CHAPTER 1: PLANNING FOR FAILURE

Imagine the year 2020 in the Bay Area. Traffic up 249% since 1990 and 200,000 fewer acres of open space. High-tech businesses, long the economic engine for the area, increasingly moving into the Central Valley, following the majority of their employees who could no longer afford to live in the region. Transit, walking and bicycling -- promoted as the alternative to congestion and pollution -- carrying a smaller share of all of the trips made in the region: ridership on transit is down 6%, walking down 10% and bicycling down 9%.

Parents telling what seem like fairy tale stories to their children about what it used to be like to be able to get around on their own as kids, to walk or bike to school and the store before traffic and sprawl made it both too dangerous and too difficult. And those same parents spending increasing amounts of time taking care of their own parents, the aging baby boomers who have begun to lose their ability to drive safely and face isolation and the loss of their independence living in communities designed exclusively for the automobile.

This is not some made-up doomsday scenario. Indeed, these are the actual predictions of Bay Area planners, assuming we continue on our current course of poorly planned development and infrastructure investment in the region's nine principal counties. Yet the ongoing cycle of low-density development on the suburban fringes of the region -- and the vast amounts of public subsidy required for both new infrastructure and services -- is not the only model the Bay Area can pursue for future growth. There are many other alternatives available, many of which require cooperation between different jurisdictions and levels of government, sound planning and a crucial coordination of land use and transportation goals, and, most importantly, a new vision for where the region should be in the next 20 years.

The time seems ripe for this type of "Smart Growth" initiative. There is a growing sense of crisis; Bay Area residents are feeling intense frustration with the transportation system. There is also growing public sentiment against sprawl, as evidenced by the withdrawal of the Tassajara Valley development proposal.

One of the clearest roles that any Bay Area organization can play to help steer us in a new direction is that of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the region's nine county transportation planning and funding agency. In 1998, MTC developed the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the "blueprint" that helps guide the Bay Area's $88 billion in transportation investments over the next twenty years. That comes to about $13,000 per person. In this crucial plan, MTC identifies five important goals to guide the region's transportation policy for the next twenty years.

• Improve mobility
• Promote equity
• Enhance sensitivity to the environment
• Support economic vitality
• Support community vitality

But will we be able to meet these goals after 20 years and $88 billion in transportation projects and programs? That is for the reader to judge, since these goals are only qualitative. Unfortunately, MTC has refused to adopt quantifiable performance measures attached to each goal. Nevertheless, the plan contains many indicators that prove cause for concern.
 

Will We Meet MTC's Five Regional Goals?

Improving Mobility

People want easy access to activities. Yet as jobs, shopping centers, housing and other activities are more separated from each other, the average person in the region needs to drive further each year. To try and keep up with this new sprawl development, over a thousand miles of freeway and expressway expansions are anticipated between 1990 and 2020 (a 21% increase), at a cost of over $10 billion.

Studies have shown that these roads will quickly fill up. Even with numerous road expansions, congestion for the region is anticipated to grow 249%. As seen in the chart, some corridors are expecting increases of over 500%.

Vehicle Hours of Delay in Select Corridors

(From 1998 Draft RTP chapter 4) There are 16 corridors in total.

At the same time, the share of all trips taken by transit is expected to decrease by 6%. Transit use on the urban fringe is discouraged because activities are so spread out.
 

Promoting Equity

MTC has conducted an analysis comparing the effect of each of the RTP alternatives on access to employment for selected low-income areas, versus the region as a whole. According to MTC's analysis, those in disadvantaged neighborhoods without cars, who must rely on transit, have access to 77% fewer jobs within 30 minutes than those with cars.

Investments in the draft RTP, combined with patterns of growth that are supported by RTP investments, will enable those in disadvantaged communities who rely on transit to reach only 2,866 additional jobs. For those with cars who drive alone, an additional 34,847 will become accessible, thus making existing inequities even worse.

Vehicle ownership differs by ethnicity. The inaccessibility of jobs by transit puts undue burden on communities of color that already experience obstacles to employment in our society. From Bay Area Travel and Mobility Characteristics, 1990 Census, Working Paper #2, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, August 1992.
 

Enhancing Sensitivity to the Environment

Between 1990 and 2020 the vehicle miles of travel on Bay Area roads is expected to grow by 59 million miles per day, an increase of 55% (RTP p. 12). This has serious consequences for the environment and residents' quality of life. Additionally, over 200,000 acres of open space -- an area more than six times as large as San Francisco and two hundred times as large Golden Gate Park -- is expected to be lost to development. (1998 RTP Draft EIR p. 2-102)

Air Quality

Several air quality standards are already violated in the Bay Area. One of these is PM_10, which causes bronchial illness and even premature death in human beings. Reducing these emissions just to the State Standards could achieve dramatic gains for public health. [Bay Area Air Quality Management District, The economic value of quantifiable ozone and PM10 related health effects in the San Francisco Bay Area, October 1994.] The Air District expects PM₁₀ to increase by 20% between 1990 and 2010. Most of this increase is due to anticipated increases in vehicle travel.

Furthermore, vehicles traveling in the Bay Area will emit 28,000,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a day by 2020, contributing to a worldwide increase in greenhouse gas generation and to projected global climate change. (1998 RTP Draft EIR p. ES-10)

Water Quality

Runoff of pollution from streets and highways into the Bay and Streams will also degrade the environment. The quantities of oil and grease from engines, asbestos, lead and other heavy metals released from brakes, and rubber and zinc released from tire wear, increase with additional driving. By 2020, the EPA expects a 60% increase in the levels of hazardous liquids and a 56% rise in the level of batteries as compared to 1990 levels. [RTP, EIR; EPA, Indicators of Environmental Impacts of Transportation, 1996.]

Supporting Economic Vitality

Current patterns of growth and development will lead to more congestion, which hurts business in the region. According to the Bay Area Council: "Businesses are shutting down production lines because parts can't be transported to their plants on time. Inventories are held at inefficiently high levels,because companies have to orient their shipping times around traffic. Protracted commutes make it difficult to attract and retain employees..."

Business groups, particularly the Bay Area Council and Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group are participating in a host of initiatives to improve transportation performance. These groups have recognized that a better process is needed to coordinate transportation and land use planning, in order to overcome the lack of convenient, affordable transportation options.

Transit Frequency and Job Growth in the Bay Area

Nearly a million new jobs are projected for the Bay Area over the next twenty years, a 30% increase over existing levels of employment. At this point, 565,728 of the new jobs are expected to locate in areas with infrequent transit service. If this scenario comes to fruition, many more Bay Area residents will experience the frustration of daily traffic congestion, as automobile commuting continues to transform from a matter of choice into an inescapable aspect of life in our region.

Enhancing Community Vitality

The level of walking and bicycling in a community is an excellent indicator of the vitality of a neighborhood. Safe, pleasant streets, parks and plazas encourage neighborhood cohesion. But our transportation system and community design in many new areas are simply not safe or encouraging of these key transportation modes. The share of trips by walking is expected to decrease by 10% between 1990 and 2020. Bicycling's share is expected to decrease by 9% during this period (1998 RTP Draft EIR p. 2-44).

MTC has taken an important initial step by launching the "Transportation for Livable Communities" program to support transit-oriented, walkable communities. Yet more will be needed to turn the cycle of sprawl and congestion into a Bay Area that offers affordable and convenient transportation choices.

Which is the Best Alternative?

One of the problems with the draft 1998 RTP is that all of the alternatives offered are so similar to each other. Why are they so similar?

1. "Baseline" projects, or 93% of the $88 billion in funding, are the same between alternatives. In other words there is only a 7% difference of RTP funds between alternatives. (The gas and sales tax alternatives assume the same investments as the project alternative then add on to it.)
2. Future development patterns are assumed to be the same across all alternatives (i.e. ABAG projections assuming 211,000 acres of land will be developed over the next twenty years.)
3. Pricing of facilities, including parking charges, does not vary between alternatives.

Of course this would not be a problem if all of the alternatives showed a rosy future. But given the dire predictions, it would useful to prepare at least one "Smart Growth" non-sprawl alternative. A comparison of some of the alternatives are provided below.

The 1998 Regional Transportation Plan Project vs. the alternatives offered.

(From 1998 RTP Draft EIR Chapter 3) Note: MTC has also a-project alternative" required by law.

While these are just some of the numerous facts and figures available in the 1998 RTP, it lays out a future that seems troubling at best, frightful at worst.

Member Organizations of the Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition believe that to truly meet the five goals outlined in the Regional Transportation Plan we will need to reign in sprawl development and design communities so people have a choice in how they travel; fund cost-effective alternative transportation; and provide incentives to discourage solo driving. . .

Chapter 2: A BETTER ALTERNATIVE

How do we know Smart Growth is Smart?

In 1994, the Regional Alliance for Transit (RAFT), a coalition of transit and environmental activists, created a model that should have made a stunning change in the way we think about transportation in the Bay Area. They created their own alternative Regional Transportation Plan RTP based on the core ideas of Smart Growth.

This RAFT model used the same job and population growth assumptions that the MTC did, but confined growth to existing developed areas, invested more heavily in cost-effective transit, and offered employees three dollars per day in cash to forego their free parking. MTC agreed to test the RAFT model on their computers, in order to compare it with MTC's plan. The results were clear: RAFT's plan delivered superior results in every category.
 

RAFT Results

The RAFT plan reduced congestion and lowered vehicle miles traveled (VMT), saving residents both time and money. Not only did RAFT's alternative preserve 150 square miles of open space that was projected for development, but would save up to $25 billion in infrastructure expenses. By directing development into already served areas, RAFT's plan avoided investing in unnecessary roads, sewer, and electric lines. The adjacent chart shows a few of the RAFT plan's advantages.
 

Key RAFT Assumptions

Although RAFT's regional growth assumptions were the same as MTC's, RAFT's model had key differences in the projections of where growth would be, and the type of investments made in transportation. Whereas MTC's model proposed more than 500 miles of new highways, RAFT's model only included a few miles and instead focused on providing alternatives, so Bay Area residents could get off the congested freeways. Future growth would be focused in existing areas, would be more human-scale, and would cluster around transit stations and within current developed areas rather than the projected suburban sprawl.

The RAFT model also uncovered the many benefits of pricing the existing transportation system to promote more efficient use, prescribing a "parking cashout", whereby employees who forego their "free" parking space are given it's cash value instead. Significant improvements would be made to public transit service. Caltrain, electrified from San Jose to San Francisco, would run all the way to downtown San Francisco and operate much more frequently; light rail would run through the Capitol and Tasman corridors of Santa Clara county; an electric trolley-bus would traverse the East Bay from Hayward and Richmond; Marin and Sonoma counties would have commuter rail.

When the RAFT plan was brought before the Board of Directors for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, it was well received for its effectiveness in reducing air pollution, and the Board recommended that the RAFT recommendations be incorporated in the Regional Transportation Plan. While they acknowledged that MTC may not have the direct authority to implement the RAFT recommendations, the Board suggested that MTC could encourage implementation of these measures using their significant ability to fund, withhold funds, or advocate for transportation projects.
 

Implications

The RAFT alternative provides a glimpse of hope that there are solutions to our complex transportation problems. It does more than recognize the connection between development and transportation demand: it illustrates the incredible synergies available if we could better coordinate land use, pricing and transportation investments. The public should encourage county congestion management agencies and local governments to work with MTC staff and commissioners on efforts such as parking cash-out and zoning changes to create effective improvements in the quality of transportation for Bay Area residents.

Case in Point: Portland's LUTRAQ project

Many places in the US are now adopting this approach, including Maryland, Minneapolis, and recently even Atlanta, Georgia. One city that has worked for Smart Growth for many years is Portland, Oregon. In 1989, a new highway was proposed for the western portion of Portland, in spite of the fact that it would worsen Portland's air quality status and was anticipated to quickly become congested. But the highway was the only real option, given the auto-dependent land uses in the area. Transit and non-motorized projects would not have been cost-effective in the proposed suburbia.

In response, 1000 Friends of Oregon initiated the LUTRAQ (Land Use Transportation, Air Quality) project, an innovative planning process that integrated transportation, land use, and pricing strategies. The three main principles were:

• Land-use plans should direct higher density development to locations well-served by transit and should ensure that development is designed for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders, as well as auto drivers.
• The transportation system should serve and reinforce the nature of the land-use plans.
• Some of the current distortions in the pricing of the transportation system and other public facilities should be corrected.

Amenities such as neighborhood parks and shops, combined with easier commutes, are making higher density housing popular again.

The LUTRAQ alternative proposed compact, walkable, neighborhoods based around light-rail stations instead of the highway surrounded by projected low-density land uses. The LUTRAQ alternative showed that, at the end of 20 years, it would perform better than the "Highway Only" option on all key criteria used:

• 22. 5 percent fewer work trips in single-occupant vehicles
• 27 percent more trips made on transit and by walking and biking
• 18 percent less highway congestion with 10.7% fewer hours of vehicle travel during the afternoon rush hour
• 21 percent greater access to jobs in the region, as measured by the percentage of the study area within 30-minutes travel of 500,000 jobs.

The advantages of the LUTRAQ alternative over the highway alternative were even stronger for households and businesses located within transit-oriented developments. This alternative is now being implemented with extremely positive results.

LUTRAQ effectively reduced the excessive demand for driving by improving land uses and improving pricing policies. It allowed decision-makers to choose from an expanded set of options. Without allowing for a "Smart Growth" scenario that included more compact land use to be modeled, this alternative never would have gained political support. In other areas, the absence of a well articulated vision remains the greatest obstacle to Smart Growth.

Smart Growth for the Bay Area

Smart Growth activities are already taking place in many areas across the Bay Area. For example, Sonoma and Marin just completed a process similar to LUTRAQ, which helped build momentum for the new rail line's inclusion in their sales tax proposals (which was later defeated by voters) and will help build ridership and make rail service cost-effective through compact land development around the stations. In Silicon Valley, the Eco-pass program is bringing more employees onto transit and the Housing Action Coalition has helped promote transit-friendly infill development.

Yet since the issues we are trying to address include transportation and air quality, which are cross-jurisdiction in nature, the most appropriate place to plan a Smart Growth strategy is at the regional level.

An undertaking such as LUTRAQ, on the scale of the Bay Area, would be ambitious indeed. To be effective, it would have to have strong buy-in from local governments, business, and the general public. It would need to foster cooperation between local governments, offer sufficient incentives, and create a positive vision that can only be realized through Smart Growth plans and investments. What we lack is a clear vision to help direct the region down a better path. The next section introduces a broad range of principles and actions that can change the trajectory of the Bay Area and start us down a path that enhances our quality of life and our environment.
 

CHAPTER 3: HOW TO GET THERE

The Bay Area has outstanding beauty, a dynamic economy, and incredible opportunities. However, poorly planned, sprawling development in the Bay Area poses a threat to our quality of life and our environment.

Member groups in the Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition believe that current development patterns and projections for the future are not set in stone. The Bay Area can retain its environment and quality of life while ensuring that all residents have access to economic and recreational opportunities.

The following platform lays out principles and specific actions that the coalition will pursue jointly.

1. Plan Regionally For Smart Growth

To solve the region's most pressing problems we must plan communities with a high quality of life that also address regional concerns over transportation, affordable housing, air quality, equity, and efficient investment. Growing smarter in just a few cities and counties will not make a dent in addressing the key regional problems. It is time to grow smarter as a region.
 

Coordinate Regional Transportation, Land Use, and Air Quality

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) have applied for funding to form a regional "Partnership for Smart Growth," which would include local governments and a broad range of private sector interests. The Coalition will work to ensure this process takes place independent of whether federal funding is granted, and will work to encourage broad participation in this partnership.
 

Tie Regional Transportation Investments and Incentives to Better Land Use

Development that will strain the region's road system should not be rewarded with infusions of regional transportation dollars. The Coalition will work to ensure that scarce public funds are targeted towards communities which have proven that they will grow in ways that support a range of travel choices. At minimum, the regional gas tax proposal and the process to create a transit expansion blueprint ("new rail starts") should adopt these principles from the outset.
 

Reduce Incentives for Poor Land Use

Existing incentives reward cities for building regional malls and other traffic-inducing land uses which generate high sales tax revenues, while penalizing them for accepting affordable housing, which provides little tax base and requires schools and services. Extensive efforts are needed to reduce this "fiscalization of land use." The Coalition will work for regional sharing of new sales tax revenues as one important solution.
 

Develop Performance Measures and Goals

Setting goals for the region and showing how specific projects and plans can move us towards them will make regional planning more meaningful to area residents and help build support for specific initiatives. Specific performance goals, such as calling for increased transit use per capita, should be included in MTC's Regional Transportation Plan. The Coalition will work to ensure that future RTPs and other plans present a meaningful range of alternatives, illustrating ways in which progress can be made towards regional goals.

2. Promote Livable, Walkable Communities

Designing communities the old-fashioned way - with sidewalks, narrow tree-lined streets, integrated street networks, and homes, jobs, shops, and parks within close proximity - has strong market appeal and reduces dependence on automobile travel. Compact, transit-oriented patterns of urban development also help save the Bay Area's open space and agricultural land.
 

Promote Compact, Mixed-Use Development

Good development can bring homes, shops, restaurants, parks, and offices within walking distance of each other and transit facilities. The Coalition will promote changes in general plans, zoning ordinances, and design guidelines to implement these Smart Growth principles (examples of how to do these are outlined in ABAG's Making Better Communities report).
 

Preserve Open Space and Limit Suburban Expansion

Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) draw a line showing where development ends and open space begins, and are one of the most effective ways to reduce suburban sprawl. The Coalition will work to get UGBs, coupled with effective policies to ensure infill development, adopted by additional Bay Area cities and counties. Ecologically sensitive lands and prime farm lands deserve special protection from development.
 

Require Connecting Street Patterns and Pedestrian-Friendly Streets

Streets in new developments should connect with one another to reduce driving distances, facilitate bicycle and pedestrian use with sidewalks and bike paths. The Coalition will promote revisions in zoning regulations, subdivision codes, and design review processes to encourage these changes.

MOST DANGEROUS BAY AREA COUNTIES FOR PEDESTRIANS

(1) 1996 Annual Report of Fatal and Injury Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions, Department of California Highway Patrol

(2) 1996 Population Estimates, California Department of Finance

(3) 1990 Census; Journey to Work Statistics

Source: Surface Transportation Policy Project
 

Fund Transit Village and Neighborhood Improvement Plans

Developing comprehensive plans for neighborhoods, especially those in key transit corridors, is essential for developing pedestrian-oriented places areas with a broad mix of land uses and public spaces such as parks. The Transportation for Livable Communities Program, established by MTC, is a model program providing funding for community-oriented planning that also reduces automobile use. The Coalition will promote the continuation and expansion of this program and the adoption of similar programs by County transportation agencies.

Numerous studies have shown a strong correlation between density, and variables such as levels of auto ownership and vehicle miles traveled per year. This study by John Holtzclaw also showed that proximity to good transit, shopping and pedestrian-friendliness of an area were also important conditions for reducing vehicle miles traveled (Holtzclaw, 1994).
 

3. Provide Real Transportation Choices

For millions of Bay Area residents, convenient and affordable alternatives to being stuck in traffic are virtually non-existent. Poll after poll has shown that people are increasingly frustrated by having no reliable alternatives to driving alone. Walking, bicycling, public transit, and ridesharing need to be far more convenient and deserve greater public investment.
 

Develop a World Class Public Transit System

Transit in the Bay Area should be safer, faster, more frequent, and more reliable. Regional agencies should focus investment on local service in core Bay Area communities, create seamless connections between transit systems, and ensure that service is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The region should invest in key transit "hubs" such as the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco and downtown San Jose. The Coalition will work with MTC and other agencies to ensure that increased transit usage becomes a regional goal in the 2000 RTP.
 

Improve Local Bus Service

Local bus service provides vital links between low-income communities and job centers and could serve much more of the region's population if higher priority was given to needed improvements. The Coalition will work to ensure that federal and state agencies use transportation funds to improve frequency and reliability of bus service, install bus-priority signals on arterials, test regional "busways," and allow for better coordination of transit systems.
 

Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Alternatives

The amount that people walk and bicycle has declined in recent decades as streets have turned into speedways and fear of traffic forces parents to become personal chauffeurs for their children. Nearly a quarter of all traffic-related fatalities in the Bay Area are bicyclists and pedestrians. The Coalition will work with MTC and Caltrans to ensure that bicyclists and pedestrians receive their fair share of funding and that a regional bike and pedestrian needs assessment is undertaken. The Coalition will also work for passage of a statewide "safe routes to school" bill, and advocate making all sidewalks, crosswalks, trails, and commercial centers wheelchair and ADA accessible.

4. Ensure That Social Equity Is Addressed

More than 2,000,000 Bay Area residents rely on non-automobile modes of transportation to get around -- most of them seniors, children, low-income, or disabled individuals. Serving these residents must be a basic principle in all investments and policies.
 

Make Significant New Investments in Communities That Rely On Public Transit

Public transportation systems are a lifeline to certain communities and transit investments in these communities have the added benefit of sparking neighborhood reinvestment and revitalization. The Coalition will support concerted efforts to develop 24 hour, 7 day service on key routes, upgrade the speed and frequency of service, improve lighting, safety and comfort, and provide discount or free passes to those with very low incomes.
 

Increase Funding and Incentives for Affordable Housing

A fair regional distribution of affordable housing is essential. The region should strengthen requirements for developers to include affordable units in each new development (near transit), and cities and counties should accept their fair share. The Coalition will ensure that the California's Low-Income Housing Tax Credit criteria are changed to favor locations that are transit accessible and that the value of these credits is significantly increased.
 

Fund Welfare-to-Work Transportation Programs

Recent federal mandates to provide former welfare recipients with transportation to new jobs challenge our region to eliminate transportation as a barrier to employment, child care, and other social needs. Each county is preparing a welfare-to-work transportation plan. The Coalition will work to ensure these projects are fully funded and the recommended strategies are implemented.
 

Provide Better Information on the Equity Impacts of Investments

It is critical to know which neighborhoods and groups will benefit from the projected $88 billion of Bay Area transportation investment over the next 20 years The Coalition will work to ensure that detailed equity analyses for the RTP and County Transportation Plans are prepared, and that these plans are evaluated and changed to address social equity problems.

5. Get the Price Right

Current economic incentives promote automobile use and inefficient land development. To clean the air, reduce congestion, and promote livable communities, the region needs to price transportation in a way that promotes alternatives to driving and that reflects the true costs of automobile use to society and the environment.
 

Support an Equitable Gas Tax Proposal

MTC has been authorized to place a regional gas tax on the ballot as early as November 2000. The Coalition will work to develop a regional gas tax expenditure plan that significantly expands funding for public transit and non-automobile modes of transportation, and will only support a plan that is both environmentally sound and socially just.
 

Develop Appropriate Parking Fees

One of the most effective ways to promote alternative transportation is to reduce free parking. Parking "cashout" programs give employees the choice of receiving cash for giving up their "free" parking spot at work (employees can instead walk, bike, carpool, or take public transit to work). The Coalition will work to have the California Air Resources Board enforce existing cashout laws and will advocate for stronger cashout provisions from cities and counties. Cities should also reduce parking requirements for transit-oriented development projects.
 

Charge Rush Hour Tolls on Bridges

Used successfully in Southern California and around the world, programs to charge higher road tolls during rush hour can significantly reduce congestion while funding transportation alternatives. State legislation introduced in 1999 calls for increasing Bay Bridge tolls during rush hour. The Coalition will support such road price increases if equity impacts are taken into account and funds are used to support non-automobile transportation options.
 

Expand Free and Discount Transit Pass Programs

Free and discount transit passes create a strong financial incentive to take transit, thereby building long-term transit ridership while reducing automobile use and congestion. The Coalition will advocate for greater funding of such programs, especially for seniors, students, and lower-income residents.

Next Steps

Members of the quickly growing Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition will promote this platform through a broad range of activities that include: providing analysis, reports and fact sheets on topics discussed in the platform; educating and involving residents, community groups, business interests, and public officials; encouraging local and regional leaders to actively participate in the Partnership for Smart Growth and other regional consensus-building efforts, and outlining issues for the media.

The Coalition's overarching goal is to provide information and policy recommendations that allow elected officials and the broader public to choose between current development patterns and a more sustainable Bay Area that preserves and enhances our quality of life.
 

Organizations signing the coalition platform

As of this report's publication on June 23, 1999, over 50 organizations had signed the coalition's platform represented in the chapter three. Many more are now considering the platform. Below are the affiliate organizations that have already signed.

Albany/El Cerrito Access

Alliance for AC Transit

Bay Area Action

Bay Area Transportation Choices Forum (a project of TALC as of 2003)

Baypeds

Berkeley Gray Panthers

Center for Third World Organizing

Coalition for West Oakland Revitalization

Community Design and Architecture

Congress for the New Urbanism

Council of Churches of Santa Clara County

East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation

East Bay Bicycle Coalition

East Palo Alto Historical and Agricultural Society

Eco-City Builders

West Downtown Neighborhood Alliance

Emergency Services Network

Environmental Defense Fund

Gray Panthers of San Francisco

Gray Panthers of West Contra Costa County

Gray Panthers Southern Alameda County

Green Party of Alameda County

Greenbelt Alliance

Hayward Area Planning Association

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)

LACES

Marin County Bicycle Coalition

Mission Housing Development Corporation

Modern Transit Society

National Trust for Historic Preservation

North Bay Environmental Institute

Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation

Peninsula Rail 2000

Rail Passenger Association of California

Regional Alliance For Transit (RAFT)

Rescue MUNI, Peninsula Rail 2000

San Francisco Bicycle Coalition

Save San Francisco Bay Ass'n

SF Bicycle Advisory Committee

SPUR (San Francisco Planning and Urban Research)

Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP)

Sustainable El Cerrito

Sustainable San Mateo County

Synergy Business Solutions

The People on the Bus

TNDC: Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation

Train Riders Association of California

Union of Concerned Scientists

Urban Conservation and Urban Design

Urban Ecology

Urban Habitat Program

Walk San Francisco

Working Partnerships, USA
 

Appendix A: Partnership for Smart Growth

In July 1998,with the newly released Regional Transportation Plan painting a gloomy picture of the region in 2020, the Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition appealed to MTC Commissioners to develop a stronger method for coordination of local land use and regional transportation planning. Many commissioners agreed with the recommendation, and the proposal for the "Partnership for Smart Growth" was initiated.

The first proposal for this Partnership was drafted by staff from MTC, ABAG and the Air District along with a number of coalition affiliate organizations such as Surface Transportation Policy Project, Greenbelt Alliance, Environmental Defense Fund and the Bay Area Transportation Choices Forum (a project of TALC as of 2003). The proposal is to launch a comprehensive regional outreach and planning effort involving local elected officials, community groups and business leaders. The project would focus on creating incentives for local governments to develop land use policies that reduce demand on the transportation system, preserve open space, and create better access to jobs and services.

The proposal, included in this appendix, was sent by the three regional agencies to the U.S. Department of Transportation in November 1999. Although Secretary Rodney Slater announced that the proposal was a finalist, a number of smaller California projects received funding instead. On June 24, 1999 the three agencies will be re-applying for this funding. Whether or not this grant is received, coalition members believe we should move forward with this innovative project. (Text of the Partership for Smart Growth proposal not currently available online.)

Updated: 6//9/00