Connecting California Key Public Transportation Projects and Their Benefits for the Golden State

CALPIRG Education Fund Connecting California Key Public Transportation Projects and Their Benefits for the Golden State

CALPIRG Education Fund Elizabeth Ridlington and Sarah Payne, Frontier Group Emily Rusch, CALPIRG Education Fund

Spring 2009 Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Carli Paine, Transportation Program Coordinator, Transform; Josh Shaw, Executive Director, California Transit Association; and Bart Reed, Executive Director, the Transit Coalition, for their review of this report. The authors would also like to thank Tony Dutzik of Frontier Group and Carolyn Kramer for their editorial assistance.

The generous financial support of the Rockefeller Foundation, Surdna Foundation and Wallace Global Foundation made this report possible.

The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of CALPIRG Education Fund. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review.

With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own narrow agendas, CALPIRG Education Fund offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest. CALPIRG Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) organization, works to protect consumers and promote good government. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public, and offer Californians meaningful opportunities for civic participation.

Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels. www. frontiergroup.org

For more information about CALPIRG Education Fund or for additional copies of this report, please visit www.calpirg.org.

Cover photo: Mike Liu, under license from istockphoto.com Layout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1 Introduction 4 California’s Current Transportation System Fails to Meet the State’s Needs 5 Californians Lose Time Stuck in Traffic 5 Californians Spend Billions on Fuel 6 Global Warming Pollution Is Rising 6 These Problems Will Get Worse as the State’s Population Increases 7 More Transit Can Improve California’s Transportation System 8 California Has Many Opportunities to Improve Transit 11 The Beginnings of a New Transit Network 12 Planning for the Future 18 From Vision to Reality: A 21st Century Transit System for California 32 Federal Policy 32 State Policy 33 Conclusion 33 Notes 34

Executive Summary

alifornia’s transportation system is in • Vehicle travel on California’s roads trouble. Commuters waste time stuck increased by approximately 19 percent Cin traffic, rising gasoline prices are from 1995 to 2005. The number of draining consumers’ pocketbooks, and our vehicle miles traveled per person in cars and trucks produce too much pollution the state increased by 5 percent over that contributes to global warming. that same period of time. Public transportation makes a vital contribution to California’s transportation • Californians lose millions of hours system, providing an alternative to drivers sitting in traffic. In 2005, Californians tired of fighting congestion, reducing our in nine urban areas spent 871 million dependence on oil, and curbing pollution. hours in traffic delays, a 38 percent However, in many communities around the increase from 1995. state, transit systems are inadequate and cannot keep pace with demand. • California residents spent approxi- The problems of our current automo- mately $17.4 billion more on gaso- bile-dominated transportation system will line in 2005 than they did in 1995, a not be solved without a concerted effort product of more miles being driven to expand transit. California must plan and higher gasoline prices, even after for a transportation system that meets adjustments for inflation. the needs of the 21st century and invest in important projects to improve public • Transportation is the leading source transportation. of global warming pollution in California residents drive more miles, California, with cars and trucks the spend more on gasoline, experience biggest contributors to the problem. more congestion, and produce more California’s transportation system global warming pollution from transpor- produced 24 percent more carbon tation than they did a decade ago. dioxide in 2005 than it did in 1990.

Executive Summary 1 Public transportation helps to address publicly owned right-of-way, giving California’s transportation, energy and travelers an alternative to congested environmental challenges. Highway 101.

• Public transportation prevented more • Passage of Measure R in Los Angeles than 70 million hours of traffic delay County will help to expand rail ser- in nine California metropolitan areas vice and improve bus options. Some in 2005, preventing the economy key projects to implement quickly are: from losing more than $1.2 billion in wasted time and productivity. • Subway service along Wilshire Boulevard through the Westside • In 2006, public transportation in to serve an estimated 50,000 to California saved approximately 486 80,000 passengers, saving as much million gallons of oil that would have as 60,000 hours of travel time each otherwise been burned in vehicles, day. saving consumers more than $1.3 billion at the pump. • Construction of a downtown transit hub to improve connectiv- • In addition, public transportation is ity between Los Angeles’ existing helping to reduce global warming pol- rail lines as well as the Gold Line lution in the state, averting about 3.6 extension that is in progress. million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution in 2006. • Establishment of bus rapid transit service to help connect far flung • Despite these clear benefits of transit neighborhoods with speedy, conve- in 2006, California spent approxi- nient buses that travel in dedicated mately $374 million of state transpor- bus lanes. tation funds on transit for capital and operating expenses and $4.6 billion But, these new transit projects barely on highway construction and mainte- scratch the surface of California’s tran- nance—a highway-to-transit spending sit needs. There are dozens of worthy ratio of more than 12-to-1. public transit improvements that would offer Californians better alternatives to California has recently committed to the high cost of driving, reduce conges- several projects that can provide the tion by removing cars from the road, beginnings of a 21st century transpor- save oil, and reduce pollution. Among tation system. the most promising and important projects are the following: • High-speed rail linking northern and southern California is expected to • In San Diego, an 11-mile expansion of serve tens of millions of passengers the San Diego Trolley would provide annually, providing a fast and reliable an alternative to heavily traveled I-5 travel alternative to flying or driving north of the city and is an important between major urban areas. component of the broader transit expansions envisioned for the region. • North of the Bay Area, the Sonoma- Marin Area Rail Transit project will • A downtown transit center in build a 70-mile passenger rail line on Anaheim would facilitate increased

Connecting California ridership on both Metrolink’s rail and more frequent by upgrading service and connecting transit services Caltrain infrastructure and loco- for Orange County. motives to operate on electricity instead of diesel fuel. • Construction of the Perris Valley Line in Riverside County would extend • Light rail expansions in the Sacra- commuter rail service from Riverside mento area would help to ease the im- to additional employment and popula- pacts of the region’s rapidly growing tion centers. population. New service north to the airport and south to residential areas • Bay Area residents would benefit from would help meet the region’s surging several promising projects: travel needs.

• Establishment of bus rapid transit • Transit systems across the state could service on Van Ness Avenue in improve their existing bus and rail of- downtown San Francisco would ferings at a relatively low cost through reduce travel times by 24 to 30 operations, technology and equipment percent compared to existing bus changes that would allow for faster, service. more comfortable, and more reliable service. • Creating a separate lane for bus rapid transit along San Francisco’s To build a 21st century transportation Geary Boulevard would provide system that will ease congestion, reduce bus travelers on the route a large spending on gasoline, and help the improvement in travel times and state meet its global warming pollution service reliability. reduction goals, California should do the following: • On the east side of the Bay, bus rapid transit from San Leandro to • Prioritize funding for transit projects. Berkeley would draw 76 percent State, county and local governments more riders than current bus ser- must provide stable funding for bus vice, while providing a shorter trip. and rail service. The legislature and governor should not divert public • Construction of the Transbay transportation funds to other pur- Terminal, including the extension poses. of Caltrain to the new terminal in downtown San Francisco, would • California officials should support a connect service provided by nine revamped federal transportation fund- transit agencies serving eight coun- ing law that makes a large investment ties, enabling commuters and other in needed improvements to transit travelers to reach their destinations systems and intercity rail, while focus- more readily without driving. ing federal highway investment on the need to maintain and repair existing • Rail service from San Jose to San infrastructure. Francisco could become faster

Executive Summary 3 Introduction

alifornia is famous for its cars, car role in alleviating these problems. culture, and freeways—and for With recent voter approval of transit Cgood reason. For decades, the state infrastructure funding, California will invested heavily in building new roads soon invest more money in rail and bus and expanding existing ones as part of a projects that offer travelers an alternative long-term vision for developing the state’s to driving. As the state has cut operational economy. funding for transit, cities and regional The Legislature created the Bureau of governments have stepped into the lead, Highways in 1895, California acquired its providing transit service, expanding rail first state highway in 1896, and bonds were lines, and upgrading bus service. approved in 1909 to fund construction of But if California is to have a transpor- a state highway system.1 In subsequent tation network that meets the needs and years, California invested consistently and challenges of the 21st century, it needs heavily in building roads. By the 1950s, more than a piecemeal approach to transit. the state had formally endorsed a vision of Just as leaders developed an overarching constructing a 12,414-mile highway and plan to guide highway development, to- freeway system. day California needs a statewide plan for For years California’s expansive road building a transit system to meet the needs network has supported economic growth of a new century. Voter approval of the and allowed citizens to travel throughout high-speed rail plan is a strong first step, the state. but California must develop a vision for a Now, as California faces new economic robust network of trains and buses that can and environmental challenges, we need a carry commuters to work and shoppers to new vision. To strengthen the economy stores within one metropolitan area as well and protect our health and the environ- as move travelers the length of the state ment, the state’s transportation system quickly and reliably. must address the reality of volatile gas The transit projects highlighted in prices and the need to reduce global warm- this report are just the beginning of what ing pollution. An extensive public trans- California will need to make this vision a portation network can play an important reality.

Connecting California California’s Current Transportation System Fails to Meet the State’s Needs

alifornia needs a transportation sys- over 1995.2 While some of this increase tem that moves people efficiently, at can be attributed to a 14 percent increase in Ca reasonable cost, and that produces population, much of the change also results minimal global warming pollution. The from a 5 percent increase in the number of state’s current transportation system fails miles driven per person.3 Annual driving on all three points. per person averaged slightly more than 9,000 miles in 2005. The result of a growing state population, increased per capita driving, and few alter- Californians Lose Time natives to driving is growing congestion and time stuck sitting in traffic. Data for Stuck in Traffic nine urban areas in California show how Californians drove approximately 330 bil- much time Californians lose to the state’s lion miles in 2005, a 19 percent increase chronic congestion. Drivers in Los Angeles

Table 1. Californians Lost More Hours to Traffic Congestion in 2005 than in 19955

Annual Travel Delay (Million Hours) Increase in Delay Urban Area 1995 2005 Increase Bakersfield 1.1 3.5 205% Fresno 4.4 6.6 52% Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana 401.1 490.6 22% Oxnard-Ventura 5.4 12.2 125% Riverside-San Bernardino 18.3 48.3 164% Sacramento 20.7 39.6 91% San Diego 43.3 90.7 110% San Francisco-Oakland 99.4 129.9 31% San Jose 37.9 50.0 32% Total 631.6 871.4 38%

California’s Current Transportation System 5 spend the most time dealing with conges- but it also means that the money residents tion, but drivers in smaller urban areas spend on fuel leaves the state. For the most have experienced the most rapid increases part, money spent on gasoline does not in congestion.4 (See Table 1.) create jobs in California or support the state’s economy.

Californians Spend Billions on Fuel Global Warming Pollution The state’s growing reliance on driving has Is Rising taken a toll on Californians’ pocketbooks. Transportation is the leading source of From 1995 to 2005, the amount of gasoline global warming pollution in California, used in California increased by 21 percent.6 responsible for approximately 38 percent (See Figure 1.) At the same time, the price of the state’s emissions in 2004.11 of gasoline rose by 57 percent.7 The result When emissions from interstate and is that Californians spent $36.5 billion on international aviation and international gasoline in 2005, 90 percent more than shipping are excluded, cars and light trucks in 1995.8 In 2005, spending on gasoline account for the vast majority of global equaled more than $1,000 for every resi- warming pollution from transportation dent of the state.9 in California—approximately 73 percent.12 Fuel consumption relies heavily on (See Figure 2.) imports from beyond state and national Emissions from the transportation sec- borders. Not only does this expose Cali- tor in California are growing and have fornians to the fluctuations of the global oil increased by 24 percent since 1990.14 (See market and spikes in the price of gasoline, Figure 3.)

Figure 1. Spending on Gasoline Has Been Rising Faster than Consumption10

18,000 $40

16,000 $35 Dollars 14,000 $30 12,000 $25 allons djusted G A

10,000 Ͳ

of $20 8,000 GasolineConsumption $15 GasolineSpending

6,000 Inflation Millions of 4,000 $10 2,000 $5 Billions 0 $0

Connecting California Figure 2. Cars and Light Trucks Are the Biggest Source of Global Warming Pollution in the Transportation Sector, 200413

OnͲRoadHeavy IntrastateAir Duty 2% Other 19% 1% WaterͲBorne 2% Rail OnͲRoadLightDuty 2% 74%

There are several reasons for the growth and growth in per capita driving occur, of transportation global warming emis- congestion will increase, spending on sions in California over the past decade gasoline will rise, and global warming and a half. Vehicle fuel economy—a key emissions will continue to grow. determinant of global warming pollu- The California Department of Finance tion—has been roughly stagnant over the projects that California’s population will past two decades nationally. Californians increase from 37 million people to more have shifted from relatively more-efficient than 50 million people by 2032.17 Based cars to less-efficient light trucks and SUVs. on historic trends, per capita driving is And, as mentioned above, the number of also expected to increase. If historic trends miles traveled on California’s highways has continue, Californians could drive nearly grown dramatically, increasing nearly 20 30 miles per day in 2030, a 17 percent in- percent between 1995 and 2005.16 crease from current levels.18 The result is that total vehicle travel in the state could increase by as much as 45 percent between now and 2030.19 At this level of driving, Californians These Problems Will Get will spend a huge amount of money on Worse as the State’s fuel. In 2005, when gas averaged $2.47 per gallon, Californians spent $37 billion Population Increases on gasoline, or more than $1,000 per In coming years, the shortcomings of person.20 As gas prices spiked to nearly California’s transportation system will $4 per gallon this past summer, Califor- become even more apparent, unless the nians were spending far more on trans- state begins to invest in better alternatives portation.21 Though prices have fallen to driving. If projected increases in population dramatically since then, residents’ heavy

California’s Current Transportation System 7 Figure 3. Emissions from Cars and Light Trucks Have Increased Since 199015

250

200

International Water* 150 International Air* Interstate Air* (Million Metric Tons) Metric (Million s Oth er Water-Borne Rail 100 On-Road Light Duty On-Road Heavy Duty Intrastate Air

Carbon Dioxide Emission Dioxide Carbon 50

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

* Interstate and international aviation emissions and emissions from international shipping are not included in the Air Resources Board’s transportation sector inventory and are not included in the estimate of transportation sector emissions in this report.

reliance on driving leaves them vulnerable Transportation reports that vehicle travel to future price increases. on state highways increased by only a small Projected growth in vehicle travel also amount (approximately 0.02 percent) in threatens to swamp California’s efforts 2007 over the year before, the smallest to reduce global warming pollution from year to year increase since the aftershocks transportation. Even if the state were to of the Arab oil embargo in 1974.22 And the cut emissions from the typical car by 40 Federal Highway Administration estimates percent by 2030, total global warming that total vehicle-miles traveled in Califor- pollution from cars would only decrease nia actually declined 4 percent between by 13 percent compared to today’s levels, 2007 and 2008.23 a far smaller reduction than the state needs to meet its goals. Failing to address the growth in vehicle travel, therefore, will make it very difficult for California to achieve its overall emission reduction More Transit Can Improve targets. California’s Transportation In recent years, the growth in vehicle travel in California has begun to stabi- System lize—the likely result of higher gasoline California’s current transportation system prices. The California Department of forces the state’s residents to waste too

Connecting California much time stuck in traffic and to spend too in California, averting about 3.6 million much money on oil, and is responsible for metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution millions of tons of global warming pollu- in 2006.26 tion. Solving these problems requires that Despite these benefits of transit, Cali- California reshape its transportation sys- fornia spends far more money on highways tem to offer the state’s residents alternatives than transit. In 2006, California spent ap- to driving. A robust transportation network proximately $374 million of state funds on should allow travelers to choose between transit capital and operating expenses and driving and a variety of transit options. $4.6 billion on highway construction and California’s transit system already maintenance—a highway-to-transit ratio helps to reduce congestion, provide relief of more than 12-to-1.27 for commuters from high gas prices and As evidenced by voter approval of mul- ease global warming pollution. A 2007 tiple measures to expand transit—includ- study by the Texas Transportation Insti- ing statewide high-speed rail and increased tute estimated that public transportation transit funding in Los Angeles, Contra prevented more than 70 million hours of Costa and Alameda counties—Califor- traffic delay—equivalent to about 8,100 nians are eager for better transit options person-years—in nine metropolitan areas that provide an alternative to driving. As in California in 2006, preventing the econ- gas prices have risen, Californians increas- omy from losing more than $1.2 billion in ingly have turned to public transportation. wasted time and productivity.24 A Congressional Budget Office study, for In 2006, public transportation in Cali- example, found that, since 2003, as the fornia saved approximately 486 million price of gasoline has risen, more and more gallons of oil that would have otherwise commuters have opted to ride transit rather been burned in vehicles, saving consumers than drive.28 The growth in transit rider- more than $1.3 billion at the pump.25 Those ship has been especially rapid. cost savings were based on an average gaso- The transit projects highlighted in the line price in 2006 of $2.68 per gallon. At next section are some of the key projects gasoline prices of $4 per gallon, the savings that the state should pursue to provide would have been nearly $1.9 billion. better alternatives to driving to more Cali- In addition, public transportation is fornians today and as the state’s population helping to reduce global warming pollution grows.

California’s Current Transportation System 9 Table 2. Statewide and County Transportation Ballot Measures, November 2008 Election Results29

Ballot Location Type of Estimated Brief Approved? Measure Funding Amount Description Name Prop 1A Statewide General $9,950,000,000 220-m.p.h. YES - 52.6% Obligation bullet train Bonds connecting the Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles and San Diego. Measure VV Alameda and Property Tax $7,000,000 Prevents fare YES - 72.2% Contra Costa annually hikes for AC (Alameda) and Counties Transit bus 72.1% (Contra service Costa)

Measure R Los Angeles Sales Tax $40,000,000,000 Road and mass YES - 67.9% County over 30 years transit projects, subway to the sea, light rail extensions, and bus rapid transit Measure Z Monterey Sales Tax Highways 1, NO - 62.6% County 68, 156 and 101 improvements; local road repairs; carpooling, bus service improvements; and paratransit Measure A Santa Barbara Sales Tax $1,050,000,000 General YES - 79.2% County over 30 years transportation and transit improvements Measure B Santa Clara Sales Tax Operation of YES - 66.7% County pending Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) expansion connecting San Jose and the East Bay. Measure C Santa Clara Advisory N/A Approval of YES - 69.7% County Measure the Valley Transportation Plan 2035. Measures Q CA Sonoma Sales Tax $890 million New light rail YES - 73.7% and R and Marin over 20 years project from (Sonoma) and Counties Cloverdale to 62.8% (Marin) Larkspur.

10 Connecting California California Has Many Opportunities to Improve Transit

alifornians want and need more global warming pollution, while beginning transit options. Voter approval of a to create the backbone of a new transporta- Cstatewide high-speed rail system and tion system. the necessary funding is just one indica- But these newly approved transit fund- tion of support. In both the Los Angeles ing measures won’t meet the full need area and the Bay Area, voters assented to for improved transit in California. The tax increases to pay for better local transit discussion below highlights both transit service. The upgraded transit made pos- projects that will be funded by the newly sible by this increased funding will give approved measures and other projects that citizens more transportation options, are sorely needed. reduce gasoline use and costs, and reduce

The bullet train trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles is projected to take two and a half hours, while the trip from Los Angeles to San Diego will require slightly more than an hour. These trips on high-speed rail will be faster than traveling the same distance in a car or by plane. Photo credit: Remus Eserblom, under license from istockphoto.com

Opportunities to Improve Transit 11 The Beginnings of a New to another within California is projected to almost double by 2030.30 Transit Network And with rising travel will come greater delays. Even with continued expansion of Statewide Connections with the state’s freeways, drivers on more than High-Speed Rail half of 68 intercity highway segments The planned construction of a high-speed studied by the California High Speed Rail rail line connecting San Diego, Los An- Authority would experience increased con- geles, San Francisco, Sacramento and the gestion, travel delays and accidents by 2020, cities in between is a strong indication of creating unacceptable service levels.31 California’s commitment to creating a 21st The state’s airports will fare no better. century transportation system. Instead of Already, on-time performance at Califor- driving or riding on a bus on congested nia airports has deteriorated as the number roads, or dealing with the hassles of an of flights and passengers has increased. A airport to catch an expensive and polluting 16 percent increase in the number of pas- flight, Californians will be able to travel sengers at Los Angeles International Air- from northern to southern California on port has led to a decline in the percentage speedy, low-emission trains. of on-time departures from 86 percent to This investment comes none too soon. 80 percent, and the percentage of on-time Rising congestion on highways and at the arrivals to fall from 84 percent to 77 per- state’s airports will lengthen the time recent.32 San Francisco, San Diego and Oak- quired to drive or fly within the state. The land have experienced comparable drops in number of people traveling from one city on-time performance.33 Passenger volume

Figure 5. Estimated Total Travel Times for Auto, Air, and High Speed Rail 2030, After Construction of High Speed Rail (Door-to-Door Times for Downtown-to-Downtown Trips, Unless Otherwise Indicated)40

12 Connecting California Figure 4. Proposed Route of California High-Speed Rail System39

Opportunities to Improve Transit 13 is projected to increase 25 percent by 2015 backbone of a transit system to which bus at Los Angeles International Airport while service can be added. San Diego International-Lindbergh Field The current transportation system does expects to reach capacity prior to 2020, not serve Sonoma and Marin residents exacerbating delays.34 well. Highway 101, the counties’ only Building a high-speed rail network north-south highway, is already extremely connecting San Diego and Los Angeles to congested and the problem will grow worse Sacramento and the Bay Area should ease in coming years as the region’s population pressure on the state’s roads and airports increases. Furthermore, employers are and give intercity travelers another viable expected to create more than 130,000 new transportation option. The high-speed jobs in the two counties by 2025, meaning trains proposed for California would op- thousands more commuters will try to erate at speeds greater than 200 miles per crowd onto Highway 101 each morning hour.35 The trip from San Francisco to Los and evening.41 Angeles is projected to take two and a half SMART will offer comfortable rail ser- hours, while the trip from Los Angeles vice to 14 stops, beginning with Cloverdale to San Diego will require slightly more at the northern end of Sonoma County to than an hour.36 These trips on high-speed Larkspur at the southern end of Marin rail will be faster than traveling the same County. The rail line will be built on a rail distance in a car or by plane. right-of-way that is already publicly owned. Weekday service should include 230 (See Figure 8.) trains, some serving the full length of Commuters and other travelers will be the route between southern and northern able to ride one of 28 weekday trains, or California and others serving shorter, high eight weekend trains. Riding from one demand corridors.37 The California High- end of the line to the other would take 90 Speed Rail Authority estimates that 90 minutes, with trains departing every half million people will ride the train annually hour at peak times.42 Once train service by 2030.38 begins in 2013, daily ridership is expected The high-speed rail line, which has been in to reach 5,300 passengers.43 the planning process for over a decade, would SMART service will be augmented by be the first of its kind in the United States, nine shuttle routes to take commuters to but similar to rail networks reliably connect- high use destinations such as Marin Gen- ing cities in Japan and Europe for years. Its eral Hospital, College of Marin, and Santa construction offers a huge step toward a bet- Rosa Junior College’s Petaluma Campus.44 ter transportation future, one that will ease For passengers who want to continue on to congestion, reduce the state’s dependence on San Francisco, the Larkspur station will petroleum, spark economic development and be close to the Larkspur Ferry Terminal cut global warming pollution. with service across the bay.45 However, the train will serve primarily commuters Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit and travelers within Sonoma and Marin Similarly, residents of Sonoma and Marin counties. Significant job creation within counties have embraced the idea of a better Sonoma and Marin counties would mean transportation future with their approval of that, by 2025, just 9 percent of workers funding for the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail who live in the two counties would travel Transit (SMART) project. This 70-mile to jobs in San Francisco; the vast majority passenger rail line will parallel Highway would work closer to home.46 Overall, the 101 and provide residents with a real establishment of rail service is expected to alternative to driving, while creating the result in greater bus ridership.47

14 Connecting California The SMART project also would include better connection between various transit a bike and pedestrian path alongside the services in downtown Los Angeles, ex- rail line, providing area residents with an panded bus and rail operations, more rapid additional transportation and recreation bus service and the use of transit vehicles option. that operate on fuels with a lower global SMART will help mitigate the global warming impact. If adequate funding is warming pollution projected to be pro- available, Metro’s proposed expansions duced by the region’s growing population will result in a system with more than 100 and increased driving. With per passenger miles of subway and light rail lines and emissions of global warming pollution that more than 400 miles of bus rapid transit, are 70 percent lower from the train than offering area residents more alternatives to from a car, SMART will help cut global driving.53 And Metro will continue to serve warming pollution by more than 30 mil- millions of passengers with conventional lion pounds per year and begin to create a bus service. sustainable transportation network.48 This expanded transit service (combined with facilities to enhance walking and bik- Los Angeles: Expanding and ing) will reduce the number of miles driven Linking Bus and Rail Services in private vehicles by more than 550 million annually and cut global warming pollution Voter approval of Measure R in Los Ange- by more than 250,000 metric tons.54 les County in November 2008 will provide Many of the improvements recommend- approximately $40 billion for transit proj- ed by Metro are identical to those included ects over the next 30 years.49 in the Southern California Association of An improved bus and train network Governments’ 2008 Regional Transporta- will offer the region’s residents an alter- tion Plan and are expected to be funded native to driving on some of the nation’s with monies collected through a half-cent most congested highways. Local and rapid sales tax that voters approved with passage buses, subways, light rail and commuter rail of Measure R.55 Some of the highest prior- benefit all travelers in the region by easing ity projects are discussed below. pressure on overcrowded roads. Though the L.A. area’s population has grown by Expand Local Rail Service 2.5 million since 1980, hours of highway Metro’s subway and light rail system, delay per person increased by only one which began operating in 1990 with the hour since 1995, compared to a 26-hour Blue Line, currently includes 73 miles of increase from 1980 to 1995, thanks in part rail, thanks to the addition of three more to expansions in transit service, especially lines in 13 years.56 For a metropolitan since the 1990s.50 area the size of Los Angeles, however, The region’s population is projected to that’s not much rail service. In contrast to grow by 2.4 million by 2030.51 As a result, Los Angeles, where 73 miles of rail serve Los Angelenos are expected to drive a 4,060-square-mile Los Angeles County, total of 38 percent more miles each day.52 the Bay Area has 104 miles of BART (plus Expanding the region’s transit system can additional Muni Metro lines) serving four help mitigate the effects of this growing counties that cover 1,951 square miles.57 population and its travel needs. Two expansions of rail service are under The Los Angeles County Metropolitan way, but major portions of the city where Transit Authority (Metro) has drafted a travelers have little choice but to drive or plan for improving the region’s transit system ride a bus through highly congested streets through 2030. Improvements include a need service as well.

Opportunities to Improve Transit 15 Work has already begun on extending 7th Street/Metro Center stop, but the Gold the Gold Line from Union Station south Line and commuter rail services connect through Little Tokyo and the Arts District to the Red and Purple lines at Union Sta- and then eastward to Atlantic Boulevard in tion. This lack of a central station forces east L.A. The six-mile extension, scheduled passengers from the Blue Line (and soon to open in late 2009, will include eight new the Expo Line) to make additional transfers stations.58 and causes travel delays. Improving how To the west, the Expo Line will be the rail lines connect in downtown Los Ange- first rail line extending service to Culver les is one of the most important changes City and other Westside locations. The needed by the rail system. line, currently under construction, extends One possible configuration for the southwest from the existing 7th Street/ Downtown Regional Connector is a direct Metro Center station where the Blue, Red, link from the 7th Street/Metro Center and Purple lines overlap. Service to Culver Station to the Little Tokyo/Arts District City on the first stage of the Expo Line will Station that will open when the Gold open in 2010.59 Line Eastside Extension is complete. By Metro has begun scoping options for enabling the Blue Line’s 65,000 daily pas- improved service through the Westside. sengers to reach Disney Hall, the County The Purple Line of the subway currently Courthouse and City Hall without trans- ends at Wilshire and Western, while the ferring to another line, the Downtown Re- Red Line curves north from Wilshire and gional Connector could improve mobility Vermont, leaving the Westside with no rail and increase overall use of the rail system.64 service. A subway line could be extended When the Expo Line begins service, the from the end of the Purple Line, or from Downtown Connector would enable those one of the Hollywood stations on the Red passengers to avoid transfers as well. Line. As the line snakes toward the ocean, Expand and Accelerate Bus Transit it could include stops in West Hollywood, Metro projects that the average speed of mid-Wilshire/Miracle Mile, Beverly Hills, freeway traffic could fall by 14 miles per UCLA and/or Santa Monica.60 hour by 2030.65 As a result, bus routes Depending on the alignment of a new that include freeway trips will take longer. line through the Westside, Metro estimates Already, increasing traffic congestion on that 50,000 to 80,000 passengers would all streets has slowed buses by 12 percent board a train each day.62 The total amount since the mid-1980s.66 of time saved each day by all riders could Metro has countered some of conges- be as high as 60,000 hours compared to tion’s effect on buses with a variety of current transportation options.63 strategies. Buses on Metro’s rapid bus lines Metro is also planning extensions of the have low floors for faster boarding and Green Line to LAX and the South Bay. are given priority at traffic signals. Metro Enhance Connectivity has also pursued street improvements that Despite the fact that Metro has planned allow passengers to board more quickly. and built its entire subway and light rail (When rapid buses have a dedicated lane, system recently—rather than working as is the case on a few existing routes, or with a system that evolved over decades separate roadway along with other speed- as has occurred in many cities—the rail increasing features, the service is known as system suffers from poor connections in bus rapid transit (BRT).) In Los Angeles downtown Los Angeles. The Blue Line and surrounding areas, these rapid bus connects to the Red and Purple lines at the enhancements have reduced travel times

16 Connecting California FigureG 6. oMetroM Railet Systemro Map with Planned Projects61 metro.net

Antelope Valley Line

Ventura County Line

Pierce Valley PASADENA Canoga College Reseda Woodley Van Nuys College North Hollywood Universal City Memorial Warner De Soto Tampa Balboa Sepulveda Woodman Laurel Fillmore Park Allen Center Canyon Hollywood/Highland Mission Hollywood/Vine Del Mar Lake Sierra Hollywood/Western Madre Villa Highland Park SAN FERNANDO Southwest Museum Vermont/Sunset VALLEY Heritage Square

Vermont/Santa Monica Lincoln/Cypress

Vermont/Beverly Chinatown

/ Union Station San Bernardino Line Wilshire/ 7th Street Normandie Metro Center LAC+USC CSULA El Monte Wilshire/ Wilshire/ Westlake/ Pershing Civic Center Med Ctr Western Vermont MacArthur Square Park Little Tokyo/ EAST LA Arts District Pico Soto Maravilla Atlantic MID-WILSHIRE 23rd St Pico/Aliso Grand Mariachi Indiana Jefferson East LA Plaza Civic Center La Cienega Crenshaw Vermont San Pedro Riverside Line

/ / STREET SERVICE Washington La Brea Western USC Expo NORTH OF 37TH ST Washington National Park (OPTIONAL) 37th St Vernon

CULVER Slauson Slauson CITY Florence

Manchester Firestone LAX Free Shuttle 103rd Street Imperial/ Hawthorne Vermont Avalon Wilmington Aviation/ LAX Crenshaw Harbor Long Beach Lakewood Norwalk Freeway SOUTH Mariposa Compton BAY Rosecrans El Segundo NORWALK Artesia Artesia Douglas Transit Center Del Amo

Redondo Wardlow Orange County Beach & 91 Lines Willow

Pacific Coast Highway

Anaheim Metro Rail Pacific

5th Street Transitway

1st Street Metrolink & Amtrak Transfer Station

Transit Mall Station LONG BEACH Under Construction Parking

Parking (Paid)

JAN 2007 Subject to Change

Opportunities to Improve Transit 17 for passengers by 25 percent.67 • On Wilshire Boulevard through the Metro first began offering rapid bus highly congested Westside until the service in 2000 and now carries 185,000 Purple Line of the subway can be passengers daily through 20 corridors.68 extended. The speed, reliability, and ease of use of rapid bus service has drawn passengers • Within the Crenshaw Corridor be- who otherwise may have driven a car: 30 tween Wilshire Blvd. and El Segundo percent of riders on Metro’s rapid bus lines Blvd. have been new transit riders.69 Supplementing existing bus lines with • Along several corridors within the San rapid lines and adding new rapid service is Fernando Valley. essential to creating alternatives for commuters. Though even express buses are not able to move as many passengers as rail service, the advantage of rapid bus service is that it can be implemented much more Planning for the Future quickly than a new rail line. That speed of implementation makes rapid buses—es- Growing San Diego Trolley and Bus pecially if offered as BRT in its own dedi- Services cated traffic lane—an ideal transit option The San Diego Trolley was the first mod- in situations where a rail line is planned. ern light rail transit system in the United Los Angeles could use rapid bus service in States when its initial link from downtown several places, including: to San Ysidro opened in 1981.71 San Diego’s

Figure 7. Los Angeles MTA Proposed Rail and Rapid Transit Expansion, Ballot Measure R, 200870

measure r Proposed Rail and Rapid Transit Expansion Project Name

'7 Exposition Boulevard Light Rail Transit* SAN FERNANDO 'C VALLEY '8 Crenshaw Transit Corridor * 'C (project acceleration) '@ NORTH COUNTY '9 * 'C Regional Connector: Links Local Rail Lines '@ ' '@ Westside Subway Extension* '@ ARROYO ': VERDUGO (to be opened in segments) Inset Not to Scale 'C '; Gold Line Eastside Extension*

'B '< CENTRAL '< LOS ANGELES Gold Line Foothill Light Rail Transit Extension LAS VIRGENES/MALIBU 'C '= Green Line Extension: Redondo Beach WESTSIDE ': '9 * CITIES Station to South Bay Corridor SAN GABRIEL VALLEY Green Line Extension to Los Angeles '7 '; '> International Airport* 'C San Fernando Valley North-South Rapidways: ' '8 * 'C Canoga Corridor (project acceleration)

'> '@ San Fernando Valley East North-South Rapidways (project acceleration)* Proposed Metro Rail and Rapid Transit Projects* 'A West Santa Ana Branch Corridor* Proposed Metrolink Capital Improvements '= 'A San Fernando Valley I-405 GATEWAY 'B Existing Metro Rail and CITIES Corridor Connection* Rapid Transit System 'C Metrolink Capital Improvement Projects SOUTH BAY (Los Angeles County) CITIES

* Speci>c routing to be determined

18 Connecting California Figure 8. Proposed 2030 Transit/HOV/Toll Lane Network for San Diego Area75

San Diego Region 5 Riverside County 241 Orange County

San CampDiego PendletonCounty MAP AREA Northern Extent 0 3 6 15 MILES

Camp Pendleton 5 76 76

Oceanside Vista

78 San Marcos

Carlsbad Escondido

Encinitas

P A C 67 C I Solana Beach F I C 5 Poway

O C 56 County of San Diego E Del Mar A

805 5 52 Santee 52 67 52 Figure 1.3 8 2030 REASONABLY 15 125 EXPECTED REVENUE San NETWORK Diego 805 El Cajon 8 November 2007 163 La Mesa Managed/HOV Lanes

General Purpose/Toll Lanes Lemon 94 Grove Transit/Rail 125 94 Freeway Connectors 282

HOV/BRT Connectors Coronado National Additional Freight Projects City 54

75 805 125 Chula MILES Vista 0 3 6

0 4.83 9.6 KILOMETERS Imperial 5 Beach 905 11 UNITED STATES MEXICO

1-D Tijuana, B.C.

2030 Regional Transportation Plan 1-9

Opportunities to Improve Transit 19 gamble on building a new trolley has more and greater demand for transportation than paid off over time, providing efficient alternatives.77 transportation to the region and setting an The Mid-Coast line would also bring example that has been followed by a grow- high-quality transit service to an increasing number of American cities. ingly important center of activity in the In 2006, the trolley carried more than 34 region: University City. University City is million passengers and saved more than 30 home to the University of California-San million gallons of fuel that would otherwise Diego, with an enrollment of more than have been burned in cars.72 An estimated 27,000 students.78 A 2006 study ranked 12 percent of trips into downtown San Di- UCSD as one of the top universities in the ego occur on transit.73 And the trolley has world for converting laboratory discover- proven to be even more valuable in a time ies in biotech into commercial start-ups.79 of high gas prices, providing San Diego The university’s success can be seen in the residents with an alternative to increasingly cluster of research institutes and biotech expensive commutes. Ridership on the San companies that have set up shop around the Diego Trolley surged by 7 percent between campus and in nearby areas such as Torrey 2006 and 2007 and increased a further 4.7 Pines and Mira Mesa.80 percent in the first half of 2008.74 The area is also home to the Westfield Over the years, the San Diego Trolley UTC shopping center, which is being has been expanded several times, and now expanded into a mixed-use development includes three lines. But there is plenty with additional stores and 250 residential of room for future growth. A “regional units.81 The redevelopment is in line to be transit vision” published in 2001 by the recognized as a LEED for Neighborhood San Diego Association of Governments Development (LEED-ND) pilot project envisioned that, by 2030, transit would play by the U.S. Green Building Council.82 a much larger role in meeting the region’s LEED-ND projects are intended to reduce transportation needs, with high-capacity sprawl by building on previously developed transit lines crisscrossing much of the San sites with good transit access.83 Diego area. (See Figure 8.) Extending the San Diego Trolley to University City would connect this bus- Mid-Coast Trolley tling center of commerce, education and The next expansion of the San Diego Trol- high-tech business with downtown San ley is planned for the Mid-Coast corridor Diego and other destinations in the region. north of downtown San Diego. The 11- It would also produce large environmental mile proposed extension would parallel the and economic benefits. A federal evalua- congested I-5 corridor, eventually turning tion of the first 3.4-mile segment of the east to reach University City. Mid-Coast extension (stretching from the The Mid-Coast line would provide Old Town transit center to Balboa Avenue) important benefits to the region. First, it found that even that short extension would would provide an alternative to travel on save the equivalent of more than 400,000 I-5 north of the city. The segment of I-5 gallons of gasoline per year and avoid that travels through the Mid-Coast corri- 3,700 tons per year of carbon dioxide dor carries between 150,000 and 230,000 pollution.84 vehicles on the average day, with traffic San Diego County voters have already volumes increasing closer to downtown committed local funding for the project San Diego.76 By 2030, traffic volume on I-5 through the TransNet half-cent sales tax north of San Diego is expected to roughly approved in 2004.85 The county plans to double, creating additional congestion seek federal funding for the remainder of

20 Connecting California the project’s cost.86 current service, thanks to special bus lanes at intersections that allow buses to cut in Improved Bus Service front of other waiting traffic, extension While extension of the trolley north to of green lights for buses running behind University City will give drivers an al- schedule, and consolidation of bus stops.90 ternative to using congested I-5, other Final planning for the project should be communities in and around San Diego completed by the end of the year, enabling also could benefit from fast, reliable transit rapid implementation of improvements to service. The creation of rapid bus service the bus route if adequate funding becomes could quickly provide better transit to San available. Diego commuters. South Bay Bus Rapid Transit Mid-City Rapid Bus South of San Diego, a proposed bus rapid While an extension of the trolley would transit line known as the South Bay Bus enhance transit service at UCSD, the Rapid Transit project would carry travel- Mid-City Rapid Bus project would oper- ers in dedicated transit lanes, bypassing ate through dense urban neighborhoods 13 miles of crowded roads.91 The new bus to connect San Diego State University to line will connect the Otay Mesa Border downtown San Diego. Typically, students Crossing to downtown San Diego, as well and university staff are eager for alterna- as employment centers in between.92 In tives to driving. Nationally, for example, 11 addition to operating in lanes dedicated for percent of people riding public transporta- transit—a key feature that distinguishes tion are students.87 bus rapid transit service from the rapid The Mid-City Rapid Bus would replace bus service planned for elsewhere in San existing local bus service with low-floor Diego—the South Bay Rapid Bus would buses for faster boarding and prior- have better shelters, boarding platforms to ity through traffic signals, cutting travel speed loading, and signs to tell riders when time by 25 percent.88 The line would also the next bus will arrive. San Diego-area have improved bus shelters. Overall, the voters have already approved some fund- enhanced service is expected to draw five ing for this project; its construction is now times more riders than the current line.89 contingent upon federal funding. Essentially all planning for the project has been completed and local funds have Orange County: Urban been identified. All that is required now is Redevelopment and a Transit Hub federal funding. Like many southern California communities, Orange County’s development pattern Escondido Rapid Bus made cars a necessity for residents. Clear Though the trip from the Escondido separation between residential and com- Transit Center to Westfield Shoppingtown mercial development, and the absence of North County covers just six miles, bus downtowns in favor of strip malls have service is not very reliable because traffic meant that Orange County citizens have congestion slows the trip and causes buses no choice but to drive to work, to entertain- to bunch up. Establishment of rapid bus ment or to shops. The problems of this ap- service would provide better transit for the proach to development have become more many shoppers and middle and high school obvious in recent years: traffic congestion, students who use the route. high household transportation costs, and a The proposed Escondido Rapid Bus lack of community gathering points. would be faster and more reliable than Now, leaders in Anaheim are trying

Opportunities to Improve Transit 21 to address these problems by creating a Metrolink provides a 48-minute trip to Los more vibrant downtown where driving is Angeles, a 59-minute trip to Riverside, and optional. Improved transit can provide a a 2-hour trip to San Diego.97 boost to their redevelopment plan for a As demand has risen, existing Metro- downtown area known as the Platinum link facilities have become inadequate. In Triangle. downtown Anaheim, for example, there is The City of Anaheim wants to promote no room to improve access to the Metro- mixed-use development in the Platinum link station, and parking near the station is Triangle, an 820-acre area.93 The city has limited, even while the number of passen- been changing zoning requirements to gers is increasing.98 Overall transportation facilitate extensive mixed-use develop- needs in Orange County—the third most ment, including 18,000 residential units populous county in California and one and 16 million square feet of office space. with 1.6 million workers—will continue The city wants to create a dynamic urban to rise. By 2030, the county’s population environment connected by a “network is projected to grow by 18 percent and of pedestrian walkways, streetscape im- employment will rise 22 percent.99 If the provements and recreation spaces.”94 The plan for the Platinum Triangle is realized, Platinum Triangle will be centered around a portion of that activity will be focused in mixed residential and commercial uses in downtown Anaheim. the core of the area, with low- and high- Planners have proposed constructing density office space around the periphery the transit hub in phases, beginning with and industrial space along the north edge. 56,000 square feet to serve 7,300 passengers The area already houses several entertain- annually.100 By the time the transit hub ment facilities, including Angel Stadium opens, 70 trains per day will stop at the and the Honda Center, home to the Ana- station.101 Phase one construction would heim Ducks.95 cost $295 million (2007 dollars).102 As de- In the eastern portion of the Platinum mand for transit services rises, the facility Triangle, the City of Anaheim and the would be expanded to 142,000 square feet, Orange County Transportation Authority at an additional cost of $605 million (2007 have proposed constructing a transporta- dollars), enabling the facility to serve a tion hub on a 16-acre site that would con- projected 44,600 riders per day.103 nect Metrolink, bus rapid transit routes, conventional bus routes and proposed Riverside County Perris Valley Line high-speed rail through a single facility. Towns in Riverside County have been This transit hub would improve transit attractive to families looking for afford- service for existing riders and make it easier able housing. From 2000 to 2006, for ex- for new residents of the Platinum Triangle ample, 480,000 people moved to Riverside to leave their cars at home. County.104 However, relatively few jobs are Since the inception of Metrolink rail based in the county, and thus the county’s service in Orange County in 1993, rider- population is four times greater than the ship has grown by leaps and bounds. In number of jobs.105 The result is that most the first year of service, trains carried employed residents must leave the county 145,000 passengers. Ten years later, annual for work every day.106 ridership had risen to more than 3 million Commutes from Riverside County are passengers.96 The service’s popularity is long, and getting worse. In fact, Riverside partially due to the speed and ease with County commuters have the dubious dis- which riders can reach other Southern Cal- tinction of having the longest average com- ifornia cities: from downtown Anaheim, mutes in the nation.107 And as the region’s

22 Connecting California population has increased, congestion has 60 percent of funds for the project will be made those commutes take even longer: provided by the federal government; the the total number of hours that drivers lost rest will be local and state.116 If construc- to congestion increased by 85 percent from tion work proceeds as scheduled, service 2000 to 2005.108 Clearly, Riverside County could start in 2011. needs a more efficient way to get workers Concurrently, Riverside County should to employment centers. pursue transit-oriented development near Existing transit options include com- rail stations. Placing more residences and muter rail service from Riverside to Los shops within walking distance of rail sta- Angeles, and a network of 45 local bus tions would reduce the need for commut- routes.109 However, residents of Perris Val- ers to drive to the train station and could ley south and east of the city of Riverside encourage more people to ride the train have no option but to drive. instead of drive. Workers who live in the Perris Valley must drive north on I-215 to Riverside to Bay Area Improvements: access commuter rail service. In coming Bus Rapid Transit, Caltrain and years, traffic on I-215 is projected to in- Other Local Transit crease by as much as 123 percent in some The Bay Area has the best developed and stretches, turning the 20-mile drive from most used rail and bus network of any met- Perris to Riverside into an 80 minute trip ropolitan area in California. In fact, San by 2030.110 Train service planned for this Francisco and Oakland have the second corridor could carry travelers from South highest rate of transit use in the nation, be- Perris Station to Riverside in just 40 min- hind only New York City.117 Nonetheless, utes.111 In contrast, a commuter bus would in too many instances transit in the Bay merely be stuck in traffic. Area is inadequate: some neighborhoods The Perris Valley Line will extend must contend with lower quality service Metrolink commuter rail service from than they should. And growth outside of Riverside southeast to Perris, linking major the urban core suggests that the Bay Area employment and population centers. Sta- needs to expand the reach of transit to tions could include the University of Cali- new areas. fornia Riverside campus, which, with 6,600 The residents of the Bay Area are served employees, is one of the largest employers by more than a dozen separate transit agen- in the area.112 Furthermore, 17,000 students cies that operate buses, light rail, subway study at the campus, and enrollment is and long-distance rail lines, cable cars, projected to increase by more than 4,000 trolleys and ferries. San Francisco’s Munic- students by 2015.113 Further south, the train ipal Transportation Agency (Muni) is one could stop at Moreno Valley and March of the oldest transit systems in the nation Air Reserve Base, part of which is being and the biggest in the Bay Area, covering converted to use as a commercial airport. San Francisco City and County. The Al- The line’s southern terminus will be in Per- ameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC ris—founded as a railroad town and named Transit)—the third largest bus system in after a railroad engineer—where parking the state—serves 13 cities and surround- and bus service will be available.114 ing areas.118 Reaching into five counties, The Riverside County Transportation Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) offers Commission (RCTC) already owns the rail service. Caltrain connects downtown tracks from Riverside to Perris, which San Francisco to Gilroy and communities should make addition of commuter rail ser- along the way with 77 miles of track.119 vice easier and cheaper.115 Approximately Other transit agencies provide additional

Opportunities to Improve Transit 23 lower cost than a new rail line. In travel corridors where conventional bus service is woefully inadequate, BRT offers a way to dramatically improve transit service on a relatively short timeline.

Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit More than 80,000 people drive a car or ride a bus on Van Ness Avenue in downtown San Francisco every day.120 The tremendous traffic volume on Van Ness results in heavy travel delays. For example, buses traveling southbound on Van Ness during rush hour spend 7 minutes waiting for traffic lights or stuck in traffic for every 10 minutes that the bus is moving.121 These delays, combined with delays in boarding passengers, result in bus trips that take twice as long as car trips over the The Bay Area has a long legacy of providing same distance on the street. Nonetheless, convenient public transportation, from San demand for transit remains high because Francisco’s famous trolleys to BART. But to 46 percent of households in the Van Ness meet rising demand, transit services must be travel corridor do not own a car. improved and expanded. Photo credit: Travis To improve transit service along Van Haney, used with permission Ness Avenue, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (MTA) is devel- service to communities throughout the oping plans for a two-mile BRT line. From Bay Area. Mission Street to Lombard Street, travel Despite this array of transit options— times should be reduced by 24 percent to which are heavily used—many residents in 30 percent.122 The BRT line will connect the Bay Area nonetheless still face limited with other bus routes, and BART and alternatives to driving. Expanding and Caltrain service. improving transit services would help to The expected cost of the Van Ness alleviate this problem. BRT is $87 million.123 MTA anticipates that the project will be covered by a mix of Expand Bus Rapid Transit federal funds and money from Proposition Bus rapid transit (BRT) lines typically K, which city voters approved in 2003 to include a separate traffic lane for buses, enable San Francisco to improve transit priority for buses through intersections, services. Construction on the Van Ness and pre-paid fares to speed boarding. BRT project could begin in 2010. High-quality bus stops, improved pedestrian amenities and regular updates for Geary Bus Rapid Transit riders about when the next bus is coming Like Van Ness Avenue, Geary Boulevard improve the experience for riders. is a major transit thoroughfare in north- Though light rail provides better service ern San Francisco. Approximately 50,000 and a more pleasant trip for commuters, the riders use bus service along Geary every advantage of bus rapid transit service is that weekday, 40,000 riders use bus service it can be constructed more quickly and at on Saturdays, and 28,000 on Sundays.124

24 Connecting California Weekday auto trips total 30,000 to 60,000. runs from San Leandro north through Despite nearly equally heavy use by drivers downtown Oakland, to downtown Berke- and bus riders, the current layout of Geary ley and the UC Berkeley campus. Demand prioritizes vehicle use, with the result that overwhelms existing bus service. Though bus trips require twice as much time as Alameda-Contra Costa Transit uses its traveling the same distance by car.125 MTA largest buses, buses are so crowded that has proposed creating a BRT line along riders must stand, even during off-peak Geary to shorten travel times and improve times.134 High ridership slows boarding reliability while enhancing passengers’ and unloading, causing travel delays and experience and boosting the attractiveness undermining the reliability of service. of surrounding neighborhoods. These crowded conditions and unreliable MTA estimates that bus rapid transit service deter potential transit riders. could cut bus travel times by 25 to 44 per- Creating a bus rapid transit (BRT) line cent, depending on the bus that passengers would improve the speed, reliability and currently ride.126 Based on experience in comfort of travel by bus, and could begin other cities, BRT could boost reliability by service within several years. 25 to 50 percent.127 Combined, the two im- The current proposal for BRT through provements mean that transit riders should this corridor would place stations every experience greater predictability. quarter to half mile along the roughly 15- Planned improvements for the Geary mile route, allowing riders easy access to Boulevard corridor include upgrades to pe- and from neighborhoods and shops.135 Even destrian and cyclist access and safety which with so many stops, the BRT project should will benefit those commuters regardless of reduce travel times by as much as 36 per- whether they use the bus line.128 The Geary cent, and draw up to 76 percent more riders, BRT line will operate for the same hours while also improving conditions along the as the light rail system (5 a.m. to 1 a.m.).129 corridor for cyclists and pedestrians.136 Ultimately, improved bus service and re- The project has been in development lated amenities could increase ridership by since 1993, but with completion of a draft 5 percent to 25 percent.130 environmental review, AC Transit expects The project will cost $157 million to that construction could begin by 2012.137 $212 million to construct, but should have The project is projected to cost $250 mil- lower operating costs than the current lion and will be paid for with a mix of system. Reduced operating costs are due in regional, state and federal funds.138 part to the ability of a single BRT vehicle to move passengers more efficiently than Improve Connectivity can a conventional bus.131 Better transportation hubs and connec- Funding for the project includes $50 tions between the many transit providers million from local sales tax and potentially in the region would make it easier for pas- $75 million in federal funds.132 Assuming sengers to travel around the region—and MTA approves the project and additional beyond—without driving. funding is identified, construction on the Geary BRT service is not expected to begin Transbay Terminal until 2011 or 2012, with service beginning The proposed Transbay Terminal will soon thereafter.133 connect transit service provided by nine transit agencies in downtown San Fran- East Bay Bus Rapid Transit cisco.139 Currently, passengers cannot On the east side of the Bay, a key trans- easily transfer between these various bus portation corridor in need of improvement and train services because the terminals

Opportunities to Improve Transit 25 are too far apart. For example, the Caltrain In recent years, Caltrain has worked commuter rail line currently stops 1.3 to improve service—most notably with miles from the future Transbay Terminal the “baby bullet” express trains that serve location.140 limited stops between San Jose and San Improved connections among various Francisco, slicing travel times between the regional transit services are increasingly two cities to less than an hour, a 35 percent important. In San Francisco, for example, reduction from normal travel times.149 Bay 20 percent of workers commute to jobs out- Area residents have responded to the ser- side the city.141 That’s double the number vice changes, as well as higher gas prices, of residents who left the city for work in by boosting Caltrain ridership to record 1970. And by 2015, an additional 48,000 highs. Ridership on Caltrain increased by commuters will travel into or out of the 8.6 percent during the period July 2007 to city each day.142 June 2008 compared to the previous 12- The transit agencies that will use the month period.150 new Transbay Terminal reach into eight Caltrain currently operates diesel lo- counties in northern California.143 The comotives, which have several drawbacks. Transbay Terminal is being designed to They are louder and create more air pol- connect to a future high-speed rail sys- lution than electric trains.151 In addition, tem as well. Though initially 20 million their consumption of oil contributes to travelers will use the Transbay Terminal California’s dependence on petroleum and annually, it is being designed with adequate makes it difficult for Caltrain’s operators capacity to handle 45 million passengers to accurately budget for fuel costs. In the annually.144 12-month period ending in June 2008, In addition to making travel through- Caltrain budgeted $14.4 million for diesel out the San Francisco Bay area easier, fuel, up 31 percent from the previous year, the Transbay Terminal will also be at the though the agency was not confident that center of a new transit-oriented develop- was an adequate increase.152 ment with 3,400 new residences and more Most importantly, diesel locomotives than 1 million square feet of commercial, have important limitations when it comes retail and office space.145 Much of the new to providing speedy and reliable service. development will replace parking lots Diesel trains take longer to get up to speed that were created after the Loma Prieta than electric trains. That is not much of earthquake forced the tearing down of the a problem for commuter rail lines where Embarcadero Freeway.146 the stations are spread far apart. But the Construction on the bulk of the station stations along Caltrain’s route are densely will be complete in 2014, with the exten- packed—with 22 stations in the 49 miles sion of the Caltrain line ready in 2018.147 between downtown San Francisco and San Greater funding would allow for more rapid Jose’s Tamien station, an average of one completion of the extended Caltrain line. station every 2.2 miles.153 The total cost for the project is estimated Caltrain has proposed shifting from die- to be $4.2 billion, with funding provided sel to electric power along its rail line—a by local, state and federal sources.148 move that would require the installation of electric wires above the tracks, the pur- Caltrain Electrification chase of new locomotives, and upgrades Caltrain provides a critical transportation to other infrastructure. The cost of doing link between San Jose and San Francisco, as so would be approximately $1.5 billion.154 well as dozens of communities in between Electrification of the Caltrain corridor the two cities and south of San Jose. would be compatible with the needs of a

26 Connecting California statewide high-speed rail system.155 travel will be 59,000 miles lower than Because electric locomotives can start otherwise.160 and stop more quickly, Caltrain would be Electrification would benefit more than able to offer faster service. Electrification just people who ride the train: would carve eight minutes off the trip from Gilroy to San Francisco. Along the • A system operating on electricity length of the system, travel times would be would consume one-third the amount reduced by 3 to 12 percent.156 As a result of energy of one running with diesel- of the increased speed, Caltrain could also powered vehicles.161 This would help run more trains each hour, potentially as reduce California’s dependence on oil. many as 12 instead of the current five.157 Electric locomotives would also be able • Residents near the train tracks would to travel all the way into San Francisco, hear less noise from each train, an connecting to other transit services at the important consideration in light of planned Transbay Terminal.158 Caltrain’s planned service The increased speed of service would expansion.162 help to attract new riders. Whether or not the system is converted to operate on • Air pollution would also be reduced electricity, Caltrain intends to increase by the substitution of electricity for the number of daily trains, drawing more diesel. The increase in emissions from passengers. However, the agency projects power plants would be more than that with electrification, the system will offset by the reduction in diesel pollu- draw an additional 4,100 daily riders com- tion.163 This improvement is especially pared to the non-electrification option.159 beneficial in the most urbanized por- Correspondingly, daily vehicle-miles of tions of Caltrain’s corridor.

Upgrading Caltrain’s diesel locomotives to electric power will boost commuter train speed and cut travel time—while also reducing global warming and air pollution. Photo credit: Luc Tourn, under license from sxc.hu

Opportunities to Improve Transit 27 Once funding has been secured, con- with not quite 2.5 percent of those living in struction on the project could begin as tracts more than a half-mile away.167 soon as 2011, with electric service available With adequate increases in transit in- in 2015.164 frastructure and service and supportive land use changes, the percentage of trips Sacramento: Acting Now taken by transit (instead of driving or some to Meet Future Needs other mode) could triple or quadruple.168 The Sacramento region is already one of Transit expansions undertaken today are the fastest growing regions in the nation essential to serving the region’s growing and faces tremendous growth in the next population and to supporting the vision 25 years. The challenge for the region endorsed in the Blueprint Study. Two key is to meet the needs of future residents projects are an extension of light rail ser- without compromising the environmental vice from downtown through Natomas to and lifestyle qualities that have attracted the airport, and from Riverview Road to existing residents. Cosumnes River College. By 2050, 1.7 million more people are expected to move to the six-county Sacra- Light Rail Extension from mento region, a near doubling of popula- Downtown to the Airport tion. The region’s employers will add 1 The area between downtown and the air- million jobs.165 How these new residents port is projected to experience substantial are accommodated could reshape the growth and transportation demand. Traffic metropolitan area—for better or for worse. on I-5 is expected to double by 2025, and More than 5,000 current residents of the the number of passengers at the Sacra- Sacramento area have helped to articulate mento Airport is projected to increase by a vision for development and transporta- 60 percent by 2020.169 tion that, among other benefits, minimizes The Downtown/Natomas/Airport congestion and protects open space. (DNA) project will extend Sacramento’s Their vision, developed through the existing 37 mile light-rail system by 13 Sacramento Region Blueprint Trans- miles north and west from downtown to portation/Land Use Study, has received Sacramento International Airport.170 The approval from the general public, as planned route will provide travelers and measured through polling data and the Natomas residents an alternative to driving behavior of area residents. Public opinion on ever-more congested I-5. polling shows that residents want more In addition to providing service to the compact, mixed-use development where airport, the DNA project will connect walking and taking transit are viable op- North Natomas Town Center (where a tions.166 The behavior of area residents community college is planned for con- also demonstrates their desire for better struction), Arco Arena, several high transit services. schools and commercial centers with the Californians living in census tracts Sacramento Valley Station redevelopment within one-half mile of a subway, light of the Union Pacific rail yards.171 At Sac- rail or commuter rail stop in the state’s six ramento Valley Station, passengers will be largest urbanized areas are far more likely able to transfer easily to bus, intercity rail to take transit, walk or bike to work than and Amtrak service, and planned light rail those living farther away. In Sacramento, and commuter rail service.172 Total travel more than 6 percent of residents who live time from downtown to the airport once in census tracts within a half-mile of a the line is completed is expected to be 30 transit stop take transit to work, compared minutes.173

28 Connecting California The planned travel corridor is eco- nomically important: an estimated 32,000 jobs are located within half a mile of the DNA line.174 Furthermore, 21,500 people live within half a mile of the DNA line. This number will grow in coming years. Regional growth planners have already created plans for transit-oriented development—mixed use development that is designed for easy pedestrian access—along the route, particularly in the North Nato- mas area. Planners expect that the opening of the light rail line will support plans for compact development. Work on the first phase of the project may begin in 2012.175 The project will be funded with a mix of local, state and federal money, though the Sacramento Regional Transit District intends to begin the project without federal support.176 The timing of subsequent phases is contingent Expanding Sacramento’s light rail services will on adequate funding.177 improve connections between existing bus and rail transit options, as well as help spur smart Light Rail Extension from Mead- growth in surrounding areas. Photo credit: owview Road to Cosumnes River Under license from istockphoto.com College The South Sacramento Corridor is an- from severe congestion. other high-growth area that will require Light rail, rather than increased bus better transit service if development and service, is a sensible investment. As freeway travel patterns compatible with the vi- traffic conditions worsen, bus service will sion identified in the Blueprint Study are slow. Construction of a transit line with to be realized. Commuters in the South its own right of way would cut travel times Sacramento Corridor already have shown from Elk Grove to downtown Sacramento their eagerness for better transportation by as much as 30 minutes compared to bus alternatives: express bus service from Elk service in traffic.180 Grove to downtown Sacramento operates The Sacramento Regional Transit Dis- beyond capacity.178 trict is planning an extension of light rail By 2025, the number of households service from the end of the current line living in the South Sacramento Corridor at Meadowview Road to Cosumnes River is projected to increase by 85 percent and College—just part of the way to Elk Grove. the number of jobs will increase 145 per- The extension will add four miles of track cent.179 With a growing population and and four stations, and is projected to carry employment base will come greater traffic an additional 11,000 passengers a day by congestion on both I-5 and State Route 2030.181 The estimated cost of the light 99, the major north-south roads serving rail extension to Cosumnes River College Sacramento. SR 99 already carries more is $226 million, with half the cost borne vehicles than it was designed to carry. By by the federal government and the rest 2025, both freeways are expected to suffer covered by local and state funds.182

Opportunities to Improve Transit 29 Light rail service through the South on-street investments will reap rewards for Sacramento Corridor to Elk Grove has transit across the state. been included in official transporta- Providing better information to transit tion planning documents since the early riders and making transit easier to use 1980s.183 Though only a short segment of can also help to attract more passengers, light rail has been constructed south of without much increase in operating costs. Sacramento, the inclusion of light rail in On-line trip planning tools and auto- transportation plans means that right of matic cell phone alerts regarding transit way for a light rail line has been maintained delays—already in use by some transit in local land use plans. agencies—could be offered by more agen- Planning should begin immediately for cies, with greater coordination between extending light rail service all the way to different transit agencies for travelers Elk Grove. Better transportation options who need to use multiple services. Other are essential to improving mobility for resi- options for easing transit use for travelers dents of one of the fastest growing regions include equipping major transit stops with of California. electronic updates on delays and arrival times, standardizing fare cards to work Statewide Upgrades with multiple transit systems, equipping all buses with audio and visual announce- Update Existing Transit Service ments of upcoming stops, and coordinating Existing transit service can be made more schedules between transit lines. effective and attractive, often at relatively In addition to improving the reliability low cost. Transit that is more comfort- of transit, agencies can offer amenities able, convenient, reliable and efficient can that make the ride more comfortable or draw more riders and better serve existing attractive for riders. For example, offering riders. wireless Internet service on commuter rail Service improvements include improv- lines allows commuters to make the most ing on-time performance through opera- of their time on the train. At a more basic tions changes, purchasing buses with low level, clean vehicles and friendly operators floors that are easier and faster to board, can also improve riders’ experiences. and giving transit vehicles priority over Experience in San Francisco suggests other vehicles at intersections with stop- that large improvements can be had for lights. Some transit systems may need to relatively little cost if transit agencies consider revamping bus routes to ensure undertake a thorough review of service. that they most effectively serve major San Francisco’s Muni initiated its Transit population centers and destinations that Effectiveness Project in 2006 to review may have grown since bus routes were operation of the city’s entire transit system initially laid out. with the goal of making the system “faster, Transit priority treatments such as more reliable and more efficient.”184 The boarding platforms, coordinated signal- travel patterns and needs of San Francisco ization, and bus queue jumping lanes at residents and workers have changed sig- intersections, along with enforcement, nificantly since Muni created its current are simple ways to make on-street public network of bus lines in 1979.185 To address transportation more reliable and depend- the desire of riders for more reliable ser- able. San Francisco estimates a need of vice, Muni has pursued operations changes $200 million to implement transit priority to reduce bus break-downs, make more treatments for its trunk lines to ensure that drivers available, and reduce missed runs.186 efficiency upgrades can be realized. Similar Muni is investigating options for reducing

30 Connecting California travel times and thus operating costs (by Despite the significant improvements allowing fewer buses and drivers to serve to be gained through improved manage- more customers). Possibilities include a re- ment and operational changes, Muni has vised curb design that makes bus boarding concluded that it cannot achieve the level faster, replacing stop signs with stoplights of reliability and service that customers that give priority to transit vehicles and want without increased funding.188 While payment system changes. Finally, Muni using existing funding wisely is important, intends to revise its bus routes to provide efficiency improvements alone are not suf- greater resources to corridors where rider- ficient to achieve the 21st century transpor- ship demand is highest.187 tation system that California needs.

Opportunities to Improve Transit 31 From Vision to Reality: A 21st Century Transit System for California

alifornia must make sound invest- projects that the portion of the federal ments in public transportation if it highway trust fund that pays for highway hopes to remain competitive in the projects is projected to run out of money Cst 21 century—a time that looks increas- sometime during fiscal year 2009, with ingly likely to be one of unstable oil prices, the public transit portion of the account increased concern about global warming, scheduled to run out of money soon there- and continued congestion problems. Yet after.189 America’s aging transportation transit systems across the state are strug- network is increasingly in need of costly gling to find adequate funding to maintain repairs. Meanwhile, amid rising gasoline and improve transit service. prices, Americans are now experiencing Many levels of government and other the downside of the highway-centered institutions have a role to play in achieving investment policies of the last few decades, the goal of a 21st century transit system for which leave too many Americans with few California. transportation choices. In short, the status quo cannot continue. California officials should campaign for a new federal transportation funding law that makes a large investment in needed Federal Policy improvements to transit systems and in- The main federal transportation funding tercity rail, while focusing federal highway law—the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Effi- investment on the need to maintain and cient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy repair existing infrastructure. Federal for Users (SAFETEA-LU)—will sunset in money should be used in a targeted and the fall of 2009. Congress is being called strategic way to encourage transportation on to create a new transportation funding investments that minimize oil dependence, bill. It is possible that the coming federal congestion, environmental pollution and bill will be the most sweeping reform of sprawl, and encourage the development of federal transportation policy in nearly two compact, livable communities where driv- decades. The Congressional Budget Office ing is an option, not a requirement.

32 Connecting California Such a dramatic shift would benefit Cal- state lawmakers should restore funding for ifornia by providing additional resources transit services and expansion and refrain for needed transit projects. In addition to from raiding transit funds in coming years pushing for new federal transportation pri- to balance the state’s budget. orities, California should also work aggres- California should align other public sively through existing avenues, including policies with a 21st century vision for the recently passed American Recovery and transportation that is less dependent on Reinvestment Act of 2009, to obtain federal automobiles and can take full advantage of funding for transit infrastructure projects, improved public transit. The state should including high-speed passenger rail. require that all proposed transportation investments be evaluated for their impact on oil dependence and global warming pollution. State government buildings should State Policy be located, to the extent possible, in areas with accessible transit service. And the Voters have repeatedly approved increases state should encourage local governments in funding for transit. In 1990, voters to adopt land-use plans and zoning reforms passed Proposition 116, approving the that allow for and encourage compact de- sale of bonds for capital improvements in velopment in and around transit stations. transit and designating a portion of gas tax revenue to transit.190 In 2006, voters approved an additional $20 billion in funding to expand transit.191 In the 2008 election, voters statewide approved high-speed rail Conclusion and voters passed local funding measures California must prioritize investments in for public transit in Marin, Sonoma, Con- public transportation as it considers how tra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa to shape the state’s transportation network Barbara and Los Angeles counties. for the coming decades—years in which However, despite clear voter support for high gasoline prices, increased concern transit funding, the California state legis- about the environment and continuing lature has diverted $4.6 billion away from congestion all will argue for investment the Public Transportation Account (PTA) in clean, efficient transportation alterna- since 2000.192 As a result of the recently tives. The projects listed in this report passed 2008-2010 budget, which eliminates should be the first transit improvements state funding for transit operations, many and expansions that the state undertakes transit agencies are considering service in coming years. cuts, fare increases or both. California

From Vision to Reality 33 Notes

1 California Department of Transportation, Energy Data 2005: Prices and Expenditures, Table Factsheet: Important Events in Caltrans History, 5. Transportation Sector Energy Price and Expen- downloaded from www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/ diture Estimates, Selected Years, 1970-2005, Cali- about/cthist.htm, 2 October 2008. fornia, 29 February 2008. Price information was adjusted for inflation using data from Federal 2 Vehicle miles traveled estimates and pro- Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, jections obtained from Panama Bartholomy, Consumer Price downloaded from www.minneap- California Energy Commission, personal com- Index, 1913-, olisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/hist1913.cfm, munication, 9 January 2008. 23 May 2008. 3 Based on vehicle miles traveled estimates and 8 Ibid. projections obtained from Panama Bartholomy, California Energy Commission, personal com- 9 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Infor- munication, 9 January 2008, and population mation Administration, State Energy Data 2005: estimates from U.S. Census Bureau, Intercen- Prices and Expenditures, Table R2: Motor Gasoline sal Estimates, downloaded from www.census. Prices and Expenditures Ranked by State, 2005, 29 gov/popest/archives/2000s/vintage_2001/CO- February 2008. EST2001-12/CO-EST2001-12-06.html, 24 10 Consumption: See note 6. Expenditures: March 2008, and U.S. Census Bureau, Table 1: See note 7. Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 11 California Air Resources Board, Draft Cali- 2000 to July 1, 2007, 27 December 2007. fornia Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 19 November 2007. Figures do not include international ship- 4 David Schrank and Tim Lomax, Texas ping or interstate or international aviation. Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System, The 2007 Urban Mobility 12 California’s AB 32 emission reduction Report, September 2007. target requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt an official 1990 emission level that 5 Ibid. the state must reach by 2020. Because the 6 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Infor- ARB’s method of counting global warming mation Administration, State Energy Data 2005: pollution will be the official one used to judge Consumption, Table 11. Transportation Sector compliance with the law, we have attempted Energy Consumption Estimates, Selected Years, to use ARB’s definition of the California 1960-2005, California, 29 February 2008. transportation sector, which excludes most emissions from international shipping and all 7 Expenditures: U.S. Department of Energy, emissions from interstate and international Energy Information Administration, State

34 Connecting California air travel. California Air Resources Board, 27 State spending on highways in other cat- Draft California Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 19 egories, including administration, research and November 2007. planning, highway law enforcement and safety, 13 Ibid. and grants-in-aid to local governments, was excluded from the $4.6 billion total for state high- 14 Ibid. way spending. Transit capital and operating costs 15 Ibid. from U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2006, 16 Panama Bartholomy, California Energy Tables MT-1A and MT-1B, January 2008. Highway Commission, personal communication, 9 Janu- construction and maintenance costs from U.S. ary 2008. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 17 California Department of Finance, New Administration, Highway Statistics 2006, Table State Projections Show 25 Million More Califor- SF-2, January 2008. nians by 2050; Hispanics to Be State’s Majority 28 Congressional Budget Office,Effects of Ethnic Group by 2042 [press release], download- Gasoline Prices on Driving Behavior and Vehicle ed from www.dof.ca.gov/html/DEMOGRAP/ Markets, January 2008. ReportsPapers/Projections/P1/documents/P1_ Press_Release_7-07.pdf, 1 December 2008. 29 Adapted from Center for Transportation Excellence, 2008 Transit Ballot Measures: 2008 18 Vehicle miles traveled estimates and projec- November Ballot Measures, downloaded from tions: See note 2. Population projections from www.cfte.org/success/2008BallotMeasures. United States Census Bureau, Interim Projections asp on 4 March 2009. Ballot measure results of the Total Population of the United States and confirmed on ballot measure websites. Prop States, downloaded from www.census.gov/popu- 1A results confirmed by Office of California lation/projections/SummaryTabA1.pdf on 18 Secretary of State, Votes For and Against Novem- February 2008. ber 4, 2008, State Ballot Measures, [fact sheet] 19 See note 16. downloaded from www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ sov/2008_general/7_votes_for_against.pdf on 4 20 $2.47: 2005 California average, per U.S. March 2009. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Weekly Retail Gasoline and 30 California High Speed Rail Authority, Busi- Diesel Prices, updated 19 May 2008. $37 billion ness Plan 2008 Summary, November 2008. and $1,000 per person: U.S. Department of 31 California High Speed Rail Authority and Energy, Energy Information Administration, United States Department of Transportation, State Energy Data 2005: Prices and Expenditures, Final Program Environmental Impact Report/En- Table R2. Motor Gasoline Prices and Expenditures vironmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Ranked by State, 2005, 29 February 2008. California High-Speed Train System, August 21 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Infor- 2005. mation Administration, Weekly Retail Gasoline 32 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau and Diesel Prices, 19 May 2008. of Transportation Statistics, Airport Snapshots, 22 California Department of Transportation, downloaded from www.transtats.bts.gov/air- Historical Monthly Vehicle Miles of Travel, down- ports.asp?pn=1 on 3 March 2008. loaded from traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/monthly/ 33 Ibid. VMTHIST1.pdf, 25 March 2008. 34 Ryan N. Hall, San Diego County Regional 23 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Airport Authority, The San Diego Region’s Air Highway Administration, Traffic Volume Trends Transportation Future, 22 June 2006. series of reports, downloaded from www.fhwa. dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/tvtpage.htm, 9 March 2009. 35 See note 31. 24 See note 4. 36 Ibid. 25 Phineas Baxandall, Tony Dutzik and Joshua 37 See note 30. Hoen, U.S. PIRG Education Fund, A Better 38 Ibid. Way to Go: Meeting America’s 21st Century Trans- 39 Dan Leavitt, California High Speed Rail portation Challenges with Modern Public Transit, March 2008. Authority, personal communication, 20 March 2008. 26 Ibid. 40 U.S. Department of Transportation,

Notes 35 Federal Railroad Administration and California of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco and High Speed Rail Authority, Draft Bay Area to San Mateo counties, from U.S. Census Bureau, Central Valley High-Speed Train (HST) Program State and County Quick Facts, downloaded from Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html, 17 Octo- Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), Volume 1: Report, ber 2008. July 2007. 58 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Trans- 41 Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, SMART portation Authority, Metro Gold Line Eastside Travel in the 21st Century, White Paper No. 1, Extension: Overview, downloaded from www. February 2008. metro.net/projects_studies/eastside/default. 42 90 minutes: Sonoma-Marin Area Rail htm, 5 August 2008. Transit, Why Not Pave the Tracks? White Paper 59 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Trans- No. 4, February 2008. Every half hour: So- portation Authority, Metro Expo Line Fact Sheet, noma-Marin Area Rail Transit, Two-Way Train 2007. Operations, White Paper No. 13, August 2008. 60 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Trans- 43 See note 41. portation Authority, Westside Extension Alter- 44 Nine shuttles: Sonoma-Marin Area Rail natives Analysis (AA) Study: Initial Screening of , May Transit, Climate Change and SMART, White Alternatives, Community Update Meetings 2008. Paper No. 2, February 2008. Destinations: Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, Making the 61 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Trans- Transit Connection, White Paper No. 10, May portation Authority, Metro Rail System Map 2008. (with Planned Projects), downloaded from www. 45 See note 41. metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/rail_ map_future.pdf, 12 December 2008. 46 Ibid. 62 See note 60. 47 Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, Climate 63 Ibid. Change and SMART, White Paper No. 2, Febru- ary 2008. 64 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Trans- 48 Ibid. portation Authority, Regional Connector Transit Corridor Study, Factsheet: Study Background, no 49 Metro, Measure R - Frequently Asked Ques- date. tions, downloaded from www.metro.net/measurer/faqs.html, 5 November 2008. 65 See note 50. 50 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Trans- 66 Ibid. portation Authority, 2008 Long Range Transpor- 67 Ibid. tation Plan, Draft. 68 Ibid. 51 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 70 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Trans- 53 Ibid. portation Authority, Measure R: Proposed Rail 54 Daily figures of 1.6 million miles of driving and Rapid Transit Expansion, downloaded from and 725 metric tons of global warming pollu- www.metro.net/measurer/images/proposed_ tion converted to annual figures. Data from Los rail.pdf on 29 January 2009. Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation 71 Steve Schmidt, “It’s Been a Very Good Authority, 2008 Long Range Transportation Plan, Ride,” San Diego Union-Tribune, 14 August Draft, 2008. Available at www.metro.net/proj- 2008. ects_studies/images/2008_draft_lrtp.pdf. 72 Ridership: American Public Transportation 55 See note 49. Association, Light Rail Transit Ridership Report: 56 See note 50. Second Quarter 2008, 3 September 2008. Gas savings: see note 25. 57 4,060: U.S. Census Bureau, State and County 73 Odyssey, [factsheet], Quick Facts, downloaded from quickfacts.cen- Keep California Moving! sus.gov/qfd/index.html, 17 October 2008. 104 downloaded from www.odyssey.org, 1 Decem- ber 2008. miles: Bay-Area Rapid Transit, System Facts, downloaded from www.bart.gov/about/history/ 74 American Public Transportation Associa- facts.aspx, 17 October 2008. 1,951: The area tion, Light Rail Transit Ridership Report: Second

36 Connecting California Quarter 2008, 3 September 2008. 87 Sherry Saavedra, “Changing Wasys of 75 San Diego Association of Governments, Commuters: Colleges Use Rewards to Entice Students, Staff to Go Green,” Pathways for the Future: 2030 San Diego Regional San Diego Union , 31 October 2008. Transportation Plan: Final, 30 November 2007. Tribune 76 San Diego Association of Governments, 88 U.S Department of Transportation, Project State Freeways – Caltrans, Average Weekday Development: Mid-City Rapid, San Diego, Califor- , downloaded from www.fta.dot.gov/docu- Traffic Volumes, downloaded from www.sandag. nia org/resources/demographics_and_other_data/ ments/CA_San_Diego_Mid-City_Rapid_Bus. transportation/adtv/freeway_adt.pdf, 16 Sep- doc, 17 November 2008. tember 2008. 89 Ibid. 77 San Diego Association of Governments, 90 San Diego Association of Governments, Mid-Coast Trolley, downloaded from www. Escondido Rapid Bus (fact sheet), July 2008. sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=300&fuseaction 91 San Diego Association of Governments, =projects.detail, 16 September 2008. “South Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project Receives 78 University of California-San Diego, Total Funding,” rEgion, SANDAG’s Electronic News- Campus Enrollment, downloaded from studen- letter, July 2004. tresearch.ucsd.edu/sriweb/enroll/total.pdf, 16 92 San Diego Association of Governments, September 2008. South Bay Bus Rapid Transit, downloaded from 79 Ross DeVol and Armen Bedroussian, www.sandag.cog.ca.us/index.asp?projectid=2 Milken Institute, Mind to Market: A Global 97&fuseaction=projects.detail, 14 November Analysis of University Biotechnology Transfer and 2008. Commercialization, September 2006. 93 City of Anaheim, The Platinum Triangle: 80 Ivor Royston, Forward Ventures, San Diego Master Land Use Plan, April 2008. [Power- Biotechnology Cluster: Lessons Learned 94 Ibid. Point presentation], 20 April 2007. 95 Orange County Transportation Authority, 81 Westfield, The New UTC: It’s More than Building a Gateway to the Future: Anaheim Re- Shopping, downloaded from westfield.com/the- gional Transportation Intermodal Center, down- newutc/vision/plan/overview.html, 16 Septem- loaded from www.octa.net/pdf/ARTIC_bro- ber 2008. chure.pdf, 1 October 2008. 82 U.S. Green Building Council, LEED for 96 Orange County Transportation Authority, Neighborhood Development Registered Pilot Project 2006 Long-Range Transportation Plan, 24 July , 26 August 2008. List 2006. 83 U.S. Green Building Council, LEED 97 See note 95. for Neighborhood Development, downloaded from www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage. 98 Orange County Transportation Author- aspx?CMSPageID=148&, 16 September 2008. ity, Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center: Transit and Parking Facility Description 84 Based on U.S. Department of Transporta- Report, 22 October 2007. tion, Federal Transit Administration, Mid-Coast LRT Extension: San Diego, California, November 99 See note 95. 2004; Conversion of energy savings to gaso- 100 Ibid. line gallons based on 114,000 BTU per gallon gasoline from U.S. Environmental Protection 101 See note 96. Agency, Fuel Economy Impact Analysis of RFG, 102 See note 98. downloaded from www.epa.gov/oms/rfgecon. 103 See note 95. htm, 16 September 2008. 104 U.S. Census Bureau, State and County 85 San Diego Association of Governments, QuickFacts, downloaded from quickfacts.census. et al., Keep San Diego Moving: TransNet: About, gov/qfd/index.html, 20 October 2008. downloaded from keepsandiegomoving.com/ transnet-about.html, 16 September 2008. 105 Riverside County Transportation Com- mission, Perris Valley Line, Draft Environmental 86 San Diego Association of Governments and Assessment Section 4(f) Evaluation, July 2004. Caltrans, TransNet Dashboard: Mid-Coast LRT, Cash Flow, downloaded from www.transnettrip. 106 Ibid. com/Cashflow.aspx, 16 September 2008.

Notes 37 107 Riverside County Transportation Com- 130 See note 124. mission, Perris Valley Line (factsheet), no date. 131 Ibid. 108 See note 4. 132 See note 127. 109 Riverside Transit Agency, Riverside Transit 133 Ibid. Agency System Map, downloaded from www. riversidetransit.com, 8 August 2008. 134 Cambridge Systematics, for Alameda-Con- tra Costa Transit District, AC Transit Berkeley/ 110 Riverside County Transportation Com- Oakland/San Leandro Corridor MIS, Final Report mission, (factsheet), no date. Perris Valley Line Volume I: Study Background, 9 September 2002. 111 Ibid. 135 U.S. Department of Transportation/Fed- 112 Riverside County Transportation Com- eral Transit Administration and Alameda-Con- mission, Q&A Perris Valley Line, May 2008. tra Costa Transit District, AC Transit East Bay 113 Ibid. Bus Rapid Transit Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, 114 “named after a railroad engineer”: City of May 2007. Perris, About Perris: History, downloaded from www.cityofperris.org/about/history.html, 17 136 Ibid. October 2008. 137 AC Transit, Coming Soon: A New Transit 115 See note 105. System for the East Bay (fact sheet), downloaded from www.actforme.org/_pdf/AC_Brochure. 116 See note 110. pdf, 5 November 2008. 117 National Transportation Database, Top 138 Rachel Gordon, “AC Transit’s Plan to Run Transit Cities, downloaded from www.ntdpro- Buses Like Trains,” San Franicsco Chronicle, 18 gram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm, 6 November April 2008. 2008. 139 Transbay Joint Powers Authority, Transbay 118 AC Transit, About Us, downloaded from Transit Center Connectivity, downloaded from www.actransit.org/aboutac/factsandfigures.wu, www.transbaycenter.org, 1 August 2008. 31 July 2008. 140 Ibid. 119 Caltrain, Caltrain Facilities and Statistics, downloaded from www.caltrain.com/caltrain_ 141 San Francisco Municipal Transportation statistics.html, 31 July 2008. Agency, Office of the Comptroller, Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP), Draft Proposals to 120 San Francisco County Transportation Au- Transform Muni, March 2008. thority, Van Ness Avenue BRT Project EIR/EIS 142 Transbay Joint Powers Authority, Public Scoping Meeting [PowerPoint presenta- Transbay tion], 4 October 2007. Transit Center Regional Benefits, downloaded from www.transbaycenter.org, 1 August 2008. 121 Ibid. 143 Ibid. 122 San Francisco County Transportation 144 Ibid. Authority, Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project, February 2008 update. 145 Ibid. 123 Ibid. 146 Ibid. 124 San Francisco County Transportation Au- 147 Ibid. thority, Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 148 Ibid. Study, 18 July 2007. 149 Caltrain, Caltrain Timetable Effective March 125 Ibid. 3, 2008, downloaded from www.caltrain.com/ 126 Ibid. timetable.html, 1 October 2008. 127 San Francisco County Transportation Au- 150 Caltrain, Caltrain Hits Record Ridership and thority, Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit—FAQ, Revenue for 2008 [press release], 4 August 2008. downloaded from www.sfcta.org/content/ 151 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, view/40/143/, 31 July 2008. Caltrain Electrification Program, Environmental 128 Ibid. Assessment/Draft Environment Impact Report, 129 Ibid. April 2004.

38 Connecting California 152 Rachel Gordon, “Higher Fares Consid- District, Regional Transit Issue Paper, Revised, ered to Cover Fuel Cost; Caltrain: Rail Line Selecting Truxel Road Light Rail Transit as the Officials Say Record Ridership, Revenue Not Locally Preferred Alternative for the Downtown/ Enough,” San Francisco Chronicle, 28 August Natomas/Airport (DNA) Corridor, 15 December 2008. 2003. Airport volume: Sacramento Regional 153 22 stations with regular weekday service: Transit District, Downtown Natomas Airport , August 2007. Caltrain, System Map, downloaded from www. Fact Sheet caltrain.com/caltrain_map.html, 1 October 170 37 mile: Sacramento Regional Transit 2008. 49 miles: Caltrain, Signal a “Go” for District, RT at a Glance: System Profile, down- Caltrain Thanks to CTX Construction Proj- loaded from www.sacrt.com/rtataglance.stm, 31 ect, downloaded from www.caltrain.com/ July 2008. news_2003_ctx_construction_project.html, 1 171 Sacramento Regional Transit District, October 2008. Regional Transit Issue Paper, Revised, Select- 154 Shaun Bishop, “Caltrain Electrification ing Truxel Road Light Rail Transit as the Locally Welcomed, Except for $1.5 Billion Price Tag,” Preferred Alternative for the Downtown/Natomas/ San Jose Mercury News, 4 September 2008. Airport (DNA) Corridor, 15 December 2003. 155 See note 151. 172 Ibid. 156 Ibid. 173 Ibid. 157 See note 154. 174 Ibid. 158 Edward Carpenter, “Higher Fuel Costs 175 Sacramento Regional Transit District, Lend Urgency to Caltrain Electrification Plan,” Downtown Natomas Airport Fact Sheet, August Examiner, 19 June 2006. 2007. 159 See note 151. 176 Sacramento Regional Transit District, 160 Ibid. Downtown-Natomas-Airport: Project Overview— Project Funding Process, downloaded from www. 161 Ibid. dnart.org/project_overview/project_funding. 162 Ibid. asp, 20 June 2008. 163 Ibid. 177 Future funding: see note 176. 164 See note 154. 178 Sacramento Regional Transit, South Sac- ramento Corridor Phase 2 Project, Supplemental 165 Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Subse- Sacramento Region Blueprint Transportation/Land quent Draft Environmental Impact Report, Janu- Use Study: The Need, downloaded from www. ary 2007. sacregionblueprint.org/sacregionblueprint/the_ need/narrative.cfm, 20 October 2008. 179 Ibid. 166 Ibid. 180 Ibid. 167 Data on transit ridership for commut- 181 11,000: Sacramento Regional Transit, ing based on U.S. Census Bureau data by South Sacramento Corridor Phase 2 Project (fact- tract contained in U.S. Department of Trans- sheet), 22 December 2006. portation, Census Transportation Planning 182 Sacramento Regional Transit, South Sac- Package, Part 1, downloaded from www. ramento Corridor Phase 2 Project, Supplemental transtats.bts.gov/DL_SelectFields.asp?Table_ Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Subse- ID=1338&DB_Short_Name=CTPP%202000, quent Draft Environmental Impact Report, Janu- 11 January 2008. Proximity to transit stations ary 2007. based on geospatial data from U.S. Department of Transportation, National Transportation 183 Ibid. Atlas Database. 184 San Francisco Municipal Transportation 168 Triple: see note 165. Quadruple: Sac- Agency, About the Transit Effectiveness Project , downloaded from www.sfmta.com/cms/ ramento Regional Transit District, Regional (TEP) mtep/tepabout.htm, 31 July 2008. Transit Master Plan, Background Information: The Big Picture Challenge, downloaded from visuals. 185 Ibid. sdgworld.net/sacro/Default.aspx, 20 June 2008. 186 San Francisco Municipal Transportation 169 I-5 traffic: Sacramento Regional Transit Agency, Office of the Comptroller, Transit

Notes 39 Effectiveness Project (TEP), Draft Proposals to The U.S. House Committee On Appropriations, 16 Transform Muni, March 2008. April 2008. 187 Ibid. 190 Melanie Turner, “Transit Advocates File 188 Ibid. Suit Over $1.3 Billion in Diverted Funds,” Sac- ramento Business Journal, 14 December 2007. 189 William W. Millar, American Public Trans- portation Association, On Public Transportation 191 Sacramento Business Journal, “State Hits Funding for Fiscal Year 2009: Testimony Before Legal Pothole” [editorial], , 14 December 2007. the Subcommittee On Transportation And Housing 192 Sacramento Bee, “Transit cuts will hurt rid- And Urban Development, And Related Agencies Of ers, air” [editorial], 7 February 2009.

40 Connecting California