DOCSLIB.ORG

PROPOSED BUDGET FY 2020-2021 We Encourage You to Download the Electronic Copy of This Book Which Is Available to All on Our Website

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PROPOSED BUDGET FY 2020-2021 We Encourage You to Download the Electronic Copy of This Book Which Is Available to All on Our Website GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT PROPOSED BUDGET FY 2020-2021 We encourage you to download the electronic copy of this book which is available to all on our website: www.goldengate.org. All images, unless otherwise noted, are from the holdings of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District. Images may not be used without permission from the GGBHTD. GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 20/21 PROPOSED BUDGET Denis J. Mulligan, General Manager Prepared by the Finance Office: Joseph M. Wire, Auditor‐Controller Jennifer H. Mennucci, Director of Budget & Electronic Revenue Amy E. Frye, Director of Capital and Grant Programs Lehnee D. Salazar, Principal Budget and Program Analyst Daniel Gomez, Budget and Program Analyst Jacob L. Brown, Capital & Grant Programs Analyst Mydria Clark, Editor Special thanks to the District Officers, the Deputy General Managers, and their respective staff Table of Contents The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented a Distinguished Budget Presentation award to the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019. In order to receive this award, a government unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, an operations guide, a financial plan and a communications device. This award is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current budget continues to conform to program requirements and we are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for another award. Page 2 Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District All references to page numbers and appendices are linked throughout the document. Table of Contents GENERAL MANAGER’S MESSAGE General Manager’s Message ................................................................................................ 7 District Organizational Chart .............................................................................................. 9 Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District Profile .................................................. 10 COVID IMPACTS COVID-19: District Overview and Status ............................................................................. 13 COVID-19: Bridge Division Overview and Status .................................................................... 15 COVID-19: Transit Overview and Status .............................................................................. 19 Financial Impact of COVID-19 on the FY 20/21 Proposed Budget ............................................... 29 BUDGET OVERVIEW FY 20/21 Proposed Budget Overview .................................................................................. 33 Transit System Funding .................................................................................................... 37 District Financial Situation ................................................................................................ 38 Budget Planning and Development Process ............................................................................ 47 FY 20/21 Proposed Budget Policies ..................................................................................... 50 OPERATING & CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY Operating Budget Summary .............................................................................................. 55 Operating Revenues ........................................................................................................ 56 Operating Expenses ........................................................................................................ 59 Capital Program Summary ................................................................................................ 68 BRIDGE DIVISION Bridge Division Profile ..................................................................................................... 75 Bridge Division Organizational Chart ................................................................................... 76 Bridge Division Status ...................................................................................................... 77 FY 20/21 Bridge Division Goals And Projects ........................................................................ 79 Changes from FY 19/20 Estimated Actual to FY 20/21 Proposed Budget ....................................... 80 Bridge Division Operating Budget ....................................................................................... 82 Bridge Division Capital Budget ........................................................................................... 84 Bridge Division Personnel Summary by Department ................................................................. 89 BUS DIVISION Bus Division Profile ......................................................................................................... 93 Bus Division Organizational Chart ....................................................................................... 94 Bus Division Status .......................................................................................................... 95 Proposed Budget FY 2020 – 2021 Page 3 Table of Contents FY 20/21 Bus Division Goals and Projects ............................................................................. 98 Changes from FY 19/20 Estimated Actual to FY 20/21 Proposed Budget ....................................... 99 Bus Division Operating Budget ......................................................................................... 101 Bus Division Capital Budget ............................................................................................. 103 Bus Division Personnel Summary by Department .................................................................. 108 FERRY DIVISION Ferry Division Profile .................................................................................................... 113 Ferry Division Organizational Chart .................................................................................. 114 Ferry Division Status ..................................................................................................... 115 FY 20/21 Ferry Division Goals and Projects......................................................................... 117 Changes from FY 19/20 Estimated Actual to FY 20/21 Proposed Budget ..................................... 118 Ferry Division Operating Budget ...................................................................................... 120 Ferry Division Capital Budget .......................................................................................... 122 Ferry Division Personnel Summary by Department ................................................................ 127 DISTRICT DIVISION District Division Profile and Status .................................................................................... 131 FY 20/21 District Division Goals and Projects ...................................................................... 140 Changes from FY 19/20 Estimated Actual to FY 20/21 Proposed Budget ..................................... 141 District Division Operating Budget .................................................................................... 143 District Division Capital Budget ........................................................................................ 144 District Division Personnel Summary by Department ............................................................. 151 APPENDICES Appendix A - Net Position Available for New Capital Projects or Operations ................................ 157 Appendix B - Commercial Paper Budgeting Covenant Certificate of the District ............................. 161 Appendix C - FY 19/20 Capital Program Accomplishments ..................................................... 165 Appendix D - 10-Year Capital Requirements ........................................................................ 173 Appendix E - Financial Plan ............................................................................................. 185 Appendix F - Five- and Ten-Year Financial Projection ............................................................. 205 We encourage you to download the electronic copy of this book which is available to all on our website: www.goldengate.org. All images, unless otherwise noted, are from the holdings of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District. Images may not be used without permission from the GGBHTD. Page 4 Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District General Manager’s Message General Manager’s Message ................................................................................................ 7 District Organizational Chart .............................................................................................. 9 Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District Profile .................................................. 10 Proposed Budget FY 2020 – 2021 Page 5 General Manager’s Message Page 6 Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District General Manager’s Message GENERAL MANAGER’S MESSAGE When the District started its budget preparation process, we had not yet heard of the Novel Coronavirus, COVID-19. Subsequently, the Bay Area’s heated economy has come to a screeching halt. With the advent of Shelter-in-Place Orders people stopped traveling in the Golden Gate Corridor. Traffic levels on the Bridge and ridership
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Third Crossing
    The Third Crossing A Megaproject in a Megaregion www.thirdcrossing.org Final Report, February 2017 Transportation Planning Studio Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of City and Regional Planning (DCRP) at the College of Environmental Design (CED) at UC Berkeley, the University of California Transportation Center and Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS), UC Berkeley for support. A special thanks also goes to the helpful feedback from studio instructor Karen Trapenberg Frick and UC Berkeley faculty and researchers including Jesus Barajas and Jason Corburn. We also acknowledge the tremendous support and insights from colleagues at numerous public agencies and non-profit organizations throughout California. A very special thanks goes to David Ory, Michael Reilly, and Fletcher Foti of MTC for their gracious support in running regional travel and land use models, and to Professor Paul Waddell and Sam Blanchard of UrbanSim, Inc. for lending their resources and expertise in land use modeling. We also thank our classmates Joseph Poirier and Lee Reis; as well as David Eifler, Teresa Caldeira, Jennifer Wolch, Robert Cervero, Elizabeth Deakin, Malla Hadley, Leslie Huang and other colleagues at CED; and, Alexandre Bayen, Laura Melendy and Jeanne Marie Acceturo of ITS Berkeley. About Us We are a team of 15 graduate students in City Planning, Transportation Engineering, and Public Health. This project aims to facilitate a conversation about the future of transportation between the East Bay and San Francisco and in the larger Northern California megaregion. We are part of the Department of City and Regional Planning in the UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design, with support from the University of California Transportation Center and The Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment C: Index of Transformative Projects & Strategies Submitted Project Names May Have Been Updated Slightly Since Submission
    METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS PROJECT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT Attachment C: Index of Transformative Projects & Strategies Submitted Project names may have been updated slightly since submission. Incomplete submissions were omitted from this list. Not all projects shown met the criteria for the Transformative Projects competition. Transformative Projects Aerial Tram Lines (San Francisco to North Bay and East Bay) Air Shuttle Network (Livermore to Central Valley) BART First/Last Mile Gondola Services Drone Delivery Network Dumbarton Gondola Line Electric Vertical Take Off and Landing Aircraft and Ports Flying Car Transit Network Mountain View International Airport Aerial Oakland/Alameda Gondola Network Regional Helicopter Network Automated Bus and Rail Service + Frequency Increase Autonomous TNC Service in Urban Areas AV Shuttle Circulators AV Shuttle System AV Shuttle System for BART Station Areas Autonomous Benicia Autonomous Bus Network Technologies Contra Costa Autonomous Shuttle Program I-80 Corridor Overhaul Mountain View AV Shuttle System AV Shuttles at Rockridge and 12th St BART Stations BART Evening Frequency Increase BART Extension from Civic Center to Ocean Beach BART Extension from E. Santa Clara to Eastridge Transit Center BART Extension from Santa Clara to Tasman Drive BART Extension from Hayward to Millbrae BART Extension from Millbrae to San Jose (x4) BART Extension from Millbrae to Santa Clara BART Extension from Milpitas to Martinez (via I-680) BART Extension from Milpitas to
    [Show full text]
  • A Strategy to Improve Public Transit with an Environmentally Friendly Ferry System
    A Strategy to Improve Public Transit with an Environmentally Friendly Ferry System Final Implementation & Operations Plan July 2003 San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority Dear Governor Davis and Members of the California Legislature: After two years of work, the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Finally, as the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) Authority (WTA) is delivering an Implementation and Operations details, this system is environmentally responsible. Plan. It is a viable strategy to improve Bay Area public transit with an environmentally friendly ferry system. It is a well- From beginning to end, this plan is built on solid, conservative thought-out plan calling for a sensible transportation investment. technical data and financial assumptions. If the State of California It shows how the existing and new individual ferry routes can adopts this plan and it is funded, we can begin making expanded form a well-integrated water-transit system that provides good water transit a reality. connections to other transit. The current economy makes it tough to find funds for new When you enacted Senate Bill 428 in October 1999, the WTA programs, even those as worthy as expanded Bay Area water was formed and empowered to create a plan for new and expanded transit. The Authority understands the economic challenges it water transit services and related ground transportation faces and is already working hard to overcome that hurdle. terminal access services. It was further mandated that the Today, the Authority’s future is unclear, pending your consideration. Authority must study ridership demand, cost-effectiveness But the prospects for expanded Bay Area water transit — and and expanded water transit’s environmental impact.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Downtown San Francisco Expanding Downtown’S Capacity for Transit-Oriented Jobs
    THE FUTURE OF DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO EXPANDING DOWNTOWN’S CAPACITY FOR TRANSIT-ORIENTED JOBS SPUR REPORT Adopted by the SPUR Board of Directors on January 21, 2009 Released March 2009 The primary author of this report were Egon Terplan, Ellen Lou, Anthony Bruzzone, James Rogers, Brian Stokle, Jeff Tumlin and George Williams with assistance from Frank Fudem, Val Menotti, Michael Powell, Libby Seifel, Chi-Hsin Shao, John Sugrue and Jessica Zenk SPUR 654 Mission St., San Francisco, California 94105 www.spur.org SPUR | March 2009 INDEX Introduction ________________________________________________________________________ 3 I. The Problem: Regional job sprawl and the decline of transit-served central business districts _ 6 II. The Solution: The best environmental and economic response for the region is to expand our dynamic, transit-served central business districts _______________________________________ 16 III. The Constraints: We are running out of capacity in downtown San Francisco to accommodate much new employment growth _______________________________________________________ 20 The Zoning Constraint: Downtown San Francisco is running out of zoned space for jobs. 20 The Transportation Constraint: Our regional transportation system — roads and trains — is nearing capacity at key points in our downtown. 29 IV. Recommendations: How to create the downtown of the future __________________________ 39 Land use and zoning recommendations 39 Transportation policy recommendations: Transit, bicycling and roadways 49 Conclusion _______________________________________________________________________ 66 The Future of Downtown San Francisco 2 INTRODUCTION Since 1990, Bay Area residents have been driving nearly 50 million more miles each day. Regionally, transit ridership to work fell from a high of 11.4 percent in 1980 to around 9.4 percent in 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council
    Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council: This is the report for the week ending January 18th, 2019. 1. Meeting Notes The next City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, nd January 22 . Closed Session begins at 5:30 PM, and the Regular Meeting of the Richmond City Council will begin at 6:30 PM. The agenda may be found by clicking this link: January 22nd City Council Agenda. 2. Upcoming Events MLK National Day of Service at Parchester Garden 1 Join us at the garden at Parchester Park (900 Williams Drive, Richmond, CA) from 10:00 AM - 2:00 PM on Monday, January 21, 2019! The Parchester Village Children's Edible Garden was created by Richmond Love Your Block mini-grant recipients Patricia Duncan Hall and Raynard Lozano. Established in 2016, the garden provides residents with fresh vegetables each year, including peppers, squash, and several varieties of tomatoes. The community has since decided to dedicate the garden to late community activist Mary "Peace" Head, who was a World War II Rosie and known to many as "Mayor of Parchester". In preparation for the garden dedication, Parchester Neighborhood Council, the Office of Mayor Tom Butt, Richmond Love Your Block, Richmond Tool Library, and #Parchester residents are hosting a #communitygarden work day. We will be adding new soil to the planter boxes, planting seeds and/or seedlings, removing weeds, and spreading mulch. Tools, supplies, and refreshments will be provided for volunteers. For more information, e-mail [email protected]. Volunteer Opportunities in Richmond on January 21st – Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Seismic Retrofit: Milestones in Decision-Making, Financing, and Construction
    Timeline of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Seismic Retrofit: Milestones in Decision-Making, Financing, and Construction By Daniel Pollak IBSN 1-58703-197-3 TIMELINE OF THE SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND BAY BRIDGE SEISMIC RETROFIT This annotated timeline on the history of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge was requested by Assemblymember Wilma Chan in her capacity as Chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. In August 2004, the Committee requested that the California State Auditor perform an audit of the implementation of the California Department of Transportation’s Toll Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program. The following chronology begins in 1929, but emphasizes the period from 1989 to the present, beginning with the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 1989. That earthquake revealed the seismic vulnerability of the Bay Bridge. This timeline focuses on the efforts to seismically retrofit the Bay Bridge, especially the project to rebuild its eastern span (the portion running from Oakland to Yerba Buena Island). 1 9 2 9 October 1929 President Hoover appoints commission to investigate bridge feasibility. President Herbert Hoover and California Governor C. C. Young appoint the Hoover- Young San Francisco Bay Bridge Commission, to investigate the feasibility of constructing a San Francisco-Oakland bridge.1 1 9 3 0 August 1930 Bridge Commission reports that bridge is feasible and necessary. The Hoover-Young Commission concludes that construction of the bridge is both feasible and necessary to the development of the region.2 1 9 3 3 July 9, 1933 Construction begins. The California Department of Public Works begins construction of the San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge, the world’s longest steel structure.3 California Research Bureau, California State Library 1 1 9 3 6 November 12, 1936 The Bay Bridge opens.
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Area Rapid Transit System the American Society of Mechanical Engineers International HISTORIC MECHANICAL ENGINEERING LANDMARK 1972 BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT
    National Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit System The American Society of Mechanical Engineers International HISTORIC MECHANICAL ENGINEERING LANDMARK 1972 BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT BART HAS BEEN THE PROTOTYPE FOR MOST MODERN RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEMS. THE INTEGRATION OF MANY NEW ENGINEERED COMPONENTS INTO A UNIFIED SYSTEM WAS A KEY TO ITS SUCCESS. THE FIRST BART CARS INTRODUCED EXTRUDED ALUMINUM CAR BODY SECTIONS, 70 FEET LONG, AND A NEW GENERATION OF TRANSIT-CAR TRUCKS. INNO- VATIVE VENTILATION AND FIRE-CONTROL SYSTEMS MADE THE 3.6 MILE TRANSBAY TUBE PRACTICAL. ASME International (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) 1997 1997 NL 116 From the Front Line he San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District is proud to be recognized by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) International as a Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark. To receive recognition from such an esteemed group of engineering professionals is indeed an honor, and it seems par- Tticularly fitting that it comes as BART observes its 25th anniversary of revenue service. This document outlines many of the specific engineering innovations that were pioneered by BART and were considered by ASME’s History and Heritage Committee in its deliberations. Mechanical engineering played and continues to play a major role in the viability of BART as a transportation provider. We have attempted to put BART and these Thomas E. Margro innovations in a historical context and to illustrate the importance of a fully integrated system to meet the complex transportation needs of a General Manager growing region. Above all, we have attempted to underscore the signifi- cance of the era in which BART began — the mid-1960’s — when the world, and America in particular, was on the eve of a veritable techno- logical revolution.
    [Show full text]
  • RICHMOND FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
    RICHMOND FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Prepared for WETA San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority Pier 9, Suite 111 The Embarcadero San Francisco, CA 94111 Prepared by Atkins 322 Pine Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 May 2014 Draft Contents May 2014 Contents SECTION 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 I. Purpose of this Document........................................................................................ 1 II. Purpose and Need of the Project ............................................................................ 1 III. Project Background ................................................................................................... 3 IV. Scope of this Document ........................................................................................... 4 V. Impact Terminology .................................................................................................. 7 VI. Organization of this Document ............................................................................... 8 VII. Summary of Environmental Impacts ...................................................................... 8 SECTION 2. Project Description ............................................................................................ 17 I. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 17 II. Project
    [Show full text]
  • 50 Years of Spur 100 Years of Building a Better City
    Issue 482 Agents of Change p5 Summer programming p26 Ironies of history p32 Planning in pieces p35 City of plans p45 Your turn! The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association is 6|7.09 a member-supported nonprofit organization. Our mission is to promote good planning and good government through research, education and advocacy. Write to us at [email protected] SPUR Urbanist AGENTS OF CHANGE: AGENTS Published monthly by San Francisco SPUR Staff Events Manager Volunteer and Planning & Urban Kelly Hardesty x120 Intern Team Leader Research Association Still time to get SPUR main number [email protected] Jordan Salinger x136 415.781.8726 [email protected] on the boat! Deputy Director Membership Manager Sarah Karlinsky x129 Development Vickie Bell x121 [email protected] Associate [email protected] Rachel Seltzer x116 Public Engagement [email protected] 11th Annual Bay Accountant Director Terri Chang x128 Julie Kim x112 Transportation THE CITY BUILDERS Discovery Cruise [email protected] [email protected] Policy Director Dave Snyder x135 Citizen Planning Development Director [email protected] C M onday June 8, 2009 Institute Director Amie Latterman x115 IVI THE PROGRESSIVES & CLASSICISTS Jim Chappell x125 [email protected] Capital Campaign C [email protected] Manager ID Event Assistant Sarah Sykes x123 Join us for dinner, dancing Publications Assistant Nikki Lazarus x119 [email protected] EA Mary Davis x126 [email protected] and to see the latest in [email protected] Sustainable Develop- LI Administrative Director ment Policy Director S 50 Bay Bridge construction! Urban Center Director Lawrence Li x134 Laura Tam x137 M Diane Filippi x110 [email protected] [email protected] THE REGIONALISTS AN YEARS [email protected] Executive Director Regional Planning Go to spur.org/baycruise for D Executive Assistant/ Gabriel Metcalf x113 Director OF SPUR tickets and information.
    [Show full text]
  • January 24, 2019 MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
    January 24, 2019 MINUTES OF THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE/ COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Honorable Board of Directors Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District Honorable Members: A meeting of the Transportation Committee/Committee of the Whole (Committee) of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (District) was held in the Board Room, Administration Building, Golden Gate Bridge Toll Plaza, San Francisco, CA, on Thursday, January 24, 2019, at 9:07 a.m., Chair Sobel presiding. (1) Call to Order: 9:07 a.m. (2) Roll Call: Secretary of the District Amorette M. Ko-Wong. Committee Members Present (8): Chair Sobel; Vice Chair Arnold; Directors Fredericks, Hill, Pahre, Rabbitt, and Sears; President Hernández (Ex Officio). Committee Members Absent (0): None. Other Directors Present (6): Directors Belforte, Cochran, Grosboll, Mastin, Moylan and Theriault. Committee of the Whole Members Present (14): Directors Arnold, Belforte, Cochran, Fredericks, Grosboll, Hill, Mastin, Moylan, Rabbitt, Sears, and Sobel; Second Vice President Theriault; First Vice President Pahre; President Hernández. Committee of the Whole Members Absent (4): Directors Brown, Fewer, Garbarino, and Yee. [Note: On this date, there is one vacancy on the Board of Directors.] Staff Present: General Manager Denis Mulligan; Auditor-Controller Joseph Wire; Secretary of the District Amorette Ko-Wong; Attorney Madeline Chun; Deputy General Manager/Administration and Development Kellee Hopper; Deputy General Manager/Bridge Division Steven Miller; Deputy General
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Seismic Retrofit: Milestones in Decision-Making, Financing, and Construction
    Timeline of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Seismic Retrofit: Milestones in Decision-Making, Financing, and Construction By Daniel Pollak IBSN 1-58703-197-3 TIMELINE OF THE SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND BAY BRIDGE SEISMIC RETROFIT This annotated timeline on the history of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge was requested by Assemblymember Wilma Chan in her capacity as Chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. In August 2004, the Committee requested that the California State Auditor perform an audit of the implementation of the California Department of Transportation’s Toll Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program. The following chronology begins in 1929, but emphasizes the period from 1989 to the present, beginning with the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 1989. That earthquake revealed the seismic vulnerability of the Bay Bridge. This timeline focuses on the efforts to seismically retrofit the Bay Bridge, especially the project to rebuild its eastern span (the portion running from Oakland to Yerba Buena Island). 1 9 2 9 October 1929 President Hoover appoints commission to investigate bridge feasibility. President Herbert Hoover and California Governor C. C. Young appoint the Hoover- Young San Francisco Bay Bridge Commission, to investigate the feasibility of constructing a San Francisco-Oakland bridge.1 1 9 3 0 August 1930 Bridge Commission reports that bridge is feasible and necessary. The Hoover-Young Commission concludes that construction of the bridge is both feasible and necessary to the development of the region.2 1 9 3 3 July 9, 1933 Construction begins. The California Department of Public Works begins construction of the San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge, the world’s longest steel structure.3 California Research Bureau, California State Library 1 1 9 3 6 November 12, 1936 The Bay Bridge opens.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Bay Area ~ Ll :'---'·ALNUT CREEK BRENTWOOD• "­ "'( '­
    BART: Dig We Must PATRICIA ALEXANDER F~ra' Rea.w..... of Son ~Ftonciseo MAR 29 t912 .LIIRA-R.Y "., .. HG Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco 2567 S3A71 Monthly Review Reprint I January 1970 no.11 • I M. I MONTHLY REVIEW BART: Dig We Must A II American cities share a comm~n ~rans­ economic actIvIty. This potential depends, rt. portation problem, but only wlthm the among other things, on the relative ease with last few decades has the problem approached which existing resources can be reached. Yet a cnsls stage. Few individuals today are as it stands, traffic congestion and inadequate immune to the headaches caused by highway mass-transit facilities threaten to paralyze the congestion and the shortage of parking facil­ major American cities and to stunt their ities, and few are unaware of the frustrations growth as important centers of economic, and inconvenience resulting from overcrowd­ social and cultural activity. ed, inefficient mass-transit systems. As popu­ The problem, then, is to create an efficient lation and auto usage increase, traffic conges­ transportation system which will satisfy a tion continues to worsen. The auto's appetite metropolitan area's growing need for peak­ for land is seemingly insatiable, as there is hour transportation services but will not en­ always a demand for new highways and danger the other needs of the metropolis. parking spaces. And, whereas the lack of Unless public officials are willing to allocate adequate facilities threatens to negate the a great deal of valuable land to highways, convenience and flexibility offered by the bridges, and parking spaces, the trend to­ automobile, the continual construction of wards increased auto usage by peak-hour new facilities threatens to deny land to other commuters must be curtailed.
    [Show full text]