Wednesday, September 17, 2003
5:30 - 7:30 p.m.
1) Revisions to Agenda -- 5:30
2) Introductions/Announcements - 5:35
- Various upcoming MTC meetings.
- TALC is developing “Tools for Transportation
Justice”. See TALC website in the future for details.
- TLR: we’re looking for input from members and
affiliates on land use priorities for each county,
and we’re looking for volunteers to give an
“activist’s perspective” for the report. Call or
email
Amber Crabbe at TALC for more details, or check your
email for the announcement.
- STPP, TALC, and LIF just released “Can’t Get there
from here” report on the decline of children’s
independent mobility. Lots of new data. Available at
TALC & STPP websites.
3) TALC Board Nominations - 5:40
TALC's Board of Directors is having its annual
election process. Nominations of a member group
representative needs to be by Sept. 25. You can
nominate online by Thursday, September 25 at
www.transcoalition.org/about/boardnom.html.
4) Quick Updates
A. BART-SFO
BART-SFO is having huge problems meeting its
operating costs. Under the BART-Samtrans arrangement,
Samtrans is responsible for any shortfalls between
the budgeted amounts and the actual income. Because
ridership is much lower than projections, Samtrans
has already used $5.9 million of the $6 million
budgeted for the 2003-04 year. To get out of the
hole, BART would have to reduce service on the
extension or Samtrans would have to reduce bus
service.
B. SB916 Bridge Toll
SB916 passed out of the Legislature and is on the
Governor’s desk; he must act by October 12th. As
we’ve discussed earlier, the project list was
terrific when it went into the Legislature: it
included several projects that were specifically
proposed by TALC (Night-BART, Safe Routes to
Transit), plus numerous projects proposed in World
Class Transit.
The bill emerged from the legislature with some pork
added most notably partial funding for the Caldecott
Tunnel, but TALC staff’s opinion is that the overall
package is still terrific. We had some discussion of
the resulting bill. Several people suggested that
TALC should consider whether to endorse the resulting
proposition when it goes on the ballot.
4) Key Decisions Needed on MTC Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) 5:45
As TALC gears up for the 2004 Update of the Regional
Transportation Plan (a.k.a. Transportation 2030),
a few key issues are emerging and many of these
decisions must take place by December, 2003. We will
discuss some of these key issues including:
> Linking Transportation and Land Use
> Transportation Justice
> Goals and Objectives
> Bicycle and Pedestrian Issues
This discussion, plus the outcomes of the workgroups
that have been set up on the first three of those
topics, will form the basis of our initial
recommendations to MTC, and will be discussed with
MTC Chair Steve Kinsey and MTC staff on Monday,
October 13, in a meeting that will take place in lieu
of the October regional TALC meeting.
For the TALC discussion memo go to:
www.transcoalition.org/cal/sept03agenda_memo.html
For
the MTC memos go to:
www.transcoalition.org/c/sus_rtp/rtp_home.html
Timeline:
Now thru Dec: MTC wants to develop financial
estimates on regional set-asides so can tell counties
how much funding will remain
Jan-May: counties will decide their proposals
for how to allocate county funding.
Topics we’d like to firm up before next month’s
meeting with MTC:
· What projects that are already in the pipeline can
we consider postponing, in order to get more money
for better projects?
· Do we want to continue to push for 100% funding for
transit? It’s been a priority for us in the last two
RTPs, but now the predicted gap is $5 billion. This
would eat up all the discretionary funds
Suggestion: contact ATU and other labor folks
Question: How can they put BART to San Jose in
the RTP when it can’t pay for itself?
Major
issues:
Transportation Justice:
Biggest issue is how to deal with “Lifeline Transit
Network”, now “Lifeline Mobility Goal”. Have done a
good job mapping out need, but there is no money.
Possibilities for this RTP is 1-putting strings on
existing money, 2-get MTC to make a policy commitment
to include money for LLT in any new money (gas tax?),
and 3-find a way to pressure counties to include
funding for LLT and transit operations in their
locally-raised transportation money. We will face
resistance from CMA’s and possibly the transit
operators.
Suggestion: CTA might be a good resource here.
Suggestion: Rephrase “Transportation Justice”
because it sets the bar pretty low.
Transportation and Land Use
There may not be much new money, but we can look for
significant new changes. Should they condition their
transportation money on good land use? Should they
use TLC money to fund specific neighborhood plans?
Andy: Another Land Use Working Group meeting
on October 3rdlooking for more participation! MTC
seems receptive to “levers” but still not clear what
these levers will (or can) be. Another possibility is
to use incentives like bigger TLC. It would be great
to get MTC talking not just about TOD but also open
space and sprawl. What kind of standards can we set
around transit stations that would be effective?
· more money for specific or neighborhood plans, as
long as they are near transit. Specific plans cost
$0.5-2 million EACH.
· come up with something to promote bike and ped
access (similar to bike/ped access plans)require it’s
part of the general plan for that area, certified for
that area, and funded
· look to San Mateo’s housing plan that’s being
developed along transit corridor (Irvin can provide
more information)
· restructure TLC funding mechanism to make sure TLC
money goes to mode shift, not just beautification
projects
· change TLC to make it more housing-oriented
· developers say that HIP is a great idea, but it’s
not quite enough money to really change behavior of
cities and developers
· in TLC, more funding for specific projects, to make
sure projects are funded
Goals and Objectives
Working group is meeting on this, but MTC has come
out with new set of goals and objectives that are
much more specific than the ones they’ve put forward
before. Do we want other goals, or other indicators?
· under fix-it-first, give priority for repaving
funds to roads with bike paths
· how can these goals be used in project selection?
· most of these indicators seem to measure whether or
not they’re accomplishing what they’ve already
decided are successful solutions.
· mobility should be changed to lifeline
accessibility, and bus pre-emption should be changed
to bus-priority
· increase in transit use as an indicator? what about
level of open space consumed annually? what about
cost effectiveness for new transit projects?
· look at these indicators and see what’s missing:
email
Amber Crabbe
· like to see performance goals, along with a list of
projects. if goals are not met, TALC program should
get funded.
· Under goals of a safe system, there should be
indicators of # projects certified (or not certified)
bike-ped safe
Bike-Ped Issues
Bay Area Bicycle Coalition is interested in working with TALC. First
regional bike plan was developed in 2001, but not
funded. Key BABC issues are funding RBP, funding bike
paths on west span of Bay Bridge and Richmond-San
Rafael bridge, funding improved bike access on
transit and Safe Routes to Transit. MTC has offered a
$4-5 M set-aside per year already for bike and
pedestrian projects. Now task is to look at real
need, and see what we need to get our projects
funded.
· Can this relate to TLC? Prioritize TLC projects
that serve bike priorities?
· Grade crossings are train tracks that aren’t
rubberized… can we make them smoother?
· Push for routine accommodation for bikes and peds.
Every project required to have certified safe bike
and ped access. Per Deputy Directive 64 from Caltrans.
To add further information, email
David Burch of BABC:
5) County Outreach Meetings - 7:00
TALC will hold our first-ever round of county by
county outreach meetings to get input on our 2004
annual workplan, Regional Smart Growth
recommendations, and more. We'll discuss roles for
member groups.
If people want to help out with setting this up in
your county, email
Stuart Cohen or talk to him after the
meeting.
Dick Schneider offered Alameda County Sierra Club
office.
Irvin Dawid offers to contact a place in Santa Clara.
6) Proposition 53 - 7:10
At the August meeting, Proposition 53 was discussed
(an initiative on October's ballot that would require
a certain percentage of the state's general fund to
be spent on infrastructure). Since then there have
been requests from member groups for TALC to oppose
the initiative. We are going to have speakers for
both sides of the issue. A vote on opposing the
initiative will be considered.
For more go to:
*
http://www.ca.lwv.org/lwvc/edfund/elections/2003/pc/prop53.html
*
http://www.smartvoter.org/2003/10/07/ca/state/prop/53/
*
http://www.yeson53.org/
> Tim from Sierra Club gave presentation against Prop
53; Petrea from Assemblyman Canciamilla’s office gave
presentation in favor.
> Ran over time, so instead of voting at this
meeting, Stuart will take the arguments to the Board
and decide whether to support or oppose.
Adjourn -- 7:30 pm: Next regional meeting.
December 10, 5:30.
There
will not be an October meeting of TALC.
The
October meeting will be replaced by a 2-hour dialogue
about the Regional Transportation Plan between MTC
and TALC members and activists, on Monday, October
13. RSVP to
Stuart Cohen |
