AC Transit's second set of cuts this year, MTC's transit sustainability

Eric at the Transbay Blog is reporting that AC Transit has scheduled a public hearing on May 26 on another series of service cuts to be implemented in September. AC Transit originally planned to cut service by about 15% last month. Because of some funding shifts, the agency was about to reduce the service cut to about 8%. However the worsening budget situation is forcing AC Transit to propose additional cuts.

Because AC Transit essentially redrew its bus network in March to reduce service impact on transit dependent population, this series of cuts will be more painful since the agency already made much of the painless cuts.

Two major bus cuts in the same year is truly disappointing. What is more disappointing is that we as taxpayers and transit riders haven't get the same value for our transit dollars. Last week, MTC issued its annual report showing that since 1997 (after adjusting for inflation), transit costs have gone up by 52%, while revenue hours and ridership have increased by 16% and 7% respectively. Transit services in the Bay Area are also more heavily subsidized than their counterparts in Los Angeles and New York.

MTC is taking the lead trying to control that trend through the transit sustainability project. So far it has identified some strategies like work rule changes and reduction in administrative costs. On the other hand, labor agreements limited cost-savings options at most large agencies.

Because most of the cost increases is not the result of service addition or enhancement, increased spending on transit over the years provided little if any added benefit for riders. MTC should take a look at various internal factors particularly healthcare and control those costs. Transit riders should not have to pay more and get less service.

MTC could possibly recommend consolidation of transit agencies, but that could be a wrong step to take. One of the reasons why transit agencies are suffering because MTC so far hasn't done much to control cost or provide additional funding for transit operations. Also, most of the transit advocates are distrustful of MTC given its record of backing BART expansions at the expense of cost effective transit. However there are opportunities to consolidate overhead (like San Mateo County, where the same office staff work for both Caltrain and SamTrans) that can keep front line operation intact and decision making process local.

The increasing cost to provide transit, without much increase in service or ridership, is disturbing. It weakens taxpayers' confidence and has harmed transit riders with fewer services and higher fares. With our growing senior population and changes in land use trend, we cannot afford not to have cost effective transit.

Again...Don't mess with FTA

Today, FTA told BART and MTC that the Oakland Airport Connector will no longer be eligible for the stimulus funds because of BART's failure to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Last month, while MTC and BART continued their support of the project and pledged to address FTA's concerns, FTA said that BART would not be able to comply with Title VI before the deadline, and that the Bay Area would be better off spending the $70 million stimulus funds in other ways. Transform, which has been advocating against the OAC in favor of bus rapid transit, wants the money to be directed to local transit agencies, which would help reduce the need for service reductions and fare increases.

Transit agencies are indeed short of funding. Muni in San Francisco is trying to address a $16.9 million mid-year budget deficit with series of fee hikes and service cuts. AC Transit has approved a series of bus cuts to be implemented next month. SamTrans and VTA made painful cuts in December and January.

While the $70 million will be useful, it is largely a one-time relief. The more important battle to ensure future funding stability for transit is happening in Sacramento, where the governor has proposed to eliminate sales tax on fuel (which is restricted to transportation uses only by ballot initiative) and create a new gas "fee" that cannot be diverted to transit.

Unfortunately, the Democratic-controlled legislature isn't helping either (from MTC Advisory Committee member Margaret Okuzumi):

The main differences between the proposals are that the Democrats would hold on to the diesel tax. They also propose giving regional agencies like MTC the ability to put a regional gas tax on the ballot to help get money for transit. MTC has been asking for this authority for years and the legislature has always said no.

Giving MTC this authority might be a help. But it’s a risky funding strategy for transit because there is no guarantee that voters would approve a regional gas tax. It has rarely polled over 50% in the past, polling well only once when voters were told the money would fund initiatives to stop climate change. That was soon after Gore’s movie came out, and climate change is no longer a top concern of voters due to the recession and successful disinformation campaign by climate change deniers. Also, anti-tax groups are likely to sue.

Please contact your state legislators (Assembly and Senate) and let them know that they need to preserve funding for transit.

Don't mess with FTA

Up in Oakland, MTC and BART believed it is still business as usual as they plan for the Oakland Airport Connector, a people mover providing connection between the Coliseum station and the Oakland Airport. However it is no longer the case when BART received a letter from FTA threatening to pull out $70 million stimulus funds from the Bay Area because BART failed to produce an equity analysis showing the impacts of the OAC project on low income and minority communities.

In response, MTC staff has recommended its board to continue supporting the OAC project, but would give BART a few weeks to complete the equity analysis. If BART fails to convince FTA, then that stimulus funding would be distributed to local transit agencies. Under that alternative, Muni and BART each would receive $17 million, VTA would receive $12 million, and AC Transit would receive $7 million.

OAC supporters argued that OAC stimulates the economy by providing needed construction jobs. At the same time, distributing the same funds to local agencies also help the economy by curbing job losses by transit agencies as they cut service. Even after a series of service cuts implemented by Muni last month, Muni is still projecting a $16.9 million budget gap, which means further service cuts and fare hikes. For VTA, that $12 million could go a long way as VTA is dipping into reserve this year and next year, on top of service cuts implemented earlier this month.

Although the Obama administration has expressed willingness to increase federal transit funding and loosen up the eligibility requirements to receive such funds, it is also clear that maintaining transit service is a priority. Yesterday, President Obama was speaking at an event in Lorain County Ohio and commented on the impact of transit cuts in that county: "You can't get to work or go buy groceries like you used to because of cuts in the county transit system." Lorain County eliminated 2/3 of its bus routes after voters rejected a sales tax increase to address the funding shortfall. The service cuts are hitting hard especially on senior and disabled riders, and making economic recovery difficult as more and more unemployed have difficult access to jobs and schools for training.

Back in the Bay Area, one of the main issues for the OAC is the proposed $6 one way fare. The current AirBART shuttle service costs $3 one way and requires no tax subsidy. Compared to the bus service, the proposed project would not be significantly faster or frequent, and would drop off riders at the airport further away from the terminals than the existing buses. While many airport travelers may be willing to pay the high fares, $12 round trip is obviously too high for airport employees. To address FTA's concerns, BART could argue that it can give fare discounts to airport employees and other low income groups. But then can BART promises ever be trusted? 12 years ago, BART promised free fare for Caltrain riders between Millbrae and the SF Airport. Now, it is $4 one way for a one station ride. Also, BART does not waive the $4 airport surcharge for SFO employees, which prompted the airport to provide its own employee shuttle to Millbrae.

Transit consolidation or a waste of time?

Consolidating the number of transit operators is a concept that has always been politically attractive. Having many transit agencies in the area adds confusion for riders, forcing transfers at mostly politically drawn boundaries with little regards to actual transportation needs, and increase transit expense for those who have shorter trips that require transfer to another operator (e.g. Mountain View to Menlo Park vs. Mountain View to San Jose).

MTC has approved a $2.5 million study to evaluate transit consolidations, with focus on where MTC believes that there's transit overlap. The primary motivation is to reduce the growth of transit operating cost in the long run, which MTC has projected a $8.5 billion deficit over the next 25 years.

MTC and the politicians may have big expectations, but what really could be done?

- Some transit agencies in the North Bay are ripe for consolidation. In Sonoma County, Sonoma County provides regional intra-county bus service, Golden Gate Transit provides inter county service, and some cities operate their own buses within the city border. It is likely that some of these would be consolidated. Most of the bus agencies there contract their operation to private companies. A merged agency could consolidate their contracts or keep multiple contracts.

The cities of Vallejo and Benicia have approved a plan to merge their city-run bus operations. Because both systems are relatively small, a merger would provide more convenience for transit riders.

- Do not count on older agencies like AC Transit, Muni, VTA, BART, or SamTrans to be merged. The labor costs with the older agencies are quite high, and will meet great resistance from labor unions. In addition, older transit operators have different tax base that subsidize their operations. Voters in the East Bay have approved multiple parcel taxes over the years for AC Transit operations. How could you ensure funding equity, where taxes approved for one region will stay in one region?

- Muni's operations is so poor that it would actually be advantageous to allow other bus operators (public or private) to provide service. Other agencies that run buses to Downtown San Francisco cannot pick up SF only passengers because of "competition." Muni's real competitions are bicycle and automobile, and Muni is losing to both.

- What really needs to be done, but probably won't be done because of MTC's pro-rail (especially BART) position, is to facilitate the establishment of more regional bus service. Today's political make up prevent the creation of direct express bus routes from San Francisco neighborhoods to work sites in the Silicon Valley. Muni's broke and can't pay for it. VTA won't run it because it is not efficient for them (long deadheading) and workers in San Francisco are not VTA's political constitutents. SamTrans won't run it because these commuters just travel through the county.

Moreover, all three of them are subsidizing Caltrain, except that many SF residents won't take it because it would take them another 30-45 minutes just to get to the Caltrain station on Muni.

At the end, these political gaps help companies like Bauer's, which is handling many of the Valley's shuttle contracts and is starting a shuttle service that's open to the public (recently got state approval).

- Labor issues and strike threats are major problems for mega agencies. In Los Angeles, a number of past MTA (major bus and rail operator) strikes help politicians understand that there's value of having multiple agencies (LA area has a few large bus agencies besides MTA, plus many small city run operation). One of the agencies (Foothill Transit) was created out of the MTA because MTA was providing poor service. Foothill Transit was able to run service at a lower cost through private contracts.

Labor issues at BART have already created nightmares for commuters every few years with strike threats, except that a BART strike wouldn't harm local bus service, whereas a merged agency could.

- Could there be a way to better spend that $2.5 million that MTC will spend on consultants, especially when so many agencies are cutting back service already? One of the reason why transit operating cost is raising so fast is that much of the increases is spent on health care. As we all know, our broken health care system is putting pressures on governments and private businesses. Unfortunately, there's not a lot local governments can do to curb increases in health care costs.

Rod Diridon stirring false HSR funding fears

Unfortunately this is looking like a battle between the Palo Alto/San Jose NIMBYs versus Rod Diridon. Rod Diridon is trying to get the state legistlature to remove the language from the budget bill that would require the HSRA to study alternative alignments to the Caltrain corridor in the project-level EIR for the San Jose-San Francisco segment. The NIMBYs in Palo Alto and San Jose are in favor of the language believing that alternative alignments could be chosen that avoid their neighborhoods. Diridon is opposing this claiming the delay caused by further study would force the agency to miss the deadline set by the Stimulus bill and would have to forego funding.

This political tug-of-war ignores reality. First, some of the alternative alignments are very likely to be screened out because of major flaws. Just because a particular alignment bypasses a neighborhood does not mean that it won't cause harm to the environment and stir opposition from others in the community. A proper evaluation would likely show that a Caltrain alignment would produce the least harm.

Second, Diridon's claim of missing the deadline for the Stimulus fund comes from the assumption that the HSRA would submit the entire corridor for Stimulus funding, which timing would either be too tight or impossible to fulfill regardless. This region would not miss most if any of the Stimulus funds if it prioritizes near term improvements that have been studied and received environmental clearance. The near term projects submitted by MTC for the funding costs about 20% of the total $8 billion of the stimulus funds. The projects submitted by MTC are necessary for high speed rail anyway unless HSRA gives up its current preference and repicks an alignment outside the Caltrain right of way, which this language won't do.

Similar to the current events in Iran, the HSRA can only lose trust in the communities by its rush to judgement and its ignorance to their concerns. While the motive of the legislator who placed the language is suspicious, removing this language from the bill will only foster further distrust by those who have the power to cause further delays for the project.

Restoring the trust will likely require some kind of "regime change" at the High Speed Rail Authority currently dominated by Quentin Kopp and Rod Diridon, who both have a history of supporting wasteful transit projects and pick fights against transit advocates to score cheap political points. High speed rail could be way better off with other more competent and less politically divisive boardmembers.

Change in motion or more of the same

It is typical for MTC to raise big expectations but then only end up to be more of the same. The so call "Change in Motion" of T2035 is simply another plan to protect funding for highway expansions, commit uncertain funding for the otherwise financial unsustainable BART project, and not address the funding shortfall for everyday transit operations.

MTC is actually quite honest about their move to allocate uncertain and yet-to-be-legislated high occupancy toll lane revenue for the BART project as a way to defraud transit riders and taxpayers in the future:

MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger acknowledged the commission was moving ahead before they had legislation, but saw no problem with it. "I would consider the issue that is before you today in the plan and the placement of the $2B as a placeholder, which is subject to change and probably will change. I will acknowledge that we are jumping the gun to some extent. But I think that's a reasonable planning assumption to make and I don't think it has to prejudice this process. We need to make some kind of commitments now, at least on a provisional basis."

By making this move, MTC is signaling VTA that it is okay for VTA to continue spending money on consultants. When the project becomes "shrovel ready," MTC would then cut other transit projects to make up the actual funding shortfall. For instance, the Warm Springs extension has been on the past RTPs for years because MTC assumed the project would be funded by surplus passenger revenue from the SFO extension. When ridership fell below MTC's expectation and that funding got evaporated, MTC made San Mateo County pay for construction anyway by defunding the Dumbarton Rail project.

MTC and VTA want everyone to believe that they're "surprised" by this economic crisis and that somehow through this plan they don't need to ask for more tax dollars or transit cuts. However their history shows otherwise. Since 2001, they have been trying to make the BART project appear affordable. When they got some money, they would spend more than what they have so they can extort us for more money later by raising taxes and cutting transit projects.

Meanwhile MTC has gotten the justification to expand highways (HOT lanes) and that somehow widening more highways would mean less pollution and less dependence on automobiles.

MTC and VTA's misguided priorities

MTC recently delayed the adoption of the Transportation 2035 because of significant changes in revenue assumptions and cost changes. Regardless of what the initial expectation of big changes in direction to combat global warming, etc, it is still the MTC ususal political hack job meant to protect highway projects and wasteful rail expansions at the expense of transit service to those who need the most.

Ealier today, MTC met and staff presented recommend changes to the T2035 program. One of the major recommendations is to divert $2 billion of future High Occupancy Toll lane revenue to cover the shortfall in VTA's 2000 Measure A program.

That recommendation is more or less a temporary political/programmatic cover for VTA and the BART project considering that future toll lane revenue is largely uncertain. Basically MTC is predicting that it would collect as much from the HOT lanes as it does on all the 7 Bay Area toll bridges. Unlike toll bridges, HOT lanes are largely optional, and drivers have many more legal options for not using the toll lanes. However, it is not the unusual that promoters would overestimate the revenue to justify their pet projects.

The scary part, however is the $3.2 billion operating shortfall that VTA is expected to have for the next 25 years. According to the initial estimate last year, VTA would have no operating shortfall. The new estimate puts VTA as the transit agency with the largest operating shortfall in the Bay Area. Other agencies like Muni would have a $1.9 billion shortall, and AC Transit would have a shortfall of just $283 million.

Rather than to use new toll revenue to cover operating shortfalls like it has recommended for unfunded expansion projects, MTC instead complained about transit "overlapping" and encourages transit agencies to cut service and raise fares.

MTC pointed out that AC Transit, BART, and ferries all serve the transbay corridor, and that Caltrain, BART, and SamTrans serve the San Mateo-San Francisco corridor. Transit routes may appear to duplicate at first, but they all serve a purpose by taking commuters to where they want to go with the least inconvenience. Wasteful projects like BART-SFO extension assumed that most Caltrain passengers would simply transfer to BART at Millbrae, which did not happen. It is not the Caltrain riders fault that the slower and more expensive BART extension has failed to attract them, and that Caltrain and bus passengers do not deserve to have their service sacrificed because of poor transit planning.

MTC also complained about the inconsistency of senior and youth fare discounts across agencies. Currently some agencies provide more discounts than VTA and some provide very little. While it is desirable to have a common standard, MTC appears to recommend that these discounts be tightened to generate more fare revenue from youth and seniors. It is unconscionable to raise fares on those who can least afford when MTC has done little to protect transit operations and done to most to preserve wasteful projects.

MTC believes that VTA can cut $1.5 billion in operating cost for the next 25 years (and still leaves a shortfall of $1.7 billion). What service do you think VTA can cut now? For the past 9 years, VTA mostly reduced bus service. Last year, VTA was able to increase bus service on some routes by shortchanging riders on other parts of the system.

Lawsuit against bait and switch politics

Last week TRANSDEF filed a lawsuit against MTC and Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority for approving funding for the Warm Springs BART project.

The suit against MTC involves the redirection of bridge toll funds from the Dumbarton Rail project to the Warm Springs project. The Warm Springs project experienced funding shortfall for years as the project relied on the surplus fare revenue from the SFO extension, which never realized. TRANSDEF argues that it is illegal to switch funds because Regional Measure 2 (the bridge toll voters approved in 2004 to support these projects) allows funding switch between projects only within the same corridor, which Dumbarton Rail and Warm Springs BART are not.

The suit against ACTIA involves the allocation of local sales tax money for the Warm Springs project. Under the sales tax language approved by voters in 2000, ACTIA could not authorize funds for Warm Springs until funding is assured for a rail connection to Santa Clara County. ACTIA earlier approved local funding for the project after the VTA board passed a "full-funding plan" for the BART line to the Flea Market in January. However, that plan assumes federal new starts funds of $750 million, which VTA has yet to apply for, and which the funding is not guaranteed.

MTC and ACTIA might have approved funds out of convenience, considering that BART plans to put the tunnel construction under Lake Elizabeth out to bid soon. However, MTC and ACTIA also broke faith with voters by ignoring the voter-approved language that established the tax and the toll. V Smoothe at A Better Oakland says it best: 

If the government wants to spend money as they please, then they shouldn’t write specific restrictions on expenditures into their ballot measures in the first place. It doesn’t matter if most people have no idea what they’re voting for - if a measure up for voter approval includes specific language about how the revenue generated from it will be spent, then it doesn’t matter if everyone who casts a yes vote or one person casting a yes vote read the fine print - a promise is a promise. Fully funded means fully funded. Not, hopefully fully funded at some point in the future.

More often than not, transportation and other taxes are successful at the ballot box because of the political deals reached to ensure broad consensus. The 2000 Alameda County tax and RM2 bridge toll are results of such compromises. It is important that these deal be upheld to ensure rule of law and a fair and open political process in the future.

Does VTA deserve an award for COA?

Tomorrow, MTC will present an award to VTA for the COA service plan that got implemented in January. Does VTA really deserve an award?

It is important to note that the COA was a reallocation of resources, not to restore the service got cut a few years prior. At every COA related meetings, VTA staff always reminded the audience that any service improvement added to one line would require service reduction on another line. While the ridership growth may look above average, many transit dependent riders either left stranded by the plan or left with a much longer trip requiring multiple transfers (which actually helped boost VTA's ridership count since a trip with a transfer is considered two boardings).

VTA may want to take all the credit, but it was the everyday riders who demanded changes to the original proposal. For instance, under the original plan, West Valley and Foothill college would lose all the bus service except one line for each campus. VTA also proposed to eliminate express bus service like line 104 from Milpitas to Palo Alto and line 122 from South San Jose to Sunnyvale. The staff originally recommended these riders to take the light rail, which would take at least twice if not three times as long.

Nonetheless, some of the useful service got cut anyway. Line 85, for instance, connected Valley Medical Center with downtown San Jose. Line 22 also used to serve Menlo Park.

VTA should only get an award when its bus service is no longer at risk due to its misguided priorities.

Let's not forget the other Grand Jury report

Recently, Santa Clara County Grand Jury issued a report questioning Santa Clara County's participation in the Dumbarton Rail project. At the same time, MTC proposes to rediret $91 millions of Regional Measure 2 bridge tolls funds into BART extension to Warm Springs. That money would replace the $145 million operating surplus from the SFO extension, which will never be fulfilled given flawed ridership projections.


As we examine Dumbarton Rail, what we must not forget is the 2004 Grand Jury report questioning BART to San Jose. Four years later, VTA is still dysfunctional and continues to make decisions based on politics.

What we also must not forget is that Dumbarton Rail was included in the 2000 Measure A just like the BART extension. VTA added Dumbarton Rail to the measure to make the tax appear more "balanced" across regions and to get support from north county cities like Palo Alto, which were suffering from traffic congestion coming off the Dumbarton bridge and were unwilling to build new roads through wetlands and neighborhoods.

Dumbarton Rail is currently under study and is facing some challenges, not too much different than BART. Unlike BART however, it doesn't have a group of dedicated delusionals who are willing to pay for it by destroying the transit system. Dumbarton Rail simply isn't expensive enough to bankrupt any transit agency.

By any measure, focusing on Dumbarton Rail is nothing but a distraction to one of the most harmful transit projects in the Bay Area, the BART extension. It also exhibits a double standard, in which it is okay for VTA to continue spending money on BART despite the failure of the 2006 Measure A, and not okay for a project that is also supported and funded by voters in San Mateo County, Alameda County as well as the rest of the Bay Area through Regional Measure 2.

As to the proposed fund diversion, MTC should be making its decision based on the voter disapproval of the 2006 Measure A. If MTC isn't sure, MTC can wait until after the November election.

MTC Transportation 2035 workshop tonight

MTC is seeking input on its regional Transportation 2035 plan at a workshop scheduled for tonight in San Jose:

Martin Luther King Library, Room 225, 2nd Floor
150 E. San Fernando Street, San Jose
Thursday, May 8, 2008 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Additional MTC workshops are scheduled throughout the Bay Area during the month of May.

Sham VTP 2035 public outreach process begins

With less than a month to go before the deadline for submitting a project list to MTC, VTA scheduled a number of public meetings to receive feedback on VTP 2035.

VTA also includes an online survey, which asked a number of questions about transportation priorities. The survey does not ask participants to weigh between cost effective Caltrain/ACE improvements and the wasteful BART extension, rather it lumps everything together as "regional rail improvements." The survey, however, asks the participants to pick priorities between new metering lights, new carpool lanes, and freeway widening.

How can this be a true public process when the BART extension alone will cost more than the entire VTP 2035 highway program?

4 meetings are scheduled on VTP 2035:

San Jose
February 25, 2008 from 6:00 to 8:00pm
MLK Library, Rooms 225-229
150 E San Fernando Street

Campbell
February 26, 2008 from 6:00 to 8:00pm
Campbell Community Center, Roosevelt Room
1 West Campbell Ave

Morgan Hill
February 27, 2008 from 6:00 to 8:00pm
Morgan Hill Community Cultural Center, Madrone Room
17000 Monterey Road

Mountain View
February 28, 2008 from 6:00 to 8:00pm
City Hall, Plaza Conference Room
500 Castro Street

With a short timetable, the public meetings are more or less a task of "going through the motion."

Uninspired VTP 2035

Next Thursdy, the VTA Congestion Management and Planning Committee will decide whether to forward the VTP 2035 project list to the Board of Directors for consideration. The board then will decide whether to forward that list to the MTC, which will be evaluated and be included as a part of the Regional Transportation Plan.

Unfortunately, VTA has done nothing to solicit public input on VTP 2035. The deadline for project submittal to MTC is March 5.

The project list includes a variety of highway and transit projects. Some new highway projects (not proposed in prior VTPs) include widening of 101 between CA 85 (Mountain View) and Embarcadero Road, as well as a new toll highway on CA 152 between CA 156 and 101 in the Gilroy area.

As for the transit projects, almost all of them are carried over from the last VTP (actually were proposed as a part of the 2000 Measure A). The only new transit project is the San Jose Diridon station expansion with a price tag of $400 million. Sadly, fraudulent studies and prior agreements have ruled out alternatives to the BART project for further consideration in this RTP.

The RTP has to be fiscally constrained, which means there must be enough funding in the future to support all of the proposed projects. VTA's proposal includes a new local revenue source (a new sales tax that has yet to be approved) as a part of the overall revenue.

The RTP was promised to be visionary and to address issues such as global warming. However, nothing from VTA is visionary. Most Santa Clara County politicians are still stuck in a ill-conceived 8-year old transit plan, and only debate what projects should be excluded from it to pay for the money sucking BART extension. Fortunately, voters do have the veto power and can demand a more visionary plan, free of delusional influence from Carl Guardino and Ron Gonzales.

Santa Clara County foregoes opportunity for leadership at MTC

By a single vote at the Santa Clara Cities Selection Committee, Santa Clara County just lost the opportunity to have one of its own to be the chair of MTC for the next four years. Sunnyvale Councilman Dean Chu was voted in 8-7 over the incumbent John McLemore, a former Santa Clara City Councilman who has been serving as the vice-chair on MTC. Yesterday, MTC selected a representive from Napa County to be the chairperson and another from Alameda County to be the vice-chair.

Besides Dean Chu, all the other MTC representives from Santa Clara County are new. Dave Cortese from San Jose is a delegate from ABAG, replacing a delegate from Sonoma County due to obscure rules about committee assignments. Ken Yeager, a newly elected Supervisor, has replaced Jim Beall, which has moved up to Sacramento as an Assemblyman. Because all of them are new, none of them are qualified to become the chair nor vice chair.

This is Margaret Okuzumi's assessment of Dean Chu's selection:

While Dean Chu is a reasonable choice if he had more than 24 hours in day, he is currently stretched so thin that I don't think he'll be able to devote sufficient time to his MTC duties. Chu was recently selected to serve on a transportation committee for the National League of Cities, in addition to serving on the Dumbarton Rail Policy Advisory Committee.

The other problem with Dean Chu is his obsession with the BART project, which won't go anywhere in Sunnyvale, a city that he was elected to represent. Or, may be because of his obsession, was the reason that he got chosen over John McLemore, which in addition to his MTC duties, has also served on the Caltrain Joint Powers Board and has been a strong supporter for Caltrain projects such as electrification.