Discussions between the Port of Oakland and its West Oakland neighbors over the past year have resulted in some innovative additions to the Port's remodeling plans which may make regional history while keeping West Oakland residents healthier and happier.
The Port's Vision 2000 plan, adopted in September 1997, included comprehensive changes to the Port to create an intermodal rail terminal, new marine terminal space and berths, and improved public access to the waterfront. (See May/June 1998 issue.) Although the community welcomed the Port's initial meetings to describe the planned changes, the perception of economic benefits began to be eclipsed by the potential health effects of dust and diesel exhaust from additional truck trips and construction activities.
The environmental impact studies done for the plan identified air quality as an impact which could not be totally mitigated, and noted that many sources of air pollution were not under the Port's control. However, local air pollution was of particular concern to West Oakland residents. According to local activist Willie Keyes of West Oakland Neighbors, with 20% of West Oakland children already suffering from asthma, the Port's activity was seen as "literally killing us".
Mitigation measures included in the Vision 2000 environmental plans already carried a price tag of $50 million, and it seemed to West Oakland residents that they were not making headway with requests to add measures which would further protect their community. They turned to the Golden Gate Environmental Justice Law Clinic, under the direction of attorney Alan Ramo, and took the Port to court. In February 1998, without admitting fault, the Port settled with West Oakland Neighbors and agreed to confer with the community on appropriate mitigation measures. At the end of 9 months of meetings, the Port adopted a package of mitigation measures, and pledged $9 million directly to air quality mitigation.
Jim McGrath, Environmental Manager for the Port, says that although it was not clear that West Oakland residents were more heavily impacted by Port-generated air pollution than others in the region, diesel emissions are obviously important to public health, and the Port concluded that it was necessary to be a part of the solution for offsetting diesel pollution instead of waiting for changes in regulations at the state and federal level.
Settlement money allowed West Oakland Neighbors to hire a researcher, who consulted with other West Coast ports on possible mitigation techniques. The community feels that the funds were not enough to solve the problems, according to Keyes, but he believes the settlement provided a "foot in the door" and the community continues to benefit from participating in the discussions.
Ramo says that during the months since the settlement, good progress has been made, and he is hopeful that a new relationship between the Port and the community has been established. He is particularly pleased that "the Port has seemingly acknowledged its obligation to improve the quality of life in West Oakland, and its need to offset the impacts of pollution".
Part of the settlement will add funding for cost-effective ways to reduce emissions at or near the Port, through the mitigation measures adopted by the Port Commission as part of the final Environmental Impact Report:
In addition, the Port will be attempting to implement other unusual air pollution mitigations:
These measures give the Port a "leadership role in the area" in addressing local impacts of air pollution, according to Jean Roggenkamp of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), who hopes that successful mitigation techniques will be shared with BAAQMD and CARB. Ramo says the lawsuit resulted in a landmark decision on the part of the Port which has resulted in the most stringent plan in the country to mitigate diesel emissions. However, these measures are still not sufficient to mitigate impacts to insignificant levels, an effort which may require actions at the state and federal levels as well, since trains and ships are federally regulated.
Also, because of the innovative nature of many of the mitigation measures, they may still fall short of achieving the desired results. Continued effort by Port staff will be required to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures, and monitoring required under state law will be particularly critical. Staff mitigation monitoring reports will be sent to the Port Commission and will be public. Both the Port and the West Oakland community also intend to keep their dialogue going, so that if changes need to be made in the plans, everyone can agree on how to "clear the air".
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
This issue of the Monitor includes articles inspired by several anniversaries—the East Bay Regional Park District turns 65 this year, and ten years ago the Loma Prieta earthquake put seismic retrofits and new bridges on a fast track. In the year 2000 the League of Women Voters of the Bay Area will celebrate thirty-five years of working for regional solutions to Bay Area problems and twenty-five years of publishing the Bay Area Monitor, the only publication that deals comprehensively with regional agencies and issues.
Twenty-five years ago, residents of the San Francisco Bay were concerned about their quality of life. Local decisions about transportation and land use were having regional impacts which were becoming evident in declining air and water quality. The League of Women Voters of the Bay Area obtained funding for an effort called the Transportation Alternatives Project, designed to educate decisionmakers and the public about mechanisms for solving these regional problems.
In May 1975, LWVBA sent the first issue of its new publication to "interested governmental officials and citizens". It announced that the Bay Area Monitor would be a monthly publication devoted to reports about "governmental and citizen meetings at the local and regional level which pertain to air quality and transportation", based on reports by League members.
A facsimile of that first issue will be part of our January/February 2000 issue. We have other plans, inspired by our milestones and the turn of the century, to make this Silver Anniversary year a special one for the Monitor. They include a more detailed history of the Monitor and a tribute to some of the people who have been responsible for its success.
In late January or early February, an annual public event, Bay Area League Day, will have as its theme "The State of the Region", recognizing the need for a regional perspective in resolving problems of sprawl and the degradation of the quality of life in the Bay Area. After an overview of the existing structure and its shortfalls in attacking these problems, the program will feature speakers in the forefront of efforts to remedy the deficiencies.
After twenty-five years, our readers continue to tell us that they find the Monitor an important source of information about regional issues. This support and appreciation is responsible for the continued financial support from our agency partners. We appreciate all of you, and hope you will celebrate with us!
Leslie Stewart, Editor
A quote from the past:
"Historically, California, with the
worst air pollution problems in the nation, has also led the nation in
air-pollution control efforts. Federal standards and procedures were
based largely on California experience. . . In particular, the Bay
Area has a head start on air quality regulation and transportation
planning. It has a strong commitment to cleaning up polluted air, to
keeping clean air clean, and to planning for a balanced transportation
system."
-- Transportation and Air Pollution, LWVBA, 12/74.
For the sixth year, compressed natural gas (CNG) fueled school buses are taking children in Lafayette, Moraga, and Orinda to elementary and middle schools, in an innovative school bus program that benefits clean air while relieving traffic congestion.
In 1994, the three communities searched for the most effective local congestion management project to utilize their share of Measure C funds, generated by a countywide 1/2 cent sales tax. The single, most serious cause of traffic snarls in the area proved to be the cars in which children are driven to and from school. These cars, idling around the schools, also emitted air pollution.
Years before, the three school districts had eliminated school bus service to cut costs. Resumption now of school bus service could reduce traffic congestion, and using low-emission buses would provide further clean air benefits. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority, which administers distribution of Measure C funds, approved the project as being the most cost-effective of the proposed congestion management projects.
To undertake the project, the three cities and their school districts signed a joint powers agreement to form the Lamorinda School Bus Transportation Agency. The governing board consists of one member from each of the three city councils and the three school boards. The Parents Advisory Group consists of a representative from each of the three middle schools and ten elementary schools, and its members act as liaisons between the schools and the Agency.
To start up the project, buses had to be purchased. The newly-formed Agency applied for and received a Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) grant of $700,000 from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) to purchase 17 CNG school buses. (The TFCA receives money from a $4 surcharge on motor vehicle registration fees.) Fees collected from parents of children riding the buses would provide additional operating funds.
Successful from its beginning, the program has increased its ridership yearly. During the 5 years of the program, 6 more buses—diesel because CNG vehicles were not available—have been added to the original 17 CNG buses.
In the 1998-99 school year, 1,813 students, 25 percent of the K-8 enrollment in the three cities, rode school buses. Ridership was higher for the middle schools than for the elementary schools. Middle schools have waiting lists for bus space; more students also rode County Connection buses to and from school. The Agency estimates that the program eliminated 187,200 vehicle trips per year. In addition, the CNG buses emit less oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter than diesel-fueled buses.
Measure C funds have provided more than 55 percent of the funds for the program. Contributions of parents accounted for 35 percent. The state Department of Education and the TFCA contributed to the remainder of the total 1998-99 budget of just under $1.25 million.
The 1999-2000 school year begins the second 5-year contract period for transportation services. The only bid the Agency received was from Durham Transportation, the contractor that had served the Agency during the first 5 years. The bid, however, was 18 percent higher than their 1994 bid. Overall costs of operating the program have risen by 21 percent in the same period. This increase will be offset by a 5 percent raise in the fees parents pay and by drawing upon reserves.
Operating CNG buses is more expensive than operating diesels, but the Agency is committed to CNG. The buses now have to go to a fueling station in San Ramon, costly and inconvenient. The Agency is pursuing plans to build its own CNG station, probably in Moraga, to be finished in the fall of 2000. The station will be also be available for use by the public. It will be financed by a $200,000 grant from the Petroleum Violations Escrow Account and $160,000 of Agency money.
The Lamorinda School Bus Transportation Program demonstrates that small agencies such as these three school districts can band together to create a successful project with ambitious goals, in this case significant reductions in both traffic congestion and air pollution.
Adelia Sabiston
For more information:
Juliet Shanks, Lamorinda School Bus Transportation Agency, 925-284-1968 (through the City of Lafayette).
Golden Gate Transit (GGT) is closing a regional transportation gap with the installation of bicycle racks on almost all GGT buses. With 88% of the fleet now equipped with racks, bicyclists on GGT buses foresee an end to the restrictive and often confusing rules they have faced since GGT first began allowing bicycles on some buses.
In 1995, bicycles were first allowed aboard GGT vehicles on just four routes. Three years later, Marin County bicycle groups were pleading for exterior bicycle racks to extend bicycle access. Bicyclists had been allowed only on certain buses, on certain routes, in wheelchair spaces. On three of the four routes, hours were also restricted to non-commute periods, and bicycles could be "bumped" by wheelchair users, or sometimes by other passengers if the bus became too full. On newer buses without a designated wheelchair space, bicyclists were not allowed at all.
The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District Transportation Committee had begun consideration of exterior bicycle racks for GGT buses in January 1998. The committee found that under state law for vehicles traveling on freeways, GGT drivers would bear the liability for any damage which occurred if a bicycle fell from a bus. As an intercity transit service, many GGT routes use freeways for extended distances. State legislation to release bus drivers from this liability was sought by their union; meanwhile, a grant from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air enabled GGT to obtain bicycle racks for fourteen buses and the district installed and began testing them.
The new state law releasing bus drivers from liability went into effect in January 1999, and the fourteen bicycle racks were placed in service. With federal funding assistance, the district has now purchased and installed bicycle racks for all 238 of the 40-foot buses in the fleet. On these buses, bicycles are no longer allowed aboard. On certain older vehicles, those with rear doors and a wheelchair area operating on Route 40 from central Marin across the Richmond-San Rafael bridge, bicyclists can still use the inside wheelchair area if the rack is full, subject to bumping by wheelchair users.
GGT also owns 32 buses which are 5 feet too long to carry exterior bicycle racks under the California Vehicle Code. Bicyclists cannot use these buses, and must wait for a vehicle with a rack. The wait should be short, since these buses are used primarily during the weekday commute period on routes from Sonoma and Marin into San Francisco. An updated brochure for bicyclists has just been released by the district, and is available at www.goldengate.org or by calling 415/455-2000.
Golden Gate Transit joins many other transit districts around the region which are expanding services for growing numbers of bicyclists. AC Transit sponsored legislation in the mid-1980s allowing racks on standard size buses, and legislation allowing 60-foot articulated buses to carry racks became law January 1, 1999. By Fall 1999, most AC Transit bus lines will have racks available, with full fleet coverage by Fall 2000. Bicycle racks are also available on most Contra Costa County Connection buses and all Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Tri-Delta Transit, SamTrans, Napa Valley Transit and intercity Sonoma County Transit buses. Many other transit districts allow bicycles on board buses.
Golden Gate ferries and Alameda/Oakland ferries also allow a limited number of bicycles on board. BART, which has allowed bicycles on a restricted basis since 1972, has increased hours when bicycles are allowed, and removed or relaxed many other restrictions for bicyclists in April 1999. The primary restrictions now apply to times when trains are most crowded; special shading on printed BART schedules indicates when trains are off-limits for bicycles. Capitol Corridor trains and connector buses and Caltrain and ACE trains also allow a certain number of bicycles on board each run.
Bicycles on buses and other transit modes can remove cars from the road and add to transit fareboxes, improving the transportation picture for all of us. Golden Gate Transit buses, and others around the region, wear their bicycle racks to show that they are doing their part to make this possible.
Leslie Stewart
Although bicycles are becoming more welcome on transit around the area, rules and restrictions vary district by district, and service by service. Bicyclists need to remain flexible and check ahead for information when traveling an unfamiliar route or system. A good source for information online is www.transitinfo.org, which includes a system-by-system guide to bicycles on transit with links to the individual districts for detailed information. It also contains a listing of bicycle advocacy groups around the region whose members can offer information on transit services and road conditions.
The East Bay Regional Park District, now reaching its 65th anniversary, has been a presence in the region for most of this century. In spite of the dismal economic climate, a thousand East Bay residents met in Oakland on January 29, 1931, to discuss a report recommending formation of a park district which would provide recreation on surplus water district lands.
State legislation, passed two years later, authorized establishment of the district. A petition drive collected 14,000 signatures to place the park district measure on the November 1934 ballot. Voters in the fledgling district, which included the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Piedmont and San Leandro, approved its formation 2 to 1.
In June 1936, district residents had their first parks: Wildcat Canyon, now Tilden; Roundtop, now Sibley; and Lake Temescal. Three years later, Redwood Regional Park opened to the public. For the next ten years, highlights included new features, rather than new parks. Tilden Park acquired the Brazilian Room building, originally part of the Brazilian pavilion at the 1939 World's Fair, and the 1911 Hershell Spillman merry-go-round, installed in 1948.
The 1950s saw growth in the region, and in the district as well. Grass Valley Regional Park, now Anthony Chabot, and Roberts Regional Recreation Area were opened before the district's 20th anniversary in 1954. At that time, the district had 5,400 acres of parkland and an estimated 2.7 million visitors annually. A budget of $652,000 included a payroll of 47 full-time and 43 seasonal/part-time employees.
When William Penn Mott, Jr. became the District's superintendent in 1962, an era of expansion and innovation began. The Pleasanton area and most of Contra Costa County were annexed to the District. Sunol Regional Wilderness, Las Trampas, Little Hills, Coyote Hills, and Briones became parks, aided by the 1964 passage of a state bond issue, and Crown Memorial State Beach was turned over to EBRPD to operate.
The 1970s brought new and different funding mechanisms. The Regional Parks Foundation was established in 1969 to support District needs, serving as a vehicle for corporate and private philanthropy. A 1971 state-authorized sales tax created funding for parkland acquisition, development and operation. Point Pinole Regional Shoreline was acquired by combining Land and Water Conservation funds, private grants, and a loan from Bank of America. In 1978, Proposition 13 reduced property tax funding for the District and led to innovative programs such as Adopt-A-Park and urban parkland legislation. Martin Luther King Jr., Regional Shoreline opened in 1979 on San Leandro Bay land leased from PG&E, EBMUD, the Port of Oakland, the City of Oakland, and the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
The Master Plan process was first established in 1974, the District's 40th anniversary year, aided by the Park Advisory Committee, which is still active.
By its 50th anniversary, the district included East Contra Costa County, annexed in 1981, and by its 60th anniversary, following the annexation of the Livermore area in 1992, the district included all of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. Funding sources now included the 1988 Measure AA bond measure, which provided $225 million for open space acquisition, recreational programs and grants to cities and local agencies for recreation and parks. A trails assessment district created in 1993 provided a local source of revenue for operation and maintenance of the extensive trail system.
As it reaches its 65th anniversary, EBRPD operates 55 public parklands and 15 inter-park trails on more than 90,000 acres in two counties. In 1998, the District was given the responsibility of operating the new state Eastshore State Park along the east edge of San Francisco Bay. Plans are under way for a new Delta Science Center in eastern Contra Costa County.
The district serves an increasingly diverse and urbanized population, reflected in the variety of experiences available, from programs for beginning campers and backpackers to wheelchair-accessible tidepool walks. Cultural and historical programs at nine interpretive and educational centers draw visitors from the Bay Area and beyond.
Park district founders might be surprised by what has happened to their vision in 65 years. They would probably find great satisfaction in seeing that it has resulted in one of the largest regional park districts in the country, well suited and well-equipped to move with the region into the next century.
Leslie Stewart
For more information:
EBRPD, 510-635-0135; http://www.ebparks.org
With the tenth anniversary of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, we are again seeing pictures of the damaged San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The damage to the Bay Bridge was quickly repaired, and the entire eastern section is scheduled for replacement, but plans for making the region's bridges safer in earthquakes go well beyond the proposed new eastern span. Retrofits, replacements and new spans for the Golden Gate Bridge and five of the seven state-owned bridges in the Bay Area—the Benicia, Carquinez, Richmond-San Rafael, San Mateo and the western span of the Bay Bridge—are also scheduled or underway.
The western span of the Bay Bridge is well into its seismic retrofit, which includes three projects expected to take over six years to complete. The first project, strengthening the columns and footings where the bridge extends over Yerba Buena Island, is close to completion. The second project includes encasing piers in reinforced concrete and installing anchor bolts between the bridge towers and piers on the portion extending over the bay, and should be complete in mid-2000. The third project, which will be most visible to motorists using the bridge, will involve reinforcing the walls of the Yerba Buena tunnel portal and the entire superstructure of the western span. Steel plates will be installed on the towers and "shock absorbers" will be inserted between the roadway and the towers. The retrofit of the western approach to the bridge will be a complex process involving building temporary structures to handle traffic while the replacement structure is built. Ultimately, the bridge should be able to withstand a magnitude 8.0 temblor on the San Andreas fault.
Caltrans decided in February 1997 to pursue replacing the eastern span rather than retrofitting it. The goal was to create a bridge which would withstand a major earthquake on the Hayward Fault and still be usable—a "lifeline" span. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) formed the Bay Bridge Design Task Force and its advisory panel to consider engineering and design of the replacement span, to allow public debate and to form a regional consensus.
While there has been much debate, some consensus has also been achieved during the months of task force and advisory panel meetings. As a result, MTC recommended in July 1997 that if additional funding were to be made available by the Legislature, it should go to three "amenities": using a cable-supported main span across the shipping channel, rather than a causeway; renovation or relocation of the Transbay Transit Terminal at the west end of the bridge; and building a bicycle/pedestrian path on the new span.
A preferred design incorporating these amenities was chosen by MTC in 1998. However, during the past year, new controversy has arisen over whether the new span should be built north or south of the existing bridge, and a study of rail service on the bridge was begun in response to action by voters in San Francisco, Oakland, Emeryville and Berkeley.
Meanwhile, in August 1997, legislation was passed and signed to fund the seismic program for the region's state-owned toll bridges through a $1 surcharge for eight years, beginning in January 1998. The surcharge was added to the basic $1 charge established by a 1988 regional ballot issue. The regional measure (RM 1) allocated income from the basic charge to operation and maintenance of the Bay Area toll bridges, traffic congestion measures, support of ferries and transit, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and specific construction projects. These included construction of a new span of the Benicia-Martinez Bridge, replacement of the west span of the Carquinez Bridge, and widening the San Mateo Bridge.
The seismic surcharge is administered by Caltrans, which owns and operates the toll bridges. It may be extended for two more years if necessary to pay for the amenities on the eastern span of the Bay Bridge, or for a bicycle/pedestrian path on the western span. Any recommendation to extend the surcharge would come from the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA), created by the same legislation which created the surcharge. In January 1998, BATA assumed administration of the basic $1 toll on the seven Bay Area bridges from the California Transportation Commission (CTC).
The Bay Area Toll Authority is staffed by MTC and MTC's commissioners serve as the BATA governing body. It is authorized to issue toll revenue bonds; the proceeds may be used to retire the pre-existing CTC bonds, and to finance the RM 1 bridge projects. Responsibilities include preparing a long-range plan for delivering the RM 1 bridge projects, developing a cooperative agreement with Caltrans describing the division of responsibilities between the two agencies, and submitting an annual financial report to the Legislature. BATA is also currently studying the appropriate action to be taken on the Transbay Transit Terminal, one of the MTC-approved uses for extra funding.
The RM 1 projects, like the retrofit of the Bay Bridge western span, are beginning to be evident to residents of the region. The preliminary steps for construction on both the Carquinez replacement span and the new Benicia span have already begun.
On the Golden Gate Bridge, the first phase of the retrofit, the north approach viaduct, should be complete in 2001. Two additional phases, first for the south viaduct and anchorage, and then for the remaining portions of the bridge, are planned to follow.
Early in the next century, hopefully before another devastating earthquake, newer and stronger bridges will serve the Bay Area.
Leslie Stewart
For more information: