Park” had been completed.  Judge Roesch did not buy it, observing that “could take up a period of time ranging from one year to forever.”

The Hacienda Business Park rezoning, Roesch noted, “may start a process to cure the City’s failure in this matter, but is wholly inadequate to be considered a cure.”

Roesch then ordered Pleasanton to implement “non-illusory zoning changes” necessary to cure its housing shortfall from the previous RHNA planning period, which ended in 2007.  He also ordered the City to strike Measure GG (and related Measures PP and QQ) from all planning documents, and to freeze construction and development permits until the City’s General Plan is fixed.

The Measure GG housing cap placed the City of Pleasanton, as Judge Roesch aptly put it in his decision, “in clear violation” of state law.  Indeed, the notion of a strict numerical limit on housing units is fundamentally incompatible with the philosophy underpinning  California’s housing law — which both accepts population growth as a reality and at least attempts to hold local governments accountable, by requiring that they plan for future need rather than sticking their collective heads in the sand.  It would certainly not be fair for Pleasanton to readily accept job growth within its city limit but then refuse to absorb residential growth.  And yet, continued application of Measure GG would have produced precisely that perverse result.  Judge Roesch is to be commended for finally overturning Measure GG.

Is the OAC dead? While I’d love to say “yes,” in good conscience I can only say the answer here is “no” — or, at the least, “not yet.”

BART is of course convinced, or at least puts on a brave face, that the project is not dead.  The agency’s commitment remains steadfast, we are told, as though abandoning the project at this late stage would dishonorably betray the trust of the public.  (Quite the opposite.)  This reaction, while predictable, is disappointing.  Rather than take a step back to reevaluate the mistakes of the past year; rather than internalize FTA’s comments and take them to heart; rather than work with the community to cooperate on a mutually beneficial solution — BART evinced bitterness and indignation when things did not go its way.  BART, which for so many people is the face of public transportation in the Bay Area, should, perhaps more than any other transit agency, go out of its way to embody the compassionate values of this region.  That the Bay Area’s most well-known transit agency would claim it had acted in full compliance with the Civil Rights Act when it, in fact, had not — all while allegedly acting in the name of public benefit, and while spending public dollars — is, quite frankly, embarrassing for this native of the Bay Area.

No Stimulus Funding For You

BART’s reaction also does a disservice to the public by downplaying and masking the actual severity of the defeat that the Connector was dealt.  Although FTA’s recent exchange with BART specifically focused on the $70 million of ARRA stimulus funding (on account of its more immediate deadlines), a local agency that is not in full compliance with federal law is not entitled to receive any federal monies until it brings itself into compliance.  Or, stated differently, a federal agency like FTA may not fund a local agency that is known to be in violation of federal law.  Depending on the exact timeline of BART’s Title VI corrective plan, this implicates not just the $70 million ARRA, but also $104 million of other federal money needed for the OAC, including a $79 million TIFIA loan.  That means that 35% of the $492 million total project funding is implicated.

A smaller defeat, but a defeat nonetheless, came in the form of the TIGER grant funds that were announced last week.  Remember when we talked about this last summer? MTC studied some Bay Area projects, matched them to the federal criteria for the TIGER program, and produced a short list of $133 million worth of requests for the TIGER funding.  Two of the four projects were associated with BART: a $5 million payment toward the Airport Connector’s TIFIA loan, along with a separate request for expanding the Hayward Yard.  Both BART projects were denied TIGER funding (not surprising, given the timing of the Title VI complaint).  The other two Bay Area projects, however, both received TIGER funding.  Doyle Drive received $46 million, and the Green Trade Corridor (linking the Ports of Oakland, Stockton, and West Sacramento) received $30 million.

FTA Turns Next to MTC

The Title VI complaint filed against the Airport Connector may have opened a “Pandora’s Box” of more far-reaching implications.  Cheryl Hershey of FTA sent a letter addressed to MTC, dated February 3, 2010 (see pages 6-7 of this PDF).  That letter indicates that FTA has broadened its oversight of Bay Area transit funding to include not just BART, but also MTC.  After all, MTC has repeatedly proven itself more than willing to fund the Airport Connector, oblivious and/or indifferent to any Title VI deficiencies.  Why did MTC, before eagerly dishing out federal funds to a project that was ineligible to receive them, not do its due diligence on the Airport Connector? Or for that matter, any of the projects that it funds?  Inquiring minds at FTA want to know:

As you are aware, BART is a subrecipient of the MTC, and, therefore, MTC is responsible for ensuring its subrecipients comply with Title VI . . . .  Your agency is responsible for documenting a process that ensures that all MTC subrecipients are in compliance with the reporting requirements of FTA . . .

The fact that BART has not conducted the necessary service equity analysis for the OAC project or fare equity analysis raises concerns that your agency does not have procedures in place to monitor its subrecipients.

FTA goes on to request that MTC document its Title VI procedures within 30 days.  Is the comedy of errors still unfolding?

The Battle

In short, there is no doubt that the denial of this stimulus funding is an important victory.  The OAC is now not eligible for federal funding, and the poor state of the economy has diminished additional local and state funding sources on which the OAC might otherwise rely.  That means that the project is, at least, postponed.  Urban Habitat, TransForm, Genesis, and last, but certainly not least, Public Advocates, who prepared and filed the initial Title VI complaint with FTA, deserve all of our gratitude and appreciation.  These local organizations persevered throughout one year of countless government meetings, each one seemingly more frustrating than the last, but never giving up so as long as another avenue for advocacy was available.

Their commitment to social and environmental justice, in a field that sometimes escapes mainstream attention — not the luxury, but the basic right of people, no matter their race or income level, to have access to a dependable and dignified means of transportation — is inspiring.  Their months of hard work deserve credit, because a denial of this sort does not just fall magically from the sky (or in this case, Washington DC).  It happens because real people, who are committed to a cause, put in real time to research and follow up on an opportunity, even if it seems like a long shot.  That is what happened here, and it clearly paid off.  Needy, cash-strapped agencies will now have $70 million available to use for projects that will put people to work, while more tangibly improving transit for people throughout the Bay Area.  That’s a great thing.  When it comes to the battle for the stimulus funding, there is not a shred of doubt that the transit advocates handily won.

The War

But what about the war? Not just for the OAC, but also for other megaprojects that ring up a large tab while falling short on function?  It’s extremely difficult to stop projects like this, in large part because they are propped up by deep roots — mechanisms of institutional support that are never printed on the pages of a government report, nor aired in the public halls of a government meeting.  And even if one project were, by some miracle, to be stopped, several others are queued up right behind it, waiting patiently for funding as they have waited in years past.  These projects have effectively been promised to constituents for decades, so there is an expectation that they will eventually be built, even if it does take a very long time.  Changing that underlying modus operandi is difficult, because it cuts to the decisionmakers themselves and their political connections, as well as the culture of a prevailing political, business, and administrative complex.  In other words, it goes far beyond denying one source of funding for one project.

Hearing of BART’s continued commitment to the Airport Connector, and knowing the history of MTC and BART, I would not be surprised if down the road we see the OAC — that proverbial cat with nine lives — come back from the dead yet another time.  In fact, I would be more surprised if we didn’t see it return.  The OAC was thought to be laid to rest on previous occasions, only to be revived, as it was revived in 2009 by the stimulus.  There is also no doubt in my mind that MTC will thoroughly review every last transportation funding program offered at every level of government, and every last pot of money — looking for what, exactly?  In persistent search of obscure conditions and loopholes, just to find a way to shift around enough money to refill the Airport Connector’s freshly-opened capital budget hole, substantial hole though it may be.  What initially seem like neutral pots of money take on a life and significance of their own.  This is just what MTC does, and it will do so here.

Then again, a few years ago, I would not have guessed that federal stimulus dollars would become available, nor would I have guessed that the Connector would ultimately be denied that funding because of a Title VI violation.  But the ingenuity and creativity of our local organizations showed us otherwise.  Despite the history, maybe you really never know.

So, is the Oakland Airport Connector dead? While I’d love to say “yes,” in good conscience I can only say the answer here is “no” — or, at the least, “not yet.”

Since my letter of January 15, FTA staff and BART have worked diligently but unsuccessfully on the development of a corrective action plan that might be acceptable.  I am require to now inform you that your plan is rejected.  I ask that you immediately get in contact with Region IX Administrator Leslie Rogers for the purpose of pursuing alternative projects for the Bay area that can be obligated prior to the March 5 deadline.

Rogoff goes on to explain that the $70 million of ARRA stimulus funds cannot be disbursed to the Oakland Airport Connector.  In order to receive that funding, BART would have to bring its practices into compliance with Title VI before September 30, 2010, and it was clear to both BART and FTA that there was simply not sufficient time to do so:

I am required to reject your plan for the following reasons.  Based on the timelines submitted by BART, there is no way the agency can come into full compliance with Title VI by September 30, 2010.  The requirements of ARRA dictate that any funds not disbursed by September 30, 2010, must be lapsed back to the Treasury.  And since I cannot allow BART to draw any funds for the OAC project prior to coming into full compliance, it is clear that pursuit of the OAC project would result in the funds either being reallocated out of the Bay Area or lapsed.  Both scenarios are unacceptable to me as I am sure they are to you.  Let me say that, based on FTA’s experience in other cities, BART is being realistic in admitting that the process of coming into full compliance will take considerably longer than the 8+ months that remain before the September 30 deadline.  I appreciate and respect your honesty in this regard.

The announcement means that the Oakland Airport Connector is not eligible for critical federal funding that BART needs in order to construct the project.  MTC had previously planned to evaluate BART’s proposed Title VI action plan at a special meeting on February 17, but now that the FTA has rejected BART’s plan, even the Commissioners will finally have to consider alternative uses for the $70 million of ARRA funding.  It is critical that this stimulus funding remain in the Bay Area.  Rogoff’s letter implies that there will be time to do so, if MTC acts now to approve an alternative funding plan:

Given this sitaution, and the fact that we are now only 3 weeks away from the March 5 deadline, I must bring these discussions to a close so that we can work together to ensure that the ARRA funds can create and preserve jobs in the Bay area.

The alternative funding plan (PDF) is the same plan that transit advocates have heartily supported for the entire past year, namely, to distribute the $70 million to transit agencies for system preservation and preventive maintenance purposes.  The funding includes almost $17 million for BART, $17.5 million for Muni, $6.7 million for AC Transit, $12.3 million for VTA, $2.7 million for Caltrain, $2.4 million for Golden Gate, and about $2 million for SamTrans, as well as funding for small operators.

We have yet to hear an official response from BART about Rogoff’s letter.  My sincere hope is that BART, upon seeing that a large hole has been opened in the OAC’s capital budget, will finally be willing to take public comment seriously and cooperate with the community — by scrapping this ineffective, bloated elevated Connector and replacing it with a more cost-effective enhanced bus.  Should BART choose to do so, a considerable amount of local money that has been reserved for the OAC could then be reprogrammed to other, more useful Bay Area projects.

It is extremely gratifying that FTA was receptive, not only in hearing the concerns of transit advocates about the troubling social justice implications of the OAC, but also in acting swiftly and definitively on this matter.  And when MTC officially reprograms the funding, it will also be gratifying to see our region’s cash-strapped transit agencies — reeling as they are from a death spiral induced by the State’s theft of transit monies — get some relief.

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.

Last year, BART promised to MTC and the Bay Area that it could deliver a shovel-ready OAC on the fast-paced federal stimulus timeline.  Implicit in that promise is that BART would do so in full compliance with applicable laws and regulations.  That, as we know, has not quite worked out.  BART betrayed not just MTC’s trust, but also the public’s trust — for it neglected to carry out required Title VI analysis, while moving at breakneck speed to stick to the schedule.  In the process, BART misrepresented the project’s “benefits” — for example, stating at public meetings that the Connector might produce up to 15,000 jobs, but only committing to a few hundred jobs when putting it down in writing to the federal government.  It shut out and attempted to actively discredit the valuable, well-reasoned concerns expressed by the community and advocacy groups — concerns that BART is now forced to confront, since they were directly echoed by FTA when FTA withheld the $70 million of ARRA funds pending BART’s completion of the Title VI equity analysis.  As we’ve discussed, that $70 million would be completely lost to the Bay Area if BART cannot submit by March 5 a plan that is to FTA’s satisfaction.

But MTC is implicated here, as well: for MTC’s charge is not to build the Airport Connector, nor is it to fulfill BART’s every wish.  Its charge is to program transportation dollars that are made available to the region.  Because the Bay Area plans to build and operate more projects than it can currently fund, that charge necessarily includes making sound use of any and all monies that become available — particularly monies over which MTC is granted a measure of discretion.  And that means holding tight onto the $70 million and allocating it smartly, rather than gambling it away on the OAC.

Going into yesterday’s meeting, MTC faced two action options, irreverently summarized below:

• Option 1: There are dozens of construction workers rallying outside right now and filling up this auditorium, and BART did promise that this project would create thousands of jobs.  So let’s not desert the OAC quite yet.  Instead, let’s wait until mid-February, and see what BART comes up with.  Never mind that the longer we wait, the more risky it gets that the Bay Area will lose the money.  After all, we have been talking about the OAC for decades, so what’s two more weeks?
• Option 2: Enough is enough.  We gave BART its chance, but it’s just too risky that we’ll lose the $70 million.  Bay Area transit agencies are seriously hurting because Sacramento has basically abandoned them, and they need our help (and yes, that includes BART itself).  Anyway, operating transit provides jobs too.  Allocate this money immediately to the Tier 2 projects, so that the transit agencies can use the money for system preservation and ease ever-widening budget gaps.

Unsurprisingly, MTC voted 11-5 in favor of a modified version of Option 1.  The five lone Commissioners who get it include among their numbers the few Commissioners who got it before.  The golden five who voted against the motion were Bates (Alameda), Daly (San Francisco), Halsted (BCDC), Lempert (San Mateo), and Mackenzie (Sonoma).  So now MTC will have a special meeting on February 17 to gauge how BART is doing with respect to the equity analysis, and to get a better sense for whether FTA is likely to grant its approval by March 5.

MTC will likely continue supporting the OAC unless there is a very strong signal from FTA in mid-February that BART’s work is not up to par.  In that case, the risk of losing the $70 million would be high, and maybe even the most stubborn Commissioners could be swayed to change course.  At the MTC meeting, though, Dorothy Dugger said that BART has been corresponding extensively with FTA and was already working in full force to complete the required Title VI action plan, which will include both the OAC and other aspects of the agency.  The plan may even be submitted to the FTA by next week.  For right now, at least, the fate of the OAC is up in the air until we get a better indication from MTC and FTA as to the adequacy of BART’s corrective action plan.

One might think that the Bay Area — which is, in so many ways, a progressive and compassionate place — would be governed by agencies that share similar values.  In the realm of transportation, especially in hard times, that means prioritizing core vital transit service — and the riders who depend upon that service — above an overpriced construction project which will attract few riders and will certainly provide no benefit to the disadvantaged and transit-dependent.  Alas, it was not meant to be.  At least not yet: though advocates typically have been a few steps ahead of MTC and have worked to get the Commission to mend its ways.  But with respect to the Airport Connector, at least, a chance was given for MTC to show its quality.  It did — and that’s something that all Bay Area residents who care about transportation should file away in back of their minds for when, in the near future, we hear more of the Commission’s thoughts on transit sustainability in the Bay Area.

The FTA agreed. In an admirably clear letter (PDF) addressed to Steve Heminger and Dorothy Dugger, the FTA requires BART to carry out analysis of the OAC’s equity impacts, or else say goodbye to the funding:

I write to inform you of the . . .  [FTA's] serious concern regarding . . . [BART's] pursuit of federal assistance for the Oakland Airport Connector (the Project).  Specifically, FTA is concerned with the preliminary results of a recent Title VI compliance review for BART, which revealed that BART failed to conduct an equity analysis for service and fare changes for the Project.  In light of this development, MTC and BART are now in danger of losing federal funding for the project, including . . . [ARRA] funds.  MTC and BART must now face a choice between continuing to pursue federal funding for the Project (which will require immediate corrective action of the Title VI non-compliance) or committing the ARRA funds to alternative projects within the Bay Area.

The announcement is a threat to the Airport Connector because BART is depending on significant federal funding, including the ARRA stimulus funds and a TIFIA loan, to complete the project. In public response to this announcement, BART has issued a brave press release that stands by the OAC’s so-called “benefits” and announces BART’s intentions to cooperate with the FTA moving forward. However, the press release distorts salient points so as to paint BART in a misleadingly favorable light. It emphasizes that “[o]ver the past decade, BART has diligently worked with the FTA to meet all its requirements,” while downplaying BART’s most recent Title VI non-compliance for the Airport Connector.

With respect to those Title VI requirements, the press release refers somewhat bitterly to the FTA’s “11th hour requirement,” which places “additional hurdles” standing in the way of the funding award. This statement makes it seem as though the FTA is suddenly acting on an unforeseeable whim, demanding that BART comply with unduly harsh, novel requirements. That characterization is disconnected from reality, since it’s hardly a secret that an award of federal monies is conditioned on compliance with relevant federal legislation, including Title VI. The requirement to analyze equity impacts was not a secret, but BART simply tried to skirt by it, probably hoping to dodge the delicate justice issues associated with charging a $12 round trip fare (a nontrivial percentage of daily wages for some airport employees) but without providing compelling transit improvements that would justify that steep fare increase. As we observed in September 2009, when the complaint was filed, the high fare would have a “disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income riders.” That finding then triggers a necessary showing that the project fulfills the public interest in a manner less adverse than other alternatives. This is part of the required analysis of fare and service changes that BART failed to complete.

The documentation that BART pointed to (PDF) as fulfilling its Title VI obligations, including the 2007 triennial report, did not analyze the Airport Connector. So BART must now confront the OAC’s problematic equity concerns quickly, before the fast-approaching deadline. Of course, it would have been preferable if BART had simply done that in the first place, even if doing so would have required radically rethinking the project. But it’s hardly the fault of the FTA that BART is now under a serious time crunch. The onus of carrying out required project analysis in a timely fashion lies squarely with BART.

Where does that leave us? Ironically, not too far from where we were almost a year ago, in February 2009, back when MTC first programmed the Bay Area’s regional transportation stimulus dollars. The FTA, in its letter, advises that if the Bay Area intends to keep the $70 million of stimulus funds, the best course of action would be to reprogram the money to other projects. Otherwise, we run the risk of BART not meeting the March 5, 2010 deadline in the stimulus legislation. If that were to happen, the Bay Area would lose the $70 million, and the funds would be distributed to another part of the country. That would be terrible, and we need to do whatever we can to keep that money in the region. But there’s a backup plan. In fact, there has always been a backup plan.

The State of California has essentially withdrawn itself from the business of funding transit operations, and the Governor has resorted to disingenuous, acrobatic budget tactics that allow him to continue robbing transit of funding in defiance of court rulings that he deems inconvenient. Transit agencies up and down the state have been left to fend for themselves. In these difficult times, it would be unconscionable to continue pursuing this poor excuse for a legacy project, especially at the risk of losing a precious $70 million that would better be distributed among Bay Area transit agencies for system preservation (PDF) — including almost $17 million for BART itself, $17.5 million for Muni, $6.7 million for AC Transit, $12.3 million for VTA, $2.7 million for Caltrain, $2.4 million for Golden Gate, and about $2 million for SamTrans.

Even last year, it was clear that the best use for this $70 million was not for the OAC, but for the transit agencies. The fact that we are now confronting a situation so similar to the one we faced last year is somehow ironic and disheartening. But most importantly, it is a second chance to set things right, and to use the money for transit rather than to build the Airport Connector.

Your participation in this process is both welcome and encouraged. As MTC once again faces the question of how to allocate this $70 million, it would be helpful for MTC to be reminded that transit agencies badly need the money, and that the funding should be distributed to those agencies to ensure that it stays here in the Bay Area. You can help by emailing MTC right now, and if possible, by attending next week’s Commission meeting. The meeting (I’ll also post the meeting information in the left sidebar for quick reference) is on January 27, 2010 at 10:30 a.m., MetroCenter Auditorium, 101 Eighth Street, Oakland.

A number of potential alignments for a BART project to Livermore have been studied throughout the years, such as the diesel tBART project (which, like eBART, was conceived as a cheaper alternative to conventional rapid transit, but whose price quickly ballooned from about $200 million to $500 million). Also considered was a roughly 50-mile diesel route between Walnut Creek and Tracy parallel to Interstates 680 and 580. This concept, which contemplated connections to both the Walnut Creek and Dublin/Pleasanton BART stations, may well have been a more effective project than the bona fide BART alternatives now being analyzed.

Bouncing off of a scoping process that took place this past year, BART has selected 9 alignment alternatives to extend conventional third rail BART service (in contrast to eBART, which will use diesel multiple units) several miles east from the current Dublin/Pleasanton station to a new terminus in Livermore. The project would be in the mold of the usual BART project: extending service at least in part via a freeway median, even deeper into suburbia. By extending the track east along both I-580 and the Union Pacific right-of-way, the project would parallel a greater length of one of the Bay Area’s most congested stretches of freeway, and in the process capture new suburban riders; but it would also further strain the capacity of the Transbay Tube. And naturally, these endeavors do not come cheaply: most of the serious alternatives under consideration are pegged to cost $3-4 billion.

The Livermore extension does, however, provide an opportunity to fill a gap in the Northern California regional rail network, by furnishing an intermodal connection between BART and Altamont Corridor rail. The opportunities for such connectivity are discussed below in the context of each potential alignment, and will also be a topic in Part 2 of this post.

BART to Livermore: Alignment Alternatives

The Livermore BART DPEIR is a definitive, albeit preliminary, step forward in what promises to be a lengthy planning and funding process. The environmental document examines 9 alternatives that include variations on a few basic flavor of alignments. These alignments collectively feature a handful of station sites and three potential sites for future rail yards. The upcoming goal will be to whittle down the list of alternatives and adopt a preferred alternative. The images directly below show all alternatives on a single map, or you can click here to view a full-size PDF.

Alternatives. Top: west half (Dublin/Pleasanton to Downtown Livermore).
Bottom: east half (through Greenville East). Click here for a full-size PDF.

The alignments (other than the standard “No Build” alternative) are summarized below. All alternatives continue in the I-580 median east of BART’s current Dublin/Pleasanton terminus for a certain distance, but then split off at different points near the Livermore Municipal Airport. The routes range from 5.2 to 13.2 miles long, and travel times are generally estimated at one minute per mile. Ridership projections (given below) target that about 80% of the extension’s ridership would consist of new riders. The projections are, per usual, high. On an average per-station basis, they resemble San Jose’s overstated figures, although Livermore’s projections are for the year 2035. The cost estimates (also given below) are in 2009 dollars.

Alternative 1: This route follows the I-580 median at grade for most of its length with an elevated structure at the eastern edge, allowing the track to curve northward and then duck under I-580, aligning parallel to the Union Pacific right-of-way near Greenville Road. Alternative 1 includes a new rail yard north of I-580, as well as two new stations: a median station at Isabel, and an intermodal BART/Altamont station at Greenville East that would replace the current Vasco station.
(Estimated Cost: $2.92 billion. 38,100 daily entries and exits.)

Alternative 1A: In contrast to Alternative 1, where the track follows the I-580 median for most of the extension, in Alternative 1A the track diverges from the I-580 median within one-and-a-half miles of Dublin/Pleasanton, ascending via elevated structure along El Charro Road, and then afterwards on retained fill to align along the UP right-of-way. Alternative 1A includes the same Greenville yard north of I-580 as Alternative 1, as well as two new stations: an intermodal BART/Altamont station in Downtown Livermore, and a BART-only Greenville East station.
(Estimated Cost: $3.61 billion. 35,300 daily entries and exits.)

Alternative 1B: This alternative is very similar to Alternative 1A, with respect to its configuration along the I-580 median, El Charro Road, and the UP right-of-way approach to Downtown Livermore. The stations and rail yard are also the same as in Alternative 1A. The main difference is visible in the sketches located on the right: east of Downtown Livermore, the track in Alternative 1B follow the segment of ex-SP right-of-way.
(Estimated Cost: $3.65 billion. 35,300 daily entries and exits.)

Alternative 2: Like Alternative 1, this alternative includes a lengthy initial segment at grade in the I-580 median (about six miles). Leaving the median, the track ascends in an elevated structure along Las Positas Road, and then aligning east onto the UP right-of-way. Alternative 2 includes a new rail yard east of Vasco station, as well as two new stations: a median station at Isabel (as in Alternative 1), and a BART/Altamont intermodal station at the site of the current Vasco station.
(Estimated Cost: $3.28 billion. 35,400 daily entries and exits.)

Alternative 2A: This is basically a hybrid of Alternatives 1A and 2. The western segment of the route (along the I-580 median, El Charro Road, and approach to Downtown Livermore) follows 1A. East of Downtown Livermore, the track follows the UP right-of-way but with a short 0.3-mile elevated segment crossing over the right-of-way. Alternative 2A includes the Downtown Livermore station — and, as in Alternative 2, a Vasco station and nearby rail yard. Both proposed BART stations would be intermodal Altamont stations.
(Estimated Cost: $3.8 billion. 35,200 daily entries and exits.)

Alternative 3: This shorter alternative is notable for its subway. As in Alternatives 1 and 2, at grade track in the I-580 median extends to the Isabel station (but unlike Alternatives 1 and 2, the station would be below-grade in the median). The track then dives into a subway under the eastbound lanes of I-580, traveling under Portola Avenue and Junction Avenue, and finally terminating at a subway station in Downtown Livermore. This downtown terminus would provide an intermodal Altamont connection, though it would be configured differently from the downtown stations in other alternatives. East of downtown, the track would resurface and lead to a new rail yard.
(Estimated Cost: $3.47 billion. 34,300 daily entries and exits.)

Alternative 3A: This alternative adopts a variation on the route of Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 2A, but is notable for its downtown elevated segment. As in previous alternatives, track in the I-580 median curves southward, is elevated along El Charro Road, and then follows the UP right-of-way on retained fill. In Alternative 3A, though, the track is then elevated through downtown. East of downtown, the track leads to a new rail yard. This alternative has two stations along the UP right-of-way: one station at Isabel/Stanley, and the elevated Downtown Livermore station, both of which would provide intermodal connections to the Altamont corridor.
(Estimated Cost: $3.38 billion. 33,600 daily entries and exits.)

Alternative 4: This alternative is the shortest of the bunch — a single station 5.2-mile eastward extension within the I-580 median, terminating at the Isabel station. Tail tracks east of the station could be built to hold six ten-car trains, but there would otherwise be little space for storage and maintenance. Alternative 4 does not facilitate an intermodal Altamont connection. It was basically conceived as the initial operating segment of a two-phase extension.
(Estimated Cost: $1.12 billion. 25,100 daily entries and exits.)

Alternative 5: This is the second-shortest alternative of the bunch, and it is notable for being the shortest extension that could facilitate an intermodal Altamont connection. Alternative 5 (which includes the elevated El Charro Road segment) terminates at the intermodal Isabel/Stanley station, and is basically an initial operating segment of Alternative 3A. As with Alternative 4, maintenance yard space is limited except for tail tracks east of the station.
(Estimated Cost: $1.61 billion. 23,100 daily entries and exits.)

More to come in Part 2.

All images are courtesy of BART.