Transit Times 0 ACT . . . .. Board Votes t o Form Initial Operation lone, Authorizes New Transit Study Service Boundary t o Exclude Most of Contra Costa County; I-Iearing Called for May 2 5 Most of Contra Costa County is to b e excluded from t he initial operations area of th e Transit District under a ne w dis- trict board action. The board of directors voted a t a spe- cial meeting April 2 8 to establis h a special service zone within t h e district boun- daries. The directors-taking their lead from th e voting o n a bond issue t o se t up th e transit system last November-elected to exclude all except El Cerrito and Ken- sington from the operational area i n Con- tr a Costa County. T he zone will include all of Alameda County within th e district boundaries ex- cept a 22 square mile agricultural district in th e vicinity of Upper Sa n Leandro Res- ervoir northeast of Castro Valley. (See map, Page 4.) Only 43 p e r cent of t h e voters in Con- t ra Costa County favored th e transit bonds last November as compared to about 62 pe r cent in Alameda County. I n view of t he result of t he election, the district successfully sought legislation ef- fecting changes in the Transit District law that permits exclusion of areas from its operating district. Once t he district is in (Continued on Page 5) District Engineering Plan To Be Revised Following Extensive Puhlic Review Funds not to exceed $20,000 have been appropriated b y t h e Transit District Board of Districts to substantially revise district engineering plans. Engineering consultants De Leuw Cather & Company will b e employed by t he District to revise the plan following a n extensive review by the public of th e initial transit plan prepared by the con- sultants last August. Route changes a n d methods o f financ- ing th e purchase of equipment will be studied, as well as needs for t he ne w service area presently being established. Suggested changes in the initial tran- sit plan as recommended b y th e more than 100 East Bay municipal nd civic organi- zations currently studying th e plan will be fully considered i n th e revised study, according to Robert K. Barber, district president. Barber that th e plan b e substantially revised after th e com- ments an d suggestions have been received from th e public, a n d that t h e new bond issue proposals should b e completed this summer. No date for a bond election has yet been set by th e transit board.
Board Votes to Form InitialOperationlone, Authorizes New Transit Study
Service Boundary to Exclude
Most of Contra Costa County;I-Iearing Called for May 25
Most of Contra Costa County is to be
excluded from the initial operations area
of the Transit District under a new dis-trict board action.
The board of directors voted at a spe-cial meeting April 28 to establish a specialservice zone within the district boun-daries.
The directors-taking their lead fromthe voting on a bond issue to set up the
transit system last November-elected toexclude all except El Cerrito and Ken-sington from the operational area in Con-tra Costa County.
The zone will include all of AlamedaCounty within the district boundaries ex-
cept a 22 square mile agricultural districtin the vicinity of Upper San Leandro Res-ervoir northeast of Castro Valley. (See
map, Page 4.)
Only 43 per cent of the voters in Con-tra Costa County favored the transitbonds last November as compared toabout 62 per cent in Alameda County.
In view of the result of the election, the
district successfully sought legislation ef-
fecting changes in the Transit District lawthat permits exclusion of areas from itsoperating district. Once the district is in
(Continued on Page 5)
District Engineering Plan
To Be Revised FollowingExtensive Puhlic Review
Funds not to exceed $20,000 have been
appropriated by the Transit DistrictBoard of Districts to substantially revisedistrict engineering plans.
Engineering consultants De Leuw
Cather & Company will be employed by
the District to revise the plan followingan extensive review by the public of the
initial transit plan prepared by the con-sultants last August.
Route changes and methods of financ-ing the purchase of equipment will be
studied, as well as needs for the new
service area presently being established.
Suggested changes in the initial tran-sit plan as recommended by the more than
100 East Bay municipal and civic organi-zations currently studying the plan willbe fully considered in the revised study,according to Robert K. Barber, districtpresident.
Barber said that the transit plan willbe substantially revised after the com-ments and suggestions have been receivedfrom the public, and that the new bond
DELUCTANTLY and with some misgiving Directors of the Alameda
Contra Costa Transit District are preparing to drop most of Contra Costa Countyfrom the District's initial operation area.
Coming at a turbulent time in the
Topsy-like growth of the two East Baycounties-and at a time when the voice ofthe Freeway Revolt is beginning to be
heard-this decision by the Directors
would appear almost ludicrous were itnot for the gravity of our complex transportation problems and the environmentin which the decision was made.
Within the short span of 18 years, the
number of people making their home in
Contra Costa County has more than trippled-from 100,450 in 1940 to some 376,-000 today. And within almost as manyyears, the population is expected to in-
2
Transit Times
Published monthly by the
Alomedo-Contra Costa Transit District700 Plaza Building
506 Fifteenth StreetOakland 12, California
Telephone TEmplebar 6-1808
Alan L. Bingham, Editor
Officers
Robert K_ Barber • _ PresidentWm. J. Bettencourt .. Vice PresidentJohn R. Worthington General Manager
Robert E. Nisbet . Attorney-SecretaryGeorge M. Toylor . Administrotive Officer
Directors
Robert K. Barber .Robert M. Copeland .William H. Coburn, Jr.
J. Howard ArnoldJohn L. McDonnell .Wm. J. Bettencourt .Paul E. Deadrich •
~ l D
Director at LargeDirector at Large
Ward IWard II
Ward III
Ward IV
Ward V
crease nearly three times again.This phenomenal growth has spurred
the development of freeway planningthat could represent a highway investment in Contra Costa County over the
next two decades approaching $400,-000,000. These fast, new roadways, however, are not expected to carry the full anticipated traffic load. Public transit mustshoulder a share of the transportation
?urden, according to highway engineers,if our roadways and downtown districtsare not to become hopelessly mired intraffic entanglement .
Yet, the people of Cont ra Costa Countyhave spoken. Sixty per cent of Contra Costans voting on the transit bonds last N0-
vember opposed the measure.A fairly good case probably could be
made that a majority of these same bond
and tax-weary voters would oppose justas conclusively any total exclusion fromthe Transi t District. But conjecture, however reasonable it may appear, is hard
pressed for defense beside the numericalcertainty of ballot box scoring.
By restricting the area of initial operation, Directors believe they are nearinga reasonable compromise. Later, when
the District has demonstrated financialsuccess in providing mass tra nsit service,Contra Costans could petition for extended operations into their area as theydesired. .
This decision by the Directors, as we
said, would appear almost ludicrous inface of area development and growth. Butviewed from another perspective, this decision primarily represents a consideredattempt on the part of the Board of Directors to fulfill its first responsibilitythat of giving full recognition to the majority will of the people.
Worthington Singl.s Out Traffic CongestionAs the No. I Menace to Downtown Survival
"A city is known by the transit it keeps,"John R. Worthington, Transit Districtgeneral manager, told a recent meetingof East Bay urban planners.
'Within the next decade or so this truism will have worked to strangle the veryeconomic life of our East Bay cities unless we take action to keep better transitnow," he said.
Worthington, whose experience in the
public transit field extends back morethan 40 years, told ameeting of the CitizensUrban Renewal Advisory Committee in Richmond that traffic congestion is the "numberone menace that todayis threatening the survival of downtown business."
"Most all traffic andplanning experts are in J. R. Worthington
agreement that a satisfactory solutioncannot be reached by highways alone"he said. '
The real answer must ultimately lie ina comprehensive urban transportationplan for the East Bay, inter-relatingstreets and freeways and mass transpor
tation, Worthington said."There must be an integrated transpor-
tation system coordinating our freewaysand mass transit facilities or the freewayswill destroy the cities they were meant toserve, their productivity and the trafficrevenues therefrom," he said.
The transit official said that growthalong planned, orderly lines, best suitedfor maximum economic development and
ideal metropolitan living will eventuallydemand that the Richmond area become
a part of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District.
"During the 20 years between 1936 and
1956 the population of the East Bavdoubled," he said. "But the amounttransit service remained about the sameor was even curtailed."
As a result, Worthington pointed out,public transit riding habits in the EastBay have shrunk to almost the lowest ofany major metropolitan area in the entirenation.
'W e dare not allow this diminishingrelationship to continue unless we arewilling to push upon our downtown centers the blight of economic isolation," hesaid.
Unless the people of the area and theircommunity leaders take action no w to improve our publ ic transportation facilities,this is the consequence that most assuredly lies ahead," he said.
Key to Stop City Franchise PaymentsKey System Transit Lines has served
notice it will no longer pay city franchisetaxes amoun ting to about $156,000 a yearin nine East Bay cities served by the company.
First formal notice of the firm's newpolicy was dispatched to the City of Alameda which last year received $9,828 infranchise payments.
The transit company is taking the position it operates by certification by theState Public Utilities Commission and
therefore cannot be required to pay franchise taxes to individual cities.
Cities affected include Alameda, Al-
bany, Berkeley, EI Cerrito, Emeryville,Hayward, Oakland, Piedmont and Richmond.
operation, service could be extended to other parts of
the district as the public desired.
"Establishing this special service zone is necessaryin order to Rx our operational boundaries and proceedimmediately with the planning for our next bond measure," Robert K. Barber, president, told the board.
Formation of the special zone will be given a publichearing at 8 p.m. Monday, May 25 in the supervisors
chambers of the Alameda County courthouse in Oak
land.
Mter the hearing, directors can declare the zoneformed, unless a city, or county, acting for the unincorporated area, objects. If such a governmental body
opposes formation of the special zone it can force an
election within its boundaries on whether it would be
included.
Basic purpose of the special service zone is to continue the pr esent district intact but to provide transitfacilities only for areas desiring the service at the pres
ent time.
Areas within the district bu t outside the operationszone would retain the right to vote for election of di
rectors, and would be subject to a tax limited to 1 cent.Monies from this source would be used to finance continuing studies as to changing needs of the district and
thus facilitate extensions of service in the future.
General Manager JohnR.
Worthington emphasizedthat the ultimate aim of providing adequate transit
service for the two counties requires the acquistion ofroutes, equipment, personnel and terminals. The contemplated Rve-county rapid transit system will not provide the two East Bay counties with a solution to itsimmediate transit problems ,and many of its long-range
problems, he added ."Ultimately most, or all, of Contra Cost County will
want to come into the district due to geographical factors and population growth," Worthington said. "There
fore, I feel the 1 cent tax is not unr easonable or excessive in view of the plan for continuing district-widestudies and retention of the right to vote for district
Responsil:tility for Local Transit Planning"Traffic congestion which threatens to
grow progressively wore, affects everyone in the community. I t is a communitywide problem. Its solution is a responsibility that must be shared by communityleaders."
This was the keynote of an address byGeorge M. Taylor, administrative officerof the Transit District, before a recentmeeting of the Alameda Kiwanis Club.
It is incumbent on elected city o f f i c i a l ~ and other civic leaders to help shape transit planning for their cities, Taylor said.
"Traffic congestion is becoming the
East Bay's primary problem, and its solution must represent the best interests ofeach of the East Bay cities, includingAlameda," Taylor said.
"Eventually, parking spaces will be insuch short supply, freeways and thoroughfares will be so intensely congested,and so much tax money will have been
Missile Firm DisclosesPlan to Build Monorail
Los ANGELES-A company that has concentrated on building missiles and supersonic airplanes, plans to build a mile-long
monorail train in Seattle.The four-car train would operate at 60miles an hour from downtown Seattle tothe site of the proposed Century 21 Exposition in 1961.
The cars, shaped like inverted U's,would straddle the tracks. T-shapedstructures would support the tracks 20feet above the ground. Time for a oneway exposition ride: 93 seconds.
Lockheed Aircraft Corp. was named
by the Seattle Transit Commission asprime contractor to produce the system.The monorail line, a fair exhibit, will be
torn down at the fair's conclusion.
6
expended without remedying the basicill, that the public will demand that improved transit be provided," he said.
Taylor pointed out a substantially revised plan to provide the East Bay with apublic transit operation that more of itscitizens will ride is now under study and
is expected to be completed in the nextthree months.
"In addition to th e engineering studies
which go into such a revision, we are seeking the assistance of city officials, civic,business, and industrial, p roperty ownersand taxpayers' association-over 100 in
all-to help draft the revised plan."Municipal governments are beginning
to weigh and to understand the economicadvantages of encouraging mass movement of passengers in central city areas.It is to be hoped that they will followthrough with what is required," Taylorsaid.
Residents Dissatisfied With
Public Transit According to
Results of Alameda SurveyPublic transportation was one of the
most frequently mentioned communityservices needing improvement in a recent
survey conducted by the Alameda JuniorChamber of Commerce.
Returns from a four-page questionnairesent to one of every 35 homes in the cityshowed that 85 per cent of Alameda's residents are well satisfied with their city.
Survey recipients rated Alameda goodon all but six of the 130 points covered,according to Donald Bruzzone, chairmanof the Jaycee community survey committee.
Almost everyone checked one or moreitems needing improvement, an initialanalysis of the survey disclosed. Amongthose most frequently mentioned were
public transportation and traffic congestion at the Posey Tube.
What the Editors Are Saying About Transit I'Year of Freeway Revolt:' Stirs Need for Reappraisal
Reprinted from the Tulare (Calif.) Advance Register:
T HE YEAR 1959 may go down in history as the time that the cities
launched the Revolt Against the Freeways.
There have been minor battles at the
barricades before, of course. In almostevery instance where state highway en
gineers have decided to uproot sectionsof towns or build view blocking freewaysthrough cities, local indignation has been
aroused to varying degrees.
The big revolt against engineers' ultimatums to the people who must live with
the engineers' completed works has beengrowing steadily. It hit the headlines afew weeks ago with an explosion heard
from one end of the state to the otherwhen the City and County of San Fran
cisco bluntly and emphatically told the
engineers to go fry their fish elsewhere.
San Francisco vetoed state plans forseven freeways to cost several tens of millions of dollars but which would havemade a glaring jigsaw puzzle of its landscape. In doing so, San Francisco was not
turning thumbs down on freeways per se
but was vociferously rejecting the unsightly structures and some of the routing ideas that were offered.
Now Sacramento is waging a similarbattle. The Sacramento Bee editoriallycondCiffins freeways for that city unless"the design guards against civic disfigurement and when they conform to a carefulplan to preserve all major municipal values." Otherwise, it contends, "the gargan
tuan defacement accepted today" may ap
pear "prodigal and stupid tomorrow."The paper adds: "Court action has
been instituted in Oakland to save 1,768
homes and 118 businesses in the path of aproposed freeway. Th ere have been similar objections to freeway practices inButte County and Santa Clara County."
The New York Times, after making acomprehensive survey, reports cities everywhere taking a second, questioning
look at the freways which they fondlyembraced as a solution for urban trans
port problems. A Times reporter, Harrison E. Salisbury, after visiting Los Angeles, wrote: "I have seen The Future
and it doesn't work."
Despite its many miles and J?iled up
layers of freeways, he says, an automobile cannot cross Los Angeles at the peakhour today any faster than a horse and
buggy could cross it in 1900. And the system cannot work, he says, because freeways and parking areas devour scarce and
valuable downtown property at a greedyrate that inevitably obliterates downtown.
Evidently, we have another of thoseagonizing reappraisals to face.
Freeway Bus Lines In
L. A. Gain PopularityLos ANGELES - Patronage on the new
Freeway Flyer express bus lines continues to increase with the growth in popularity of the high-speed transit routes.
A report recently by the Los AngelesMetropolitan Transit Authority said that
the number of passengers on the WestValley Freeway Flyer, for example, increased nearly three times during the firstseven months of operation.
At a special meeting on April 28, 1959,the Board of Directors:
• Adopted a resolution creating Special Transit Service District No.1, on motion of Director Deadrich. ( Details,Page 1.)
• Called a special hearing on creationof Special Transit Service District No. 1for May 25 at 8 p.m. in supervisors cham
bers of Alameda County Court House,Oakland, on motion of Director Deadrich.
• Heard fro m Director Deadrich
chairman of Committee on P r o g r a ~ Planning, that a report on economic feasibility or desirability of electric trolleycoach operation would be presented at
regular board meeting June 3.
• Approved allocation of $20,000 to
employ De Leuw Cather & Company toreview and update district engineeringstudies, on motion of Director McDonnell. (Details, Page 1.)
* * *At its regular meeting May 6, 1959, the
Board of Directors:
• Instructed its attorney to return tothe City of Walnut Creek a petition for
Transit Times
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
700 Plaza Building
Oakland 12, California
Form 3547 Requested
exclusion from the District on groundsthe petition was incorrectly prepared
and did not conform with provisions ofthe law, on motion of Director Copeland.
• Decided to retain the position of administrative assistant during the interimit is to remain unfilled. on motion of Director McDonnell.
• Requested the Committee on Public
Information, Director Copeland, chairman, to consider a schedule of publichearings on the district preliminary transit plan and report with recommendationsat the regular June meeting, on motionof Director Deadrich.
• Referred to the Committee on Program Planning, Director Deadrich, chairman, for recommendation on the ques
tion of the District's initiating a scientificpublic opinion poll to determine publicattitudes toward the District's transit program and the advisability of conducting aspecial transit bond election this fall, onmotion of Director McDonnell.
• Adjourned meeting to May 25 at 8p.m. for purposes of holding public hearing on creation of Special Service DistrictNo. 1, on motion of Director McDonnell.
