Many supporters winning fights for increased public transportation funds, but others say throwing money around isn't the answer. 

November 15, 1998

By Robert Oakes
TIMES STAFF WRITER

Almost certain auto gridlock in the years ahead, more access to federal money and a swing of the political pendulum toward slow growth are empowering Bay Area public transportation advocates as never before.

They crowd public meetings, twist bureaucratic arms and insert themselves into every transportation and land-use issue they can.

"I think we're starting to see some shifts in how decisions are made," said Stuart Cohen, director of the Bay Area Transportation Choices Forum, a coalition formed to influence government agencies.

Recent victories include:

• Gaining a promise from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in late October for an additional $375 million for transit funding in the Regional Transportation Plan, a 20-year blueprint for highway and transit funding.
• Winning more spending options for buses, trains and bike paths in a $218 billion, six-year federal transportation bill that President Clinton signed in June. Legislation included a significant boost in Bay Area funding.
• Fighting tax measures transit forces consider too friendly toward freeways, including an Alameda County transportation sales tax extension in June and a Sonoma County half-cent sales tax on ballots in November. Both measures failed.
• Lobbying for transit projects in a proposed regional gas tax, up to 10 cents per gallon, which the MTC has authority to put on Bay Area ballots in November 2000.

More money sought

Although 53 percent of all transportation revenues expected in the Bay Area during the next 20 years will pay for maintaining and operating existing bus and rail systems, transit advocates say it isn't enough. They are demanding more - including some money now ear-marked for Highway 24 improvements near the Caldecoft Tunnel and a highway bypass in Hayward.

Better-funded public transportation, coupled with less suburban sprawl, would decrease travel times and make buses or trains more attractive commute options, transit fans contend.

Groups vary on the best approach to boosting public transit. Some support smaller-scale projects such as the Altamont Commuter Express, a Stockton-to-San Jose passenger rail service that debuted Oct. 19 and carries about 1,000 passengers daily.

Train commuters spend more time aboard than they would driving, but they don't endure horrible backups on the 1-680 Sunol Grade from Pleasanton to Fremont, site of the second-worst commute congestion in the Bay Area. Make public transit attractive enough and it will sell itself, some say.

In Santa Clara County, seven private companies bought discounted transit passes and gave them free to workers. By summer 1997, drive-alone rates had dropped from 76 percent of employees to 60 percent. The free pass program now includes more than 60 firms employing 50,000.

"You need to see some of these positive things going on," said Richard Silver, director of the Rail Passengers Association of California.

But not everyone is convinced that simply throwing more money at public transit is the answer.

Controversial proposals

INFORMATION Bay Area transit and highway information. Bay area public transit agencies online: wwwtransitinfo.org. Transit advocacy groups online, wwwtransitinfo.org/Other/advocacy.html. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, regional planning, financing and coordinating agency, 510-464-7700; www.mtc.ca.gov. Caltrans Bay Area headquarters, 510-286-4444, press "0" for an information officer; www.dot.ca.gov/dist4. Surface Transportation Policy Project, www.transact.org. Bay Area Transportation Choices Forum, 510-843-3878, www.priven.sf.ca.us/coalition. Environmental Defense Fund, 510-658-8008; www.edf.org. The California Alliance for Jobs, construction industry supported group, 510-452-1661; www.rebuildca.org.

The push to take funding from highway programs and shift it to inefficient transit systems that serve just a fraction of all commuters makes freeway and road advocates shudder.

"There are a lot of taxpayers out there who get up early every moming and come home late, because they're stuck on congested roads, who would be angry to know that there are activists out there who want to stop road and highway improvements," said Jim Earp, executive director of the California Alliance for Jobs, an advocacy group for the Northern California heavy construction industry.

Government officials in charge of Bay Area highway and transit dollars - totaling $88 billion in the next 20 years - said they support better public transportation, but as part of a balanced system including improved bridges, freeways and roads.

"We think that what should guide us is not pitting highways vs. transit, but finding a balance," said Steve Heminger, manager of legislation and Public affairs for the MTC, a planning, financing and coordinating agency based in Oakland.

Others worry that confrontations over transit will hurt overall efforts to ease traffic, improve aging freeways and boost inadequate transportation funding.

Voters already appear to have mixed feelings about money-raising proposals. Advisory measures on how to spend transportation sites taxes passed in Marin and Sonoma counties, although separate measures to actually impose the half-cent taxes failed.

Sales taxes also flopped at the Nov. 3 election in San Benito and Monterey counties, and all similar current sales taxes in Bay Area counties will eventually expire.

"We need to build a consensus about these taxes, a broad agreement between various groups about what should be done," said James Corless, Northern California program manager for the Surface Transportation Policy Project, a nonprofit group.

Transit advocates still consider 1998 a possible turning point in their favor, and they're planning more activism.

Advocates think they can tap into an emerging slow-growth sentiment, especially in Contra Costa County, and lobby for more transit-friendly projects, such as express commuter buses or high-density development around BART stations.

Planning stages

Most decisions about transportation funding originate at the county level.

"This process will never be successful, no matter how wonderful the idea or how logical, unless you get people to understand it and develop support at the local level," Cohen said.

It's going to be a tough sell.

A transportation plan for Contra Costa predicts only 3.5 percent of all trips will be made on public transit in 15 years, and the rest by private auto.

Transit is also almost always slower than driving.

A Danville-to-Sunnyvale commute will take 67 minutes by car and 2 hours, 15 minutes by public transit in 2020, according to an MTC study. From Concord to Pleasanton, a commuter driving alone will spend 44 minutes in a car, while a transit commuter will need one hour, 51 minutes for the same trip.

"It's important to hear all voices, and there may be something on the margin that could be done, but I don't think you will see a change," said Robert McCleary, executive director of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, in charge of the county's half-percent sales tax for transportation improvements.

Others contend that government agencies must mandate changes, whether motorists like it or not.

Some groups also push ideas proven to rankle many auto drivers, including converting standard highway lanes into diamond lanes restricted to car pools, van pools and buses at commute times.

A standard highway lane accommodating a maximum 1,000 vehicles per hour could increase people-moving capacity 10- or 20-fold with car pools and express buses.

"It's better to have 10,000 or 20,000 people in a lane per hour rather than say, 'Let's just build another lane,' " said Mike Daley, a conservation representative for the Sierra Club San Francisco Bay chapter.