TransForming the Bay Area and California @transformca-blog - Tumblr Blog

What happened at the first auction of cap and trade

California's first quarterly auction of greenhouse gas allowances took place on November 14th. For the first time in history, California set a price on carbon - $10.09 per ton. This opening price is a modest number and it signals to businesses that the transition to a lower carbon future may be less expensive than anticipated. This first auction collected $289 million, of which about $233 million will be used by the Public Utilities Commission for the utility sector, including rebates to consumers. The remaining $56 million will be spent according to an investment plan passed with next year's State budget according to rules established by the Governor and the Legislature. In the first auction, only ten percent of greenhouse gas allowances were up for purchase – the remaining amounts were given away for free to the participating companies and organizations. In the future, however, the total amount auctioned will increase while the cap on total emissions will decrease.

This should increase the price per allowance and the total amount collected by the State, and also signal to the marketplace that doing business with lower emissions is cheaper. Other polluting industries will come under the cap in the future, including transportation fuels in 2015. TransForm is working with our allies to propose spending revenues collected from the State's greenhouse gas auctions in ways that increase our transportation choices and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions plus other pollutants.

Our State has set a strong goal – 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – and we can only achieve it with projects that give us real choices for reducing our emissions.

Sign our petition to tell the Governor and the Legislature that California needs projects and programs funded by cap & trade auction revenues to transform the ways we use energy.

What yesterday's election means for transportation

Key victories for public transportation, walking, biking, and affordable housing... but some races still undetermined

From the highest levels of government to local ballot measures, yesterday bodes well for bringing world-class public transportation and walkable communities to more places. But we’re still holding our breath on a couple important local races. Read on! Obama’s reelection means potential progress on transportation policy During the past four years, President Obama has championed key ways to transform our country’s transportation policy. The Obama administration created the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, which ensures housing, transportation, and sustainability are planned for together, like they should be - and brings good public transportation and affordable housing to more places. Obama has also been a big backer of high-speed rail. And he’s leveraged bipartisan support for public transportation, walking, biking and smart growth by making former Republican Congressman Ray LaHood the Secretary of Transportation, who declared “the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized." When the federal transportation bill, MAP-21, expires in September 2014, it will be a pivotal moment that Obama could potentially use to further transform transportation. Read more on Obama’s track record with transportation andwhat his second term could mean. Proposition 30 wins; 32 loses Californians thankfully passed Proposition 30, Governor Brown’s tax plan to protect education and health services, by an 8% margin. If Prop 30 had failed, the resulting devastating cuts to the state budget would have put extreme stress on all state programs, including public transportation funding. Read more on this victory. Thankfully 56% of voters said no to Proposition 32, which would have seriously weakened the voice of workers in elections while allowing Super-PACs and billionaires to continue to spend without limits. Measure B1 in Alameda County is one point from passing; similar measure in Los Angeles also very close Mail-in ballots could change the outcome once they’re tallied, but for now, Alameda County's Measure B1 garnered 65.5% of the vote, just short of the 66.6% needed to pass. We endorsed Measure B1, which would renew, increase, and extend the countywide sales tax for transportation. Funds would restore bus service after major cuts in recent years; start a youth bus pass program; repair potholes; make unprecedented investments in pedestrian/bicycle safety and infrastructure; and support more transit-oriented development. Read the Tribune’s coverage of B1 results and the results so far for the similar L.A. transit tax measure. Affordable housing measure in San Francisco passes More than 64% of voters supported Proposition C, which will provide $1.2 billion for affordable housing over the next 30 years. This is critical since California eliminated its redevelopment agencies earlier this year.

Full Speed Ahead with Bus Rapid Transit on El Camino Real!

Santa Clara County cities along the 17.3 mile El Camino corridor have been evaluating Bus Rapid Transit over the last year. A few months ago the Sunnyvale City Council narrowly voted to oppose BRT with dedicated bus lanes along El Camino Real. The setback caused the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to consider a variety of options including terminating the project before the Sunnyvale city boundary or abandoning the project altogether. In order to ensure the project's advancement and integrity, TransForm and members of the Silicon Valley BRT Coalition worked with VTA and decision-makers to craft a solution. In a major victory in September, the VTA Board of Directors provided guidance to VTA staff and adopted the Coalition’s key recommendations. Then on November 1st the VTA Board of Directors unanimously voted to formalize their position and directed staff to carry the project through the application process for federal funding and to commence environmental review for both the Optimal (over 10 miles of dedicated lanes from Santa Clara to Mountain View) and Revised (3 miles of dedicated lanes in Santa Clara) projects. Part of the direction of the Board was also to establish regional support for the project in anticipation of federal funding and to provide regular reports to key stakeholders and decision making bodies. TransForm will continue to support the development of this critical transit investment of regional significance and work with local communities in ensuring that their needs and preferences are considered in the next stages of project planning. We look forward to our continued work side by side with our allies including the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Working Partnerships USA, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, Silicon Valley Independent Living Center, Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter, Greenbelt Alliance, Sunnyvale Cool, Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning, Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, Day Worker Center of Mountain View, SIREN, and SPUR San Jose as well as VTA and residents and businesses along the corridor.

Learn more about Silicon Valley’s Bus Rapid Transit plans.

Thank the VTA Board of Directors for their leadership. Email can be sent to [email protected].

Contact TransForm’s Community Planner, Chris Lepe for questions or to help make Bus Rapid Transit a reality for the future of El Camino. Get on board!!!!

Governor signs AB 1532 and SB 535... but what does cap and trade mean for public transportation?

TransForm and our allies have been working hard with the legislature and the Governor’s office to develop appropriate processes and guidelines for using revenue collected from California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) cap & trade auction. The Governor signed two bills that go a long way toward setting these guidelines and processes, reaffirming his support for the actual pollution reductions and mitigations possible with a cap & trade mechanism.

What do these bills actually do?

To understand just what these two bills accomplish, please let me explain the basics of California’s cap & trade GHG auction mechanism (if you already understand cap & trade skip to the section on AB 1532).

California’s cap & trade carbon auction mechanism

In 2006, California passed the Global Warming Solutions Act, known as AB 32. This bill set clear goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% reductions by 2050), and it tasked the California Air Resources Board (CARB) with meeting this goal. Among its many methods for reducing greenhouse gasses, CARB designed a cap & trade mechanism with an auction: basically, California puts a cap on the total amount of greenhouse gasses allowed by major polluters, and then lets these polluters buy and sell the privileges to emit greenhouse gasses. These privileges are called “allowances”, and, over time, the State will decrease the number of allowances available on the market. Before trading can start, however, the State auctions off a percentage of these allowances – right now, the State only auctions 10% of the total allowances, giving the rest away for free; but, as time passes, this percentage will grow. The first auction is scheduled for November 14, 2012, and the 10% of allowances may net the State around one billion dollars, although the final amount will depend on the price for permits.

To create a framework for spending the revenue, the California Legislature and Governor passed AB 1532 and SB 535. The former lays out the process for allocating the revenue, while the latter sets certain parameters for its use – namely, that a percentage must be used for disadvantaged communities. Other limits on its use also exist; after all, it is a fee collected by the state, and thus its use must relate to the reason for its fee (i.e., it must mitigate the impacts of and/or reduce greenhouse gas emissions). Additionally, the Global Warming Solutions Act specifically disallows any “market mechanism” – like a cap & trade mechanism – from increasing other air pollutants.

AB 1532 – Processes for cap & trade revenue proposals

Of the two bills passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, AB 1532 deals with process. State law says that money collected from the cap & trade auction must be allocated by the Legislature and Governor; AB 1532 tasks the Department of Finance (DOF) to offer a three-year investment plan for the auction revenues to the Legislature during the May revision of the California budget in 2013.

In developing its proposal, AB 1532 tasks the DOF to work in consultation with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and other “relevant state entities.” The law also tasks CARB with conducting two public workshops and one public hearing in different parts of the State prior to DOF submitting their investment plan.

Additionally, AB 1532 lays out some suggestions for the investment plan, although it makes no requirements for particular expenditures that aren’t already required by law. Among its suggestions are money to, “Direct investment toward the most disadvantaged communities and households in the state…” and, “to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through strategic planning and development of sustainable infrastructure projects, including, but not limited to, transportation and housing.”

SB 535: Parameters for spending - and teeth in reporting

SB 535 establishes parameters for spending auction revenues. Specifically, SB 535 requires that at least ten percent of revenues collected by the State must be used for projects located within disadvantaged communities, and at least twenty-five percent must be spent on projects that “provide benefits” to disadvantaged communities. These communities are to be identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Additionally and importantly, SB 535 requires that the Department of Finance describe how the administering agencies (those agencies who will actually spend the money) have met the requirements of this law.

Next up, and what you can do

California’s first auction is set for November 14th. Additionally, CARB will soon determine the dates and locations for its public workshops and meetings as required by AB 1532. We are truly at a precedent-setting moment in California history. Capping and trading pollution allowances is a controversial idea, with many people uncomfortable about letting businesses determine where they will stop polluting and where they will continue or possibly even expand it. But, if spent well, revenues from a greenhouse gas cap & trade auction can be used to help mitigate the impacts of years of neglect and pollution on underserved communities while providing amenities like new public transit options that both reduce pollution and households’ costs.

The next step is to propose ways to spend revenues that treat all Californians fairly. TransForm and three allies (Housing California, Move L.A. & Move San Diego) have proposed some ideas for how to spend cap and trade revenues efficiently and to benefit all Californians, which you can read here.

Victory for Bus Rapid Transit along El Camino Real!

On Friday, September 21st, the VTA Board of Directors weighed in on VTA staff’s recommendation for the El Camino Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. At stake was the possibility of precluding the consideration of dedicated bus lanes in the future or abandoning the project altogether. Prior to the VTA Board Workshop, TransForm and other members of the Silicon Valley BRT Coalition met with the General Manager of VTA, the Chair of the VTA Board and other Board members to express support for moving forward with BRT plans and to allow for ongoing consideration of dedicated bus lanes. The Coalition also submitted a letter and, at the Board Workshop, members of the Coalition spoke in support of world-class BRT, including TransForm, Working Partnerships, Sunnyvale Cool, and the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. Thanks in part to this united effort; the VTA Board strongly supported the El Camino BRT project and directed staff to implement the Coalition’s recommendations. The Board will hopefully formalize their position with an official vote at their November or December Board Meeting. Take action now to thank the VTA Board for their leadership in ensuring the best possible project moves forward along El Camino Real and that they continue to support the BRT Coalition’s recommendations for dedicated lanes.

Call or email the VTA Board of Directors.Email can be sent to [email protected].

Write a letter to the editor of the Mercury News. E-mail your thoughts to [email protected].

Join our Friends of Silicon Valley BRT Facebook page.

For more information or to help make BRT a success in Silicon Valley contact Chris Lepe at [email protected] or call the TransForm Silicon Valley Office at (408) 406-8074.

Decision Time for Silicon Valley's El Camino Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project

A few months ago the Sunnyvale City Council gave the thumbs down to dedicated bus lanes, bike lanes, and pedestrian improvements as part of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA) El Camino Bus Rapid Transit project. Although supporters outnumbered opponents by at least 2 to 1 at the Council hearing, four of seven Council members voted against the proposal because of several unresolved issues, including:

Last minute opposition from auto dealerships who were inadequately engaged by VTA.

The belief by some Council members that improved north/south transit service within Sunnyvale is a higher priority than improved transit on El Camino Real (despite the fact that current and projected demand does not warrant such an investment at this time).

Insufficient information on potential traffic impacts for some Council members (an Environmental Impact Report has yet to be conducted to determine project impacts and the tradeoffs between dedicated lane and mixed flow alignments).

Since the Sunnyvale vote, VTA staff have changed their recommendation from over ten miles of bus only lanes to three miles of bus lanes with a mixed-flow alignment for the rest of the 17.3 mile corridor. On September 21st 2012, the VTA Board of Directors will be asked for guidance on whether to proceed with the El Camino BRT project and if so, how.

There is much at stake on September 21st. The 22 and 522 bus routes that run along the El Camino Real carry one fifth of VTA’s bus riders and transport more people per mile than VTA’s light rail system. Despite their productivity, existing bus service is totally inadequate to handle the 66,000 new jobs and 112,000 new residents projected by ABAG to move within walking distance of El Camino Real by 2035. Making minimal improvements to transit service while planning for substantial growth is like putting a bandage on a broken leg when what’s really needed is a cast. VTA projects a 35% increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and a doubling of time stuck in traffic on El Camino Real without BRT over the next twenty years. Today’s traffic congestion along El Camino Real will pale in comparison to what will come if we do not invest in world-class rapid transit.

Over 15 diverse organizations including the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the South Bay Labor Council, and the Sierra Club enthusiastically support Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in Silicon Valley because it will:

Stimulate the economy and create jobs: BRT on El Camino Real will attract tens of millions of dollars in federal funding and create hundreds of local jobs. BRT will also provide a foundation for sustainable development, including supporting local plans for new jobs and homes near transit.

More efficiently use taxpayer resources: BRT costs five to ten times less per mile to build than light rail and 40% less to operate and maintain. BRT will also improve VTA’s farebox recovery ratio, meaning that a lower percentage of VTA’s operating costs will be paid for by taxpayers thanks to increased ridership and faster transit travel times.

Provide economic benefits for households: BRT will provide reliable access to jobs, shops, services, and other needs for all people. In addition, by offering a competitive alternative to private vehicles, household transportation costs can be reduced drastically, thereby freeing up resources for other needs such as housing and healthcare.

Improve public safety and create safer streets: Bike lanes, upgraded crosswalks, and sidewalk extensions can be incorporated in areas with dedicated bus lanes to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities. Increased lighting, fare inspectors, and security cameras at stations will create a greater sense of safety of waiting for the bus, and emergency vehicles can access dedicated bus lanes, resulting in improved response times.

Foster healthy and sustainable communities: High quality public transit and more complete streets encourage walking and biking, thereby lowering cardiovascular disease. As more people take advantage of BRT with its state-of-the-art hybrid vehicles, we’ll reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, help tackle climate change and improve the air we breathe.

For these, and many other reasons, TransForm and our allies support Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) plans moving forward on El Camino Real, ideally with dedicated bus lanes, bike lanes, and pedestrian amenities. But given the City of Sunnyvale’s vote against dedicated lanes, one of the key questions is whether and how exactly VTA should move forward. TransForm urges VTA to:

Continue planning for the best possible project on El Camino Real. Transformative projects often take many years to plan and to gain consensus, and sometimes political realities and community needs do not lend themselves to artificial timelines. As such, VTA should not close the door for cities to adopt dedicated lanes as more information comes to light over the course of the planning process. In particular, VTA should study both a mixed flow and dedicated lane alternative in the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) so that decision makers will have more information to base their opinions on in the future.

Reward the City of Santa Clara for their Council’s unanimous support of multimodal BRT by ensuring that Santa Clara receives funding for dedicated bus lanes, bike lanes, and pedestrian amenities. We believe Santa Clara will serve as a model for the region and inspire other cities to support true BRT.

More effectively engage local elected officials, city staff, residents, and the business community. VTA staff must work with key stakeholders such as auto dealerships to inform, answer questions, and incorporate concerns and needs into the BRT plans. We are encouraged by VTA’s Draft Public Participation Plan and expect staff to utilize this new resource.

Together we can create world-class public transportation in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area. Take action to ensure that well planned BRT along El Camino Real moves forward.

Attend the September 21st VTA Board of Directors Workshop at 9am at the County Government Center. Read the Board packet prior to attending the meeting.

Call or email the VTA Board of Directors. Email can be sent to [email protected].

Write a letter to the editor of the Mercury News. E-mail your thoughts to [email protected].

For more information or to help make BRT a reality for El Camino Real contact Chris Lepe at [email protected] or call the TransForm Silicon Valley Office at (408) 406-8074.

2012 Legislative Round-Up

Friday marked the end of the 2012 legislative session in Sacramento, when hoards of bills either fly or die as the clock runs out on our state lawmakers. TransForm’s Sacramento staff were busy right up to the end with an intensive focus on three bills. Read on for our recap of what went well, what went wrong, and how you can help two of these bills become law in the next 30 days.

AB 441 – Including Health in Transportation Planning (TransForm co-sponsored)

Assemblymember Monning’s AB 441 is on the Governor’s desk, awaiting his signature. This bill, which TransForm co-sponsored with the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, requires the California Transportation Commission to include a list of projects, programs and policies that include health and health equity in its Guidelines for Regional Transportation Plans.

Transportation has a dramatic impact on our health, and on low-income communities that have been disadvantaged for too long. SB 375 has focused regional agencies on meeting greenhouse gas targets, but there is very little in these RTP guidelines that specifically calls out way to improve social equity, and even less of a focus on programs or policies that improve public health.

By incorporating health into planning, some regions in California are starting to address health issues such as diabetes, obesity, and lung disease. Unfortunately, because of California’s size and diversity, regional transportation agencies do not always know effective strategies that are being used in other parts of the state.

A report TransForm recently published with the California Depatment of Public Health, Creating Healthy Regional Transportation Plans, highlights some of these strategies, but is not meant to be exhaustive and had limited distribution. AB 441 ensures that these strategies that meet health and equity goals get highlighted by the state for regional agencies.

Send the Governor an email to pass AB 441. To read AB 441, please click here.

Cap & Trade Gets Ready to Roll

This November, California will carry out its first carbon cap & trade auction to cut greenhouse gas emissions per AB 32, passed in 2006. Even though the State will only collect revenues from ten percent of the total carbon allowed this first year, estimates of these revenues’ value range from $600 million to over $1 billion. The best part about this revenue is that it can only be spent in ways that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or help mitigate the negative impacts of these emissions and other pollution.

TransForm has been working with legislators throughout the year to help ensure that cap & trade revenues collected by the State will be used in a transparent and equitable way. In particular, communities that have already been disproportionately impacted by climate change and local pollution – our most disadvantaged communities – desperately need cap & trade revenues to help right now. Once available, these revenues can quickly be put to use building infrastructure that create real energy and transportation choices in ways that curb pollution emissions, but also save individuals hundreds of dollars and improve local health and safety.

AB 1532 and SB 535, authored by Assembly Speaker Pérez and Senator de Leon, respectively, both address the impacts of climate change in an equitable manner, and we are happy to report that both have passed the legislature and are headed to the Governor’s desk. AB 1532 creates a framework for spending cap & trade revenues, and SB 535 specifically requires that at least 25% of state-collected revenues be used in ways that help disadvantaged communities, and at least 10% be spent on projects within these communities. The two bills are also connected via “contingent enactment”, which means that the Governor cannot sign one bill and veto another; if either bill is vetoed, both bills die.

The Governor now has the opportunity to further implement the will of Californians to reduce greenhouse gasses and other pollution while addressing our health, safety, and quality of life.

Unfortunately, another good bill, Senator Pavley’s SB 1572, did not pass the Assembly. SB 1572 would have specified uses for revenues collected by the State from the 2012 cap & trade auction, and it contained programs and projects that we hope will be taken up by the agencies tasked with allocating these funds.

During the last two weeks in session, cap & trade revenues started to become a political football, with some legislators offering language to give away all carbon emissions for free to polluters. TransForm and allies worked hard to make sure that this did not happen, and after a few tense days of meetings, letters and phone calls, the language did not become a bill. For now, California is set to collect the revenues from ten percent of carbon allowances for the November auction and distribute it some time next year.

To read AB 1532, please click here. To read SB 535, please click here. To read AB 1572, please click here.

Two-Wheelers Get Three Feet Of Breathing Room

The legislature also approved SB 1464, a re-write of a bill the Governor vetoed last year that would improve safety for bicyclists and drivers on our roads. SB 1464 requires drivers to give three feet of clearance when passing people on bikes to prevent dangerous collisions. This common-sense bill was passed by a landslide majority and we expect the Governor to sign it this time around. But we’re not just waiting around – click here to tell Governor Brown you want him to sign it ASAP!

To read SB 1464, please click here.

Now that the legislative session is over, Sacramento seems quieter – but our new state legislative team is still busy as we turn our attention to the Governor’s mansion and begin strategizing for 2013. Check back for a final report on which bills win Governor Brown’s signature, and please contact Josh for more information about our growing efforts in Sacramento.

TransForm’s 2012 Ballot Initiative Endorsements

Election season approaches -- and with it, an alphanumeric sea of local and state ballot measures. TransForm’s Board of Directors has endorsed the following initiatives for the 2012 election and encourages you to vote on Tuesday, November 6.

YES on California Proposition 30

Governor Jerry Brown is leading the charge for Proposition 30, which would stop mid-year cuts of $7 billion to schools and health services across the State. Prop 30 raises the state sales tax by one-quarter percent for four years. It also adds three new income tax brackets for Californians earning $250,000, $300,000 and $500,000.

TransForm strongly supports the proposition, which would raise an estimated $6.8 to $9 billion, money that is desperately needed for California’s already-underfunded schools and health services. If it fails, the deeper cuts to the state budget are likely to put extreme stress on all state programs, including public transportation funding.

For more information, visit the Yes on 30 website.

NO on California Proposition 32

Don’t be fooled! While Proposition 32 looks like a way to clean up money in politics, it allows corporations and billionaires the opportunity to continue funneling unlimited amounts of money into their pet projects via “Super PACs” and secretive front-group campaign expenditures. At the same time it eliminates workers’ voices by dramatically restricting unions’ abilities to raise funds for political activities from its members.

A diverse alliance, from the Sierra Club to the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, has come out in opposition to this proposition. TransForm, too, has voiced its opposition to this measure, and we urge you to oppose it, too.

For more information, visit the No on 32 website.

YES on Alameda County Measure B1

Measure B1 would double the existing transportation sales tax in Alameda County, extend it in perpetuity, and approve a $7.8 billion plan for the next 30 years of spending. This would be the largest transportation funding measure ever in northern California.

TransForm supports Measure B1 because it would fund several vital improvements: restore cut bus service, start a new youth bus pass program, repair potholes, and make unprecedented investments for pedestrian and bicycle safety and infrastructure and for transit-oriented development.

While we have concerns about some projects in the plan, we are working to address those through other arenas, as explained in our in-depth analysis of the ballot measure.

YES on San Francisco Housing Trust Fund (Prop. C)

Funding for affordable housing production has plummeted since the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in California earlier this year. San Francisco, is taking the lead on recapturing funds with this vote on Prop C. If approved, this proposal would create a San Francisco Housing Trust Fund.

It would take advantage of the loss of redevelopment to recapture a portion of the local property tax receipts and dedicate up to $50 million annually toward the construction of affordable housing. It would also provide down payment assistance to moderate-income families and provide incentives to produce more housing overall in SF. This is the first example of a local jurisdiction enacting a permanent solution to the loss of redevelopment funding in order to continue investing in housing for low and moderate income households, and is simpler in San Francisco since it is both a city and county.

For more information, visit this blog posting by SPUR.

Remember, Election Day 2012 is Tuesday, November 6 and you must register to vote by October 22 to cast a ballot this fall.

#Election 2012 #Alameda County #San Francisco #transportation #statewide

A Postmortem on the Newly Passed Federal Transportation Bill

MAP-21 Aftermath: Storm Front and Silver Linings

Now that some times has passed since the whirlwind passage of a new federal transportation bill, it’s time to assess the damage and figure out where we stand.

Compared to the forward-looking, bipartisan bill that the Senate passed in April, the new MAP-21 that emerged from conference committee felt a little bit like a tornado had hit. Many of the best pieces of the Senate’s bill were ripped out by Congressional leaders rushing to beat the June 30 deadline. It’s safe to say that the final deal marks a step backwards for California and the nation (and we did just that in our press statement here).

But we’re not declaring a state of emergency just yet. This bill will last only twenty-seven months – and our best hope is ourselves. We need to pull on our boots and start working on the successor to MAP-21 even as we conduct damage control now. To that end, what follows is not only an overview of what’s wrong with MAP-21, but also what we can do to make it right in the short- and long-term.

Let’s start with the worst, and work our way towards the more positive aspects of the new bill. For a more comprehensive overview and continued updates on federal transportation policy, please visit t4america.org.

What’s Worse Than SAFETEA-LU

Some of the policies in the final bill are significantly worse than the last bill, even though the original Senate bill contained improvements on some of these issues.

Cuts to funding for repair and maintenance of our aging infrastructure. Under SAFETEA-LU, approximately 32% of highway funds are dedicated for repair of highways and bridges. The conference deal requires less than 3% of highway funding to be used for bridge repair – at a time when 13% of California’s bridges, and 12% of all bridges nationally, have been marked as structurally deficient. This is particularly frustrating as the original Senate bill contained a very strong repair program. Since Caltrans usually devotes extra resources to repairing bridges, we anticipate that this policy change won’t significantly slow our progress on fixing the backlog of needed repairs, but there sure aren’t any incentives from Congress to do so.

Cuts to funding for safe walking and biking, including Safe Routes to School programs. The conference deal cuts dedicated funding for walking and biking by one-third (from $1.1 billion to $750 million), and allows states to flex 50% of this funding to other uses for any reason, or 100% of this funding in cases of emergency. As pedestrians alone account for 12% of all traffic fatalities, cutting funding from 1.5% to 1.0% of federal transportation spending makes no sense. We’ve heard from Caltrans that the flexible 50% will remain committed to biking and walking, but we’ll have to stay vigilant to ensure this happens as there’s no requirement from Congress.

What Might Have Been Better Than SAFETEA-LU, and One Thing That Might Have Been Worse

There were several strong policies in the original Senate bill that were stripped by the conference committee, and one horrible policy that the House wanted but didn’t get.

Elimination of policies that would have made streets safer for people who walk, bike, and take transit. The original Senate bill included a “safer streets” policy that would have improved public health by requiring safety considerations of all road users be taken into account in road construction and repair. Unfortunately this provision was removed by the conference committee. Caltrans, MTC, and many local jurisdictions in the Bay Area as well as some other areas throughout CA already have “Complete Streets” policies, but a federal version would have bolstered our local policies by adding an analysis component and ensuring that it applies to all federally-funded roads.

Fails to provide emergency flexibility for larger public transportation agencies to support operations. Under the final bill, agencies with 100 or more buses running during rush hour are not allowed to flex any funds from capital to operations to cope with adverse economic conditions.The original Senate bill expanded funding flexibility to transit agencies serving areas of population greater than 200,000.

Fails to achieve equity for commuters who take public transportation. The Senate bill would have put all commuters on the same level, by increasing the public transit pre-tax commuter allowance to match the parking allowance. The conference deal left this provision out, so the current law will prevail – providing commuters who drive with nearly double the tax benefit available to commuters who take transit

Does not establish a National Freight Program. The original Senate bill included a national freight program to coordinate multi-modal freight transport and provided funding to improve freight corridors – including up to 10% for rail and maritime corridors. The conference committee removed the National Freight Program and omitted flexibility to use freight funding for rail and maritime improvements. It still includes freight performance measures and planning, but no requirement that states actually improve freight performance.

Preserves percentage of funding dedicated to public transportation. Earlier this year, House leaders proposed a bill that would have slashed or eliminated dedicated funding for public transportation. This attack on transit could have resurfaced in the conference committee – but thanks to a loud roar of opposition from advocates like TransForm, the final bill maintains current funding levels for public transportation.

What’s Better Than SAFETEA-LU

Don’t despair! There are some silver linings with the potential to deliver significant improvements – and we in California should be proud of our role in ensuring these policies were included in MAP-21.

Includes performance measures and targets that will be incorporated into regional and state transportation planning. The final bill preserves the performance measures that passed the Senate, including highway safety, air quality, transit safety, and transit state of good repair. States and regions must establish targets and show improvement on these measures. For highways, the U.S. Department of Transportation is directed to establish minimum condition standards; if states do not meet the minimum conditions within a certain amount of time, they must spend additional money on repair. While these new policies are not as strong as in the original Senate bill, they still represent a significant step towards more strategic use of transportation funds – and they wouldn’t be there without our advocacy over the past three years.

Creates a Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development. The final bill allocates $10 million for grants to communities who have received New Starts transit funding to do station area planning. San Francisco (Central Subway and Van Ness BRT), San Jose (Berryessa Extension), and Oakland (East Bay BRT) are all eligible to apply for this funding to support the public transportation corridors receiving federal New Starts funding. This is a great precedent that we’ll work to expand in the next bill.

Establishes competitive grant program in place of previous earmarks. MAP-21 converts the program that used to be filled with earmarks into a competitive, multimodal grant program with $1 billion in funding for FY 2013. The downside is that local governments and regions cannot apply; but if the TIGER program is any indication of the types of projects this Administration will choose, we are hopeful that the grants will go to states for worthy endeavors.

Modifies TIFIA loan program to enable more transit providers to access these funds. The final law contains a change to financing language that would allow transit providers with dedicated revenues to access these funds. This program is also expanded from $122 million annually, to $1 billion in FY 2014, which will mean more projects – and hopefully more transit projects – are able to get loans, loan guarantees, or lines of credit through the TIFIA program.

Looking Ahead

One of the key strategies for fixing the new transportation bill will be continuing to work together. The large and growing Transportation For America coalition that we helped to build over the past three years has not only made an impact on policy, we’ve begun to change the debate entirely. As Wade Henderson, President and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, wrote on DC Streetsblog:

The work that led up to the bill’s passage proved to be a small but significant step for our movement and one that establishes a pathway toward achieving greater transportation equity when the bill is reauthorized in 2014.

Nowhere is that more true than in California, where we’re building a statewide movement for world-class public transportation and walkable communities at every level. We’ll have plenty of opportunity to continue strengthening our coalition and building power as we focus on implementation of MAP-21 as well as the ongoing work to win more funding for transit at the state level. With our partners, we’ll also ensure that our regions establish smart land use and transportation plans to guide our communities towards a future with safer, cleaner, smarter transportation options that work for us all.

You can tap into this movement online by signing up as an individual or an organization with our Invest In Transit campaign, or share your questions and ideas in the comments below.

Plan Bay Area Moves Forward with Five Alternative Strategies for EIR

As noted in a previous blog post about the EIR, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is continuing their work on a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Plan Bay Area. The EIR will analyze the environmental impacts of land use scenarios and transportation investments that will be considered for Plan Bay Area.

The first phase of the EIR was the “Scoping Phase” where the public was invited to attend one of five public meetings to comment on the scope and content of the environmental information that will be evaluated. The first meeting in Oakland (June 20) had some active participation from local Tea Party activist that dominated the discussion. The second meeting in San Jose (June 21) that I attended was very productive and had an audience that respected the process. The public was able to make comments and ask questions. Several members of had the opportunity to ask multiple questions.

The deadline for formal written comments was July 11, 2012 and TransForm submitted its formal EIR Scoping Comment Letter to Ashley Nguyen (EIR Project Manager to [email protected] ).

Click here to read TransForm's letter. See below for the Final 5 Alternatives that were approved in a Special Meeting of the MTC and ABAG Commission on July 19, 2012. The July 19 agenda can be seen here.

TransForm submitted its formal comment letter on July 5, 2012. Here are a few highlights from our letter:

For Plan Bay Area to succeed, we believe that it needs to test of a wide range of possible policy inputs. This will allow the final plan to be constructed from the preferred scenario adopted in May plus the best elements of other alternatives tested in the EIR process. In particular, we support construction of an Equity, Environment, and Jobs (EEJ) Alternative to test the limits of Plan Bay Area. We offered the following comments. We have comments on each of the transportation-related policy measures, including multiple comments on both the Transit Network and Road Network.

Road Pricing: we are disappointed to see that the scoping meetings presented the “Project” alternative (#2) with “No Pricing.” It is unrealistic to assume no change in bridge toll revenues, and MTC’s revenue estimates already assume some revenue from New Bridge Tolls (perhaps not up to the $10 listed as Option D for Road Pricing). For the rest of the alternatives, we support testing a wide variety of pricing approaches, including several of the options listed on the staff handouts.

Road Network: We recommend that several of the alternatives include only HOV lane conversions for Express Lanes.

Transit Network: For the EEJ alternative, we support testing the impact of an alternative with transit service, funded by shifting funds from Freeway Performance Initiatives, OBAG, and Regional Express Lanes Network.

Transit Network: In conducting the EIR, MTC needs to develop an appropriate methodology to recognize that differing levels of investment in maintenance will affect regional results on a host of key measures. To date, we understand that MTC has not been able to model the difference between different levels of investment in maintenance, and we understand there are significant methodological difficulties in doing that modeling. But we suggest that it is unrealistic for the EIR to assume the same transit network regardless of how much the region invests in maintenance. If all the alternatives will have the same investment in maintenance, then figuring out this methodological problem is not as important for this EIR. But if the alternatives will have different levels of investment in maintenance, then this methodological problem is important.

Road Network & Transit Network: We were pleased to hear from MTC staff, in the June 29 meeting we participated in, that projects that are only included for study in the RTP/SCS investment package, but not for construction (e.g., SR 239, BART to Livermore), will not be included in the transportation networks studied in any of the EIR alternatives.

The five alternatives approved for analysis by the commission on July 19 are:

The No Project alternative – This alternative begins with the 2010 land use pattern and transportation network and assumes the continuation of currently-adopted general plans through 2040. CEQA requires examination of a no project alternative.

The “Preferred Land Use and Transportation Investment Strategy” alternative – The preferred alternative assumes a land use development pattern in which 80 percent of the Bay Area’s household growth and 66 percent of its job growth are located in “Priority Development Areas” identified by local jurisdictions. It pairs this land development pattern with the Plan Bay Area Preferred Transportation Investment Strategy, which dedicates nearly 90 percent of future revenues to maintaining our existing road and transit system.

The Transit Priority Focus alternative – This alternative will evaluate the potential for more efficient land uses in Transit Priority Project areas, which are areas called out in Senate Bill 375 that could be developed at higher densities to support high quality transit.

The Enhanced Network of Communities alternative – This alternative was informed by input from the business community. It seeks to provide sufficient housing for all people employed in the San Francisco Bay Area and allows for more dispersed growth patterns.

The Environment, Equity and Jobs alternative – This alternative was developed by input from the equity and environmental community. It seeks to maximize affordable housing in opportunity areas in both urban and suburban areas through incentives and housing subsidies. The suburban growth is supported by increased transit service to historically disadvantaged communities through studying a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax and higher bridge tolls.

The next steps in the process are as follows:

July - December, 2012 – The agencies will prepare the Draft EIR.

December 14, 2012 – The agencies are scheduled to release the Draft EIR and Draft Plan Bay Area for 45- and 55-day public review periods by the Joint MTC Planning and ABAG Administrative committees.

January 2013 – The agencies will hold public hearings on the Draft Plan and Draft EIR.

February - March 2013 – The agencies will prepare a Final EIR (including Response to Comments).

April 2013 – MTC and the ABAG Executive Board are scheduled to certify the Final EIR and adopt the Final Plan Bay Area.

For more information on the process and how to participate please contact Manolo González-Estay from TransForm at [email protected] or call (510) 740-3150 x 315.

Big news: last night's vote on Bus Rapid Transit signals a shift for the entire Bay Area

At nearly 11 p.m. last night, the Oakland City Council unanimously approved plans to bring true Bus Rapid Transit service with bus-only, center lanes to International Boulevard.

It was a dramatic meeting, but activists like you are why the pro-Bus Rapid Transit camp outnumbered naysayers by more than 3 to 1 – thank you!

No matter where you live in the Bay Area, this is a moment to celebrate:

This project will showcase what’s possible across the region: fast, reliable, frequent buses plus a better experience for riders – all at an incredible value. In these tough economic times, people need good public transportation options more than ever, but transportation dollars are seriously lacking. We need to bring cost effective solutions like Bus Rapid Transit to life… and finally we are!

The project will be a model in our transportation projects serving all users. It will dramatically improve pedestrian safety through improved crosswalks and bulb-outs and bike safety through new bike lanes. And it will even make things safer for cars, too, by calming speeds and making it safer to make left turns..

This project will get a lot more people taking public transportation. The projected is estimated to reduce current trip times along International Boulevard by 30% and will attract over 9,000 new daily passengers. Plus, the stations will have seating, lighting, shelter, state-of-the art transit information systems, and public art… not to mention all-door, level boarding like on BART.

We really are about to witness a revolution in public transportation between the Bus Rapid Transit projects in the works in the East Bay, Santa Clara County, and San Francisco Bus Rapid Transit projects in the works – all set to start service within 5 years.

TransForm is proud to have been engaging communities in shaping the Bus Rapid Transit projects in the East Bay and South Bay for the past 10 years. Phew! It’s been a long road, but now that strong projects with broad support are coming to life, it’s absolutely worth it.

If you want us to work to bring Bus Rapid Transit even more places in the region, please show your support with a donation today.

Historic Vote Kicks off Real Journey for High Speed Rail

By Stuart Cohen, Executive Director, TransForm

An epic battle over the California high speed rail project ended with a nail-biter on July 9, when the state senate got exactly the 21 votes needed to move ahead with funding the first segment of the project. The California Assembly had already passed the bill authorizing $2.6 billion in state bonds for the first segment, and Governor Brown’s signature is assured. “Californians have always embraced bold visions and delivered public projects that chart the way for the rest of the nation,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “Today’s vote continues that tradition.”

Media reports have made out the construction of high speed rail as either a panacea for all of our woes or the beginning of Armageddon. But the final outcome is still to be written — not just whether it is fully built and achieves projected ridership but whether it fulfills its potential to shape future growth, transform transportation in California and rebuild cities as the centers of our economy.

This project has incredible potential, but many issues will shape its viability over the next two years.

After Years of Ups and Downs, Strengthened Project Gets on Track

The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) was created in 1996 but has been chronically understaffed and much maligned. Ballot initiatives for initial funding of the LA/Anaheim to San Francisco segment were taken off the ballot in 2004 and 2006.

Environmental advocates helped influence and improve the project design — adding everything from a commitment to pursue zero energy to strong land use guidelines and protection of sensitive land — and it received significant support from statewide groups when it finally appeared on the ballot in 2008. Voters approved Proposition 1A in November 2008, authorizing nearly $10 billion in state bond funds toward the project.

But as the project was further designed, costs spiraled to $98 billion — more than double what had been projected when Prop 1A passed. Its dedicated tracks also required excessive infrastructure through several downtowns, and community opposition grew.

Yet Governor Brown made the project one of his top priorities and appointed new leadership to buoy the struggling project. In April, Dan Richard, the CHSRA’s new chair, helped usher in a revised 2012 Business Plan. The new plan reduced community impacts by sharing tracks with existing rail services in the urban areas (known as the “blended approach”). Along with other changes, it brought the projected cost down to $68 billion.

Most importantly, the project is now designed to serve as the backbone of a statewide rail network rather than as an isolated system. It supports early upgrades to Caltrain and Metrolink, as well as lines now used by Amtrak and Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), allowing these systems go faster and attract more riders. With an additional $2 billion of funding for these projects included in the funding bill that passed millions of Californians will benefit from these first investments by 2018. These upgrades will also serve to ready those corridors for high speed rail.

TransForm’s June 2012 report Moving Ahead with High Speed Rail explains the revised business plan and why these changes allowed TransForm to come out in support of this project. (Read a four-page summary of the report.)

If all goes well, construction will begin in 2013. The bill’s $2.6 billion in state funds will match more than $3 billion in federal funds for the section of track from Madera to Bakersfield. The CHSRA plans for a unified Northern California service that will allow Amtrak, ACE and other operators to use the first segment before high speed service begins.

Next Two Years Are Where the Real Challenges Lie for the Project

The July 9 vote was monumental, but it will pale in comparison to the task of actually completing the system: Picture an inexperienced climber struggling to scale El Capitan, getting 300 feet up and then realizing there is 2,700 feet to go. That is almost exactly where we are in this process.

The most daunting challenge of all will be identifying the rest of the funding. At least $56 billion more is needed to complete the project over the next 20 years. But every journey starts with a first step. Right now this project needs to build this first segment on budget and on time (especially on time, to meet federal stimulus deadlines of Sept 30, 2017) and show that it is being well managed.

The CHSRA recently hired Jeff Morales, an ex-Caltrans director who most recently had been leading the planning for high speed rail as a consultant. This was an excellent choice and restored the confidence of stakeholders and legislators, but he can’t do it alone. In fact the funding bill requires that he fill several top-level positions by October 2012 or risk further delays. The culture, competency and sensitivity of the CHSRA will be under intense scrutiny, especially as it begins construction that will impact cities and farms in the Central Valley.

Changes to Environmental Review May Come up Again

With the federal deadline to spend funds by September 2017, the Brown Administration floated the idea of three modifications to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to reduce delays to the project from litigation. The administration wanted these provisions tied to the funding bill, but with a strong reaction from the environmental community — including a letter from the Sierra Club categorically opposed to any CEQA changes — the concept was swept under the rug so that the funding could be debated on its own.

Many believe similar proposals will be back soon. TransForm, along with some of the largest environmental groups, have expressed openness to some very basic modifications, including allowing the CHSRA to make a change in one segment, such as along the Caltrain line, without having to redo the analysis for the entire project. This stance acknowledges that high speed rail is an environmentally preferable alternative to increased highway and airport capacity, and that having to constantly reevaluate whether it is a superior alternative at the program scale just doesn’t make sense. It is, however, absolutely critical to require that impacts and mitigations are identified at the project (i.e., local) level. TransForm and other groups are united against the weakening of CEQA at the project level. (For more information see page 35 of Transform’s report.)

Additional Funding Sources Will Be Challenging

It won’t be long before the CHSRA is searching for the next source of funds. The second phase of the project is the segment from Bakersfield to the Los Angeles Basin, with a cost of $25 billion. The revised business plan anticipates $20 billion from federal sources. But none of that federal funding is likely to materialize unless there the House of Representatives changes hands this fall and Democrats hold the White House and Senate..

f federal funds don’t materialize, the Brown Administration has proposed using revenues from the auction of permits in the Assembly Bill 32 greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program as a backstop. These revenues will be modest through 2015, but at that time transportation fuels will come under the cap, which means revenues could rise to $7 billion or more annually.

There will be a host of legal and political hurdles to get any of these funds, let alone $20 billion. The most basic is to prove that the project would actually reduce greenhouse gasses cost effectively, a question that will be tackled by the CHSRA within a year. Many of these hurdles are explained in a report by the Legislative Analyst’s office.

Even if it is legally viable, funding for high speed rail would compete with dozens of other proposed uses, including a widely circulated proposal from TransForm and Housing California to put at least 30 percent of the funding toward local transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, as well as affordable homes near transit.

SPUR has some additional recommendations for funding high speed rail that include increasing the price automobile travel.

We Need Smart Land Use to Support a Successful Project

Ultimately, high speed rail can’t just be a transportation project. The development of a high speed train linking California's major cities to each other must help retain existing downtowns as the primary economic centers of California. But unfortunately, good land use does not automatically follow new transit.

The CHSRA has already made what is arguably the most critical land use decision by focusing new stations primarily in downtowns at existing transit hubs. Although it can cost more to go through city centers in areas like the Central Valley, the CHSRA made a policy decision to avoid locating stations in greenfields.

But that is not enough. TransForm helped the CHSRA develop strong, smart land use guidelines in 2007, and the authority now has a funding program to support community-based planning near future stations. This will be especially critical in the Central Valley, and the timing is perfectly aligned with regional-scale planning for the state-mandated Sustainable Communities Strategies that are just getting underway there and will be adopted in December 2013.

The CHSRA must keep committing funds to station-area planning, but there must also be a concerted effort to coordinate other state grants to maximize potential benefits and avoid displacement of residents and businesses by high speed trains. There are significant potential benefits if we get the land use right in the Central Valley; for a preview see page 25 of TransForm’s report.

Impacted and Disadvantaged Communities Must Be Engaged and Compensated

The construction of high speed rail will directly displace some residents and businesses. While the CHSRA is required to compensate landowners for the value of their property, that does not mean their lives will not be dramatically disrupted. The authority has identified a host of potential mitigation measures but, as pointed out by groups like California Rural Legal Assistance Inc., the most important ones are only “suggested or considered.”

Deep engagement of disadvantaged communities needs to start immediately, and the CHSRA should prioritize policies that go beyond compensation: for example, ensuring that low-income residents who are displaced by the construction of this project are financially able to remain in their community. TransForm has proposed that the CHSRA immediately establish an Environment and Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, whose chair would make direct reports to the full CHSRA board, to confront this and other key issues in a transparent, constructive process.

Even with Challenges, High Speed Rail is an Opportunity California Must Take On

With California projected to grow to 50 million people over the coming decades, we absolutely need new transportation capacity. The question is, What types of capacity will we invest in? Done right, building high speed rail in California can reinforce cities as the hubs of our economies, significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality, get commuters off congested roads and cost much less than highway and airport expansion. Yet the CHSRA must truly confront all of these issues — and excel at finding solutions — if this project is to ever get built.

High speed rail is an incredible opportunity and challenge for California to take on, but an essential one. Over the coming months TransForm, along with other allies, will be engaged in making sure that high speed rail gets done — and done right.

Plan Bay Area begins its Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) began their work on a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Plan Bay Area. The EIR will analyze the environmental impacts of land use scenarios and transportation investments that will be considered for Plan Bay Area.

The public has been invited to attend one of five public meetings to comment on the scope and content of the environmental information that will be evaluated. The first meeting in Oakland (June 20) had some active participation from local Tea Party activist that dominated the discussion. The second meeting in San Jose (June 21) that I attended was very productive and had an audience that respected the process. The public was able to make comments and ask questions. Several members of had the opportunity to ask multiple questions. We encourage the public to attend the scoping meetings as well as submitting comments in writing (July 11 deadline).

TransForm just submitted its formal EIR Scoping Comment Letter to Ashley Nguyen (EIR Project Manager to [email protected] ). Click here to read TransForm's letter. The Final Alternatives for review by the Joint MTC Planning/ABAG Administrative Committees and recommendation to the Commision and ABAG Executive Board will occur on July 13 at the MTC Planning Committee with the Association of Bay Area Governments Administrative Committee in the MetroCenter Auditorium at 9:30am.

You can read a copy of One Bay Area Scoping presentation and submit a comment.

Discussion topics at the meetings include:

What environmental issues should be analyzed?

Are there alternatives that should be evaluated?

What mitigation measures would help avoid or minimize any negative impacts?

How can local jurisdictions and other agencies use this EIR?

The Scoping Meetings Dates are listed below. They will all present the same information so you only need to attend one of the meetings.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Joseph P. Bort Metro Center MTC Auditorium 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607

Thursday, June 21, 2012 10:00 a.m. to Noon Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library Room 255/257 150 East San Fernando Street San Jose, CA 95112

Monday, June 25, 2012 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Solano County Events Center 601 Texas Street Fairfield, CA 94533

Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:00 a.m. to Noon SF Planning + Urban Research (SPUR) Public Assembly Hall – 2nd Floor 654 Mission Street SF, CA 94105

Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Embassy Suites Hotel Novato/Larkspur Room 101 McInnis Parkway San Rafael, CA

It will be important for the public to keep track of the EIR Schedule. Due to the fact that this is a federal process there are some windows for comments and participation. The MTC staff did say they appreciate comments throughout the process but made it clear that there are moments with deadlines for comments. They mentioned that the timeline is tight at times, but they will make it work.

TransForm will be submitting a formal comment before the July 11 deadline and will share it on this blog when it is finalized.

The schedule for the EIR is as follows:

June 8 - Present Draft EIR Alternatives for review by the joint MTC Planning and ABAG Administrative Committees

June 11 – Release Notice of Preparation for 30 day Public Review

June 20-28 – Hold Regionwide Scoping meetings

July 11 – Final day to submit scoping comments to Ashley Nguyen (EIR Project Manager, see link)

July 13 – Present Final Alternatives for review by Joint MTC Planning/ABAG Administrative Committees and recommendation to Commission and ABAG Executive Board

July 19 - Commission and ABAG Executive Board Approve Final Alternatives

July-December -Prepare Draft EIR

December 14 -Release Draft EIR and Draft Plan for 45- and 55-Day Public Review Periods by Joint MTC Planning/ABAG Administrative Committees

January 2013 - Hold Public Hearings on Draft Plan and Draft EIR

February/March - Prepare Final EIR (including Response to Comments)

April 2013 - Commission and ABAG Executive Board Certify Final EIR and Adopt Final Plan.

For more information on the process and how to participate please contact Manolo González-Estay from TransForm at [email protected] or call (510) 740-3150 x 315.

Posted by Manolo González-Estay.

Major Milestone in the Bay Area’s Sustainable Community Strategy

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) meetings are getting more and more interesting, with substantive debates pushing staff and commissioners to change their proposals, and competing motions and amendments in many meetings.

Recently (May 17) MTC and ABAG officials voted to approve a draft long-range guide to the Bay Area’s transportation, jobs and housing. The “Preferred Land Use and Transportation Investment Strategy” was a key milestone in developing the final Plan Bay Area, which is due for adoption in April 2013. MTC also voted to approve the “One Bay Area Grants” (OBAG) program, and ABAG approved a draft housing allocation methodology for Bay Area cities.

The Plan Started Pretty Good …

The plan that went in front of decision-makers on May 17 had many good points to begin with:

88% of the funds go to Fix It First: operations and maintenance of the existing transit & local roads (up from 81% in the last plan).

99% of new homes and jobs would be in our existing urban footprint.

80% of new homes and 66% of new jobs would be in Priority Development Areas (downtowns and neighborhoods near transit that cities have identified as the places they want to grow).

Proposed priority projects for New & Small Starts represent a focus on performance: the Caltrain extension to the Transbay Terminal and the BRT projects are cost-effective and feasible and are projects TransForm prioritized for inclusion based on the Project Performance Assessment.

Of the 3 projects we prioritized to keep OUT of the plan based on the Project Performance Assessment, 2 of them -- SR 239 Expressway and BART to Livermore -- were not included for construction. Instead the compromise was to allow them to be in the RTP for planning and environmental studies.

Of the 14 projects we promoted for INCLUSION in the plan based on the PPA, all were included in the plan to some degree. Eight were included almost exactly as we supported. For three more, the project was included but we need some additional research to determine whether the full project we wanted was included. And for three more, only a portion of the project we supported was included, and the remainder of the project will have to await further study. More on this in a future post.

The One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program has a good overall intent -- to reward investment in priority development areas. We're glad it requires jurisdictions to have an approved Housing Element and good complete streets policies. We still have concerns over implementation -- both the lack of anti-displacement policies and the lack of guidance to counties on distributing the funds.

The Transit Performance Initiative is a good start; it should be bigger, but it should move the region towards low-cost, big-impact transit improvements.

There's a $10 million conservation program -- small by transportation standards, but a first-time dedication of transportation funds for conservation purposes

… and got better! Victory for Climate Innovative Grants

The big win of the night was restoring funding for the Climate Innovative Grants program: funded at $226 million, up from $0 before May 17. Car-sharing also got a big win, tripling their funding from before May 17. This was TransForm's biggest push during April and May, with many letters and calls by TransForm and other allies made to MTC/ABAG staff and commissioners. The innovative grants are the source for parking reform and TDMs, alternative fuel improvements beyond current law, as well as out of the box ideas such as regional bike sharing and 'cold-in-place asphalt recycling'. This funding for Climate Innovative Grants is about the same on a per-year basis as what was included in the last RTP, but now MTC is planning the program for decades to come.

Interestingly, elected officials also added a new line item from the dais on the 17th: a new $70 million investment for “PDA Planning and Implementation.” In an unusual move at an MTC or ABAG meeting, this was a brand new idea introduced only at the meeting itself. The only description of the program we saw given in the meeting was when Supervisor Scott Haggerty proposed the item, moving the funding away from the “Smart Driving Strategy” listed in staff’s presentation. TransForm supports providing more funds to plan for and implement needed improvements in PDAs in general, and we look forward to finding out what this funding will support as the rest of the plan unfolds.

But improvements are still needed

There are still many ways in which the plan still could and should improve, all of which are ideas that would help move the region towards meeting the 10 SCS targets the agencies adopted for this One Bay Area plan.

Most importantly, the agencies’ analysis shows that the share of income low-income families spend on transportation and housing will get worse, not better, and that displacement risk will get much higher in low-income communities. This plan can and should do better. For example, the OBAG program should require anti-displacement policies, at least in the next round of funding. The Lifeline transit funding program should have more investment.

With the express lane network and pricing in general, MTC has not done enough, conducting very little public engagement or planning on the express lane network as a whole. In partial response to concerns expressed by TransForm and members of MTC’s Policy Advisory Council, MTC has said they will investigate some alternative pricing approaches in the EIR, including aspects on the express lane network, parking pricing, and potential congestion or whole-road pricing in certain areas. TransForm will continue to push for more public engagement and analysis on the express lane network and other pricing ideas.

What’s next for the SCS?

The strategy MTC and ABAG adopted on May 17 will now be the “project alternative” to be evaluated as part of the plan’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In December 2012, the agencies expect to release the draft Plan Bay Area and EIR, which will be followed by public hearings throughout the region. That will be the next major opportunity to win changes in the plan, based on what comes out of the environmental review process. MTC and ABAG expect to adopt the final Plan Bay Area and certify the final EIR in April 2013.

Important Next Steps: (See the Plan Bay Area Planning Process Phase 3 & 4 Chart)

June 2012 – Select alternatives to be evaluated in Plan Bay Area Environmental Impact Report.

December 2012 - Release draft Plan Bay Area and Environmental Impact Report.

April 2013 - Adopt Final Plan Bay Area and certify final Environmental Impact Report.

To stay involved and help ensure the final plan addresses the region’s needs, contact Manolo González-Estay [email protected] and check for updates on the SCS page on TransForm’s website.

$1 Million Awarded to Implement Transit-Oriented Development Plan on International Boulevard in Oakland

One of the reasons why TransForm was so committed to making sure the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit project (BRT) is done right is because of the tremendous potential it has to become a catalyst for economic growth and infill in the form of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) along International Blvd. To help ensure that any future investment along the corridor would result in meeting the needs of current residents along the corridor, TransForm and the Great Communities Collaborative helped win funding for the City of Oakland to work with non-traditional stakeholders in creating the award-winning International Blvd. TOD Plan. To ensure that this plan didn't simply end up on a shelf (especially now that Redevelopment has been dissolved), TransForm worked with the City in writing a grant to the Strategic Growth Council that resulted in an award of $999,836 to implement the policies called out for in the plan, such as improving pedestrian safety and access to transit, building and protecting affordable housing while attracting more economic investment, creating assistance programs for small businesses, etc. We look forward to working along the corridor in partnership with the City of Oakland and local community stakeholders for another 3 years to ensure not only that BRT is implemented in a way that responds to the communities’ needs, but that the economic investment it attracts also meets the communities’ needs. To learn more about this work, please contact Joél Ramos.

Victory for Climate Innovative Grants!

On May 17, we won a victory for climate emissions reductions when MTC/ABAG dedicated $226 million to the Climate Innovative Grants program as they adopted their proposed transportation investment and land use strategy for the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). This funding was a direct response to TransForm’s April 13 letter making recommendations on the SCS and numerous conversations with Commissioners in April and May.

In April and May committee meetings, MTC meeting staff presented suggest “Climate Policy Initiative” options to address the GHG gap. The vast majority of their proposed investments were for several vehicle technology and behavior change proposals (“Electric Vehicle Acceleration”, “Vehicle Buy-Back and Plug-In or Electric Vehicle Purchase Incentives”, and “Smart Driving Strategy”).

During April and May, we educated Commissioners, submitted a letter with our recommendations, engaged other stakeholders to speak up – including with their own letters – and worked with staff. We pointed out that the vehicle technology and behavioral programs do little to meet all 10 SCS performance targets; they are vehicle emissions strategies, not the transportation and land use strategies envisioned by SB 375. Electric vehicles are a critical part of the global warming solution -- but with MTC's very limited funding we should look for even greater win-win scenarios that also reduce demand for new roads and congestion (which causes more CO2 for the gas cars stuck in traffic behind the EVs). We recommended more funding for the Climate Innovative Grants program that had been initiated by the 2009 Regional Transportation Plan.

Here is a copy of MTC’s original proposed investments:

BEFORE:

In the May 11 meeting, numerous commissioners (Green, Halsted, Campos, Bates, McKenzie, Wiener, and a couple ABAG reps) all said that there was too much dedicated to Electric Vehicles and they wanted other options. In the meeting and with calls prior to the meeting, several asked for continued funding for the Climate Innovative Grants and for more investment into Car Sharing, noting the high return for a smaller investment. MTC staff said they heard commissioners’ concerns “loud and clear” and promised to come back with new options.

On the day of the MTC/ABAG Special Meeting on May 17, MTC staff released a new proposed Climate Policy Initiative.

When it was adopted later (much later!) that night, we had won a new $226 million commitment to Climate Innovative Grants. These innovative grants are the source for parking reform and TDMs, alternative fuel improvements beyond current law, as well as out of the box ideas such as regional bike sharing and ‘cold-in-place asphalt recycling’. See below for three slides from staff’s revised proposal (For full presentation click here).

AFTER:

We look forward to seeing the evaluation results of the first cycle of funding for the Climate Innovative Grants and to working with MTC to shape a next round of funding to support new innovative ideas.

At the same time, there is still much more work to be done on the rest of the Sustainable Communities Strategy. See our separate post on the overall transportation investment and land use strategy and what’s coming next in the SCS process.

To continue to be involved in this process please contact Manolo Gonzalez-Estay at [email protected].

TransForm Supports Measure B, Alameda County’s transportation measure

TransForm is pleased to offer its support of the proposed renewal, extension, and increase of Alameda County’s transportation funding measure, often known as “Measure B”.

Many of you have been following the fact that Alameda County faces a big decision in November. Transportation officials plan to ask voters to double the existing transportation sales tax, extend it in perpetuity, and approve a $7.8 billion plan for the next 30 years of spending. This would be the largest transportation funding measure ever in northern California.

TransForm was intimately engaged in efforts to shape the spending plan, working with a diverse coalition since 2010. The Final Plan, passed in January, included many of the changes we and others recommended. On Thursday (May 24), the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) will take the next step, asking the Board of Supervisors to place the measure on the November ballot.

After doing an extensive analysis of the proposed reauthorization Measure B Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) and discussing it with members and partner groups, TransForm has decided to SUPPORT the proposed reauthorization, increase, and extension of the measure.

In the discussions leading up to the adoption of the final plan, TransForm worked with a broad coalition of groups who came together behind a “Community Vision Platform” with specific recommendations about changes to the spending plan and the language describing specific projects and programs. We encouraged members of the public to speak out and worked with ACTC staff to improve the plan. By the time the final plan was adopted in January, it included many of the changes we and others had recommended, but certainly not all of them. For more information on the history, see the Measure B page on our website.

We recognize that the final plan is the result of a long process with many voices. It is not perfect, but we believe it is good enough to deserve our support.

TransForm supports the new Measure B because it would fund several vital improvements: restore cut bus service, start a new youth bus pass program, repair potholes, and make unprecedented investments for pedestrian and bicycle safety and infrastructure and for transit-oriented development. We remain concerned about some components of the plan and we will continue to address our concerns in other appropriate decision-making arenas. For example, we will continue to press for fast, effective transit that serves Livermore residents while making sure all riders have a BART system that is safe and affordable.

On balance, we believe Alameda County will be better off with the new Measure B plan. In the coming months TransForm plans to help educate voters and encourage passage of the new Measure B plan on the November ballot. We will also continue to work with decision-makers to address transportation and land use planning issues in Alameda County and throughout the region.

For more information or to get involved please contact Manolo González-Estay at [email protected] or call (510) 740-3150 x315.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

TransForming the Bay Area and California