You were the legislative champion for the new San Francisco Bay Water Transit Authority (WTA). Now that the Agency is up and running, how does the "Ferry Godfather" think his creation is doing?
Published: February, 2001
I was sorry that we couldn’t have gotten a little more money to put into it because I think the $12 million will have to last us until the Authority gives the Legislature a report and I think the $12 million is a little light of what we need to do an effective job. Having said that, the important thing for the Authority is for it not to become overly bureaucratized and just become another of the 27 transit agencies in the Bay Area. Rather, they should move very quickly to decide what they want to accomplish with their mandate. That’s their responsibility. I think they can do that. And I am pledged to do all I can help the Authority. I will also keep a watchful eye on their work as well.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission ((MTC) opposed you on the creation of the WTA, prompting you to question whether MTC should even exist. Things seemed to have cooled down; who came around, you or MTC?
Well, we probably both did. It’s a mating dance, you know. I get upset when a new idea is opposed by another public identity. Everyone is too concerned about their own domain and not enough about solving the problem. That’s how I interpreted MTC’s reaction. They felt there was going to be another Agency outside their control and so their first response was to oppose it. And so I immediately challenged MTC’s right to exist because they only exist because of legislative mandate. My consultant Ezra Rappaport did a lot of work with people at MTC. I met with a number of them who assured me that we were on the same page and we worked it out.
Aren’t higher bridge tolls a sensible way to ration limited access to bridges, especially since the added revenue can be ued to pay for better public transportation?
Absolutely. It’s the only "cash register" that exists to pay for Bay Area transportation. If you make a direct correlation between the increase in the tolls and the proper use of the revenue I think the public will buy it. If we can say that a dollar raised in tolls will be spent on ferries and other transportation plans that will reduce congestion, then people will buy it. But you have to make that correlation. That’s why the ferry study has to be complete and it has to look at the Northern part of the Bay in particular. Why would someone from Contra Costa County pay an extra buck if they weren’t served? The only way we are going to improve transit in the Bay Area is by increasing bridge tolls and it is up to the WTA to make a compelling case.
Not long ago the Federal government was willing to make money available to MTC to study congestion pricing, meaning higher tolls at peak period, lesser at non-peak periods. Yet the Legislature squelched this study by ordering MTC to not accept the money. Was that wise?
That happened before I got to the Legislature so I don’t understand the rationale that was behind that decision. Maybe congestion pricing is not a good idea, but to not think it through, to not have an open and exhausting debate is wrong. We need to think of everything. There tends to be a knee-jerk response with some people that any congestion pricing or HOV lanes – the so-called "Lexus lanes" – will hurt poor people. But the fact of the matter is that a lot of individuals who are on these roads everyday are working people who would not mind paying an extra dollar or two when they needed to in order to expedite their business. I don’t believe we should be making socio-economic judgments on behalf of people. Instead, we should give options and let people choose.
Bay Crossings Reader of the Month
Don Perata
PROFESSION: California State Senator
FERRY COMMUTER? No, but I’m a big ferry championPEOPLE WOULD BE SURPRISED IF THEY KNEW: I love to cookIF I HAD A FREE DAY, I’D SPEND IT: At home not answering the phone, readingMY PROUDEST MOMENT WAS: When my children were bornHOW I WOULD LIKE TO BE REMEMBERED: As someone who fought hard and never gave up for the things he believed inPET PEEVE: BureaucracyMY MOTTO: Better to burnout than fade awayHOBBIES: Reading, increasingly gardening and visiting friends.FAVORITE BOOK: Always the one I’m reading now, and that is a book on moral leadership, Lives of Moral Leadership by Robert ColesFAVORITE FILM: The Godfather
IF I COULD CHANGE ONE THING ABOUT MYSELF, IT WOULD BE: TallerIF I COULD INVITE ANYONE TO DINNER - LIVING OR DEAD - THEY WOULD BE: Malcolm X, Franklin Roosevelt, Golda Meier, Francis of Assisi and Susan SarandonIF I COULD PLAY A SONG FROM THE TOP OF THE FERRY BUILDING - WHAT WOULD IT BE?: Amazing Grace
Not long ago the Federal government was willing to make money available to MTC to study congestion pricing, meaning higher tolls at peak period, lesser at non-peak periods. Yet the Legislature squelched this study by ordering MTC to not accept the money. Was that wise?
That happened before I got to the Legislature so I don’t understand the rationale that was behind that decision. Maybe congestion pricing is not a good idea, but to not think it through, to not have an open and exhausting debate is wrong. We need to think of everything. There tends to be a knee-jerk response with some people that any congestion pricing or HOV lanes – the so-called "Lexus lanes" – will hurt poor people. But the fact of the matter is that a lot of individuals who are on these roads everyday are working people who would not mind paying an extra dollar or two when they needed to in order to expedite their business. I don’t believe we should be making socio-economic judgments on behalf of people. Instead, we should give options and let people choose.
Voters in Santa Clara just approved a sales tax increase to, among other things, extend BART. Despite being pulled together at the last moment the measure garnered the necessary 2/3 majority. Do you read this as a signal that the public is ready to make a serious commitment to public transportation?
Yes. They’re dying down there. The South Bay has a hopelessly bad traffic problem. The proposed new Cisco campus would add 20,000 jobs. There’s no place for people to live, no way to move around. I think it was an act of desperation. I’m not quite sure that it is going to be the solution that everyone thinks it will be. There are many problems associated with the plan. But moving in that direction is something that I applaud. BART is something that has worked but the problem is that we are going to soon see BART max out its capacity. It’s a finite system; you can only run so many trains so closely together. People don’t realize how close it is to being maxed out. What I hope the people in the South Bay begin to accept and work on is that just because they don’t see a ferry system having immediate viability for San Jose or Milpitas, it is not say that it doesn’t have a role within the context of an overall transportation plan. If we could ever coordinate the system so that BART, and all our bus systems worked in concert with the ferry system, then 4we’d have everything going everywhere serving everyone.
Why not gas taxes instead of sales taxes to pay for public transportation? Sales taxes are regressive, meaning poor people pay disproportionately, and they do nothing to discourage automobile use, something gas taxes would do.
Well, the public has spoken. Somewhere along the line the public decided that they would rather pay for public transportation with a sales tax, which people feel is more broadly distributed, than a gas tax, which they know they’re going to pay at the pump. It’s kind of hard for me to argue with the people that hire Don Perata. Any tax fixed to what people feel is their entitlement –and people think gas is an entitlement – simply isn’t going to work. Now, I think it is more rational to tax gas, just like raising parking fees are a good way to discourage people from driving into San Francisco. But people aren’t prepared to do it. My own belief is that if we could make a better case for getting people out of their cars – via a better ferry system or other public transportation options – then you’d have a better chance at getting the public to agree to things like increased gas taxes. But we haven’t done that yet. The public transportation system is so fragmented. It’s based on sovereignty, not convenience. Every agency and city considers itself sovereign unto itself. The hard political negotiations to make a sensible system simply haven’t happened yet.
Voters recently approved the first significant relaxation of the Prop 13 requirement of a 2/3 vote for all special taxes by allowing a 55% vote to pass special taxes to support schools bonds. Might we expect an initiative to allow a 55% vote to pass transportation bonds and would you support such an initiative?
I think if we had a coherent argument for making that case we might. The school bonds case was pretty obvious to people. They can see the school age population has increased while the stock of school buildings has deteriorated. It was therefore possible to make the case that we should lower the barrier to making the needed investments in schools. In the case of transportation, it’s too Balkanized. For example, how do I get ferry advocates to understand the importance of the ACE train coming from the Central Valley into the South Bay? The way we do it is to integrate the system. We’re many steps away from that. I’d support it now and forever just to advance the idea because I think it makes sense. But the real problem is making the case for the public. And to do that we need to rationalize the system. And second, we need to assure people every dollar spent is going to be put to the very best use. Right now we have no way of rating transportation expenditures. We don’t know if a dollar put in to open up a new bore to the Caldecott is better spent than a dollar adding more ferries to Marin. We just don’t know that. And until we do, people won’t allow their taxes to be raised.
Regarding the issue of adding a runway to San Francisco Airport and the controversy surrounding the proposal to fill in the Bay to do it, many people feel a more sensible way to evaluate the proposal would be in the context of a regional view. Why not a regional port authority that would encompass the two airports and perhaps even the two seaports?
Well, I favor that and have done for years. I believe that the Port of Oakland should be part of a regional authority. Many of the smaller ports would do better as part of an efficient regional system. I’ll probably advance that in the next term of the Legislature.
The airport issue is contentious because Oakland, San Jose and San Francisco view themselves as competitors. There are certain kinds of air traffic that are more profitable than others. If it’s going to be air cargo that makes a lot of money then San Francisco is not going to be willing to let go of its international air cargo business. Oakland has now almost 11 million passengers going through its airport. It’s doubled in the last eight years. I understand that’s really profitable but that the real profit is in parking. Once again, the congestion issue comes up. The way to look at the issue is a comprehensive study and I can’t figure out how to get the jurisdictions to agree to have such a study.
A factor that keeps us from dealing wisely with this, and many other issues is legislative term limits. They don’t allow for a champion to get behind a big issue like this. I have one more term. Tom Torlakson and I have spent a lot of time on transportation issues because we came from County Supervisor environments where it was the biggest economic issue around for us. But when you set out on what amounts to a six year career in the Assembly you’re not going to get very far with issues like this because the problems are so big and long term. Politicians need to hang something on the rack – "Look what I’ve done" – to get to the next office. Term limits are our own worst enemy. Almost every transportation issue I see – and the ferry plan is a perfect example – has to be solved at least regionally and in many cases at the state level. And the paradox is these problems come when we have a poorly prepared Legislature because of term limits. Unless we solve that riddle we’re just two guys talking and nothing serious is going to be accomplished in the transportation area.
