The Bay Area has the somewhat dubious distinction of having 28 different transportation agencies within its nine counties. Transportation funding, a complex system governed by overlapping laws at different government levels, becomes sheer chaos when state and federal legislators are beset by representatives from all over the region lobbying for different projects. A unified regional voice is difficult to achieve, but the effort is being made once again because in the past it has proved very effective.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) passed the Regional Rail Agreement, Resolution 1876, in 1988 to set regional priorities for rail projects and prevent valuable funding from being lost in the political tug-of-war. The most notable success from that policy is probably the extension of BART to the San Francisco Airport. With all but two of the top-priority projects listed in that resolution now completed, MTC passed Resolution 3357 in April 2001 to guide development of the Regional Transit Expansion Policy (RTEP), a new policy setting priorities for both rail and bus projects. The RTEP is being prepared in conjunction with the state-mandated Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update (see Aug/Sept 2001 issue). Although there is no legal deadline, the RTEP will be considered with the RTP at MTC's December meeting.
A very small portion of the funding apportioned by the RTP is available for transit. The RTEP is intended to focus regional transit funding, both existing and potential, on a set of expansion and improvement projects which will move commuters faster and give them new transit options. "Lifeline" transit access for transit-dependent riders, MTC's other priority for transit improvement, is not included in the RTEP, but is addressed in the RTP.
As the RTEP has emerged over the past year, it has changed and evolved. Originally intended to replace the 1988 Regional Rail Agreement, it now includes the express bus/HOV lane/rapid bus component from the MTC Blueprint developed in 2000 to supplement the previous RTP. Criteria have been developed and refined, and terms and conditions have also been defined to clearly indicate MTC's commitments and transit agency responsibilities.
For some projects, funding is in place or nearly so, and these projects are eligible for the RTP. Projects that aren't yet fully funded but which are included in the RTEP can count on regional funds allocated by the RTEP when their other funding materializes; meanwhile they will receive regional support in advocacy efforts.
Resolution 3357 established financial and performance criteria for ranking proposed projects in the RTEP. In addition to the amount of support already pledged to the project from various sources, financial criteria include the ability to cover operations and maintenance costs for at least ten years. The operating plan must also demonstrate that the expansion will not harm existing transit service, to avoid adverse impacts on lifeline service from new projects.
Two projects, the Caltrain extension to downtown San Francisco and BART to Warm Springs, benefit from a criterion supporting projects that were originally listed as high-priority in the Regional Rail Agreement. While there was no commitment to consider lower-priority projects from that agreement, several of them, including the Oakland Airport Connector and Dumbarton Rail, are also included in the draft RTEP.
Performance rankings will be applied within the subsets of projects which are or are not eligible for the RTP. Performance criteria include: supportive land-use policies, such as housing and employment densities near transit stations; cost- effectiveness; connections with other transit systems; ways to access the system; and project readiness to begin construction. Most projects score high on criteria such as access and land-use policies. In contrast, only a few projects will close gaps in the regional transit network.
Cost-effectiveness, measured as the cost to switch a rider from auto to transit, varies widely, with express buses and the first phases of Capitol Corridor and Caltrain Express projects coming in at less than $15 per new rider. AC Transit's Bus Rapid Transit project also ranks high on cost-effectiveness, although it lags behind others on connections to other systems and project readiness. On the other hand, Muni's Third Street Central Subway light rail project, which ranks high on virtually every criteria except closing a regional gap, is anticipated to cost over $30 per new rider, because few potential transit riders now drive that route. Caltrain's downtown extension and the associated Transbay Terminal project, and Caltrain's rapid rail/electrification project, are also expected to have a high cost per new rider. An additional criterion for cost- effectiveness, the Federal Transit Administration's "transit user benefit" measurement, has not been applied because the methodology for calculations is not yet available, but may change some of the cost-effectiveness rankings when it is used.
Transit advocates have emphasized the importance of using the cost-effectiveness criteria. In addition, they would like to have the lifeline transit program included rather than run on a parallel track as MTC now proposes. They also want to be sure that the results of ongoing studies, such as the new Bay Crossing Study, several other transportation corridor studies, and AC Transit and Muni strategic plans, will be incorporated into the RTEP. They are concerned that planning for new sources of funding, such as gas tax money, needs to be done in a thoughtful and comprehensive way, and feel that the RTEP process is moving too quickly to accommodate these planning needs.
MTC officials emphasize that with a 20-25 year timeline and no crystal balls included, the RTEP is destined to be amended as circumstances change. The Dumbarton Rail project will move ahead as soon as the affected counties finalize agreements for operating the service. Several other projects may progress faster if local sales tax measures are instituted or reauthorized. Two projects scheduled in the RTEP for study, Napa/Sonoma rail and and a 30th Street BART station in San Francisco, may become full-fledged candidates for funding during the next decades.
Meanwhile, some funds are not available immediately, such as money from the federal New Starts program which is allocated until 2007 to the BART/San Francisco airport project, and bridge tolls which cannot be allocated to the Caltrain extension and the Transbay Terminal until seismic retrofit work is completed.
Allocations of regional funds are set by the RTEP, with all money now identified being used. If projects change or costs increase, sponsoring agencies must find the additional funds or possibly cede their RTEP funding to other needs.
The exception to this could be if new funding sources provide a new pot of regional money. For example, it is now certain that a measure will appear on the March 2002 state ballot to permanently devote gas tax funds to transportation. If Proposition 42 passes, this could mean up to $600 million for transit in the Bay Area over the next 25 years, according to figures from the Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition. Also, if local sales tax funds become available for certain projects, money already allocated to those projects will be shifted to other projects on the list.
The Regional Rail Agreement in 1988 enabled the region to obtain funds for most of its high-priority projects. If there is similar unified support for the projects in the final RTEP, the potential for successfully completing these transit expansions is very high. However, with greater pressure from advocacy groups on decision makers, the transit environment in the Bay Area is changing. Getting the most benefit from the RTEP's unified voice will be a continuing challenge for all involved.
Leslie Stewart
*RTP-eligible projects
For more information:
MTC: Therese McMillan, 510-464-7828; tmcmillan@mtc.ca.gov
Regional transit advocacy: Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition, 510-740-3150; http://www.transcoalition.org