Transbay Blog

It’s funny how things sometimes turn out. In terms of funding, BART has long been the Bay Area’s favorite son. Year after year, BART is allocated a major piece of the region’s transit funding pie, a piece that is disproportionately large for the number of people it moves. Meanwhile: slow, antiquated, dirty, screechy Caltrain has played the ugly duckling. Chronically underfunded, Caltrain has only gotten to pick at the leftovers passed onto it from its three component counties. In the early days, BART was originally planned to take over the Southern Pacific right-of-way, operating service as far south as Arastradero Road in Palo Alto, even in the system’s then-planned initial phase — and then eventually to San Jose, extending south on both sides of the Bay from Fremont and Palo Alto. In 1961, San Mateo County, which was already served by Southern Pacific trains, withdrew from the BART district. This decision resulted in at least a temporary moratorium on BART’s southward expansion on the Peninsula — though, as we know, planned southward expansion on the east side of the Bay remains alive and well. Caltrain has been the proverbial thorn in the side of those who dream of unifying Bay Area regional rail under the BART brand, even though electrifying and upgrading Caltrain could provide comparable service for a fraction of the cost.

But like the Ugly Duckling, this story also looks like it will have a happy ending. For high-speed rail will soon sweep into the region, transforming and re-energizing interest in the ex-SP corridor. BART’s gauge, unlike Caltrain’s, is incompatible with high-speed rail; so, when all is said and done, BART’s once-futuristic technology will be exposed as the dinosaur, while the ugly duckling Caltrain will at last transform into the swan.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Bay Area Council Economic Institute (BACEI), in response to a request from the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, has released its Bay Area Economic Recovery Workplan. This is essentially a compendium of regional priorities and projects (submitted by MTC and local governments) that strategizes potential targets for ARRA stimulus money. The proposals fall into several categories — transportation, housing, water, energy/climate, workforce, business, and science/innovation — generally emphasizing projects of regional or multi-jurisdictional significance that will update the Bay Area’s infrastructure to promote future economic prosperity and sustainability. Some $31 billion of stimulus funds will be allocated to California, of which some of these Bay Area projects will certainly receive a share. California is also positioning itself to receive up to $20 billion more, factoring in awards coming in through discretionary grant programs.

Read the rest of this entry »

I have been too busy lately to post regularly, but there is still plenty going on in the world of Bay Area planning and transit. My guess, and hope, is that people will still want to discuss the news, even though I am unable to pull enough time together to prepare full posts on these topics. Others may want to initiate topics, rather than simply respond to prompts in blog posts. Many websites fill in this niche by setting up open threads. I haven’t tried that yet, because I was not really sure if there would be enough interest, or if there was a critical mass of people commenting and checking in. I am also testing the waters with removing comment moderation, despite ongoing problems with managing spam comments. So this is an experiment with open threads. If it looks to be well-used, it could be made into a regular feature. Please feel free to leave any feedback on the open threads if you feel so inclined.

The last post discussed the SFCTA report on Geary BRT, so here is a roundup of other recent news:

SFMTA Budget is up for debate: To close a $128.9 million shortfall, the SFMTA Board adopted a budget that raised the adult and paratransit individual fares to $2 and adult fast passes to $60 on January 1, 2010. The budget also raises some parking fees, but it eliminates several lines altogether and institutes considerable service cuts on many other lines. As promised, Board President David Chiu will introduce a motion (PDF) at today’s Budget and Finance Committee meeting to veto the MTA-adopted budget. If you’d like to attend, the meeting is in the Board chamber, 2nd floor of SF City Hall, at 1:30 pm.
Update: At the Budget and Finance Committee, the vote was 4-1 (Carmen Chu dissenting) against the MTA’s budget, and Chiu has the seven votes needed to overturn the budget at the full Board.

New parking lot in Oakland defeated: Last night, I learned via Twitter that the Oakland City Council rejected the Redevelopment Agency’s proposal for a temporary surface parking lot on Telegraph Avenue in Downtown Oakland, next to the Fox Theater. The City Council requested that staff investigate the possibility of art installations instead, which would be a considerable improvement over a parking lot. Whatever use is ultimately installed will be temporary, to be dismantled in 2011 when construction will begin on the second phase of Forest City’s Uptown project.

Caltrain to declare a fiscal emergency: Despite ridership gains in 2008 and already having raised fares 25 cents on January 1, Caltrain is scrambling to close its budget shortfall, in light of the lost STA funds; it plans to declare a fiscal emergency in order to exempt service cuts from environmental review.

Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday’s big news item (alas, I had not a scrap of free time to write about this yesterday, but better late than never) in the world of transportation was the Obama Administration’s unveiling of its strategic plan for a national high-speed rail system. The so-called “down payment” on this system is $13 billion: $8 billion of stimulus funds, and an additional $1 billion per year for five years proposed for the FY2010 budget. Video footage of President Obama’s announcement is posted on the White House blog; the strategic plan, corridor map, and other materials are available at this link.

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »

First, A Few Numbers (and Acronyms)

Regular readers may recall our previous discussion of Transportation 2035, the latest update to MTC’s ongoing efforts on the Regional Transportation Plan. Earlier this year, we wrote a special feature that describes the multifaceted plan, fleshing out how MTC has proposed to allocate $226 billion of local, state, and federal transportation funding that was expected to become available to the Bay Area over the next quarter century. However, changes in the economy and funding climate have necessitated that MTC revise a few aspects of the RTP. The State of California yanked away STA money that funds transit operations; in the Bay Area, this means that local transit operators will lose access to over $55 million that they were relying upon for the remainder of this fiscal year, and no STA funding at all will be provided in upcoming years. Assuming that the state reinstates STA funding in five years, the Bay Area will have lost $1.2 billion of STA and spillover funds in the interim; MTC also projected a $4.5 billion loss in TDA revenue over the 25-year RTP timeline. Another change is VTA’s recent announcement that it can only afford to build the BART extension to San Jose as far as Berryessa Station, postponing the construction of the downtown subway alignment. This, in turn, is connected to the issue of declining transportation sales tax revenue; this is potentially problematic throughout the region, not just in Santa Clara County, although it is not yet clear just how problematic. Considering the new forecasts for transit revenue, the region’s transit operation shortfall will increase from $3.2 to $8.5 billion. This includes a $283 million shortfall for AC Transit, a $442 million shortfall for Golden Gate Transit, a $1.6 billion shortfall for SamTrans, a $1.9 billion shortfall for Muni, and a whopping $3.2 billion shortfall for VTA, which is the worst operation shortfall in the region. Meanwhile, the transit capital shortfall will increase from $16.1 to $17.1 billion. It also takes into consideration that the cost of the BART extension to San Jose has increased from $6.1 billion to $7.6 billion (year of expenditure). Overall, the $226 billion plan has been reduced in size to a $218 billion plan. The plan adds $1.3 billion of revenue: about $280 million in connection with AC Transit’s Measure VV parcel tax, and $1 billion of VTA joint development revenue. It also anticipates $3 billion of funds for high-speed rail, with half coming from Proposition 1A, and the other half coming from the federal stimulus package’s $8 billion allocation to high-speed rail.

Read the rest of this entry »

Transbay: courtesy of Pelli Clarke Pelli.

During the discussion at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission over how to allocate Bay Area transportation stimulus funds, MTC proposed applying for $195-$400 million of funds to build the train box at the Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco. This money would come from the $8 billion of high-speed rail grant money that was ultimately integrated into the final stimulus bill. Then, the California High-Speed Rail Authority made public its concerns that the Transbay Transit Center, as currently designed, would be inadequate to satisfy its new needs for 12 trains per hour, increased from six trains, for each of the six peak hours everyday. Under the current plan for the Transbay station, tracks would transition underground west of 4th Street, leading to a new subway station at 4th and Townsend, where Caltrain currently terminates. A three track tunnel would then curve off Townsend and north onto 2nd Street, turning once more and splaying out to a six track throat leading to the Transbay underground rail station. The station had been planned to include three island platforms and six platform tracks: two tracks for Caltrain, and four for high-speed rail. According to ridership projections, 2030 Transbay ridership for Caltrain might be 31,500 and 4th/King Caltrain ridership at 17,100. Daily high-speed rail ridership at Transbay by 2030 was projected to be in the vicinity of 26,500.

Read the rest of this entry »

This Wednesday, February 25, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission expects to approve its proposed allocation of the federal stimulus money that will be made available to the Bay Area for transportation purposes. The stimulus package that was ultimately approved changed since our last post on this subject, and so MTC has accordingly made changes to its plans. What follows in this post is a more complete description of the altered proposal.

According to the most recent estimates, the Bay Area will receive approximately $490 million of transportation stimulus money, which MTC has discretion to allocate within defined categories. $340 million are FTA transit formula funds pursuant to Section 5307/5309, and $150 million are FHWA/Surface Transportation Program funds.

Of the $340 million for transit, $270 million will be allocated to operators for transit rehabilitation: AC Transit ($25.7 million), BART ($65.3 million), Caltrain ($10.3 million), Golden Gate ($9.4 million), SFMTA ($67.2 million), SamTrans ($7.9 million), VTA ($47.2 million), and $36.4 million for the smaller transit operators.

Rendering of Coliseum BART station; courtesy of BART.

And as for the rest of the FTA funds? MTC plans to allocate the remaining $70 million to the Oakland Airport Connector. In November 2000, Alameda County voters approved by an overwhelming 81.47% Measure B, a 1/2-percent sales tax for transportation that rejuvenated 1986 Measure B. The proceeds from 2000 Measure B were to be allocated to many projects, including highways, BART to Warm Springs, ACE improvements, and the Oakland Airport Connector: a 3.2-mile automated guideway transit system that would connect Oakland International Airport to Coliseum BART, the closest BART station; this function is currently filled by AirBART shuttle buses. The people mover, which would complete the trip between BART and the Airport in under ten minutes, is expected to increase transit share to the Airport — to about 13% (13,540 daily riders), increased from 9% in 2007 — and it could accommodate any future market growth at the Airport. And yet, while it seems like it would be a good idea to improve BART access to Oakland Airport, this particular project is in a sickly state. The cost has ballooned to $529 million, and a large funding gap remains. The project was intended to be a public/private partnership, but the private partners who might have filled the funding gap are no longer interested in pursuing the project. $288 million of public funds are allocated to the project, but $241 million more are needed. Some of that additional money might eventually be obtained from other sources: including $71 million from BART and $50 million saved from seismic retrofit of the Transbay Tube. MTC would now like to apply $70 million of FTA stimulus funds to rescue the people mover and close the funding gap.

This would be an unwise allocation of the money. We literally just got through lamenting that the State of California has yanked five years of State Transit Assistance operating funds from transit agencies; these agencies must now put fare hikes, service cuts, or a combination of the two on the table to close their own deficits. To the extent that MTC can help agencies in need, it should, by allocating the money directly for agencies to use for purposes of rehabilitation and preventive maintenance. The plan to withhold $70 million of valuable stimulus money — only to insert it into the funding pot for a project that is basically a luxury item, at a time when we can scarcely afford necessities let alone luxuries — is frivolous. In any case, we have long believed that the sensible course of action would be to at least revisit the less glamorous option of a rapid bus system with signal priority on the amply wide (6-8 total lanes) Hegenberger Road and Airport Drive. This would provide a link between BART and the Airport that is quicker and more reliable than current AirBART service, at a fraction of the cost of the proposed people mover.

Read the rest of this entry »

Talking Points Memo has the details on allocations in the final stimulus package. How do things stand as far as transportation is concerned?

• On funding for roads and bridges, a compromise was hatched between the House version ($30 billion) and the Senate version (just over $27 billion). The final damage? $29 billion.
• The funding transit ditches the House’s $12 billion allocation, including Nadler’s amendment, and it maintains the Senate’s less robust $8.4 billion version. Of that, $6.9 billion is allocated to transit formula grants, and $750 million to each of fixed guideways and New Starts.
• Amtrak supplemental capital grants were boosted considerably. The House version proposed $800 million, while the Senate proposed $850 million. The final version? $1.3 billion. However, the provision for intercity/HSR grants to states has been stripped entirely.
• The Senate’s proposal for $5.5 billion of supplemental discretion grants — competitive grants that would be awarded at USDOT discretion — was replaced with $1.5 billion.
• For airport grants, the Senate’s proposed $1.3 billion was maintained in the final bill.
• The final approved bill incorporates a dramatic boost in funding toward high-speed rail. The Senate’s version allocated $2 billion, while the House’s version did not allocate any money specifically for high-speed rail. The final version, however, allocates $8 billion to high speed rail; we can thank the Obama Administration for pressing that increase forward. (Note that the United States permits itself a more generous definition of “high speed.” Although the generally accepted standard, e.g. in Europe is 200 km/hr = 125 mph, in the United States, speeds as low as 90 mph = 145 km/hr qualify as “high speed.”) It seems probable that much of the funding will be applied to proposals that have made the most progress, which is a good development for California. Among the nation’s designated high-speed rail corridors, California’s project is the furthest along in the process, having certified a programmatic level EIR/EIS, and is currently undergoing the process of preparing specific project-level environmental documents.

In its initial proposal for spending the Bay Area’s stimulus money, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission suggested $50 million (of the Senate’s proposed $2 billion for high speed rail) to be applied toward the fund for the Transbay Transit Center train box, in addition to $75 million from transit funds. We will see if or how this changes with the new $8 billion HSR allotment — as well as the other revisions that are made as MTC puts together its final plan for the Bay Area’s local transportation stimulus.

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 »

Apologies for the dearth of updates — the posts I have promised previously are in progress, but free time has been in short supply lately. But I did want to post a new update from just today on AB 3034, the high-speed rail bill. The Senate’s amendments to AB 3034 passed through the Assembly earlier this month, and now the bill just awaits the Governor’s signature. Despite his promise to veto any legislation until the budget fiasco (now 57 days late, as of August 26) comes to a close, Arnold has decided that AB 3034’s positive revisions to the high-speed rail bond measure (along with three other ballot measures) qualify as exceptions. Last I heard, this past Sunday, August 24, was the “absolute deadline” to add anything to the ballot, but no one appears to have any idea what the deadline actually is, and Secretary of State Debra Bowen says the Legislature can choose its own deadline. (UPDATE: the deadline may actually be this Friday, August 29.) In any case, it will be a relief to have AB 3034’s revisions incorporated into the bond measure, so we can finally get some closure on this badly-handled issue. Here was the Governor’s letter, with further details:

Dear Speaker Bass, Senator Perata, Mr. Villines and Senator Cogdill,

The deadline for enacting measures for the November 2008 ballot is upon us. Any measures that must be placed on the November ballot must be acted on quickly. There are four measures that fall into this category: a measure that makes critical changes to the high-speed rail bond already slated to appear on the November ballot; a measure to allow the state to improve the performance of the Lottery, which is critical to the budget negotiations now underway; legislation to establish a rainy-day fund and reform our budget process; and a general obligation bond measure to address the mounting state’s water crisis.

I urge you to send me these measures that must be placed on the November ballot immediately.

Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger