The Obama Administration has released its proposed budget for FY 2011.  The U.S. Department of Transportation’s portion of the budget, which accounts for $78.8 billion, mostly perpetuates the status quo approach to transportation spending.  In particular, it includes requests for FHWA ($42.1 billion), FAA ($16.5 billion), FTA ($10.8 billion), the National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund ($4 billion), and FRA ($2.9 billion).  The bulk of the FRA request consists of Amtrak ($1.6 billion) and high-speed rail ($1 billion).  The budget also specifically allocates $527 million for the Livable Communities Program, to be used on projects that “increase transportation choice and integrate housing and land use into transportation decisions.”

Included in the transit funding are the New and Small Starts grants, which set aside a total of over $1.8 billion for capital investments in transit around the nation. The bulk of the New Starts funding is proposed for major transit projects outside of California.  Three major projects serving New York City (Second Avenue Subway, East Side Access, and ARC) are allocated $612 million.  Other allocations include those for Salt Lake City projects ($180 million), Houston projects ($150 million), Denver projects ($120 million), Seattle University Link ($110 million), Dulles Metrorail ($96 million), Dallas Northwest/Southeast light rail ($86 million), Honolulu Rail Transit project ($55 million), Hartford busway ($45 million), Twin Cities Central Corridor ($45 million), and Orlando’s Central Florida Commuter Rail project ($40 million).  A total of $200 million of Small Starts funding is also included for distribution to several other projects, mostly bus rapid transit.

Although the Bay Area was not in a position this year to receive as much funding as some other parts of the country, the budget nonetheless recommends $50 million for use on three major Bay Area transit projects.  The Central Subway, Van Ness BRT, and East Bay BRT are all considered by FTA to be priorities for funding:

• Central Subway: The $20 million New Starts sum in this budget is a small portion of roughly $950 million in federal funding that the Central Subway is ultimately slated to receive, amounting to 60% of the $1.57 billion project cost.
• Van Ness BRT: The $15 million sum in this budget is a partial allocation of up to $75 million Small Starts for which this BRT corridor would be eligible, assuming that San Francisco opts to construct one of the two serious center lane BRT alternatives (rather than side lane BRT, which would be cheaper to build but would provide only diluted transit benefits).  The maximum $75 million federal contribution would represent 57-63% of the total capital cost of $118-132 million.
• East Bay BRT: The $15 million sum in this budget is a partial allocation of up to $75 million Small Starts for which this BRT corridor would be eligible.  The maximum $75 million federal contribution would represent about one-third of the total capital cost of $235 million.  The exact status of the project is uncertain, in light of a requested swap for operations money. Nonetheless, AC Transit continues to move forward with environmental work and has not abandoned the project.  A match of local funding has also been retained for the time being, so it is good to see that FTA has prioritized this BRT corridor.

In December 2009, the San Francisco MTA implemented sweeping changes to Muni service that affected more than half of the routes in the system.  The changes redrew routes, renumbered routes, eliminated a few routes, eliminated some route segments, and even added some service.  While those changes have not been completely successful in all aspects, we can point to at least some instances of positive change.  The Valencia Street portion of the 26 did unnecessarily duplicate the workhorse Mission corridor, which was typically the better choice to minimize wait times.  Despite the elimination of the 53 Southern Heights, one can make a good case that the current orientation of Potrero Hill routes provides more logical service.  What’s more, eliminated routes and route segments were balanced with additions, as with the 5 Fulton (the evening Market Street segment and increased peak service) and the new 9L San Bruno limited service.

The State of California’s continued theft of transit funding has kept the MTA perpetually occupied with budget discussion — lately, with a $16.9 million gap through the end of this fiscal year.  But the service changes that are now under consideration, while no less sweeping in the number of routes they touch, are of a quite different nature from the variety that were enacted in December 2009.  That is, the goal of the latest proposed changes is not to make the system more efficient, but rather, smaller.  Lines would retain their same routes, but service would run less frequently and end a little earlier.  Some monthly pass holders would have to pay more, as well, adversely affecting a cross-section of transit-dependent San Franciscans.  The total effect will, unfortunately, be to degrade the experience of riding transit in San Francisco, which will also likely chase away some choice riders.  Less frequent service will not only exacerbate vehicle overcrowding and increase pass-ups, but will also diminish what, to my mind, is the primary convenience of urban transit: the luxury of service that is meant to be used spontaneously, without dependence on a timetable.

The MTA Board has been picking apart the details of the proposal (PDF) to balance the FY10 budget, and the Board’s input has resulted in one notable change: nixing the previously suggested $5 fare for the F-Market & Wharves historic streetcar service.  Despite this change, the core of the budget proposal remains intact and, at this point, most of it looks likely to be approved.  But the proposal suffers from an all-too-familiar deficiency, in that it places a disproportionately high share of the burden on Muni riders, while largely shielding drivers from significantly increased fees.

MTA has several revenue-based and other proposed measures on the table (associated revenues in FY10 are indicated below):

• Continuing the tactic of “premium” fast pass packages.  As of January 2010, BART use within San Francisco was spun off onto its own premium $70 pass.  MTA is proposing to charge the same $70 premium for use of fast passes on cable cars and peak hour express bus routes.  The Board has, however, indicated some concern with the logistical details of the express bus premium pass.  For example: would riders that only ride the local section of an express line nonetheless be forced to pay the higher fare? ($0.9 million revenue in 3 months, with $0.5 million from express buses and $0.4 million from cable cars.)
• Doubling the price of the discount senior, youth, and disabled fast pass from $15 to $30 by April 1. ($1 million of revenue in 3 months.)
• Increase parking citation fines by $2. ($0.9 million of revenue in 4 months.)
• Increase annual fee for residential parking permits from $76 to $96. ($0.8 million of revenue in 4 months.)
• Labor concessions and elimination of free parking. ($1 million, with $0.7 million in labor concessions over 2 months and $0.3 million from SFTMA employee and garage parking over 4 months.)
• Charges and transaction fees. ($0.5 million in 2 months.)
• A crucial Prop K allocation from the SFCTA. ($7 million.)

Meanwhile, service cuts would be expected to save the remaining $4.8 million within two months, or about $28.5 million (313,000 service hours) on an annual basis.  Although the newest proposals do not add or eliminate route segments as the 2009 changes did, as remarked above, these proposals instead reduce service frequency on almost every route in the system.  For full details on how each individual line is proposed to be changed, please refer to this table (PDF).  Below is a summary of some highlights:

• Most major lines (J, K, L, M, N, T, 1, 5, 6, 8X/AX/BX, 9/9L, 14/14L/14X, 16X, 22, 28, 30 long, 38, 45, 47, 49, 71L, and 88) would see decreases in peak and/or midday frequencies of 1-3 minutes.  Most major routes would also see a 2-10 minute frequency reduction in evening and night service.
• Local lines could see as much as a 1-5 minute frequency reduction at peak, 1-10 minute reduction midday, and 5-10 minute reduction in the evening and night hours.
• Some community lines could see a 5-10 minute frequency reduction at peak or midday.
• Peak-hour short runs implemented on the M-Oceanview, which would slightly increase service to S.F. State while decreasing service to Balboa Park.
• Some lines will start later in the day, and many will end earlier at night than currently scheduled.
• Reduce owl service frequency from 2 buses/hour to 1 bus/hour.

The Board has expressed concern, in particular, with the reduction in owl service to 60-minute headways, so there still may be some further tweaks to the proposed cuts.  Nat Ford also correctly indicated that in light of the deepest reductions that are planned, the reliability of service — which has never been Muni’s strong suit — will be particularly important.  The MTA is thus even contemplating publishing timetables that would allow riders to plan their schedule if, for instance, they are traveling on a route operating on 30 or 60 minute headways.

These service reductions really do affect almost the entire Muni system.  Given the size of the budget deficit, the effect on service might have been even worse, since these cuts account for less than 30% of the total deficit.  But it’s also the case that riders are being made to absorb a significant burden relative to motorists.  Including the premium fast passes, the doubled discount pass price, and the expenditure saved from the service cuts, transit riders would fill $6.7 million of this budget gap in the last few months of the fiscal year.  By contrast, motorists, who are primarily affected by the increased citation fines and increased annual parking permit fee, would fill merely $1.7 million of the total.

At the Board’s January 29, 2010 special meeting, several directors expressed a desire to investigate parking meters as a source of more revenue, and even Mayor Newsom, a regular opponent of extending parking meter enforcement, claims to have had a change of heart on Sunday meters.  Increased parking meter revenue would, of course, be useful to close the budget gap and ease the burden placed on Muni riders; but this turnaround, to the extent it actually materializes, may be too lackadaisical to affect the current budget discussion.  Nor is it completely guaranteed yet that the proposed suite of measures will do the job.  As Sonali Bose put it, the $16.9 million deficit is based on “aggressive revenue assumptions.”  And of course, we still have the FY11 and FY12 budgets to look forward to — but more on that later.

MTA is looking for your input on the FY10 budget and will be offering two town halls on February 6 and 9, with expected Board action in mid-February.  You are encouraged to offer your comments and participate in the town halls.  Town Hall meetings take place on Saturday, Feb. 6, 10:00 am – 12 noon; and Tuesday, Feb. 9, 6:00-8:00 pm. Both meetings will be held at 1 South Van Ness Avenue, 2nd Floor Atrium, San Francisco.  Alternatively, you can email comments to sfmtabudget@sfmta.com.  Meeting information is also given in the “Upcoming” section of the sidebar (near the top of the page).

After almost a year of anticipation throughout the United States, the recipients of the discretionary high-speed rail stimulus grants have finally been announced, to time with President Obama’s State of the Union address.  California has been especially excited by the opportunity to obtain much-needed federal money to add to the portfolio of funds that will be used to build California’s high-speed rail project.  California was in fact so eager that the State applied for $4.7 billion (PDF), over half of the nation’s total allocation.  We were actually awarded $2.344 billion, or about half of the amounted requested in the application.  Of that, most ($2.25 billion) is set aside for high-speed rail, with a small remainder ($94 million) for other conventional rail improvements.  It is indeed a respectable sum of money — intended to give a tangible boost to California’s startup corridor, which could become the test case for American high-speed rail, while still distributing enough money to other major corridors, so as to maintain widespread political support for this nascent national effort.

Numerous other areas around the country also received grants, including: $1.25 billion for Florida’s Tampa-Orlando corridor, $1.2 billion of HSR/Amtrak funding for the Northeast (of which the high-speed grant was just $485 million), $1.1 billion for Chicago-St. Louis-Kansas City, $823 million for Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison-Twin Cities, $620 million for Charlotte-Raleigh-Richmond-Washington, $598 million for the Pacific Northwest, $400 million for Ohio, $244 million for Chicago-Detroit-Pontiac, $17 million for Iowa, and $4 million for Texas.  The list quite rightly hones in on the known priority corridors: Florida, but also the Midwest routes that are planned to feed into Chicago, which were awarded a total sum just shy of California’s (albeit distributed for use by several states).

California’s piece of the stimulus pie, meanwhile, includes the $2.25 billion to be used to complete various projects along four high-speed segments (San Francisco-San Jose, Merced-Fresno, Fresno-Bakersfield, and Los Angeles-Anaheim), including environmental review, engineering, stations, track, signaling, and right-of-way acquisition.  California also received $94 million to be used for the Capitol Corridor ($23 million to increase capacity at San Jose Diridon and construct a universal crossover between Davis and Sacramento), Pacific Surfliner ($51 million of improvements toward 110 mph service), and $20 million for other corridors.  That funding was awarded to both the High-Speed Rail Authority and Caltrans, and it does not appear that more specific project-level (or even corridor-level) allocations were announced by the federal government for the bulk of the funds. Of particular interest is the fate of the $400 million request put in for the Transbay Transit Center’s train box, whose funding was controversially put into jeopardy by the Authority’s resurrection of the once-rejected Beale Street Alternative.  Although the released materials were silent as to that question, the Examiner looked into the issue and determined that $400 million has indeed been reserved for Transbay, in spite of the Beale Street discussion.

In mid-2009, the Bay Area’s heavy-hitters on transportation put together their heads to produce the Peninsula Corridor Investment Strategy.  The result of that effort was a recommended list of projects, of varying levels of utility, that would begin the process of preparing the Transbay-Diridon corridor for its impending transformation by high-speed rail.  So it’s reasonable to expect that funding priorities at least in the Bay Area will draw on that list.  Also, this is not strictly speaking HSR stimulus news, but it is certainly relevant: the expected $171 million TIFIA loan, which has been included in Transbay’s funding portfolio, was finalized.

Map courtesy of the White House.

Groundhog Day came a couple days early this year.  Yesterday, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission faced yet another contentious meeting regarding the BART Oakland Airport Connector.  And the Commission faced a remarkably similar question to that which it faced almost one year ago.  This time, though, the stakes were higher.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After months of disheartening news in 2009 in which agency after agency rubber-stamped BART’s ill-conceived Oakland Airport Connector project, it was welcome news to learn that the Federal Transit Administration decided to withhold $70 million of ARRA stimulus funding, which BART needs to build the OAC. This announcement comes just a few months after Public Advocates filed a complaint with the FTA. That complaint asserted that BART’s action on the OAC violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and that the OAC was thus not eligible for federal funding until BART took a close look at the project’s environmental justice effects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Governor Schwarzenegger:

It’s quite clearly the case, Green Governor, that we need to
fix California’s transit systems, which are broke and breaking.
Under-served areas had critical lifeline service put to the chopping block, but
climate change demands that we reduce vehicle miles traveled statewide.
Killing the gas sales tax and raising the excise tax will only facilitate
your relentless theft of transit funding, in this budget, as in so many
others — though your action now undermines the rulings of state courts.
Undeniably, you have started down the wrong path. For shame, Arnold, for shame.

Sincerely,
Transbay Blog

P.S. Rest assured that any message you may find hidden in this letter is merely coincidental.

Residents of Livermore are fond of reminding us every so often that there is an outstanding “debt” to their city. They remind us that they have been paying BART taxes since the district’s beginning, and and that they have been waiting patiently for decades for the construction of their long-promised and past overdue BART extension. Indeed, a petition circulated a few years ago by Linda Jeffery Sailors (former mayor of Dublin, active in transportation efforts in the Tri-Valley, and an ardent supporter of both the Dublin/Pleasanton and Livermore extensions) gathered hundreds of signatures to demonstrate local support for the extension. In the meantime, Livermore has taken a back seat to the San Jose extension, which is a more expensive and complicated project serving a county that is not even in the district — even though Livermore is located within the district, albeit at the Bay Area’s easternmost fringe. But planning for the Livermore extension is moving forward, and BART has released its Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) for the project.

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.

A quick remark on the slow posting around here lately: I am now in the middle of a several-week period of time that has been one of the personal busiest and most stressful periods in recent memory. There are several posts and news developments that I have been wanting to write about, but there has just been literally no time to blog. My apologies for the erratic schedule. Things will probably continue to be slow here for a couple weeks, and there will probably have to be a similar “hiatus” in December, as well. During that time, I will try to catch up on queued posts as I can, albeit a bit sporadically. I appreciate your patience.

For now, just a quick update. As you know, the weekday commute shutdown of the Bay Bridge that we just narrowly avoided on the first Tuesday after Labor Day finally caught up to us when the Bay Bridge was shut down for emergency repairs, and we are now on the second consecutive workday without this critical regional link. I suspect that while some people may have stayed at home yesterday, more will find that to be difficult a second day in a row, so the crowds on transit and the freeways may have worsened somewhat as compared to Wednesday. In any event, here is a traffic snapshot, depicting the state of the Bay Area’s freeways around 6:20 p.m. on the night of October 28, the first day of bridge closure:

Courtesy of Google Maps.

We also have a new BART ridership record, that gives us a preview of what it will be like to ride BART in the future, when higher fuel prices, increased population, and an outward-bound expansion policy all put additional strain on the system’s core bottlenecks, which are begging for increased capacity.

On Wednesday, October 28, BART set a record of 437,200 riders. However, the very next day, BART surpassed that to set its new historical record: 442,000 riders on Thursday, October 29. Both counts outpace the last record of 405,400 riders set on September 8, 2008, when many sports fans headed for Raiders and Giants games mingled with weekday commuters. On Wednesday, there was a 53% increase in transbay riderhip (253,400 total transbay riders), and system-wide ridership increased 26% as compared to normal conditions.

Even by Thursday morning, it was looked like BART would set a higher record that day — in light of the fact that transbay ridership this morning has been 60% higher than normal — as compared to Wednesday morning, where transbay ridership was 49% higher than normal. Also, system-wide morning ridership was 29% higher than normal today, as compared to 24% higher than a normal morning on Wednesday. On Thursday, ridership across the system was 24% higher than normal, and there were 260,600 total transbay riders (57% higher than normal).

Check back later, as I will continue to update this post with ridership statistics throughout the duration of the bridge closure.

The exact fate, scope, and timing of AC Transit’s bus rapid transit project is now up in the air, since AC Transit announced it would like to divert some of the project’s funding toward operations. Nonetheless, the planning work that has been underway for BRT still continues — so that the project can be built in the future, when there is a better understanding of the funding situation and what a realistic timeline would look like. This fall, meetings will be held throughout the East Bay to educate citizens and get feedback on the locally preferred alternative for BRT. The goal then will be to the complete environmental documents by about spring 2010.

An initial set of meetings will be held in San Leandro over the next couple of weeks. The first meeting is tonight, and there will be two additional meetings, on the evening of October 27, and the morning of November 7. The focus of these meetings is how BRT will operate on the southernmost segment of the route, in San Leandro along East 14th Street, between the Oakland city limit and the Bayfair BART station. AC Transit, plus all three cities along the route, should know that despite the recent funding setback, this project remains an important priority for their constituents who want to see better transit in the East Bay. So these meetings are not only a nice opportunity to learn more details about the project, but are also a key opportunity for advocates to express their support for BRT.

The meeting details:

• Thursday, October 22 – San Leandro Public Library (300 Estudillo Avenue, San Leandro), 6:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m.
• Tuesday, October 27 – Bayfair Mall, 2nd floor (15555 East 14th Street, San Leandro), 6:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m.
• Saturday, November 7 – City Hall South Office (835 East 14th Street, San Leandro), 10:00 a.m.-12:00 noon

Click here to see the flyer (PDF) with full details, including information about how to win a free AC Transit ticket.

Vallejo Transit. Courtesy of munidave.

If Bay Area transit is balkanized — and with so many operators serving a single region, one is on safe ground in saying that it is — then Solano County may be its most fragmented quarter. In San Francisco, the SFMTA’s service area includes about 800,000 residents; and in the East Bay, well over one million people call AC Transit their local provider. By contrast, six transit operators — Benicia Breeze, Dixon Readi-Ride, Fairfield-Suisun Transit, Rio Vista Delta Breeze, Vacaville City Coach, and Vallejo Transit — serve the 407,000 residents of Solano County with a combination of fixed and flex routes. It’s an arrangement of decentralized fiefdoms, consisting of small transit operators that even many longtime Bay Area residents have never heard of. These operators provide some local lifeline service within urbanized areas, as well as limited regional service that connects Solano County’s fringe cities to nodes in the region’s core transit network.

The benefit of such an arrangement is that each jurisdiction has control, and can more easily ensure that its own transit service is responsive to its residents, rather than entrusting local needs to an aloof, insensitive decision-making body. But there are also many problems with this arrangement, and they are variations on a theme that plagues Bay Area transit generally. From the perspective of the rider, fares and schedules are uncoordinated, which makes trips long, inconvenient, and expensive. Many trips of substantial length require riders to transfer, and to master the rules and customs of different transit agencies.

From the perspective of the transit provider: operations, as well as allocation of staff and transit vehicles are duplicative and inefficient, because overlapping service is needed to provide connections. A limited service range usually translates into limited ridership, and the effectiveness of governance can be hindered because decisions only have local reach. Transit operators based in smaller cities may also not have adequate resources to provide the full range of regional service that its residents would find useful. And those operators have less clout to fight for more funding.

Recognizing the drawbacks of the current arrangement, the Solano Transportation Authority (STA), which acts as the local congestion management agency, has been talking for years about streamlining Solano transit into a more seamless, less fragmented network. In 2007, the STA considered a range of alternatives about how to do just that. In June 2009, the STA rejected an alternative that could have created a single operator for the whole county. Instead, the STA settled on two less extreme alternatives as its preferred course of action:

• Consolidate Benicia Breeze and Vallejo Transit into a single operator.
• Study the consolidation of interregional service in Solano County (which includes Vallejo Transit Routes 78 and 80, as well as Fairfield-Suisun Transit Routes 30, 40 and 90) into a single operator. (Earlier, the goal was to have actually consolidated them, but the language was later tempered into a mere study.) This option also would have paratransit service be operated locally.

In the past few months, we have made progress toward realizing the first goal. This week, the Vallejo City Council is expected to approve a resolution, which would authorize Vallejo to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with both the STA and the City of the Benicia. This would establish committees and a working group for the purposes of implementing the “South Solano Transit Authority.” Benicia already approved the MOU in August 2009, as did the STA in September 2009.

The plan would consolidate Vallejo Transit and Benicia Breeze into a single agency, presumably governed by a south county Joint Powers Authority, whose bylaws have yet to be enacted. According to the current timeline, Benicia and Vallejo transit could be united by 2011, and the full consolidation plan could be implemented by 2012.

In some sense, the STA is playing it safe. Focusing on only Vallejo and Benicia is the “path of least resistance,” particularly when compared to more sweeping alternatives the STA considered in 2007 but ultimately rejected. A more ambitious plan would also have integrated Fairfield-Suisun Transit with Vallejo and Benicia into the consolidated agency, thereby bringing the majority of Solano’s population into a single transit district.

Nonetheless, there are benefits to the current plan. Vallejo and Benicia are both set off from the rest of Solano County (including the Fairfield/Suisun City urbanized area), and are situated closer to the central Bay Area. The Vallejo and Benicia service areas, while somewhat disconnected, are at least adjacent to each other in south county, and Vallejo is already a popular destination for Benicia riders. Uniting operations and governance presents an opportunity to reduce costs and overhead — as well as to increase efficiency, by basing operations out of a single transit facility and merging respective contracts with MV Transportation. The single agency could provide improved service that is more legible, and could potentially operate more service through both cities to attract higher ridership. A united agency would also be a more effective competitor for regional funding.