AC Transit and union reach agreement, prevent weekend cuts

Today AC Transit announced that an arbitration panel has reached a decision between the agency and the union representing the agency's drivers and mechanics. The decision finally ended the labor dispute that began in summer which resulted in lawsuits, driver sickouts and a threat to discontinue most of overnight and weekend service.

The binding decision essentially requires union members to contribute to their health and retirement plans. The decision also require changes to work rules. Overall it would cut AC Transit deficit by $38 millions over three years.

Given the declining state and local revenues, AC Transit sought savings from the new labor contract. After an unsuccessful effort to reach an agreement with the union, AC Transit board voted to impose the contract. The union fought back by bring the issue to court. The court agreed with the union by striking down the new contract. Meanwhile the drivers informally staged a sickout, which caused missed runs and more crowded buses.

If AC Transit were not able to realize labor savings, AC Transit would have to further reduce service to cut costs. After two major service cuts earlier this year, AC Transit was planning another cut in December, which would cut most overnight and weekend service. After this decision, AC Transit cancelled the December cuts but warned that additional cuts may be required sometime next year.

In this economy, it is counter-productive for transit unions refusing to make concessions to protect service and jobs. In San Francisco, where Muni drivers' pay was set by the city charter to be the second highest in the country (which essentially meant automatic pay raises regardless of the economy), city voter overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure last week to remove the wage provision from the city charter. Earlier in the year, Muni drivers twice voted down proposals to increase employee health and retirement contributions while maintaining charter mandated pay raises.

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.

SF study finds employee shuttles good for the city

San Francisco County Transportation Authority has released a study last week which identified key benefits with employee shuttles from San Francisco to work sites in Silicon Valley.

For the past few years, companies like Google and Yahoo have provided dedicated shuttles for their employees. The shuttles, like other fringe benefits (including free lunches), help recruit workers and keep them more productive as they can work during their commutes.

Besides the benefits for the employers and employees, SFCTA's study confirms that employee shuttles provide benefits to the rest of the city as well:

• - 20 million VMT reduced as employees forego driving
• - Reduction in CO2 emissions by approximately 8,000 to 9,500 tons per year
• - reduction in non-CO2 emissions ranging from 1 to17 tons per year
• - $1.8 million per year in local spending as employees patronize local businesses in the city and by the bus stops.
• - 62% of the shuttle riders surveyed said the shuttle influenced their decision to live in the city. Landlords and realtors agree that proximity to shuttles make their location more attractive.
• - 28% of those surveyed do not own a car. Many of them join car-sharing services so they can drive once in a while to go to Costco or Ikea. Fewer people owning cars help free up parking spots for everyone else in the neighborhood.

The largest benefit of all, which is not mentioned in the report, is that the shuttles do not require public funding. Given the current financial crisis faced by transit agencies, commuter routes are generally considered first to be eliminated so agencies can preserve core services used more by the transit dependent. As reported earlier, SamTrans is already planning to eliminate nearly all commuter express bus service to San Francisco, and VTA is also planning to cut some express bus service. Both agencies however are keeping their overnight service on El Camino.

The shuttles fill the gap current exist on the transit network. Although Caltrain itself competes well with driving, a trip from the Marina in SF to Moffett Park in Sunnyvale would require a trip on Muni and VTA light rail. The connections on VTA and especially Muni add significantly to the travel time and would erase the speed advantage with Caltrain. Many of the shuttles are coming from the Mission, the Castro, the Marina, and Van Ness Avenue, none of which Caltrain directly serves.

However, the shuttles also attracted complaints from others in the community, which prompted the SFCTA to conduct this study. Most of the complaints are about large buses driving on narrow streets, shuttle buses occupying Muni bus stops to pick up passengers, safety issues with large vehicles, and noise/emissions generated with buses idling.

Current laws do not leave much for the city to regulate the shuttles except for issuing citations when large buses are driving on weight-restricted streets or stopping at Muni bus stops (which SF says no one else can use unless one have express permission from Muni). SFCTA instead proposes a volunteer program where shuttle bus operators would pay Muni to hire a full time planner. That planner would coordinate shuttle activities to address community concerns and be the main contact by the public.

While more coordination is essential, it would be a mistake for the San Francisco to try to squeeze money from the employers. The shuttles have proven themselves to be beneficial to the employers and employees, and cannot be easily substituted by transit agencies. Sharing bus stops with Muni is a small price to pay for not having to provide more service on the public's dime, or encourage more automobile use in a community that's short on parking. What San Francisco should do is to pursue grant funding to support the coordinator position. In San Mateo County, Congestion Relief Alliance manages shuttles to Caltrain and BART stations with funding from employers, transit agencies, and grants. The DASH in Downtown San Jose is also funded the same way and totally operated by VTA.

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.

What Muni (and VTA) could learn from Sacramento on how to handle troublemakers

Recently, Sacramento Regional Transit implemented a new policy to address nuisance behavior and security:

Senate Bill 1561, authored by Senator Steinberg, was enacted to allow RT to exclude passengers who repeatedly violate transit laws from using the system. The purpose of the exclusion policy is to reduce the number of passenger disruptions and improve overall RT service.

Effective October 1, 2009, anyone arrested for a crime or cited on three separate occasions within a period of 60 consecutive days for infractions committed in or on an RT vehicle, bus stop or light rail station will now face a ban of 30 days. Offenders can be banned for up to a year if convicted of more serious offenses.

Interfering with an operator of a transit vehicle, willfully disturbing others on or in a system facility or vehicle, and defacing District property could all result in exclusion.

“The exclusion policy puts Sacramento at the forefront of a continued effort to improve passenger safety on California’s transit systems,” Senator Steinberg said. “Over the next few years, we will prove the exclusion policy can be a valuable asset not only in our region but to transit operators across the state.”

The exclusion policy provides an appeals process for individuals who opt to contest a prohibition order. Transit personnel have also been trained to recognize and facilitate passengers’ special needs.

In effect, it would make riding transit somewhat of a privilege similar to driving, which is not necessarily a bad thing considering that certain people just couldn't keep to themselves. Make them walk so that the rest of us can have a safe trip.

Fight onboard Muni

Muni in San Francisco always has a sense of lawlessness. This fight captured onboard a Muni bus two days ago demonstrates a clear failure to provide law and order onboard Muni, which threatens the safety of passengers and a discourage transit use in what is supposed to be a "Transit first" city.

Although fights do not occur regularly, people boarding buses through the rear door happens quite frequently on many of the trunk routes:

The two-dollar club

Tomorrow, Muni and AC Transit will officially join the $2 club with the scheduled fare increase. On the same date, BART and Golden Gate Transit will also raise their fares.

Percentage wise, Muni's fare increase is the highest at 33% from $1.50 to $2.00. AC Transit is about 14% (same as VTA which will be in effect next January if not earlier) . Others go up by a less than 10%.

10 years ago, Muni fare was at $1.00. With this fare increase, Muni would have doubled its fare within a decade. According to the National Transit Database, Muni's operating cost increased by about 45% between 1999 and 2007, while providing slightly less transit service in 2007 than it was in 1999.

In comparison, VTA's total operating cost went up by over 50% in the same time frame, while revenue from fares only went up by just over 34.6%. Although VTA's total revenue miles and hours increased by 20% during that 8 year time frame, the ridership in 2007 was just less than 80% of what VTA carried in 1999.

Meanwhile at Caltrain, although operating cost went up by 68% from 1999 to 2007, revenue hours and revenue went up by 78% (with the Baby Bullet service). Weekday ridership has gone up by 50% during that time frame, but ridership on weekends was less in 2007. Overall, unlike VTA and Muni, Caltrain actually improved productivity.

The cost to deliver transit has increased dramatically over the last 10 years, however consumer prices went up by about 28.4%.

With increasing fares, it is harder to promote healthy and environmental sustainable behaviors these days. In 2009, you could still buy a burger at a fast food restaurant for 99 cents like it was 10 years ago. Fewer people rely on transit these days considering the higher cost.

Also, while funding shortfalls creating by the economy and budget cuts deserve attention, transit agencies also needs to do more to control costs. Controlling cost not only involves maintaining a reasonable wage and benefits including health care, but also by choosing the right mode of transportation cost-effective for riders. Over the years, VTA and Muni have expanded its light rail lines that are much more expensive to operate and maintain, while in most cases ridership did not go up as originally projected.

In the early part of the 20th century, transit used to be a profitable business, over the decades, to save cost, streetcars were replaced by buses, and private operations were converted into public subidized operation. However, our society today needs more mass transit as a way to make our communities environmentally sustainable and accessible with a growing senior population. The question is whether the transit systems the way it is now will be able to handle future demand?

Federal regulation vs. state law on charter service

Silverado Stages, a charter bus company that will take over SamTrans service to the 49ers games at Candlestick park, recently filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission for an authority to operate bus service to the stadium. SamTrans was forced to abandon the service because the new federal regulation considers premium fare stadium service to be charter service, even though no one hires the whole bus.

Previously reported, charter bus companies that have TCP (charter bus) licenses cannot operate a service that collects individual fares from passengers in California. To do so legally, the company must obtain a Passenger Stage Corporation license indicating areas the company would serve.

Meanwhile, Muni, VTA and Golden Gate Transit will continue to provide special service the 49ers games. For Muni, its special fare ($7 round trip) is lower than the $5 one way cable car fare. For VTA, normal express bus fares will be charged this season to comply with the regulation. Earlier, VTA wrote to the FTA that its 49ers service should not be considered charter because the per mile fare of its service (minus parking fees and the time drivers have to wait for passengers) was only slightly higher than the per mile fare of regular VTA express routes.

Impacts of FTA charter bus rule changes

The FTA's new charter bus rule already has an impact in the Bay Area:

1. In Concord, the shuttle connecting between BART and the Sleep Train Pavilion is not longer free. Before the new ruling, the Pavilion management subsidized the shuttle. Passengers now has to pay the regular bus fare, but in an effort keep the passengers, the Pavilion staff will give coupons for free soft drinks to shuttle riders.


2. For the Bay to Breakers footrace on May 18, SamTrans will charge $4 one way/$8 roundtrip for its special service to the event. The fare is the same as its regular express bus fare to and from San Francisco. Last year, SamTrans charged $12 round trip for the same service. On the other hand, it is not clear at this point what measures Muni will take to make its Bay to Breakers service compliant with the new ruling.

New charter bus regulation and special event transit

In January, the Federal Transit Administration issued a new regulation on charter bus service provided by public transit operators. The new regulation is set to take effect by the end of this month.

Generally, transit agencies are forbidden to offer charter service except for limited circumstances. The reason behind the ban is that unlike transit agencies, private charter bus companies don't receive taxpayer subsidy, and that allowing transit agencies to offer charter service is considered unfair competition.

Traditionally, charter service means an exclusive transportation for a group of people traveling together, and the service is generally charged per vehicle. The new rule, however, has expanded the definition of charter service. It now includes service to special events that charges premium fares and/or subsidized by a third party, a service that many transit agencies provide across the country, including VTA.

For many years, VTA, along with SamTrans, Muni, Golden Gate Transit and Tri-Delta Transit provided special bus service to the 49ers home games at Candlestick Park. During the last football season, VTA charged $21 per round trip or $118 per season and no other passes are honored. VTA and other agencies had to charge premium fares to maintain a very high farebox recovery ratio. Because very little operating subsidy is required, these services continued despite funding cuts on transit over the last few years.

Under the new regulation, transit agencies cannot offer premium fare or sponsored service to events as long as there is a private operator "willing and able" to provide the service. Even through many charter bus companies would like to see expanded business opportunities, it is still not clear whether they will be able to provide a service equivalent to what transit agencies have been providing. For instance, virtually every bus on every transit agencies' fleet is wheelchair accessible, whereas for many charter companies only a portion of their fleet is accessible. Also, most special event bus service begin their route at a park and ride lot owned by transit agencies or at a transit center, both which charter operators may not have permission to serve. Finally, if the service is not sponsored by a third party like the football service, will charter operators provide open door service where passengers can pay when boarding, or a service where advanced reservation and payment is required.

The new charter bus rule is having an impact across the country, as various transit agencies are asking FTA for exemptions and clarifications to serve major events (including Olympic trials and Kentucky Derby) scheduled within the next few months. Beyond that, it can also change, if not eliminate, the role for transit at venues with no adjacent rail service, such as the Candlestick Park and the proposed A's Ballpark in Fremont.

Muni's TEP vs. VTA's COA

After months of extensive data collection and research, Muni in San Francisco released its draft route change proposal yesterday.

In many ways, Muni's Transit Effectiveness Project is following VTA's footsteps, from the initial research to recommendations. Muni and VTA hired the same consultant to conduct their service evaluations (compare VTA's 22 to Muni's 14). Some elements of Muni's route change proposal are strikingly similar to VTA's COA, such as elimination of less popular routes that closely parallel to major routes.

However, Muni and VTA are vastly different systems. Muni's plan maintains its 1/4 mile transit coverage in most of San Francisco, and only proposes to eliminate service in the Presidio, which is already served by its own shuttle system, the PresidiGo. On the other hand, VTA initially recommended to cut service in much of the outlaying suburbs, as well as to the community colleges located there. Passenger complaints forced the VTA staff to keep some of the service in these areas.

Another difference between Muni and VTA is their implementation process. Given San Francisco's politics, it is not inconceivable that some necessary changes to speed service will be vetoed because of some individuals' desire to maintain a bus stop on every block. In addition, some of the changes will require infrastructure changes, because much of its bus network is consisted of trolley buses running under overhead wires. Don't anticipate such a major service change to happen overnight like what VTA had last month.

New Muni Metro extension causing a systemwide meltdown

Ever since the T-Third light rail line began full service last Saturday in San Francisco, the entire Muni Metro system has been severly impacted. Service on the T-line and other lines was unreliable and trains back up in key locations causing back ups. The T-line was expected to have a headway of 8 to 12 minutes, but at various times trains won't show up for more than 40 minutes. At the 4th & King intersection near the Caltrain station, it took up to 10 minutes for some trains to get through the intersection, causing Muni riders to miss their Caltrain connection. In addition, Muni was short of light rail vehicles and operators. Runs were missed and operators had to work overtime.

Blogs and message boards like SFist and San Francisco Cityscape have been monitoring the service daily. Many posters shared their experiences of slow commutes and expressed their outrage for poor planning and operation.

Nine years ago, the Muni Metro system had another service meltdown, when Muni began using a new computerized train control system in the subway and extended the N-Judah line to the Caltrain station at 4th & King. Because of that meltdown, then mayor Willie Brown recruited Michael Burns, now the VTA General Manager, to manage Muni.

The T-line was supposed to improve transit service to the impoverished Bay View District. Although the presence of rail has helped to spur developments and businesses in the area, the rail line has yet to prove itself to be a dependable form of transportation to the residents in the area.

Richard Mlynarik wrote in the SFist blog: "Would you give any of these criminal incompetents $1.5 billion to build a subway [Central Subway] which will dump MORE trains at the train-gridlocked 4th&King intersection? Would you give them $2 and think they could serve a cup of coffee for that matter?

The boondoggle in SF

The Silicon Valley isn't the only area run by subway delusionals, San Francisco also has its share of delusionals when it comes to the Central Subway project. The project is estimated to cost $1.4 billion for 1.7 mile of new rail. In some ways it makes the San Jose BART project look like a bargain.

The Central Subway was supposed to be a new spine connecting light rail lines from Chinatown, the Richmond, and the Bay View districts, similar to the existing Market Street Subway. Although a good concept, the project as currently planned would fail to meet much of its transportation objectives with short platforms and inconvenient connection to other transit lines on Market Street. Nonetheless, the project has its share of supporters. They claim, not so much that this project actually improve transportation in a cost effective manner, but in some magical way the project would benefit local businesses and residents and it has the support from the community.

What this means is that the Central Subway, like the BART project, has been hijacked by non-transit advocates to waste valuable transit funds for soft non-transportation benefits.

Despite its problems, the Central Subway can still receive federal funding, especially considering that Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, represents the district where the project lies.

The moment of truth for the Central Subway would likely depend on the success or failure of the T-Third Street line, which opened for weekend service on January 13 until April, when full weekday service commences. The T line, primarily a surface light rail line, has experienced long delays and huge cost overruns. The T line has the support from the African American community in the Bay View and its leaders believe that the T line would be the key to revitalize the neighborhood. However, riders have reported that the T line is slower than the parallel bus service, despite traffic signal priority and exclusive right-of-way available most of the corridor.