I think I've just realized that we can't even afford the system we already have," said one stunned Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) commissioner at a key committee meeting in December 2003. His comments came after two hours of testimony which made it obvious that the region's transportation system is far from perfect and needs even more money to improve. Those comments were to be expected as various groups testified for favorite programs, but many commissioners were dismayed by the extent of the funding shortfalls, which reflect current recession-related factors as well as identification of new needs.
Approximately three years ago, during preparation of the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan, MTC commissioners agreed to fund 100 percent of the projected capital replacement shortfall for transit. That kind of commitment is impossible now. In the proposed Transportation 2030 Plan (see sidebar), while the amount proposed to go to transit capital shortfalls over the next 25 years has risen from $1.18 billion to $1.34 billion, the funds will cover only 25 percent of the shortfall, not 100 percent. For local streets and roads, funding in the new plan has been increased from $143 million to $990.5 million and is estimated to cover only 15 percent of the shortfall.
Clearly, the change in the percentages of shortfalls covered in the new plan is not because fewer dollars are being allocated, but because of new assumptions about future revenues and a change in the size of the projected needs. During the 18 months following adoption of the 2001 RTP, a committee of transit operators, congestion management agencies and public works directors developed a consistent and comprehensive evaluation of the real costs and needs for transit, streets and roads in the region.
Their report, which was presented to transportation officials in September 2003, showed that the 2001 shortfall estimate was far too small. Also, since 2001, other circumstances have increased the potential future shortfall—for example, a ballot measure to fund BART's seismic retrofit failed, and budget problems have redirected state transportation funds.
Little extra money is available in this round of regional transportation planning, and what there is must be used for more than just the shortfalls. Acknowledging growing regional support for lifeline transit and regional bicycle/pedestrian programs, funds for both have been added to the new plan, although advocates say these programs remain substantially underfunded. Extra funding is being given also to programs that use regional funds as incentives to do better local planning—the Transportation for Livable Communities/Housing Incentive Program and the new T-PLUS program (see October/November 2003 issue)—which represent MTC's ongoing commitment to a regional Smart Growth Strategy.
While there are projected shortfalls in almost every area of the Transportation 2030 Plan, the regional investment strategy adopted by the commission in December leaves the largest deficit in the area of rehabilitation—for transit, and streets and roads. Dorothy Dugger, BART's Assistant General Manager, told the MTC committee she is concerned that rehabilitation shortfalls will affect transit's ability to meet the Transportation 2030 goals, particularly safety and on-time performance.
The only additional funding available would be from the projected "Big Tent" sources—local tax measures, new gas taxes at regional, state or federal levels, vehicle fees and parcel taxes for transit rehabilitation. The current estimate of what all the Big Tent options might raise is $25.8 billion, of which $13.5 billion (52%) could be available for rehabilitation. The unmet need for rehabilitation in the regional investment strategy is estimated at $17.9-$18.9 billion, of which $6-7 billion is the shortfall for state highways in the region, leaving $11.9 billion as the purely regional shortfall to be covered by the Big Tent.
Over the 25-year period covered by the Transportation 2030 Plan, the shortfall could be significantly reduced or eliminated if even a few of the new sources were to come into play. Since several are likely to be successful, the Big Tent may give a more realistic picture of the next 25 years for Bay Area transportation than the legally-required fiscally constrained plan. Certainly it is a more optimistic one.
Leslie Stewart
For more information, see http://www.mtc.ca.gov/t2030.