Transbay Blog

Top: San Jose Diridon Station, courtesy of MTC. Bottom: New York City’s Grand Central Terminal, courtesy of NY Links.

Well, it’s official. Santa Clara County Measure B — assessing a 1/8 percent sales tax, the proceeds from which will be applied to operation and maintenance of the BART to San Jose extension — finally passed, with 66.78% of the vote; not enough uncounted ballots remain to turn back the vote.  Shortly after the election, when the vote was still under the required 2/3 threshold, SVLG and Measure B supporters had all but conceded, and San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed grudgingly threw his support behind a shortened route (terminating at Milpitas, Berryessa, or Alum Rock, thus postponing the Downtown San Jose subway) while he simultaneously fished for $14 billion of federal bailout money to spend on BART, among other things. But no matter now: the Measure B results are all but certified, though with the tax proceeds not quite in hand; the tax will not be assessed until a federal contribution appears. Will this be the last that we hear of shortened routes and BART taxes? Perhaps not, and a great deal of necessary project funding has yet to materialize. Nonetheless: the Valley Transportation Authority can interpret (in fact, already has interpreted) voter affirmation of the sales tax, however marginally above the 2/3 required for passage, as a clear indication that its plans are moving in the right direction. Never mind, of course, what other more cost-effective expansion projects “moving in the right direction” might jeopardize — to say nothing of existing transit service, whose funds are already tirelessly targeted by the Governor, including very recently for an additional $230 million cut across the State ($83 million in the Bay Area). But since when has BART to San Jose ever been about transit effectiveness? If it wasn’t already clear, the Mercury News made it crystal clear that the primary interest at stake is not transportation, but civic self-esteem. The article rejoices in the fact that San Jose Diridon Station — already served by Caltrain, Amtrak, ACE and VTA, and planned to be served by BART and high-speed rail — is poised to become the Grand Central Station of the West. “We’ll no longer be in the shadow of San Francisco. I’ve waited a long time for it,” proudly proclaimed Ian North in the Merc article. Wait: hasn’t the moniker “Grand Central Station of the West” already been reserved for Transbay — you know, in that other city in the Bay Area? San Jose wants to stretch its wings and fly, by creating a dense, active downtown adjacent to a grand terminal at Diridon. We should not begrudge it that; after all, this website exists, if for no other purpose, than to celebrate exactly that sort of vision. But at what cost to the greater region?

Read the rest of this entry »

By now, I expect everyone has already seen the election results elsewhere (apologies for the delay on this post — couldn’t carve enough time to get this up any sooner); but many people have run across this site doing Google searches looking for results, so I figured I might as well post an entry, although late, in the hope of highlighting some local measures that have been understandably lost in the shuffle. SF Gate also has a big feature discussing the results.

Onto the election results: mixed results, to be sure. Like so many others around California, I beamed at the passage of the $9.95 billion high-speed rail bond measure (Prop 1A), but then recoiled at the passage of Prop 8, which cast a lingering gloom on what was an otherwise unbelievable night. How sad and frustrating that a majority of Californians chose to value animal rights above human rights; we can only hope that the fierce commitment of equality advocates will yield positive results and a more coherent California Constitution. But like millions of others around the country — and the globe — my voice grew hoarse from cheering at Barack Obama’s historic acceptance speech. For a myriad of reasons, I could not be more thrilled at the change in vision that is imminent for our nation’s highest office; suffice it to say that “President Obama” rolls right off the tongue. But since this is largely a transit blog, I should at least mention how important it is that the United States has opted to skip over the candidate who hates trains, and instead chose to elect the candidate who understands that a thriving America in the future depends in large part on making present-day commitments to invest in sustainable transportation and rail networks.

November 4 was a pretty great day for transit all across the country. Despite defeats in Kansas City and St. Louis, there were many victories, including: Los Angeles (Measure R), Seattle (Prop 1), Milwaukee, West Sacramento, Honolulu, Albuquerque/Santa Fe, and, of course, California High-Speed Rail; click here for a tabulation of national results. As for the Bay Area, here are some election results, divided by region, with a focus on the candidates and ballot measures relevant to transportation, development, and open space:

Read the rest of this entry »

Courtesy of SMARTTrain2008.org.

In 2006, voters in Marin and Sonoma Counties very narrowly turned down a 1/4-percent sales tax whose proceeds would fund Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART), the project that would rehabilitate the 70-mile right of way (formerly of Northwestern Pacific) between Cloverdale in northern Sonoma County and Larkspur in Marin County. This year, that project is once again on the ballot in the form of Measure Q, again as a 1/4-percent sales tax requiring 2/3 approval for passage. SMART would operate DMUs (essentially, light diesel commuter rail) every 30 minutes at peak, with limited weekday and weekend service, comparable to the Sprinter in Oceanside-Escondido. The project also includes a pathway for cyclists and pedestrians along the right of way. The train would not connect directly to San Francisco, a fact that has prompted opponents to dub it the “train to nowhere.” But this claim is really without basis considering North Bay commute patterns: in 2000, a little over 75% of Sonoma County home-based work trips remained in the county; for Marin, a smaller percentage but still over half of home-based work trips remained inside the county. More trips still were carried out between the two counties, but still without a bay crossing. San Francisco is not presently the predominant travel market, and it won’t be in the future either, as this trend is expected to solidify and strengthen as new jobs are added to the North Bay. Even though most SMART riders will not be riding the train to Larkspur to transfer to a San Francisco-bound ferry, we still might wish that the Larkspur station had been brought all the way to the ferry terminal, and not a shuttle ride or ten-minute walk away. Nonetheless, we’re excited by the possibility of trains returning to grace the North Bay’s landscape of town centers and verdure pastures. Just like downtowns emerged on the Peninsula along the Southern Pacific right-of-way between San Francisco and San Jose, so, too, towns in the North Bay were developed along the Northwestern Pacific right-of-way. In that sense, SMART, just as Caltrain currently does on the Peninsula, would provide convenient service to North Bay downtowns. SMART is a worthy project, and North Bay voters are encouraged to vote Yes on Measure Q for SMART.

Read the rest of this entry »

BRT at Bancroft, near Sproul Plaza. Courtesy AC Transit, extracted from this video clip.

This past July, the Berkeley City Council voted to place Measure KK on this November ballot, thanks to the efforts of a vocal, persistent group of Berkeley NIMBYs whose goal is to prevent AC Transit from building dedicated bus lanes in Berkeley (only one to one-and-half miles long) as part of its bus rapid transit project on Telegraph Avenue and East 14th Street. The BRT project, estimated to cost $250 million for a roughly 17-mile corridor, would upgrade service on the 1/1R line, which is AC Transit’s most popular trunk line, carrying roughly 10% of its daily ridership. Running buses in a dedicated transitway that is wholly separated from automotive traffic, when combined with signal priority and Proof of Payment, will allow AC Transit to make better use of a fixed amount of resources; it will also ensure line reliability, thus creating a superior and dependable riding experience that will attract more riders.

If passed, Measure KK would require that a “designation plan” be prepared whenever a lane is planned to be reserved for transit vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles — not just for this BRT project, but also for all similar future projects carried out in Berkeley. The language of the measure is vague as to what exactly must be contained within a designation plan; but, at a minimum, it is required to describe how reserving an HOV lane could affect “drivers, transit riders, pedestrians, bicyclists, businesses, parking and emergency access.” The process of creating a designation plan would itself be required to include extensive public hearings. Once the designation plan has been completed, the City Council would then submit it to voters for their approval. No transit-only lane could be reserved unless its corresponding designation plan was approved by voters.

The extra expense of carrying out these procedures is hefty — each designation plan could cost $250,000-$500,000 to prepare. On top of that there would be $15,000 for placing the plan on the ballot, and $350,000 or over $700,000 to hold a special election, depending on whether it is conducted by mail or at polling places. Moreover, the need to prepare a designation plan and get it approved by voters would add considerable delay to BRT planning and implementation, not least because it would make it more difficult to line up the diverse array of funds needed to build the project. But still another potential problem lurks behind Measure KK’s vague language: if modifications are made to the project after the official close of the planning process, it is possible that such changes could trigger still another “designation plan” and another vote, thus compounding the delay and project cost.

Read the rest of this entry »

There has been an hypocrisy underlying the conversation in California concerning transit and sustainability. On the one hand, we talk about curbing sprawl and offsetting climate change; but on the other hand, we also yank the funds that already cash-strapped transit agencies need to operate. This year, AC Transit, which provides fuel-dependent bus service, got a double hit, both from rising fuel prices and from the months-overdue state budget that ultimately deprived the agency of over $15.6 million. To close the funding gap, AC Transit staff had recommended fare increases earlier this year, with the steepest increases borne by some of the most transit-dependent of East Bay residents: the youth, senior, and disabled who use monthly bus passes. The community protested the impending fare increase, and it was in response to that mobilization that the AC Transit Board placed the Measure VV parcel tax on the November ballot. (That’s VV with two V’s, not one W.) If passed, Measure VV would levy a tax of an additional $48 per parcel per year on property owners in the cities that receive AC Transit service, except for Union City and Fremont. The tax would begin on July 1, 2009, and would be collected through June 30, 2019, providing AC Transit with an estimated $14 million annually.

The proceeds from Measure VV will be used to fund operations and maintenance, with expenditures monitored by a citizen oversight committee. This money is necessary to allow AC Transit to maintain its current level of operation without having to penalize its most transit-dependent customers by slashing service and hiking fares. Yes, it’s another tax — but as such, it requires 2/3 approval by voters in order to pass. When the state budget is unkind to transit, sometimes it falls on local taxpayers to tie up the loose ends. So all we can do is ask East Bay voters to find it in their hearts to protect vital transit service by voting Yes on Measure VV.

VTA has placed three measures on this November’s Santa Clara County ballot: Measures, B, C and D. Santa Clara County voters are strongly urged to vote NO on all three measures. We’ll begin with Measure B.

If passed, Measure B would institute a thirty-year 1/8-percent sales tax in Santa Clara County to generate money to operate the BART to San Jose extension, in the event that state and federal contributions are secured. However, even with 2000 Measure A and 2008 Measure B funds combined, VTA will not likely have sufficient funding to build and operate the BART extension, which suggests that funds will be removed from other long-overdue projects like Caltrain electrification. VTA may also be forced to cut bus and light rail service, the successful operation of which ought to be a primary priority. This last point should be carefully considered: building BART will attract new riders (though not nearly as many as projected), but cutting VTA service will mean losing current riders; it is no coincidence that transit advocates are the very people who oppose the BART extension. In the end, the question to ask is not only what BART’s ridership will be, but what the net ridership will be — how many cars, on balance, will be taken off the roads? New BART riders cannot be viewed as a true victory unless there is an increase (and at this cost, a pretty monumental increase) in net ridership. The onus is on VTA to show that it can succesfully overcome all of these obstacles, and it has not done it so far. For more on why BART to San Jose is an ill-conceived project, read this series of posts.

Moreover, constructing just one BART corridor will not be nearly enough to transform Santa Clara County from the auto-oriented place it is now. Instead of diverting all accumulated funds to a single corridor, VTA would be well-advised to replace its BART plans with a robust (but nonetheless more cost-effective) rail link between Fremont and San Jose — and to pursue an aggressive portfolio of bus rapid transit and light rail extensions that would encompass the entire County, including those very projects that voters decreed should be allocated the bulk of 2000 Measure A funds. Such a program would yield dozens of stations instead of just six: meaning there would be far more than just six BART stations around which to build dense transit-oriented development; this is key if we ever hope to effect real change in Santa Clara County’s land use and travel patterns. The County absolutely deserves better transit than it has now, both rail and buses. But BART to San Jose is quite simply not the right fit.

And for that matter, voters are also encouraged to vote No on Measure C and No on Measure D, which are two additional ballot measures from VTA, both of which have the express goal of relieving VTA of accountability to Santa Clara County voters:

Read the rest of this entry »

Lynette Sweet (District 7): Lynette Sweet currently represents District 7 on the BART Board of Directors, a district that spreads from Montgomery to Richmond Stations, and which includes sections of all three counties in the BART district. I had not initially planned to write any specific endorsement for her, but then I ran across a disturbing remark in this article in the Merc uttered by Sweet’s opponent, Marshall Walker III. Walker sees Richmond Station as the “beginning of the line, not the end of the line,” favoring a BART extension to Sacramento. With this single remark, Walker demonstrates either a lack of understanding of or an apathy towards BART’s past mistakes, present problems, and even its future promise — which lies not with extensions that snake every further into exurbia and farmland, but with increased capacity in and superior coverage of the urban core. Anyway, we’ve already heard enough: Lynette Sweet for D7.

Tom Radulovich (District 9): There always seems to be a crop of BART Board candidates who are bewilderingly enthusiastic about expanding BART to the edge of the Bay Area and beyond. District 9 incumbent Tom Radulovich has been challenged by Peter Klivans, a Cole Valley resident who has opined that we should be able to “take BART wherever we want to go.” Just about every other Google ad I see in my Gmail inbox has referenced Klivans’s desire to extend BART down the Peninsula, where it would wastefully duplicate Caltrain (but without the latter’s express service that has already put to shame the Peninsula BART service that already exists). His candidate statement adovcates for BART to the Richmond District, which is one of his better ideas — but then again, Sacramento, which Klivans has hypothesized could also have BART service, if only we had the “imagination” for it? Anyway, the choice for BART District 9 is a no-brainer. Tom Radulovich has served on the Board since 1996 and is also executive director of Livable City. Throughout the years, Radulovich has been active as an ally and advocate for all sorts of good causes, including Transbay, Octavia Boulevard, an infill BART station at 30th Street to bridge the long gap between 24th Street and Glen Park, sensible parking policies, and intensifying land use next to BART stations. His commitment to creating a sustainable and vibrant urban environment makes him a necessary foil to the suburban directors. There’s really no need to even think twice about this one: Tom Radulovich for D9.

If transit routes can be analogized to the networks of nerves that are spread throughout the human body, then one might say transit planning in California has been almost entirely occupied with the peripheral nervous system. But a crucial link has been missing — the spinal cord.

The notion of building a high-speed rail system in California has long been in the works, finally getting off the ground in the 1993 with the formation of the California High-Speed Rail Commission, which carried out initial studies, and then superseded in 1996 by the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The Authority spent the next several years carrying out environmental review and generating a business plan; and although a bond issue was delayed in both 2004 and 2006, finally, this November 4, 2008, Californians will have the opportunity to weigh in on the $9.95 billion high-speed rail bond issue; construction of the roughly $40 billion system will draw also on funding from local and federal sources, as well as from the private sector.

High-speed rail at San Francisco’s Transbay Transit Center, courtesy of CHSRA.

Why high-speed rail? In some sense, it’s as easy as checking points off a checklist. California’s population has been predicted to swell to almost 60 million people by the year 2050, and California’s transportation infrastructure must also expand to accommodate the additional volume of trips. The longest trips made across the state are overwhelmingly carried out by car or in the air. Expanding both air capacity and road capacity (with almost new 3000 lane-miles, which essentially amounts to a whole new eight-lane freeway stretching from the Bay Area to Los Angeles) was estimated to cost $82 billion in 2004 dollars, making high-speed rail look like a deal in comparison. But that even assumes that expanding roads and airports will be possible or compelling. Freeway expansion is a very unattractive option that will only further exacerbate traffic congestion, increase fuel dependency, deteriorate air quality, and subsidize sprawl. Airport expansion is also a non-starter. Here in the Bay Area, plans to extend SFO’s runways into San Francisco Bay met extreme resistance from environmentalists; but proposed airport expansion has not really fared much better across the whole state. That basically leaves rail: but California is a very large state, and even with substantial investment in improving Amtrak, conventional rail would not be sufficiently competitive when compared to other travel modes … unless, that is, the trains were to be high-speed. Maximum speeds of 220 mph, and a two-hour and 38-minute trip between San Francisco’s Transbay Transit Center and Los Angeles Union Station should just about do the trick, right? Building high-speed rail also potentially eliminates the problem of future airport capacity; if trips inside California are diverted to high-speed rail, it effectively increases capacity at existing gates for international and out-of-state domestic air trips.

Read the rest of this entry »

Courtesy San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.

If you read the two previous posts about this past election, you probably noticed one rather glaring omission from the discussion: the two San Francisco measures that were actually about city planning, Propositions F and G concerning the massive redevelopment of the Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point. Unfortunately, after writing those other two election posts, there was no time to write a post about Hunters Point as well. But one thing is pretty certain: there will be opportunity in the future to discuss the landmark redevelopment of this area of the City. As you have likely already heard, 62% of San Franciscans voted “No” on the 50% affordable housing mandate in Prop F, while an almost equal number of San Franciscans voted “Yes” on Prop G, signalizing a desire to move forward with the cleaning up and redevelopment of this Superfund site. (Link to SF Election Results, scroll down to the bottom for city measures.)

Read the rest of this entry »

This post will provide some information on the Democratic primary for the California legislature campaigns. The blurbs that follow are essentially endorsements, but I hesitate to use the word “endorsement” here, because to my mind, use of that word ought to be supported by a fuller discussion, drawing on a large range of issues. Because this blog has a relatively narrow topical focus, I wasn’t sure what the interest level would be outside of that focus; in any case, there did not turn out to be time to put together a more complete discussion.

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.

Read the rest of this entry »