Note: These files are organized in
order, relative to when they were posted on the site, i.e. latest
is at the top of the list....
"consider the 2009
termination of its swaps agreements with Ambac Financial Services,
which cost $104 million in toll bridge revenues. That is, this action
was a charge against Bay Area bridge and transit users of $104 million."
Public Advocates to MTC on backfill attempt, OAC, September 1, 2010.
"Staff has not been candid either
with this Commission or with the public about its efforts to reward
BART’s Title VI non-compliance with additional funding. Its calculated
decision to pursue this funding through means it knew were improper,
and based on the 'principle' of keeping this Committee from exercising
its proper role, have led to multiple violations of state law and MTC
RAFT to Senate Appropriations Committee on HOT lane bill, June
"Drivers crossing the
state–owned toll bridges are paying millions of dollars to cover swap
charges resulting from BATA’s poor financial decisions. This is not a
short–term problem, either, as several of the swaps are in effect until
"Now the total shown for the San Francisco–Oakland UZA (SF–O) is $53,341,000. But this is not the amount that will revert to operators in the SF–O, which will instead receive at most $35,610,889."
Federal Transit Administration to SF Muni on Central Subway project, January 7, 2010.
agencies to demonstrate the ability to maintain and operate the public
transit system after implementation of the proposed project without
requiring a reduction in existing levels of public transportation
service. Based upon FTA’s review of SFMTA’s bus and rail fleet
management plans and the twenty year financial plan, FTA cannot at this
time determine SFMTA’s ability to do this."
"Given the fact that the initial Title VI complaint against
BART was well founded, I am not in a position to award the ARRA funds
to BART while the agency remains out of compliance."
MTC memo on the Oakland Airport Connector and recent FTA memo,
February 10, 2010.
6kb html link
"(Regarding the Oakland
Airport Connector Project) We write today to respond to the substance
of BART’s January 28 draft plan, which is deeply flawed at multiple
"The Regional Alliance For
Transit opposes AB 744, as it is an impediment to meeting the
requirements of SB 375...."
"The confluence of these requirements – many time-consuming,
some entirely unpredictable, and others close to impossible – justify
us in agreeing with FTA Administrator Rogoff’s statement that the OAC
option 'involves considerable risk to the $70 million in ARRA funds.'"
Public Advocates to BART, January 22, 2010.
"... BART has again denied low-income and minority
participants the opportunity to identify adverse impacts and delayed
and denied benefits associated with the (OAC) project."
FTA to MTC and BART on the Oakland Airport Connector, January
"VTA has incorporated the
latest economic forecasts in our revised projections, and even the most
optimistic analysis indicates that reserves will be depleted by the end
of the current fiscal year."
RAFT to MTC Programming and Allocations Committee on its Freeway Performance & Climate Initiatives, September 30, 2009.
"Now would be an excellent
time to begin a comprehensive educational campaign that brings out the
advantages of walking, biking, carpools and transit, along with trip
chaining, over single occupancy car trips."
RAFT comment letters to MTC on the proposed Regional
Transportation Plan, March and April, 2009.
"...how can the RTP include
the very costly extension of BART to Santa Clara County at the same
time that VTA, the sponsor, is proposing to cut its local existing bus
and light rail service, on which so many minority and low-income riders
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Following Court Trial.
Darensburg et al. v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, March 27,
"The Court sympathizes with
the predicament of the members of the Plaintiff Class, who have
experienced declines in bus services on which they depend to meet their
basic needs, such as getting to school and work safely and on
time. Nonetheless, MTC has met its burden of showing a
substantial legitimate justification for the challenged funding
Public Advocates to MTC on the "Stimulus", February 24, 2009.
"The Commission should not
divert FTA funds for expansion purposes, something that its own policy
prohibits...At a minimum, it should allocate $46,920,000 to AC
Transit...and $152,320,000 to MUNI."
Amicus Brief, supporting CTA's suit over State's use of transit "spillover" funds
"Public Transit Plays a
Critical Role in Providing Access to Opportunity, Promoting Important
Climate Change Policy and Growing the Regional and Statewide Economy."
RAFT to Acting Administrator, FTA, November 20, 2008.
"RAFT is also concerned
about the VTA’s ability in future to construct and operate the SVRT
without further degrading its bus service and harming its bus riders.
We write to bring our Environmental Justice and Financial Capacity
concerns to your attention."
RAFT to Attorney General Edmund G Brown, Jr. November 7, 2008.
4kb html link
Plaintiffs' post–Trial Brief (Liability Phase). Darensburg et
al. v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, October 31, 2008.
RAFT to Senator Steinberg. October 30, 2008.
RAFT to Attorney General Edmund G Brown, Jr. October 30, 2008.
"Members of our organization
have monitored MTC since our founding in 1992, and encourage you to
track the development of the long range plan."
Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr to MTC. October 1, 2008
"MTC staff's analysis
indicates that many of the "committed" expansion projects support only
one, in some cases none, of
the identified performance goals."
Herhold Column, San Jose Mercury News. September 20, 2008.
"Better reasons exist to oppose
the BART tax. It's a very costly system for the number of new riders it
is expected to serve. It will suck money from bus and light rail
service. This won't be the last tax."
RAFT to Edmund G Brown Jr and others. August 17, 2008
"In sum, MTC has enormous
powers in transportation, but is reluctant to use them for serious
support of AB 32."
(NB: similar letters have been sent to the author of
California's AB 32; the chairs of the relevant committees in the State
Legislature; the chair of the relevant committee in the US Senate; and
the chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global
Warming in the House of Representatives.)
"The contradiction between MTC's
forward-looking new policies and its long list of counterproductive
holdover projects should be addressed and resolved, no longer excluding
old funding from current allocation."
Plaintiffs' Memo. and Opposition re Motions for Summary
Judgment and Summary Adjudication, Darensburg et al. v. Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, June 3, 2008.
"As we show below, MTC's
opposition rests on a serious misreading of the plain language of Gov.
Code sect; 11135 and its implementing regulations, ignoring controlling
and persuasive Ninth Circuit authority on proof of prima facie
disparate impact, and seeking to prop up immaterial factual disputes."
"Should money be going to
fixing broken streets and keeping buses running in areas losing
population at the expense of foregoing new investments in fast-growing
parts of the region? Such logic runs counter to principles of
smart-headed, long-range strategic planning."
Expert Report of Stefan Boedeker - Darensburg et al. v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, February 1, 2008.
2.5mb pdf download
"...the more passengers that ride on the transit operator the lower the funding per passenger trip; in fact a double-log regression analysis revealed that a 10% increase in passenger volume would result in a 3.1 % decrease in funding per capita."
Expert Report of Prof. Thomas W. Sanchez - Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, January 11, 2008.
"I discuss some of the ways
in which MTC's conduct in relation to Environmental Justice and social
equity is inconsistent with principles, expectations and requirements
in the transportation planning field governing the conduct of MPOs in
the areas of public participation, environmental justice and social
Declaration of Thomas A. Rubin in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication - Sylvia Darensburg (and others) v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, April 1, 2008.
779kb pdf download
Thus, unrelieved capital rehabilitation shortfalls are unlikely to have an immediate significant impact on the existing system, whereas unrelieved operating shortfalls pose serious and immediate threats to the existing system in the form of service cuts, fare increases, and other impacts on the quantity and quality of transit services provided.
Expert Report of Richard Berk - Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, January 9, 2008.
222kb pdf download
Likewise, policy and funding decisions adversely affecting AC Transit service would fall disproportionately on minorities compared to similar policy or funding decisions adversely affecting BART or Caltrain.
Expert Report and Declaration of Thomas A. Rubin - Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, January 11, 2008.
Large File - 6.6mb pdf download
The operating shortfalls MTC creates in turn force AC Transit to reduce service.
California High Speed Rail Bond, Connecting Rail Funding
The California High Speed
Rail bond includes $950 million in funding for connecting rail projects.
Over many years Defendant
MTC has exercised and continues to exercise control over transportation
funding for the Bay Area in a manner that disproportionately benefits
the white riders of Caltrain and BART, at the expense of the
disproportionately minority riders of AC Transit.
Stipulation and Order;
This action shall be
maintained as a class action...on behalf of a class of Black, Hispanic,
Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaskan native
individuals who are patrons of AC Transit.
The East Bay's Free Weekly
June 10, 1994
Is Bay Area Transportation Planning on the Right Track?
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has a vision of the future: 500 miles of new freeway lanes over the next twenty years
by Dashka Slater
"The only significant
difference in transit use we found is with the RAFT proposal" Brittle
(of MTC) says.
"It is time for the
Legislature to review, with an audit, the VTA’s organizational
effectiveness, its stewardship of state and local tax dollars, and
whether its capital projects are well thought."
Request Legislative Audit of the VTA. August 15, 2007.
"The State Auditor should
review projects...including the BART extension, to determine what
analyses were prepared and reviewed...and if the analyses considered
all relevant factors - costs, benefits, and alternatives."
RAFT to MTC on its proposed public participation plan. June 18, 2007.
"Further, how will the MTC
demonstrate “explicit consideration and response to public input,” both
for the RTP and the TIP?"
Supervisor McGoldrick and Mayor Newsom to Transbay Joint
Powers Authority. February 7, 2006
"it is essential that we develop
shaort and long-range funding and phasing plans for the Caltrain
Downtown Extension and the Transbay Terminal"
"Recommended VTA Quarter Cent Sales Tax Scenario." Chief Construction Officer of the VTA to its Board. December 23, 2005.
"The immediate result of using the
new sales tax data is that
all Measure A projects can be completed in the Initial Program, subject
to a proposed quarter–cent sales tax passing in 2006."
VTA General Manager to the Board of Directors regarding the
BART to San
Jose project. December 8, 2005.
"...the FTA has advised us
that its continued review of our
submittal will unlikely yield a positive result for the project."
Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) – Updated Ridership Estimates, September 19, 2005
"If the BART extension terminates
at Berryessa, 48,400 passengers would not ride BART each weekday."
RAFT comment letter on the draft EIR for the 2030 Regional
Transportation Plan and related documents. January 5, 2004.
"Is the MTC required to
support, or to include in the RTP, all projects that are included in a
county sales tax expenditure plan? If so, under what authority?"
"(MTC) may not adopt the
Proposed Project as its Regional Transportation Plan, as that term is
defined in federal law."
Letter from TRANSDEF to MTC on the draft 2005 Regional Transportation Plan. January 2, 2005.
28kb html link
"There is no underlying intellectual justification...for the project selection choices in the Project Alternative or the Fiscally Constrained Alternative..., other than that they were recommended by their respective counties."
Letter on the 2005 RTP from Counsel for TRANSDEF to MTC. January 7, 2005.
16kb html link
"It is thus amply clear that MTC may not bifurcate the RTP and its fiscal element into two different versions for state and federal law purposes...A fiscally unconstrained plan cannot be adopted as the region’s RTP under either state or federal law."
"...California should not
provide TCRP funding for the BART (to San Jose) project before:
1) VTA has secured a federal New Starts FFGA for $973 million;
and 2) Local voters authorize the County’s half–cent
transportation sales tax in November 2006."
FTA Region 9 Administrator to VTA General Manager. September
"...FTA intends to cease
Federal action on the SVRTC project until a Record of Decision has been
issued on the WSX...FTA will work with you to identify several
milestones within the project's development schedule that must be met
as a condition for maintaining PE status for the SVRTC project."
SF City Attorney to Building Inspection Commission. September
"...Proposition H clearly
prohibits the City from taking any action in its proprietary capacity
that would interfere with the Transbay Terminal Project, a court may
conclude that Proposition H's ban does not extend so far as to limit
the City's actions when acting solely in its regulatory capacity for a
private development project."
Bechtel Transportation Seminar Series, University of California at Berkeley. Steve Heminger - "Cost Overruns for the Bay Bridge." October 1, 2004.
Letter from the Speaker of the Assembly, the President pro
the Senate, five other Senators and two other Members of the California
Assembly. August 17 2004.
RAFT Comments on California High Speed Rail DPEIR/EIS
"RAFT believes that the
EIR/EIS is incomplete without the reintroduction of an Altamont
TJPA independent counsel to SF County Transportation Authority. August 19, 2004
20kb html link
"... SFCTA does not have the jurisdiction or authority to take these actions...and that they violate state law, which mandates that the TJPA has primary jurisdiction over the financing, design and construction of the Transbay Terminal Project."
VTA to Presiding Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court.
August 12, 2004.
"The (2003-04 Grand Jury)
report asserts that VTA is staff-driven, inferring a lack of Board
understanding, direction or authority. This is factually inaccurate.
VTA follows the time-tested structure and process, whereby the Board of
Directors establishes policy and the professional staff implements that
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Bayview
Point Community Advocates, et al., v. Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, Defendant–Appellant, San Francisco Municipal Railway;
Alameda County Transit District, Defendants. April 6 2004.
"... the conclusion that TCM
2 established a binding obligation on the part of MTC to achieve a
specific increase in public transit ridership cannot be sustained ...
Gerald G. Green, San Francisco Director of Planning, to San
Department of Building Inspection, July 14, 2004
"...there has been no
abandonment of the conditional use authorization under the Planning
SF Department of Building Inspection to Counsel for Myers
Company regarding 80 Natoma Street on geotechnical issues and the
foundation's design. July 9, 2004.
"In hindsight, I believe
that our plan check unit was pressured into issuing the piling addendum
long before it should have been issued, and I can assure you that this
will not happen again."
TRANSDEF to MTC on the 2005 draft TIP and Air Quality Conformity Analysis. June 28, 2004.
8kb html link
"The Assessment of VTA overall financial ability...is ludicrous. It says 'VTA has the financial capability to operate the existing level of service, as long as additional downward adjustments can be made in service levels or new revenue sources become available.'"
SF Department of Building Inspection to Myers Development
Company regarding 80 Natoma Street and six building permits. June 18,
"... there is a conflict in
the evidence as to certain geotechnical issues that cause me to be
concerned about the ... current pile design ... This suspension shall
remain in effect, and no work may be done at the property in question,
until further notice from me."
SF Department of Building Inspection to SF Department of City
regarding 80 Natoma Street and six building permits. June 17, 2004.
"I have therefore determined that, pursuant to Building Code Section 106.4.4 the site permits in question expired in 1999 and are thus null and void."
Steefel, Levitt & Weiss, counsel to Myers Natoma Venture, LLC, owner of the 80 Natoma Property, and Myers Development Company, to the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco. June 15, 2004.
24kb html link
"What is more, any determination by DBI that the permits are "null and void," the conclusion to which TRANSDEF would like this Board to jump prematurely, would be utterly erroneous and the subject of extensive litigation."
Santa Clara County Grand Jury. June 18, 2004.
208kb pdf download
"There are other reasons to
consider suspending spending on BART if the project cannot be
completed for at least 10 (or more likely 20) years. Commuter rail
technology is already cheaper than BART and may be better
integrated into a flexible network. High-speed rail from Los
Angeles may be constructed along the same corridor, connecting to the
existing BART system somewhere on the line to Oakland, as well as
making the trip up the Peninsula even faster than Caltrains."
Memo from VTA General Manager to VTA Board of Directors on 2004 Grand Jury Report. June 18, 2004.
8kb html link
"Each year, the Santa Clara
County Grand Jury concludes this process with a seemingly negative
report about VTA. Their 2004 report is no exception and consistent with
those we have experienced in past years."
TRANSDEF to SF Board of Supes at al re TTT. June 14, 2004
"In the absence of a valid
site permit and failure to comply with a key condition of
approval, Myers' argument that the FEIR/FEIS is deficient for
failing to take into account a fully entitled project and for failing
to discuss the loss of housing at 80 Natoma is fatally flawed. "
Tower Inferno - SF Weekly Article on TTT / 80 Natoma
"Why is (SF Mayor) Newsom's
office siding with a developer apparently bent on gaming San Francisco
out of millions of dollars?"
League of Women Voters of the Bay Area to MTC. June 10, 2004.
"The Transportation and Land
Use Platform before you has been so altered in format and content that
is difficult for citizens to recognize the outcome of their public
process. This version omits an essential part of reaching our Smart
Growth Vision: an open space strategy to complement the intensification
of development near transit."
MTC to RAFT on VTA and BART to San Jose. June 4, 2004.
Senator Perata to Executive Director of MTC. May 10, 2004.
"I am writing this letter to
request that MTC sponsor a Regional Rail Master Plan project to study
the potential High Speed Rail (HSR) alignment over the Altamont Pass."
Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown to CHSRA. April 20, 2004
16kb html link
"...an Altamont alignment for high speed rail would provide real service for Oakland and East Bay residents starting the very first day of Phase One operation."
Letter to Department of Building Inspection regarding Natoma
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP, Counsel to Transdef. May 25,
"... issuance of the requested Stop Work Orders should be immediate, so that the foundation of the 80 Natoma Project can be redesigned as soon as possible to eliminate any potential conflict with the Transbay Terminal and Caltrain Downtown Extension Project."
RAFT comments on draft EIS/EIR of BART to San Jose. May 14,
"The Project must have a capital
financing plan that is not of questionable feasibility."
Transdef comments on the draft EIS for BART to San Jose. May
"Provide a thorough explanation as
to why the assumptions are reasonable. Be sure to credibly refute the
Mercury article's implication that the land use assumptions were/are a
RAFT to MTC about VTA and the 2005 RTP. May 19, 2004.
16kb html link
MTC to RAFT on VTA and BART to San Jose. June 4, 2004.
16kb html link
"Since the Governor is attempting to find revenues to fund the Traffic Congestion Relief Program in future years, we consider it a viable program."
project must be justified based on merit, in order to avoid situations
like extending BART to the airport, where, in 1997, the project was
exempted from evaluation based on project justification criteria
because it was part of a set of projects that, considered together, had
a proposed high local share."
Santa Clara Board of Supervisors to VTA. April 22, 2004.
12kb html link
"The Supervisors are concerned that many of the projects promised to voters in the 2000 Measure A plan will not be built because of the economic downturn as well as VTA's current commitment to make the BART extension operational by 2015."
Filing with US Court of Appeals by Bayview Hunter's Point
Community Advocates, et al. April 27, 2004.
"The Court's Interpretation
of TCM 2 Directly Conflicts With Established Jurisprudence Governing
Enforceable SIP 'Strategies' And Unenforceable SIP 'Goals.'...Bayview
Advocates urge rehearing, with suggestion for rehearing en banc, of
Settlement Agreement and Release by and among MTC, BAAQMD, CBE
and Transdef. March 30, 2004.
"MTC will prepare a 2005
Regional Transportation Plan 1 ('2005 RTP') and include in its Draft
EIR an alternative entitled 'TRANSDEF Smart Growth Alternative.'"
RAFT to R&J Jewelry. April 15, 2004.
"This bill would delete the
provisions requiring an election to form a benefit district and to levy
a special benefit assessment. The bill would authorize the (VTA) board
to levy the assessment if there is no majority protest to its
"The project justification
rating is Not Rated because the transportation system user benefit
measure used for cost effectiveness and mobility improvements was not
submitted...The proposed extension would connect Santa Clara County to
the rest of the San Francisco Bay area."
"Given the projections of
extreme congestion for even the Preferred Alternative, the absence of a
focus on the linkage of transportation and land use is unacceptable."
52kb html link
"The citizen suit provision
of the Clean Air Act, the statute under which Plaintiffs brought this
action, provides that a court "may award costs of litigation (including
reasonable attorney and expert witness fees)...."
Santa Clara VTA Riders' Union to to FTA Administrator
"...Nondisclosure of cost
overruns of a rail extension,
nor the use of bus and light rail operations funding as collateral for such an extension, is not what voters
in Santa Clara County, CA approved nearly three years ago."
VTA memo to board. January 30, 2004.
"Over the past several
years, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) staff
(particularly) has pursued an apparent agenda that has become
increasingly troublesome for VTA...recent courses of action are so
alarming...it is necessary...to discuss and explore whether...to begin
to take steps to maximize local control over funds generated by and/or
allocated to our county."
House Rpt.108-243 - Departments of Transportation and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill. 2004.
"The Committee believes that
each new start project, in order to
qualify for a (FFGA), should be required to show that its
locally-preferred alternative will attract and move more transit
riders, at the lowest cost per rider, than other modal alternatives."
Transportation Equity: inequitable effects of transportation
policies on minorities. Authors: Thomas W. Sanchez, Rich Stolz, and
Jacinta S. Ma. Draft: October 26, 2003.
52kb html link
MTC staff memo to the Planning and Operations Committee.
"Substitution (of TCM 2)
does not represent a weakening of the Bay Area's commitment to transit,
since the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan commits over 75% of
available funding to transit."
RAFT to OIG on two Mega Projects and the audit of FTA.
December 22 2003.
"We would like to provide
you with information relevant to the audit...."
RAFT to Chair, MTC. December 22 2003
"'Independently, early in
the new year, MTC intends to have an internal discussion among
Commissioners regarding our current board structure and whether to seek
statutory modification of it.' The Regional Alliance For Transit very
much would like to attend these meetings."
DOT Inspector General to audit FTA New Starts Criteria.
November 24, 2003
"Specifically, we will
review project documentation to determine whether the alternatives
analysis made by applicants weighed viable alternatives and what
quantitative measures, such as lowest cost-per-rider, were used in
choosing the locally preferred alternative."
MTC's Fifth Quarterly Progress Report (in the TCM 2 case).
November 10, 2003.
efforts...MTC can no longer project that transit ridership will reach
the target 15% increase level of 544.8 million annual boardings by June
30, 2007, as it had previously projected, or by the Court's deadline of
November 9, 2006."
Findings of US DOT Joint Certification Review of MTC. October
Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social
Exclusion. Office of the (UK) Deputy Prime Minister. February 2003.
"Imagine being offered a job
and having to turn it down simply because there's no way for you to get
there. Imagine being too afraid to walk to the bus stop after dark.
Imagine an expectant mother having to take three buses to get to her
nearest ante-natal clinic."
BART to San Jose, Agenda Item #18.X., VTA Board Meeting.
October 2, 2003.
VTA Additional Scenarios of Sample Plan 2000 Measure A Projects & Potential Revenue Sources. September 23, 2003.
"As previously stated, in
every scenario we have run, it is clear that the Board of Directors
will need to establish priorities because at this point in time our
forecasts indicate that even with a new source of revenue we will not
be able to deliver everything that everybody wants."
VTA Measure A Revenues less Expenditures, RAFT chart.
September 25, 2003.
RAFT to Assemblymember Guy Houston. August 29, 2003.
"Travel time for a commuter
High Speed Train from Livermore to the Great America station (in the
heart of Silicon Valley and an existing transit hub) would be about 20
minutes...The need for the ACE Railway is eliminated with the Altamont
(VTA's) Sample Plan of Major 2000 Measure A Projects &
Potential Revenues, showing BART to San Jose. September 11, 2003
Ending Balance, Revenues less Expenditures, Negative $2,916,495,000."
(Memo of VTA's) Sample Plan/Major 2000 Measure A Projects & Potential Revenues. September 10, 2003.
56kb pdf file
"We did not attempt to develop a debt-financing program to deal with the additional cash shortfalls because the magnitude of the cash required between now and 2014 would clearly exceed our ability to use debt for purposes of leveling out the cash flows."
Transdef to VTA's Ad Hoc Committee, September 10, 2003.
"Only after a credible
stable scenario for ongoing operations has been developed is it then
possible to determine how much funding is left for expansion projects."
Transdef to VTA Chair, September 4, 2003
"If the BART extension is allowed
to proceed as recommended, it would apparently consume all capital
funds expected from Measure A. This would be a severe breach of faith
with the voters."
SB 916 (Perata): $1 Toll Increase Expenditure Plan ---- Capital Projects
September 2003, Updated
MTC Rejects High Speed Rail Alignment Options
"MTC, by a vote of 8-5, rejected a request to ask the
High Speed Rail Authority to study an Altamont Pass alignment. This
is to arch21.org, where more information on Altamont is available."
Transdef's comments on EPA's proposed approval of the Bay Area Ozone Plan
Our Children's Earth Foundation and the Bayview Community Advocates Comments
"The Bay Area has suffered for many years from unhealthful air quality, which has caused thousands of unnecessary cases of respiratory distress and significant economic losses to the community."
Transdef to Federal Certification Review Panel; letter to the Panel and attachment on current and past litigation. August 8, 2003:
"...MTC has made a lot of PR mileage from its adoption of a Lifeline transit network for low income people...One would never know from reading the documents that it is all for show. No funds have been actually committed to implement the program."
TRANSDEF press release, July 28, 2003.
"The Court found that the 2001 Ozone Plan needed to reduce Bay Area emissions by an additional 26 tons per day, but failed to provide measures to accomplish that. Transportation Control Measures are likely to be a necessary part of any plan to meet federal and state air quality standards, because roughly half the emissions that create ozone come from motor vehicles."
PROP K EXPENDITURE PLAN- San Francisco's investment blueprint for transportation projects and programs.
Final Plan Pie Chart:
Final Project Summary, with project costs:
Expenditure Plan Summary:
"The projects and programs included in the Expenditure Plan are designed to be implemented over the next 30 years, and are intended to help implement the long-range vision for the development and improvement of San Francisco's transportation system."
League of Women Voters of the Bay Area Statement to the (FTA and FHWA) Review Team, Metropolitan Planning Organization Review, July 8, 2003.
"...plans are pursued to provide both BART and commuter rail in low density areas of the Bay Area while frequency of service and connections in densely populated, often low-income, areas are too limited to optimize ridership."
Review Guide from FHWA to be used in the triennial federal certification review of MTC, May, 2003.
"Does the RTP include a financial plan that...(covers) all forecasted capital, operating, and maintenance costs?...How are the needs of those traditionally under served by transportation, such as low-income and minority households, taken into account?"
FTA to VTA on Preliminary Engineering Approval for the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Project, September 5, 2002.
"FTA has serious concerns regarding: 1 ) the travel demand model and resulting technical analysis used during the Alternatives Analysis, and 2) the operating financial plan and the ability of the VTA to operate and maintain the existing bus and rail transit system during the construction and operation of the proposed major capital investment."
Labor/Community Strategy Center, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Joseph Drew, etc. Defendants. Plaintiffs' Revised Statement of Contentions of Fact and Law. October 24, 1996.
"Conclusion. 621. Defendant MTA has engaged in a systematic violation of the rights of minority MTA bus riders in violation of Title VI and its regulations, 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1983, and the Fourteenth Amendment. A remedy of broad scope is required."
Order denying a finding of contempt, Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates, et al. versus Metropolitan Transportation Commission, et al. April 23, 2003.
"As the foregoing analysis suggests, MTC cannot be held in
contempt for violating the letter of the injunction. The prior
about the ambiguity of the "expected ridership gains" language
notwithstanding, the Court notes, without so finding, that MTC's
of the disputed portion of the injunction might indeed violate the
of the Order."
SB 916 (Perata): $1 Toll Increase Expenditure Plan ---- Capital Projects
June 30, 2003 - Updated Version
TRANSDEF to the VTA, April 2, 2003.
"As VTA considers potential adjustments to its service mix, it should examine which services are providing the greatest ridership at the least cost, and providing the greatest benefit to the community."
Bayview v. MTC (TCM 2), "Reply Memo....for order to show cause why...MTC should not be held in contempt..." March 17, 2003.
"...MTC sets forth only the total number of riders, both existing and new, associated with each transit project, thereby obscuring the very information necessary to determine whether MTC will achieve the ridership increase required by TCM 2 and by this Court...Clearly, further intervention by this Court is necessary."
RAFT to AC Transit, March 16, 2003
"In Los Angeles, the MTA is adding one Enhanced Bus project every three months; a less aggressive timetable should not be unachievable here in the Bay Area. Please consider terminating the SLOB phase 2 study and as a worthy alternative, pressing ahead with a package of Enhanced Bus projects."
"Transportation Injustice," by TALC, March 6, 2003.
Why BART-to-San Jose cost overruns will devastate bus and rail
Amendment to Muni's FY2002-2021 Short Range Transit Plan, December 3, 2002.
"This SRTP Amendment serves to comply with a settlement agreement in the case of Bayview Advocates v. San Francisco Municipal Railway...analyzes 20 projects for potential ridership increases, capital and operating costs, and demographics, and prioritizes them in our Capital Improvement Program, as required by the settlement agreement."
PricewaterhouseCoopers report to MTC management, October, 2002.
"TDA Fiduciary Fund Net Assets by Apportionment Area...We noted that the fiscal 2002 TDA expenditures and allocations for numerous apportionment areas exceeded the corresponding revenues for the year. For a number of counties this had the effect of resulting in negative net asset balances for the affected individual apportionment areas. In essence monies of certain apportionment areas were being used to subsidize the negative net asset positions of other apportionment areas."
"Behind the BART behemoth." San Francisco Bay Guardian, November 5, 1997.
"If BART in 1997 looks like a fancy, expensive system designed to serve well-off commuters working downtown and living in the suburbs at the expense of cities and urban neighborhoods, don't be surprised. That's exactly what it was designed to do."
"Railroading the reformers." San Francisco Bay Guardian, November 5, 1997.
"There is such a thing as a viable, sustainable, and equitable regional transportation plan. In fact, one (the RAFT Alternative) is gathering dust at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the regional mega-agency that allocates state and federal funds for Bay Area transit projects."
"Tunnel Vision." San Francisco Bay Guardian, November 5, 1997.
"For 25 years, BART has sucked the life out of urban transit systems. It's time to get our priorities straight..." "What [Bay Area political leaders] are saying is, 'If you ride the bus we can't afford it, but if you ride the train we'll spend a fortune....'"
"Collision course." San Francisco Bay Guardian, August 18, 1999.
"So even though Muni does almost three times as much work as BART, it gets only one and a half times as much federal capital money. And even though AC Transit carries almost as many riders as BART (with a budget about half the size of BART's), it got about a third as much federal capital money. And that's not counting $1 billion in local capital funds BART corralled for the East Bay extensions, $750 million the feds promised for the airport extension, and $400 million for Daly City to Colma. Under the cost-per-ride system, this kind of funding scheme does not make sense."
"The BART bias." San Francisco Bay Guardian, August 18, 1999.
"But a close analysis of the figures reveals that allegations of 'BART bias' are absolutely true and that Dahms will seemingly go to any lengths to skew the numbers his way. In the letter, he omits uncomfortable truths, misrepresents facts, and in one case cites figures that contradict MTC's own annual reports."
"MTC response to questions dated August 2, 1999." San Francisco Bay Guardian, August 18, 1999.
"TO: Lucia Hwang, Bay Guardian. FR: Steve Heminger, MTC. RE: MTC response to questions dated August 2, 1999."
"Editorial: Into traffic hell." San Francisco Bay Guardian, August 18, 1999.
"The MTC is planning to continue building roads and funding BART extensions that amount to huge taxpayer-subsidized benefits to the suburbs and their wealthy residents. Meanwhile, transportation systems that serve the population centers of the inner cities, like Muni and AC Transit, are getting squeezed out."
"Feds say Bay Area transportation policy needs more public input." San Francisco Bay Guardian, August 16, 2000.
"The Bay Area's main transportation planning agency doesn't solicit enough input from the public especially low-income communities and people of color according to a recently released federal audit that praised the agency in most other areas."
Memo from RAFT to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority on BART's borrowing money for the Millbrae extension, January 1998.
"BART has a history of underestimating project costs and the length of time from planning to completion. Both are material with the Millbrae extension...BART provides no information to support its assertion that BART extensions have been completed "on time and within budget."
RAFT to BART President Margaret K. Pryor on borrowing to build the BART to Millbrae extension, December 8, 1997.
"Thank you for your letter of November 21, 1997 about financing issues relating to the proposed extension from Colma to Millbrae. However, some of the information in your letter may be either dated or erroneous, and, because so much money-and the agency-is at risk, we wish to bring them to your attention."
RAFT to FTA Administrator Linton on why BART to SFO does not meet cost effectiveness standard to receive federal funds, December 21, 1997.
"At the time the EIR/EIS was approved the Project was exempt from the justification requirements, so cost-effectiveness was not relevant...The Airport Extension FFGA asks the Congress for $750 million in New Starts funds. The federal share now exceeds one third of the cost of the three extension regional program, nullifying the November 1996 justification exemption."
RAFT letter to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies of the United States Senate, December 22, 1997.
"...thirteen months ago an arrangement was reached whereby the BART fixed guideway extension to the San Francisco Airport would escape (cost effectiveness) review under U.S.C. 49 § 5309 (e)(2). This was accomplished by combining it with three other fixed guideway railroad extension projects into a "regional program."...Is it Congressional intent that any fixed guideway project that would fail review...merely has to be combined with unrelated other projects, until a New Starts ratio of less than one third is achieved?"
RAFT memo to MTC Work Program Committee, December 1997.
"A financing proposal without numbers draws attention to itself...What other projects in the region will be sacrificed to pay the interest on BART's growing indebtedness? The numbers are getting larger all the time-if federal funds received are half of what BART expects through fiscal year 2003, the amount BART will need to borrow could be over $300 million."
RAFT to MTC Work Program Committee on financial issues pertaining to the Millbrae extension, April 1998.
MTC should make sure BART's financial problems do not jeopardize other transit systems....BART is going deeper into debt to build to Millbrae while it is putting its existing and expensive system at risk....What is the priority for BART-cost ineffective expansion or system rehabilitation?"
RAFT to MTC Commissioner Sue Bierman on yet more difficulties for BART to Millbrae, February 1999.
"Another year has come and gone, and here we are again. The BART project needs more money, lots of it, and the Commission is being asked anew to be the railroad's banker of last resort. It is like the touching parable of Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football. MTC looks a lot like Charlie Brown."
RAFT to MTC Commissioner Winter on additional issues with supporting BART to Millbrae, February 1999.
"The idea of calling the $16.5 million from MTC a loan is questionable, since repayment seems unlikely, given that the (Millbrae) line must operate with a surplus, something nearly unheard of in North America. Even if the loan is repaid, though, the memorandum states that it will be 'at least 10 years after service commences on the extension.'"
MTC Resolution 3434 Update, December 12, 2002
"Even prior to the economic recession...there was an acknowledgement...that financing costs...were not included in the funding strategy...Overlapping with Resolution 3434 criteria, the Federal New Starts program contains specific requirements that project sponsors provide an operating financial plan that demonstrates the ability to operate and maintain the existing system, as well as the envisioned transit expansion project. Recent FTA correspondence to VTA (for the BART to San Jose project) underscores this need...."
Get on the Bus, San Francisco Magazine, December, 2002.
"Projections by MTC itself show that we are already well on our way to becoming Los Angeles North...Counties propose pet projects-most of them new construction that allows politicians to get their photo snapped cutting ribbons-and MTC doles out the funding in a way that ensures that everybody feels they came away with something."
Los Angeles- Add 356 miles to Metro Rapid along 24 major thoroughfares, building 779 ministations. Cost: $110 million.
Bay Area- Open four stations along new nine-mile Colma-Millbrae line. Extend Fremont line to San Jose. Cost: $5.1 billion.
Contra Costa Transportation Authority seeks Amicus brief from other CMAs, November 19, 2002.
"MTC cannot realistically be held responsible for transit ridership levels, which depend on the individual mobility decisions of millions of prospective riders every day; (2) the region already invests 77 percent of the funding identified in MTC's regional transportation plan in public transit - further increasing the funding percentage could have negative consequences for other social objectives...."
RAFT to DOT on VTA's Financial State - November 2002
"We are proposing a budget that will virtually exhaust our budgetary reserves and incorporates a number of one time solutions to address what is realistically an ongoing structural problem."
Partial scan of transcripts of two 2002 RTP hearings. October 11 and November 8, 2002.
"We have numerous concerns with the amendment as it is currently drafted. In the first place we don't believe that the amendment conforms to the letter of the judge's order, and I'll give a few examples."
Responses to Comments on 2002 RTP Amendment
"The following are the staff responses to comments received on the draft RTP Amendment describing how with implementation of the RTP transit ridership is expected to increase by 15% above FY 1982/83 levels, as required by a recent federal Court Order." November, 2002.
Bridge Toll Expenditure Plan slides, Senate Select Committee on Bay Area Transporation, November 8, 2002.
"Why Raise Bridge Tolls Now?...Provides new express bus service...Funds a new Transbay Terminal with future connections for high speed rail...Additional Caltrain service."
TRANSDEF's comments on the Draft RTP Amendment
"the Draft RTP Amendment does not comply with the Court's requirements..."
Earth Justice's comments on the Draft RTP Amendment
"...this document, though purported to be a "Strategy to Increase Ridership," is far from a "strategy" and fails to comply with all the requirements of Judge Thelton Henderson's July 17, 2002 Remedies Order..."
TRANSDEF to FHWA on the Interim TIP
"TRANSDEF believes the ITIP may not be properly approved by the Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Admnistration as submitted by MTC due to both procedural shortcuts in the adoption process that compromised public input as well as the ITIP's inclusion of a series of projects that are not exempt from 176(c) conformity"
TRANSDEF to MTC on the draft RTP amendment, October 5, 2002.
"We request that MTC cure procedural defects in the dissemination of the Draft RTP Amendment, in violation of the requirements of the Conformity SIP requiring interagency consultation prior to the release of the public draft."
TRANSDEF to MTC on whether a committee or the Commission holds MTC public hearings, October 5, 2002
"...we believe the two Public Hearings noticed for the week of October 7 will have been improperly noticed and conducted, and thereby will not qualify as having fulfilled your agency's requirement to conduct Public Hearings."
TRANSDEF's comments on MTC's 2002 ITIP
"ITIP Adoption and development violates applicable authority....Projects are improperly designated exempt from conformity."
AC Transit's Strategic Vision Plan 2001-2010
"By implementing these elements, AC Transit anticipates increasing rediership to about 85 million by 2005/06 and to about 100 million by 2010."
California Lawyer, p. 13, October 2002.
"A battle over air pollution restricts the flow of federal funds...All told, at least five lawsuits are currently pending over Bay Area smog."
Draft Amendment to the 2001 RTP by MTC. September 25, 2002.
"RTP Strategy to Increase Regional Transit Ridership. (Implementation Plan for Transportation Control Measure (TCM) #2 As Interpreted by the U.S. District Court)...the implementation of the 2001 RTP is projected to result in the achievement of the ridership increase target by 2006, and that a TIP amendment is not needed to obtain the projected ridership increase by that time."
VTA to pay for the capital, operation and maintenance costs of BART to San Jose
"...The financial responsibility will be met through an annual subsidy amount of $48 million (FY02$)...The Comprehensive Agreement also requires VTA to dedicate to BART a revenue stream sufficient to cover the subsidy; and that if VTA does not fulfill its obligations to provide a dedicated subsidy source before January 1, 2009, the automatic dedication of TDA Funds shall be implemented immediately and automatically without any further action by VTAs Board of Directors." August 5, 2002.
FTA Financial Capacity Policy, 2002
"This circular clarifies how the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), when making grants, will conduct its assessments of the financial capacity of grant applicants. In addition, it incorporates by reference guidance on financial capacity assessment in the development of major capital projects exceeding $1 billion in total cost." Posted on FTA web site August 2, 2002.
VTA announces BART to San Jose is now eligible for federal funds, September 2002.
"This approval was gained after a thorough and rigorous three-month evaluation by the FTA and...With this approval, we are now eligible for New Starts funding in this year's House transportation appropriations bill."
Memo to Planning & Operations Committee of MTC on RTP update on TCM 2, September 2002
"Staff intends to release a draft of the RTP ridership section in late September for public review and comment and seek Commission adoption in November, well in advance of the Court deadline."
Recommendation for Designated Recipients of FTA Section 5307 for 2000 Census Defined Small Urbanized Areas in the MTC Region
The following table lists the possible candidates for all seven of the small urbanized areas (UA) located within the MTC region...The most difficult challenge ahead will be to determine how to apportion the FTA Section 5307 small urbanized area funds in areas with more than one operator.
Recent Poll on BART Retrofit Funding Options
Arguments on Measure BB (BART Earthquake Retrofit)
A YES vote on Measure BB will benefit all of us, whether we use BART or not.
Special-interest beneficiaries of BART's spendthrift habits will richly fund BART's campaign for higher taxes. November 5, 2002.
Transdef et al to US EPA on MVEB, August 15, 2002.
EPA must not condone California's extended delay...of the release of updated motor vehicle emissions models to accommodate problems faced by a single recalcitrant District...the State should embrace implementation of smart growth principles that will discourage sprawl and encourage the creation of any necessary additional housing along transit corridors and near places of work as part of comprehensive efforts to reduce auto dependence and promote alternative transportation systems.
Memo from MTC to Partnership Technical Advisory Committee, August 19, 2002.
There are 72 projects, 16 transit, 43 highway, and 13 local road projects, all of which are likely to be stalled indefinitely if EPA fails to prevail.
CBE letter to EPA on Motor Vehicle Emission Budget, January 7, 2002.
CBE and Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund ("TRANSDEF") allege that the Attainment Plan was illegally approved by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act and by the Association of Bay Area Governments ("ABAG") and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ("MTC") in violation of the California Health and Safety Code.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, TRANDEF;
The court sua sponte consolidates these petitions for review...The effectiveness of the adequacy finding...is stayed pending review.
UMTA, Urban Mass Transportation Financial Capacity Policy, March 30, 1987
This circular...re-emphasizes the need for local officials to strengthen financial capacity assessment throughout the transit project development process...Serious problems can result when financial planning is not adequately performed. Cases include the many "New Start" cities which have been forced to reduce overall service levels in order to afford putting new lines into service and, as been the case far too often, rail lines originally intended to save operating funds but which increased the cost.
RAFT letter to DOT on San Francisco Bay Area-Financial Capacity Policy
How can both operators cut existing service, in the midst of construction of a fixed guideway mega project, in light of 49 U.S.C. §5309(e)(4)(C)(iii)?
RAFT letter to DOT and EPA on Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process
Is the requirement that "at least every three years" the planning process be certified still in effect? Consider that the executive director of the MPO recently notified his board of directors that there will be no review this year, 2002, and that FTA's web site (same URL as above) shows all of the planning certification reviews to be undertaken for the remainder of this year, and the San Francisco Bay area MPO is not on the list.
MTC memorandum on TCM 2 injunction, July 22, 2002
We argued principally that no agency can guarantee an exact transit ridership number, and therefore an injunction would not be an appropriate remedy...We received today, July 22, 2002, the Court's decision on the remedies it is imposing to implement its November 2001 finding. The ruling grants injunction relief....
Order granting injunctive relief, Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates, et al. versus Metropolitan Transportation Commission, et al. July, 2002.
Thus, if MTC fails to achieve the required 15% increase in transit ridership, it will be free to argue during contempt proceedings that achieving the increase was impossible. At this time, the Court does not find it to be impossible for MTC to achieve the increase, even though not all factors affecting transit ridership lie within MTC's control...However, through this order, MTC now has a clear sense of its responsibilities under TCM 2, and it would therefore be ill-advised to amend the TIP in any way that would make compliance unlikely.
ABAG letter to Senator Torlakson on SB 1243, July 22, 2002
While we applaud your interest in reaching a solution to the myriad of problems you address in your letter dated July 19th, the day following our Executive Board meeting which we had expected you to attend, we respectfully suggest that SB 1243 remains a misguided and wrong approach.
Press release from TRANSDEF, July 23, 2002
Meanwhile, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today issued a temporary stay of the effectiveness of the EPA action that had been essential in releasing MTC from its conformity lapse back in February. The lapse had prevented new transportation projects from going forward.
Court Orders MTC to Meet Ridership Goals Set in 1982
In a ruling released today (July 25, 2002), US District Court Judge Thelton Henderson ordered the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ("MTC") to ensure that Bay Area regional transit operators increase regional ridership 15 percent above 1983 levels by no later than November 9, 2006.
Earthjustice and Sierra Club to MTC on 2003 TIP
For the reasons set forth below, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has failed to demonstrate that its 2003 amended Transportation Improvement Program conforms with the applicable State Implementation Plan, as required by the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7506(c)(1) & (2).
Transdef's comments on the Draft 2003 TIP
The TIP's allocation of funds favoring highway expansion is a disincentive to transit ridership and mis-allocates federal transportation funds away from projects that would increase transit ridership in the near term. It thus interferes with timely implementation of TCM 2.
RAFT to MTC on adoption of the 2003 TIP
The Regional Alliance For Transit ("RAFT") has concluded that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ("MTC") cannot adopt its draft 2003 Transportation Improvement Program ("2003 TIP") until it undertakes a new conformity analysis.
Memo on SB 1243 to several MTC commissioners by Mr Heminger, July 9, 2002.
Is the regional plan proposed by Senator Torlakson really "comprehensive", since it omits mention of air quality, water quality, and other regional issues? If these issues were included, wouldn't it increase the complexity by adding other agencies to the process such as the Air District and Regional Water Board? If the above questions cannot be resolved to MTC's satisfaction, I strongly recommend that we oppose any efforts to include the proposal for a "regional plan" in SB 1243.
Letter to MTC commissioners from Professor Gruber and Professor Innes of the University of California, June 19, 2002.
This letter is designed to set the record straight on something incorrect that Commissioner Spering said in the Planning and Operations Committee meeting of April 12, 2002, about our research on MTC's decision making process, since we believe that what was said impugns our professional integrity as scholars.
CBE Comments on the BAAQMD/MTC/ABAG Proposed Final 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan (June 2001 version)
The San Francisco Bay Area has exceeded to national ozone standard in 29 of the 30 years since it was promulgated by EPA. Whereas the statewide asthma hospital discharge rate is an unacceptably high 216 per 100,000 children, the rates for African-American children in the four most populous counties served by MTC Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco counties soar almost ten-fold to 2036, 1578, 1099 and 361, respectively.
Bay Area SIP Incompleteness Precluding Public MVEB Comment, TRANSDEF letter to US EPA Region IX, December 21, 2001.
Regrettably, it has been our observation that the entire Bay Area SIP promulgation process has been fraught with procedural and substantive errors that have impugned EPA and deprived the public of their ability to meaningfully affect local and regional air quality. Now that we have examined what is in the SIP, it is abundantly clear that the SIP is incomplete, and the MVEB is thus fatally flawed.
TRANSDEF and CBE write to US EPA Region 9, November 21, 2001.
Re: Bay Area Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget Adequacy Determination Process. Unfortunately, your air program has embarked on a course which seems sure to result in extensive litigation and a worsening of the relationship between the Regional Office and Bay Area community and environmental justice groups.
Letter from TRANSDEF to MTC on the 2001 RTP Equity Analysis, June 6, 2001.
TRANSDEF fundamentally disagrees with staff's assertion that RTP equity is about changes in access. TRANSDEF believes that equity is relatively simple: it is a fair share of the monetary benefits of the RTP. We believe that MTC has historically subsidized the suburbs at great cost to the cities, and that a fair share allocation would produce cheaper, more convenient transit service in the cities (and a more expensive suburban commute).
Letter from TRANSDEF to MTC on Draft 2001 Regional Transportation Plan, October 3, 2001.
While MTC did an extensive hearing process for this RTP, the public input is not reflected in the final product. A close reading of the "RTP Responses" on pages 25 will disclose that MTC hasn't changed anything it was doing or thinking as a result of public input.
Comments on the Draft San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard. Letter from Earthjustice to BAAQMD, June 4, 2001.
The co-lead agencies' expedited development and submittal schedule for the 2001 Attainment Plan is a train wreck waiting to happen. More time will allow for real input from affected communities and a plan that ensures that the Bay Area finally attains the ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. Without establishing a defensible cost-effectiveness threshold, approval of this plan by the EPA would be arbitrary and capricious and would not withstand judicial review.
New Study Links Auto Use to Neighborhood Design
For decades, city planners have dismissed calls for building better cities, saying there's only anecdotal evidence that so-called "smart growth" works. But authors of a new, peer-reviewed study say their research proves for the first time that better urban design can reduce auto use and relieve the traffic congestion and pollution that come with it.
Air Resources Board to MTC
Transportation control measures (TCMs) provide a method to move toward reduced motor vehicle use and activity and will play an integral role in the Bay Area's long-term clean air strategy. Thus, we support the concept underlying the TCMs suggested by Dr. Holtzclaw, which is that MTC should give higher priority than it currently does to funding projects that reduce automobile dependency and discourage sprawl.
MTC to Air Resources Board onTCMs
This is in response to your letter regarding the possibility of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) implementing additional four transportation control measures (TCMs). The quick and simple response regarding to your question about whether MTC has the legal authority to implement the four proposed TCMs is that the TCMs involve land use decisions and MTC has no direct authority over land use.
Making the Connections: Transport and Social Exclusion.
Poor transport restricts access to activities that enhance people's life chances. Deprived communities suffer disproportionately. Poor transport can undermine key government objectives on welfare to work, raising educational achievement and narrowing health inequalities, and has costs for individuals, businesses, communities and the state. What can be done? Objectives and target setting; Planning integration; & Funding and performance management.
Presentation by committee staff to Senate Select Committee on Bridge Toll Increase for Transit, June 3, 2002.
Raise bridge toll $1 for regional transit. Contains recommended principles (eg, cost effectiveness) and illustrative projects (eg, BART seismic retrofit; BART capacity enhancements; new ferry services; night owl bus services).
MTC Presentation in Sacramento on Regional Transit Expansion Program, June 3, 2002.
Average cost effectiveness of $20.35 per new rider (estimated for fully funded projects). Recommended projects total $10,519,000,000, and include BART to San Jose and Sonoma-Marin rail.
MUNI Vision 2002
Muni envisions what a truly first-class transit system for San Francisco could look like-one that moves its riders quickly and efficiently throughout the city with a minimum of waiting. In short, a high-capacity, easily accessible, rapid transit style service. San Francisco Municipal Railway, Spring 2002.
William F. Hein on MTC's Authority Regarding Transportation and Land Use, November 20, 1996.
What are MTC's authorities, particularly as they apply to the transportation/land use issue? How does MTC apply its authority? How else could MTC use its authority to influence land use?
Questions from the District Court to both parties in the TCM 2 case.
This pertains to the remedies hearing held on June 10, 2002.
Proposed settlement in the TCM 2 case between San Francisco Muni and Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates et. al. May 2002.
Muni has issued a document entitled A Vision for Rapid Transit in San Francisco...Muni estimates that projects (a) through (p) could be completed within five (5) years after initial funding...December 31, 2002, Muni shall submit the SRTP Amendment to MTC for funding consideration.(Some signature pages have been left out.)
CMA amicus brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for permanent injunction
None of the projects in the RTP were selected at the whim of the CMAs, but rather were carefully chosen after lengthy analysis and debate, including substantial input from the public, various environmental groups, and myriad local governments over periods as long as two years. The RTP is a balanced and effective plan and should not be disturbed by an injunction enforcing TCM 2.
Declaration of Rachel Pelc in support of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on remedies, Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates et. al., versus MTC, et. al., June 10, 2002.
The Bay Area has the second-highest projected percent increase in VMT of any metropolitan area studied. Compared to the average projected percent increase of 38 percent, VMT in the Bay Area is projected to increase by 48 percent. The Bay Area will also experience the highest per capita increase in daily VMT. Compared to an average increase of 6 percent, percent per capita VMT will increase by 21 percent in the Bay Area.
Declaration of Kirsten Tobey in support of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on remedies, Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates et. al., versus MTC, et. al., June 10, 2002.
Data on transit ridership for the Bay Area from 1983-2002 (+3.8%) and on per capita ridership change from 1983-2002 (-19.8%).
Declaration of Tina Konvalinka in support of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on remedies, Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates et. al., versus MTC, et. al., June 10, 2002.
As part of the settlement of this litigation against AC Transit, it was agreed that the District's SRTP would contain projects and programs that will enable the District to increase ridership. The Strategic Vision accomplishes that requirement, and in our opinion, complies with TCM 2's obligation for the formation of a plan for submittal to MTC that identifies strategies which, if funded, would increase ridership in AC Transit's portion of the region.
Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates et al versus Metropolitan Transportation Commission et al; Declaration of Thomas A. Rubin in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on remedies, June 10, 2002.
MTC's representation of its emphasis on transit funding is misleading. In its calculations of spending on transit, MTC includes transit fares (19% of all the transit funding in the RTP). A majority (58%) of the truly discretionary Track 1 funding is allocated to highways, roads and HOV lanes. There is between one and two billion dollars tht MTC could shift to operating purposes over the 25-year of the RTP.
Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates et al versus Metropolitan Transportation Commission et al Reply Memorandum In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Permanent Injunction and Declaratory Relief Re: Civil Penalties, June 10, 2002.
Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates and others seek an order that simply directs MTC to comply with TCM 2-by following its implementation steps and achieving the ridership increase it requires-on approximately the same timeline MTC incorporated into TCM 2 twenty years ago. Yet 26 years after smog was supposed to have been relegated to the history books by the Clean Air Act, unsafe levels of ozone pollution persist throughout the Bay Area. While no single ozone control measure will do the job by itself, each such measure-certainly TCM 2-is crucial to bringing healthy air to all our residents.
Defendant MTC's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Permanent Injunction and Declaratory Relief Re: Civil Penalties (Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates et. al., Plaintiffs, vs Metropolitan Transportation Commission, et. al., Defendants), June 10, 2002.
Defendant Metropolitan Transportation Commission ("MTC") hereby opposes "Plaintiffs' Motion for Permanent Injunction and Declaratory Relief re: Penalties." Supporting public transit and encouraging transit ridership are functions that lie at the core of MTC's mission, and they have for years, with or without TCM 2, and with or without a lawsuit. MTC's record of support for public transit, culminating in the recently adopted 2001 Regional Transportation Plan ("RTP"), is unequaled among major U.S. metropolitan areas.
Order of the District Court in the TCM 2 case (Bayview et al v MTC et al), Nov 2001
The primary dispute in this case is whether TCM 2 requires, as Plaintiffs contend, that MTC, MUNI, and the other regional transit operators achieve a 15% regional transit ridership increase over 1982-83 levels. In short, the evidence more than amply demonstrates that a 15% ridership increase was never achieved, especially given that Defendants have produced no evidence to the contrary and admitted at oral argument that they could not produce such evidence. This Court therefore finds both Defendants liable for failing to achieve the increase in transit ridership required under TCM 2.
September, 2001. Title VI complaint by Transdef with the Administrator of the US EPA and with the Secretary of Transportation regarding MTC, ABAG, CARB and BAAQMD
Title VI complaint (Civil Rights Act) seeking Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation investigation and remediation of disproportional impact to minority and disadvantaged communities from local and state agency administration of air pollution control programs in the Bay Area. Since inception, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission...has systematically discriminated against urban, low income and ethnic communities and their neighborhoods.
BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT COMMUNITY ADVOCATES, COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT, LATINO ISSUES FORUM, OUR CHILDREN'S EARTH FOUNDATION, SIERRA CLUB, TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, and URBAN HABITAT PROGRAM, a project of the TIDES CENTER, Plaintiffs,
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL RAILWAY, and ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT,
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DECLARATORY RELIEF RE: CIVIL PENALTIES
This Clean Air Act citizen enforcement suit was filed on February 21, 2001, by a coalition of San Francisco Bay Area conservation, environmental justice and community groups (collectively "Bayview Advocates"). Tired of breathing air that does not meet the most minimal health-based standards for ozone pollution and equally tired of inadequate public transit, particularly in the urban centers of San Francisco and the East Bay, Bayview Advocates seek an injunction to require implementation of Transportation Control Measure 2 ("TCM 2" or "measure") - a measure now fifteen years overdue. TCM 2 has been a key component of the Bay Area's strategy for controlling ozone pollution from mobile sources since it was first adopted by Defendants Metropolitan Transportation Commission ("MTC") and San Francisco Municipal Railway ("MUNI") in the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan.
Innes, Judith, & Gruber, Judith. 2001. Bay Area Transportation Decision Making in the Wake of ISTEA: Planning Styles in Conflict at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 555pp. Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center.
A Working Paper published in 2001. Planning can be a contentious process. Most of the time it involves many players and many interests all seeking different outcomes or protecting different turf. The authors of this report have concluded, after a 5-year study of transportation planning in the San Francisco Bay Area, that the contentiousness can be due as much to differences in planning styles as to substantive disagreements or power struggles.
...as of 9/1/11