You are on page 1of 3


District Begins Work on Reshaping

Transit Program for New Bond Issue
Sometime within the next 12 months will be revised to conform to new service
the Transit District expects to offer East boundaries.
Bay citizens a revised program to replace In its revisions, the District will closely
the area's deteriorating transit service confer with civic, business, and industrial
with an up-to-date and progressive trans- groups and municipal agencies to assure
portation system. the transit program is in close harmony
No sooner were returns of the recent with the wishes of the people.
transit bond eJection compiled than Rob- "Every effort should be made to bring
ert K. Barber, district president, stated into our planning the various citizens'
a revised bond measure should be sub- groups that have shown their intense in-
mitted to the voters. terest," Barber recntly told the Board of
Results of the bond election confirmed Directors, "so that in the shaping of our
that a majority of residents in Alameda program they will have a large part in
County favor an improved transit service forming a policy and program that would
operating as a publicly-owned district, provide in their eyes the most benefit to
Barber said. our citizens and voters."
Despite a political climate in which Objections Eliminated
few bond measures in the area were Barber and other directors believe an-
adopted, the $16,900,000 bond proposal other bond issue should be approached
received a 60 per cent favorable vote in on an "entirely fresh basis, eliminating
Alameda County. any feature which might have been found
New Boundaries objectionable."
In central Contra Costa County, only Directors have authorized a public
39 per cent of those voting favored the opinion poll to determine specific objec-
proposaL As a result, directors of the tions to the transit plan that influenced
D istrict have indicated they favor the ex- voters against approving the program by
clusion of central Contra Costa County the necessary two-thirds vote.
from voting on a future bond election. The District plans to continue with its
General Manager John R. Worthing- current condemnation suit against Key
ton has been instructed to begin studies System, now before the State Public Utili-
leading towards the necessary legislative ties Commission. The PUC decision is
changes in the transit district law that expected to assure acceptable values so
would be required for this exclusion. far as any purchases or contracts that
The district's basic transit plan, pre- might be made in connection with any
pared by De Leuw, Cather & Company, of the company's properties.
Wm. J. Bettencourt, Paul E. Deadrich
Board Adopts Outline and John L. McDonnell in addition to
For District Planning Barber.

Election Analysis A committee report setting forth areas

of study regarding a future course of ac-
What the Editors
tion for the Transit District was adopted
ASIGNIFICANT factor in the recent defeat trict showed they favored the transit pro-
1""1. of the $16,900,000 transit bond issue posal.
at the November meeting of the Board
of Directors. Say About Transit
was the re-election of incumbent transit Probably there are a number of rea- The report was submitted for approval
directors by substantial margins. Bond Defeat Considered Setback
sons why the bond measure failed to re- by the Committee on Program Planning,
This was an election year in which re- ceive the necessary two-thirds majority headed by President Robert K. Barber. To Needed Transit Improvements
turn of the incumbent was the exception vote for passage. A public opinion poll The need to re-evaluate the transit plan Reprinted from the San Francisco Call-
-not the rule. Yet, these elected district to be conducted by the District should in order to give full recognition to the de- Bulletin:
officials, whose proposed bond issue was uncover some of these reasons. General sires of all areas of the District as re- One dead pigeon riddled by Tuesday's
reluctance to vote bonds, as evidenced cently expressed by the voters on the ballots is a corpse which concerns San
turned down by the voters, received an
by the defeat of most all bond measures bond issue was stressed by Barber in pre- Francisco, although San Franciscans
overwhelming vote of confidence.
in the two East Bay counties, undoubt- senting the report. didn't vote on it.
An analysis of the election results While Contra Costa County voters as This is the Alameda-Contra Costa
edly was a large contributing factor.
strongly indicates that reasons for the a whole rejected the plan, for example, Transit District bond issue of $16,900,-
defeat of the bond measure must there- To resolve objectionable features of the the outcome in Alameda County was
plan, the District is preparing to meet 000, which failed to gain a required two-
fore be found other than in general dis- otherwise, with a 60 per cent favorable thirds majority and on which hinged the
with numerous organizations in an en- vote achieved, he noted.
approval of the directors' transit program. development of the District as .a going
deavor to learn whether there may be "The committee was unanimous in its concern.
First of all, a landslide re-election victory
possible revision that would better serve opinion that the Alameda County vote This not only is a setback for the de-
was accorded the directors who were re-
the individual cities and unincorporated implied strong support for the District's velopment of adequate mass transit in
sponsible for the program; and, secondly, areas of the District. overall approach to the transit problem
more than half of the voters in the Dis- the East Bay, but it may well prove to
With greater community participation in the East Bay, and that the outcome be at least a psychological obstacle in the
and more opportunity in which to ac- could have been even more favorable had way of bringing to reality the five-county
quaint the people with the revised tran- the election been held at another time San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
Transit Times sit program, directors of the District be- when fewer measures were competing District of which this city is a member.
lieve voters will favor a future bond issue for the attention of the voters," Barber And if a continued decline of East Bay
Published monthly by the said.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District with the necessary two-thirds vote. transit facilities forces commuters in
Suite C, Claremont Hotel The committee recommended the gen- growing numbers to take to their autos,
Berkeley-Oakland, California The directors are satisfied, in view of eral manager should submit proposals
Telephone THornwail 5-66JO the election, that to abandon their efforts it will aggravate to a certain degree San
along the following course of action: Francisco's traffic problems.
Alan L. Bingham, Editor to develop an adequate public transit "Possible amendments to the transit
system would amount to gross disregard The bay area district has a tough job
Officers district law at the next session of the
Robert K. Barber President of majority opinion and would serve only on its hands at best, and the failure of
Wm. J. Bettencourt Vice President
Legislature to conform with indicated de- the transit bonds has made it all the
John R. Worthington
to compound the multiple transit prob- sires of Contra Costa County;
General Manager
lems of the growing East Bay area. tougher.
Robert E. Nisbet Attorney-Secretary "Revisions of the transit plan, including
George M. Taylor Administrative Officer
Progressive public transit-an essential finacing, to more nearly meet the desires Another Copy?
Robert K. Barber . Ward I
ingredient to overall progress and devel- of the East Bay areas; For another copy of Transit Times or
J. Howard Arnold Ward" opment of the East Bay-is the goal dis- "Organization of citizen advisory to place your name on the mailing list if
John L. McDonnell Ward III trict directors have renewed their pledge groups to help shape district plans, and you are not already regularly receiving a
Wm. J. Bettencourt Ward IV
Paul E. Deadrich . Ward V
to attain. They will need the assistance "Submission of a modified program copy of the monthly newsletter, just drop
Robert M. Copeland Director at large and thoughtful consideration of the entire and financing to the voters at the earliest a line to the Transit District in Suite C at
Clair W. Macleod Director at large citizenry of the District to accomplish practicable opportunity." the Claremont Hotel, Berkeley. The Dis-
this task. The report was prepared by Directors trict will be pleased to oblige.
2 3
Voters Return Transit Directors to Office
Transit district directors seeking re- Eugene P. Cadenasso 61,271
election on the Nov. 4 ballot were re- Herbert B. Kincaid 44,163
turned to office by sizeable majorities.
In Ward 1 where no incumbent was
William H. Coburn, Jr. 26,080
running, Berkeley Attorney William H.
Richard J. Mitchell 25,180
Coburn, Jr., held a 900 vote lead in the
Thomas G. Paulson 6,889
complete unofficial tally. This ward rep-
resents El Cerrito, Kensington, and por- WARD 2
tions of Berkeley and central Contra J. Howard Arnold. 20,920
Costa County. Neal Higgins 8,319
Directors returned to office were: WARD 3
Robert K. Barber and Robert M. Cope- John McDonnell 40,588
land, At Large; J. Howard Arnold, Ward William S. Billings 19,000
2; John McDonnell, Ward 3, Wm. J. Bet-
tencourt, Ward 4, and Paul E. Deadrich, WARD 4
Ward 5. Wm. J. Bettencourt 51,396
John T. Muldowney 20,959
Four-year Terms
Directors Copeland, McDonnell, Bet- WARD 5
tencourt and Deadrich, on the basis of Paul E. Deadrich . 40,527
Clyde W. O'Callaghan 15,349
vote cast, were elected to four-year
terms. The other three directors received Marvin T. Maynard 8,998
two-year terms.
The new board will be seated and its
Anot:her Special Lane for
officers elected next January. Buses Prove a Success
Director Clair W. MacLeod did not An experimental rushhour bus lane on
seek re-election, but retired from the a five-block section of main thoroughfare
board due to other public responsibilities. in downtown Baltimore has become per-
He currently is president of the five- manent. It was the sixth exclusive bus
county San Francisco Bay Area Rapid lane to be made permanent in the Mary-
Transit District. land city.
Complete unofficial returns showed the Buses of the Baltimore Transit Com-
following vote: pany have been able to shave two min-
utes from their running time along the
AT LARGE street because of the priority lane.
Robert M. Copeland 204,364 The lane has also expedited the flow
Robert K. Barber . 176,740 of all other vehicles. The thoroughfare,
Edwin C. Perrin . 80,006 Paca Street, is a one-way five-lane artery.

Transit Times
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
Suite C, Claremont Hotel
Berkeley-Oakland, California PAID
Permit No. 288
Berkeley, California

Form 3547 Requested