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.

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.

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.

But one major exception to that general rule is housing. The State of California requires that General Plans contain a set of elements, which lay out a blueprint and policy direction to guide future development. Among those elements, the Housing Element is singled out as special, in that it must be updated every five years in accordance with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and ABAG will project the number of housing units that the Bay Area will need to accommodate for the next several years, at four income levels (very low, low, moderate, and above moderate), and then will assign a housing share to governments throughout the Bay Area, ensuring that the region, as a whole, meets the required total. Each local government then updates its Housing Element every five years, specifying how it will accommodate its share of the regional housing need. Cities throughout the Bay Area have been engaged in this process this year.

This process ensures that local governments plan to accommodate housing units that are accessible to a range of income levels. Without such a procedure in place, it’s easy to imagine what could happen. Many cities — whose elected officials might simply translate the parochial demands of a local NIMBY group into something resembling legislation — would shirk on their obligation to ensure the production of housing units, particularly affordable units. They might, for instance, amend the zoning code to contain a set of requirements that are a proxy for wealth, ensuring that only affluent citizens can afford to live there. Other cities might freeze growth altogether, thinking only of what will happen within their city limits and ignoring what the effect would be outside. The point is that without a state mandate prohibiting that sort of behavior, it would be difficult or impossible for California to accommodate, in a just and equitable fashion, a population that is projected to increase to 60 million by the year 2050. The state has an enormous interest in ensuring that all of its citizens, of all income levels, are safely housed; but accomplishing this goal requires the cooperation of local governments, who, after all, are empowered to control land use through zoning.

The City of Pleasanton’s Faulty General Plan

So what happens when, despite the state’s requirement, a city tries to shrug off its obligation to accommodate its fair share of housing growth? Then, the State must step in — like it did yesterday, when Attorney General Jerry Brown finally took action against the City of Pleasanton’s housing cap. In 1996, Pleasanton adopted Measure GG, which instituted a housing cap — no more than 29,000 units could be built within the city. Since 2006, the City had already faced lawsuits because of this provision, and in January 2009, Jerry Brown submitted comments (PDF) on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) of Pleasanton’s General Plan update. In his comments, Brown indicated quite unambiguously that the housing cap was problematic. Now, in just a dozen pages (PDF), Brown clarifies how the Pleasanton cap violates state housing law. It basically comes down to the numbers. ABAG’s projections require that the City accommodate 3,277 housing units by the year 2014. But the City is only 2,007 units short of reaching the housing cap of 29,000 units. With the cap in place, not even those 3,277 units could not be built — to say nothing of the units that ABAG projections would call for after 2014. And, in fact, the City even still has to make up missing housing units from the last RHNA planning period, which ended in 2007.

The housing cap does not permit any exceptions — for instance, an exception that would allow the City to zone for the 1,270 additional units that would be needed to comply with the current RHNA. By not allowing such an exception, Pleasanton’s housing cap is in direct conflict with the state requirement. The housing cap could be struck down on that basis, but there is still another reason to strike it down. In order for a General Plan to be valid, it must be internally consistent. Pleasanton’s General Plan, however, contains a fatal flaw of inconsistency. The 29,000-unit housing cap is contained in the Land Use Element. The Housing Element, on the other hand, admits that the housing cap is an obstacle that prevents the City from meeting its housing allocation. The Housing Element, in accordance with the RHNA, encourages the production of moderate, low, and very-low income housing units to meet Pleasanton’s need. But that will be difficult to do, so long as the City enforces the 29,000-unit housing cap — particularly since the City is now only 2,007 units shy of maxing out. So the housing cap creates an internal inconsistency that renders the General Plan invalid. Removing the housing cap would, of course, remove the inconsistency, and would also remove the conflict with state law.

The Climate Change Connection

What continues to be interesting here is Jerry Brown’s consistent emphasis on climate change. In this case, Pleasanton’s General Plan just straight-up violates state housing requirements, and the City’s housing cap could be invalidated on that basis alone. Indeed, in his formal challenge of the housing cap, Brown focuses on the state’s Planning and Zoning Law to make the case. In supplementary materials, however, Brown has embraced a policy discussion that goes beyond simply pointing out the literal legal problem. In his January 2009 comments on the General Plan DEIR, he criticized the City for not adequately considering the climate change impacts of the Plan. (Amazingly, the City had claimed that a 46% increase in vehicle miles traveled was an insignificant impact!) This is an environmental issue, not a housing issue. More recently, Brown explicitly tied the housing cap to its effect on travel patterns and air quality — adding his voice to the chorus chanting about how focused growth and smart land use patterns are a critical component of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Interstate 580 through the Tri-Valley, one of the Bay Area’s most congested freeways, is surrounded by suburban sprawl. Photo courtesy of Flickr user Michael Patrick.

It’s a classic example of what we observed in the beginning — a city, unless subject to an overarching regional or state mandate, will likely prioritize local parochial interests above the greater good. Pleasanton instituted a housing cap while thinking only about the perceived desirable effect it would have within the city limits — but it did not account for the effects of that cap on the greater region. Within about a decade, the number of jobs in Pleasanton almost doubled, reaching about 58,110 employees in 2005; that number has since grown to 61,100 jobs. But while Pleasanton has cleared space for this job growth, it has not kept up with making space for housing growth. As a result, ABAG found that in 2005, 79% of Pleasanton’s workforce lived outside the city limit, and a full 50% of the workforce endured long commutes from outside the Tri-Valley area. The City planned to continue allowing more office and commercial development, so that by 2025, Pleasanton was projected to nearly double its workforce once again, to 105,000 jobs. But all the while, the housing cap would be maintained, essentially freezing the population at about 78,200 residents for the rest of time. By not providing sufficient housing that would allow people who work in Pleasanton to also live there, the city is essentially forcing long, single-occupancy vehicle commutes — increasing emissions, adding more cars to extremely congested stretches of freeway, and pushing the region further into nonattainment. Pleasanton’s annual carbon dioxide output, which was 1.388 million tons in 2008, would increase to 1.940 million tons by 2025 if the housing cap were to be maintained. The housing cap would also prevent Pleasanton from developing vacant land near its BART station as densely as it should. Restricting growth near BART would diminish the value of this valuable asset, and it would prevent growth in the one place in Pleasanton where it makes the most sense. The housing cap, a purely local requirement, thus carries with it regionally detrimental externalities.

In this sense, Brown’s challenge — although grounded in housing requirements, rather than environmental requirements — may nonetheless be seen as the latest in a string of events that indicate Brown’s stance on the climate change crisis. AB 32 requires that emissions in California be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; but in the absence of the anticipated panoply of regulations from the Air Resources Board, which will translate AB 32′s broad requirements into more focused action, cities and counties have been uncertain as to what their exact obligations are. Despite (or perhaps because of) that uncertainty, Brown has made it clear on numerous occasions that local and regional governments may not simply ignore the adverse impacts their actions could have on air quality — such as in 2007, when he scolded San Bernardino County, and also last year, when he scolded the Bay Area’s own MTC. And now, with this latest lawsuit against the City of Pleasanton, Brown reminds us of the spirit underlying SB 375, by putting on display the interplay between housing, transportation, and climate change. It is so refreshing to see that someone in our government gets it.

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

Courtesy Beyond DC.

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

Courtesy City of Union City.

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

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

Courtesy MacArthur Transit Community Partners.

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

It probably goes without saying that my that my opinions about these these candidates are based on more than just their records on transit and planning issues — in fact, that may have only been a small part of the equation. But I figured that if you are reading this blog, you are probably interested in the candidates’ perspectives on these topics — particularly because in campaigning, these issues often get lost in the shuffle, even though some of us find them to be extremely important. So that is the focus of these blurbs, as a starting point; readers are of course encouraged to research other issues they care about. This post does not pretend to be a thorough or equal discussion of all candidates campaigning for the same position — nor is this a complete list of all races. Candidates are after the jump.

Senate District 3 (Eastern San Francisco, Marin & Sonoma Counties): MARK LENO. Leno’s record demonstrates a commitment to environmental and transportation issues. Most notably, in 2007 he authored the Complete Streets bill (AB 1358), which would require the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to create guidelines for safely accommodating the movement of all users of the street, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and the disabled — and in turn, when cities and counties revise the circulation element of their general plans, they would do so in accordance with the updated OPR guidelines. He also co-authored the Safe Routes to School bill (AB 57). Leno has served as a member of the Assembly’s Smart Growth Caucus, and the SF Bicycle Coalition has noted Leno’s support of other transportation proposals, including SMART, congestion pricing, and the Bay Bridge bicycle path. As to Carole Midgen: she has done some fine work in the Senate, but her substantial noncompliance with campaign finance rules is more than a little worrisome — and seeing as how this three-candidate race has basically boiled down to a two-candidate Mark Leno v. Joe Nation race, the progressive vote should unite behind Leno. Leno is upbeat, smart, passionate about his work, blends idealism with pragmatism, and is simply a stand-up professional. I would be very happy to have him represent District 3 in the Senate.

Senate District 9 (Northern/Eastern Alameda County, West Contra Costa County): WILMA CHAN & LONI HANCOCK. A race between Wilma Chan (former Assembly Majority Leader, 16th District) and Loni Hancock (Assembly, 14th District), for Don Perata’s seat. This race is not in my district, so I admit I have not been following it as closely, at least not since Chan made campaign finance violation allegations against Hancock — and this is actually one of Hancock’s pet issues, since she authored the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. (And for whatever it’s worth, Chan has been sending out suspect mailers that misleadingly imply a Barack Obama endorsement.) Chan has been endorsed by Jerry Brown, and Hancock has been endorsed by Barbara Lee, each of whom I respect for different reasons. Both Chan and Hancock have served as members of the Assembly’s Smart Growth Caucus, and both have worked on the environment, e.g. by co-authoring AB 32, the greenhouse gas cap bill. Hancock chairs the Natural Resources Committee in the Assembly and has demonstrated a strong commitment to environmental issues, while Chan has concentrated time on other very worthy issues while she was in the Assembly, including health care and banning chemicals from toys and other goods. Given Hancock’s commitment to environmental causes, I might be inclined to vote for her if I lived in this district, but it really depends on how one prioritizes the issues. Chan has done some very good work, and I could also see her determination winning me over. Bottom line: either candidate would represent this district well in the Senate.

Assembly District 12 (Western San Francisco, Daly City, Colma): FIONA MA. So she isn’t perfect, but she is also an unopposed incumbent (and Majority Whip), so there is not much choice. But I do want to acknowledge Ma here for her commitment to improving transit — particularly in pushing for high speed rail in preparation for the bond vote this November. In spring of last year, she boarded the record-breaking 357 mph TGV run, and this year she joined other California legislators on a trip to Spain and Japan to study foreign high speed rail systems. She has become a valuable HSR ally in the Assembly, emphasizing HSR’s economic benefits, its role in reducing transportation emissions by providing a much-needed alternative mode of travel beyond automobile and plane, and the need to jumpstart this project sooner rather than later. Ma also authored AB 1221, which would allow for tax increment funding of transit villages, and AB 101, which is an amendment to the Vehicle Code that would allow footage from video cameras mounted on Muni vehicles to be used as evidence to enforce parking violations in transit-only lanes.

Assembly District 13 (Eastern San Francisco): TOM AMMIANO. Okay, so this one wasn’t so hard, since Ammiano is, after all, running unopposed for Leno’s 13th District seat, but he will be a good guy to have on our side in the Assembly. Although he is probably better known for San Francisco’s universal health care ordinance and his work on behalf of the LGBT community, Ammiano has also been a strong transit advocate throughout his time serving as Supervisor of SF’s 9th District. He is an MTC Commissioner and one of four SF Supervisors on the board of the Golden Gate District, not to mention a member of Rescue Muni. Although his district is especially sensitive on smart growth and displacement issues, Ammiano has generally taken SF’s transit-first policy to heart, discouraging road construction that would only increase car use, supporting use of tools like congestion pricing, working towards the procurement of cleaner Muni technology, and advocating for transit riders even in the face of budgetary constraint. He was also a co-sponsor of Proposition A (Muni Reform Initiative) which voters passed in the November 2007 election.

Assembly District 19 (Northern/Central San Mateo County): JERRY HILL. This is a three-way race involving County Supervisor Jerry Hill, Mayor of Millbrae Gina Papan, and Richard Holober, who is president of the San Mateo County Community College Board. From the transit and environmental perspective, Jerry Hill is a no-brainer to endorse as the successor to Gene Mullin’s seat, as he will provide a strong voice for these issues in the Assembly, and he has been the most vocal about making it a part of his campaign. Hill also has the most experience in elected office. From the transit perspective, Hill has served on the SamTrans Board of Directors, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers board, and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority board. He has also served as President of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, as Chair of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and as a member of the California Air Resources Board. As 2nd District County Supervisor, he has worked to preserve open space in San Mateo County, and he co-sponsored a Sustainable Building Policy requiring that new County buildings be constructed to LEED standards.

Don’t forget to get out and vote on Tuesday June 3! If you do not already know your polling place, click here to find out where it is.

Well-established is that this critically important project, estimated to cost around $40 billion, would link cities across California with a high-speed rail system in which trains would travel, in a little over two-and-a-half hours, between Union Station in Los Angeles and a newly reconstructed Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco. It would bring the different corners of this state closer together and is a tremendous economic benefit for California. It also provides a sustainable way of transporting a population that is projected to swell to an excess of 50 million in the next couple of decades. One point, which should not be underestimated (particularly in the growing but auto-centric Central Valley) is that the high-speed route provides a clear guide indicating where future development across the state should be carried out, with high-density uses in most cases focused at stations and in downtowns located along the route. At long last, with high-speed rail, we will have a legitimate alternative to airplanes and freeways for travel within California — an alternative we will appreciate even more when both of those current systems exceed capacity, at which time the realization will set in that high-speed rail would not only have helped curb congestion, it would also have cost less than extensive freeway expansions. At long last, we will develop and modernize our rail system to make it slightly less of a laughing stock when compared to the extensive rail networks found in many other countries around the world.

Or will we?

A perpetually thorny and long-debated issue is the alignment that trains would use to enter and exit the Bay Area from the Central Valley, and the debate has focused on different alternatives of the Pacheco and Altamont Pass alignments. Different versions of both alignments are depicted on this map:

In the above map, the Pacheco alignment is represented in the broad southern sweep. Under Pacheco, every train heading north from Los Angeles would pass through San Jose and then travel up the Peninsula in a four-tracked configuration shared with Caltrain. Under various versions of Altamont, trains would not enter the Bay Area from the south, but rather, from the east, by first traveling through the Tri-Valley and the congested corridor along Interstate 580. After crossing the Bay via a new Dumbarton rail crossing, trains would then travel north up most of the Peninsula, terminating at Transbay in San Francisco. Another branch of the line could serve the Stockton and Sacramento area, while still yet another branch would follow the eastern shore of the Bay towards Oakland.

Earlier, I mentioned that a disheartening piece of news was what led to this post, namely that the the California High-Speed Rail Authority recently reaffirmed its preference for the Pacheco alignment. Why is this disheartening? Simply put, the Altamont alignment goes where people are, while Pacheco carves through much more sparsely populated areas. One important benefit of the Altamont alignment is that the presence of the rail line in this corridor would stimulate dense development in already-established cities along the route, while Pacheco would likely encourage development in areas that are currently undeveloped – in some sense, creating new sprawl, rather than providing a solution to heavy congestion brought by about existing sprawl.

The Authority has officially stressed that long-distance trips should remain the focused mission of high-speed rail, and that that mission would be compromised by running trains through the Altamont alignment at the expense of long-distance travel times. Altamont would also require that trains be split between San Jose and San Francisco after crossing to the Peninsula, while under Pacheco, any train bound for San Francisco would also serve San Jose. And even if Altamont attracts higher commuter ridership within the Bay Area, Pacheco would end up generating more fare revenue. Although trains routed through Altamont might take about 10 minutes longer when traveling between San Francisco and Los Angeles, in light of the considerable advantages that Altamont has over Pacheco, those 10 minutes and the revenue considerations should not be enough to disqualify Altamont. However, the Authority has insisted otherwise, and that decision is limited and short-sighted.

An overriding problem with the Pacheco alignment is that its southern sweep ignores an important ridership market: namely, daily commuters between the Bay Area and the Central Valley. The Interstate 580 corridor is already very congested, and absent any solution, traffic will continue to worsen; Altamont, which serves this area quite well, could be exactly that solution. In addition, riders traveling between San Francisco and Sacramento would also be faced with a circuitous route under Pacheco but would enjoy more direct service under Altamont. If high-speed rail is to be well-used, it must serve many different ridership markets, and commuters within the Bay Area and the greater northern California region should not be overlooked, particularly since routing high-speed rail through the Altamont pass presents the opportunity to upgrade and expand service offered by ACE commuter rail. Sure, a fast connection between San Francisco and Los Angeles is an important priority, but contrary to what the Authority has stated, it should not be seen as the sole mission of this project. Both the Altamont and Pacheco alignments will offer the core long-distance service, but many trips made within California may involve only San Francisco or Los Angeles. Still other trips will involve neither city, but rather might lie entirely in the middle portion of the route. The key is to diversify service to accommodate these different markets, through varying combinations of local trains, express trains, and everything in between. We should expect nothing less from this costly, yet important, investment.

It seems that this blog is increasingly turning into gripes about how important transportation projects are being hijacked and diluted to serve political ends, but unfortunately, transportation officials are doing little to disabuse us of this notion. South Bay politicos – and we cannot forget that “venerable” CHSRA board member Rod Diridon, champion of San Jose’s vastly underperforming light rail system – have long been convinced that San Jose, despite being located at the edge of the Bay Area, rightfully deserves to be the beneficiary of billions of dollars worth of flashy but far-from-adeptly-planned transit infrastructure, even if the diversion of this money prevents more worthy projects from being funded. It seems to be a case of low civic self-esteem, and in terms of high-speed rail, San Jose politicians find it imperative that every train traveling between San Francisco and Los Angeles also serve San Jose. Once convinced of this notion, it is clear that the Altamont alignment would not do, because San Jose, located on a mere spur off of the primary line, would be out of the limelight.

Although some officials have given lip service to Altamont by claiming that both alignments could eventually be built or that other rail infrastructure could be built to provide relief in the 580 corridor, it seems that realistically, favoring Pacheco kills the opportunity to build Altamont for the foreseeable future. Of course, this assumes high-speed rail gets off the ground in the first place. Altamont’s potential to provide relief to a heavily congested freeway corridor, as well as its route through land that has already been developed, makes it the natural choice for transit and environmental advocates, and these groups have long opposed Pacheco. How far will environmentalists concerned for wetland preservation go to kill a bond measure designed to fund a Pacheco-aligned project? Funds for high-speed rail are dependent on voters passing the $9.95 billion bond measure in the big election this November. To be fair, a collection of Tri-Valley NIMBYs have denounced the Altamont alignment, for the usual NIMBY reasons, but the Authority’s choice of Pacheco over Altamont will likely alienate many other voters in the East Bay and the north Central Valley, who may not see themselves as benefiting from an expensive project that completely neglects their cities — and high-speed rail no longer seems quite as high-speed if it takes over an hour to access the nearest station. Should we expect these voters to throw their support behind Pacheco on the basis of slim promises that Altamont could be built far in the future, or will the lure of a high-speed train zipping through California’s green fields and cities (but not their own cities) capture their imagination in any case? The fate of high-speed rail, California’s most important transportation investment, hangs in the balance.

The list of East Bay highrises is currently dominated mostly by Oakland (whose 404-foot Ordway Building remains the tallest occupied building in the Bay Area outside of San Francisco) and to a lesser extent, Emeryville. Walnut Creek — referred to as an “edge city” to acknowledge the denser, quasi-urban development that it has encouraged downtown for the past decade — is probably one of the region’s most successful examples of downtown revitalization, but new construction is capped at 89 feet, or roughly six stories of office — development there is relatively active, but remains low-rise in nature. Other nearby cities have similar height limits in place. For sure, the Dublin towers would definitely stick out conspicuously above the surrounding landscape, but they could also help to define a new neighborhood.

Some areas of the country, like Washington, D.C., have embraced the idea that denser and taller development in suburbs can work. The Bay Area has been slower to catch up in this regard. To be sure, the Dublin proposal has sparked some community opposition — and even if the project is approved, my guess is that tower heights will probably be reduced — but the fact that some are even being open-minded about the project is encouraging, and it marks an interesting paradigm shift for the Bay Area, which admits high-rise developments in urban downtowns, but refuses taller buildings outside of those few concentrated locations. A few taller buildings are located along the Peninsula and in Emeryville, but these sites have excellent freeway access and poor transit access, making them direct counterexamples of smart growth.

The problem with this Dublin proposal is that it, too, is another such counterexample. The proposed site (near the crossing of Tassajara Road and Interstate 580) has easy freeway access, but it cannot be considered truly transit-oriented, as it is not convenient to the BART terminus at Dublin/Pleasanton, nor is it convenient to the infill West Dublin/Pleasanton station which just began construction. Although this was not the case even rather recently, Dublin is now an established suburb, so I would prefer we develop here (only a couple miles from the BART line), rather than in, say, Tracy. While I remain encouraged by the more open-minded vision shown by Dublin planners, this site is bound to create more car traffic and would make more sense within walking distance of a BART station.