Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

Bus Bridge Alert: Major BART track work between Orinda & Rockridge weekends April 1-June 11

By Leave a Comment

Source: BART

On five non-consecutive weekends

BART’s next major track improvement project will focus on a portion of the Yellow Line. On five non-consecutive weekends in April, May, and June workers will replace an interlocking between Rockridge and Orinda stations. Interlockings allow BART to safely move trains from line to line and are an essential part of the system. Free buses will replace train service between Rockridge and Orinda stations on all five weekends.

The weekend dates for this project are April 1-2, April 15-16, May 13-14, May 27-29 (Memorial Day weekend), and June 10-11. Riders can expect delays of 30 minutes in the work area on shutdown weekends.

Yellow Line trains will run every 30 minutes on shutdown weekends. On each night of the weekend shutdowns the last scheduled departure from Antioch to Orinda that normally leaves at 11:44pm will be cancelled. Riders traveling westbound from Antioch must catch the earlier train at 11:14pm each night.

The equipment being replaced is decades old and has outlived its design life. Riders will enjoy a smoother, safer, more reliable, and quieter ride once the projects are complete. The Yellow Line is the busiest in the BART system.

This upcoming work is part of BART’s overall effort to improve the safety and reliability of the 131-mile, 50 station system. There are now more rebuilding projects happening across BART than at any point in its 50-year history. You can learn more about the progress of this work by reading the 2022 Measure RR Annual Report published by the independent Measure RR Bond Oversight Committee.

You can keep up with the latest updates for trackway repair projects that impact service by going to our Alerts and Advisories page. BART’s Trip Planner has been improved to show the full customer journey including bus bridges.

Learn more about the work happening between Rockridge and Orinda stations on our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page and Fact Sheet for the project.

BART Police, CA DOJ to hold online Community Listening Session March 9

By Leave a Comment

To evaluate reforms, in coordination with state Department of Justice

The BART Police Department and the California Department of Justice (Cal DOJ) have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) to work with BART PD to independently evaluate the reforms put in place by BART PD and the BART Board of Directors, with the goal of improving BART PD policies where applicable and providing documented reports of BART PD’s progress to the community.

BART riders and community stakeholders are invited to register for and participate in a Zoom session this Thursday, March 9 at 6:30 pm where members of the evaluation team will hear the perspectives of community members on their relationships with BART PD. The listening session will include a virtual community meeting with breakout sessions.

Visit here to register for the event.

Sesión de escucha de la comunidad: convocada por el Departamento de Justicia de California y el Departamento de Policía de Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)

 

 

Senator Glazer resigns from Bay Area Transit panel

By Leave a Comment

State Senator Steve Glazer wants greater fiscal oversight of BART.

Says “Bay Area leaders have not stepped up to fix the fiscal oversight problems with BART…”

BART Board Vice Chair Foley responds, Director Allen applauds Glazer

By Allen D. Payton

SACRAMENTO – Senator Steve Glazer, D-Contra Costa, announced that he resigned today, Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2023 from his position as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Bay Area Public Transit, saying Bay Area leaders have failed to support fiscal oversight of BART.

Senator Glazer is a longtime supporter of public transit and is concerned about the financial problems facing Bay Area transit systems, which are essential to the health of the regional economy. But, he said, the status quo is unacceptable.

“Bay Area leaders have not stepped up to fix the fiscal oversight problems with BART, as well as the underfunding of the Inspector General’s office,” Glazer said. “When these problems are addressed, I will join with my colleagues and support greater transit funding.”

In June 2022, an Alameda County Grand Jury found that BART’s leadership has repeatedly blocked the Inspector General’s authority and autonomy.

Just two months later, former State Auditor Elaine Howle found that the BART office “lacked the authority and independence necessary to do its job…”

The BART inspector general was created by Senator Glazer as part of a transportation bill in 2017. Senator Glazer advanced legislation (SB 827) to the governor’s desk last year that enhanced independence for the IG, conforming its auditing standards and investigations with other transportation IGs. At the request of the BART Board, Governor Newsom vetoed the bill.

Senator Glazer’s letter reads as follows:

Dear Senator Wiener,

I hereby resign from the Senate Select Committee on Bay Area Public Transit, effective immediately. The failure of Bay Area leaders to hold BART financially accountable makes my participation in this transit support committee incompatible.

I recognize and support the pressing need for the state to invest in public transit agencies throughout the Bay Area given the financial uncertainty that looms over these systems. However, there is no guarantee that these agencies will spend taxpayer dollars sensibly without adequate oversight of their expenditures. I point to the recent alarming reports from BART’s Inspector General regarding BART’s financial mismanagement and brazen defiance of voter-mandated oversight.

In June 2022, an Alameda County Grand Jury found that BART’s leadership has repeatedly blocked the Inspector General’s authority and autonomy. Specifically, the Grand Jury found that BART’s board of directors and management engaged in a “pattern of obstruction” that has impeded the Inspector General’s ability to conduct independent oversight and “stymied OIG independence and the confidentiality of investigations.”

Just two months later, former State Auditor Elaine Howle, comparing the powers and responsibilities of the BART IG to other, similar offices, found that the BART office “lacked the authority and independence necessary to do its job according to the best practices recommended by national professional organizations that set standards in the accountability field.’ She also asserted in a letter to Governor Newsom that ‘(e)nsuring the independence of the BART Inspector General is critical to the credibility and effectiveness of the office.”

As BART and other regional transit systems seek additional state funding to stave off upcoming fiscal problems, the Legislature must ensure that the same systems spend public resources responsibly.

I wish you well with your important work.

———————

BART Directors Respond

When reached for comment about Glazer’s resignation from the committee and reason for it the four BART Board directors who represent Contra Costa County, including Vice Chair and District 3 Director Mark Foley, District 1 Director Deb Allen, District 3 Director Rebecca Stutzman and District 7 Director Lateefah Simon.

Foley responded writing, “I’d like to thank Senator Glazer for his continuing support of BART and public transit. I look forward to partnering with the senator on matters of mutual interest, including strengthening the Office of the Inspector General and helping support BART’s efforts to provide safe, world-class transit, invest in infrastructure renewal and address societal issues such as unhoused individuals within the BART system. I’m eagerly anticipating Chair Wiener’s appointment to this vacancy on the Senate Select Committee on Bay Area Public Transit.”

Allen responded writing, “I applauded CA Senator Glazer for standing up to Bay Area elected leaders to insist on accountability to transit riders and taxpayers. They deserve answers about how BART spends $2.5B plus annually and those answers aren’t easy to come by.

Senator Glazer and I have worked for over six years together to get answers and still continue to meet resistance in making meaningful independent oversight a permanent part of the BART culture. We have worked tirelessly over last 4 years on strengthening the role of the Office of Inspector General we created and built, while the majority of BART board directors, unions and executive staff continue to focus on the ‘more money please!’ approach. We saw it last week in BART’s annual Board Workshop and it seems Senator Glazer is seeing the same approach evolving from the Senate select Committee on Bay Area Public Transit. That will only produce more of the same failed policies we see now for BART.

I believe BART executive management and a majority of directors will continue to fight proper oversight. Unless our state leaders like Senator Glazer attach oversight strings to new funding at the state level to keep transit agencies accountable to the people who are paying for it, transit will continue to fail the riders, workers and the Bay Area.”

Bay Area transportation agency adopts landmark policy to promote housing, commercial development near transit stations

By Leave a Comment

TOD projects adjacent to a BART station. Source: MTC. Credit: Karl Nielsen

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), yesterday, Wednesday, Sept. 28, 2022, adopted a new Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy designed to boost the overall housing supply and increase residential densities in transit-rich areas throughout the Bay Area; spur more commercial development near transit hubs served by multiple agencies; promote bus transit, walking, biking and shared mobility in transit-rich areas; and foster partnerships to create transit-oriented communities where people of all income levels, racial and ethnic backgrounds, ages and ability levels can live, work and thrive. The newly adopted policy applies specifically to transit priority areas within a half-mile of BART, Caltrain, SMART, Capitol Corridor and ACE stations; Muni and VTA light-rail stations; Muni and AC Transit bus rapid transit stops; and ferry terminals.

Studies show people are more likely to ride transit if they live within half a mile of a rail station, ferry terminal or bus line. And jobs that are within a quarter-mile of transit often are more attractive to the Bay Area’s workforce.

The TOC Policy is the update to MTC’s 2005 Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy. That set minimums for the average number of housing units (both existing and/or permitted housing units) within a half-mile of each new rail station funded through Regional Measure 2. However, according to MTC spokesperson Rebecca Long the new policy applies to any all existing and future transit priority areas.

“The Transit-Oriented Communities Policy is truly groundbreaking,” explained MTC Chair and Napa County Supervisor Alfredo Pedroza. “Using transportation funds as an incentive, the policy encourages cities and counties to upzone transit-rich areas so transit, walking and biking can be viable travel choices for more people, and so we can generate maximum value from the billions of taxpayer dollars that have been invested in our transit network over the years as well as new transit lines that will be built in the years to come. The policy specifically encourages the development of affordable housing and protects current residents from being displaced by new development.”

The TOC Policy links all four of the themes — transportation, housing, the economy and the environment — of Plan Bay Area 2050, the long-range transportation plan and sustainable communities strategy adopted by MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments in 2021. Minimum residential density requirements range from 25 units per acre for locations within a half-mile of ferry terminals; SMART, ACE and Capitol Corridor stations; and Caltrains stations south of San Jose’s Tamien station up to 100 units per acre within a half-mile of BART stations in downtown San Francisco and Oakland, and within a half-mile of San Jose’s Diridon Station. The policy also eliminates minimum parking requirements in many transit-rich areas, allows for shared parking between residential and commercial uses, and mandates at least one secure bike parking space for each new dwelling unit.

MTC is the regional transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

 

Art at BART: 15 years after its installation, a mural at Richmond Station continues to inspire

By Leave a Comment

Artists Jos Sances (left) and Daniel Galvez (right) in front of their three-panel mural. Photos: BART

When creating an art installation in a highly trafficked public space, duration matters. While some artworks are intended to celebrate the ephemeral and the fleeting, BART often looks for the permanent and the durable when adding another mural to its portfolio.

Given this constraint, Bay Area artists Daniel Galvez and Jos Sances set out to create a mural that would stand the test of time and speak to its community for years to come. Galvez primarily works with paint. Sances is the “high-tech guy,” said Galvez, his longtime friend and collaborator. It was up to Sances to take Galvez’s original oil painting and create something monumental – and long-lasting.

In 2007, the duo joined forces to create a large-scale mural at Richmond Station. Fifteen years later, the mural’s colors are nearly as vibrant as the day it was installed.

BART recently joined Galvez and Sances at the foot of the mural, which is owned by the City of Richmond, to reflect on its creation and its impact. The two artists, whose works blanket the region (you can spy their joint mural, “Future Roads,” at BART’s 16th St. Station), spoke as candidly as you would expect of two old pals. The pair met in San Francisco in the early 1980s, and they’ve been collaborating on giant works of public art ever since.

“It’s been up for 15 years, and the mural hasn’t been graffitied,” Sances said of the Richmond Station mural, titled “On the Right Track.” Graffiti, after all, is the bane of muralists’ creations.

Galvez thinks he knows why no graffiti artists have dared touch the mural. An artwork that “engages the community, is reflective of its history, honors their culture and their work” has a profound impact on community members.

“People respond to that intimately,” Galvez said, “because it’s about them.”

The mural features three eight-by-twelve-foot panels of durable tile. Each panel spotlights a different aspect of Richmond history, from its original native inhabitants – the Ohlones – to current residents.

Galvez described the mural like “a movie.”

“You can move into one scene from the next,” he said. “People are sucked into it; they follow the story. They want to know more.”

The mural began in the Richmond library, where Galvez and Sances researched local history and major events and figures. With ideas swirling in their minds, the artists then hosted a series of community meetings, in which they met with locals bearing photographs of themselves and family. Some of the photographic imagery was incorporated into the mural (you may even catch the smiling face of Sances’ grandson as a baby. He’s now 16).

To create the strikingly colorful tiles, Sances had to get creative. He decided to tap into new techniques that enabled him to print Galvez’s painting directly onto the tile in a process known as sublimation.

“It’s a heat transfer process,” Sances said. “You make a print on transfer paper, then put that on a raw tile that’s receptive to ink. Then it gets sublimated onto the tile. You peel off the paper, and there’s the image.”

Sublimation is now ubiquitous, but Galvez and Sances continue to find new ways to utilize it. A recent co-mural used the sublimation process to print a painting onto stainless steel.

If you can look past the colorful tiles and lower your gaze a few feet, you’ll notice a series of beige, hand-carved ceramic pieces that depict a railroad, carrying everything from a mariachi band to a bear cub and his mom. The handcrafted tiles spotlight Richmond culture and history, while adding a certain playfulness and tactility for children passing through.

“I like the fact that it was Jos’s idea to introduce the lower ceramic pieces because it’s more children’s height,” Galvez said. “If they’re really curious, they could stand on the bench and look at the mural and feel it.”

The goal of the mural, ultimately, is to engage people. Galvez’s painting philosophy derives from “Los Tres Grandes” – Mexican muralists who painted on a grand scale throughout the twentieth century.

“The point of [Los Tres Grandes’] work was for people to see art daily and enrich their lives and see their history,” Galvez said. “It’s art that’s integrated into people’s lives.”

Painting actual Richmond residents was a major component of integrating the artwork into the fabric of Richmond culture.

“When people see images of themselves done in such a particular way, it’s really elevating,” Sances said. “I think the whole community gets a lift from that.”

50 years of service: BART could have been an elevated monorail and other fascinating facts from the Parsons-Brinckerhoff report

By Leave a Comment

A rendering of a “basic supported system” train from the Parsons-Brinckerhoff report of 1956.

In celebration of BART’s 50th anniversary this year, we’re looking back at the transit system’s five decades of service and innovation in a new series of stories. BART celebrates 50 years on Sept. 11, 2022.

Rendering of a BART car cross section.

Deep in the BART archives at Lake Merritt Station, an unassuming large format book has been gathering dust. Just over 100 pages, the green cover has now faded, the pages yellowed. The cover title reads: “Regional Rapid Transit: A Report to the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission.”

Published in January 1956, the report is a crystal ball, peering into an idealized future of BART and the Bay Area of the 21st century. The New York-based engineering consortium Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Hall and Macdonald researched the report from 1953 to 1955. Within its pages emerges a portrait of a burgeoning Bay Area – population ~3 million– in desperate need of a high-speed, grade-separated regional transit system.

“We are firmly convinced that the answer to ever-increasing traffic congestion in the Bay Area lies in the utilization of … interurban rapid transit,” the report’s cover letter reads.

Since 1956, the Bay Area has more than doubled in population, with an estimated 7 million people now residing in the region’s nine counties and 101 municipalities – many of which are now served by a BART system born of the forward-looking Parsons-Brinckerhoff report.

The report is a significant document as it was the first major publication to envision what BART could be. In the 1950s, many were keenly following this yet-to-be-built mass transit system, according to Liam O’Donoghue, a local historian and the host of the podcast “East Bay Yesterday.”

Comprehensive Plan for Regional Rapid Transit, prepared for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission by Parson Brinckerhoff Hall & MacDonald from 1956 shows extensions to Brentwood in East County and Crockett in West County and beyond, as well as to Livermore in Alameda County. Source: Erica Fischer | Flickr

“One of the reasons there was so much national attention on BART is because it was the first mass transit rail system to be constructed in the U.S. for 60 years,” O’Donoghue said. “It was not only a milestone for public transit, harkening to a new era, it was also a test case for urban mass transit rail systems moving forward.”

O’Donoghue said the report is significant for multiple reasons. For one, it provided a blueprint for one of the biggest construction projects in California in half-a-century. It also helped “sell” the transit system to a skeptical, tax-paying public.

“The report really had to make the case for BART to the public,” O’Donoghue said. “BART came very close to not happening, so the people promoting BART needed the informational ammunition.”

Devin Smith, a volunteer at the Prelinger Library in San Francisco, recently got a shock when a Parsons-Brinckerhoff report from 1956 was donated from the private collection of Jay Bolcik, a former BART Manager of Schedules and Services. The library contains many trade periodicals, including plentiful materials on transportation, so the donation fit well with the library’s existing collection.

Smith said he found the report “incredibly fascinating,” and was especially impressed by its size and scope.

“It’s always interesting to look at reports like these and contextualize why this one proposal got picked over other,” he said. “Seeing the BART system at such an early stage…it’s just amazing.”

The Bay Area, the Parsons-Brinckerhoff report concludes, required a rapid transit system to complement the area’s already-established network of highways. Traffic, even in the 1950s, proved a sore spot for the region.

“Today’s age of automobiles has brought with its miracles a level of travel discomfort, cost, and hazard that is critical,” the Parsons-Brinckerhoff report summary reads. “In the Bay Area, home now for some 3 million people, traffic problems are aggravating.”

Renderings of a supported car from the Parsons-Brinckerhoff report.

The report uses a series of phrases to stress the car problem: “heavily burdened,” “chaos,” “ever-mounting barrier.” Interurban transit would serve as a balm to soothe the Bay’s gridlock headache, while also facilitating urban development.

“The report is important now because the problem that BART was meant to deal with then – traffic – is still a problem here,” O’Donoghue said. “We need to keep expanding on projects like BART, whether it’s additional lines or some sort of connectors. We need to keep building these public transit systems because individual car use is really a dead end.”

The Parsons-Brinckerhoff engineers specify in the report that the new trains needed to travel at speeds of at least 45 miles per hour (BART trains now travel an average of 35 miles per hour with stops and can reach speeds up to 70 miles per hour). The report also states the new BART system needed to contain “comfortable seats for all passengers” on trains, provide service at short intervals, and construct stations at conveniently located and strategically positioned areas.

One fascinating aspect of the report is its portrait of a BART that could have been. BART as a monorail? BART trains with pneumatic tires? Nothing, at this stage in the transit system’s development, was overruled or overlooked.

Some train models the report examined include the suspended monorail in Wuppertal, Germany, the oldest elevated railway with hanging cars in the world; the Talgo Train, with its in-between carriage bogies; and a “Carveyor,” or continuous conveyer belt with cars atop. BART eventually nixed all these ideas for various reasons, including cost, feasibility, and reliability. The transit system settled on self-propelled cars that draw power from an electrified third rail and operate – perhaps notoriously — on a non-standard gauge width.

The report also puts forth four options for constructing the system with the following keep the system low cost, attractive, and as unobtrusive as possible.

“Low cost is always predominant and in the public interest; the aesthetics of the rapid transit structures is a major factor in determining general public acceptance of its form and its impact upon the value of adjacent properties,” the report states. “These basic objectives are often in conflict, however. The ideal combination of invisible structures at zero cost is impossible, and we must therefore make compromises.”

Construction options included surface transit, open-cut transit, subway transit, and elevated structure transit. Today, BART uses a combination of all four options.

As for the trains, the Parsons-Brinckerhoff report outlines that the system most likely to serve the Bay Area would be a “basic supported system,” with high-speed, lightweight cars featuring steel wheels on steel rails, powered by electricity. But the report didn’t write off alternative systems, such as suspended trains or rubber tires. It included renderings of some alternatives, which you can view above.

A potential design for the interior of the cars.

“The question of appearance,” the report notes, “always involves personal taste.” Future reports would outline in greater detail the look and feel of BART, but the renderings the report does provide depict transit specifically born out of the Space Age, with sleek and futuristic-looking bodies.

The report concludes with a simple thesis: “Some form of interurban transit [for the Bay Area] is necessary.”

“Unless it is willing to accept sustained congestion and the retardation of economic growth that would result, the Bay Area has no choice but to accelerate its transportation planning and construction,” the report concludes, continuing, “Concepts of large metropolitan cities served only by private automobiles are in the realm of physical and economic fantasy.”

Just under two decades later, many of the Parsons-Brinckerhoff report’s findings and recommendations would be put into action. Some of the original concepts continue to serve the Bay Area and its transit riders today.

According to O’Donoghue, the report serves as a reminder of what is possible.

“If we’re going to solve the Bay Area’s problems, like traffic, we have a whole playbook from BART history about how people were approaching these same issues in previous generations,” he said. “And that matters.”

If you’d like to read the report yourself, you can access a hard copy at a handful of libraries and historical societies around the Bay Area. You can view them on WorldCat by clicking here.

Take the BART System Expansion Policy update survey

By Leave a Comment

Comprehensive Plan for Regional Rapid Transit, prepared for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission by Parson Brinckerhoff Hall & MacDonald from 1956 shows extensions to Brentwood in East County and Crockett in West County and beyond, as well as to Livermore in Alameda County. Source: Erica Fischer | Flickr

Current Policy was adopted in 1999

To best serve the needs of an evolving Bay Area, BART is revisiting our System Expansion Policy. The updated policy will guide us as we consider new ways to expand and improve our system.

As part of these efforts, BART has developed a brief survey to help us understand your priorities for system development. Please take a few minutes to complete this survey. Your valuable input helps us plan future projects and continue to provide the best service for Bay Area riders and residents.

We want to hear from you! Make your voice heard by taking the survey: http://s.alchemer.com/s3/BART-System-Expansion-Policy-Survey

Expansion & Capacity Enhancement

BART’s System Expansion Policy states goals and strategies for expanding the system including criteria for evaluating expansion opportunities. This updated policy will serve as a guide as we evaluate proposed projects. The current Policy was adopted in 1999.

The Planning Department at BART assesses strategic opportunities for system expansion by conducting corridor studies for future BART services, assessing alternative methods for expanding transit services in the region, completing assessments of environmental impacts of proposed projects, and analyzing opportunities for new stations within the existing system (infill stations).

To learn more about BART’s expansion planning and policy update, visit us at: https://www.bart.gov/about/planning/strategic

Lo invitamos a compartir sus opiniones en una encuesta sobre la política de expansión del sistema de BART. Puede acceder a la encuesta haciendo clic en el enlace anterior o cortando y pegando todo el enlace en su navegador. ¡Gracias!

誠邀您填寫問卷調查，分享您對舊金山灣區捷運系統擴展政策的意見。只要按一下以上連結或將整個連結剪貼至您的瀏覽器，即可開始填寫這項問卷調查。謝謝您

Masks once again required on BART

By Leave a Comment

After judge in Florida tossed out federal mask mandate for public transit systems and airlines

The BART Board of Directors at its meeting today, Thursday, April 28, 2022, approved a temporary amendment to the District’s Code of Conduct to require riders to wear masks in paid areas of the system with limited exceptions. This requirement applies to trains and all portions of stations beyond the fare gates. Children ages two and under as well as people with medical conditions that prevent them from wearing masks are exempt from the mandate. The rule is effective until July 18, 2022, unless it is extended by the BART Board.

“I strongly support requiring a mask to ride BART to keep all our riders safe,” said BART Board President Rebecca Saltzman. “I’m especially concerned for our riders who are immunocompromised, people with underlying health conditions, and children under the age of five who are not yet eligible for vaccination.”

The update to the Code of Conduct comes after a federal judge in Florida earlier this month tossed out a federal mask mandate for public transit systems and airlines. Like other Bay Area transit agencies, BART’s previous mask mandate had been based on the now former TSA directive.

“It is essential the BART Board take action to protect our riders and employees after the surprising ruling that threw out the federal mandate,” said BART Board Vice President Janice Li. “Wearing masks helps to protect everyone, which is especially important now as COVID cases rise in the Bay Area.”

Free masks are available at station agent booths and from all safety staff for those who need one. As with the previous federal mandate, BART PD will continue its education-based enforcement of the mask requirement by offering free masks to anyone who needs one before taking any enforcement action which could include a citation up to $75 or being ejected from the paid area.

Throughout the pandemic BART has prioritized the safety of riders. BART has installed MERV 14 (Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value) air filters on all train cars new and old. These filters are dense enough to trap the virus and provide an extra layer of protection to our riders. Air is replaced every 70 seconds onboard cars mixing filtered air with fresh air. That means the circulation on BART train cars is better than most offices. In addition, all BART employees are fully vaccinated.

During redistricting process BART Director Simon removed from board after moving outside of current district last year

By 1 Comment

2011 BART District 7 Map, shaded in yellow, showng area of Simon’s residence (in red circle) near the MacArthur Station, just outside the district. Source: BART.gov. Circle and arrow added by The Herald.

Says she was assured by district staff her new Oakland residence was within District 7; seat now vacant

“advice Director Simon…was provided was from individuals that report directly to the BART Board…not the General Manager’s Office.  It appears bad advice may have been given…The residency issue was reported to my Office last Thursday, March 3, 2022.” – GM Powers

Director Dufty, Board VP Li want to bring back Simon or be appointed by the Board

Lateefah Simon. Source: Akonadi Foundation website

By Allen D. Payton

Following the BART board’s adoption of new redistricting maps on Thursday, March 10, 2022, BART announced it was determined as of Wednesday, the BART District 7 Board of Director seat is vacant. BART staff has confirmed Lateefah Simon has moved outside the boundaries of District 7.  Based on state law, this move disqualifies her from serving as a BART Director of District 7 which includes Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, San Pablo and a portion of El Cerrito in western Contra Costa County, and parts of Alameda and San Francisco counties.

A mother of two daughters and legally blind, Simon moved last year from her home in Richmond to an apartment complex adjacent to the MacArthur BART station.

According to a report by Bay City News, “Simon said in a statement to supporters that she moved from her previous residence last year due to threats her family received as a result of her support for police reform” and that she was assured by district staff that her new residence was within the District 7 boundaries.

Simon was first elected to the BART Board of Directors on November 8, 2016 and was reelected in 2020. She served as President of the BART Board in 2020.

Efforts to reach Simon for comment were unsuccessful Friday.

According to the BART press release issued on Friday, BART will now follow the procedures for filling a board vacancy including a public application process. The BART Board of Directors has 60 days to appoint someone to fill the vacancy. Ultimately, voters will choose a permanent successor. BART staff will post complete details outlining the process, qualifications, and application in the coming days here on our website.

Questions for BART Staff, Directors

An email was sent early Friday afternoon to the BART Communications Department asking, “Why did it take the district’s staff a year to determine that Ms. Simon had moved outside of District 7?  Did she provide her new address to staff at that time? If so, did staff check the boundary lines to ensure Ms. Simon’s new residence was within the boundary of her district? She’s now claiming district staff assured her that her new residence in Oakland…adjacent to the MacArthur Station was inside her district. Is that true? Was this a result of the latest redistricting process and staff discovered they had made a mistake last year?”

In addition, BART staff was asked, “If Ms. Simon wasn’t legally allowed to be on the board as the District 7 member, are all the votes she took since she moved to her new residence voided? Were there any 5-4 votes in which she was in the majority? If so, what were they and might those have to be voided and new votes taken?”

Finally, they were asked to provide a more detailed map for District 7 which was adopted in 2011 that identifies the exact boundary lines between District 7 and District 3.

BART Media Relations Manager James Allison responded, “The extent of the information we are able to provide at this time is contained in this website article,” the information from which is included above.

The same questions were then emailed to the remaining eight members of the Board of Directors.

General Manager Issues Comments on District 7 BART Board Vacancy

However, BART General Manager Bob Powers issued the following statement about the issue early Friday evening:

“Lateefah Simon has been a champion for BART and our riders. The determination that her seat had to be vacated is horribly unfortunate.

I understand there are many questions about how this situation could have occurred.  I have some of the same questions.  While I know that Director Simon was open, honest, and proud about her home at the MacArthur Transit Oriented Development, I am not able to speculate about any advice she was provided by BART’s board-appointed District Secretary.

According to BART’s Legal Department, state law requires BART Board Members to live in the district they represent, and if a Director moves outside of the district, the seat is vacated.

To prevent this situation from occurring in the future I’m committed to working with the District Secretary’s Office to ensure that when a director chooses to relocate, they will know if the new address falls within their existing district boundaries.

If I had the ability to return Lateefah to the BART Board, I would immediately.

As the leader of this organization, I understand that any issues regarding BART’s performance ultimately falls to me.  However, the advice Director Simon indicated she was provided was from individuals that report directly to the BART Board, and not the General Manager’s Office.  It appears bad advice may have been given to Director Simon, and on behalf of the District, I wholeheartedly apologize for that.

The residency issue was reported to my Office last Thursday, March 3, 2022.  Upon being notified, we immediately reported the concern to the General Counsel’s Office and the District Secretary’s Office.  The General Counsel’s Office then confirmed Director Simon’s address and made the determination that the District 7 seat was vacant.

BART needs more voices like Lateefah and I am saddened she is no longer a board member.  I will follow the Board’s direction and assist however needed to fill the District 7 seat.”

BART Director Foley Asks Legal  Counsel to Answer Questions

District 2 Director Mark Foley responded by saying, “I forwarded the questions to BART’s legal counsel and District Secretary’s Office to work together to answer them. Does it invalidate or does it not? We won’t know until an election expert looks it.”

Director Dufty, Board VP Li Ask GM About Returning Simon or Appointing to Board

District 9 Director Bevan Dufty responded by sharing a letter he and District 8 Director and Board Vice President Janice Li sent to GM Powers on Friday writing, “Happy to share this letter on behalf of myself and Director Li.”

In the letter they ask Powers to enlist the help of expert outside legal counsel to determine either Simon’s “legal right to return or her ability to be appointed by the Board of Directors.”

“Dear GM Powers:

We have seen an outpouring of dismay, anger, and disappointment that Director Lateefah Simon was vacated from her seat without an acknowledgement of multiple specific points of failure that led to absolutely believe she was moving into a residence that was within BART District 7.

We recognize that there is a 60-day window for BART’s Board of Directors to appoint a Director for District 7, but we cannot support moving forward a fair and just appointments process unless and until we have pursued all legal remedies and options that would allow the person who was elected by the people of District 7 to continue representing those constituents.

For the sake of transparency and good faith, we believe that expert outside counsel should be enlisted immediately to help BART and the public determine either her legal right to return or her ability to be appointed by the Board of Directors. We also urge BART to develop a plan to determine and address the points of failure.

We unequivocally support Director Simon and we, therefore, support every legal avenue she has to retain her seat and serve her constituents and the entirety of the BART District.”

Dufty was asked via email late Friday night if they sent the letter to Powers before he issued his comments. He responded on Monday afternoon March 14, “I believe our letter was first.”

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

BART board approves new redistricting map dividing Contra Costa into four districts

By Leave a Comment

BART 2022 Adopted Redistricting Map. Source: BART.gov

On March 10, 2022, the BART Board of Directors voted to approve a final redistricting map for the nine districts which will affect elections for the next 10 years. View the presentation for the 3/10/22 board meeting

According to the Map Plan E2 Description, “This plan presents districts with varying levels of similarity to the current BART districts. The greatest change is in District 7 with only 27.9% of its current population remaining in District 7. The next district to show major changes is District 3 with 31.3% of its current population remaining in the proposed Plan E2, District 3.

District 4 maintains 48.8% of its current population. District 1 maintains greater than 75% of its current population. Districts 5, 8, and 9 maintain greater than 81% of their current populations. The districts most similar to the current boundaries are District 2 with 91.4% of its current population and District 6 with 95.6% of its current population.”

Most of Contra Costa County is now in Districts 1, 2 and 3, with portions of San Ramon in District 5.

BART 2022 District 1 map. Source: BART.gov

District 1

District 1 is in Contra Costa County and includes the Southern portion of the City of Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Town of Danville, the Northern part of the City of San Ramon, City of Lafayette, the Southern part of the City of Concord, including Cowell, Four Corners, and Meinert, City of Moraga, City of Orinda, and City of Clayton.

BART Stations included in District 1: Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre and Concord (shared with District 2)

BART 2022 District 2 map. Source: BART.gov

District 2

District 2 is in Contra Costa County and includes the City of Pittsburg, City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, City of Oakley, the Northeastern part of the City of Concord including the former Naval Weapons Station, and the Northern part of the City of Martinez including the unincorporated neighborhoods of Mountain View and Vine Hill.

BART Stations included in District 2: Concord (shared with District 1), North Concord / Martinez, Pittsburg / Bay Point, eBART Transfer, Pittsburg Center and Antioch.

BART 2022 District 3 map. Source: BART.gov

District 3

District 3 is in both Contra Costa and Alameda Counties and includes the City of Hercules, City of Pinole, City of San Pablo, City of Richmond, City of El Cerrito, City of Albany, the majority of the City of Berkeley including the University of California Berkeley and excepting a few neighborhoods to the South of Ashby Avenue, and unincorporated parts of Contra Costa County including North Richmond, El Sobrante, Rodeo and Crockett.

BART Stations included in District 3: Richmond, El Cerrito del Norte, El Cerrito Plaza, North Berkeley, Downtown Berkeley and Ashby (shared with District 7)

BART 2022 District 5 map. Source: BART.gov

District 5

District 5 is in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and includes a portion of the City of Hayward ranging from the Castro Valley BART station in the North to the Hayward station in the South. Major places and landmarks in this area include the Bishop Ranch Regional Open Space, Lake Chabot Regional Park, Knowland Park, Fairview, Sunol Regional Wilderness, and San Antonio Reservoir. District 5 also includes the City of Pleasanton expect for a portion near Kilkare Woods, City of Livermore, City of Dublin, the Southeastern part of San Ramon, and rural areas of east Alameda County.

BART Stations included in District 5: Hayward (shared with District 4), Castro Valley, West Dublin / Pleasanton and Dublin / Pleasanton

The new districts will be in effect for the November elections which include Districts 2, 4, 6 and 8. Districts 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 will be up for election in 2024.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.