The Loma Prietan
December 1999/January 2000
Bay Area Transit 2000 and Beyond
by Richard Zimmerman
As Y2K dawns, transportation is at the top of the Bay Area's problem list. Commuters idle helplessly as commute times soar. Recent news articles say emergency vehicle drivers must create ways of getting around traffic to get to the scene of the accident. And the attack on the environment continues as Bay Area airports propose Bay-destroying projects and voters routinely turn down measures to fund transportation projects. Santa Clara County voters did approve one measure to fund transportation in 1996; others have not fared as well.
Part of the reason for gridlocked traffic in the Bay Area is the lack of a regional authority or plan. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) proposes and funds regional projects. However, its plans often have been thwarted by local groups resistant to new highways or rail systems.
The controversial BART system demonstrates the problems that result from the Bay Area's Balkanized approach to transit systems. First proposed as a five- county (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo) system in 1951, two of the five counties opted out. San Mateo County supervisors rejected the system and Marin pulled out because of financial difficulties. The system didn't begin operation until 1972.
"It's time," says Linda Mandolini, Director of Transportation and Land Use for the influential Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, "for a regional transportation policy. Dealing with the individual counties is just too difficult."
As long as Bay Area counties approach transportation problems with myopia, ignoring solutions that could improve the area's transportation, the problems will continue. The earthquake-resistant Bay Bridge and San Francisco International Airport's proposed expansion are just two current examples of poor regional planning.
Transportation improvements under consideration might improve the quality of life in the Bay Area. There are no magic buses, however. The near term future of transportation will be evolutionary, not revolutionary.
THE TRANSIT/HOUSING MARRIAGE
At meetings to gather ideas for its "Bay Area Transportation Blueprint for the 21st Century," MTC discussed possible transportation improvements. Possible projects include rapid buses, rail expansion including BART, ferry expansion and, of course, several highway projects. Bicycling and walking barely rated mention.
The drive to get people out of their cars depends on the availability of close-to-home bus and light rail systems. Unfortunately in Silicon Valley, housing density is such that most find it inconvenient to use a bus. Light rail is not widely available.
Transit stops more than a ten minutes walk are considered too far, according to Jane Holtz Kay in Asphalt Nation. In a low- density area, buses run infrequently because there are few riders. Higher density implies more riders which, in turn, leads to more frequent service.
The Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, an industry-supported lobbying organization, came out in support of higher -density housing in Silicon Valley. While that organization's goals include cheaper housing for the forecasted 1,300,000 new job holders in the area by 2020, higher density would aid transit systems.
Higher housing density can only occur slowly. The Silicon Valley 1999 Environmental Index says that population density in the Valley increased from eight people per acre in 1984 to nine and a half person in 1998. Other measures must fill the transportation gap in the near future.
COMMUTERS SET TO SUFFER MORE
Even with some improvement in current transit systems, MTC predicts an increase of 39% in auto trips by 2020. One trip on 101 through Mountain View and Sunnyvale at commute time should convince anyone a solution is required as soon as possible. But what solutions are being pursued?
MTC is advocating "rapid buses" as one possible solution to gridlock. The idea is to use existing under-utilized High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (HOVs) for buses. Even though Silicon Valley receives good marks for implementing HOVs from transportation advocates, ride-sharing has declined in Silicon Valley over the past four years according to a recent Silicon Valley Environmental Partnership report. Since rapid buses use existing roads, it's a low cost alternative. New buses constitute the only cost. MTC says rapid buses may attract the most riders while costing the least.
The buses need not be those noisy old diesel buses either. Several clean-bus technologies are under development. Vancouver, B.C., has been testing electric buses that use fuel cell technology. Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) also represents another cleaner engine technology that is currently available.
In Santa Clara County the overloaded Milpitas-Sunnyvale corridor is high on MTC's list of promising rapid bus projects. MTC uses the measure of 2500 daily new bus riders to decide if a project is "promising." Other possible rapid bus projects include the Fremont BART to Silicon Valley and the West Valley to Silicon Valley routes. San Mateo County routes under consideration include several locations to San Francisco and Santa Clara County.
TAKE THE E-TRAIN
Mandolini notes that express buses have not been that successful in the Bay Area. Rail projects attract more riders and should be high on the list of possible improvements. Local rail projects under consideration include the electrification of CALTRAIN and extending BART to San Jose.
And while San Francisco voters approved the idea of extending CALTRAIN to downtown in the November election-an idea supported by transit advocates-it may not happen due to the lack of a regional transportation plan. Both San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties would need to furnish some of the funds; neither county has signed up for the program yet.
A new rail system with wide support is the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE). A recent addition to rail service in the Bay Area, the two round trips a day run at over 90% of capacity. The ACE Board of Directors voted to expand the service by adding a third train by February, 2000. Expansion of that service was on MTC's list for improvements as well as the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group's.
IN THE DISTANCE
Fast trains to Southern California are another possible option. The California High Speed Rail Authority announced its preferred route this year and will be seeking funding for the project in 2000. The project cost is said to be approximately 23 billion dollars if the most advanced technology is used, or 16 billion if the Commission chooses a less advanced technology.
High speed rail is clean, fast and safe. Europe and Japan have developed the technology and lead the world in use. Trains are quieter than airports and planes and more environmentally friendly in operation. The goal of the project is to move people from the Bay Area to the LA area in slightly more than two hours at 70% of the cost of flying. Maximum speeds currently envisioned are over 200 miles per hour.
And the potential passengers are available. Currently, according to MTC's Regional Airport Planning Committee, 47%(9.5 million) of the Bay Area airline passengers fly between the Bay Area and the Los Angeles area each year. When San Diego is included, the number increases to an astounding 59%(12 million). While not all those passengers would opt for rail, many would. In addition, HSR would serve people in the central valley as well as the major population centers.
Because of its potential impact on passenger revenues, airlines have opposed high speed rail. In Texas, Southwest Airlines was instrumental in defeating a high speed rail proposal at the polls.
SAIL ME AWAY
Another example of the regional planning problem surfaced recently. A new San Francisco Bay Ferry Authority was created when Gov. Gray Davis signed State Senator Don Perata's (D-Alameda) bill, SB482. The bill authorized, without any funding, a grandiose project supported by the Bay Area Council, a group representing regional businesses.
The idea of commuting by ferry captures almost everyone's fancy. The idea is so attractive, in fact, that there are two proposals for ferry projects in the Bay Area. The competing ferry project is an expansion of the current system supported by MTC.
There are several potential problems lurking beneath the waves, however. Many terminals would be required for an expanded ferry service. Proposed terminal sites could impact wetlands or other critical habitat. All those terminals might lead to giant parking lots given the current state of Bay Area transit. The newly minted Ferry Authority says its goal is to have at least 50% of the ferry passengers use something other than a car to get to a terminal.
There are other potential flaws in the plan. Bluewater Network stated that, if the ferries used diesel engines, those engines would produce more air pollution than the car engines they replaced. However, CALSTART, an advanced transportation consortium, and others were quick to point out that Bluewater's assumptions of current diesel technology may not be valid. Norway, for example, is building ferries slated for service next year that use LNG engines and will hold 50 to 100 autos. Finally, Aaron Priven, Transportation Chair for the Bay Chapter, says the Ferry Authority's proposal is not cost effective. Priven says MTC's approach of focusing on particular routes is more workable.
GIVE UP YOUR CAR?
So if some or all of these ideas are successful, will you sell your car? In the near term, automobiles will continue to be the most convenient form of transportation. But as transit becomes more user friendly, it may indeed be possible to sell the family bus and use one from the local car-sharing lot. This idea has been used in Europe for some time as well as several North American cities. Car-sharing is to be tested in San Francisco next spring.
The program plans to have 30 vehicles, and 275 members, within three years. Members will pay monthly and damage fees as well as time and mileage fees when using the cars. Cars would be parked at three locations in the City. Members needing a car could reserve a vehicle for a time. Organizers believe it would be cheaper than owning a car.
THE REAL CHALLENGE
Funding continues to be a problem for transit projects. Over 80% of MTC's budget is scheduled for maintenance of current systems. But Mandolini says the major problem is changing the mindset against public transit. "Buyer resistance" will be hard to overcome even if the buses/trains come up to speed. "The real challenge," she says, "is getting people to support transit." Ultimately, the people have to choose what to do.
MORE INFORMATION
- Metropolitan Transportation
Commission's Blueprint for the 21st Century www.mtc.dst.ca.us/projects/blueprint/bp_overview.htm
- Transit Info, a general site maintained by MTC with links to virtually
every transportation agency in the Bay Area www.transitinfo.org
- Silicon Valley Environmental Partnership www.svep.org
- CALSTART www.calstart.org
- High Speed Rail Authority www.cahighspeedrail.org
- Surface Transportation Policy Project www.transact.org/stpp.htm
- Ferry Authority 206.14.43.70/groups/home/watertransit/index.html
- Learn about SFIA's Plan to fill the Bay
www.hooked.net/~wndrider/sfia/sfia.html at my web site stopsfo@hooked.net.