|
Summary of outcomes of the campaign
strategy sessions at the 2005 TALC Summit:
Launching a regional transit villages campaign
Over 70 people participated in this
strategy session, whose purpose was to get direction about top
priority activities in TALC’s proposed new “Planning Great
Communities” initiative, described in TALC’s
new strategic plan.Jeff Hobson, TALC Policy Director,
explained that the purpose of this new initiative is to vastly
increase public participation in the dozens of planning processes
that will soon be underway for areas near transit. Together, we have
won billions of dollars for to support existing and new transit. Over
the next several years, we can expect a boom in transit station area
and transit corridor planning processes, followed by a boom in
proposals for transit-oriented development. Jeff emphasized that we
are talking about the entire “station area” within 1/2-mile of
existing and new stations, not just transit villages on or
immediately adjacent to the station itself.
To ensure these processes get high
quality participation from community residents, TALC plans to kick
off a major new initiative with leading groups working on affordable
housing and urban design throughout the region. For the Strategy
Session, we discussed five definite activities and seven more
optional activities.
Refining Definite Activities The definite activities
include:
- Database of Station Area Plan
processes and proposed developments in target areas
- Best Practices Resource Guide (online)
covering a wide range of topics (from how to do community-based
planning to the nitty-gritty details of parking ratios)
- Trainings and Workshops for
the Local Advocates. Two main comments from the strategy session were
that we should also educate the financial sector and that local
advocates need to know how to follow the entire development
process and how Station Area Plans fit into them.
- Trainings for local government (elected
officials, planning commissioners, city staff).
- Database of Local Advocates
Top-Priority Optional Activities:
Inform and Activate Local Advocates
Participants broke up into small
groups, and with the help of six co-facilitators, prioritized the
most important “Optional Activities”, suggested new activities the
initiative should consider; and refined the high priority activities.
For the “optional” activities,
participants made it clear that TALC’s most important role is to
inform and activate local advocates, not to become directly involved
in local decisions. Two of the four top-ranked optional activities
were ones that directly help local advocates:
- Foster local “Friends of the Transit Village” groups;
and
- Provide technical assistance to local groups.
Several participants mentioned that
assistance should go beyond development issues to include trainings
on grassroots organizing, message/media, and public speaking, or
providing ready-made PowerPoint presentations for locals to use in
their efforts.
The other two top-ranked activities
were:
- Distribute Action Alerts on Station Area Plans; and
- Analyze Individual Proposed Developments.
Participants emphasized the need to
provide information and some analysis by TALC to help local groups
become educated and involved.
Participants showed little interest in
having TALC endorse or oppose individual developments. Some suggested
that instead of endorsing or opposing individual developments, the
initiative should simply develop criteria or a checklist for what a
project would need to have in order to win endorsement (or
“certification”), and encourage local groups to use those criteria to
make their own endorsements.
A new activity: peer-to-peer
promotion, education & outreach
One brand new idea also emerged from
the strategy session: peer-to-peer promotion, education & outreach.
This could take the form of an email list-serve, parties, or other
ways to get local advocates and local groups talking to and learning
from each other.
What’s next and What You Can Do!
Based on this feedback, TALC staff will
continue to meet with leading groups around the region to more fully
develop this initiative, seek funding, and start on initial tasks
(such as tracking key station area planning processes).
Check out our
list of volunteer and internship opportunities
for ways you can help with this initiative. Co-Facilitators
This strategy session was led by Jeff Hobson, TALC Policy
Director, with assistance from:
- Rachel Kraai, TALC Land Use Intern
- Jeremy Madsen, Greenbelt Alliance Field
Director
- Kate O’Hara, Greenbelt Alliance
Regional Issues Organizer
- Geeta Rao, Policy and Program
Associate, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
- Jeff Tumlin, Partner, Nelson\Nygaard
Transportation Planning
- Jess Wendover, Designer, Urban Ecology
Raising new, reliable transportation funding
The approximately 20 participants in
this discussion group considered a broad range of mechanisms for
generating additional funding for transportation at the local or
regional scale. These included two types of charges on gasoline
consumption (gasoline tax or user fee), two types of charges related
to vehicle ownership (a regional vehicle license fee [VLF] or a
vehicle registration fee), developer impact fees, sales taxes in
several jurisdictions (Solano County, Napa County, SMART
[Sonoma-Marin] District), employer-subsidies transit use (e.g.
Eco-Pass), parking taxes, existing authorization for a 1-cent per
gallon gas tax for fixed rail transit, toll roads, city-center
congestion charges, gross-receipts taxes (particularly on landlords),
homeowners association dues.
Two considerations dominated the
discussions: voter approval and equitability. With gas prices setting
new records and the perennial unpopularity of gasoline taxes in
public opinion polls, any form of tax or user fee on gasoline appears
unlikely to be adopted. Voter approval seems more likely for a
regional vehicle license fee, which has the advantages that it
reinstates a former tax rather than create an entirely new one, it
carries an implied criticism of Governor Schwarzenegger’s handling of
the state budget woes, and it is a more progressive tax than some of
the other options because it is based on the value of the vehicle.
Equitability concerns focused on
whether a tax or other source of funding is “regressive” or
“progressive” (the former impacting low-income families
disproportionately). Sales taxes in general are regressive because a
larger percentage of income is spent on taxable consumables in
low-income households. The net effect on those households was
unclear, however, and probably highly variable. Households that rely
heavily on public transit—as many low-income households do—would
potential have a net gain because the transit improvements would
outweigh the increased expenditure on gasoline. For households highly
reliant on a car to get to work—such as domestic and landscaping
service providers—the net effect might be the opposite.
Two straw votes were taken on key
decisions faced by TALC. The first was whether TALC should focus on
providing leadership for regional issues as opposed to providing
support to a larger number of local issues. The group favored
regional leadership by about three-to-one. The two most regional
funding options that were considered are the gas tax (or user fee)
and the VLF (or registration fee). The group recommended pursuing a
regional VLF as the most promising options, again by about a
three-to-one margin.
Follow-up actions discussed by the group included:
- Investigate the regressivity
of a gas tax as compared to a general sales tax
- Investigate whether there are
limitations on what VLF funds can be spent on
- Devise language to “frame” our
proposals in a more positive light
Regional bike/pedestrian issues
Summary of outcomes:
Promote the West Span bike/ped/maintenance path on the Bay Bridge as a
key link and high-visibility project to attract publicity and funding
to bike/ped issues.
Continue TALC's tradition of early and sustained organizing to shift
funding in the Regional Transportation Plan (as with the Regional Ped/Bike
Program) and in the federal TEA legislation (as with a possible Safe
Routes to School program).
Promote the development of a regional pedestrian plan and update the
regional bike plan to strengthen walking and cycling as regional
issues.
Topics:
Bike/ped access on the west span of the Bay Bridge
Safe Routes to School and other funding
Defining the scope for a regional pedestrian master plan
1. Bike/ped access on the west span of the Bay Bridge, Josh Hart
Unlike other bridges throughout the country, the Bay Bridge was not
built with a path for pedestrian access.
Bridge paths provide access for maintenance crews proven to prevent
accidents and minimize congestion.
Protests in 1997-99 raised awareness about the need for non-motorized
access on the Bay Bridge, and people occasionally bike the bridge
despite the danger, due to the lack of options for those needing to get
to the East Bay.
A $2M Caltrans feasibility study concluded that the west span (3 miles)
could be built and that its many benefits would make it cheaper to
build than not, as the City would avoid lawsuits based on accidents and
save on maintenance overtime costs.
Two options were proposed, both with a cantilevered design featuring
paths on both sides of the bridge: the first would cost $387M and
include deck replacement (needed within the next 20 years); the second
would cost approx. $200M, including design, and adjusted for inflation.
The most likely source of funds would be a $1-2 bridge toll increase.
(There may be a small amount of funds available through Treasure Island
developers; tolls for bikes/peds is an option of last resort.)
Next steps are to obtain resolutions (SF Board of Supervisors has
passed such a resolution-copies available) in support of the West span
path; the state legislature must also authorize the MTC to spend toll
revenues. An alternative would be a statewide bond measure that, unlike
RM2, could be placed on the ballot (without voter pre-approval if put
on ballot by state legislature).
2. Safe Routes to Schools and other funding, Deb Hubsmith
In the last 30 years, obesity among kids has tripled, and the number of
kids walking or bicycling to school has decreased from 67 to 13 percent
nationwide.
The Marin Bicycle Coalition was chosen/funded by the federal government
to pilot a Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) project to promote walking and
bicycling to school.
In the first two years of the pilot, the number of kids walking/biking
to school increased from 21 to 38 percent. Inspired by this significant
success, 26 states have started SR2S programs.
The pending federal Transportation Enhancements Act (TEA) 6-year bill
would allocate $875M to SR2S; the House version is preferred to the
Senate version because it allows more funding to be allocated to
crucial non-infrastructure activities such as education, formulation of
strategic goals, and monitoring.
Only recently has bike/ped funding been offered regionally: in 1998,
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)’s Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) did not address bike/ped issues at all. A
2000 study demonstrated that the funding needed for regional (vs.
local) bike/ped projects totaled over $1.5B.
Due to the pressure brought by the local bicycle coalitions, the
regional bicycle coalition, and TALC, in the 2005 RTP, $200M was
allocated to bike/ped projects over 25 years, $8M/year--$40M in
qualified applications were received last year demonstrating the need
for funding.
3. Defining the scope for a regional pedestrian master plan, Wendy
Alfsen
There is currently no regional pedestrian plan. There is a need to
define regional vs. local pedestrian needs in order to get funding, and
to have the MTC include ped needs in the 2008 RTP.
Local pedestrian plans set policy, guidelines and standards, and
identify needs and routes. Ped counts, including counting collisions,
are one way of identifying needs.
We need a regional pedestrian plan to obtain regionwide funding equal
to the pedestrian mode share of total trips and hazard elimination
funds equal to the ped/bicycle share of all injuries/fatalities , yet
funding priorities do not reflect this.
The challenge is to define criteria and priorities for what constitutes
a regional vs. local project or need.
One suggestion was to require ped/bike counts for projects; Level of
Service (LOS) is the standard for quantifying automobile impacts. SF is
developing LOS for bikes/peds o help in environmental review and
planning. Having a standard can be a powerful tool.
Plan should prioritize following:
Areas around regional transit stations/stops, transit streets & streets
in downtown
Mitigate state and regional routes - arterials on Congestion Management
Plan, state highways through downtowns &
Overcome on ramp, off ramp & freeway barriers;
Codify “Complete the Streets” (but be careful to ensure prioritization
by the number of people the projects would actually serve);
Arterial crossing improvements within 1/3 mile of a school w/in school
district boundaries.
Distance from transit hubs/downtown (recommendation to use different
distances for different types of transit facilities, i.e., one-half
mile from a BART station, ¼ mile from a local bus stop); regionally
significant trails and access to them;
Unlike a bicycle plan, a pedestrian plan would not necessarily create a “network”
of facilities.
Need to include collision rates, not numbers, which are misleading (the
more a facility is used, the more collisions there will be—but this may
actually reveal an increase in safety).
The plan should study populations that walk and define their needs.
Support can be built by publicizing the toll of our auto-centric
culture.
Stopping unjust fare hikes and service cuts
The goal of this session was to establish what TALC’s role should be
in fighting the numerous local battles over unjust fare hikes and
service cuts.
Participants each introduced themselves, what organization they were
with (if any), and described any fare hikes and/or service cuts their
community had experienced recently. As the cuts and hikes were
described, the moderator recorded the details on a large map of the
Bay Area. By the time everyone had spoken, it was clear that each
community represented in the room had suffered some form of fare
hikes or service cuts over the last few years.
Next, Chris Lepe of TALC and Casey Mills of the Tenderloin Housing
Clinic told their stories of fighting against cuts and hikes in the
South Bay and San Francisco. Building on their testimony, the group
brainstormed a list of possible roles for TALC in fighting these fare
hikes and service cuts. The group then prioritized this list and
came up with the three main roles TALC should take on:
- Making sure that community members and labor organizations work
together in these fights, rather than being pitted against one
another.
- With the help of member organizations, getting the word out to
impacted communities, including direct outreach (attending community
meetings, etc).
- Work with transit operators to require preparation of an
“alternative” budget, i.e. one with no service cuts or fare hikes.
If the transit operators are unwilling to prepare one themselves,
TALC should work with labor allies (who understand these budgets) to
identify where expenditures on things other than direct service could
be cut, and how the agency could raise the extra money needed to
avoid service cuts and/or fare hikes (i.e. local vehicle license fee,
parking charges, etc).
|
