The most recent hurdle for the contested $492 million Oakland Airport Connector (OAC ) was addressed at a Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) meeting Wednesday morning.  The decision before the commission was whether the $70 million (from federal ARRA stimulus funding) will still be used to help fund the OAC or if it will be divided among struggling local transit agencies.  Passionate arguments came from both sides, but the advocates for moving ahead with the OAC plans carried the day by a MTC vote of 11-5.

The meeting was called after last week’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) letter to BART authorities stating that there were both general concerns about BART’s operations and about the OAC project with regard to compliance with civil rights regulations under Title VI.  At issue was whether BART has adequately addressed the disproportinate impact that service and fare adjustments will have on minority and low-income communities. 

The $70 million award is conditional on BART producing a satisfactory “action plan” addressing these social equity concerns to the satisfaction of FTA. The deadline is March 5.  If BART fails then the FTA will “de-obligate” the money and the Bay Area will lose those funds altogether.

By 9am, the area in front of the building was lined with a passionate crowd of various local union workers chanting, “Jobs for Oakland!” and holding signs that read, "OAC = Good Jobs!" The other side of the street began to swell with opponents of the project, holding signs that read, "Don't gamble $70 million! Save Jobs" 

Neil Hahn, a member of Ironworkers Union Local 378 for 15 years and advocate for OAC, said he had never seen so many people out of work.  Indeed, the building trades have a 33% unemployment rate.  Hahn said that this was the first time he had ever been on unemployment.  When asked what will happen if the OAC doesn’t go through, he said, “It just means more collecting unemployment, which just costs the state.  At least give us the jobs--we’ll be paying into the system and not taking.”  Fellow union member Rigo Pasib agreed.  He said he has been in the union for 14 years and has never seen the work situation so bad.  He also has been out of work since early Fall 2009.

By the start of the hearing, the main hall, the overflow room, and the cafeteria were all packed with many still standing in the halls.  In his opening remarks, MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger stated that it is not the role of MTC to implement (“that is BART’s responsibility”), nor to judge (“that is FTA’s jurisdiction”). 

Rather, the task before MTC was a “risk assessment”—that is, does the MTC choose to risk losing those desperately needed $70 million by trusting BART will comply with Title VI civil rights concerns to the satisfaction of the FTA?

Or does it withdraw money from the OAC and put it into the fall back option which is reallocating the $70 million to local transit agencies for preventative maintenance, rehabilitation, and saving jobs on the chopping block.

The motion the commission voted on was called option number one, a modified version of the current plan, but on condition that BART meets FTA requirements of outlining the scope of action for correcting Title VI deficiencies by February 16.  If that hasn’t occurred, then MTC will meet on February 17 and begin Option number 2, redirecting funds into the “Tier 2” projects.

Heminger said, “There is risk every which way we turn.” Heminger received a robust applause from one side of the room when he said that the safest course is to today redirect the money to regional transit agencies, most of which are running budget deficits, planning lay-offs, fare hikes, and service cuts. 

“There is a fair amount of uncertainty,” he said, acknowledging both the possibility that BART may not accomplish the task and the fact that the discretion was ultimately the FTA’s.  However, he then added, “But it is not the best course of action,” to another round of enthusiastic applause from the other side, OAC supporters.

On the side opposing OAC plans were local transportation advocacy organizations and civil rights groups, (including Oakland’s TransformCA, Urban Habitat, and Genesis), local and regional transit agency representatives and workers.  The main arguments revolved around the disproportionate impact a capital-intensive project like OAC has on low-income people, the uncertainty around BART’s ability to comply with FTA’s civil rights requirements, and pending service and job cuts in AC Transit, Muni, and even BART, all of which are staring at budget deficits over $15 million.

On the other side supporting the OAC were members of Bay Area construction trade unions, including the Pile Drivers Union and Ironworkers Union–Local 378, several construction businesses, and several representatives of local chambers of commerce, including the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Alameda County, African-American Chamber of Commerce, and Chinatown’s Chamber of Commerce representative.

Opening the public comment period, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums spoke passionately in favor of the OAC and on the issue of civil rights and argued that while BART has some problems to deal with, he had no doubts that BART would comply.  He also said he had recently met with federal DOT and FTA authorities, whom he described as good-faith partners.

BART General Manager Dorothy Dugger assured that her team was working aggressively towards the action plan and hopes to submit it as early as next week to the FTA.  She said they have hired consultants from a firm that worked with Houston Metro that helped that transit agency comply with new FTA social & racial equity rules.

Carol Ward Allen, BART board member representing the district of the proposed OAC, reaffirmed her “100%” support of the project, calling it “so close to the finish line.”  Citing the common figure of 2500-5200 jobs that would be created, she said she “was offended that Title VI was being used to kill the project.  I will do whatever FTA requires.”

Several representatives of TransformCA and the group Genesis spoke in opposition, citing both the grave uncertainty concerning the scope of BART’s action plan and the issue of what demographic the OAC ultimately will serve.  TransformCA’s Transportation Program Director Carli Payne, used a metaphor: “It’s like a dealer dealt you the cards and you don’t know if you have a 13 or 21, and you make a $70 million bet.” 

John Knox White, Transform's TravelChoice Program Director, argued that the OAC ridership has been over-estimated, that it would actually be slower and less convenient than the bus, and that BART’s own Environmental Impact Report states that 200-600 jobs would be created, in contrast to the much higher job creation number cited. 

Marta Lindsey, TransformCA’s Communications & Development Director, added, “There will be a huge black mark on MTC if the money is lost,” reminding the commissioners that FTA’s scrutiny will be severe.  “If BART fails in any respect of the process, FTA can take away the funding.” 

Many workers—carpenters, builders, engineers, apprentices--shared their ongoing struggles of losing healthcare and their homes and their inability to find work.  Paul Cohen of Northern CA Carpenters Regional Council echoed the sentiments of many out-of-work Oakland residents, “You can keep hope alive by moving forward with the OAC.” 

Many expressed frustration and sadness that the issue has brought members of the community, many of whom are in the same economic struggles, into conflict with each other.  Claudia Hudson, President of AC Transit’s Amalgamated Transit Union Local 192, said that "It doesn't make any sense for carpenters, iron workers, bus operators and mechanics to stand up here and be pitted against each other." Even some commissioners expressed this view—no matter how they voted--saying that they should combine forces and take the energy and passion of the public who showed up to the legislators in Sacramento.

After over 2 hours of public comment, the commissioners held a question and comment period among themselves before voting.

Chris Daly (San Francisco Supervisor), one of the commissioners who voted against the motion, empathized with the construction trade workers.  But he said that many of those unemployed who showed up to the meeting probably wouldn’t end up getting jobs through this project, despite what has been promised by union bosses.  “That’s just the politics of the situation.”  He said he didn’t want to risk the possibility of losing  the $70 million. “We have the responsibility to as prudently and as safely as possible administer the people's money."

Comissioner and Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates, also a long time skeptic of the OAC, again voiced his arguments: “What bugs me is that it pits workers against workers.  If this goes forward, then you have other workers out of work and it affects the wider public” in terms of fare hikes and service cuts.

Comissioner Jon Rubin , voting yes, argued that it was noteworthy that the ARRA money was specifically for creating new jobs.  Dave Cortese voted yes, urging not to mix a 1-time project with on-going operating costs.  He argued that if the funds were directed to the Tier II projects, it would only very temporarily buoy the transit agencies, but by the next budget meeting that money would be gone.

In the final count, the majority voted yes to a modified OAC plan, trusting that BART would diligently make the February 16 deadline, that FTA would approve BART’s action plan, and that the benefits of creating a “legacy project” while boosting construction trade jobs and Oakland’s economy outweighs any drawbacks. Should that trust be misplaced, Plan B is to meet February 17 to discuss getting those funds redirected quickly to local transit agencies.

Plan C will be the Bay Area recieving zero of those stimulus dollars.

The lack of transportation resources in the current economic landscape has pitted jobs and services against other jobs and services, pitted operations against capital investment, and pitted one project in one city against many projects across 9 Bay Area counties.  It’s making for some uncomfortable decision-making on the part of MTC and other public transit agencies.  Expect the coming months to only heighten these tensions.

For more info & background to the FTA letter: See OL's "How Local Social Justice Convinced Feds to Yank Airport Connector Stimulus Funds"