By Alec MacDonald
By themselves, the words “transportation infrastructure” might not sound exciting enough to turn heads—but attach a few dollar signs, and people tend to start paying attention. So with $1.3 billion in Proposition 1B allotments slated to flow toward Bay Area transit operators over the next ten years for capital projects, there’s plenty of reason to take notice. Down the line, this funding should translate into scores of vital improvements for rail, bus, and ferry systems all across the region.
Naturally, the process isn’t a simple one. Taking such an enormous sum of money and divvying it up to fulfill the Bay Area’s extensive and diverse needs requires lots of calculation, debate, and hand-wringing. Moreover, the region doesn’t operate in a vacuum, and the decisions of lawmakers in Sacramento hold plenty of sway over the fate of Proposition 1B funds. Yet despite these complications, there are a few established criteria that provide a generalized picture for how the spending will take shape.
The most basic guideline dictates that some of the money will be distributed according to revenue that Bay Area transit operators generated in fiscal year 2006, and the rest will be distributed according to the region’s population (see diagram). For revenue-based funds, this means that $922 million will be released to the operators through the state treasurer’s office; for population-based funds, the duty falls to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to hand out $347 million.
Building a Budgetary Framework
For its share, MTC has already set up a framework for this purpose with the Proposition 1B Regional Transit Funding Program, adopted as Resolution 3814 on June 27. On top of the population-based $347 million, this framework also incorporates $72 million in State Transportation Assistance surplus revenue ($46 million of which is derived from gasoline sales tax “spillover,” earmarked for transportation purposes according to 2002’s Proposition 42, the Transportation Congestion Improvement Act).
Folding in these additional sources not only pushes the program total to $419 million, but also creates a little flexibility for how MTC can administer the funds, since STA money can go toward not only capital expenditures, but operating ones as well.
It is still yet to be determined exactly how these finances will align with specific applications, as MTC’s Anne Richman explained that the details are to be hammered out in the coming months. “What we plan to do is work with the transit agencies to figure out the projects and match the funding to the costs,” she said. “We’ll probably start those things in the fall… we expect they’re not going to need the money right away.”
While the exact outcomes won’t materialize for a while—Proposition 1B has a ten-year timeframe, after all—MTC’s framework offers a preview, breaking down the allocations into four main categories: urban core transit improvements, Lifeline funding, capital improvements for Northern Counties/Small Operators, and operating enhancements for Northern Counties/Small Operators (see diagram).
Within those categories, MTC staff has designated expected financial commitments for some of the predictable needs. As perhaps the most straightforward of the four, the urban core portion has been laid out already. It comprises five projects with authorized dollar amounts: San Francisco Muni’s Central Subway ($100 million), Santa Clara VTA Line 522/523 Bus Rapid Transit ($45 million), BART SFO Settlement Agreement ($24 million), and a pair of BART extensions to Warm Springs and Eastern Contra Costa County ($17 million each).
The extensions were actually late entries into the mix after BART put forth a funding match proposal. With the agency pledging $20 million from its own budget for each project, those lines will now receive $37 million a piece. Expecting this new source will finally help make service to Warm Springs a reality by late 2013, Paul Medved, the project’s Principal Engineer, pointed out that it had been “one of the original extensions that BART contemplated building at the same time as Dublin/Pleasanton, Pittsburg, Colma, SFO, and should have been built some time ago. So in a certain sense it’s long overdue.”
On the eastern Contra Costa County side, Senior Planner Walter Gonzalez didn’t offer a timetable for completion, but pointed out the benefits for the future. “It’s going to be a great congestion reliever,” he said, proceeding on to explain that “the eBART line is equal to one lane of traffic on State Route Four—so hopefully we’ll be pulling cars off the road.”
While both projects have clear value, their inclusion frustrated those who were hoping the framework would instead direct more funding toward Lifeline, an MTC program meant to bolster “projects that result in improved mobility of low-income residents” (according to Attachment A of the agency’s Resolution 3726).
Lindsay Imai, Transportation and Housing Program Associate for Urban Habitat, voiced disappointment that the BART match resulted in a $10 million reduction in the amount previously dedicated to Lifeline—which even prior to that shift was lower than the regional environmental justice organization felt was warranted.
“Lifeline came out of an initial MTC study in 2001 identifying gaps in bus service in low-income communities—communities that are most dependent upon public transit to meet their basic transportation needs,” she said. “Based on that study, if we’re really going to fill the gaps, it would cost about $109 million a year in 2001 dollars. In contrast, the Prop 1B allotment provides only $14.3 million a year.”
More Opportunities Down the Line
The challenge of meeting need is nothing new in the transit sector, of course—demand for funding always outweighs supply. With budgets perpetually tight, any and all sources necessitate consideration. So while there is no comparable framework for the revenue-based portion of the Proposition 1B transit pot, operators are naturally preparing for when that money comes down the pipeline.
Kate Miller, Manager of Capital Development, Legislation, and Grants for AC Transit, commented, “We’re going to be using the revenue element for strategic capital improvements and to reduce the age of our fleet—but the Lifeline element of MTC’s proposal is very important to AC Transit, and we hope to use both the Lifeline funding and the 1B revenue funds appropriated to AC Transit to accomplish this.”
On the other side of the Bay, Caltrain has a fairly extensive wish list, given that much of the agency’s infrastructure is due for an overhaul. “We inherited the system we currently have from Southern Pacific back in 1991,” Public Information Officer Jonah Weinberg explained, and thus far have only been able to afford improvements “bit by bit.” He listed rolling stock, rail cars, and trackage as new materials slated for purchase, with refurbishing of terminal platforms also planned.
Caltrain is not the only one looking to do station makeovers, either. Linton Johnson, Chief Spokesperson for BART, described his agency’s aim to “modernize our stations with that money—better lighting, better access, possibly even using technology to make the customer experience better.”
Ultimately, a better customer experience will be a top priority for all recipients of the various types of Proposition 1B transit funds. So while it’s the dollar signs that tend to get people paying attention, the underlying value of all this budgetary work must be kept in mind: cultivating an invaluable resource which Bay Area residents depend on each and every day. By those terms, the words “transportation infrastructure” should sound plenty exciting.
For more details about the transit element of Prop 1B, visit http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/infrastructure/index.htm or call Anne Richman at (510) 817-5722.
To learn more about Urban Habitat’s transportation advocacy efforts, visit http://urbanhabitat.org/ or call Lindsay Imai at (510) 844-1191.
Conservation and Development Priorities
By Leslie Stewart
Too often, land use planning doesn’t fit the context.
In most communities in the Bay Area, local elected officials can name areas that would have been ideal for infill or transit-oriented development, but ended up as traditional single-family housing instead. Environmental groups could make a similar list of open space areas that should have remained untouched, but were impacted by developments which could have been steered to infill opportunities elsewhere.
Officials point to a lack of coordination and resources as part of the problem. There has never been a regional agency plan for open space and recreational land, although local and regional environmental nonprofits have identified endangered areas that need protection from development. It has been hard for regional leaders to say, “Here is where we want to build, and here is where we definitely don’t want to build.” Without sufficient support, regional and local planning efforts can go only so far, even when citizens, elected officials, and agency staff agree on where development should and should not take place.
Help is on the way, however. A map with “Do Build” and “Don’t Build” areas is in the works, thanks to the Focusing our Vision (FOCUS) program, a regional planning initiative headed by the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, in coordination with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
The program seeks to establish two types of priority areas that will receive future assistance and resources from the regional and state level to support smart growth. The responsibility lies with jurisdictions to come forward with nominations for designation; applications for regional Priority Development Areas (PDAs) were due June 29, and applications for Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs) are due August 17.
Priority Development Areas are intended to:
Ideally, PDA plans should improve the housing picture, reduce automobile use, and be compatible with land use and circulation planning. In addition, they should address the three “E”s—economy, equity and the environment—to assure sustainability. In addition to local jurisdictions, PDA applications have also been submitted by transit agencies and congestion management agencies.
Applications will be reviewed by ABAG staff for completeness and compliance with guidelines, and a broad-based panel of local government and stakeholder representatives will review them for consistency with regional goals and policies. After review, they will be available for public comment. The ABAG Executive Board will receive qualifying applications in October for approval, and approved PDAs will become eligible for financial and technical assistance. In the future, there will be additional opportunities to get PDA designation.
Priority Conservation Areas are intended to:
PCAs should be regionally significant areas where there is consensus about the need for preservation and action. Applications can be submitted by local jurisdictions, agencies, tribes, water and utility districts, and nonprofits. After a review process similar to that for PDAs, they will be forwarded to the ABAG Executive Board in November 2007.
While there is no regional open space plan, the Green Vision project of the Greenbelt Alliance and the Bay Area Open Space Council has been coordinating open space mapping around the region. Staff from ABAG have been “fully folded into all of the Green Vision activities,” according to Tom Steinbach, Greenbelt Alliance Executive Director. He said that the BAOSC is “encouraging public conservation agencies and nonprofit conservation groups to work with local jurisdictions to nominate the places that are most important.”
Steinbach noted that recent state ballot measures for housing, transportation, and water contain funds which can be used for open space. “We need to try to get ABAG, other regional agencies, our local jurisdictions, and the nonprofit community to all pull in the same direction,” he commented.
As with PDAs, there is hope that a coordinated regional approach of the PCA process will draw funding to implement the planning. Ron Brown, Executive Director of Save Mount Diablo and a member of the Steering Committee of the BAOSC, said, “The results will hopefully be carrots that motivate as effectively as sticks.”
The impact on open space protection could be significant. Brown thinks that the FOCUS priority area concept has “the potential for changing the character of future development and conservation in the region. A comprehensive view is to everyone’s advantage in accomplishing it all.”
Focus on Bay Area Housing
By Tamra Hege
A sold-out audience of planners, housing advocates, and other interested persons attended the ABAG-sponsored meeting, “Focus on Bay Area Housing” at the Gaia Arts Building in Berkeley on June 28th.
Keynote speaker Carol Galante, CEO of Bridge Housing, provided attendees with five new resources to increase housing options (see photo). Use of place-based philanthropic grants to leverage external financial resources was one possibility. All cities have had trouble providing housing for those of moderate income since little public funding is available. Another difficult area is finding appropriate retail tenants for mixed use projects.
Next, ABAG Regional Planner Gillian Adams described the methodology behind the Regional Housing Needs Allocation for 2007-2014. She explained that housing allocations will be based on current jobs, accessibility to fixed transit, and will encourage compact development.
Two panels completed the program. The first discussed housing needs, state law, and local challenges related to zoning and neighborhood opposition. The second focused on strategies used by successful developers to overcome community resistance and other obstacles.
Closing the event, ABAG Planning Director Ken Kirkey delivered a few remarks on the FOCUS program (see main article).
Perspectives Shared at Open Space Conference
By Gail Schickele
On June 13, environmentalists and conservationists flocked to the Presidio’s Golden Gate Club in San Francisco for the 9th Annual Regional Conference of the Bay Area Open Space Council, a collaborative of over fifty-five member organizations actively involved in permanently protecting and stewarding the region’s parks, trails, and agricultural lands. The conference provided an opportunity for dialogue about numerous pertinent issues of mutual concern.
Greenbelt Alliance Executive Director Tom Steinbach discussed the process of designating Priority Conservation Areas (see main article), commenting, “This Green Vision effort embodies the spirit of the conference and is a good example of the kinds of collaborations we need to create scenic, healthy habitat and landscape in the Bay Area.”
State Coastal Conservancy Program Manager Amy Hutzel described a number of other specific activities, such as the acquisition of the 3,000-acre Wildlake Ranch in Napa County, the restoration of 15,000 acres of salt pond production land in the South Bay, protection of the Petaluma Marsh, the work to eradicate the invasive Spartina plant species from the San Francisco Estuary, and the planning of the 400-mile Bay Trail Project.
UC Berkeley Professor Richard Walker noted, “The urban environment is our most important environment” to create public space and access for all people regardless of race and boundary. “There’s huge inequalities and injustice,” he said.
Sudeep Motupalli Rao, Executive Director of Literacy for Environmental Justice, addressed the importance of urban education and youth empowerment. “We’re at a confluence of an environmental and social movement and can now create something positive that offers a sense of time and place,” he said.
Juliet Ellis, Executive Director of Urban Habitat, commented on the efficacy of skills that emphasize relationship building. “Common values commit people,” she said.
Felicia Marcus, Executive Vice President of the Trust for Public Land, said, “Land conservation can be an incredible vehicle for social change. It’s not just for rich people any more.”
As BAOSC Executive Director Bettina Ring remarked, “It’s going to take all of us stepping up to the plate to be successful.”
By Gail Schickele
As previously reported by the Bay Area Monitor in early June, the ecological health of Suisun Bay has become compromised by the presence of the U.S. Maritime Administration’s “mothballed” National Defense Reserve Fleet, whose idle, aging ships have been steadily leaching toxic metals into the water. In the two months since then, a furor has erupted over how to handle the situation, with politicians, activists, news outlets, and regional agencies demanding action.
One of the difficulties in resolving the problem is that the ships’ hulls have become home to a variety of aquatic life. Moving the ships elsewhere, then, creates a risk of carrying these organisms along to that destination. According to the California State Lands Commission (CSLC), such non-indigenous species (NIS) can have severe ecological, economic, and human health impacts on the receiving environment. And obviously, this phenomenon isn’t limited to the NDRF—with ships from all over the world coming and going into the Bay every day, it’s a much bigger issue than that.
“NIS thrive because they have no natural predators in their new environment—so they can exploit an ecological niche,” said Richard Sinkoff, Environmental Manager with the Port of Oakland, which has supported many initiatives regarding invasive species management. Most notably, in 1999 the Port adopted an ordinance requiring ships to exchange ballast water prior to entering San Francisco Bay, out in the open ocean where stowaway estuarine organisms are not likely to survive. This became a model for California legislation that extended the practice into a statewide requirement.
Commercial shipping is the most significant vector for the introduction of aquatic invasive species (AIS), accounting for up to 80 percent of introductions to North America, according to one study. Ships transport organisms primarily in ballast water or by a means referred to as vessel fouling or biofouling (in which fouling organisms such as mussels, sponges, algae, and crabs colonize ships’ hulls or protected nooks and “hitch a ride” from one port or bioregion to the next).
The San Francisco Bay-Delta is home to more than 250 AIS, and new AIS may be established in the system every twelve weeks, according to the West Coast Ballast Outreach Project. The WCBOP reports vessels may contain up to 90 tons of biofouling and ships may carry 200 or more species of plants and animals in their ballast water at any given time.
AIS have dramatically affected many West Coast ecosystems, according to the CSLC 2007 Report on the California Marine Invasive Species Program. Among the findings:
On the federal level, several bills regarding ballast water and AIS have been passed, and several more are currently in Congress; however, California’s ballast water management regulations are actually more comprehensive than the federal requirements.
Assembly Bill 703, passed in October 1999, required open ocean exchange or treatment for all vessels wanting to discharge ballast water in a California port after operating further than 200 nautical miles offshore (outside what is known as the Exclusive Economic Zone). In 2004, it was replaced by Assembly Bill 433, California’s Marine Invasive Species Act. This requires all vessels arriving from outside the EEZ and docking at more than one port within the Pacific Coast Region to perform ballast exchange; moreover, it stipulated that certain qualifying vessels must retain all ballast water onboard. On top of this, Senate Bill 497 requires the CSLC to adopt regulations on performance standards for ballast water before January 1, 2008.
Currently, Assembly Bill 740 stands before the State legislature, calling for specified in-water cleaning and record keeping for vessels that visit a California port or place, as well as for the CSLC to develop regulations governing the management of hull fouling on vessels by January 1, 2012.
For additional details, visit the websites of the CSLC Ballast Water Program (http://www.slc.ca.gov/Spec_Pub/MFD/Ballast_Water/Ballast_Water_Default.html) and the West Coast Ballast Outreach Project (http://ballast-outreach-ucsgep.ucdavis.edu/).
By Alec MacDonald
“Having a dialogue about something—in which people digest the issues, and then reflect on those issues in an informed way, so that they actually understand what they’re giving input on—is a long process and takes a lot of effort.”
Brian Beveridge, Co-Chair of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, has one dialogue on his mind in particular. His organization is a participant, along with the Port of Oakland, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and numerous other parties who all have something to say about the environmental impact of Port operations. Playing out over a series of task force meetings, this dialogue will eventually produce a Maritime Air Quality Improvement Plan (MAQIP) for the Port.
All told, 30 stakeholders have been brought to the table representing truck and railroad managers, carrier and terminal operators, neighborhood residents, advocacy groups, health care specialists, elected officials, and labor interests. The most prominent voices, however, will belong to leaders from the three partner organizations: Port Executive Director Omar Benjamin, Indicators Project Co-Chair Margaret Gordon, and Air District Executive Officer Jack Broadbent.
The first official task force meeting took place on June 11, and the next has been scheduled for August 14.
Expecting to have the MAQIP drafted and in place by early 2008, Bernida Reagan, Director of Social Responsibility for the Port, said it is looking to “develop with our stakeholders a set of air quality goals and objectives—and some specific measures that we might implement to reach those.”
Toward this end, the Port has proposed a number of steps: define the geographic area to be targeted, identify the emissions to be reduced, come up with potential emission reduction measures, carry out cost/benefit analyses for those measures, set priorities among those measures, and develop implementation and evaluation strategies.
To help move the process forward, professional facilitators from CONCUR, Inc. have been hired to supervise the dialogue. Of course, with so many different stakeholders—and so much at stake—agreement may still be hard to come by.
In terms of annual container traffic, the Port ranks fourth in the United States, serving as a vital economic hub for the region and a major commercial channel to the rest of the country. Consequently, it produces significant amounts of pollution. As Beveridge pointed out, being in such close proximity to Port operations has caused a high incidence of asthma, cancer, and pulmonary illness among those who live in West Oakland.
“I would like to see an actual clean-up and implementation plan that recognizes public health and the reduction of risk to public health as its primary goals,” he commented.
For its part, the Air District has similar concerns, with special emphasis on curtailing levels of diesel particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, and oxides of sulfur. Air District Community Outreach Manager Richard Lew noted that installing a MAQIP is one piece of the puzzle to controlling Port emissions. The Air District will be proposing regulations to reduce air pollution and health risks from marine port activities by the end of the first quarter of 2008.
“We applaud the Port’s effort—we’re happy they’re doing this,” he said. “It goes a long way to meeting the goals of the District.”
Depending on how everything ultimately unfolds, the work of the task force could set an important standard for protecting maritime air quality, and more generally, for developing policy through group cooperation.
“I think we are taking a leadership role in the way that we’re putting this together, in terms of the stakeholders and a collaborative approach,” remarked Roberta Reinstein, Manager of the Port’s Environmental Health and Safety Department. “This is really a new model for ports.”
For MAQIP meetings information and related documents, visit http://www.portofoakland.com/environm/prog_04c.asp.
To learn more about the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, call (510) 451-3227.
Comments Deadline Extended
September 4, 2007
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has revised the draft of its Public Participation Plan and is currently accepting comments on it. Copies of the draft may be requested by calling (510) 817-5757 or are available online at www.mtc.ca.gov/get_involved/participation_plan.htm.
Climate All Stars Conference
September 21, 2007
The Climate Protection Campaign will bring Bay Area leaders together in San Francisco to discuss climate protection measures and identify opportunities to collaborate regionally on this environmental issue. For additional information, visit http://www.climateprotectioncampaign.org/.
ALA Asthma Walk
September 29th, 2007
The American Lung Association will hold Asthma Walks in Santa Rosa, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Oakland to raise funds for combating this disease through education, research, and advocacy. To learn more details or to register, call (800) 586-4872 or visit http://www.asthmawalk.org/.
State of the Estuary Conference
October 16, 17, and 18, 2007
Held in Oakland, the 8th Biennial State of the Estuary Conference will provide an assessment of the ecological health of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. For additional information, call the San Francisco Estuary Project at (510) 622-2398 or visit http://sfep.abag.ca.gov/soe/.