 
 
|
|
Richmond ReView
January issue 2005 Supervisors Bypass Public Debate to Force Geary Transit
Changes
by Paul Kozakiewicz
The SF Board of Supervisors didn't do city residents any favors
when it rushed a 1/2-cent sales tax increase for transit projects
to the ballot in the middle of one of the most-contested election
battles of all time - the Gavin Newsom versus Matt Gonzalez race
for mayor in November 2003.
The proposition looked like a no-brainer with its slick and glossy
cover, but the fine print of the proposition's putrid innards is
where the devil lies. Proposition K, which needed a two-thirds vote
to pass, was approved by voters in 2003. It replaced a previous
sales tax measure, Proposition B, the original 30-year sales tax
measure passed by city voters in 1989. The City did not need to
renew the measure for another 16 years, but the supervisors, acting
in their capacity as the County Transportation Authority, voted
11-0 to move the new measure to the people.
By doing so, the supervisors accelerated transit projects in the
City by going into debt. They also forced major transportation projects
on the citizenry without adequately telling them about the changes
or giving them the opportunity to voice their opinions about the
projects. That's called not properly vetting the public process.
Prop. K was 10 pages long as printed in the voter's pamphlet. Buried
in its text was the creation of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) plan for
the City, which would create dedicated transit lanes on some of
the city's busiest thoroughfares - Geary Boulevard (with an eye
toward a light rail system), Van Ness Avenue and Potrero Avenue.
The resulting reverberations from the proposed plan - traffic being
dispersed into the neighborhoods, safety issues, and the potential
decimation of the local business communities - were not discussed
by the public at large because they did not know about the plan.
But it gets worse. The TA, via the committee operating right under
its nose, was running a political campaign, complete with hired
political consultants, to pass Prop. K. The Chamber of Commerce
and the TA both commissioned polls to gauge public reaction, and
members of the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) were told
to treat their actions as part of a political campaign. The committee
was established to advise the TA concerning Prop. K.
The results of one poll were given to EPAC members during their
regular meeting. It showed 35 percent of the public was opposed
to light rail. That's bad when you need 67 percent of the public
to pass a tax measure. It's no wonder the presidents of the Geary,
Clement and Sacramento street merchants' associations knew nothing
of Prop. K's fine print, because they might have had some problems
with it.
"I'm opposed to any measure that would bring more cars to Clement
Street," said Irv Phillips, president of the Inner Clement
Street Merchants Association.
With the board of supervisors flying their plan under the radar
of the city's residents, many neighborhood activists also didn't
know of the Geary plan, including Edith McMillan, who was the one
who informed me of the city's plan to put cellular antennae on the
top of George Washington High School, a plan that was halted. In
fact, I've discovered very few people in the Richmond, and I've
talked to many, who knew they were voting for the Geary BRT/light
rail plan when they voted for Prop. K. I don't think that's an accident.
Muni was out in the Richmond in the early '90s pushing its light
rail plan for Geary Boulevard when it encountered resistance from
some people in the district, including merchants, who wanted to
know what the action would do to them.
A major planner of the project with Muni at that time, Peter Straus,
is now working with the TA to get the Geary plan implemented.
To date, the TA has earmarked $31 million for Geary BRT. Another
$55 million for light rail was included in Prop. K. With Prop. K,
Muni was able to achieve its aims for Geary without firing a shot
- no messy debates or constructive criticism from neighborhood activists.
Just do it.
The plan was slipped into Prop. K, with the tacit blessing of Richmond
District Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, and moved forward in the planning
and budgetary notification process with little or no notification
to significant neighborhood groups. There was also little discussion
about the financial ramifications to city taxpayers. Yes, the 1/2-cent
sales tax would help pay for transit projects, but Prop. K also
allows the board of supervisors to issue bonds to go into debt to
pay for projects.
Under the old Prop. B, the City was paying for transportation projects
as sales tax revenue was coming in. But, with the board of supervisor's
new Prop. K, voter authority was slipped into the language of the
legislation to issue bonds and deficit-spend on transit projects.
According to the TA's Strategic Plan, the authority is expected
to borrow about $1 billion during the life of Prop. K to accelerate
its transportation plans.
Prop. K Process Flawed
The process of getting Prop. K to the ballot was flawed from the
start when BART Director Tom Radulovich, an avid transit promoter
and vocal opponent of the effort to save the Central Freeway from
demolition in 1999, was named chairman of EPAC.
According to the minutes of the first meeting of the advisory committee,
on April 29, 2003, Radulovich told committee members: "EPAC's
approach to the expenditure plan should be along the lines of running
a campaign for the November ballot."
As well, the TA's legal representation, attorney Stan Taylor, told
committee members that their advocacy for a particular position
was OK.
Concerning the 28 members of EPAC (including seven alternate members),
only one was from District 1 (Richmond District). That person was
Bruce Oka, who was on the committee representing the disabled community.
The people who composed EPAC did not represent a broad cross section
of the population. It was short on small merchant advocates and
heavily loaded with transit advocates, including members from Muni
and the non-profit organization Rescue Muni. The SF Chamber of Commerce
was represented on EPAC and was a major sponsor of Prop. K, but
the chamber has never let the views or concerns of the city's small
merchants get in the way of its agenda. Despite the chamber's representative
holding down the number two spot on EPAC, the chamber voiced little
concern for the merchants on Geary Boulevard, Van Ness Avenue or
Potrero Avenue.
Marie Brooks, the proprietor of an auto dealership on Van Ness Avenue,
has been involved in civic affairs for decades. She said she had
no knowledge of the TA's plan for Van Ness. My guess is most of
the merchants on Van Ness, like most of the merchants on Geary Boulevard,
didn't know about the plan.
The TA says one of the groups it was working with before the November
2003 election was the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods.
But the TA never mentioned the BRT program when it was looking for
Prop. K support, according to Barbara Mescunas, former president
of the coalition.
The TA's outreach campaign was inadequate or non-existent, with
many important groups being overlooked or ignored. The entire ethnic
community, including the Chinese living in the west side of the
City, was not even notified. Only within the past several months,
years after this process started, did the TA secure a $200,000 grant
for outreach to ethnic minorities.
The language to include Geary Boulevard in Prop. K was added to
the draft proposition at EPAC's fourth meeting when one paragraph
was popped into Prop. K's text by Rescue Muni's Andrew Sullivan.
The paragraph was enough to get a "voter approved" mandate
for digging up Geary Boulevard for a BRT and then light rail system,
according to Jose Luis Moscovich, the executive director of the
Transportation Authority.
It's no wonder the TA, McGoldrick and other transit advocates haven't
been out front discussing the Geary Boulevard Plan. There's only
one plan - the one Muni always wanted down the middle of Geary -
that makes any sense according to the language of Prop. K.
The TA is pretending to look at three options for Geary BRT, which
has to be designed "rail ready" and built with dedicated
transit lanes, according to Prop. K. One option the TA is presenting
at public workshops would use the outside lanes of Geary, similar
to the one buses currently use. The two other options would have
dedicated center lanes on Geary Boulevard.
The plans are:
- the outside lanes
of Geary Boulevard: It is debatable as to whether or not this option
is even legal. All of Muni's light rail systems, which is what Prop.
K calls for, are in the center of city streets. It is unlikely the
supervisors would approve a plan that would not be acceptable to
seniors and advocates for the disabled. It also potentially costs
the most in terms of lost parking because the bus stops have to
be lengthened to accommodate the length of a two-car train.
According to the TA's Deputy Director for Planning Tilly Chang,
the Transportation Authority will not build rail in the outside
lanes but can reserve the right to install light rail at a later
time in the center of Geary because exclusive transit lanes on the
outside of the street will be transferable.
Moscovich has a different take, saying rail could be built in the
outside lanes, and thus a BRT in the outside lanes could be considered
"rail ready."
Meanwhile, Rescue Muni and the Geary CAC say the BRT has to be located
in the center lanes to be rail ready.
I called City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office numerous times for
a reading on the option, but got no response. I was initially told
my four questions had to go to several lawyers, but I heard from
no one.
- Center lanes of Geary with dedicated passenger
stations on the inside of dedicated transit lanes: This plan would
have passengers waiting on a center platform with buses or trains
loading passengers on the left side of the vehicle.
There are two problems with this option. First, the City would have
to spend millions of dollars purchasing special left-loading buses
that could only be used on the #38 Geary line. And, because there
are no other left-loading vehicles in Muni's fleet, spare parts
would have to be stocked and any vehicle that breaks down would
have to be replaced from the special stock.
Second, a bus would not have the ability to pass another bus, causing
a massive backup in the system if a bus breaks down. (Chang says
the buses could possibly jump a short curb between transit lines
to bypass a breakdown.)
A "twist" to Option #2 is to have buses and vehicular
traffic running in opposite, or contra, directions on Geary so that
the current stock of buses can be used with center-loading passenger
platforms. This plan would be bizarre, with vehicles traveling in
the eastbound and westbound lanes on Geary having buses coming head-on
in their direction.
Overall, this option has too many drawbacks - it is DOA.
- Center lanes of Geary with dedicated passenger stations
on the outside of dedicated transit lanes: The only drawback to
this plan is the fact that transit riders will have their backs
to vehicular traffic - a problem that can be easily mitigated.
The public is being led down a predetermined path.
According to Chang, speaking to members of the TA's Citizens Advisory
Committee on May 6, 2004, the TA was hoping to narrow the choice
of plans down to one before starting an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the project.
The TA's pretense of exploring "options" is not even a
good charade.
About the only group that I could find that knew anything about
the plan for Geary BRT and light rail was the Planning Association
for the Richmond (PAR), a group that supports the transit plan.
But PAR was involved in an earlier planning disaster on Geary. In
the late '70s, PAR supported a plan to calm traffic by adding bus
bulbouts and restricting traffic on many of the district's side
streets.
The experiment came to an end when neighborhood residents stormed
City Hall demanding a change, according to Dr. Ron Konapaski, an
Outer Geary resident who was involved in the storming of the Bastille.
One member of PAR said the disaster occurred because an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) was not prepared for the project. He said the
current plan for Geary would work better because an EIR will be
prepared.
"What I tried to get going was a process," McGoldrick
told members of the public at the TA's Dec. 12 workshop. In early
December he said the Geary BRT was just a "set of options"
being investigated to improve Geary.
But in this month's column in the "Richmond Review," McGoldrick
claims he is moving the BRT forward to fulfill a campaign promise.
McGoldrick had the opportunity to keep the neighborhood informed
via Town Hall Meetings, direct mail, press conferences or via his
monthly column in the "Richmond Review." Yet, he chose
silence, except for a couple of oblique references to Geary transit
improvements, during the past two-plus years.
McGoldrick has an ethical obligation to disseminate information
to the public, especially concerning the largest public works' project
in half a century. As a district supervisor, other members of the
board trust his decisions to be in the best interest of the neighborhood-at-large
- not for the benefit of special interest groups.
Everyone should have known about this plan.
McGoldrick voted to put Prop. K on the ballot. He addressed the
first meeting of the Geary Citizens Advisory Committee, formed by
his vote as a member of the TA, and has been chair of the TA for
the past two years (and currently). There have been numerous opportunities
to discuss the plan with the public as it has moved forward (see
timeline).
It's not right when neighborhood leaders, including the presidents
of all of the merchant associations in the district, know nothing
about a plan moving forward right under their noses that could drastically
effect their livelihoods and the overall quality of life in the
district.
I believe McGoldrick abused his position as a representative for
all of the people when he decided to become a dictator - deciding
on his own what is best for 80,000 people living in the Richmond
while quietly plotting to move the Geary BRT/light rail program
forward without notifying the district's major stakeholders. He
decided, despite numerous opportunities to inform the public, to
stay silent.
Prop. K passed because most people want to improve transit. A better,
faster ride is a good thing.
But Prop. K is a flawed public process that throws money at transit,
up to $11 billion over the next 30 years, without objectively looking
at the consequences of the TA's action or if the plans to tear up
Geary and other city streets are actually needed.
The current plan for Geary BRT will run in the $150 to $200 million
range and will not increase capacity by one person. It could decimate
local businesses, increase traffic congestion and reduce the good
quality of life residents now enjoy. Out of the 65,000 vehicles
that travel the corridor every day, thousands would be displaced
to other east/west streets, including Fulton, Balboa, California
and Lake streets.
As well, there is talk of increasing the housing density in the
Geary Transit Corridor because the state and federal governments
are giving grants for transit projects that achieve increased housing
density.
The intersections at Geary and Fillmore Street and Geary and Masonic
Avenue will be reconfigured once again so vehicles at two of the
city's busiest intersections can cross at street level while BRT
or light rail vehicles take the tunnels. These two projects could
cost from $30 million to $50 million each.
Local merchant Jack Rhiel, proprietor of Big O Tires on Geary near
the Masonic tunnel, almost went out of business in the late '70s
because of the years of construction that was required to build
the intersection. He says his only avenue to staying in business
this time would be to sue to stop the process.
The current process of sending tax measures to the public is seriously
flawed and should be investigated by the Ethics Commission, Civil
Grand Jury or the state, for violations of the Political Reform
Act. The act requires "state and local governments serve all
citizens equally, without regard to status or wealth."
A public process that is driven by political considerations is not
acceptable. The people making policy decisions on behalf of the
public should not be hiring political consultants and making transportation
decisions based on polls or selective public notification. What
happened to public agencies giving the people and elected officials
the facts they need to make an intelligent decision?
The members of the board of supervisors should be ashamed for foisting
a half-baked transit plan on the public without properly vetting
the public process or getting public input. The way the enabling
language for Geary BRT/light rail was buried, one paragraph deep
in the language of Prop. K, would truly make any pork-barrel politician
proud.
But are the results worth it? The City may spend $200 million to
$1.5 billion for a Geary mass transit system that won't add one
person of capacity. Riders during busy travel times will still have
to stand and hang on while buses or light rail vehicles lurch forward,
one stop at a time.
The supervisors are gambling that a slightly faster ride on mass
transit will increase ridership and lure people out of their cars.
They are also gambling that all of the potential negative effects
on the neighborhood won't materialize.
For the Richmond's sake, I hope their gamble pays off.
Paul Kozakiewicz is the publisher of the Richmond Review and Sunset
Beacon newspapers.
|
|
