Traffic Plan for Bay Area Gets Mixed Reception

A sweeping new plan to cut traffic congestion through such measures as smog fines, bridge and road tolls, parking fees and cash bonuses for car-poolers has drawn mixed reviews from local groups active in planning issues.

The new plan, released this week by the Bay Area Economic Forum, represents the first time the business community here has supported a major traffic-reduction initiative.

The proposal relies mainly on a system of incentives and penalties to reduce vehicle emission levels and traffic congestion. Specifics include charging an annual fee based on smog emissions from each car and implementing an areawide vehicle inspection and maintenance program.

“The market-based approach is more fair than regulatory proposals because it applies equally to drivers based on their actual behavior,” Michael McGill, director of the forum, said Friday.

The group is made up of corporate executives, elected officials and academic leaders. They include UC Berkeley Chancellor Ira Michael Heyman, Stanford University President Donald Kennedy and top officers of Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Hewlett-Packard Co. Also on the forum are the mayors of San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose.

The forum’s recommendations include many traffic-cutting ideas also proposed by environmentalists and public officials in recent months. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is expected to hold hearings in June on the forum’s advisory report and several other Bay Area proposals for meeting state clean-air guidelines.

Several environmentalists said Friday they favor aspects of the plan that encourage people to use their cars less. But they said the forum’s approach dodges tough land-use decisions. They also insisted that long-term transportation woes will be solved only by limiting urban development in some areas and clustering it in others.

“Disincentives alone are not going to be enough,” said Mark Evanoff, a field representative of the Greenbelt Alliance, an environmental group involved in planning issues. “You have to set up urban limit boundaries and then figure out how you’ll move the people--otherwise your public transit will always be catching up with the newest subdivision.”

But the plan was praised by another group that said the forum’s plan is innovative and politically feasible.

“These are demand side solutions,” said Arthur Brizzone, a member of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Assn., a nonprofit organization that has fought freeway expansion here. “That’s a form of handling the problem without creating a monstrous super-regional planning agency.”

The report estimates that Bay Area residents are stuck in traffic jams nearly 100 million hours a year, costing $1.3 billion annually in lost wages and fuel.