VTA revises bus change proposal

After a series of public meetings, VTA staff came up with a revised bus change proposal for this July and next January.

The key revisions from the original proposal are to maintain routes 101 and 104, postponement of adding a new route 105 (Fremont BART to Mountain View), and an extension of route 120 (Fremont BART to Lockheed) from Lockheed to Mountain view. On the other hand, under the revised plan, route 10 would have reduced service in the evening and all day on weekends because of funding cuts from the City of San Jose. Line 180 would also lose a late evening trip in favor of adding a Milpitas stop for line 181.

Also under the new plan, line 37 would have Saturday service between Winchester and Capitol LRT stations. Service span on lines 48 and 49 would remain the same.

The revised plan is certainly an improvement. At the community meetings, staff said that under the proposed biennial budget, there would be a 1% increase in service (considering that less than 2 years ago VTA reduced service by 8%.). While VTA was saying that there would be an increase in service, the original plan still proposed to discontinue some in-county express routes like line 104, which staff originally planned to cut the route back in 2007.

Cutting line 104 and starting 105 was not justified. Without line 104, residents from East San Jose and Milpitas would not have a viable transit option to the Palo Alto area. The next best alternative would require multiple transfers between light rail and bus, or travel all the way to Downtown San Jose to make a transfer. On the other hand, line 105 would primarily serve out of county commuters. Even without the extension of line 120, East Bay commuters can take ACE or Capitol Corridor train and transfer to an ACE Shuttle at Great America to Mountain View.

The VTA Transit Planning and Operations Committee will review the revised plan today at its regular meeting at 4:30pm. The committee meeting location is the VTA headquarters at 3331 North 1st Street (conference room B-104). If the committee supports the plan, the VTA Board will consider approving the plan at its meeting on June 2 at 6:00pm at the Board of Supervisors Chamber.

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.

AC Transit's armageddon

Tonight AC Transit Board of Directors will consider slashing weekend service by half, along with other cost cutting measures, to eliminate a budget shortfall resulting from not getting concessions from the agency's unions.

AC Transit already had a service cut implemented in March, another one is scheduled next month. This proposed weekend reduction would occur in December. That would be a third service cut to occur within a year.

By cutting the weekend service in half, service would only be available along the major corridors. There would be no weekend bus in Newark, Castro Valley, and most of San Lorenzo. Weekend service to San Francisco would be eliminated as well. The only way to get across the Bay would be BART and ferries. On the other hand, line 217 would stay and connect with VTA light rail in Milpitas.

In addition, AC Transit plans to cut all overnight service except lines 800 and 801, which serve BART stations and are partially funded by bridge tolls (RM2).

This budget crisis and its unions' unwillingness to give concessions is forcing the AC Transit to consider contracting as a cost saving option. Also on the agenda is a plan to begin closing an in-house paratransit division and transfer the work to private contractors. By doing so, AC Transit can save more than a million dollars per year. The agency is also contemplating contracting out transbay and school services, which are provided mostly during the peak hours. Under the current union work rules, peak hour only service result in higher cost due to overtime, even though the work itself can be less than full-time.

Could AC Transit drivers go on strike?

AC Transit today issued a statement to its workers urging them to stay on the job. Recently the agency was not able to reach an agreement with the union and it is imposing a contract on those workers. Currently the union is suing the agency trying to overturn that contract. If the court rules in favor of AC Transit, the workers could go on strike as soon as next week.

Regardless of the court outcome, nobody wins in this fight. If the union win back the benefits and old work rules, it will increase costs the agency. Because AC Transit doesn't have sufficient funding to begin with, AC Transit would have to cut costs by eliminating services, resulting in layoffs. AC Transit already plans for another round of service cuts later in the summer after the first one went into effect in March.

If the union chooses to strike, it would receive little if any sympathy from the public. A strike could have a long term negative effect to the transit system as some of the customers would go buy a used car to get around. Once they have a car, they won't go back to the bus.

Voters in the AC Transit service areas have been pretty sympathetic to the agency and have approved parcel tax increases in the past to maintain service. That attitude could change if the public believes that the workers are not willing to make concessions to save services. In San Francisco, there will be a measure on the November ballot that would end the automatic wage increases to Muni drivers. Muni drivers have refused to make concessions twice, whereas other unionized workers in San Francisco have made various concessions including furloughs.

This economic crisis is deep and severe enough that all prior projections about populations, jobs, and tax revenue probably have thrown off course permanently. We need a new business model that can sustain transit services in light of declining revenues. Labor costs is an important factor, especially as labor costs in the Bay Area have grown faster (while productivity has declined) than the rest of the nation during the last decade. Of course, we cannot forget that the Bay Area has made many bad transportation decisions during that decade. Too much money has been spent on wasteful projects and not enough money has been invested to maintain essential services.

Last day of line 76

Tomorrow is the last day of line 76, which goes from Downtown Los Gatos to the Santa Cruz Mountain area by Summit Road. Although VTA has tried to cut this route for many years, it did not do so because of Los Gatos High School students who live in the mountain area. For the next school year, those students will have to find a new way to get to school.

This site has an interesting review of line 76.

Line 76 is the only route that serves the mountain area. Although Highway 17 Express also travels over the hill, it does not have stops either at the summit nor in Los Gatos.

VTA to restore night service on line 63 in July

Riders submitted a petition asking VTA to restore the night service on line 63. VTA responded:

At the April 1, 2010 VTA Board of Directors Meeting, Ms. Joyce Weissman presented a petition, signed by 136 people, requesting implementation of a new weekday southbound trip on Line 63 leaving downtown San Jose around 10 p.m. Ms. Weissman previously made a similar request supported by a petition with 300 signatures to the VTA Board in November 2009.

In January 2010, as part of the 8 percent service reduction, four Line 63 night trips were eliminated due to low ridership. This resulted in the last trip leaving downtown San Jose at 7:39 p.m. Previously, the last trip left downtown at 9:29 p.m. and carried about nine to ten passengers.

Staff is planning to add a later-night southbound Line 63 trip starting on July 12, 2010, based on the information presented by Ms. Weissman. This new trip would start at 7th and Santa Clara Streets at 9:34 p.m. and end at Almaden and Camden at 10: 15 p.m. This time was chosen to maximize connections with other bus routes along the line and the availability of a bus to run the route efficiently.

VTA will add this trip on a trial basis for 6 months. If the trip does not meet the minimum ridership standard of 15 riders per hour, VTA will remove it again. It is important that those who signed the petition for a later service need to use it to justify the existance, especially in this tight budgetary times.

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.

April tidbits

July service changes

VTA's Transit Planning & Operations Committee will decide tomorrow on proposed bus changes for July.

VTA staff has originally proposed to change lines 11, 34, and 45 because of low ridership. After a series of public meetings last month, staff kept their recommendations for 11 and 34, and withdrew the proposal for line 45.

Unlike most public meetings in the past, VTA Vice Chair Margaret Abe-Koga (Mountain View) attended meetings in Mountain View on line 34 and in San Jose on line 11.

The proposal for line 11 is to eliminate the segment to the Market Center on Coleman and only provide service between Downtown and Taylor & 17th with a new route. The new route would have mostly two way service every 30 minutes (currently hourly) in that area and would offer better access to the City Hall and San Jose State.

For line 34, the plan is to reroute it to serve the senior center on Escuela Avenue. This proposal received support in the community.

Staff first planned to reroute line 45 down McKee between Alum Rock (in the foothills) and Capitol Avenue, and boost frequency from hourly to 45 minutes. VTA eventually withdrew that plan after receiving opposition from riders. The riders told the staff that the proposed 45 minute frequency wouldn't be as convenient because the schedule would be harder to remember.

Besides these three lines, VTA will also eliminate line 76 and the River Oaks Shuttle after receiving approval from the board last year. VTA delayed the elimination of line 76 until the end of the school year in June. The River Oaks Shuttle will run until July 9 when funding agreement expires.

Light Rail McDonald's wrap

McDonald's food isn't exactly healthy, but the fast food chain is supporting VTA service by wrapping light rail cars to promote french fries. Unlike the buses, the light rail cars have been ad free until a few years ago. At first, VTA place its own advertisements (like "New VTA") and was later expanded to other businesses.

Pictures below are taken by a VTA Watch blog reader.

VTA probably followed Caltrain's lead, which began wrapping its trains in 2004. Caltrain wrappings are rare because of the high cost.

VTA iPhone/iPod Touch app update

The author of the iVTA app recently released a new version of the software with improved functions. This application is particularly useful if you don't like to carry a lot of stuff and want to know what time the bus or the light rail will come.

The funding relief couldn't help save night service in Sacramento

Despite a partial restoration of the state transit funding by the governor, Sacramento RT yesterday approved a huge service cut in June that would involve elimination of 28 routes and cut all transit service after 9pm. In the past many large transit agencies have either considered ending overnight bus or late evening service because it would save the cost of dispatchers, supervisors, as well as the associated cost of providing paratransit service as required by ADA, but so far none has considered cutting service as early as 9pm. The agency should've done more to maintain service at least until 11pm so that there'll be some level of lifeline service available, or it can consider some type of flexible drop off service. The fact is that riders have jobs and classes that end after 9pm.

This is the kind of cuts that we don't like to see and that we work hard to fight against. As much as we rather want no cuts at all we all must face the ugly reality of the economy. We prefer cuts that are strategic, surgical, and would maintain a reasonable transit network.

Governor grants relief to transit riders

Despite an earlier threat to veto the gas swap legislation last week, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made deals with the legislature and signed the gas swap legislation along with two other bills that provide various tax credits yesterday.

The partial restoration of state funding will help reduce the need for more fare hikes and service cuts throughout the state. In additions to the cuts approved by Bay Area agencies, the funding crisis also hit hard on the transit system in Sacramento. Last Friday, Sacramento RT proposed to cut 37 of 91 bus routes and ending all bus and light rail operations after 9pm. Sacramento already has one of the most expensive local transit fares in the state. The proposal to eliminate service after 9pm would have a huge impact on swing shift workers and college students taking night courses.

Perhaps the governor isn't as bad as we first thought. (another movie clip)

Schwarzenegger screws transit riders once again

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a gas swap deal that would have preserved sales tax on diesel fuel for transit operation.

In response to a state court ruling last year that sales taxes on fuel must first be used for public transportation, Schwarzenegger proposed to eliminate sales taxes on all fuel and replace it with excise taxes. That excise taxes would be used to reduce the state's budget deficit. Under that plan, drivers would see a slight reduction in fuel prices because the excise tax would be smaller than the sales tax.

As we all know, public transit all over California is facing huge fare hikes and service cuts because of the elimination of state funding as well as reduction in local funding. The Democratic legislature later approved a more moderate swap by only eliminating the sales tax on gasoline and keeping the sales tax on diesel. Through the diesel sales tax, $400 million would be made available to transit agencies statewide. Although that plan was still flawed, at least it would have addressed the immediate crisis.

However, Schwarzenegger decided to veto the smaller swap. In a letter to the state legislative leaders, he wrote: "Instead you are sending me a bill that provides no tax relief to consumers at the pump and raises taxes on commuter rail services. I cannot sign this flawed legislation as written."

It was wrong for the governor to propose a budget gimmick and tried to pass it as a benefit to people who drive. It was also wrong for him to portray himself as a green governor while forcing transit agencies to make deep cuts, especially hurting seniors and the disabled.

But what else could you expect from a Republican politician? The party's stubbornness over its twisted ideology is inconsistent with the will of California's voters on transportation issues. That's why California Transit Association and League of California Cities are looking at a state ballot measure to prevent future budget raids.

His repeated budget raids on transit truly evoke a scene from his first Terminator movie:

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 is about independence

It is nice to see transit riders having their voices heard about the transit cut backs and fare increases on San Jose Mercury News. Obviously, service reductions and fare hikes have impacted quality of life for many transit riders, especially for the seniors and disabled. They now face more difficult choices between spending money on transit and other essential expenses like rent and food. Many also have less choices on where they can work, shop, get education, and even receive medical services.

Politically, transit riders get left behind. People who drive automobiles (which most politicians are) typically do not appreciate the importance of public transportation, especially local bus service, because they find most transit unattractive to use. As such, politicians are more interested in pushing expensive and wasteful projects (like light rail and BART) while transit riders suffer from service reductions.

As unattractive as it may appear to people who have cars, local transit provides independence for the low income, seniors, the disabled, and teenagers. Although they cannot travel as fast as those with cars, transit service allows them independently to access jobs, shopping centers, schools, and hospitals/clinics on their own. Public transportation is generally safer, less expensive, more dependable, and environmentally superior than any other alternatives, including owning unsafe and uninsured clunkers to get around. Although transit services may appear optional and less important than other societal priorities, transit serves as a critical link for many to these other priorities, a means to an end.

The current transit funding crisis is threatening the future success of transit service. Like most businesses, transit services need time to grow its ridership base. It is generally unrealistic to expect full trains and buses on the first day of the new service. With periodic service reductions (and especially service eliminations), riders who come to depend on the service have to make important adjustments, and which may cause them to abandon transit altogether. Even if the service could be restored in a few years, that same rider may not come back.

The situation in the Bay Area is actually a scratch on the surface. As funding cuts affect agencies across the state, many transit providers outside the Bay Area have made even deeper cuts. Some rural transit agencies have discontinued their limited service that made intercity connections. In those areas, taxi service is much more limited, and Greyhound service is unavailable.

Of course transit also provides independence for those who drive cars. With high quality transit, car owners can choose not drive to certain places and free themselves from high parking fees, and families who might need two or more cars can cut down to just one. Parents would not have to always drive their kids around, and adult children would not have to always drive their elderly parents around.

VTA obituaries: 33, 43

Two VTA bus routes got discontinued effective today:

33 - (Jan 10, 2000 - Jan 10, 2010) This line was created exactly a decade ago. Before the opening of the Tasman West LRT, line 20 was the main bus route between Milpitas and Mountain View along Tasman. (At that time bus 20 took 237 to get between Zanker Road and Milpitas as Tasman Drive was yet to be built over Coyote Creek.) Also at that time line 74 provided service to the McCarthy Ranch Shopping Center.

With the opening of the Tasman West LRT in late 1999, line 20 was discontinued, and line 74 was extended to connect with LRT at Baypointe, where all LRT riders transferred between Tasman and First Street trains. Line 33 was created to fill the gap left by line 20 between First Street and Milpitas. The first version of line 33 went from Baypointe to the Weller & Main bus stop in Milpitas via McCarthy Ranch.

Over the decade, that line changed alignment several times. As light rail went further east to Alum Rock in 2004 and line 74 got discontinued, Line 33 remained the local service for the McCarthy Ranch and the areas north of Tasman. Eventually in January 2008, it went only from I-880/Milpitas Station to the Great Mall Station via McCarthy Ranch.

Starting today, line 47 will provide service to McCarthy Ranch via Calaveras. The trip will be quicker from the Calaveras area but will take much longer if transferring directly from the light rail. Also the shopping centers south of 237 will no longer have any bus service.

43 - (January 14, 2008 - January 10, 2010) That number was used before its latest reincarnation in January 2008. Ten years ago, line 43, along with line 41, provided feeder service from the Lawrence Caltrain station to the north Sunnyvale/Santa Clara industrial areas. These lines were eliminated back in 2002/2003 as VTA suffered from the dot-com bust and its original 2000 sales tax projection went to hell.

Two years ago, VTA reestablish that route as a Sunday only service along Capitol Expressway between Alum Rock LRT and Eastridge. That line filled the gap left by 522, which provides service along Capitol Expressway on weekdays and Saturdays. Before 2008, line 31 provided service between the Alum Rock light rail and Eastridge, except that took side streets parallel to the expressway. Without line 43, getting to the Alum Rock light rail from Eastridge will be more difficult if not practical on Sundays. Lines 70 and 71 will continue to provide north-south service between Milpitas and Eastridge, except that those lines will connect with light rail further north closer to Milpitas.

Of course we cannot forget that lines 11 and 13 have lost all weekend service, as well as lines 42, 45, and 46 that have lost Sunday service.

Are there more cuts on the way? Who knows? What we know is that the economy is still not recovered and that Sacramento's broken politics will remain a threat. Michael Burns will say that he's trying to preserve as much of the service as he can, but you also got VTA Chair Sam Liccardo who appears to remain clueless about what everyday transit riders face.

Cuts coming in effect

Today VTA will implement significant cuts to the transit system. Sadly, this has been the trend across the Bay Area, the state, and the country. It is particularly worse in California since Sacramento has eliminated some of the most important transit funding that all transit agencies receive.

In this tough times, we must fight to preserve more of the service, and work hard to restore the funds lost. After that, we have to fight to make sure that our restored service is sensible, functional, cost effective, and better than what we have before the cuts.

Mike Rosenberg at Bay Area News Group decided to portray the loss of service and ridership as a cause and effect for commuters turning to automobile. Of course there's element of truth in that (people start to ride transit all the time and leave when they can afford automobiles, a constant challenge for all agencies to keep ridership). However, much of that ridership loss is also contributed by the high unemployment rate. Compared to last year, unemployment in San Jose nearly doubled (in the double digits). There are fewer cars on the road too as a result of high unemployment. Some turn to driving as they no longer have a transit-preferable work schedule/work site or that their employers no longer provide transit subsidy (like Eco Pass) as companies try to cut costs. Also, some people turn to bicycle instead, which has the flexibility of automobile but with even lower cost and can be brought on transit.

If transit cuts result in more people buying cars, that may not be a bad news for transit. As we all know, sales tax is a major source of transit operating funds in the Bay Area. Part of the reason we are in crisis is the large reduction of local sales tax revenue, and that drop in automobile sales is a significant factor.

The current trend does not indicate increasing auto sales. Last year, there were 4 million more cars scraped nationally that were not replaced by new vehicles. In addition, auto manufacturers have decided to close dealerships and reduce production in the long run to maintain profitability (which explains why Toyota and GM decided to close the NUMMI auto plant in Fremont). This current trend in auto sales could implicate tax revenue projection for transit agencies, which could impact service.

Epitome of VTA's real structural problem

In what otherwise a somber meeting about VTA's huge deficit, general manager Michael Burns sprinkled some "good news" that FTA has allowed the BART project to compete for "new starts" fund. VTA had tried to apply for new starts fund for years but FTA repeatedly gave the project "not recommended" status. VTA gave into FTA's demand by splitting the entire project into two phases and submit the first phase to Berryessa for federal funding.

It is not good news when VTA had multiple chances to pursue superior and more cost-effective options, and when VTA riders will have to suffer as bus and light rail service reductions go into effect next month. Some VTA boardmembers apparently show no concerns for their own constitutents who ride VTA:

"With the BART project, we are planning for the next 30 years," said (Sam Liccardo) the San Jose councilman. "It would be foolish for us to forget a very promising project over the long run over what may be a very dire situation in the short run."

VTA is not a construction agency for a single rail project, but an agency that provides transit operation to about 100,000 riders daily. To blindly pursue this wasteful project, VTA concealed key information from voters about its ability to finance this project and the rest of VTA's services. Only until when voters no longer matter, they said oops and cut service anyway. Despite some of the boardmembers' claim about being green and supporting open government, they are still beholden to crooks like Carl Guardino, who then is beholden to corporations and the highway lobby.

Even though this BART project will turn out nothing but a massive failure, we riders should not allow VTA to further reduce service, but rather bring back the service that we were promised. Perhaps FTA cares if VTA doesn't.

Sales tax crash

Is VTA going down the same path as the transit agency in Orange County, in which it is planning one massive bus cuts after another?

At the beginning of the year, VTA said that no cuts were planned. A few months later, VTA finally told the board that it needs to raise fares and cut service. Over the summer months, worsening sales tax revenue prompted the board to move up the fare increases from July 2010 to October 2009.

Unfortunately, that may not be the end of it. The Mercury News is reporting that VTA is facing an operating deficit of $98 million over the next year. A combination of fare increases, service cuts, layoffs, reduction in employee benefits, and more are on the table.

The prospect of another bus cuts is a terrible news to those who fought against those proposals last summer. Cuts that were withdrawn by staff due to community oppositions could come back again. Furthermore, many of the routes that received improved service in January 2008 and July 2009 could very much have their frequency reduced to the original level.

It is possible to preserve the bus service by diverting additional operating funds from the 2000 Measure A. Back when that tax was approved in 2000, Measure A funds could be used for operations. In 2003, when VTA was planning a 21% service cuts, transit advocates lobbied VTA to borrow Measure A funds (the tax was supposed to begin in 2006) to preserve service. Presently, about $30 million from Measure A supports bus and light rail operation every year. The irony is that funding from Measure A was supposed to pay for bus expansion. However, since sales taxes have been hit so hard over the years, Measure A funding now supports current bus operation (way below year 2000 level) that otherwise would've been discontinued.

According to the Mercury News, Michael Burns insists that the BART project is not impacted. Guess what? Sales tax reduction for transit operation (1976 sales tax) also applies to the 2000 Measure A to the same degree. If additional Measure A funds were to be diverted for operation, there'll be even less for capital projects.

However, we probably won't be able to get a full financial picture on capital projects since Burns has informally and unilaterally adopted a policy to not talking about it. As long as he doesn't talk about it, he could keep Carl Guardino's myth alive. Even so, VTA is jealous that high speed rail is getting most of the public's attention and a strong funding momentum from the federal government. If these delusionals listened to transit advocates instead, VTA would've joined the high speed rail club with Caltrain Metro East.

State raid of transit funds ruled illegal

From California Transit Association, which sued the state for its raid on transit funding:

In a resounding victory for those who provide and those who depend on public transit in California, the State Supreme Court late yesterday rejected the Schwarzenegger Administration’s appeal of a lower court ruling that annual raids on transit funding are illegal.

By declining to accept the Petition for Review filed by state officials, the high court upheld the ruling of the Third District Court of Appeal that recent funding diversions violated a series of statutory and constitutional amendments enacted by voters via four statewide initiatives dating back to 1990.

“By denying the state’s appeal, the Supreme Court has affirmed once and for all what we always maintained was true: that it’s illegal to shift dedicated state transit funds away from transit agencies and their riders,” said Joshua Shaw, Executive Director of the California Transit Association and lead plaintiff in the case. “This decision validates our position that this practice has been illegal since even before 2007, and that the definition of mass transportation adopted by lawmakers since then to mask these diversions is illegal.”

Public transit officials now hope to work with the Administration and Legislature to restore those funds taken since the Association filed the initial lawsuit in October, 2007, on the heels of the 2007-08 state budget package that raided $1.19 billion from the Public Transportation Account (PTA). Since that agreement, more than $3 billion in transit funding has been re-routed to fill holes in the General Fund.

Although the courts agreed that transit funding raid is illegal, it is not clear whether that will translate into any actual funding restoration by the state. However, any state funding restoration will help transit riders.

The loss the State Transit Assistance fund not only puts pressure on Bay Area agencies, but also throughout the state. In Calaveras County (Sierra foothills east of Stockton), the transit agency there cut service by 40% and eliminated its regional connection to the Central Valley in Lodi. Over there, the service cut impact is not just forcing riders to spend extra minutes waiting for a bus, but actually make it virtually impossible to access essential shopping and medical services. The only regional connection in Calaveras County now is through the adjacent Amador County, which still operates a bus line into Sacramento. Amtrak and Greyhound are not available in those counties.

In Orange County, the transit agency there made drastic cuts earlier this year and an additional 30% cut is proposed for March next year. Although Orange County is urbanized and has huge transit needs, it is also very politically conservative. The politicians there have no problem with more freeway widening (which are quite wide already), but have a false perception that residents there do not need mass transit. Fortunately, Steven Chan, a Silicon Valley transplant, has started a transit blog there to advocate for better transit in Orange County.

Change for the worst... and more

If you are not a high priced VTA or BART contractor/consultant, today is a change for the worst as the $2 one way fare comes into effect.

The price for the regular monthly pass has gone up to $70. The new price for the express monthly pass is now $140.

However, that's not the end here, the VTA board will consider tonight on cutting bus and light rail service by 8%, which would go in effect in January.

Highway 17 Express

Interestingly, even though the fares for various operators have gone up over the years, the fares for the Highway 17 Express have remained the same. When the Highway 17 Express began weekend service in 2004 (as it merged with Amtrak Thruway bus to Santa Cruz), the fare was adjusted to $4 one way, which is still in effect today. In 1994, the Amtrak Thruway fare was $5 one way and the Highway 17 Express was $2.25. Overall, bus riders have been getting more value for the fare dollar especially considering the increasing cost of gas.

How can Highway 17 Express keeps its fares the same for so long? Highway 17 Express is operated by Santa Cruz Metro with funding from the Metro, VTA, and Amtrak. It has an independent operating budget. After the implementation of weekend service, ridership has increased steadily over the years. It enjoys a high farebox recovery of 58% in July 2009, despite a 9% drop in ridership from the same month last year. Stable weekend ridership (which many riders pay one way fares) helps bring in revenue for the line.

HSR open house for San Jose-Gilroy segment

Despite losing the lawsuit (specifically on the lack of agreement with UP for using the rail corridor between San Jose and Gilroy), HSRA nonetheless will hold meetings on that segment next week. Two of them will be held in Santa Clara County.

San Jose
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Gardner Community Center
520 W. Virginia Street

Gilroy
Monday, October 12, 2009
6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Hilton Garden Inn
6070 Monterey Road

While the HSRA planning process so far has captured the attention of Palo Alto and Menlo Park residents, who fear that high speed rail would either take their property or somehow cause a decline in their property value, San Jose residents who might be impacted by high speed rail does not have the same political clout as those in Palo Alto or Menlo Park. However that might change...

The HSRA is studying various alternatives for getting trains through Downtown San Jose. Although the current Caltrain alignment is the base line, the existing line south of the San Jose Diridon Station is slow and narrow. Immediately south of the station, the Caltrain line has to cross under the San Carlos Street overpass and above Los Gatos Creek.

One alternative under consideration is a diagonal station for high speed rail (last page in this PDF) right in front of the existing Caltrain station. HSRA engineers said that this alternative (under the SF-SJ segment) is driven by the planning process for the segment between San Jose and Gilroy. Alternative alignments like those could get the high speed rail trains through San Jose faster, but might not be something that San Jose Delusionals have expected.