{"id":1368,"date":"2009-07-26T23:27:33","date_gmt":"2009-07-27T07:27:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.fogcityjournal.com\/wordpress\/2009\/07\/26\/expanding-transit-sustainably\/"},"modified":"2019-05-06T16:25:54","modified_gmt":"2019-05-07T00:25:54","slug":"expanding-transit-sustainably","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fogcityjournal.com\/wordpress\/1368\/expanding-transit-sustainably\/","title":{"rendered":"Expanding Transit Sustainably"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"mw2w2985_std.jpg\"
\nBART Director Tom Radulovich
\nPhoto by Luke Thomas <\/strong><\/p>\n

By Tom Radulovich <\/strong><\/p>\n

July 27, 2009<\/p>\n

Effective and efficient public transit is a key to making cities more livable and sustainable. Cities around the world are building, and in many cases rebuilding, rail transit networks. The Bay Area is no exception; cities, counties, and the region (through its Metropolitan Transportation Commission, MTC) have invested billions to build and expand rail transit throughout the Bay Area.<\/p>\n

The Bay Area has done an impressive job building an increasingly connected rail transit network for the region. Yet the regional network is plagued with recurring problems \u2013 transit projects that over-promise and under-deliver, capacity problems at the region\u2019s core, boom-and-bust maintenance and reinvestment cycles which compromise performance and safety, and funding priorities that favor new extensions over operating, maintenance, and reinvestment of existing transit.<\/p>\n

Our best guess about the current state of our rail network and its future prospects, contained in MTC\u2019s 2009 Regional Transportation Plan, shows a system in crisis. MTC projects that BART\u2019s capital reinvestment needs over the next 25 years are less than half funded, with an $8 billion shortfall. The planned extensions to the BART system \u2013 Warm Springs, eBART, and the Oakland Airport Connector \u2013 are all anticipated to operate at a loss, and all will draw from BART\u2019s overtapped operating budget for their operating and capital costs. These extension projects contribute nothing to expanding BART\u2019s core system capacity, which, before the current economic downturn, was becoming acutely constrained.<\/p>\n

San Francisco\u2019s Municipal Railway (Muni), which operates the region\u2019s second-most-used rail network (Muni has almost twice BART\u2019s ridership, but mostly on its extensive bus network) is facing similar problems. Its light rail system is aging, overcrowded, unreliable, and saw a serious light rail collision on July 18<\/a> which injured dozens. Yet the RTP forecasts that over a third of Muni\u2019s essential capital reinvestment needs over the next 25 years will remain unfunded, with little or nothing available for adding capacity or increasing safety and performance. Meanwhile, Muni has diverted tens of millions of dollars in capital funding at its discretion towards its $1.4 billion Central Subway project.<\/p>\n

The Bay Area\u2019s unsustainable transit expansion practices are not new.\u00c2 The region had an extensive rail transit network in the first half of the 20th Century, much of which was dismantled or allowed to fall into ruin after World War 2.\u00c2 As streetcar and commuter rail lines were being dismantled and abandoned, residents of three Bay Area counties voted in 1962 to build the BART system.<\/p>\n

The initial BART system massively over-promised and under-delivered. The 1962 study projected that, by 1976, BART would have 258,496 riders on an average weekday, and operate at a surplus of $11 million\/year. In 1976, the system carried only 131,370 riders on an average weekday \u2013 51% of the projected total \u2013 and instead of running a surplus,\u00c2 required $40 million in operating subsidy. BART did not reach its 1962 projection of average weekday ridership in 1976 for another two decades. BART has never operated at the surpluses it initially projected, although its farebox recovery ratio (the percentage of a system\u2019s operating budget that comes from fares) has nearly doubled, from less than 35% in the mid-70\u2019s to almost 62% in the 2008-9 fiscal year.<\/p>\n

Over the past 20 years,\u00c2 the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has been engaged in a complicated scheme to dramatically expand the region\u2019s rail network. The rail expansion plan, like the original BART plan, over-promised and under-delivered.<\/p>\n

The Regional Transit Expansion Plan, adopted by MTC as Resolution 1876 in 1988 and updated as Resolution 3434 in 2001, focused largely on BART expansion. The plan relies on a complex financial scheme involving federal, state, and county funds. The linchpin was BART\u2019s extension to San Francisco International Airport (SFO); this project, originally costed at $1.05 billion, received $750 million in Federal funding, and the \u00c2 the balance was to come largely from San Mateo County\u2019s transportation sales tax. San Mateo County contributed another $200 million to help build two BART extensions in the East Bay, to Pittsburg-Bay Point and Dublin-Pleasanton. Once it opened, the SFO Extension was to draw another $146 million from projected operating profits to help build a third East Bay extension, to Warm Springs in Fremont.<\/p>\n

The regional rail plan delivered three BART extensions, and construction of the Warm Springs Extension is about to begin. The financial arrangements, however, began to unravel in the 1990s, as the cost of the SFO extension project ballooned to $1.7 billion. The extension, which opened in 2003, has not generated the millions in operating profits originally projected; it has operated at a loss since opening day.<\/p>\n

MTC\u2019s plans also failed to take into account the needs of the existing system. As systems age, they require life-cycle investments in repair and replacement to keep them operating. Growing ridership makes additional demands on these systems too \u2013 more railcars, additional capacity at stations, larger shops and maintenance yards, expanded access to stations.<\/p>\n

It is time to recognize the current crisis, and put the region\u2019s rail network on a sustainable course. The experience of the past two decades offers several lessons about how to expand the region\u2019s rail network sustainably. The goal is not to stop expansion of the region\u2019s rail network \u2013 continued effective expansion is essential to completing an integrated regional rail network \u2013 but rather to expand in a way that sustains the safety and financial soundness of these systems.<\/p>\n