Bridge Toll Increase: Recommendations
* At TALC's May Regional Meeting, members adopted a position on ferry service for the Bay Area.
 
* At TALC's October 2002 regional meeting, member groups provided input on priority projects and gave these recommendations to the Senate Select Committee on Transportation and Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
TALC's Adopted Position on Ferries

TALC supports:
* transit options that provide real transportation choices that serve as an alternative to the single occupancy vehicle and integrate well with existing transit services;
* transit options that will appropriately serve and promote livable communities and that encourage infill housing within existing Bay Area communities;
* the preservation of the Bay Area environment and quality of life;

If ferry service is appropriately designed, it can meet theses core goals-therefore, TALC will support Bay Area ferry service if and only if it meets the following conditions:

1. Transportation Choices: that ferry service provides a cost-effective reduction in the use of the Single Occupancy Vehicles by

a. Providing well-connected feeder transportation. Feeder transportation shall complement, not compete with, existing ground transportation systems.
b. Establishing or expanding ferry services only when an alternatives analysis shows their operating subsidy per passenger shall be comparable to or less than operating subsidies of other public transit alternatives and should not decrease transit subsidies available to existing, less costly systems.
c. Providing access to ferry terminals that strongly favors bicycles, walking, and transit over single occupancy vehicles with secure, free bicycle parking, bus transfers, bicycle and pedestrian planned access, etc.
d. Limiting parking space at ferry terminals and requiring any parking provided to charge parking fees to cover all associated costs, including land acquisition, construction, operation, maintenance, collection and treatment of all potential runoff, and a subsidy for bus transit to the terminal.
e. Providing facilities on all ferries that allow bikes at no cost at all times.


2. Livable Communities: that ferry service provides land use opportunities that will encourage compact, mixed-use transit-oriented development.

a. Ferry terminals shall be located within urban areas that are currently developed or have an adopted plan for development and that could provide opportunities for additional high-density infill within two miles of the terminal.
b. Cities and counties planning for ferry service should fully integrate development or redevelopment planning with that service and institute development fees to assist in financing elements of ferry service.
c. TALC shall oppose ferry service in areas without existing or planned minimum supportive densities, such as the North Bay and portions of the Peninsula and South Bay.


3. Environmental Protection and Quality of Life: that ferry service provides clean, efficient transit service that minimizes environmental harms and that provides a net benefit

a. Wildlife and wildlife habitat shall be protected. Ferry routes shall be planned to avoid harbor seals, rafting ducks, whales, and other wildlife. The construction of terminals or other facilities that adversely affect endangered species habitat shall be prohibited. Full mitigation for any unavoidable impacts shall be required.
b. Air and water pollution shall be minimized. The cleanest propulsion system feasible shall be used and leak-proof fueling shall be assured.
c. Ferry terminals should not be located in park lands unless their primary purpose is to serve park users; and any negative environmental impacts to parklands are minimal and can be mitigated.
 
Project Recommendations

November 4, 2002

To: Ezra Rapport, (consultant with Senate Select Committee on Transportation) and Rebecca Long, MTC

From: Stuart Cohen, Transportation and Land Use Coalition

Re: Draft Coalition Platform on Proposed Bridge Toll Projects


At the October regional meeting of TALC our member organizations reviewed the universe of potential projects under consideration by the Bridge Toll Advisory Committee. In general, TALC members are pleased that the list covers such a wide range of transportation alternatives, and that cost effectiveness is one of the key criteria for evaluating these proposed projects. Before addressing the projects themselves, we would like to suggest that impact on air quality be included as one of the key performance measures in evaluating the proposed projects.

We have categorized projects into areas of major benefits or concerns, as opposed to bridge corridors, to reduce redundancy, with the bridge corridor listed after each project name). Many of the projects not listed here are supported by the Coalition, but the ones below have been prioritized for comment.
Improve Connectivity Between Transportation Systems

STRONG SUPPORT: New Transbay terminal, including the Downtown Extension (Bay Bridge)
SUPPORT: Dumbarton Rail/Union City Intermodal Station (San Mateo-Hayward and Dumbarton)

Bridge Toll funding should focus on improving the connectivity between transportation systems-not only transit-to-transit connections, but also bicycle/pedestrian-to-transit connections. There is already much focus on improving transit service, which is important, but the vast web of intersecting transit systems in the Bay Area makes a system's connection to the rest of the region similarly critical. 

STRONG SUPPORT: Safe Routes to Transit (System Wide)
STRONG SUPPORT: BART station and access improvements (Bay Bridge)

Improving bicycle and pedestrian access to transit systems and easing transitions for customers between transit systems themselves can assure that the existing capacity and any future improvements are used efficiently. The Coalition would also like to see some of the bridge toll money for the Richmond-San Rafael bridge corridor go to fund bike and pedestrian access in this corridor, even though it wasn't explicitly included in this list of projects.


Provide Better Alternatives to Driving and Needs of Low-Income Families

STRONG SUPPORT: AC Transit BART Owl Service (System Wide)
STRONG SUPPORT: AC Transit BRT, enhanced bus, and Transbay service improvements (Bay Bridge / San Mateo-Hayward and Dumbarton)
SUPPORT: I-680 express bus service (Antioch and Benicia-Martinez)
SUPPORT: Solano and Contra Costa County express bus service (Antioch and Benicia-Martinez)
SUPPORT: Golden Gate Express Bus service improvements (Richmond-San Rafael)

Express buses and Bus Rapid Transit solutions are the quickest, most cost-effective investments that can be made to reduce congestion across Transbay corridors. Improvements in the regional bus system, such as increasing the hours of operation and expanding the service area, have the greatest potential to increase transit ridership across the Bay. The Coalition strongly supports proposals for bus service, especially the BART Owl Service, which will help provide lifeline transportation for residents and workers whose schedules currently preclude them from making transit trips.

SUPPORT: City CarShare (System Wide)

City CarShare is a service that can replace the need for a car at the destination of a trip, which is consistently cited as a reason driving instead of taking transit or carpooling. Instead of habitually driving a car across the Bay because of the occasional need to run errands during lunchtime, the availability of City CarShare or another car sharing program gives commuters the peace of mind that a car would be available if they needed to use one-and removes a hurdle to transit or carpool use.

STRONG SUPPORT: Capitol Corridor rail improvements (Carquinez / Antioch and Benicia-Martinez)
Improving service along the Capitol Corridor promotes the potential for Smart Growth around the stations.


No Sprawl-inducing Highways that may Further Clog Bridge Approaches.

STRONG OPPOSE: Novato Narrows HOV lanes (Richmond-San Rafael)
STRONG OPPOSE: I-80 HOV lanes and I-80/I680 interchange in Solano County (Antioch and Benicia-Martinez)

We strongly oppose these projects because 
· they are increasing highway capacity, even if they serve as HOV lanes for a very short part of every weekday. 
· They would carry a very limited number of transit riders
· Parallel rail improvements are proposed in both corridors
· Both can be considered sprawl-inducing (or enabling) 
· Additional HOV lanes can induce demand and increase flow of vehicles to the bridges, resulting in even greater bottlenecks at the bridges themselves. 
If the intention is to reward those who choose to carpool, then lane optimization (designating an existing traffic lane as an HOV lane) should be considered as a strategy rather than building a new lane?

STRONG OPPOSE: HOV Lane on Dumbarton Bridge (San Mateo-Hayward and Dumbarton)

Given that there will eventually be rail on Dumbarton, the Coalition strongly opposes the use of bridge toll funds to build additional HOV lanes. These are not transit improvements since there is little demand for buses in the corridor and once rail service begins on the Dumbarton rail bridge, there may be no bus service. HOV approaches to the bridge combined with operational efficiencies such as the metering on the Bay Bridge can help the flow of buses and carpoolers just as well. In any case some of the biggest problems with the Dumbarton are actually on the touchdown in East Palo Alto, and additional lanes could aggravate the already serious problems that community has with through traffic. 


New Rail Should be Cost-Effective

STRONG OPPOSE: I-580 corridor rail transit extension and I-580 HOV lane (a.k.a. BART to Livermore) (Bay Bridge)

The Coalition opposes the I-580 Corridor Rail Transit Extension since the recent corridor study has shown that it will have little impact on I-580 congestion, and absolutely no impact on bridge congestion. This project does not pass the nexus test, and should not be supported by bridge tolls. Similarly the I-580 HOV Lane has a limited nexus, particularly since it does not continue as an HOV lane west of that portion. HOV lane improvements could only have a nexus if BART-to-Livermore is rejected for an express bus connection between Livermore and Dublin/Pleasanton BART. That alternative, however, was not the preferred alternative of the study.

OPPOSE: BART Warm Springs extension (Bay Bridge)
The Coalition opposes funding for the Warm Springs BART extension, since it scores low in cost-effectiveness and Fremont has done a poor job, overall of planning for comprehensive transit-oriented development near the station to improve likely ridership.
 
   

Update: 10/23/02 

 ©2002 Transportation and Land Use Coalition   510.740.3150     info@transcoalition.org