sign in sign up
<<
Home , Daly City station, Golden Gate Bridge, Key System

.

Chronology of the Transit Planning Process

1900 ratified a city charter with Voters approved the most recent authorization for public ownership of successful Muni bond issue ($20 utilities, including public transportation. million), to be used primarily for rolling stock, 1911 San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) was established and began operating On January 25, the Joint Army-Navy streetcar routes. It is believed to be the Board published a report recommending first publicly owned transit system in an underwater transit tube beneath San the country. Francisco Bay to completely integrate 1920 The Commonwealth Club supported rapid transit systems on both sides of the the Regional Plan Bay. Association in developing a land use and transportation plan, including a rapid 1948 In November, the Transportation Plan for transit plan for six counties. San Francisco, prepared by DeLeuw, Cather & Company, and Ladislow Segoe 1928 The Bridge and Highway and Associates, recommended an exten- District was formed to finance, con- sive freeway system, a “rapid transit struct, and maintain the Golden Gate operation” on freeways, and a bus Bridge. subway on Post Street. These recom- mendations later were incorporated into 1929 The State Legislature the city’s master plan. authorized construction of the Bay Bridge (it was completed in 1936). 1949 The California legislature authorized Bay Area local governments to form a 1937 In November, San Francisco voters rapid transit district, but provided no rejected a $49 million subway plan funds or requirements. No action was recommended by the city’s Public taken until the legislation was amended Utilities Commission. in 1951.

1939 In January, rail service was begun by 1950 A study called The Transit Problems in the both the Southern Pacific and the Key , prepared by John G. Marr for System on the Bay Bridge from the East the Oakland Planning Commission, led Bay to San Francisco. to the conclusion that public takeover in the East Bay was needed, but no action 1946 Public hearings were held on about 20 was taken. alternative configurations for new Bay crossings developed by the Joint Army- 1951 On July 25, the California legislature Navy Board. created the San Francisco Commission (BART acquired the Key Commission) to study rapid transit System and began converting streetcar problems in the nine-county area and lines to bus routes. provided $50,000 for the study.

1947 Harland Bartholomew and Associates 1953 In January, after a 6-month study by published Transit Facilities and Mass DeLeuw, Cather & Company, the BART Transportation in the Oakland Metropolitan Commission submitted its preliminary Area, recommending an extensive report, which recommended develop- system of rail rapid transit for the East ment of a master plan for Bay Area rapid Bay. transit by one central agency. The

29 legislature loaned the Commission consultants, and established a $4000,000, to be matched by $350,000 mechanism for issuing bonds. from the nine counties, to carry out 1958 The discontinued the last these recommendations. Bay Bridge electric rail In August, a subcommittee of the BART service. The bridge decks were Commission selected Parsons, reconstructed, removing the rail tracks Brinckerhoff, Hall and MacDonald to create new highway lanes. Express (PBHM) to do a 2-year comprehensive bus service replaced rail operations, rapid transit master planning effort. 1959 On January 23, the “freeway revolt” in 1956 On January 5, PBHM submitted its San Francisco reached a climax with a Regional Rapid Transit report to the BART resolution by the Board of Supervisors Commission, recommending a long- to remove several freeways from the range nine-county master plan for a city master plan, high-speed rail system, with a first-stage five-county 123-mile system. The “op- Voters of the AC Transit District timum plan” (tube under the Bay instead approved a $16.5 million issue backed by of use of Bay Bridge) was estimated to property taxes after the legislature cost $716 million. lowered the required percentage from two-thirds to a simple majority. In March, Stanford Research Institute (SRI) report called Organizational and Legislation to establish the Golden Gate Financial Aspects of Proposed San Francisco Authority to operate bridges, airports, BART System was presented to the BART and harbor facilities in the Bay Area was Commission and the legislature, defeated. recommending the establishment of a On May 14, Parsons, Brinckerhoff- regional agency to build and operate the Tudor-Bechtel (PB-T-B) signed a con- system, and the use of tolls, property tract to provide engineering services for taxes, and sales taxes to finance its BART system design and construction. construction. The fee was $600,000. After the legislature had authorized the On July 10, after a difficult fight, State establishment of the -Contra legislation authorized qualified use of Costa Transit District (AC) in 1955, Bay Bridge tolls to finance construction voters approved its formation, with of a trans-Bay tube. taxing powers and a directly elected board, and authorized it to take over the 1960 In October, AC Transit purchased the failing Key System and operate public Key System, assumed operating respon- transportation throughout the urban sibility, and began a major program of portion of the two East Bay counties and improving and extending service and into downtown San Francisco. No attracting increased ridership. funding was provided, however, to implement these powers. 1961 The legislature officially recognized the Association of Bay Area Governments 1957 On January 17, the nine-county BART (ABAG), which had begun on an infor- Commission submitted its final report to mal basis in May 1960. the legislature. The report recommend- ed creation of the Bay Area Rapid In August, Ebasco Services, Inc., sub- Transit District, based on recommenda- mitted an economic evaluation of the tions of PBHM and SRI. five-county BART system, claiming the system would produce quantifiable On June 4, the California legislature benefits of $42 million per year by 1975, created the five-county Bay Area Rapid in addition to nonquantifiable benefits. Transit District (BARTD) to plan, build, and operate a rapid transit system, A bill was narrowly defeated that would provided ample funding for staff and have established the Golden Gate

30 Transportation Commission, covering a On November 6, a $792 million general six-county area, to manage and plan obligation bond issue for the construc- facilities. tion of a 75-mile system was approved by 61.22 percent of the voters in the In June, the legislature lowered the three counties. One week later BARTD required vote for approval of the BART announced its intention to continue bond issue from 66-2/3 percent to 60 employing PB-T-B to design and super- percent, based on a bill proposed by vise construction. BARTD. The bill passed in spite of opposition led by Senator Randolph 1963 The Bay Area Transportation Study Collier, the powerful chairman of the Commission (BATSC) was established California Senate Transportation Com- by the legislature to prepare a regional mittee and father of the State’s freeway transportation master plan. system. On June 10, the Contra Costa County In October, BARTD submitted a five- Superior Court ruled in favor of BARTD county plan to the boards of supervisors in a taxpayers’ suit challenging the of each county (San Francisco, Marin, validity of the bond election, PB-T-B San Mateo, Alameda, and Contra contract and fees, and payments of Costa). salaries to staff. In December, San Mateo County of- On July 1, full-scale design engineering ficially withdrew from BARTD, citing was begun by BARTD engineering high property taxes and the adequacy of consultants, PB-T-B. service provided by the existing 1964 The West Bay Rapid Transit Authority Southern Pacific commuter line. for San Mateo County and the Marin Pressure mounted to have Marin Coun- County Transit District were establish- ty withdraw because of the financial ed by the legislature. unfeasibility of a four-county system. Squabbling over technical feasibility of On June 19, U.S. President Lyndon B. BART’s use of the Golden Gate Bridge Johnson presided at the official start of arose, threatening to delay the bond BART construction in Concord. issue if Marin remained in the District. 1966 On August 25, BARTD received its first Federal capital grant for $13.1 million. 1962 On May 17, Marin County officially Another $13.2 million grant was ap- withdrew from BARTD after a struggle proved in October. with the BARTD board over terms of the withdrawal. On October 5, Berkeley authorized, by an 82 percent vote, the issuance of bonds On May 24, a three-county rapid transit up to $20 million to pay the extra cost of plan, embodied in the PB-T-B Composite placing 1.75 miles of elevated BART Report, was adopted by BARTD and system underground. referred to the Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco county boards of In November, a $96.5 million bond issue supervisors, requesting their action to failed in San Francisco that would have place the bond issue on the November resulted in the removal of the streetcar ballot. system in the city and the purchase of new equipment to replace rolling stock, In July, the boards of supervisors of San most of which had been acquired nearly Francisco and Alameda counties un- 20 years earlier. animously approved placing the BART ABAG published its Preliminary Regional bond issue on the November ballot, as Plan. required by enabling legislation. Contra Costa County’s board approved the 1967 Simpson and Curtin prepared a plan for move by a 3 to 2 vote in a cliff-hanger coordination of BART, Muni, and AC decision. Transit; it called for three Muni subway

31 lines in San Francisco, and for new In June, San Mateo County’s transit rolling stock totaling an estimated $335 district went out of business as a result million capital cost. of the defeat of its plan by voters. On July 3, BARTD awarded a transit 1968 In February, the initiation of any new vehicle contract to Rohr Corporation of construction was halted for several Chula Vista, Calif. months because available funds were committed and no new funds had been 1970 Muni announced plans to use German provided by the legislature, articulated streetcars for the Muni- Metro subway system. Muni later The San Francisco Municipal Railway switched to Boeing Vertol equipment, Improvement Corporation was es- joining with Boston’s MBTA in ordering tablished by the city to finance Muni a light-rail vehicle of common improvements as part of a complex specifications and higher performance alternative to the defeated bond issue. characteristics. In November, a Federal grant for $88 In February, BARTD joined with the city million was received for development of Oakland and Alameda County to and purchase of rolling stock (first 250 study the feasibility of linking the cars). Grants totaling another $77 Coliseum station to the Oakland Air- million for an additional 200 cars were port. later approved in 1972-73. Eventually all UMTA grants totaled $304 million, 19 In April, BARTD joined San Francisco percent of BARTD’s total system cost. and San Mateo counties in conducting a study of a possible BART extension from Daly City to the San Francisco 1969 The legislature restructured the Golden International Airport. Gate Bridge and Highway District into a On July 30, Regional Plan 1970-90, the Bay Golden Gate Highway and Transporta- Area’s first comprehensive regional plan, tion District with responsibilit for y was approved by ABAG’s General developing a transit system to serve the Assembly. The plan stressed the “city- corridor. center concept” and drew on the BATS On March 28, after 3 years of legislative 1969 Plan as a short-range starting fighting to solve the financing crisis, the point. State legislature approved a one-half- cent sales tax to provide the $150 million On September 14, the legislature es- required to complete the BART system. tablished the Metropolitan Transporta- tion Commission (MTC) to replace the In May, the Bay Area Transportation Regional Transportation Planning Com- Study Commission (BATSC) submitted mission as the regional transportation its final report to the legislature, planning agency for the nine-county recommending extensive long-term area. MTC was given responsibility for additions to the Bay Area’s freeway approval or disapproval of all major system and to BART at a cost of $11 to regional projects and grant applications $12 billion. A permanent regional struc- and for preparation and maintenance of ture with much stronger powers was a regional transportation plan by June recommended. 30, 1973, ABAG and the State Business and In November, Proposition 18 failed Transportation Agency signed an agree- statewide, although it received a majori- ment creating the Regional Transporta- ty in the Bay Area. The measure would tion Planning Committee (RTPC), the have made a portion of highway “user temporary successor to BATSC, which revenues available for air pollution was disbanded in accordance with the control and rapid transit on a local option legislation establishing it in 1963. basis.

32 1971 The Transportation Development Act On November 5, service was begun (TDA) passed, making .25 percent between Montgomery Street Station in county sales taxes available for local San Francisco and , transit use; the tax was extended to bringing into operation to date 63.5 include previously exempt gasoline miles of the 71-mile system, all of the sales. MTC was given power to allocate system except the trans-Bay tube. Bay Area TDA funds among operations 1974 A bill was defeated that would have and projects to achieve regional coor- consolidated all existing regional agen- dination objectives. cies in a general purpose, limited 1972 Studies of possible BART extensions to regional government (AB2040). Livermore-Pleasanton, Pittsburg- On June 4, Proposition 5 passed with Antioch, and the San Francisco Inter- 60.3 percent of the statewide vote, national Airport were begun. amending the State constitution to Muni/BART and AC/BART coordina- permit use of up to 25 percent of a tion studies also were begun. county’s highway fund allocation for On September 11, BART opened 28 construction and maintenance of ex- miles between Fremont and MacArthur clusive fixed-guideways for transit stations for revenue service. vehicles, subject to local referendum. On October 2, component failure caused In October, BARTD filed a combined a two-car BART train to run off the $237.8 million suit against PB-T-B for tracks at Fremont Station; slight injuries management failures, and three major to five passengers resulted. This event suppliers—Westinghouse Electric, triggered Senate hearings later in the Rohr, and Bulova Watch—for breach of year. contract and warranty failures. In October, BART service was begun 1973 On June 30, MTC adopted a regional through the trans-Bay tube after finally transportation plan after an extensive receiving the Public Utilities Com- regional participation program. The plan mission’s permission in August. Five emphasized short- to medium-range years behind the 1962 schedule all of the programs, the need to meet operating system was in operation (except the costs, financing options, and means to , which was an better manage and coordinate regional addition to the original plan). transportation programs. In November, new BARTD board On July 2, a BART employee strike members were elected by voters of each stopped service until August 6 and of the nine districts in the three-county resulted in a major wage increase. area. A June referendum provided for On August 10, the first train traveled this election to replace the old 12- through the trans-Bay tube to member board, which had been ap- Montgomery Street Station (San Fran- pointed by mayors and county super- cisco). visors.

33