Street Spirit April 2006

Transit Justice for the Poor Faces Detours and Delays

Poor people depend on AC Transit to get to work and school, but many bus riders say that transportation justice is running late.

by Claudette Langley

It was all about the words at the recent Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) meeting. The MTC Commissioners appeared litigiously gun-shy, and were particularly picky about the language in the four environmental justice principles brought before them for adoption.

While the principles seemed straightforward enough, the discussion concerning them bounced all over the room before a half-measure was finally settled on - the first two principles (as originally worded) were adopted and the commissioners gave themselves four more months to consider the last two.

"We don't want to draw a line in the sand," said Anne W. Halsted, of the San Francisco Conservation and Development Commission, who left before the vote. "But if it takes a couple of months to come up with the right language so we won't be litigious, we should do it."

The lengthy debate seemed a bit odd given the amount of time the Minority Citizens Advisory Committee (MCAC) had been working on the principles and the number of times it had already gone before the MTC. The March 22 meeting was at least the fifth time commissioners were presented with the four environmental justice principles which were hammered out over a two-year period by the MCAC.

Working with MTC staff members, the MCAC developed a clearly worded proposal to present to the MTC for approval. But, even after a laborious and careful process, the wording apparently wasn't right for the commissioners or their legal counsel.

Asked by the Legislation Committee to review the principles and provide a legal analysis, MTC General Counsel Francis Chin instead got out his red pen and made a number of changes to the document. By the time he was finished, key words had been struck out and the principles themselves had been gutted, according to members of the MCAC and of the Transportation Justice Working Group (TJWG).

"He took the heart right out of them," said Frank Gallo, a former chairperson of the MCAC. The current MCAC chair called Chin's version "environmental jello."

Chin's revision took out the words "transparent" and "empowerment" from Principle 1 and rewrote Principles 3 and 4 in decidedly passive language that appeared to excuse the MTC from having to take any real corrective action.

Both the MCAC and Chin's versions were presented, along with Chin's recommendation that if the commissioners decided to stick with the original principles as developed by MCAC, they be "received" rather than adopted.

Gallo said, "Receiving the principles will result in them just being put on a back shelf somewhere and never being acted on."

The MCAC principles would lay the basic foundation for developing environmental justice policies and procedures, as well as guide the MTC's approach to its funding allocations, helping to ensure that transit dollars, of which the MTC distributes billions, are spread out more equitably.

Lila Hussain, an advocate from Urban Habitat and the Transportation Justice Working Group, explained that contrary to the liability concerns expressed by MTC Commissioners, the principles would provide the framework for ensuring full legal compliance with the executive and federal orders on environmental justice. She said, "It's surprising the commission couldn't express such a simple commitment."

Currently, the MTC is facing a discrimination lawsuit brought by bus riders. In December, a district court judge ruled that the class action suit filed against the agency on April 19, 2005, could go forward.

The suit, brought by people of color, asserts that MTC discriminates against poor riders by maintaining a "separate and unequal" transit system. The action points to funding for a state-of-the-art rail system, CalTrain and BART, which are used by a disproportionate number of affluent white people, versus a shrinking bus system used by low-income people. Further, the suit shows that riders of the systems serving the higher-income populations receive subsidies in some cases nearly four times that of bus passengers.

The apparition of the pending suit hung in the air as MTC Commissioners discussed the environmental justice principles. However, not all of the MTC members confused the lawsuit with the adoption of the environmental principles.

After the protracted debate, San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano, Richmond Mayor Irma L. Anderson, Contra Costa County Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier, Marin County Supervisor Steve Kinsey, and Pamela Torliatt, Association of Bay Area Governments, broke ranks and voted to support a motion that would have adopted all four principles as originally worded.

"We are looking at social justice here," said Ammiano. "It's bigger than just the law. When it comes right down to it, we owe people more than what we're doing."

But their five votes weren't enough, and the first motion, to adopt Principles 1 and 2 and wait four months to decide on Principles 3 and 4, was unanimously passed. During the grace period, MTC has instructed staff to gather pertinent data to determine if the "inequities" addressed in Principles 3 and 4 truly do exist and if there is need for corrective action.

Stepping up to the microphone after the vote was taken, Nancy Cross, a supporter of the MCAC principles, asked the MTC Commission to go the extra mile in their search for information. "In the light of the outcome, MTC should have a special public forum to reveal inequities in the transit system," she said.

Transportation advocate Hussain went further: "If the MTC Commissioners, including their chair Jon Rubin, can't support basic equity, we need to go back to our mayors and our city councils to get some commissioners appointed who can."

This article was originally published in Urban Habitat's journal, Race Poverty and the Environment, available online at www.urbanhabitat.org.

back top