Published Thursday, December 18, 2003, in the Oakland Tribune

MTC adopts bare bones transit plan

$109 billion, 25-year plan cannot keep up with cost of transportation
maintenance

By Sean Holstege

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission approved a $109 billion,
25-year spending strategy Wednesday that provides money for such items
as bike lanes and mass transit for the poor, but admittedly cannot
even keep pace with maintaining the region's roads, buses and trains.

Expanding those systems is even more elusive, in what the region's
transportation planners describe as a "bare bones" blueprint.

After renewing the region's commitment to previously endorsed projects
and to spending 80 percent of the region's transportation dollars on
upkeep of the current network, MTC will have an estimated $8.8 billion
to spend on discretionary projects by 2030. [BATN: This low
"discretionary" figure is a lie propagated by MTC executive staff; in
fact there are billions of available dollars which they have used
their discretion to describe as "committed" to some of the most
dubious projects in the world, "previously endorsed" by the same MTC
and MTC staff. And so it goes.]

The Bay Area needs something like $20 billion more, based on plans
already on the books, and not for pie-in-the-sky projects,
either. Examples include $6.5 billion more to fill potholes on city
streets, $7 billion to keep highways in shape and $5.4 billion to
replace all the aging buses, rail cars and tracks. There is no money
for any of that. Instead, the MTC proposed to partially fund some of
everything.

"There are significant shortfalls in every category," commission
chairman Steve Kinsey said.

"The sorry thing that we all have to face is that the entire system is
unsustainable," Commissioner Pamela Torliat said.

Consequently, the latest triennial plan was like most things in
politics, a grand compromise. There was good news and bad news for all
of the region's nine counties, 100 cities, 28 transit operators and
advocates for the poor, bicyclists, the environment and road users.

Despite the shortfalls, there is more money than when the last plan
was adopted in 2001. Instead of $87 billion, there is $109 billion,
enough to spend more on Bay Area transportation each year than the
Idaho and Nevada state budgets combined.

MTC will have direct say over spending $352 million a year. That's
enough to build -- every year -- a BART connector to the Oakland
Airport, or an Interstate 680/Highway 24 interchange.

The bad news is the money will come later rather than sooner. The
state has frozen new transportation spending for two years and the
latest plan from Sacramento would ax state funding for major projects,
such as BART to San Jose.

The disconnect between the long-term and short-term outlooks led to
much of the political discussions at MTC over whether the glass is
half full or half empty.

Usual critics offer praise

All of MTC's traditional critics had something good to
say. Environmentalists who have sued the agency, praised it for making
cleaner air a priority. Bike advocates applauded an initiative to
spend $200 million on a previously unfunded regional bike plan.

Transit supporters praised a new $216 million fund to provide service
to the transit-dependent poor, elderly or disabled residents. And
land-use experts were pleased that MTC spent $454 million, 25 percent
more than in 2001, to take into account how transportation influences
development.

But all wanted more.

"The plan is not sustainable. The region is headed for disaster. It's
like being on the Titanic as you head for the iceberg. You need to
take much more drastic measures," said Peninsula rail advocate
Margaret Okozumi.

Bike advocates said $500 million was the bare minimum needed for
bicycle projects.

Past decisions may be re-examined

Others wanted past decisions about paying for BART extensions to be
revisited.

"We have seen all this year all around the region very serious transit
cuts that will have very real impacts on people's lives,"
environmentalist Stuart Cohen said, arguing that subsidizing expensive
BART service carries much of the blame. "It's like the roof is
starting to fall in on the house, but it's really hard to give up the
expansion of the TV room."
[BATN: See <http://www.transcoalition.org/c/sus_rtp/rtp_home.html> ]


Contact Sean Holstege at sholstege@...