TRANSACTIONS NEWSLETTER ONLINE

Let me start by saying the Bay Area was and is an incredible place. It surpasses them all as far as I'm concerned. With physical beauty, open spaces, climate, educational facilities, progressive local governments, regional agencies -- it's got it all. That's the good news. When you've got it all, what does that do? It attracts a very healthy economy, growth and the undesirable impacts of growth like congestion. More people want to work and live here than we seem to be able to accommodate.

Some would say that worsening congestion is an indication of a poor job on the part of MTC and other planning entities. How would you respond to that criticism?

I suppose there wouldn't be as much congestion today if we'd ringed the Bay and packed the urban core with freeways, as had been contemplated prior to the formation of MTC. Would that have been better? I raise the question, but it is a moot point. Because it couldn't have been done even if we'd wished it. And we did not wish it. This region was not going to put up with that sort of thing.

Instead, we concentrated on sustaining the existing highway system, managing it better and expanding the reach of our transit system. And transit is a much bigger player now than it was when I came to the Bay Area. Congestion, unfortunately, grows all the same.

What do you see as the single most important accomplishment of your career at MTC?

I think the best answer is that if you look at why things work and why things don't work, it's usually not a matter of dollars -- or a lot of other things that might seem obvious. It always gets down to how well people work together, how an institution works within itself and how it works with other institutions. So I have seen myself, in a sense, as an institution builder, and I like to think that MTC is a superb institution and I had something to do with it.

How about finally seeing BART built to the San Francisco airport? Is that a source of some gratification?

I've been given a lot of criticism for being identified with getting BART to SFO. I'll take the criticism, but maybe I'll take some of the credit as well.

Yes, I am proud of my role in extending BART to SFO. On joining BART in 1969, one of my first assignments was to develop plans to extend BART to both the San Francisco and Oakland airports. Obviously, we didn't get the job done then. It has been a long and controversial road and it is satisfying now to see light at the end of that tunnel.

I'm not so sure that it was the most gratifying event in my career, though. Perhaps more significant was acting as the broker of the Commission's 1988 rail agreement, which ultimately produced over $4 billion for several rail extensions.

And some of our more recent initiatives, though not complete, stand out as well. Our ventures into the high-tech world of TravInfo®, supplying telephone and online travel information, and TransLink®, the universal transit smart card we will demonstrate next summer, offer or will offer service of direct benefit to Bay Area travelers. The Transportation for Livable Communities (or TLC) Program may be seen as small, but is a very positive contribution to the quest for better transportation and land-use connections. And the nascent but encouraging welfare-to-work program has introduced MTC to a whole new set of partners. I think some of these new programs are going to blossom.

So the very high-profile BART to SFO project is important, but so are these lower profile ventures that make their own direct connections to the public we aspire to serve.

You've also been hailed for your role in the 1991 passage of the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, or ISTEA. Why was ISTEA so important for the Bay Area and the country?

ISTEA has been a quiet revolution. With its much more flexible funding and delegation to states and local government, it opened the door for organizations like MTC to be relevant to the communities we serve. In the first six years of ISTEA, MTC had $500 million to allocate, and we allocated $500 million for 500 projects. That meant that we were making an impact on 500 communities instead of building, say, two big freeway interchanges. So you now see us spending more on transit, on road repair, on upgrading and synchronizing traffic signals in our cities, and on new programs like TLC.

ISTEA made it possible for MTC to become relevant and a positive force at a community scale.

How did the Bay Area Partnership evolve?

In the summer of 1991 the new federal transportation bill, ISTEA, was taking shape, containing many of the provisions we had advocated. It looked as if there would be much more flexibility in deciding how to invest federal transportation money. This meant, however, that MTC would have a much larger and more diverse group of applicants for these funds. So, of necessity, we had to amend our allocation process. But we also hoped to stimulate new thinking regarding how to invest.

So in the fall of 1991, with the help of Tom Larson, then the Federal Highway Admistrator, we engaged some of our partners in designing what became the Bay Area Partnership, a coalition of about 30 governmental agencies. It first met, with some fanfare, in January 1992. Its method of operation has been evolving ever since. There have been some rocky times, but for the most part it has been a very successful association.

You spent a lot of time on shuttle diplomacy, particularly to Washington, D.C. Why did you see that as an important part of the job?

New York, Chicago and every major metropolitan area east of the Mississippi River are within an hour or so of Washington, D.C., and have central regional transit agencies able to speak with one strong voice. It was nothing for them to fly to Washington in the morning and come back in the evening. In addition, the large cities east of the Mississippi seemed to have a focused program as well as easy access to Washington. In contrast, we were a long way away and were splintered in terms of our regional advocacy. When it came time to decide federal program formulas and to pass out discretionary dollars, these cities had long taken advantage of these factors in their favor.

We can't change the distance to cross the country, but we do rally our partners to speak as often as possible with one voice in order to make the longer trip profitable. And that is the first reason for investing in a Washington, D.C., presence.

In order to compete well in Washington, it is also important to be seen as more than just someone looking for a grant. By becoming active in Washington-based associations and research organizations like the Transportation Research Board, Intelligent Transportation Society of America and the Eno Transportation Foundation -- all of which I have chaired at some point -- it becomes possible to climb the leadership ladder. It seems to help get access to the main players in the capital if they first meet you in your leadership role and later have to deal with your grant request.

Are we ever going to see BART ring the Bay?

We will have rail around the Bay, but I don't know whether it's going to be just BART. It could be BART tied into Caltrain at Millbrae, as it will in two years. From there Caltrain may continue to San Jose, where it might meet BART coming down from Fremont. But BART is definitely going to get to San Jose, after the recent passage of Santa Clara County Measure A. You don't vote $2 billion for a project and then back away from it.

Or there might be high-speed rail coming from Los Angeles and running up both sides of the Bay. Who's to say which of these initiatives will win?

By the way, this is a sea change from BART's and rail transit's prospects a generation ago. When I went to work for BART in 1969, transit was in the doldrums; there was very little public support for transit. And one of the attributes of BART was that it was, in a sense, bringing the middle class back into transit and, therefore, hopefully building some more public support for transit. At that time, I viewed myself as a transit advocate, and BART as a place to go to be a transit advocate; and my job was to plan these extensions. So, what I see now is amazing compared to where I was then. Because when I joined BART it was behind schedule, over budget and being ridiculed widely. There weren't many supporters of BART at that time. It wasn't obvious then that we were going to be where we are today, with 70 percent in Santa Clara County voting (in the last election) to spend $2 billion to extend BART.

So, you might say that the dreams I had then are coming true now.

In an era where CEOs come and go as fast as football coaches, you've had an incredibly long tenure at MTC. What do you attribute that to?

My tenure might be attributed to several things, beginning with the fact that I seemed to have the right fit of experience for this job. Also, the Commission set a tone from the beginning of being a positive partner and I identified with that tone. So my approach fit its approach.

In addition, there's been continuing challenge and stimulation. We have changed so rapidly over time. We recruit these really bright young people who cycle through MTC, making it fun to be around this place. For all of those things -- the fit, the relationship with the Commission, the stimulation -- all of them have contributed to it seeming like more of a short tenure than a long one.

I've felt forever that I had the best transportation job in the country.

What's your biggest disappointment as you step down from MTC? Is there one thing you've left unfinished?

My disappointment, if you can call it that, is ending a career at such an interesting period of transition in MTC's development. This is the time to be beginning a career!

And yes, there is unfinished business. The Commission has acted promptly, however, to assure continuity of MTC's management and staffing, so there will not be any loss of momentum. My retirement makes way for a fresh new look at how MTC does business, pushed along by energetic new leadership. Thus I am confident that the unfinished business will be finished and exciting new opportunities will be seized upon.
-- Joe Curley & Brenda Kahn

• Saying farewell to MTC's Executive Director
• Interview: Larry Dahms