For the Bay Area, one of the most visible reminders of the crucial events of September 11, 2001 is the constant presence of the National Guard on the Golden Gate Bridge. In terms of adjustments to regional security, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Regional agencies responsible for transportation, freight movement and water supplies have all made significant changes in their operations—some are temporary, many will become permanent. All these agencies are faced with protecting both their infrastructure (tracks, vehicles, dockside areas, pipelines and storage facilities) and also the people and products which are served by the infrastructure.
Because the Golden Gate Bridge is one of the most significant landmarks in the country, it has been a source of concern since the day of the terrorist attacks. Bridge officials moved quickly to restrict public access to areas near the bridge and also closed bridge sidewalks to pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Some restrictions remain in place, and National Guard patrols continue to augment increased patrols by bridge district security personnel. Like many other agencies, Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District staff will discuss security only in general terms and avoid details which might assist terrorists in planning an attack.
Another key transportation link, BART, also received prompt attention, as officials instituted a check of all trains before they entered the Transbay Tube. Police presence was stepped up throughout the system, especially in subway stations. Other security measures included removal of garbage containers from the platform level of underground stations and closing station restrooms. BART also required an agent to operate elevators providing access to underground stations. Despite the inconvenience, particularly for disabled riders, many of these restrictions remain in place, although restrooms have been opened in aboveground stations. Some of these precautions were the results of lessons learned from transit systems in other countries, such as England and Japan, where preparedness has included developing a garbage container that can withstand the force of a bomb.
BART's extensive emergency planning includes participation in regular terrorism drills with the FBI and local emergency services, and creation of a response team trained to handle nuclear, biological and chemical attacks. The team can respond quickly to incidents anywhere in the system, using equipment carried in vehicles and stored in secret locations in the field. Other transit districts have regularly scheduled emergency-response drills as well, and many are now focusing on terrorism scenarios.
Passenger screening is a well-known security measure, especially for airports, and Amtrak is now requiring riders 18 and over to produce valid photo identification to buy tickets and check luggage. However, most transit agencies in the Bay Area cannot implement passenger screening without seriously impacting service, and must rely on other security measures to protect riders. A series of studies done between 1996 and early 2001 by the Mineta Transportation Institute in San Jose looked at protecting surface transportation against terrorism and serious crime. The studies concluded that many practices already in place in local transit systems help to protect against both terrorists and ordinary criminal activity. These include intelligent transportation systems technology (see June/July 2001 issue) such as security cameras in stations and on vehicles, vehicle-locator technology, and communication technology on trains and buses. For example, BART has monitoring cameras on many train cars and passengers are encouraged to use phones in each BART car to notify security about suspicious packages or events.
San Mateo County sheriff's deputies will be hired to patrol Samtrans buses, and Caltrain recently opted to add sheriff's deputies to the eight-person Amtrak police force which now patrols commute trains. Police officers will also be allowed to ride Caltrain for free to encourage an increased uniformed presence on board. Police agencies which provide security for AC Transit have also intensified their presence on buses and at busy transfer points.
Although airport security has drawn the most public scrutiny, seaport security has also emerged as a major concern, particularly at extremely busy ports such as the Port of Oakland. Here the issue is not passengers but cargo, particularly weapons or bioterrorism supplies; an additional concern is the security of the port itself and of the vessels, such as the large tankers, which move through the Bay.
Immediately after September 11, intensified security and more detailed inspections as vessels arrived in port meant that ships did not dock on time, throwing off scheduling for port workers, truckers and shippers. However, the situation was improved by new procedures implemented by the US Coast Guard in early October to streamline inspections. Currently, vessels must notify the Coast Guard 96 hours before entering port, instead of the 24 hour notice previously required, and must provide more detailed information than in the past. New regulations call for background checks on crews, including checking with the CIA and Immigration and Naturalization Service databanks. Under a new "sea marshal" program, the Coast Guard may now board vessels 12 miles offshore and maintain security onboard while they come into port. In the Long Beach-Los Angeles harbor, sea marshals board and escort all cruise ships, as well as vessels with hazardous cargoes or other potential problems.
US Customs Service inspectors also have revised procedures to more closely inspect cargo, using devices such as radiation detectors and X-ray units. A new mobile X-ray unit has been developed, which is faster and easy to move from port to port; one unit may be stationed in the Bay Area to assist with security prior to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. However, the volume of cargo precludes X-raying all containers, and shipping manifests are often incomplete or inaccurate, sometimes deliberately falsified to diminish theft of desirable items while in transit or to conceal smuggling. Better manifest information is one of the issues being addressed by port security legislation being drafted in Congress. For export cargo, the California Highway Patrol is now inspecting shipping containers at weigh stations and at the dock.
Carriers shipping cargo through ports are being required to submit a security plan to the port and other regulatory agencies. These plans include additional security patrols, improved identification checks and restriction of access to vessels. The mayor of Los Angeles has proposed background checks and an identification card for anyone with access to sensitive areas of the Port of Long Beach-Los Angeles, which has a large number of petrochemical storage and shipping facilities adjacent to residential neighborhoods. In the Bay Area, bulk storage of hazardous materials is not concentrated in a single port area. However, moored supertankers and other commercial vessels, as well as port installations and shoreside power plants, are protected by Coast Guard security zones which restrict parking and other access nearby.
The Port of Oakland has established a Port Security Commission headed by the Coast Guard which is attended by Port officials and others including the bar pilots association, trucking industry representatives, marine terminal operators, and the FBI, as needed. The commission was not established in response to a specific threat, but is working to create a set of security procedures to be used at the Port and other marine terminals on the West Coast.
For water agencies, security against terrorist attacks consists primarily of guarding against contamination of water supplies and protecting the supply infrastructure, actions which are part of everyday operations but which take a new tack when terrorism is the threat.
The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) told customers in a November mailing that agencies already work to maintain the purity of their water through a number of techniques. Water filtration and chemical treatment counteract many of the pollutants that could find a way, naturally or criminally, into the water supply. Most toxins or bacteria that might be used by bioterrorists are very similar to contaminants that are removed by current water treatments. Industry experts consider some home water filters to be effective enough to remove many biohazards, although no testing has been done. Recognizing that there are no studies specifically on removal of bioterrorism-related contaminants from drinking water, the American Water Works Association is cooperating with the Centers for Disease Control, US EPA and the Department of Defense on a six-month study to look at the effectiveness of commonly-used treatment methods on several such organisms.
Testing, sampling and analyzing water as it moves through the system is another safeguard. Agencies are required to do extensive testing to be sure that water is not only adequately treated, but also retains its purity until it reaches the customer. This same testing process should detect many toxic contaminants at a point where they could either be removed from the water or prevented from reaching customers.
Fencing, locks, video surveillance, alarms and security patrols keep water facilities safe from intrusion; many of these have been strengthened recently. These controls forestall damage that could lead to pipeline leaks or dam failures, and ensure that nothing is intentionally introduced into the water supply. Tampering with a cover on a reservoir of treated water or puncturing a pipe can be detected regardless of the intent. Agencies that depend on wells note that wellheads are carefully engineered and monitored to assure water safety. Also, most of the contaminants that might be used by bioterrorists would have to be put into the water supply in large quantities to have any impact. Even if tons of a contaminant could be secretly acquired, large vehicles would be needed for transport, increasing the chance of detection.
Despite their confidence that bioterrorism is an unlikely threat to water supplies, many water agencies took additional security precautions after September 11, such as restricting access to reservoirs and dams, or canceling tours of facilities. Santa Clara Valley Water District doubled its security force and put round-the-clock guards at its treatment and pumping plants, reflecting the concerns of many water suppliers that physical security of facilities is a greater potential problem than water contamination. Coordination with other water agencies and with authorities at all levels of government has been strengthened to deal with the possibility that a local incident could place extraordinary demands on the statewide water delivery network. For agencies which have been preparing to compensate for the effects of an earthquake or other disaster, much of the planning to meet terrorist threats has already been done.
Less than six months after September 11, the security picture is still changing, and new tools are being pressed into service. Chemical sensors recently developed by Sandia National Laboratories can test for multiple substances and perform continuous analysis of air or water. One such sensor is scheduled to be used soon in Washington, DC's Metro subway system, and BART is considering them for its subway stations.
The Mineta Institute of Transportation is now studying how transit agencies in New York and New Jersey responded to the terrorist attack and its aftermath. For example, directly after the attacks, ferries provided a vital transportation link, something which may have lessons for the Bay Area. Currently, the New York and New Jersey agencies are struggling with increased security needs as well as passenger loads which have mushroomed overnight because of restrictions on single-person vehicles commuting into New York City.
Budgets and legislation in Washington and Sacramento will affect the ability of agencies to support increased security through purchase of new technology and larger payrolls for security personnel. However, even when the National Guard no longer patrols the Golden Gate Bridge, a heightened alertness will remain, along with new policies and procedures to keep Bay Area residents safe.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
Transportation: Mary Currie, GGBHTD, 415-257-4548, http://www.goldengate.org
Mike Healey, BART, 510-464-7110
Jayme Maltbie, Caltrain/Samtrans, 650-508-6238
Mineta Transportation Institute study reports online at http://transweb.sjsu.edu
Ports: Marilyn Sandifer, Port of Oakland, 510-627-1193
Water: Greg Chan, EBMUD, 510-287-0135, gchan@ebmud.com
There is a strong consensus that traffic is bad and getting worse in California, but a strong consensus is lacking on how to fund solutions. Three years ago the Bay Area Poll, conducted by the Bay Area Council, found conflicting priorities: Residents were concerned about transportation but they did not want to have to pay more taxes for improvements. A measure on the March statewide ballot, Proposition 42, may be just what these respondents were requesting. By permanently redirecting gasoline sales taxes to transportation, the proposition would increase transportation funding without raising taxes.
Many motorists believe that all gasoline taxes already go to transportation, and in fact, most of them do. Excise taxes, often called gas taxes, are levied by both the federal and state governments on each gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel used on public roads, and this money is dedicated to transportation. At 18 cents per gallon, the state excise tax on gasoline and diesel totals about $3 billion per year, and is approximately one-fifth of the $15+ billion California spends each year on highways, streets and roads, rail, and transit systems.
California also charges a 6 percent sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel and on the excise tax on that fuel. If gasoline costs $2/gallon, purchasers pay 18 cents in state excise tax and 13 cents in sales tax on the $2.18 sale (this example does not include the federal excise tax). Sales taxes on fuel are divided between transportation and other uses, with 4.75 cents of each 6 cents collected on sales of diesel going to transportation. Most sales tax on gasoline goes to other uses. Of the 13 cents paid in sales tax in the earlier example, approximately ½ cent (levied on 9 cents of the excise tax) is already designated for transportation in the state constitution. The remainder goes to the state's general fund, which is spent on many different programs in education, health, social services, corrections, and assistance to local governments, as well as transportation. For fiscal year (FY) 2001-02, gasoline sales taxes going to the General Fund are estimated at $1.3 billion.
In 2000, the California Legislature passed the Transportation Congestion Relief Program (TCRP), which dedicated the gasoline sales tax to transportation for five years. Originally scheduled to take effect in 2001, the program was deferred for two years to accommodate budget problems and is now scheduled to run from FY 2003-04 through FY 2007-08. Starting in July 2008, gasoline sales taxes would revert to the general fund, unless Proposition 42 passes in March.
If the proposition is successful, the state constitution will be changed so that all gasoline sales taxes are permanently dedicated to transportation. From July 2003 to June 2008, the TCRP would be in effect. After June 2008, money would continue to be distributed according to the TCRP formula, with 20 percent funding public transportation, and 40 percent supporting transportation improvement projects included in the state transportation plan. The final 40 percent would be divided, 20 percent to cities and 20 percent to counties, to improve local streets and roads. This formula could be changed by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.
Under Proposition 42, by July 2009 an estimated $1.4 - $1.5 billion per year would be available for transportation-related uses including everything from pothole repair to major seismic retrofits and programs such as funding safe pedestrian routes for school children. The amount of state funding currently available for mass transit would be doubled. Meanwhile, starting in July 2003, the general fund would lose over $1 billion a year which could otherwise be spent on health care for the uninsured, aid to failing schools, increasing the state's energy supply, or meeting other pressing needs, unless the Governor and two-thirds of the Legislature agreed that a crisis existed.
Without Proposition 42, residents of the state will still see a substantial amount of money diverted to transportation for the five years of the TCRP, and the Legislature will have the option of extending the program beyond July 2008. However, the Legislature might also decide that other needs are more pressing and once again defer or even prematurely end the TCRP, a prospect which makes it more difficult to allocate funding for the lengthy and expensive projects which are typical in transportation. Proposition 42 will make long-term planning easier, although an economic downturn and emergency needs might still interrupt the flow of funding in the future.
Voters are hearing from local and regional officials about projects which would benefit from passage of Proposition 42. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) estimates that the State Transportation Assistance fund would be able to provide an additional $42 million per year directly to Bay Area transit agencies, and $11 million per year to regional transit through MTC. Over the 25 years covered by MTC's recently adopted Regional Transportation Plan, the Bay Area would receive $5.8 billion from Proposition 42.
With strong backing from local and regional government agencies, transit and safety advocacy groups, and businesses and civic organizations, voters may be easily persuaded that they can spend more on transportation without raising taxes. In that case, it will be proponents of other state programs now funded by some of those gasoline sales taxes who will have to make a case for increased taxes if future budgets come up short.
Leslie Stewart
For more information: Official ballot language is available in the state ballot pamphlet from the Secretary of State's office, online at http://www.ss.ca.gov; analysis from the Legislative Analyst is online at http://www.lao.ca.gov/initiatives/2002/42_03_2002.htm.
Success is killing us," goes the old quip. When voters approved Measure AA in 1988, authorizing the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) to issue bonds to buy additional parkland, the first priority was acquiring rapidly disappearing open space. Now that the district's size has grown by 31% over the past ten years, maintenance and operations budgets are showing the strain. Many newly acquired properties are waiting to be opened to the public, while well-used older parks need work to keep them safe, attractive and accessible.
After assessing the wide range of maintenance and operating needs in the district, including plans for opening new parks, the EBRPD board determined that a new source of revenue was needed. Most district revenues come from property taxes paid by Alameda and Contra Costa County residents, which are limited by Proposition 13; the district has no authority to levy a sales tax, and Measure AA bond money cannot be used for maintenance and operation.
Therefore, the EBRPD board is asking district residents to approve a 12-year parcel tax in March, Measure K, which could be renewed by a two-thirds vote of the district board at the end of that period. A detailed list of projects for the 12 years, developed over a three-year planning process and reflecting what were seen as the highest priorities for funds from a new parcel tax, was also approved by the board. The project list is based on a formula: 39% for opening new parks; 51% for one-time environmental maintenance projects; and 10% for a reserve for future opportunities. The one-time project funding would also be spent according to a formula: 52% to park improvements and public safety projects; 33% on natural resources; and 15% for increased public access. Annual hearings would be held to determine which projects would be funded each year.
The proposed list of projects reflects the formulas and is also balanced geographically. Some projects could begin immediately, including many of the one- time maintenance projects and trail projects already in the pipeline for which operating funds are needed. These include repair of the equestrian center at Anthony Chabot Regional Park in Oakland, repainting and refurbishing at Ardenwood Historic Farm in Fremont, and extensive repairs to facilities at Tilden Regional Park in Berkeley, as well as hundreds of smaller but equally necessary projects. Some district-wide staffing needs could also be filled quickly, including hiring a native plants specialist to assist with vegetation management -- important for environmental management and restoration, and a key issue for the district following adoption of its grazing policies (see August/September 2001 issue).
Some large park areas currently being readied for public use will not open without parcel tax funds for operations. They include over 2,000 acres of Brushy Peak, over 1,000 acres of Vargas Plateau, and 723 acres of a preserve at Vasco Caves in far eastern Contra Costa County, as well as miles of trails in these and several other parks. Funding is also needed to support the Delta Science Center with maintenance and public safety services.
Capital and operating funds are needed before the district can open the 772 acre Garaventa addition to Black Diamond Regional Park in Antioch, almost 1,300 acres acquired from C&H Sugar in Crockett that will be added to Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline, and over 2,000 acres of existing landbank in Garin Regional Park in Hayward. If Proposition 40 on the statewide March ballot passes, some capital funds might bcome available to EBRPD; if so, additional projects could be added to the list.
The district also has a long waiting list of trail segments and park facilities included in the Master Plan which have no scheduled date for opening. These include several areas of shoreline from North Richmond to Pittsburg and Antioch, and new parks in developing areas such as Dougherty Valley and southeast Alameda County.
Since its inception, EBRPD has benefited from a supportive electorate determined to preserve open space and recreational opportunities in the East Bay. Although a parcel tax was defeated in 1998, the district is hoping that voters will now agree that acquiring land is not enough, and that money to maintain district property and make it accessible to the public is also a wise investment. Otherwise, park plans and park lands will go on the shelf, waiting for funds sometime in the future which will allow fuller use of the district's extensive properties.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
Ned MacKay, EBRPD, 510-544-2208; nmackay@ebparks.org. Official ballot language is also available from county clerks in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
Many businesses are seeking more efficient ways of meeting their environmental goals and managing their resources, while the public is increasingly aware of environmental issues and expects aggressive action to assure a healthful environment. To maximize the effectiveness of voluntary efforts to reduce adverse environmental impacts, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) has embarked on a program that features multi-media (air, land and water) environmental management systems (EMSs). AB 1102, passed by the legislature in 1999, authorized up to 8 EMS pilot projects to explore the effectiveness of EMSs. Authorization for the pilot projects ended January 1, 2002, with a final report due to the legislature on this phase of the program and CalEPA's recommendations for further research.
While laws, rules and regulations have made great progress toward attaining a clean, healthful environment, the limits of their effectiveness is becoming apparent. Many pollutants and sources of pollution simply don't lend themselves to regulation. Others are outside the jurisdiction of the regulatory agencies or are exempt from regulation. Many regulations are complex; some are in conflict with others. EMSs show promise for facilitating meeting regulatory requirements as well as addressing non-regulated environmental impacts.
An EMS can be prepared to suit any size or kind of organization and tailored to the needs of that entity. It requires a policy that includes strong commitment and leadership, specific targets or goals, assignment of responsibilities, appropriate training throughout, and adequate resources. An EMS integrates an organization's environmental policy, with its EMS plan and implementation measures, into the fabric of its overall management and operations. The environmental impact of every aspect of the facility's operation is identified. Documentation must be complete and readily available, and the process must be transparent. Companies must commit to continual improvement. While EMSs are expensive to install, costs can be recovered by greater efficiency of operation and resource use, pollution prevention, and waste reduction. EMSs are subject to audit and, if they meet the standards of the organization requiring the EMS, are duly certified.
As the model for its pilot projects, CalEPA selected the International Organization for Standardization's ISO 14001 EMS, the EMS most widely used in the U.S. and globally. AB 1102 required that the pilot projects' EMSs enhance public health and environmental protection over and above all regulatory requirements, an addition to the ISO 14001 standards, and include pollution prevention, public information and education. Project EMSs were also required to reduce energy and water consumption, generation of solid and hazardous waste, and health and safety risks to employees.
CalEPA selected 7 applicants for pilot projects:
In its report to the legislature, CalEPA noted improved performance of the pilot project facilities due wholly or in part to the development and implementation of EMSs. Compliance with regulatory standards increased significantly, as shown by fewer citations. Environmental performance went well beyond legal requirements, and significant improvements were made in areas where there are no legal requirements, such as energy consumption, solid waste generation, and fresh water use. The quality and quantity of information available to the public was substantially increased as a result of the implementation of EMSs, and community stakeholders consider this information to be highly valuable.
CalEPA found that EMSs developed without input from government agencies, community representatives, and other stakeholders tend to focus on compliance and internal business needs. EMSs developed with external input focus on environmental performance as well as compliance and are of greater community and public value. Working partnerships of government, communities, and business do not arise spontaneously, but must be promoted, nurtured, and provided with training and even financial support. Small and medium-size facilities may lack technical and financial resources and require more external help than large facilities.
Companies entered the pilot program to achieve the economic benefits that would result from better environmental performance and improved community relations, to achieve good relationships with governmental entities and with their communities, and to prepare for future environmental requirements. The expectation of regulatory concessions or reduced oversight by regulators were not factors motivating companies to join pilot projects.
To continue the EMS program, CalEPA has identified areas that need further action, some of which will require legislation:
Adelia Sabiston
For more information: Jennifer Smith Grubb, CalEPA, 510-540-3315; http://www.calepa.ca.gov/ems
Clean Buses Slow to Arrive in Bay Area (March/April 2000): The California Air Resources Board (CARB) will reconsider allowing bus fleets to delay a change from diesel to alternative fuel until hydrogen fuel cell buses are available. According to a recent report in the San Francisco Chronicle, only 2 agencies in the Bay Area chose to move immediately to alternative fuels, and other agencies have been slow to acquire natural gas vehicles. While agencies which chose to remain with diesel technology argued that cleaner diesel buses could be achieved using upgraded engines, other retrofits and low-sulfur fuel, the diesel industry has not provided the technology to meet California standards, and transit districts have not produced required pollution reduction plans. CARB will vote on the issue again at its meeting in March.
Late-Night Bus Service Expanded (April/May 2001): SamTrans recently added 24-hour service between San Francisco and Palo Alto, more service to East Palo Alto and more frequent service along El Camino Real, continuing improvements to service for riders at non-peak hours. Redi-Wheels will add overnight paratransit service in the El Camino Real corridor. Samtrans has increased the number of bus drivers, operations and maintenance personnel to provide the increased service. For more information: Jayme Maltbie, 650-508-6238.
Car-Sharing Grows in Region (December 2001/January 2002): Hertz has opened a shared-car facility at the Colma BART station, building on its success with its first location at Fremont BART. Participants are guaranteed one of 25 parking spots near the entrance to the BART station. Subscribers have a choice of renting a compact car or an electric Th!nk City vehicle; larger vehicles may also be rented for an additional fee. Monthly rates, which include all maintenance and fuel, range between $300-$350. For more information: Hertz, 877-559-7856 or sfstationcar@hertz.com. CarLink II, the carsharing research program based at the Palo Alto Caltrain station, has been awarded the President's Transportation Award for Intermodal Transportation by the Merican Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. For more information: Jayme Maltbie, Caltrain, 650-508-6238. City Carshare will expand to 15 cars in Oakland at its 24th and Clay location, and 5 cars around Berkeley. For more information: http://www.citycarshare.org.
The San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA), the newest regional agency (see Spring 2000 issue), is also the Bay Area Monitor's newest funding partner. The WTA was established in 1999 by the state legislature, and is charged with producing a plan for water transit service in the San Francisco Bay Area. The agency has just completed eight scoping meetings around the Bay for the environmental impact report on the draft plan. Studies underway include ridership, air quality and intermodal connections.
For more information: Heidi Machen, 415-291-3377 or online at http://www.watertransit.org.
Correction: In the print version of the December '01/January '02 article "Setting Priorities for New Transit", an incorrect statement read, "A very small portion of the funding apportioned by the RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) is available for transit." It should have read, "A very small portion of the funding apportioned by the RTP is available for new transit expansions ." Nearly 80% of RTP funds go to support transit, but most of the funding is designated for rehabilitation and operation of existing transit, ensuring that new service is not provided at the cost of cutbacks in existing operations. The Monitor regrets the error.