The actual balance sheet is worse, of course, as the $484 million figure does not include operating costs.  Despite charging $6 fares to pay off a $100 million federal loan, an additional subsidy — on the order of $9.85 per ride, compared to $1.95 for a bus rapid transit project — would be required given current passenger traffic levels at the airport.  In short, public dollars are being “invested” in a way that pointlessly maximizes future costs. The fact that $95 million has already been consumed, while certainly interesting given how little there is to show for it, is immaterial when evaluating whether that additional ongoing cost is a worthwhile one to bear.  (Comments)

SFpark meter in Hayes Valley, San Francisco. Image: courtesy of SFMTA.

Although programs like SFpark demonstrate progress and provide valuable case studies, opportunities abound to improve parking management in both major cities and suburbs throughout the United States.  But parking is also a touchy and controversial topic; proposals to increase parking fees are generally not greeted warmly and can be vociferously protested.

Learning from Mistakes

One barrier to implementing effective parking policy is the context in which government officials propose changes to parking fees.  Particularly during the recession, municipalities have been strapped for cash and seek to increase parking fees as a means of generating revenue to help balance the budget.  The result is that the sound policy reasons to raise the price of parking become drowned out by loud opposition from members of the public, who claim to be victims of an unfair budget that is balanced on the backs of citizens.  Cities that wait until a budget crisis knocks at their door to increase the price of parking are not doing themselves a favor because the underlying motivation for the adjustment will be transparent.  Moreover, the substance of the changes that are proposed may also reveal that underlying motivation, in that they involve simplistic blanket fee hikes — rather than a truly dynamic, market-based approach where the price of a particular parking spot changes with demand.  In short, it becomes all too clear that the purpose of the higher parking fees is not to enact sound policy, but to generate revenue.  When a city tries to do the right thing for the “wrong” reason — to the extent that increasing parking fees to avoid cutting municipal services can be deemed “wrong” — it makes it all the more difficult to try it again later for the right reason.

The marquee of the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, which proudly displays progressive political messages, adopted a conservative stance on parking in 2009 -- an all-too-common knee-jerk reaction among many merchants. Image: courtesy of Fragmentary Evidence.

Another barrier to implementing effective parking policy is the perception that higher parking fees diminish a city’s competitiveness, as compared to nearby cities, by making it more difficult for merchants to attract customers.  This point emerged during the backlash in 2009, when the Oakland City Council considered higher fees and extended meter hours as one measure to address the city’s budget deficit.  The underlying assumption here is that the cost of parking is a significant, perhaps even the predominant, factor at play when someone is deciding where to eat dinner, see a movie, or go shopping.  And while this concern was perhaps an especially sensitive point in Oakland because of retail leakage, it overlooks several more important considerations, including: (1) that most people probably won’t travel long distances just to find cheaper parking, particularly when paying more for gas eliminates any potential savings; (2) that the increase in parking price is often minimal compared to the cost of a meal or movie; (3) that many customers seek a unique merchant, neighborhood, or experience that cannot be replicated elsewhere; and (4) that increasing the cost of parking does not necessarily make the city or neighborhood a less compelling destination, but rather, provides an incentive for customers to use transit to travel to neighborhoods they would otherwise access by car.

There are many reasons to question the assertion that higher parking fees make a city less competitive.  But whether or not this is true in fact, the mere existence of this perception suggests that rational parking reform will be an uphill battle — one in which common arguments opposing higher fees will be aired again and again, in city after city.  It is this situation that helps frame the role that regional governments can play in the conversation about parking.

A Role for Regional Participation

Involving regional entities in parking management may, at first glance, seem like a strange idea.  Traditionally, parking management has been left to cities.  Cities control how streets are used within their respective jurisdictions, and they retain the power to charge (or not) for public parking.  In California, regional entities like metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) cannot simply swoop in and force a city to change its parking policies.

And yet the above discussion suggests that a regional directive on parking could be beneficial.  An MPO can provide valuable direction by identifying best practices, assembling useful case studies, and establishing a policy framework that explains and justifies the benefits of parking demand management.  This readily available resource would provide cities with a more constructive way to frame the public discussion about parking, while educating citizens that parking reform has benefits beyond providing the city with more revenue.  Establishing a regional consensus on parking demand management could also help eliminate the popular perception that increasing the price of parking makes a city a less desirable place to do business when compared to nearby cities that retain low parking fees.  Geographically proximate cities, perhaps with the assistance of the MPO, could cooperate in developing harmonious parking policies.

MPOs can provide grants to cities that demonstrate interest in implementing smart parking demand management strategies, and in this respect, there is a useful precedent.  The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the Bay Area has been able to take advantage of its control over funding to leverage improvements in land use — particularly in terms of planning transit-oriented development within walking distance of stations planned along new transit extensions.  Land use, like parking, is firmly within the dominion of local control.  And yet regional influence over land use is possible, despite the fact that MPOs like MTC have no statutory authority to make land use approval decisions.

A similar approach could be taken for parking reform, in which a regional policy directive both guides local planning efforts and provides the funding incentive needed to get the job done.  MTC has taken tentative initial steps to investigate what role regional governments should play in the parking arena, and in the future, I hope to discuss in more detail ways to improve regional oversight of parking.

Senate Bill 375 provides metropolitan regions in California with a compelling reason to do so now.  Parking — whether it is abundant or scarce, cheap or expensive — has tremendous influence on shaping travel choices.  Parking demand management could be an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, both by (1) encouraging drivers to switch to transit, particularly for peak hour trips, and (2) reducing the emissions associated with drivers circling city blocks on the hunt for parking.  Rational parking policies, when combined with smart land use decisions, are a powerful tool for reducing vehicle miles traveled, and, in turn, for achieving SB 375′s regional emissions reductions targets.  One of the core lessons we take away from the Initial Vision Scenario prepared by MTC and ABAG for the Bay Area is that compact growth alone is not sufficient.  The Sustainable Communities Strategy will need to incorporate additional techniques in order to achieve the target.  A strong regional consensus on parking policy, coupled with robust implementation at the local level, could be just such a technique.

Let them have parking lots while waiting for high rises?

This week, the Oakland Planning Commission will consider a peculiar concoction brewed up by Planning Department staff called temporary conditional use permits (TCUPs).  As explained by the staff report (41 MB PDF), the purpose of the proposed TCUP program is to help property owners maintain the economic viability of their vacant parcels, by allowing them to host temporary uses on their land to weather the economic downturn.  The report compiles an inventive list of various types of uses — including “edible gardens” and “crop and animal raising” — that could theoretically be installed on vacant lots with the help of a TCUP.  But it buries the lede: The true purpose of the TCUPs is to ease approval of surface parking lots, particularly in Oakland’s central business district (CBD), where the zoning prohibits surface parking.

You might expect planners to grasp a few basic truths about surface parking.  You might expect them to recognize that curb cuts dangerously intrude on the sidewalk’s protective right of way for pedestrians; that surface parking is hostile to the urban fabric; that it makes no sense to encourage people to drive to a transit-rich downtown by providing excessive parking; and that surface parking lots waste space and are unattractive dead zones that are deleterious to the health and vibrancy of the surrounding area.  In short, you would expect planners to acknowledge that surface parking is one of the worst uses imaginable in the CBD, which should by all rights be a city’s most attractive and thriving neighborhood.  I have quoted Ms. Jacobs before, but some things bear repeating: “… parking lots … are powerful and insistent instruments of city destruction.”

Applicable zoning in the CBD permits parking structures, but quite rightly forbids surface lots.  Instead of simply following this principle, staff proposes TCUPs as the mechanism of choice to circumvent zoning restrictions.  And this is no brief detour: Although billed as temporary, the TCUP program is expected to last five to six years — including an 18-month period for reviewing applications, a three-year permit, and a potential one-year extension of the permit.

Courtesy of A Better Oakland.

It is reasonable that a property owner might want to extract some measure of productivity from a vacant parcel until it becomes feasible to develop it.  But if there’s one thing downtown Oakland does not need, it’s more surface parking.  There is already plenty of parking distributed throughout the CBD, taking the form of both parking structures and surface lots (1.5 MB PDF).  Ironically, the staff report in one breath identifies blight reduction and the promotion of economic development as the principal objectives of the TCUP program, and in the next breath admits that parking would be the principal use for TCUPs.  And yet, as documented in graphic and excruciating detail on A Better Oakland, the City’s actual track record for enforcing permit conditions on surface lots lies somewhere between haphazard and nonexistent — a situation unlikely to improve if there is a crop of new permits to monitor.  Far from “reducing blight” and “promoting economic development,” more surface parking would devalue the CBD, increase blight, and hinder development of the downtown.  An aura of disinvestment would pervade the area, undermining the progress that has been made since the restored Fox Theater opened for business two years ago.

Regrettably, the staff report declines to offer any comprehensive analysis on this issue, and in fact deliberately understates its importance.  In response to a comment, which expressed the concern that “[s]urface parking is ugly and causes hazards for pedestrians and bicyclists,” the staff report explains that “auto fee parking is already permitted or conditionally permitted,” and that all parking, even structures with above-grade parking levels, require access and egress points for vehicles.  Although the zoning conditionally permits “auto fee parking,” it does not permit surface parking because the condition for approval is that the parking spots be housed in a structure.  The zoning purposely distinguishes between parking structures and surface lots, but the staff report conflates them.  While it’s true that both require curb cuts that interrupt the sidewalk, it is disingenuous to imply that the driveway issue could be the only salient distinction worth addressing.

As it stands, the TCUP program contradicts the CBD zoning, and the staff report’s attempt to reconcile the two therefore fails — as does its attempt to reconcile TCUPs with the General Plan.  Staff opines that TCUPs “would not conflict with any goals or objectives of the General Plan” because the temporary uses being approved would generally be permitted anyway.  But once again, by discussing the TCUP program in the abstract and avoiding mention of its true purpose — the approval of otherwise-forbidden surface parking — the staff report misses the point.  Surface parking is explicitly incompatible with the General Plan.  For example, Policy T3.8 of the Land Use and Transportation Element provides that downtown parking should be “screened from public view” because of the negative impact that surface parking has on pedestrian safety and the vitality of the downtown.

Finally, the proposed procedure for reviewing TCUPs is problematic.  The report proposes that TCUPs be classified as “major” and “minor,” like other conditional use permits.  To its credit, the report does not try to pass off all TCUPs as “minor.”  But in the context of off-street surface parking, only major TCUPs — for lots with 50 or more parking spaces — would be subject to a public hearing.  Lots with fewer than 50 spaces would require no hearing and would escape public notice.  Short of filing an appeal with the Planning Commission, citizens would be denied the opportunity to voice their opinions on an historically controversial issue affecting Oakland’s most prominent neighborhood.

In short, there is little to recommend here.  Unfortunately, I may not be able to attend the commission meeting, but would appreciate it if readers could either comment at the meeting at 6:00 p.m. on February 16, or email all the commissioners, encouraging them to reject this misguided TCUP program: dboxer@gmail.com, VienV.Truong@gmail.com, Blake.Huntsman@seiu1021.org, sgalvez@phi.org, michael.colbruno@gmail.com, mzmdesignworks@gmail.com, VinceGibbs.opc@gmail.com.

Compelling candidates challenge incumbent BART directors in District 8 (San Francisco, left) and District 4 (Oakland/Alameda, right).

If there is a silver lining to be found in the protracted Oakland Airport Connector debate and other BART drama that has ensued over the past couple of years, it’s that BART’s Board of Directors and the agency generally have been subject to an extra measure of public scrutiny.  There’s a related silver lining: candidates emerging to challenge lackluster incumbent directors.  And not just any challengers, but serious, compelling challengers that deserve our attention.  This election, we’re talking about District 8 (the north and west side of  San Francisco) and District 4 (Oakland, east of Broadway, and Alameda).

Vigorous but misguided advocacy of the senseless Oakland Airport Connector, coupled with an insensitive brushing aside of well-reasoned opposition expressed by members of the public, is reason enough to unseat current District 4 director Carole Ward Allen.  Do we even need a clearer example showing her faulty grasp of riders’ true priorities? Insert a too little, too late approach to police reform, and one cannot help but draw the conclusion that Oakland and Alameda deserve better.

 Meanwhile, current District 8 director James Fang is a lonely Republican in San Francisco who has presided for far too long over a district that is gerrymandered if there ever was one (see above map).  He has pursued an approach that values flash over substance (cell phone fare payment), not to mention flash over basic common sense  (the infamous fare rollback, overwhelmingly disdained by rider surveys).  Okay, so he did recently express his support for a BART line to serve the Richmond District — that’s at least something we can agree would be a good thing.  But then again, given that he apparently sees BART as primarily a supplier of construction jobs (rather than, you know, a transit operator), Fang is happy to build BART anywhere and everywhere, indiscriminately.  So he was bound to come around to his own district sooner or later, and what better time to do so than during election season?

If the BART Board’s suburban tilt isn’t enough to contend with, what’s unforgivable is that even its urban directors (save one) aren’t true urbanists.  Like Carole Ward Allen and James Fang, they willingly sign off on ever more distant extensions that not only drain dollars and strain the system, but also lead to the deterioration of their own constituents’ experiences riding the train.

Bert Hill (left) and Robert Raburn (right). Images courtesy of their respective campaign websites.

Enter Bert Hill and Robert Raburn.  Personally, I am thrilled that both these candidates have stepped up to the plate to challenge the old guard.  I won’t repeat all their background information in this post, as you can read about it here and here.  Both bring years of valuable transportation advocacy experience, as well as relevant professional and academic expertise.  Bert Hill’s platform discusses local connectivity to BART stations; he also emphasizes that funds should be prioritized for maintaining existing track and stations and accommodating future capacity needs, rather than building unsustainable extensions to the hinterlands.  Meanwhile, Raburn vehemently criticizes the Oakland Airport Connector, which lies in his home district, and correctly reminds us that in relentlessly pursuing the OAC, the BART Board unnecessarily exposes the agency and its riders to the risks and consequences of taking out a federal TIFIA loan to finance the project.  I could not agree more on these points, and I believe both Hill and Raburn will bring perspectives that are underrepresented and sorely needed on the Board.

This is not to say there isn’t necessarily room for growth and improvement.  For example, at a candidate forum, Raburn was so insistent on the need to focus on maintaining the core system (instead of pursuing expensive capital projects) that his gut reaction to the idea of building infill stations was “Oh my gosh: another construction project.”  I cannot agree with the implication of that remark – that infill stations and suburban extensions belong to the same generic category of undesirable capital projects, and that infill stations “won’t pencil out.”  Rather, a few well-chosen urban infill stations are the exact type of capital project that likely will pencil out, by increasing ridership at a fraction of the cost of a new extension, while creating comfortably transit-dependent neighborhoods with denser land uses.  But despite that slip-up (in what was otherwise a series of solid, well-presented viewpoints), I didn’t get the sense that an insurmountable ideological barrier was reached.  Rather, the reaction seemed more like a vehicle for Raburn to contrast his own world view with that of the current Board, which has moved the OAC and other extensions forward in spite of deferred maintenance needs.  Perhaps more importantly, though, I sensed in him an intellectual curiosity and genuine interest in transportation issues, as well as a willingness to engage with details and facts.  Ever try to reason with Carole Ward Allen about the facts on the Oakland Airport Connector?

The bottom line is that both Bert Hill and Robert Raburn agree that it’s irresponsible to extend track into far-flung corners of the region when major investments are required to shore up the core system and accommodate future capacity needs.  Both candidates understand that BART’s role in the region is not to provide an endless stream of construction jobs and groundbreaking and ribbon-cutting ceremonies, but to operate an efficient, clean, functional system that fortifies our urban environment, ties together our region as the backbone of a multimodal network, and ultimately improves our quality of life. 

In short, both Hill and Raburn simply get it on so many issues.  Either one, and preferably both, would be a breath of fresh air on the Board.  With the Board’s current membership, Tom Radulovich too often speaks as the sole voice of reason drowned out by a chorus.  A Radulovich-Hill-Raburn trifecta would be a positive development, bringing to bear a team that could exert more influence on Board votes.

I am unfortunately not eligible to vote in either of these races, but I would strongly recommend that readers who live in BART districts 4 and 8 skip past the incumbents on their ballot, and instead cast a vote this time for Robert Raburn in District 4, and Bert Hill in District 8.  This November both sides of the Bay can stand together and vote for change at BART.  As BART continues to evolve beyond a commuter rail service into an urban metro, the composition of the Board should reflect the evolving nature of the system.  We stand to benefit from the expertise and passion that these candidates offer.

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.

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.

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.