Article from Moving People, Nov., 1996. Index.
The Regional Alliance for Transit, (RAFT)the Bay Area group organized to save San Francisco's Transbay Terminal, has developed the following position paper on Caltrans' proposal to rebuild the Bay Bridge. MTS, which is reactivating its East Bay Chapter (see below), has published this paper as a service to Bay Area members.
The Bay Bridge is one of several structures that provide access between the East Bay and San Francisco in the Bay Bridge Corridor. Other facilities include BART, bus and ferry facilities. All of the structures in the corridor require seismic retrofitting; therefore the region requires a Corridor Seismic Project. RAFT proposes the following program to seismically retrofit the works and structures in the Bay Bridge Corridor:
* Rebuilding of the eastern end of the Bay Bridge, provided the
environmental impacts would be less than a retrofit of the existing
structure. (This project alone is estimated at about $1.2
billion).
* Provision for dedicated bus lanes, which could later be converted
to rail service, on the rebuilt bridge.
* $50 million for BART to retrofit the most crucial, central East Bay
portions of its aerial structures to ensure service after an
earthquake.
* $35 million for new ferries and ferry terminal facilities,
including new services for Berkeley and Martinez; $15 million for new
Transbay buses.
* $100 million for rebuilding of the Transbay Terminal in San
Francisco should an independent analysis conclude that the structure
is seismically deficient.
* Operating support of about $20 million annually, from bridge tolls,
equally divided among BART, Transbay buses and Ferries.
These projects would be integral parts of the total Bay Bridge
rebuilding effort and would be funded as one integrated project,
largely from increased bridge tolls. The transit components combined
would cost only about 15 to 20 percent of the cost of the bridge
rebuild, quite economical considering that more than one third of
total passenger traffic in the Bay Bridge corridor uses transit.
RAFT further believes that bridge tolls should be based on market
demand, and therefore congestion pricing is the most appropriate and
most progressive method to raise revenues necessary for this project.
A four dollar peak period toll and a two dollar off-peak toll would
be reasonable tariffs.
Finally, RAFT believes that Caltrans calls for wide shoulders and a
new toll plaza are overkill and would add tens of millions of dollars
to the project unnecessarily. These concepts should be rejected.
The Regional Alliance for Transit (RAFT) fully supports the
seismic upgrading of the Bay Bridge. RAFT conditionally supports the
replacement of the bridge with a new structure provided the
environmental consequences of the construction of a new bridge are
less than would be experienced with seismic retrofit of the existing
structure.
RAFT believes that any seismic rehabilitation project for the Bay
Bridge should be a seismic project for the entire multi-modal
corridor, and not just for the Bridge. Therefore, we would insist
that the project encompass the following elements:
Rebuilding/retrofitting of the Bay Bridge, with the inclusion of
bus/rail lanes.
Adequate capital facilities and seismic upgrades for transit
including exclusive bus- only lanes on the new structure, rebuilding
the Transbay Terminal ($100 million), BART seismic work in
Oakland/Berkeley ($50 million), ferry terminals ($10 million), and
vessels and vehicles ($40 million), for a total of about $200
million, or about 14 percent of the currently anticipated cost of
rebuilding the Bridge.
Adequate Operating Support for Transbay Bus, Rail, and Ferry Service
($7 million annually, each, for bus, BART, and Ferries).
Most Bay Area residents agree that the seismic retrofitting of the
Bay Bridge is an important priority and should be funded. Most Bay
Area residents also agree it is reasonable to assume that even with
an equitable gas tax contribution, tolls will still have to be
increased to fund the project.
The current legislative proposals to rebuild the Bridge focus on
limiting the toll increase, both in amount and in duration, above all
else. This desire cannot be allowed to break 60 years of toll policy
for the Bridge. The Bay Bridge has always been a multi-modal
facility, and its tolls have always provided for multi-modal
projects. The original tolls paid for the Bridge, the tracks on the
lower deck, and the Transbay Terminal. Subsequent tolls paid for
other bridges, for the BART tube, and for transit capital
improvements (such as BART and AC Transit vehicles) increasing
capacity in the Bridge Corridor.
"There is nothing we can do to make it earthquake proof"
James van Loben Sels on the Bay Bridge Rebuilding, February 13,
1997.
We agree. RAFT is pleased that Caltrans Director van Loben Sels
pointed out the obvious -- man has only limited ability to control
nature. The Bay Bridge project is quite simply, hedging our bets. The
objective of the project is to protect the users of the bridge from a
collapse, but the project cannot guarantee against some structural
failure.
Four times in the last 100 years Californians have endured
substantial earthquakes -- in the Great Earthquake of 1906, and more
recently in the 1971 San Fernando (Sylmar) earthquake, in the 1989
Loma Prieta event and then three years ago with the Northridge
earthquake. While the '89 and '94 quakes were large, they were not
the largest seismic events possible or predicted. And yet in both of
these events the affected areas experienced substantial destruction,
especially to state highway facilities. We should expect that the Bay
Bridge, sandwiched between two major and powerful faults, will fail,
even if rebuilt. We should also plan for this failure.
In both the '89 and the '94 earthquakes, transit services provided
lifeline services in corridors where highway facilities were damaged:
BART and ferry services in the Bay Bridge corridor in 1989 and
commuter rail services in the I-5 corridor in southern California.
Without these back-up transit facilities, the economic devastation of
the earthquakes would have been much greater. Without BART's Transbay
rail service, how would downtown San Francisco have functioned for
October and November, 1989? What would have been the fallout in Santa
Clarita if a two lane road was the only link to Los Angeles for
150,000 people?
And yet, the current Bay Bridge rebuilding project makes no
consideration for strengthening Transbay transit works and
facilities. It must. Even if the rebuilt bridge were to survive a
large earthquake, bridge approaches could still fail, especially the
toll plaza and I-80 in Emeryville and Berkeley, which are both
subject to liquefaction. The region needs to be prepared. We propose
the following list of ancillary Transbay transit projects that must
be included at a minimum with any Bay Bridge reconstruction
project:
1. As an integral part of this project, provide BART with $50
million to seismically reinforce structures in the following
priority:
1. The Transbay Tube.
2. BART aerial structures between 12th Street Station and the east
portal of the Transbay Tube.
3. BART aerial structures between MacArthur Station and Ashby
Station.
4. BART aerial structures between Lake Merritt Station and Coliseum
Station.
5. Any other BART aerial structures.
Justification: BART's current aerial structures are not built to
meet modern seismic standards. Public policy must regard these
structures as vital -- should the bridge or bridge approaches fail,
BART will be a crucial link across the bay. In October 1989, when the
Bay Bridge was closed and its 250,000 vehicle trips were diverted
elsewhere, BART's Transbay patronage ballooned to 225,000 on some
days, 120,000 more than normal. The system must be available
again.
2. Provide funding to rebuild Transbay Terminal under these
conditions:
1. An independent engineering evaluation concludes that the terminal
and its approaches are seismically deficient.
2. The same evaluation determines that it is less expensive to build
a new terminal than to retrofit the existing facility.
3. The independent engineering evaluation shall be conducted by
either a University of California entity or by a private engineering
firm that has not contracted with a state or California local agency
in the past five years.
4. Any new terminal shall be built, at a minimum, to the same load,
stress factors, grades, radii and capacity as the existing
terminal.
5. Funding from tolls shall not exceed $100 million.
Justification: The Transbay Terminal is a vital piece of the Bay
Bridge and always has been. RAFT believes that should an engineering
study conclude it needs to be rebuilt, the appropriate funding source
is bridge tolls.
3. Fully fund MTC's Regional Ferry Plan.
In 1992, MTC adopted a Regional Ferry Plan. While much of the plan
has been implemented, crucial elements have not been funded.
Essentially, MTC has used all of the Prop 116 monies available to
implement some of the recommendations, but once the money ran out,
MTC went on to other projects. RAFT proposes the following funding
for ferry projects:
1. $10 million for: Berkeley (Gilman Street) and Martinez ferry
terminals (first priority), San Francisco ferry terminal improvements
(second priority), Oakland, Alameda and Vallejo ferry terminal
improvements (third priority)
2. $25 million for:Ferry vessels for Berkeley and Martinez (first
priority), Alameda (second priority), and Vallejo (third
priority).
Justification: Ferry service was a vital link in the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake and will again be vital in the event of a major
seismic event and must be funded from this project. MTC-adopted
policy clearly states that ferry terminals must be built in Berkeley
and Martinez and should be upgraded in San Francisco, Oakland,
Alameda and Vallejo to be available in the event of another bridge
failure. During the 1989 bridge closure, East Bay ferries carried
more than 4,000 daily peak period trips -- the equivalent of about
one bridge lane -- and 40,000 passengers daily. This service must be
available again -- the most logical source of funding for the program
is through bridge tolls.
This position paper argues for an overall approach to the seismic
work required in the Bay Bridge Corridor. RAFT believes that a
seismic project would not be complete without adequate funding of the
seismic work required for other modes -- BART, ferries and Transbay
buses.
Another aspect of the project is the overall transportation
efficiency of the corridor. Already, Caltrans, to its great credit,
has discussed aesthetic issues and the options for a bicycle lane. We
believe the issues should be broadened from bikes and views to autos
and buses -- what mix of vehicles do we want crossing the bay?
The Bay Bridge Corridor is in crisis. The total number of transit
trips is almost exactly the same as in 1939, yet travel has grown
significantly. Clearly transit mode share, especially during off-peak
periods, has fallen significantly. Transit is not effectively
competing. In addition, funds are limited, making every transit
investment decision crucial.
The current operation of the Bay Bridge meters traffic onto the
bridge to best use the bridge's capacity -- but that also means that
all traffic is slow across the span, especially in peak periods.
While the carpool and transit by-pass lanes encourage some transit
use, once past the queue, transit is subjected to the same speed as
all other vehicles.
RAFT has historically supported the reestablishment of interurban
rail service on the Bay Bridge. We continue to do so. We expect that
a new structure will be built to accommodate a dedicated rail line in
each direction; RAFT would support the use of such a facility as a
bus-only lane (consistent with state law) as a temporary measure
until full rail service is reestablished. Operation of such a lane
would greatly increase bus speeds across the eastern span, which are
typically slowest in the morning.
It would not take a lane away, but would add to the system already in
place.
Even with the time advantage of a dedicated bus lane, there is still
no funding source for Transbay transit service that falls onto those
people who benefit most -- bridge users. Transbay bus service is
chronically underfunded, and both BART and ferry service need more
money. As part of the bridge toll increase, during the life of the
project Transbay bus service, BART and ferries should all be provided
with adequate operating funding. During the construction of a new
eastern span, there will be lane closures and disruptions at times
(especially when the ends of the new bridge are tied in with the
existing structures and systems). While transit alternatives will be
especially useful at those times, they will nevertheless be required
during the entire life of the project. The public is also aware that
an adequate Transbay bus fleet serves as an important back-up to BART
-- BART's December 1996 tube breakdown being only the most recent
example.
In addition, buses should be purchased that will be available both
during and after the project -- they should be attractive, high
capacity vehicles. About 35 vehicles would represent an initial
order.
Finally, Caltrans staff proposes eight-foot shoulders on the new
bridge and has suggested a new toll plaza. While RAFT understands the
state's desire to ensure a high level of operation and reliability,
this is overkill. Four-foot shoulders should be adequate, and would
be a great improvement over the current bridge, which has no
shoulders. And we see no valid reason to construct a new toll plaza
when the existing facility was recently rebuilt, especially
considering the environmental degradation that could occur with new
bay-fill.
RAFT proposes the following Transpor-tation Corridor Program for the
Bay Bridge:
1. $7 million each annually to BART, Transbay buses, and ferries
($21 million total) for continuing operation. This money would be
used to improve Transbay transit services.
2. $15 million for the purchase of 35 high capacity buses to be
used in the Transbay Corridor.
The rebuilding of the Bay Bridge is a massive project. It clearly
dwarfs the modest transit proposals that RAFT proposes in this paper.
And it clearly requires sources of revenue that outstrip traditional
taxes and grants. The Bay Bridge Corridor Project requires increased
tolls.
It should be noted that when the Bridge first opened in 1936 the
round trip toll was $1.30 -- equal to almost $14 at today's income
level. The current toll is a mere seven percent of its original
value. If the original toll had been set at a level comparable to
today's (about ten cents) there would have been severe congestion
when the bridge opened in 1936. High tolls controlled congestion, and
a higher toll can do the same today. The triumph of capitalism
occurred because our economic system rations limited resources
through market means -- except in the socialized transportation
arena. Here there is no rationing mechanism and therefore no limits
to demand.
Tolls must be increased to pay for the seismic improvements necessary
in the Bay Bridge Corridor, but they should also reflect the wisdom
of the market. People traveling at peak hours should pay more for
that capacity, just as peak period telephone users do. The
alternative, a flat increase in tolls spread across all time periods,
essentially subsidizes the most wealthy individuals who drive at the
peak times at the expense of the poorer citizens who tend to use the
corridor in the off-peak periods. Single occupant commuters using the
Bay Bridge during commute hours earn an average of almost $70,000
annually. Charging them more to use the bridge is not only sound
economic policy (since it rations a limited resource -- bridge
capacity -- through market means) it is also good social policy
(since transit users and off-peak drivers, who earn far less, would
be the main beneficiaries). RAFT believes that a $4 peak period toll
combined with a $2 non-peak toll is an equitable and viable method of
shortening the payback period for these necessary projects.
Bay Area residents understand that the Bay Bridge Corridor must be
seismically strengthened. But the corridor is more than just the
bridge -- while the bridge carries 280,000 vehicles daily, BART
carries about 130,000 passengers daily Transbay, Transbay buses carry
10,000 passengers daily, and ferries carry about 2,000 passengers
daily. Transit users of the corridor represent about one third of the
total market daily, and half of the peak period market.
This is a multi-modal corridor and requires a multi-modal approach to
seismic upgrades. It therefore requires a significant contribution to
transit, a financial contribution that should approximate transit's
share of the market. RAFT proposes the following projects, a
combination of the two principles outlined in this position paper:
Corridor Seismic Upgrades and Corridor Transportation Projects. The
program includes:
* Rebuilding of the Bay Bridge, including dedicated bus/rail
lanes.
* Adequate Operating Support for Transbay Bus, Rail, and Ferry
Service ($7 million annually, each, for bus, BART, and Ferries).
* Adequate capital facilities and seismic upgradings for transit
including rebuilding the Transbay Terminal ($100 million), BART
seismic work in Oakland/Berkeley ($50 million), ferry terminals ($10
million), and vessels and vehicles ($40 million), for a total of
about $200 million, or about 14 percent of the currently anticipated
cost of rebuilding the Bridge.
This is a modest program -- it takes the currently conceived Bay
Bridge reconstruction from a 100 percent highway project to an 80/20
highway/transit project -- still significantly less than the 33
percent transit should rightfully receive. It is reasonable,
especially considering that during peak hours transit carries about
half the people crossing the Bay at this point. More importantly,
this proposal continues the historic multi-modal tradition of the Bay
Bridge corridor. It also provides a continuing funding source for
Transbay bus, BART and ferry operations from the parties who benefit
most from reduced congestion on the bridge -- bridge users.
The Bay Area would be well-served by adopting the RAFT program for
rebuilding the Bay Bridge Corridor. This program would ensure
mobility, economic growth, and survival during both normal times and
during disasters. It is reasoned, reasonable and doable. Any
legislation or funding scheme that fails to fulfill the multi-modal
tradition of the Bay Bridge Corridor is, quite simply, on shaky
ground.