The lack of coordination on transportation extends to the City Council level. Transportation issues are split up among different Council Committees, making it harder to have a coordinated policy: parking fees are at Finance, investments and most policies go to Development, most right-of-way issues go to Public Works, and taxi regulation goes to Public Safety. Meanwhile, Oakland’s representatives on major transit agencies are scattershot: Rebecca Kaplan is our representative to ACTIA (the County’s main funding agency for transportation), Jane Brunner is our representative to the MTC-ABAG Joint Policy Committee, and CM Reid is Oakland’s voice on the Congestion Management Agency, which is the County’s transportation planning authority. A casual observer of transit issues will know that these three Councilmembers don’t see eye-to-eye on transit issues.

Though Oakland’s economy and cityscape is defined by transportation more than any other factor, the city has ignored transportation planning and has no coordinated or formalized means of addressing a whole host of transportation issues, from parking ratios for new buildings to bus stop locations. There is absolutely no planning whatsoever for transit improvements, and, frankly, CM Reid seems to be intent on preventing Oakland from making any transit investments now that he has approval for the Airport Connector, using his positions on the Congestion Management Agency and the Bus Rapid Transit Steering Committee to undermine BRT without doing anything that his bus-dependent constituents would even notice. In 2006, the Mayor’s Transportation Task Force recommended (PDF) creating a Transportation Commission “to develop. implement, and prioritize transportation strategies,” yet this idea was only half-formed and didn’t address many of the problems outlined above.

Can these problems be addressed with a Transportation Commission? Does the City Council have to restructure its own appointments and committee system in order to address transportation issues? Do City agencies need to be reorganized in order to create a Transportation Department, or can the Task Force’s suggestion of a “go-to person” and a working group be sufficient? Do you agree that the issues outlined above are real problems, or is Oakland doing just fine transportation-wise? Like almost everything else that came out of the Mayor’s Task Forces, the Transportation Commission idea has gone nowhere, but if the idea is worthwhile, there may be an opportunity to revive it. But that begins with identifying the problem. In this case, the problem may be bigger than the proposed solution.

UPDATE: I added a link to the Transportation Task Force report (PDF).

Today, the attention of the blogoaksphere has turned to the open seat on the AC Transit Board. The largest bus-only transit agency in the United States will appoint a member to replace Oakland City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan, and transit activists as well as other concerned leaders are weighing in. I am proud to report that East Bay transit advocates have conducted an endorsement process, and chosen Elizabeth Echols (PDF) as the best candidate to replace Ms. Kaplan.

Last year I asked a respected community leader to apply for this seat. After seriously considering it, he declined due to other commitments to important causes. Since I did not know any of the candidates personally or from their work as transit advocates, I felt it was important for transit activists to have a role in the process of choosing our new transit director. In January I invited several leaders of different transit advocacy groups to meet and discuss the open AC Transit seat. We decided that, instead of putting forth one of our own as a candidate, we would offer our joint endorsement.

We put together a detailed questionnaire and sent it to the candidates that we had heard about (including three of the four finalists). The questionnaire was created with input from leaders of every East Bay transit advocacy group: Walk Oakland Bike Oakland, Friends of BRT, the No on KK Committee, Alameda Transit Advocates, the City of Oakland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Bicycle-Friendly Berkeley, Livable Berkeley, the East Bay Bicycle Coalition, and TransForm. (I am on the Oakland BPAC and was on the No on KK campaign committee.)

We scheduled interviews with the respondents and talked to them about their qualifications, their vision and priorities for the agency, and followed-up on some of their answers to our questions. I attended all but one interview, and found them incredibly informative. The candidates explained different facets of the challenges facing AC Transit: one explained exactly how the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s totally ass-backwards financing priorities screw AC Transit (apparently they think bus stops are just as useful to the regional transportation infrastructure as new desks for administrators), another had a very in-depth understanding of the position of the drivers and mechanics (they are concerned about working conditions, and understand the agency’s financial pressures), and another related his experiences as a rider advocate and how the agency works with community groups (rather well, in his opinion, as long they know about a project).

Walking to our endorsement meeting in transit-proximate Old Oakland, I didn’t know who would be our consensus choice. There are many strong candidates. But one offered the combination of experience, new ideas, and appropriate priorities that appealed to everyone at the table: Alameda County Democratic Central Committeemember Elizabeth Echols. A former Google executive who served on the technology cluster of the Obama-Biden Transition Team, she has a fresh perspective on the agency, new ideas about improving service using technology and data, but also a solid grasp of the importance of service reliability to attracting and maintaining an expanded ridership base. Her energy and political connections will allow her to help the agency get approval for the best Bus Rapid Transit system in the next few months, and help her work with regional, state and federal officials to improve the agency’s long-term financial health. I am pleased to be one of many local transit advocates to endorse her candidacy, and I am confident she is able to help guide AC Transit through its troubling financial times without sacrificing the needs of both “choice riders” and the transit-dependent.

It is no secret that there are many qualified individuals applying for this seat. When the Board voted on its four finalists, a former Boardmember who had applied was not among them – that’s a clear signal that the agency is extremely pleased with the quality of those who want to join the Board. With the overwhelming electoral victories racked up by AC Transit last November (78% voted no on Berkeley’s anti-BRT measure KK, and 72% of the district’s voters backed a parcel tax to make up for last year’s state budget cuts), and the caliber of those vying to lead it through a recession, it is clear that AC Transit is on the right track. All transit advocates are pleased by these developments, and the phrase “embarrassment of riches” to describe the selection of a new Boardmember has been used by more than one observer. This is a far cry from six years ago, when Rebecca Kaplan was the only well-qualified applicant for this open seat. Though transit advocates will be satisfied with any of the four finalists to represent us on the East Bay’s largest and most important transportation agency, Elizabeth Echols is the best choice, and we hope that Board will agree.

For a list of all five blogs that today endorsed Ms. Echols, see A Better Oakland’s Elizabeth Echols for AC Transit

A new year presents the opportunity to dream and hope for the new. It may seem that this is not the best moment to hope for new transit service: not only will a slipping economy mean less sales-tax revenue from which to fund local transit, but one state budget-balancing idea includes stripping local transit agencies of operating subsidies in order to jump-start the construction of High Speed Rail. This rests on a calculus that High-Speed Rail will create construction jobs, while transit service merely takes people to their existing jobs. From this government-centric perspective, efficiency and broadly-shared benefits lose to glamorous and expensive new projects. Similarly, BART wants to cut existing service while still building new stations in suburbs where ridership is likely to be low. But the East Bay is about to see enormous transit improvements that are incredibly cost-effective, and a less-cost-effective project is getting another chance.

The handful of choke points connecting Alameda to Oakland’s transportation system have long bedeviled planners. Car access is considered adequate, and only a new bike/ped/transit crossing is being studied, with options to be presented to Oakland and Alameda later this year. However, the need to fit a large Coast Guard ship on the estuary is a major physical barrier to building a bridge. A drawbridge would be useless to buses because it would introduce delays, and building a tall crossing would be prohibitively expensive. But Alameda has figured out how to create reliable transit service with just a bucket of paint: bus queue-jump lanes leading to the Posey Tube. By prioritizing buses over private traffic through the tube, buses avoid a significant bottleneck and restore reliability, at basically zero cost to the public. The lanes should be painted soon.

Though not quite free, Bus Rapid Transit is extraordinarily low-cost transit service that can accommodate tens of thousands of daily riders in its eight-mile corridor for only $250m, all of which has been secured. The Measure KK vote in Berkeley shows that the general public strongly supports Bus Rapid Transit, which confirms my personal experience: everyone I tell about it immediately grasps the concept and the benefit of bus-only lanes, and very few grumble that rail would be better or that cars deserve every last inch of asphalt. The project qualifies for the Federal Small Starts program because of its cost-effectiveness (a metric often not met by rail projects), and all funding has been secured including a generous allotment for overruns. Such a large transportation benefit for little cost, though perhaps uninteresting to state-level politicians, is the perfect project for a recession.

Ironically, as BRT proves its popularity and its cost-effectiveness becomes more valuable, several developments may have made an Oakland streetcar idea more feasible. Unveiled in 2001,  the multi-jurisdictional Long-Range Investment Study looked at BART to Jack London Square, improved transit connection to Alameda, and various Rapid Transit options (BRT, LRT, and a streetcar). Ultimately most ideas were found to be expensive or otherwise infeasible. Out of this study only the aforementioned transit plans are progressing. A MacArthur BART-Downtown-JLS-O29 streetcar circulator was found to be very expensive and have no identifiable funding source, and a cheaper “rubber-tire trolley” suggested by Councilmember Nancy Nadel was not studied. Yet, in the five years since a Congestion Management Agency meeting I attended in 2003 where those conclusions were reached, several funding sources for a downtown streetcar may have presented themselves.

Without radically rejiggering the Central District Redevelopment Area’s spending formula (which provides the vast majority of funds for citywide affordable housing projects), there is no obvious financing mechanism for a downtown streetcar. The City Center and Lake Merritt office districts alone could not bear the costs, and those property owners would be unlikely to see great benefit in shipping their tenants off to Jack London Square for lunch. But the Jack London Square II project is building a substantial amount of office space, and if O29 is approved soon, there will be thousands of new residents needing new transit service. But the real clincher is the Conley Report proposal for a Mid-Broadway large-scale retail district. Since there’s no BART station between 20th and 40th Streets, and the city will be hard-pressed to fund thousands of parking spaces to support new retailers, new transit service will also be needed at the other end of the proposed streetcar route, up Broadway to the MacArthur BART station. With a mix of new retail, office and residential large-scale development along the proposed streetcar line, the prospects for its funding are much brighter, especially as it combines transportation with economic development, and is a large infrastructure project that would create jobs.

As promised in her inauguration speech, Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan will tomorrow present an urgent proposal to the Oakland City Council Rules Committee. She will ask that Oakland add actual infrastructure projects to its federal stimulus request which was woefully lacking when drawn up by the mayor, and adopt a strategy for lobbying Congress to get as many projects funded as possible. Transportation projects are expected to get additional attention, from implementing the Bicycle Master Plan to repaving every street and sidewalk in the city. Even though simple and cost-effective transit solutions are becoming more apparent, with the opportunities presented at the federal and local level (from Obama’s stimulus to Oakland’s retail revitalization plan), new transportation improvements are getting a fresh look and perhaps a fresh start.

Often long-term demographic and economic trends are an appropriate way to evaluate municipal needs and direction. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Oakland’s population and job base grew very quickly, at least partly because Generation X workers were attracted to the opportunities Oakland presented as a somewhat blank slate, during a period of widespread economic growth and falling crime rates. But there are new generations on the way, including the far larger Gen Y and the children of Gen X. Decisions made in Oakland today will shape the future of the city, because in five years a critical mass of the next generations will make residency decisions that will determine Oakland’s success for decades to come.

Gen Xers (those born between 1965 and 1980, peaking in 1971) are reaching forty and their biological clocks are ticking! Nobody can fail to notice that there are legions of pregnant women and infants in Oakland’s neighborhoods. In Rockridge, a children’s clothing store is closing, but a maternity / infant clothing store is opening (and Pretty Penny now stocks vintage maternity threads). Enrollment at many elementary schools is rising, leading to fights over placement at high-performing schools. In approximately five years, a critical mass of children will be entering schools. A safe environment and good schools, Oakland’s perennial problems, will once again become a critical priority for local households.

The children of the Baby Boom are known as Gen Y (aka The Millennials). Sources say they outnumber or are approximately the same size as the Baby Boom generation. Half of Gen Yers turned 18 in or before 2008, leading some pundits to credit them with Barack Obama’s victory. Much has been made of a “knowledge economy” in which highly mobile, well-educated workers choose where to live based on municipal amenities, and desirable locales succeed economically because of available talent. In approximately five years, a critical mass of educated workers will be choosing where to base their careers, and Oakland (if only because it’s in the center of the Bay Area) will be in the mix. The decisions Oakland makes in next several years will determine if the city can attract Generation Y as well as it attracted Generation X.

There are so many reasons to live in Oakland. The city is beautiful, the weather is perfect, the economy is usually stronger and more dynamic than the rest of the country’s, and Oaklanders’ diversity and creativity anchor a vibrant and exciting culture. But as Susan Gluss famously wrote, “if you can’t protect residents from random violence and crime, then it doesn’t matter how walkable a city is.” That might not be true for me or other people who are revitalizing downtown and neglected neighborhoods with new homes and new businesses, but families place more priority on safety. A young mother in the Dimond may be perfectly happy to raise an infant in an affordable apartment near the bus line, but she will look at her surrounding blocks much more warily when she sends her child off to school.

In five years, college-educated Generation Y members will be considering moving to Oakland, and will do so based on job opportunities, cultural benefits, and the availability of rental and entry-level housing. At the same time, legions of parents will be looking to enroll their children in Oakland’s public schools. If they cannot be assured of their child’s safety and scholarly success, proximity to Lake Merritt and fabulous restaurants will pale in comparison to the needs of their offspring, and they will leave.

Oakland is not going to see a new generation of leaders take power for at least four years, and of course municipal projects move in geologic time. On Monday, as Oakland’s first Gen X Councilmember takes the oath of office, the City Council will choose its leaders (and, more importantly, its Committee assignments the next day). It will be the Baby Boom leaders who have already been at the wheel for a decade who will make decisions in the next several years that will determine if a generation moves here, and if a generation grows up here.

1. Trite Life, Damon and the Heathens (food insecurity)
2. Cab Fare, The Hieroglyphics (transportation)
3. My Lovin’ You’re Never Gonna Get It, En Vogue (domestic violence)
4. Oakland / San Francisco, Make Me (transportation)
5. Set Me Free, The Lovemakers (housing shortage)
6. Money In Tha Ghetto, Too $hort (underground economy)
7. Heck No I Won’t Listen to Techno, Maldroid (cultural segregation)
8. Ride My Bike, Triangle (transportation)
9. Ghetto Manifesto, The Coup (poverty)

Bonus track: Alameda County Line, Red Meat (gentrification)

Last Tuesday, voters set a course for Oakland’s future. Certain races have something to tell engaged Oaklanders about voters’ wishes, the effectiveness of different kinds of campaigns, and about the current and future policymaking boards that govern our city and our transit service. The passage of Measure OO (and failure of Measure NN), Rebecca Kaplan’s big victory over Kerry Hamill, and a host of pro-transit votes, were the key choices facing voters this cycle.

Measure OO vs the rest of the budget

My only disappointment in the local ballot measures was the narrow passage of Measure OO, also known as Kids First 2. As I wrote at the time, Measure OO did not meet the ballot deadline and the City Council was not under a legal obligation to place the measure on the November ballot. They may have been compelled to call a special election for it, but of course that would have been a better bet than the November election. Now the city is going to do a special election anyway, and they’ll be under great pressure to compromise with Kids First and give them at least some money from the strapped budget.

This potentially gigantic hit to the city budget is the City Council’s fault for not doing a special election in the first place or placing a competing measure on the ballot (not a compromise, a measure that would just do what the Council already did but trump KF2, a common legislative tactic). Now OO is in a good position, even though it wasn’t the voters’ highest priority on Election Day. Measure NN, to raise taxes to pay for police, received thousands more votes yet is a failure. Neither NN nor OO did much of a campaign: a friend of mine received a four-page glossy mailer promoting NN after Election Day, and its slogan sounded like it was translated from an Asian language (“Get Involved! Today Oakland!”). OO sent a mailer only to poll voters, and the No on OO campaign sent a mailer only to absentee voters. In such a low-energy election, the Council’s actions framing the ballot would have been decisive.

Kaplan vs. Hamill

I think a lot of Rebecca Kaplan’s big victory can be attributed to her preparation for the job of running Oakland. Ms. Kaplan outperformed Kerry Hamill at endorsement interviews and forums, and won allies in blogs and among the politically-involved people who judge endorsement interviews. This election may not prove the power of local opinion-makers, but their almost-unanimous backing of Ms. Kaplan certainly undercut the support Ms. Hamill had from elected officials. In the end, Ms. Kaplan’s impressive endorsement list made her a very safe choice for the average voter.

Of course, more voters were exposed to Rebecca Kaplan’s supporters because Kerry Hamill just didn’t do nearly enough to win the seat. She admits she only had the money to wage half a campaign, and couldn’t mobilize enough volunteers to match Kaplan’s access to the Democratic Party Headquarters. I never received mail or a call from Ms. Hamill at anytime in this year-long campaign.

Elections are not necessarily about issues, but Rebecca Kaplan did identify and articulate some priorities that are attractive to certain interest groups, like supporting dense transit-oriented development, implementing the Conley Report, sprucing up downtown, and improving public transportation and bicycling. These things can mean different things to different people: condo developers as well as medicinal marijuana dispensaries see opportunities in a more successful downtown; labor unions and businesses like her call to increase revenue with more business; and with a holistic view of transportation, there really is something for everyone.

As one wag observed, Kerry Hamill’s defeat shows that Don Perata cannot install a puppet on the City Council by not campaigning or raising money for her. It also reinforces how difficult it is to run a come-from-behind campaign in Oakland. Alone in the booth, if they had no other information, voters decided that an AC Transit Board Member was more qualified than a School Board member to be promoted to the City Council, and frankly, they’re right. Voters also endorsed AC Transit’s performance more directly on down-ballot questions.

BRT vs KK, Peeples vs Roy, Measure VV

Voters in Berkeley overwhelmingly defeated a measure that was framed as a way to stop Bus Rapid Transit service on Telegraph. A far larger majority shot down the anti-bus measure than endorsed Tom Bates or the winning incumbents and new councilmembers. 77% is almost unheard-of, and is such a sweeping majority that it cannot be interpreted as anything but a strong rejection of NIMBYism, at least as it applies to transit improvements.

I draw several conclusions from the vote. First, it shows that the angry and active minority of citizens who do not agree with most City Council decisions are not representative of many voters (Tom Bates’ reelection is more evidence of this). Second, the tactics and arguments of proponents, mainly to do with the alleged harm of Bus Rapid Transit, fell flat. I really don’t know whether most people read the Berkeley Daily Planet, but either they don’t or they don’t agree with its editorial direction. The rest of the media is fairly hostile to BRT as well, but voters clearly are not. Finally, the No on KK campaign (which I was a part of) did an excellent job shaping a simple message, getting the support of local leaders, and communicating with voters in many media. But the margin was totally unexpected, and can’t be interpreted as anything but that voters want the Berkeley City Council to move forward with BRT.

Chris Peeples also won a huge margin in his reelection effort against Joyce Roy, who had made some noise in the media. She wrote a strongly populist ballot statement criticizing AC Transit for everything imaginable, but failed to convince more than 35% of the voters. The successful passage of an additional parcel tax to compensate for state cuts to AC Transit’s funding was another endorsement of AC Transit’s recent direction.

City Council: AC Transit Director Rebecca Kaplan

Though I first met Rebecca Kaplan seven years ago during an internship at a transit advocacy organization where she worked, I was slow to support her for this November’s election. I didn’t vote for her in 2000. I endorsed Clinton Killian in June, because of his experience as a transit director, a planning commissioner, a businessman, and a supporter of the arts. I definitely consider Kerry Hamill to be Oakland’s best School Board member, and I appreciate her endorsements from elected officials I respect, particularly Councilmembers De La Fuente and Kernighan, and State Senator Perata. But I’m voting for Rebecca Kaplan, and I fully endorse her to any engaged Oaklander.

I didn’t follow most of Mr. Killian’s endorsers to Rebecca Kaplan, and I didn’t decide to favor her just because Sean Sullivan urged his supporters to volunteer for her. Ms. Kaplan earned my vote herself. She earned it by engaging the blogoaksphere and new media to communicate policy priorities that support her pro-growth progressive agenda; by providing detailed and well-thought-out answers to questions in the mainstream media, at debates, and in endorsement interviews; and by out-campaigning her opponent. I especially appreciate how visible and accessible Ms. Kaplan has been at community events throughout the city, and I look forward to her continuing to be accountable and accessible as a Councilmember. Vote Kaplan.

AC Transit Director: Director Chris Peeples

I’ve had many opportunities to talk to Chris Peeples about transit over the last two years, and I have found him to be competent, engaged and well-informed, as a longtime Transit Director should be. As a former Oakland City Council aide, Mr. Peeples understands the need to work closely with Oakland. His endorsements from many local elected officials underscore his ability to see how AC Transit can support plans of other government bodies and agencies. He prioritizes increasing service on the East Bay’s high-capacity trunk lines, which dovetails with East Bay cities’ need for transportation improvements and transit-oriented development. Mr. Peeples is fairly accessible and impressive in endorsement interviews. He deserves another term.

Challenger Joyce Roy, a retired architect, does not share the perspective needed to create a more transit-oriented community. In my professional life, I have found her to be an opponent of transit-oriented developments in the DTO and not understanding of pedestrian commutes made possible by mixed-use cities, though she is a leader of pro-growth Temescal group ULTRA. She doesn’t support Bus Rapid Transit, the world’s most successful and cost-effective transportation system, and it’s not clear why. Her criticism of the Van Hool buses does not acknowledge that they speed ingress and egress and have more standing room, which has greatly improved trips I take on high-capacity lines like the 1 and 51. She also overstates the alternatives to European bus manufacturing. Chris Peeples will continue to do a good job, and steady leadership is needed for AC Transit to implement its ambitious projects.

Judge: Phil Daly

I decided to vote for Phil Daly because Dennis Hayashi’s message is too political. He talks about his work in Clinton’s Civil Rights office and as a public-interest attorney, and as the spouse of San Leandro (and parts of East Oakland) Assemblymember Mary Hayashi, has the endorsements of labor and Democratic Party groups, which is unnecessary. Alameda County Superior Court is not the place for a judge with an agenda, as Mr. Hayashi’s literature implies. Phil Daly has been a competent Deputy District Attorney and has a strong understanding of local criminal law, and has the endorsements of respected officials. His email about his son being a victim of a restaurant robbery in Oakland is more relevant than Hayashi’s ideological message. Vote Phil Daly for Judge.

Measure N: NO

We just passed a tax for the schools, and the way this tax was conceived is fishy. I do not think that the problem with the Oakland Unified School District is money. This decade, the number of students has plummeted but tax receipts have increased. The OUSD may have one of the highest per-student funding levels in the country. Voters must demand administrative reform, and not continue to subsidize a failing district with additional funding. Vote no.

Measure NN: NO

Like Measure N, Measure NN rewards a failing and overfunded bureaucracy with more money. The Oakland Police Department is a total disaster. As the number of officers rises, overtime has increased and arrests have fallen. A senior officer characterized Sgt. Longmire’s too-close relationship with Your Black Muslim Bakery as “community policing.” Oakland desperately needs a new, outside Chief who will shake up the department and reduce overtime and waste. Oakland does not need a new tax to support business as usual. Vote no.

Measure OO: NO!

Oakland’s budget problems were put pretty starkly two weeks ago, with the city slashing countless services and only managing to restore a portion of arts funding even after a public outcry. The existing Kids First set-aside has increased in value even as the number of children in Oakland has fallen. The programs are poorly-monitored and not independently audited. Besides the fact the city can’t afford doubling any set-aside, outside programs are not the first place funding should be dedicated. Libraries, anyone? Vote no.

Measure VV: YES

Read an excellent endorsement of it at Living in the O.

Measure WW: YES

Read A Better Oakland’s endorsement of this tax extension for the East Bay Regional Park District.