Like parents trying to fit a new roof and a child's braces into the routine expenses of grocery bills and new shoes, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is trying to budget for meeting the region's transportation needs over the next 25 years. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is scheduled to be updated by the end of the year; the first draft of the new plan, together with a draft Environmental Impact Report, will be in circulation in August. The Plan will address the maintenance, management and improvement of the Bay Area transportation network, including transit, highways, airports, seaports, railroads, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Projects must be included in the RTP to be eligible to receive federal or state transportation funds for planning or construction.
Since the beginning of the year, MTC has been explaining the framework within which the planning decisions must be made and gathering comments on what those decisions should look like. Much of the money which MTC spends or distributes to other transportation agencies is constrained, meaning that it is already earmarked for certain types of uses, primarily maintenance and operation of the existing transportation system. Only 9 percent of the funds, $7.7 billion, is available for other options, and it is not enough to purchase everything in the region's large catalog of new transportation projects. How the discretionary money is spent has a significant influence on the region, as a project in the RTP is funded while another project, not in the plan, may never be built.
The RTP is limited to projects that can be built with the funding which is currently available, from federal and state transportation funds or local sales tax measures. Because of the scarcity of funding and the long timeline on transportation planning, MTC considers all proposals submitted by transit agencies, county Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs), and MTC staff. Projects with commitments from projected available funding are designated as Track 1 and those on the " waiting list", requiring identification of new funding, as Track 2. While Track 2 projects are not eligible for the funding available through the RTP process, they are acknowledged to be next in line when new funding becomes available. During the last update of the RTP, strong lobbying by transit advocates led the Commission to move some highway and road projects from Track 1 to Track 2, shifting Track 1 funds to cover all of the shortfall between operating expenses and subsidies for the region's transit agencies.
Track 2 projects, grouped by mode or region, were included in MTC's 2000 Bay Area Transportation Blueprint for the 21st Century, which was used to lobby for additional funding. The Blueprint supported advocacy for several Bay Area projects ultimately included in Governor Davis's January 2000 budget proposal for his Transportation for Congestion Relief Program. Funding for BART to San Jose, Caltrain improvements, a regional express bus program and various highway improvements was included in the Governor's program.
Since the last RTP update, transportation planning in the Bay Area has undergone some changes. In December, MTC's longtime Executive Director, Larry Dahms, retired and was succeeded by Steve Heminger. Meanwhile, a federal review of MTC's status as a Metropolitan Planning Organization included substantial pressure by transportation advocacy organizations to make the agency more responsive to the public and more sensitive to environmental justice concerns, resulting in an order to MTC to institute changes. Finally, MTC is facing the latest in a series of environmental lawsuits designed to link MTC decisions more closely to planning for air pollution controls.
One result of these changes was a major public participation effort for the current update of the RTP. Phase I included several workshops throughout the region, a telephone poll and an online survey, reaching over 4,000 members of the public between late February and mid-May.
Virtually all groups participating in the outreach process agreed substantially on six main points:
The public outreach responses added a new goal, Safety, to the five RTP Goals and Objectives already proposed: Mobility, Equity, Economy, Community Vitality, and Environment. In another innovation for this RTP, performance measures are proposed for each group of objectives. For example, the Community Vitality objective, "Support plans and programs which make it more convenient and safer to walk and bike", will measure progress through development of a Regional Bike Plan, and implementation of recommendations from the Pedestrian Safety Task Force.
With limited resources, each commitment in the RTP reflects trade-offs and strategies to stretch funding through leveraging, partnerships, and innovations. Each goal is accompanied by suggestions of "Possible Areas for MTC Investigation/Experimentation" and "Supporting Actions Needed from Others". The areas for investigation include ideas such as congestion pricing to shift traffic to off-peak hours, a transit affordability study, remote check-in for airport travelers travelling by transit, and a parking incentive program to reduce the availability of free parking and offer alternatives to driving. There are many supporting actions needed from other agencies, from bills needed in Congress and the state legislature to actions by employers, business and environmental organizations, and law enforcement.
Some overall policy directions have been clearly established by the Commission for this RTP update. Continuing the shift which became evident with the final changes in the last RTP, transportation planning for the region is now focused on transit improvement and expansions. Money designated for roads is primarily for maintenance and for reducing congestion through improvements at key intersections, additional carpool/bus lanes and tow truck services. A central component of the RTP is the new regional transit expansion plan, which adds express buses to the rail services included in the previous rail expansion plan adopted by MTC in 1988.
In addition to regular RTP updates at Commission and subcommittee meetings, Commission members and staff have met in several workshops focused on the key policy decisions which will shape the plan. A December workshop reviewed all the components of the plan. In June, Commissioners discussed the RTP goals, objectives and strategies, additional projects submitted by CMAs, and new rail and bus projects. Other topics at the June session included whether to again fully fund the shortfall between transit subsidies and operating costs, how much to expand the Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program and the new Housing Incentive Plan, and how to implement the new Lifeline transit program which has emerged from the Welfare-to-Work planning done in the past four years.
Comments at these workshops and at the public outreach meetings indicate some of the areas in which the draft plan may invite debate. For example, since the last RTP, equity issues have become increasingly important to the Commission and there is strong support from Commissioners for the Welfare-to-Work program and the new Lifeline Transit component. An Environmental Justice Advisory Group has also contributed to the draft RTP. However, some transit advocates and other community groups feel that this is only a start at redressing a long-standing imbalance. They see increased transit funding as an equity issue and will argue strongly against any proposal which seems to favor highways over transit. They also argue that funding formulas should consider the population served by a transit agency, giving greater weight to inner-city systems over suburban areas.
The Commission supports fully funding the transit shortfall again. This decision tilts the transit/roads funding balance further toward transit, which would seem to favor the transit proponents. However, it reduces the flexibility of CMAs to put money into local street maintenance such as pothole repairand poor roads also affect transit. Commissioners also want to be sure that transit agencies are keeping the shortfall as small as possible through good management. One option is to direct funding to those transit services which fill regional needs, but such a methodology will take time to develop.
The relationship between the CMAs and the regional plan now includes the local agencies' role in selecting TLC projects, particularly since some CMAs were reluctant to support the proposed tripling of TLC funding at the expense of other projects which were primarily focused on streets and roads. Also, new projects contained in some CMA plans far outstrip the money available for such projects unless new sources are found. Most Commissioners are local elected officials, and some sit on county CMAs, making the process of reconciling local and regional needs difficult.
It has been said that the sure sign of a good compromise is that no one is totally satisfied, and this may prove to be true of the final RTP. However, before that point is reached, the draft plan must be discussed and reshaped as necessary to reflect the region, so that no one will be totally dissatisfied with the results, either. Between September and November of this year Phase II of MTC's public outreach process will again engage Bay Area residents, to be sure that the final RTP is not just the Commission's plan, but a true Regional Transportation Plan.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, http://www.mtc.ca.gov, 510-464-7700
Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition/Transportation Choices Forum, http://www.transcoalition.org, 510-740-3100