California’s first quarterly auction of greenhouse gas allowances took place on November 14th. For the first time in history, California set a price on carbon - $10.09 per ton. This opening price is a modest number and it signals to businesses that the transition to a lower carbon future may be less expensive than anticipated.
This first auction collected $289 million, of which about $233 million will be used by the Public Utilities Commission for the utility sector, including rebates to consumers. The remaining $56 million will be spent according to an investment plan passed with next year’s State budget according to rules established by the Governor and the Legislature.
In the first auction, only ten percent of greenhouse gas allowances were up for purchase – the remaining amounts were given away for free to the participating companies and organizations. In the future, however, the total amount auctioned will increase while the cap on total emissions will decrease.
This should increase the price per allowance and the total amount collected by the State, and also signal to the marketplace that doing business with lower emissions is cheaper. Other polluting industries will come under the cap in the future, including transportation fuels in 2015.
TransForm is working with our allies to propose spending revenues collected from the State’s greenhouse gas auctions in ways that increase our transportation choices and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions plus other pollutants.
Our State has set a strong goal – 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – and we can only achieve it with projects that give us real choices for reducing our emissions.
Sign our petition to tell the Governor and the Legislature that California needs projects and programs funded by cap & trade auction revenues to transform the ways we use energy.
From the highest levels of government to local ballot measures, yesterday bodes well for bringing world-class public transportation and walkable communities to more places. But we’re still holding our breath on a couple important local races. Read on!
Obama’s reelection means potential progress on transportation policy
During the past four years, President Obama has championed key ways to transform our country’s transportation policy. The Obama administration created the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, which ensures housing, transportation, and sustainability are planned for together, like they should be - and brings good public transportation and affordable housing to more places.
Obama has also been a big backer of high-speed rail. And he’s leveraged bipartisan support for public transportation, walking, biking and smart growth by making former Republican Congressman Ray LaHood the Secretary of Transportation, who declared “the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”
When the federal transportation bill, MAP-21, expires in September 2014, it will be a pivotal moment that Obama could potentially use to further transform transportation. Read more on Obama’s track record with transportation andwhat his second term could mean.
Proposition 30 wins; 32 loses
Californians thankfully passed Proposition 30, Governor Brown’s tax plan to protect education and health services, by an 8% margin. If Prop 30 had failed, the resulting devastating cuts to the state budget would have put extreme stress on all state programs, including public transportation funding. Read more on this victory.
Thankfully 56% of voters said no to Proposition 32, which would have seriously weakened the voice of workers in elections while allowing Super-PACs and billionaires to continue to spend without limits.
Measure B1 in Alameda County is one point from passing; similar measure in Los Angeles also very close
Mail-in ballots could change the outcome once they’re tallied, but for now, Alameda County’s Measure B1 garnered 65.5% of the vote, just short of the 66.6% needed to pass.
We endorsed Measure B1, which would renew, increase, and extend the countywide sales tax for transportation. Funds would restore bus service after major cuts in recent years; start a youth bus pass program; repair potholes; make unprecedented investments in pedestrian/bicycle safety and infrastructure; and support more transit-oriented development. Read the Tribune’s coverage of B1 results and the results so far for the similar L.A. transit tax measure.
Affordable housing measure in San Francisco passes
More than 64% of voters supported Proposition C, which will provide $1.2 billion for affordable housing over the next 30 years. This is critical since California eliminated its redevelopment agencies earlier this year.
Santa Clara County cities along the 17.3 mile El Camino corridor have been evaluating Bus Rapid Transit over the last year. A few months ago the Sunnyvale City Council narrowly voted to oppose BRT with dedicated bus lanes along El Camino Real. The setback caused the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to consider a variety of options including terminating the project before the Sunnyvale city boundary or abandoning the project altogether. In order to ensure the project’s advancement and integrity, TransForm and members of the Silicon Valley BRT Coalition worked with VTA and decision-makers to craft a solution. In a major victory in September, the VTA Board of Directors provided guidance to VTA staff and adopted the Coalition’s key recommendations. Then on November 1st the VTA Board of Directors unanimously voted to formalize their position and directed staff to carry the project through the application process for federal funding and to commence environmental review for both the Optimal (over 10 miles of dedicated lanes from Santa Clara to Mountain View) and Revised (3 miles of dedicated lanes in Santa Clara) projects. Part of the direction of the Board was also to establish regional support for the project in anticipation of federal funding and to provide regular reports to key stakeholders and decision making bodies. TransForm will continue to support the development of this critical transit investment of regional significance and work with local communities in ensuring that their needs and preferences are considered in the next stages of project planning. We look forward to our continued work side by side with our allies including the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Working Partnerships USA, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, Silicon Valley Independent Living Center, Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter, Greenbelt Alliance, Sunnyvale Cool, Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning, Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, Day Worker Center of Mountain View, SIREN, and SPUR San Jose as well as VTA and residents and businesses along the corridor.
TransForm and our allies have been working hard with the legislature and the Governor’s office to develop appropriate processes and guidelines for using revenue collected from California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) cap & trade auction. The Governor signed two bills that go a long way toward setting these guidelines and processes, reaffirming his support for the actual pollution reductions and mitigations possible with a cap & trade mechanism.
What do these bills actually do?
To understand just what these two bills accomplish, please let me explain the basics of California’s cap & trade GHG auction mechanism (if you already understand cap & trade skip to the section on AB 1532).
California’s cap & trade carbon auction mechanism
In 2006, California passed the Global Warming Solutions Act, known as AB 32. This bill set clear goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% reductions by 2050), and it tasked the California Air Resources Board (CARB) with meeting this goal. Among its many methods for reducing greenhouse gasses, CARB designed a cap & trade mechanism with an auction: basically, California puts a cap on the total amount of greenhouse gasses allowed by major polluters, and then lets these polluters buy and sell the privileges to emit greenhouse gasses. These privileges are called “allowances”, and, over time, the State will decrease the number of allowances available on the market. Before trading can start, however, the State auctions off a percentage of these allowances – right now, the State only auctions 10% of the total allowances, giving the rest away for free; but, as time passes, this percentage will grow. The first auction is scheduled for November 14, 2012, and the 10% of allowances may net the State around one billion dollars, although the final amount will depend on the price for permits.
To create a framework for spending the revenue, the California Legislature and Governor passed AB 1532 and SB 535. The former lays out the process for allocating the revenue, while the latter sets certain parameters for its use – namely, that a percentage must be used for disadvantaged communities. Other limits on its use also exist; after all, it is a fee collected by the state, and thus its use must relate to the reason for its fee (i.e., it must mitigate the impacts of and/or reduce greenhouse gas emissions). Additionally, the Global Warming Solutions Act specifically disallows any “market mechanism” – like a cap & trade mechanism – from increasing other air pollutants.
AB 1532 – Processes for cap & trade revenue proposals
Of the two bills passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, AB 1532 deals with process. State law says that money collected from the cap & trade auction must be allocated by the Legislature and Governor; AB 1532 tasks the Department of Finance (DOF) to offer a three-year investment plan for the auction revenues to the Legislature during the May revision of the California budget in 2013.
In developing its proposal, AB 1532 tasks the DOF to work in consultation with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and other “relevant state entities.” The law also tasks CARB with conducting two public workshops and one public hearing in different parts of the State prior to DOF submitting their investment plan.
Additionally, AB 1532 lays out some suggestions for the investment plan, although it makes no requirements for particular expenditures that aren’t already required by law. Among its suggestions are money to, “Direct investment toward the most disadvantaged communities and households in the state…” and, “to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through strategic planning and development of sustainable infrastructure projects, including, but not limited to, transportation and housing.”
SB 535: Parameters for spending - and teeth in reporting
SB 535 establishes parameters for spending auction revenues. Specifically, SB 535 requires that at least ten percent of revenues collected by the State must be used for projects located within disadvantaged communities, and at least twenty-five percent must be spent on projects that “provide benefits” to disadvantaged communities. These communities are to be identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency.
Additionally and importantly, SB 535 requires that the Department of Finance describe how the administering agencies (those agencies who will actually spend the money) have met the requirements of this law.
Next up, and what you can do
California’s first auction is set for November 14th. Additionally, CARB will soon determine the dates and locations for its public workshops and meetings as required by AB 1532. We are truly at a precedent-setting moment in California history. Capping and trading pollution allowances is a controversial idea, with many people uncomfortable about letting businesses determine where they will stop polluting and where they will continue or possibly even expand it. But, if spent well, revenues from a greenhouse gas cap & trade auction can be used to help mitigate the impacts of years of neglect and pollution on underserved communities while providing amenities like new public transit options that both reduce pollution and households’ costs.
The next step is to propose ways to spend revenues that treat all Californians fairly. TransForm and three allies (Housing California, Move L.A. & Move San Diego) have proposed some ideas for how to spend cap and trade revenues efficiently and to benefit all Californians, which you can read here.
On Friday, September 21st, the VTA Board of Directors weighed in on VTA staff’s recommendation for the El Camino Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. At stake was the possibility of precluding the consideration of dedicated bus lanes in the future or abandoning the project altogether. Prior to the VTA Board Workshop, TransForm and other members of the Silicon Valley BRT Coalition met with the General Manager of VTA, the Chair of the VTA Board and other Board members to express support for moving forward with BRT plans and to allow for ongoing consideration of dedicated bus lanes. The Coalition also submitted a letter and, at the Board Workshop, members of the Coalition spoke in support of world-class BRT, including TransForm, Working Partnerships, Sunnyvale Cool, and the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. Thanks in part to this united effort; the VTA Board strongly supported the El Camino BRT project and directed staff to implement the Coalition’s recommendations. The Board will hopefully formalize their position with an official vote at their November or December Board Meeting. Take action now to thank the VTA Board for their leadership in ensuring the best possible project moves forward along El Camino Real and that they continue to support the BRT Coalition’s recommendations for dedicated lanes.
For more information or to help make BRT a success in Silicon Valley contact Chris Lepe at firstname.lastname@example.org or call the TransForm Silicon Valley Office at (408) 406-8074.
A few months ago the Sunnyvale City Council gave the thumbs down to dedicated bus lanes, bike lanes, and pedestrian improvements as part of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) El Camino Bus Rapid Transit project. Although supporters outnumbered opponents by at least 2 to 1 at the Council hearing, four of seven Council members voted against the proposal because of several unresolved issues, including:
Since the Sunnyvale vote, VTA staff have changed their recommendation from over ten miles of bus only lanes to three miles of bus lanes with a mixed-flow alignment for the rest of the 17.3 mile corridor. On September 21st 2012, the VTA Board of Directors will be asked for guidance on whether to proceed with the El Camino BRT project and if so, how.
There is much at stake on September 21st. The 22 and 522 bus routes that run along the El Camino Real carry one fifth of VTA’s bus riders and transport more people per mile than VTA’s light rail system. Despite their productivity, existing bus service is totally inadequate to handle the 66,000 new jobs and 112,000 new residents projected by ABAG to move within walking distance of El Camino Real by 2035. Making minimal improvements to transit service while planning for substantial growth is like putting a bandage on a broken leg when what’s really needed is a cast. VTA projects a 35% increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and a doubling of time stuck in traffic on El Camino Real without BRT over the next twenty years. Today’s traffic congestion along El Camino Real will pale in comparison to what will come if we do not invest in world-class rapid transit.
Over 15 diverse organizations including the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the South Bay Labor Council, and the Sierra Club enthusiastically support Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in Silicon Valley because it will:
For these, and many other reasons, TransForm and our allies support Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) plans moving forward on El Camino Real, ideally with dedicated bus lanes, bike lanes, and pedestrian amenities. But given the City of Sunnyvale’s vote against dedicated lanes, one of the key questions is whether and how exactly VTA should move forward. TransForm urges VTA to:
Together we can create world-class public transportation in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area. Take action to ensure that well planned BRT along El Camino Real moves forward.
Friday marked the end of the 2012 legislative session in Sacramento, when hoards of bills either fly or die as the clock runs out on our state lawmakers. TransForm’s Sacramento staff were busy right up to the end with an intensive focus on three bills. Read on for our recap of what went well, what went wrong, and how you can help two of these bills become law in the next 30 days.
AB 441 – Including Health in Transportation Planning (TransForm co-sponsored)
Assemblymember Monning’s AB 441 is on the Governor’s desk, awaiting his signature. This bill, which TransForm co-sponsored with the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, requires the California Transportation Commission to include a list of projects, programs and policies that include health and health equity in its Guidelines for Regional Transportation Plans.
Transportation has a dramatic impact on our health, and on low-income communities that have been disadvantaged for too long. SB 375 has focused regional agencies on meeting greenhouse gas targets, but there is very little in these RTP guidelines that specifically calls out way to improve social equity, and even less of a focus on programs or policies that improve public health.
By incorporating health into planning, some regions in California are starting to address health issues such as diabetes, obesity, and lung disease. Unfortunately, because of California’s size and diversity, regional transportation agencies do not always know effective strategies that are being used in other parts of the state.
A report TransForm recently published with the California Depatment of Public Health, Creating Healthy Regional Transportation Plans, highlights some of these strategies, but is not meant to be exhaustive and had limited distribution. AB 441 ensures that these strategies that meet health and equity goals get highlighted by the state for regional agencies.
Send the Governor an email to pass AB 441. To read AB 441, please click here.
Cap & Trade Gets Ready to Roll
This November, California will carry out its first carbon cap & trade auction to cut greenhouse gas emissions per AB 32, passed in 2006. Even though the State will only collect revenues from ten percent of the total carbon allowed this first year, estimates of these revenues’ value range from $600 million to over $1 billion. The best part about this revenue is that it can only be spent in ways that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or help mitigate the negative impacts of these emissions and other pollution.
TransForm has been working with legislators throughout the year to help ensure that cap & trade revenues collected by the State will be used in a transparent and equitable way. In particular, communities that have already been disproportionately impacted by climate change and local pollution – our most disadvantaged communities – desperately need cap & trade revenues to help right now. Once available, these revenues can quickly be put to use building infrastructure that create real energy and transportation choices in ways that curb pollution emissions, but also save individuals hundreds of dollars and improve local health and safety.
AB 1532 and SB 535, authored by Assembly Speaker Pérez and Senator de Leon, respectively, both address the impacts of climate change in an equitable manner, and we are happy to report that both have passed the legislature and are headed to the Governor’s desk. AB 1532 creates a framework for spending cap & trade revenues, and SB 535 specifically requires that at least 25% of state-collected revenues be used in ways that help disadvantaged communities, and at least 10% be spent on projects within these communities. The two bills are also connected via “contingent enactment”, which means that the Governor cannot sign one bill and veto another; if either bill is vetoed, both bills die.
The Governor now has the opportunity to further implement the will of Californians to reduce greenhouse gasses and other pollution while addressing our health, safety, and quality of life.
Unfortunately, another good bill, Senator Pavley’s SB 1572, did not pass the Assembly. SB 1572 would have specified uses for revenues collected by the State from the 2012 cap & trade auction, and it contained programs and projects that we hope will be taken up by the agencies tasked with allocating these funds.
During the last two weeks in session, cap & trade revenues started to become a political football, with some legislators offering language to give away all carbon emissions for free to polluters. TransForm and allies worked hard to make sure that this did not happen, and after a few tense days of meetings, letters and phone calls, the language did not become a bill. For now, California is set to collect the revenues from ten percent of carbon allowances for the November auction and distribute it some time next year.
To read AB 1532, please click here. To read SB 535, please click here. To read AB 1572, please click here.
Two-Wheelers Get Three Feet Of Breathing Room
The legislature also approved SB 1464, a re-write of a bill the Governor vetoed last year that would improve safety for bicyclists and drivers on our roads. SB 1464 requires drivers to give three feet of clearance when passing people on bikes to prevent dangerous collisions. This common-sense bill was passed by a landslide majority and we expect the Governor to sign it this time around. But we’re not just waiting around – click here to tell Governor Brown you want him to sign it ASAP!
To read SB 1464, please click here.
Now that the legislative session is over, Sacramento seems quieter – but our new state legislative team is still busy as we turn our attention to the Governor’s mansion and begin strategizing for 2013. Check back for a final report on which bills win Governor Brown’s signature, and please contact Josh for more information about our growing efforts in Sacramento.
Election season approaches — and with it, an alphanumeric sea of local and state ballot measures. TransForm’s Board of Directors has endorsed the following initiatives for the 2012 election and encourages you to vote on Tuesday, November 6.
YES on California Proposition 30
Governor Jerry Brown is leading the charge for Proposition 30, which would stop mid-year cuts of $7 billion to schools and health services across the State. Prop 30 raises the state sales tax by one-quarter percent for four years. It also adds three new income tax brackets for Californians earning $250,000, $300,000 and $500,000.
TransForm strongly supports the proposition, which would raise an estimated $6.8 to $9 billion, money that is desperately needed for California’s already-underfunded schools and health services. If it fails, the deeper cuts to the state budget are likely to put extreme stress on all state programs, including public transportation funding.
For more information, visit the Yes on 30 website.
NO on California Proposition 32
Don’t be fooled! While Proposition 32 looks like a way to clean up money in politics, it allows corporations and billionaires the opportunity to continue funneling unlimited amounts of money into their pet projects via “Super PACs” and secretive front-group campaign expenditures. At the same time it eliminates workers’ voices by dramatically restricting unions’ abilities to raise funds for political activities from its members.
A diverse alliance, from the Sierra Club to the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, has come out in opposition to this proposition. TransForm, too, has voiced its opposition to this measure, and we urge you to oppose it, too.
For more information, visit the No on 32 website.
YES on Alameda County Measure B1
Measure B1 would double the existing transportation sales tax in Alameda County, extend it in perpetuity, and approve a $7.8 billion plan for the next 30 years of spending. This would be the largest transportation funding measure ever in northern California.
TransForm supports Measure B1 because it would fund several vital improvements: restore cut bus service, start a new youth bus pass program, repair potholes, and make unprecedented investments for pedestrian and bicycle safety and infrastructure and for transit-oriented development.
While we have concerns about some projects in the plan, we are working to address those through other arenas, as explained in our in-depth analysis of the ballot measure.
YES on San Francisco Housing Trust Fund (Prop. C)
Funding for affordable housing production has plummeted since the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in California earlier this year. San Francisco, is taking the lead on recapturing funds with this vote on Prop C. If approved, this proposal would create a San Francisco Housing Trust Fund.
It would take advantage of the loss of redevelopment to recapture a portion of the local property tax receipts and dedicate up to $50 million annually toward the construction of affordable housing. It would also provide down payment assistance to moderate-income families and provide incentives to produce more housing overall in SF. This is the first example of a local jurisdiction enacting a permanent solution to the loss of redevelopment funding in order to continue investing in housing for low and moderate income households, and is simpler in San Francisco since it is both a city and county.
For more information, visit this blog posting by SPUR.
Remember, Election Day 2012 is Tuesday, November 6 and you must register to vote by October 22 to cast a ballot this fall.
MAP-21 Aftermath: Storm Front and Silver Linings
Now that some times has passed since the whirlwind passage of a new federal transportation bill, it’s time to assess the damage and figure out where we stand.
Compared to the forward-looking, bipartisan bill that the Senate passed in April, the new MAP-21 that emerged from conference committee felt a little bit like a tornado had hit. Many of the best pieces of the Senate’s bill were ripped out by Congressional leaders rushing to beat the June 30 deadline. It’s safe to say that the final deal marks a step backwards for California and the nation (and we did just that in our press statement here).
But we’re not declaring a state of emergency just yet. This bill will last only twenty-seven months – and our best hope is ourselves. We need to pull on our boots and start working on the successor to MAP-21 even as we conduct damage control now. To that end, what follows is not only an overview of what’s wrong with MAP-21, but also what we can do to make it right in the short- and long-term.
Let’s start with the worst, and work our way towards the more positive aspects of the new bill. For a more comprehensive overview and continued updates on federal transportation policy, please visit t4america.org.
What’s Worse Than SAFETEA-LU
Some of the policies in the final bill are significantly worse than the last bill, even though the original Senate bill contained improvements on some of these issues.
What Might Have Been Better Than SAFETEA-LU, and One Thing That Might Have Been Worse
There were several strong policies in the original Senate bill that were stripped by the conference committee, and one horrible policy that the House wanted but didn’t get.
What’s Better Than SAFETEA-LU
Don’t despair! There are some silver linings with the potential to deliver significant improvements – and we in California should be proud of our role in ensuring these policies were included in MAP-21.
One of the key strategies for fixing the new transportation bill will be continuing to work together. The large and growing Transportation For America coalition that we helped to build over the past three years has not only made an impact on policy, we’ve begun to change the debate entirely. As Wade Henderson, President and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, wrote on DC Streetsblog:
The work that led up to the bill’s passage proved to be a small but significant step for our movement and one that establishes a pathway toward achieving greater transportation equity when the bill is reauthorized in 2014.
Nowhere is that more true than in California, where we’re building a statewide movement for world-class public transportation and walkable communities at every level. We’ll have plenty of opportunity to continue strengthening our coalition and building power as we focus on implementation of MAP-21 as well as the ongoing work to win more funding for transit at the state level. With our partners, we’ll also ensure that our regions establish smart land use and transportation plans to guide our communities towards a future with safer, cleaner, smarter transportation options that work for us all.
You can tap into this movement online by signing up as an individual or an organization with our Invest In Transit campaign, or share your questions and ideas in the comments below.
As noted in a previous blog post about the EIR, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is continuing their work on a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Plan Bay Area. The EIR will analyze the environmental impacts of land use scenarios and transportation investments that will be considered for Plan Bay Area.
The first phase of the EIR was the “Scoping Phase” where the public was invited to attend one of five public meetings to comment on the scope and content of the environmental information that will be evaluated. The first meeting in Oakland (June 20) had some active participation from local Tea Party activist that dominated the discussion. The second meeting in San Jose (June 21) that I attended was very productive and had an audience that respected the process. The public was able to make comments and ask questions. Several members of had the opportunity to ask multiple questions.
The deadline for formal written comments was July 11, 2012 and TransForm submitted its formal EIR Scoping Comment Letter to Ashley Nguyen (EIR Project Manager to email@example.com ).
Click here to read TransForm’s letter. See below for the Final 5 Alternatives that were approved in a Special Meeting of the MTC and ABAG Commission on July 19, 2012. The July 19 agenda can be seen here.
TransForm submitted its formal comment letter on July 5, 2012. Here are a few highlights from our letter:
For Plan Bay Area to succeed, we believe that it needs to test of a wide range of possible policy inputs. This will allow the final plan to be constructed from the preferred scenario adopted in May plus the best elements of other alternatives tested in the EIR process. In particular, we support construction of an Equity, Environment, and Jobs (EEJ) Alternative to test the limits of Plan Bay Area. We offered the following comments. We have comments on each of the transportation-related policy measures, including multiple comments on both the Transit Network and Road Network.
Road Pricing: we are disappointed to see that the scoping meetings presented the “Project” alternative (#2) with “No Pricing.” It is unrealistic to assume no change in bridge toll revenues, and MTC’s revenue estimates already assume some revenue from New Bridge Tolls (perhaps not up to the $10 listed as Option D for Road Pricing). For the rest of the alternatives, we support testing a wide variety of pricing approaches, including several of the options listed on the staff handouts.
Road Network: We recommend that several of the alternatives include only HOV lane conversions for Express Lanes.
Transit Network: For the EEJ alternative, we support testing the impact of an alternative with transit service, funded by shifting funds from Freeway Performance Initiatives, OBAG, and Regional Express Lanes Network.
Transit Network: In conducting the EIR, MTC needs to develop an appropriate methodology to recognize that differing levels of investment in maintenance will affect regional results on a host of key measures. To date, we understand that MTC has not been able to model the difference between different levels of investment in maintenance, and we understand there are significant methodological difficulties in doing that modeling. But we suggest that it is unrealistic for the EIR to assume the same transit network regardless of how much the region invests in maintenance. If all the alternatives will have the same investment in maintenance, then figuring out this methodological problem is not as important for this EIR. But if the alternatives will have different levels of investment in maintenance, then this methodological problem is important.
Road Network & Transit Network: We were pleased to hear from MTC staff, in the June 29 meeting we participated in, that projects that are only included for study in the RTP/SCS investment package, but not for construction (e.g., SR 239, BART to Livermore), will not be included in the transportation networks studied in any of the EIR alternatives.
The five alternatives approved for analysis by the commission on July 19 are:
The next steps in the process are as follows:
For more information on the process and how to participate please contact Manolo González-Estay from TransForm at firstname.lastname@example.org or call (510) 740-3150 x 315.