In This Issue:

• Differing Approaches to Redesigning the Region
• Meeting the Test: The Bay Area and Smog Check II
• Show and Tell Time for Ferries
• Better Ways to Cross the Bay
• Bright Ideas: Sharing the Green; Rain Gardens; Close to Home; Fueling Diversity; Setting the Pace; Missing Links
• No Train? No Pain, No Gain
• Update on "Energizing EBMUD"

Redesigning the Region

The regional agency merger proposal contained in Senate Bill 1243 (Torlakson) was the subject of unusual joint meetings in June and July between staff and commission members from the two affected agencies, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The sessions, facilitated by Nick Bollman of the Center for Regional Government, were focused on determining points of agreement to be included in the version of the bill which will be considered by the Assembly in August.

Several broad areas of agreement have emerged:

• Comprehensive, integrated regional planning is needed to address concerns that include housing—especially affordability—the jobs/housing imbalance and the consequent commutes, loss of open space and habitat, coordination of transit agencies, and the need for state support for local and regional smart growth planning.
• Both agencies support the current Smart Growth Strategy/ Regional Livability Footprint Project currently under way and are committed to developing a comprehensive regional plan.
• Effective implementation of good regional planning needs an institutional framework which is not currently in place.
• The agencies should work together to determine what the institutional framework should be and report that conclusion to the state legislature with recommendations for its implementation.

Agreement on the problem does not mean agreement on answers. There was considerable debate over which agency structure would be best for creating a new regional plan, whether the Smart Growth Strategy results would become the basis for a new plan, and the relationship between a regional plan and the federally mandated Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Some MTC commissioners noted that MTC has already integrated land use planning and sustainability issues into its planning process through programs such as Transportation for Livable Communities and the Housing Incentive Program, and would not find it difficult to make these part of a new regional plan. However, " there is more to comprehensive planning than transportation and housing," according to Patricia Jones of ABAG.

Some ABAG members have emphasized the importance of retaining local land-use control and using it to implement jointly agreed-upon regional goals, objectives and guidelines. While an effective regional plan cannot be achieved if local jurisdictions don't participate, local officials would prefer incentives and/or penalties over an agency with overriding authority on land use.

A critical issuelinked to whether a new agency structure is neededis the actual constitution and governance of any new or modified agency. Agency members and members of the public have spoken in favor of a governing body which has proportional representation, and some have suggested it should be directly elected rather than appointed. "All we have asked is that it should be diverse and representative of the region," says Jones.

At its July meeting, the ABAG Executive Board voted against supporting SB 1243. One week later, MTC commissioners voted to support a revised version of the bill that proposes a Regional Growth Council identical in membership to MTC, which would assume ABAG's responsibilities for land use, economic development and housing planning. It would have no control over local land use. Every six years the Council would adopt a regional growth policy plan, including an alternative growth scenario from the smart growth planning process which would be the basis for housing plans and for the RTP. The Council would send the Legislature an action plan and recommended changes in agency structure necessary to implement the regional plan. The critical arena where agreement must be achieved now becomes the Legislature, where SB 1243 will be discussed during August.

The multi-agency* Smart Growth Strategy planning project (see August/September 2000 and 2001 issues) has concluded its second set of regional workshops. The first round of regional workshops resulted in three alternative growth scenarios, which included a similar number of new jobs and housing units but with different development patterns. In the recent workshops, the majority of participants chose a vision for the region which was similar to Alternative 2, the Network of Neighborhoods. They stressed "compact, walkable, mixed-use and mixed-income development in existing communities, near public transit stations, in town centers and along major corridors", according to an ABAG memo.

However, using the numerical equivalents of the planning choices made in the workshops resulted in higher numbers of new jobs and housing units than the original scenarios. With limited time and expertise, workshop participants may have been unable to carefully match the results of individual decisions to the overall growth pattern they desired. For example, although Solano County participants chose Alternative 2, with increased job growth and and an improved jobs/housing balance, the numbers showed 34,000 more jobs than envisioned in any alternative. The Regional Agencies Steering Committee will review the results of the workshops and look at recommendations for reconciling numbers with desired growth patterns at its meeting in late August. Local review of preliminary alternative projections for each area will take place in the late fall.

Eventually, each agency must also consider and adopt incentives and regulatory changes needed to implement the preferred alternative. Successful completion of the Smart Growth Strategy will require the agencies to confront and resolve issues such as those being debated in the SB 1243 discussions, i.e. regional agency authority versus local land use control, and the integration of agency functions. Another factor is the role of the private sector in accomplishing agency objectives— the Bay Area Council and Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group have participated in transportation and housing issues, and the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development is playing a key role in the Smart Growth planning process. Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network is exploring a regional governance process using broad community input and consensus.

The region is ready for change, and a vision of the goal is emerging. Next must come agreement on how to get there.

* Regional agencies participating in the process include the Association of Bay Area Governments, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission.

Top

Meeting the Test: The Bay Area and Smog Check II

As AB 2637 (Cardoza) makes its way through the state Senate, it appears that Bay Area motorists may face some of the more stringent requirements of the enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program (Smog Check II) rather than the basic program their cars must now pass. The Central Valley has long contended that a significant part of its severe air pollution problem is the result of the transport of Bay Area pollution into the Valley, and that the reduction of tailpipe emissions in Bay Area cars will help mitigate the effects of that increased pollution. Since 1996, Central Valley legislators have been introducing bills requiring enhanced Smog Check II in the Bay Area; AB 2637 is the first such bill with a good chance of passing.

The Smog Check II program was put in place in 1996 as an update to the original 1990 program. It has been undergoing improvements as the technology is developed and implemented.Test results are now electronically transmitted to a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) database.

There are three levels of smog checks, basic, partial enhanced and full enhanced. In areas of the state that meet the national air quality standards, the basic smog check is required only when a vehicle is sold. In any areas that are out of compliance with the national standards, smog checks are required every two years for vehicle license renewal, with enhanced Smog Check II required in areas that have serious, severe, or extreme air pollution problems.

The Bay Area is the only major urban area in the state where a biennial basic Smog Check II program is in effect; all other major urban areas in the state are subject to enhanced Smog Check II. In the Central Valley, cities such as Fresno are subject to the full enhanced Smog Check II, with less urban areas under the partial enhanced program.

The basic smog check requires a 2-speed idle test, while the enhanced smog check uses a dynamometer to simulate a vehicle's emissions while in motion (loaded-mode). The pass/fail cut points for emissions are more stringent for enhanced smog check areas. Under AB 2637, the Bay Area would be subject to partial enhanced Smog Check II, which would include the dynamometer test.

The Bay Area would not be subject to a requirement of the full enhanced Smog Check II program, the Test-only stations. Under this requirement, gross polluters and vehicles with a high emitter profile, based upon the Vehicle Information Database, or certain makes, models and years of vehicles, are directed to Test-only stations by the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR), which administers the Smog Check II programs. Vehicle assignment is permanent. The BAR requires that 30 percent of the total cars tested be assigned to Test-only stations and has made a commitment to the EPA to direct 36 percent of the total cars tested in the future. To avoid being directed to Test-only stations, owners may have their cars pre-tested and repaired, and then pass the actual test which is transmitted to the DMV. The Test-only stations also administer the Consumer Assistance Program (CAP) for vehicles that fail their tests. Owners may receive up to $500 for repairs. Financial assistance for low-income car owners whose vehicles fail their smog tests is also available.

The BAR is currently conducting the Gold Shield Pilot program that will allow failed vehicles from Test-only stations to be repaired and tested by updated Gold Shield Test-and-repair stations rather than returning to a Test-only station for retesting. In the Bay Area, Gold Shield CAP stations using BAR-97 Emissions Inspection Systems with dynamometers may participate in the pilot program.

The BAR has also developed and is implementing loaded-mode testing for heavy duty trucks and another program to use remote sensing to identify high-polluting vehicles. In addition, low pressure fuel evaporation testing is being studied. In preparing the Bay Area 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan (OAP) to meet the national 1-hour ozone standard, the three co-lead agencies for air quality planningthe Association of Bay Area Governments, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commissionincluded a mobile source control measure that would add evaporative leak inspection and improved evaporative inspection system testing to the basic Smog Check II program.

The 2001 OAP also included a future study measure to identify and evaluate further improvements in reducing volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions. The BAR is investigating proposed tests to reduce emissions of VOC, and Bay Area planners urge that the more cost-effective tests, especially, be included in the basic Smog Check II as well as the enhanced program.

The future of AB 2637 may rest partially on the results of a study by UC Riverside to determine what effect an enhanced Smog Check II program in the Bay Area would have on ozone levels in the Central Valley. The study, commissioned by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, was scheduled for release at the end of July.

For more information: Tom Addison, BAAQMD, 415-749-5109; taddison@baaqmd.gov

Top

Show & Tell Time for Ferries

Over the past 18 months the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) has studied the many ways to operate Bay Area ferries—using biodiesel and other alternative fuel sources, on routes which might include places like Antioch or Redwood City, into terminals where passengers can transfer quickly to other ferries or ground transit, while minimizing impacts on shorelines and wildlife. Potential ferry riders have been characterized and quantified. The most desirable vessel sizes and types have been identified. The studies have been compiled, the tests have been run, and now the draft Implementation and Operations Plan (IOP) and the draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are ready for "prime time".

The IOP contains information on ridership, system and cost effectiveness, terminal and intermodal access, vessel design and air emissions; the EIR evaluates the environmental impacts of the recommendations in the IOP. According to WTA's authorizing legislation, both must be sent to the Legislature by December 31, 2002.

The IOP has the answers for some of the questions which have dogged ferry proponents since before the WTA's creation: Which new routes would be most cost-effective? Can ferries attract new riders instead of siphoning passengers from other transit? Is a new agency needed, or should existing ferry services just expand on their own? The EIR answers other questions: What kinds of fuels are least polluting? How can wake impacts be minimized? Will new ferry terminals create new traffic jams?

From the extensive studies it is possible to glean some indications of what the answers will be. Yes, air pollution can be minimized in new ferries and even in older onesWTA's Heidi Machen says the agency is doing "first time ever in-service emissions testing [and] the results, even for ferries run on diesel, will be pleasantly surprising!" Yes, there are some potential ferry passengers who aren't using transit now. And no, even with parking fees and substantial fares, significant expansions in ferry service aren't likely unless a new funding source is found, such as increased bridge tolls.

The two August meetings of the WTA Board, on August 8 and 22, will consider the Draft IOP and Draft Programmatic EIR. The public comment period on the draft EIR will run from the scheduled release of the two documents on August 26 until Oct. 31, with public hearings scheduled in Oakland on September 10 and San Francisco on September 17. The draft IOP will be considered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in September and public hearings will be held in each Bay Area county.

For more information: Heidi Machen, WTA, 415-291-3377; http://www.watertransit.org

Top

Better Ways to Cross the Bay

There are only so many ways to cross San Francisco Bay—and, despite widespread frustration with the limited and often congested options, no new bridge or tunnel is on the horizon. According to the Bay Crossings Study completed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in late July, a new bridge, or a tunnel for BART or other rail, could be built only by sacrificing all other transportation projects in the region for decades. The study concluded that improvements to the existing infrastructure were more cost-effective and would receive greater public support. Also, potential changes in the region's land-use planning due to a shift toward smart growth policies could significantly change regional travel patterns and reduce the need for a new crossing.

A new bridge between the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge and the San Mateo Bridge has been discussed intermittently for decades. However, a 1991 study of a "southern crossing" reached the same conclusions as the most recent studycapacity-enhancing improvements were preferable to mortgaging the region's transportation future for one project. Then, as now, the pricetag was the problem. Figures for the 2002 study show that a new mid-Bay bridge, between I-238 and I-380, would mean significantly less traffic on the Hayward-San Mateo Bridge, and shorter rush hours with a small decrease in traffic on the Bay Bridge. However, it would cost $6.2$8.8 billion for a six-lane bridge, and rail would add $5$6.5 billion plus costs for stations and rail vehicles. In addition, relocation and construction impacts on existing communities and on sensitive baylands would be substantial. Less congested bridges would also lure riders off transit. Despite some strong advocates for a bridge as a visionary and complete solution, the study concluded that public support is not strong enough to overcome the financial and other obstacles, and the study committee did not forward this recommendation to MTC.

A new rail crossing by itself, using a tunnel, is even more expensive, and has considerable negative environmental impacts. Putting conventional rail under the Bay from the Peninsula to Emeryville and northward would cost $4.5 - $8 billion, and a tunnel which could serve BART would cost $7 - $11 billion. Transit use would increase, but the cost and the limited decrease in travel time make this option the least cost-effective.

In addition to the high-profile solutions presented by a bridge and/or rail crossing, the study considered a number of other alternatives, including rail service paralleling the Dumbarton bridge, and additional conventional and HOV lanes on bridges. A reversible lane on the recently widened Hayward-San Mateo Bridge would be helpful until midway through the planning period, approximately 2010, when it might be necessary to consider widening the bridge to 8 lanes.

The study also evaluated several policy issues: changes in HOV requirements, peak period congestion pricing, and the impact of smart growth land use changes. Land use changes described in the Smart Growth Strategy's "Central Cities" scenario proved to be the most effective way to decrease daily transbay vehicle trips and increase transit use, outperforming all other alternatives. Under this scenario, projected transit trips would increase by 17,000 daily, while daily transbay vehicle trips would decrease by 50,000 compared to the 2025 baseline. Although a different scenario may be chosen by the end of the Smart Growth Strategy process, it is clear that any scenario selected would have significant impacts on transbay travel.

The preferred study recommendations are divided into near-term changes which can be accomplished with existing funds, and future projects which can be done if bridge toll funding increases. (See table) In the first category are re-instatement of express bus service on the San Mateo Bridge, and a package of small engineering projects to enhance bridge access, particularly for carpools and transit. A toll increase could fund reversible lanes on the San Mateo Bridge, Dumbarton Rail, purchase of 3-door BART cars to reduce load times and speed trains through the system, express bus expansion in all three bridge corridors, and additional HOV improvements on bridges and bridge approaches.

Potential improvements which will need further study include a better approach to the Dumbarton Bridge from San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, still more HOV lanes leading to the bridges, improved Transbay express bus and HOV treatment on the bridges, and analysis of capital improvements needed to expand BART's transbay capacity in addition to buying 3-door cars.

The dream of a new bridge may be gone. Together with the possible widening of the San Mateo Bay Bridge to 8 lanes, the "Mid-Bay Bridge" was proposed in the study report as an addition to the list of "Blueprint" projects in the next revision of the Regional Transportation Plan, as projects which are "of continuing interest to the public but do not yet have consensus and/or identified funding." However, the study committee voted against putting the new bridge on the Blueprint list, citing its anticipated impact on Peninsula traffic.

Instead, as suggested by the study, both high speed rail and expanded ferry transit will address transbay travel needs. In addition, the Smart Growth Strategy has been demonstrated to have the potential for major changes in transbay travel patterns. Other ways to cross the Bay or to travel around it will take the place of another bridge.

For more information: Larry Magid, MTC, 510-464-7819; http://www.mtc.ca.gov

Top

Bright Ideas

Each year the Monitor shares some brief descriptions of ideas which may be worthy of wider interest in the region.

Sharing the Green

Community Greens, an organization based in Arlington, VA, is working with community groups and local governments to encourage the development of shared green spaces within urban blocks in cities across the US. Two local projects featured on the Community Greens Website are Stoney Creek in Livermore, built by Eden Housing, and St. Francis Square in San Francisco, an affordable cooperative apartment development built by the ILWU. Other projects include Jackson Heights in New Yorkthe original "garden apartments"and sites in Baltimore and Minneapolis.

In a related move, San Jose is buying up buildings in older, crowded neighborhoods, tearing them down and using the space for parks. Common green spaces are also an amenity in "cottage" developments in Washington State, where developers are creating smaller homes with shared gardens or courtyards as infill projects. The cottages are popular with one- and two-person households.

For more information: http://www.communitygreens.org; http://www.cottagecompany.com, or http://www.rosschapin.com

Rain Gardens

"Rain gardens" are designed to capture runoff from impervious surfaces to recharge groundwater levels, and they can also prevent flooding.

Rain gardens are designed with a base level of sand and gravel under a soil layer which contains plants. During a rainy period, water soaks the soil layer and percolates into the sand and gravel layer which acts as a sump to hold the water and let it slowly penetrate the less-permeable ground below. This prevents the rainwater from flowing rapidly across a paved surface into a stream or pond, creating flooding and erosion, or overloading storm drains.

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin are working on rain garden designs which are appropriate for particular purposes. The gardens can be incorporated into many community settings, counteracting the increase in impermeable surfaces caused by development.

For more information: http://clean-water.uwex.edu/pubs/raingarden/gardens.pdf

Close to Home

Working with large employers may be one answer to improving the jobs/housing balance. In Seattle, employers such as Boeing, a major bank and the city library system are using a computer matching system to compare employees' job skills and locations to home locations. Employees who could work in sites closer to home are then offered job transfers, reducing their commutes. Estimates indicate that applying this to the 53% of Boeing employees who qualify would eliminate 168 million miles of driving each year, with savings in gas consumption and air pollution to match.

Fueling Diversity

Taxis and other fleets of heavy-duty vehicles in Los Angeles are beginning to move to low-emission vehicles under a South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rule which became effective in January. Airport taxi drivers are now required to buy clean-burning vehicles when they add new vehicles or replace older gasoline-burning taxis. An exemption is available if funding is not available to reduce the taxi owner's cost to $10,000 for a natural gas-fueled vehicle. The district approved $2.9 million in incentive funds in February to assist in purchasing natural gas vehicles for the airport taxi fleet.

The heavy-duty fleet rule requires operators of public fleets with more than 15 vehicles to purchase only vehicles which use alternative fuels, or use gasoline or diesel in combination with something cleaner. The rule affects cars, buses and other public vehicles such as street sweepers.

More alternative fuels are becoming available to meet new requirements such as the SCAQMD rules. The San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority and Tri-Delta Transit have tested a diesel-water mixture known as PuriNOx that reduces nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions and particulate matter.

Both agencies found the test results promising. Biodiesel continues to shine as an alternative fuel, with Alameda's public utility, Alameda Power and Telecom, shifting to biodiesel to fuel backup generators used to prevent power outages.

Setting the Pace

Palo Alto is the first Bay Area city to try a neighborhood "pace car" program, which began recently in the area along Ross Road between Colorado and Loma Verde avenues. Participants, who display a program bumper sticker, agree to drive within the speed limit, stop for pedestrians, stop at all signs and obey some additional road-safety rules. The program, which originated in Australia and spread to the Bay Area via Idaho, relies on the concept of leading by example to create safer road conditions in neighborhoods for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as drivers.

For more information: City of Palo Alto, 650-329-2552.

Missing Links

The League of Women Voters of the Bay Area recently completed a "white paper" on existing and potential intermodal hubs in the Bay Area. The paper was based on interviews with transportation officials around the region. It may be read online at http://www.lwvba-ca.org.

Top

No Train? No Pain, No Gain

Caltrain's CTX project kicked off construction at the beginning of July, beginning two years without weekend trains in order to bring express rail service to the Peninsula. Weekend riders are being provided with limited bus service.

The CTX project, dubbed the "Baby Bullet" in imitation of the Japanese "bullet trains", will allow express trains to use new tracks to bypass slower commuter trains. Although the Baby Bullets will travel at the same 70-79 mph as the commuter trains, the bypass tracks will allow fewer stops—only 4 to 6, compared to the current 29 stops between San Francisco and San Jose. Peninsula cities are already competing to become one of the selected locations. Two stations likely to be included are Millbrae, for transfers to BART, and Mountain View for VTA transfers.

For more information: Jayme Maltbie, 650-508-6238

Top

Update on "Energizing EBMUD"

The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) will not pursue becoming a retail provider of electricity in all or part of its service area, but will continue to explore aggregating and reselling power to commercial customers, as well as facilitating renewable resource development. Comments on these three options (see June/July 2002 issue) indicated opposition from the public and from PG&E for expanding EBMUD into a full retail electric utility, but support for the other activities.

At its July 9 meeting, the EBMUD Board agreed to support legislative changes which would make aggregation feasible. If these changes occur, the district would prepare a business plan and appropriate outreach. The district has studied aggregation only for the district and its commercial customers, so additional study would be needed before including residential customers.

The EBMUD Board also agreed to develop a business plan for the district as a facilitator of renewable resource development and conduct market research to support development of the plan. There will also be consideration of the benefits and economies of scale which could be achieved if this plan can be combined with the aggregation model in the future.

For more information: Charles Hardy, EBMUD, 510-287-0141

FYI: Eastshore Park Preliminary General Plan and draft EIR now available online at http://www.eastshorestatepark.org, or call 888-988-PARK.