By Leslie Stewart
The future face of Bay Area rail transit is already up and running in Oceanside, several hundred miles to the south, where the March 9 debut of the Sprinter commuter train introduced diesel multiple units (DMUs) to the state of California. Here in the north, DMUs are eventually expected to roll on commuter rail lines being planned by both Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit and Bay Area Rapid Transit’s East Contra Costa BART extension project (known as eBART).
DMUs are individual rail cars that each contain passenger seating as well as one or more diesel engines for propulsion. Unlike passenger cars on Caltrain and Amtrak, seating is usually on a single level. Several cars can be placed together like a conventional train. To reverse the train’s direction, the operator moves to the opposite end of the train and takes the controls in that car.
Over the past two decades, DMUs have become popular in Europe and Japan, and there are many different variations now available. For example, some cars are designed with ADA-compliant toilets, while others have different seating arrangements that increase the passenger capacity. Lighter-weight DMUs, also known as diesel light rail vehicles, are often more similar to a light rail vehicle or trolley.
DMUs are primarily used for commuter or intercity rail routes. Because they use a standard gauge track, they can easily be put into service where rails are already in place, such as the North Bay.
SMART plans to use DMUs on existing rails between Cloverdale in Sonoma County and Larkspur in Marin County. SMART recently released a supplemental environmental impact report to evaluate several changes since adoption of the original final EIR in 2006, including additional analysis of terminal locations, possible weekend service, and a proposed switch to lighter-weight trains such as the Oceanside Sprinter. According to Chris Coursey, spokesperson for SMART, “After we lost a close election for funding in 2006, the board formed an ad hoc committee to go out and listen to the community about what happened. They heard that SMART needed to look at lighter DMUs.”
Lighter-weight trains, which may use materials such as aluminum instead of steel, have a number of environmental benefits. The Sprinter DMUs also carry more passengers than the heavy DMUs evaluated in the final EIR. Coursey says, “There are arguments to be made on both sides, and they are being made out there in the community.”
The supplemental EIR notes that it is unclear what safeguards the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) might require of SMART if lighter DMUs share tracks with freight. The tracks between Cloverdale and Novato must be shared with freight service operated by the North Coast Railway Authority (NCRA) under an easement set by the California legislature at the time that SMART was created. Federal regulations require strict time separation of freight from light DMU passenger trains on a single-track line. The 2005 draft EIR and 2006 final EIR provided schedules to do this with the heavier DMUs, but lighter DMUs might require a wider safety window because of concerns that they are more vulnerable in a collision. Also, NCRA has recently announced plans to increase the number of freight runs on the shared tracks; in response, the supplemental EIR includes scheduling changes.
Under easements and agreements between SMART and NCRA, passenger service has priority, but the two agencies have separate project timelines and funding. Ultimately a key issue may be whether schedules for using light trains will mean that NCRA’s additional freight runs will be pushed into evening hours when neighbors along the tracks may be more sensitive to disturbance from passing trains. SMART plans to place a tax measure on the ballot in November 2008 to obtain funding to move forward (a similar measure failed narrowly in 2006). Residents north of the Ignacio Wye near Novato, where freight trains turn east, are already protesting the NCRA impacts and may make this a campaign issue. However, according to Coursey, “It will be five years down the line before SMART can start running trains, and the FRA could have new regulations in place by then” for DMUs running on freight tracks.
The Phase I eBART project in East Contra Costa County does not need to go to the ballot box — in fact, the $500 million funding for the project is in place, although it is now a smaller project than originally envisioned. Initial eBART plans were based on putting DMUs on existing tracks owned by Union Pacific with service as far east as Byron/Discovery Bay.
The original project was shifted when Union Pacific decided in May 2007 to keep its tracks and alignment for future freight service. BART and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, the agencies heading the project, now propose putting DMU tracks in the median of Highway 4 where space was reserved for BART during highway widening. As described in the notice of preparation for the EIR, Phase I of eBART will run from a transfer platform at the existing Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station to a terminal in Antioch, with one station midway in Pittsburg. The EIR will also analyze alternatives to DMUs such as rapid bus service or electrified light rail vehicles similar to DMUs. Money will come from a combination of state transportation funds, regional bridge tolls, and local transportation taxes.
Restricting eBART to Phase I has not been popular in some parts of the county that have been waiting and paying for BART for 40 years. Also, according to Linton Johnson, spokesperson for BART, “There are people who wish we’d just build full BART.” However, the biggest criticism of eBART so far seems to be that it can’t happen quickly enough for a section of the Bay Area that is choking with traffic faster than highways can be widened. Currently, eBART is projected to open to Antioch in 2015. Pittsburg and Antioch are already planning for their eBART stations. BART requires ridership development plans proving that new rail line will be adequately used before the EIR is certified and the project is approved, and these must be completed by March 2009.
The added expense of purchasing the right-of-way in the median of the freeway resulted in a smaller project, but one benefit is that eBART will not face freight/DMU scheduling problems like SMART with either heavier or lighter DMUs. The new tracks are mostly contained within right-of-way that has already been approved as part of freeway widening, so neighborhood objections may be minimized. With these advantages, as well as secured funding, eBART to East Contra Costa may be the debut location for DMUs in the Bay Area.
For SMART updates, visit www.sonomamarintrain.org
For eBART udpates, visit www.ebartproject.org
By Patty Boyle
The Association of Bay Area Governments held its Spring General Assembly on April 24 in San Francisco. As part of ABAG’s ongoing Focusing Our Vision program, four awards were presented to cities which illustrated best practices through their collaborative community development process.
The city of San Leandro was recognized for its downtown transit-oriented development strategy, which revitalized its downtown with a walkable mixed-use housing and business development. The City of Hercules was recognized for its general plan and code regulations, which incorporated a high level of public involvement in achieving greater density, walkability, public spaces, and regional transit mobility. The Public-Private Partnership award was given jointly to the city of Dublin, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority, and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District for the creation of a significant transit-oriented community. Mayor of Walnut Creek Gwen Regalia received the Distinguished Leadership Award for her public service career and her commitment to sustainable community improvement on the local, regional, and state level. Mayor Regalia is the past president of ABAG and a long-term member of the Diablo Valley League of Women Voters.
William Fulton, president and CEO of Solimar Research Group, and William Fleissig, president of Communitas Development, delivered keynote presentations on the relationship between land use, vehicle miles traveled, and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the public and political will required to address these problems.
By Gail Schickele
Quenching thirst with glacial, mineral, spring, artesian, or purified water has never been easier, but the impact of burgeoning bottled water consumption raises critical concerns from environmental and economic perspectives. Packaging and shipping water consumes energy and contributes to global warming, while empty bottles add to litter and solid waste.
Most bottled water is sold in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles produced from fossil fuels, typically natural gas and petroleum. In 2006, the equivalent of some 17 million barrels of oil (not including energy for transportation) were used to produce bottles requiring nearly 900,000 tons of plastic for American consumption, according to the Pacific Institute. Bottling the water produced more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide, and it took three liters of water to produce one liter of bottled water, the institute reported.
The Container Recycling Institute estimated that 86 percent of plastic water bottles used in the U.S. become garbage or litter. Incinerating the used bottles produces toxic byproducts and buried bottles can take up to 1,000 years to biodegrade. Almost 40 percent of the PET bottles that were deposited for recycling in this country in 2004 were exported to as far away as China, thus adding to the resources consumed.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Federation are among a growing list of those calling for less bottled water consumption. In the Bay Area, local municipalities are taking action to promote the alternative: consumption of healthy, safe, reliable tap water.
Regulatory Reasoning
The East Bay Municipal Utility District, which serves 1.3 million people in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, promotes the high quality of local tap water. Ninety percent of the district’s water comes from the Mokelumne River watershed in the Sierra foothills, with the remaining 10 percent taken out of the Pardee and Camanche reservoirs. “Our water supply source is pretty pristine and we want people to understand how healthy the watershed is,” EBMUD spokesperson Andrea Pook said. “We want consumers to know what they’re drinking and how bottled water is regulated. We test [tap water] for 100 substances to make sure the water is safe and meets all the EPA guidelines. Bottled water is regulated through the FDA.”
Bottled water is regulated as a packaged food product by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. However, according to the NRDC, no one should assume that water in a bottle is necessarily any purer, safer, or better regulated than most tap water. NRDC’s four-year national study showed that one third of the bottled water that it tested contained levels of contamination. A key NRDC finding was that bottled water regulations are inadequate to assure consumers of either purity or safety.
As for the H²O that flows from municipal water systems, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sets the standards that providers must meet to protect public health. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (passed in 1974 and amended in 1986 and 1996), water suppliers are required to submit an annual report on the quality of local water and to test tap water daily. In this state, the California Department of Public Health’s Drinking Water Program also helps regulate what comes out of the tap.
Making a Splash with Campaigns
At a June 2007 meeting of organizations representing over 1,100 U.S. cities, mayors Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City, and R. T. Rybak of Minneapolis sponsored a passing resolution underlining the importance of using municipal water and calling for studies into environmental impacts of bottled water. The resolution noted that, with $43 billion a year going to provide clean drinking water in cities across the country, “the United States’ municipal water systems are among the finest in the world.”
San Francisco’s subsequent executive directive prohibited buying single-serving bottled water with tax dollars—accounting for nearly $500,000 annually—and required city departments and agencies to install bottle-less water dispensers that use water from Hetch Hetchy (considered one of the nation’s premier drinking water systems, thanks to the protection provided by this granite basin in the Yosemite wilderness).
In March 2008, Newsom and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (which delivers water to 2.4 million Bay Area customers) announced a campaign to urge restaurants to make the switch from bottled water to tap water. Other similar actions in the Bay Area have included:
•The Santa Clara Valley Water District launching an educational campaign entitled “Tap Water: The Clear Choice,” and prohibiting the purchase of bottled water with district funds;
•The city council in nearby Davis deciding in October 2007 to ban the purchase or sale of single-use water bottles for city operations and events as part of a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
•Emeryville becoming one of the first cities to endorse Corporate Accountability International’s “Think Outside the Bottle” campaign, and discontinuing the purchase of large bottled water for economic reasons; and
•The Berkeley Unified School District replacing commercial bottled water with large containers of tap water in all schools in 2006.
MANDATORY WATER RATIONING FOR THE EAST BAY
The last 18 months have been exceptionally dry ones for the East Bay Municipal Utility District. This past January’s deluge notwithstanding, rain has been in scarce supply, and the district’s reservoirs in the Sierras have become significantly depleted. Headed into the summer, EBMUD faces a serious challenge in trying to conserve water for its 1.3 million customers across Alameda and Contra Costa counties. It projects that by the beginning of the new rain year on October 1, its water storage will likely fall at least 200,000 acre-feet short of the preferred volume.
Accordingly, the EBMUD board of directors implemented a drought management program at its May 13 convening, approving reduction goals starting that day. The aim is to achieve 15 percent savings district-wide, with different categories of customers asked to decrease consumption at varying rates (single-family residences by 19 percent, multi-family residences by 11 percent, irrigators by 30 percent, commercial users by 12 percent, institutional uses by 9 percent, and industrial users by 5 percent).
Also as part of the program, the following activities are prohibited:
•Using water for decorative ponds, lakes, and fountains (except those that recycle the water);
•Washing vehicles with hoses that do not have shutoff nozzles;
•Washing sidewalks, patios, and similar hard surfaces;
•Irrigating outdoors on consecutive days or more than three days a week;
•Lawn or garden watering that results in excessive runoff;
•Sewer and hydrant flushing and washing streets with potable water supplied by EBMUD (except for essential purposes);
•Using potable water for construction if alternatives are available; and
•Using potable water for soil compaction and dust control when another source is available.
On July 8, the board will consider implementing drought rates at a public hearing that is certain to draw great attention. Those interested in learning more should visit EBMUD’s website at www.ebmud.com for future updates.
By Alec MacDonald
Is the threat of aggravated asthma, nose and throat irritation, bronchitis, and lung damage enough for Bay Area residents to ease off of that favorite creature comfort of winter, the fireplace, especially when the resultant smoke puts children, the elderly, and individuals with preexisting health conditions most at risk?
The question may not seem pertinent in the current season (San Francisco’s reputation for chilly summers notwithstanding) but the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is giving it thought, and might soon pass a rule regulating the use of wood-burning devices. After much initial research and development, the agency brought a draft rule before the public last year in seven workshops. Revisions were then made, and nine more meetings were held this past April, priming the rule to go before the district’s board of directors in the near future.
In its current form, the rule’s basic charge asks that, between November 1 and February 28, residents and business owners refrain from using wood-burning devices on certain days when air pollution levels are forecast to be unhealthy. In addition, it calls for home and commercial builders to only install EPA-certified wood-burning devices in future projects, and compels pressed log or pellet fuel manufacturers as well as firewood suppliers to put information labels on their products.
Those interested in learning more should visit www.baaqmd.gov/enf/woodsmoke/woodsmoke_portal.htm.
Greenhouse Gas Fee Greenlighted
On May 21, the district’s board of directors voted to approve instituting a fee for Bay Area businesses, industries, and agencies with district-permitted stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases. The fee—4.4 cents for every metric ton of carbon dioxide produced—goes into effect on July 1.
As detailed in the April/May 2008 Monitor, the fee revenue will help support the district’s Climate Protection Program, which seeks to integrate climate protection activities into existing district programs, offer public education, outreach, and technical assistance to cities and counties, and collaborate with state and local climate protection efforts.
The fee is the first of its kind in California, and second to be implemented across the entire country. As such, it has attracted much attention; environmental advocates have praised the move as pioneering, while industry representatives have expressed concern over potentially unproductive overlap with forthcoming state regulation.
GRANTS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS
In accordance with its mission to protect public health and improve air quality, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District will be accepting applications for three regional grant programs aimed at reducing motor vehicle emissions. In targeting the transportation sector—the Bay Area’s largest source of air pollution—these programs aim to decrease air toxics (such as benzene, particulate matter, and diesel exhaust) while also conserving energy, mitigating greenhouse gases, benefiting water quality (by lessening contaminated runoff from roadways), increasing transportation options, and easing traffic congestion.
Each grant program has a different focus. The Transportation Fund for Clean Air Regional Fund is set to offer up to $12 million for public agencies to use toward a wide array of transit applications (non-public entities with select vehicle projects in mind may also apply). The Goods Movement Program—authorized in partnership with the Port of Oakland and the California Air Resources Board—will in its initial stages grant $6 million toward upgrading Port trucks with cleaner technologies. And the Bicycle Facility Program will allocate $600,000 to public agencies for the construction or installation of a variety of bicycle accommodations.
The district has been hosting workshops across the region to provide information about these grants and the application process, and further details may also be found at www.baaqmd.gov under “Grants & Incentives” on the left toolbar. Applications may be obtained by phoning (415) 749-4994 or e-mailing grants@baaqmd.gov; they are due for the Transportation Fund and Goods Movement programs on June 30, while district staff will begin reviewing applications for the Bicycle Facility Program starting June 16, awarding those grants on a first-come, first-serve basis.
By Alec MacDonald
These days, rising gas prices mean that Bay Area car owners are routinely spending $50 at the pumps. Imagine then what it takes to fill up a bus.
It’s no surprise that the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District has been feeling the pinch. The district’s operating expenses have gone up $35 million since 2005, due in significant part to fuel costs. Factor in escalating employee heath insurance rates, as well as the unreliability of funding from sales and property taxes in a struggling economy, and AC Transit is facing worrisome budget shortfalls.
Looking to make up the difference and avoid service reductions, the district has proposed increasing fares, a measure it last took in September 2005. This spring, AC Transit staff put together four different proposals for introducing possible new fare changes; in June, its board of directors is scheduled to consider them, and may end up adopting one. Depending on the individual proposal, the agency could stand to bring in between $4 million to $9 million in additional annual revenue.
All four proposals would increase both cash fares and 10-ride ticket prices on local and Transbay trips for all categories of passenger. They would also increase the price of monthly passes for adults; where the proposals primarily vary is in how they price these for youth, seniors, and disabled passengers (additional changes deal with the price and usage of transfers). Two proposals don’t alter those prices at all; these are the two which would generate the least extra revenue.
On May 21, a large crowd turned out to Oakland City Hall for a public hearing on the proposals. Riders will inevitably oppose a potential fare increase by any transit operator, and the capacity audience in council chambers showed little support for the one in question. A procession of speakers lined up to testify to board members on the matter. While most voiced resistance to the proposals in general, many expressed a preference for the two that would preserve the monthly rates for youth, seniors, and the disabled.
Transit advocates who would prefer to see no fare changes at all have argued that rider revenue is not the answer for addressing budget shortfalls. Urban Habitat, for one, has long maintained the position that AC Transit deserves a greater share of funding from local, state, and federal sources to help meet operating expenses. The social justice nonprofit staged a well-attended rally against the fare increase just prior to the May 21 hearing.
At the hearing, AC Transit staff announced that the board will consider the four proposals in a meeting on either June 11 or June 25, and that if changes are to happen, they will go into effect on October 1. Updates to the process will be posted at www.actransit.org.
By April Elkjer
California is a leader in green issues, and San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District is also committed to conserving energy and resources by moving towards more environmentally-preferable solutions in their business practices.
In 2001, the California Air Resources Board adopted new emission regulations for public transit operators in California. The CARB regulation was to reduce emissions by 85 percent by 2007, but in 2006, Golden Gate Transit (GGT) met and exceeded the CARB regulations by reducing particulate matter (PM) bus emissions by approximately 90 percent. In addition, GGT reduced oxides of nitrogen emissions by 25 percent.
These reductions were achieved through several key initiatives, which included purchasing 90 new replacement buses (all equipped with the cleanest operating technology available), fueling all GGT buses with ultra-low sulfur diesel, repowering 31 buses with new low-emission diesel engines, and retrofitting 46 buses with filters to reduce PM by 85 percent and nitrogen oxides by 25 percent.
GGT also partnered with AC Transit in a joint demonstration project for the development of several “Zero Emission Buses” powered by hybrid electric hydrogen fuel cell technology. Both bus operators provided free transit rides on “Spare the Air” days.
Adopting water conservation and recycling programs has resulted in actions such as installing low-flow toilets (saving up to as many as two gallons per flush) and low-flow aerators (cutting water usage at faucets by as much as 40 percent).
The district installed recycling bins to encourage recycling of paper, aluminum, cans, bottles, and newspapers. It also implemented a recycling system for GGT bus washing to reduce water usage, and added ozonator technology to keep recycled wash water bacteria- and odor-free.
Using energy efficiently is part of the multi-pronged approach as well. GGT has replaced all fluorescent light fixtures (saving 40 percent in energy consumption), replaced heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units with more energy efficient ones, and tested the use of recycled vegetable oil as an alternative fuel source for the Bridge’s Cushman maintenance vehicles.
Next on the horizon in 2008, Golden Gate Ferry will purchase a new high-speed, 499-passenger-capacity catamaran equipped with engines that should most likely exceed federal EPA and state CARB requirements. Tests are planned to determine if the catamaran has the capacity to run on biodiesel fuel.
For more information on the district’s environmentally-friendly activities, visit www.goldengate.org/green.
By Chris Ingraham
Twenty years ago, squeaking by with less than a one percent margin, voters in Alameda and Contra Costa counties achieved the two-thirds majority necessary to pass a relatively unknown ballot measure called Measure AA. Measure AA was the East Bay Regional Park District’s unprecedented $225 million bond proposal, designed to acquire, protect, and improve open space and recreational areas throughout the East Bay. Now EBRPD is discussing placing an extension of the original measure on the upcoming November ballot—and if it does, it hopes for a more convincing margin of success this time around.
Looking back, it would be hard to deny that the district delivered on its initial pledge to voters. At Measure AA’s outset in 1988, EBRPD promised to acquire 25,000 new acres of open space, ridge lands, and shorelines in order to protect and preserve these valuable lands permanently. In fact, the district ended up acquiring nearly 35,000 new acres. Over the past 20 years, it used 75 percent of the bond funding to create or expand 17 regional parks and trails—scenic destinations such as Crockett Hills, Big Break, Round Valley, Pleasanton Ridge, and Sycamore Valley. The remaining 25 percent went to local city and park districts (based equitably on population), resulting in 235 neighborhood recreation projects, from swimming pools to playgrounds and senior centers to sports fields.
Ted Radke, who sat on the district’s board of directors in 1988, and remains on the board to oversee the proposed extension of Measure AA today, said, “It’s been an extremely successful program. Every community has local projects currently in place that were funded by this.”
The proposed extension of Measure AA is for a $500 million bond, an increase calculated to account for inflation since 1988, and to approximate the buying power of the original program. As in 1988, EBRPD hopes to leverage the bond with other state park bonds and governmental grants, all at no additional expense to local taxpayers. In fact, the new measure calls for no increase in the existing tax rate—a selling point EBRPD believes improves the likelihood of the new measure passing in November.
Following the same formula as before, local park districts would receive 25 percent ($125 million) of the total bond to fund their projects. These allocations would be based on 2007 city populations, and the precise figures have been determined mathematically so that every community in Alameda and Contra Costa counties receives an equitable amount.
The remaining 75 percent, or $375 million, would be dedicated for regional use, with a little over $280 million of that going toward the acquisition of new land, and the rest reserved for the development of capital projects (such as the creation or rehabilitation of roads, restrooms, staging areas, trails, and so forth). The list of proposed regional projects slated to receive these funds has already been drafted and budgeted (and is viewable at www.ebparks.org), but remains unfixed until the proposal is finalized this summer.
Leading up to this finalization, advocacy groups have been seeking to weigh in on the list. Their decisions to back the measure or not will likely hinge on whether they feel their perspectives are accounted for sufficiently. Take, for instance, the Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay, which represents off-road cyclists around the Bay Area. On its website, BTCEB has declared that “cyclists should make a point to let EBRPD know that we expect increased access for our support of the measure,” also expressing concern that “during the last 20 years, there has not been any significant enhancement in EBRPD for off-road cyclists. While millions are proposed to be spent for ‘hiking and equestrian access’ the needs of cyclists continue to go unmet, or worse, completely ignored.”
The district has been fielding public input in workshops and at board meetings, and will continue to solicit opinion for potential incorporation in the measure up until July 1. With that day just around the corner, EBRPD hopes to solicit as much feedback as possible, and welcomes comments offered via phone, e-mail, or in person at the district’s offices on 2950 Peralta Oaks Court in Oakland.
Originally, Measure AA made it on the ballot in 1988 because of increasing concerns, aired first in the transportation sector, that the Bay Area’s rising population would soon pose an environmental challenge to parklands and open space. Ted Radke recalled: “At the time, we didn’t have any acquisition money. The measure was terribly terribly timely, and terribly, terribly important.” Board members today worry that an extension of Measure AA is even more important now. The Bay Area’s growing population since 1988 has reached such extremes that many are concerned the extended measure may be the last chance to secure open spaces and preserve environmentally rich areas before these lands are destroyed or developed by public or private expansion.
Not everyone feels that way, however. There are those in the Bay Area who believe that the district was granted ample opportunity 20 years ago, and that the region now has more than adequate parklands for residents and visitors to enjoy. Reserving additional land will only make it unavailable for housing which, unlike open space, can generate additional property tax revenue.
Nonetheless, EBRPD remains optimistic that an extension would pass in November and match or exceed the success of the original. Radke likes to remind people that the district came into being in 1934, at the height of the Great Depression. At the time, even amidst such economic hardship, local voters still proposed to create the district with a property tax of five cents per $100 of assessed valuation—a higher percentage than the basic tax rate for the district today, even without accounting for inflation.