Around the Valley and beyond

VTA Board passes budget

Last Thursday, the VTA Board passed the budget ,which included fare increases effective next January as well as cuts to paratransit services. As a part of the revised budget, VTA would also apply about $3 million from the federal stimulus package for preventive maintenance. By utilizing funds from the federal government, VTA would be less reliant on its reserve.

At the same meeting, the VTA staff told the board that future sales tax revenue could go even lower than what they projected in January. Because of that, they are preparing for further cuts to transit, especially if the management were not able to reach agreement with the unions on wage freeze and work furloughs.

Bus cuts at SamTrans?

While the SamTrans board is expected to pass a budget this Wednesday, the staff warns that transit cuts may be necessary to address the agency's structural deficit. The SamTrans' Chief Operating Officer told the agency's citizens advisory committee last week that the agency is planning for a service cut of up to 15%.

Transform pushes more Stimulus funds for operating cost

Transform (formerly TALC) is urging transit riders to contact Senator Diane Feinstein asking her to support bill SEC. 1202, which would allow transit agencies to use 10% of the federal stimulus funds for operation. At this difficult moment, preserving transit service and keeping the jobs we have is a form of stimulus by not making the local economic conditions worse.

A bus in China engulfed in flames, passengers trapped

Last Friday, a transit bus in Chengdu, China, bursed in flames while in service (disturbing videos and pictures) and was fully captured on video. The bus, which was packed when the fire started, resulted in the deaths of 27 passengers as they were unable to get out in time. The bus involved had mostly sealed windows and lacked emergency exits. Those who got out were able to do so after passersby broke the bus windows. In the video, burn victims walked out of the bus in need of medical attention. Authorities suspect arson to be the cause for the fire.

Wrong headsign?

No. The headsign is correct. That bus is the 81 going to Cupertino Square on San Fernando Street heading eastbound. The bus actually made a U-turn after the driver forgot to turn left from San Fernando Street to Almaden. Instead of turning at the next block, the driver made a huge U-turn (not a 3 point turn) in the middle of San Fernando Street.

Caltrain and VTA budget update

On the last night's Angie Coiro Show (6pm on KKGN 960am), Caltrain information officer Christine Dunn told the audience that Caltrain was able to narrow the budget gap to about $2 million. Because of that, Caltrain has withdrawn the plan to shutdown weekend and Gilroy service, which both proved to be very unpopular. However, Caltrain still plans to reduce midday service to hourly, increase parking fees, and increase fees for companies that buy Go passes.

Caltrain was able to narrow the budget gap by reducing administrative cost, redirect some federal funds for preventive maintenance, and stabilize fuel cost through fuel hedging.

Even though core Caltrain service may survive this year's budget cycle, the future is uncertain because of the lack of dedicated funding.

For VTA, the board is expected to approve the biannual budget at its meeting tomorrow night. The budget includes fare increases and reduction on paratransit services.

Due to the outcry from the disabled community, VTA has made some adjustments to the proposal that would cut paratransit service:

• * Open returns - fare will be 4 times the regular paratransit fare (now twice). Only one open return can be requested per day, can only be done if space is available, among other restrictions.
• * Second vehicle - service will be retained and will be standardized to 4 times the regular fare (now 5 times).
• * Out of area service - service will be retained for an area within a mile beyond the 3/4 mile of a regular transit route. The premium fare for that area will be 4 times the regular fare. The current surcharge exemption in the South County will be eliminated.
• * Extended service hours - no changes proposed, which means there will be no paratransit service at the times when regular routes are not running.

Although the revised plan has addressed some impacts on disabled riders (like those who need to travel for dialysis treatments), it will nonetheless a step backwards for an agency that has promised voters (through the 2000 Measure A) to improve paratransit service. Apparently, the VTA board was and still attached to Carl Guardino, who only considers paratransit to be a service just to attract voter support.

Grand Jury finds VTA deceived voters...again

Earlier today, the Santa Clara County Grand Jury released its findings on VTA. What the Grand Jury discovered are pretty much what we've experienced over the years: that the VTA board was out of touch, VTA staff deceived voters, and VTA committees were ignored.

VTA board was out of touch

Overwhelming Information. The voluminous board packets provided by VTA staff are frequently several hundred pages and contain information that require many hours of review by the board members before the meeting. Most board members work full time, which leaves them very little time to review the material in the packet. Some members stay up late at night to review the packet the night before the meeting. An exception is the City of San Jose, and Board of Supervisors, who have full-time, paid staff to review and distill the information. The other cities have part-time city council members with no support staff to help with VTA activities.

Staff Driven. All of the above issues contribute to the fact that VTA remains an organization that is frequently referred to as “staff driven.” Meeting agendas are prepared by VTA staff with input from the Board chairperson. In some cases, the chairperson follows a “script” prepared by VTA staff. Interviews with VTA board and committee members revealed that independent thinking was discouraged. Board members appear unwilling or unable to bring up items for discussion that are not prescreened by the staff. Hence, the VTA Board has frequently been referred to as a “rubber stamp” for policy proposals formulated by the VTA staff.

Both the Hay Report and the State Auditor Report recommended that the VTA Board make every effort to insure that new board members have transportation experience by appointing new members with previous transportation experience and reappointing members for multiple terms. Nevertheless the Mayor of San Jose recently appointed two new board members to represent San Jose who have no previous transportation experience.

VTA staff deceived voters

In June, 2006 the Board approved a comprehensive 30-year Revenue and Expenditure Plan for all projects identified in 2000 Measure A. During 2008, an update to this plan was scheduled. Sometime between June 19, 2008 and August 7, 2008, this update was cancelled and a decision was made to place an additional tax on the November, 2008 ballot.

(At the August 2008 meeting) Mr. Burns advised that the Light-Rail Extension to Eastridge “has not been stopped but that there is not enough money to complete all of the Measure A projects. . .” The Board “reaffirmed” its support for the project and recommended continuation of planning and design activities. However, property acquisition, utility relocation construction and completion of bid documents for construction contracts were not authorized.

(At the same meeting) The staff presented a report to the Board supporting the sufficiency of the 1/8 cent tax proposal to cover the projected deficit in BART operating costs. The conclusion was based on a new 30-year sales tax revenue estimate. This report also provided sufficient information to update the revenue estimate in the new Revenue and Expenditure Plan.

The September, 2008, scheduled presentation of the update to the Revenue and Expenditure Plan was not delivered and never rescheduled... As a consequence, the public was not informed of the 2000 Measure A 30-year financial situation before the November 2008 election.

(In the draft June 2009 capital budget) A notable exception in the preliminary documentation is the absence of any funding for the light rail to Eastridge program which appears to have become totally dependent on unidentified federal funding.

Essentially VTA forwent short term job creation by shelving the light rail project, which was shovel-ready and has received community support.

If the 30-year Revenue and Expenditure Plan had been updated as planned, it likely would have shown that if the BART extension were built as planned, the remaining 2000 Measure A projects would require massive additional investment... 

...If the updated Revenue and Expenditure Plan had been readily available to the public, Measure B might not have passed. The VTA had sufficient time and information to complete this update and made a deliberate decision not to publish it prior to the election.

Of particular concern is that VTA intends to start collection of the Measure B tax while only completing a shortened version of the BART extension to Berryessa...

The ballot wording specifically refers to funding for the entire 16.1 mile BART extension.

VTA committees were ignored

Token committees. Both the Hay Report and the State Auditor Report took the VTA to task for poor use of its Advisory Committees... One of the key criticisms is that the Advisory Committees are presented with items to review only after the Board and/or staff has already made a decision... VTA’s attitude toward these committees has ranged from ignoring their existence entirely to retaliation for independent thinking.

Watchdog committee or lapdog committee?

The members of the CAC/CWC (2000 Measure A Watchdog committee) interviewed all stated they work for the VTA Board. This is a reasonable position for a CAC member, but not when acting in the capacity of a CWC member. The very nature of an “independent watchdog committee” is to “oversee” actions of the board for the citizens of Santa Clara County.

CAC/CWC members are approved by the VTA Board, compromising independence of thought and action.

Some CAC/CWC members are former VTA Board members, former Policy Advisory Committee members and/or former elected officials in the county. One interviewee referred to the committee as the “Board Retirement Plan Committee.”

(In 2007) The VTA Board has approved the exchange (swap) of approximately $107M of Measure A funds for use on non-Measure A programs in exchange for a payback from anticipated State Transportation Improvement (STIP) funds at a future time (basically swap funding programmed for the airport peoplemover project with highways)...

..As of June, 2008, approximately $9M of Measure A sales tax revenue had been spent on non-Measure A programs. At the same time, the 2000 Measure A program was over $361M in debt... There was no prior discussion or notification to the Citizen Watchdog Committee. The CWC was informed after the fact in a report from VTA staff.

At its February 11, 2009 meeting, a discussion regarding the CWC’s responsibilities in this area was initiated by a CWC member and stifled by VTA staff in attendance by reminding the CWC members of the limitations in their responsibilities... following this meeting two members of the CWC resigned, leaving a total of five vacancies.

In many ways, VTA is like a communist state, where there cannot be an honest dialogue about major policies. Like a communist state, the legislative bodies are basically a rubber stamp for the supposedly all powerful, all knowing (and all self-serving) bureaucracy. Like a communist state, open discussions and dissents are not tolerated (like you can't still talk about the 1989 Tiananmen massacre in China today). Since Michael Burns believes in deceiving the riders, taxpayers, as well as those he who should formally seek advice from, one has to wonder who is his real boss.

Sign of the times

The fiscal swine-flu is continuing to spread throughout the Bay Area and beyond. A day after the Caltrain public meetings where riders overwhelmingly voiced opposition to the weekend train shutdown, the BART board approved a series of fare and parking fee increases to try to eliminate the $54 million budget shortfall.

BART already scheduled to increase its fares by next January to keep up with cost-of-living increases, but the drop in sales tax revenue has prompted the agency to increase the fares six months earlier in July.

Along with other fare increases, BART also raised its SFO fare surcharge from $1.50 to $4.00. That surcharge would apply to the fare between Millbrae and SFO, which charges only $1.50 since the opening of the line in 2003. It is ironic since BART once promised free train service between Millbrae and SFO, and the fact that it replaced the free shuttle between Caltrain and the airport.

Also on the table is to reduce the night and Sunday service from every 15 minutes to 20 minutes, which was the original frequency before the improvement last year. In addition, BART also plans to cut one of the two lines on the SFO extension on nights and weekends, which would restore direct service between the SFO and Millbrae.

A $4 airport premium may not be much for travelers, but it is quite a burden for employees working at the airport. Also, a $4 fare for one station ride between Millbrae and the airport is excessive. Fortunately Caltrain riders can transfer to SamTrans buses to the airport faster for less money.

Caltrain's ugly choices

Caltrain has scheduled three public meetings on possible service cuts and fare hikes:

• -Increase one way fares by 25 cents base and/or per zone (the last time they raised fares was in January). Other fares will go up by the same proportion
  
• -Increase Go Pass fees significantly (now is same as a two zone monthly pass. Caltrain proposes to be the same as a three zone pass).
• -Increase parking fees
• -Cut weekend service
• -Cut midday service to hourly
• -Cut Gilroy service

The meetings will take place at 6 p.m., Wednesday, May 27 at the following locations:

• -San Francisco: 25 Van Ness Avenue, Lower Level Conference Room
• -San Carlos: Caltrain Headquarters, Auditorium, 1250 San Carlos Ave.
• -San Jose: VTA Administrative Offices, Auditorium. 3331 North First Street

Cutting weekend service is the worst because there's no equivalent transit service for most cities. The prospect of having to travel on local buses like the 22 and the 390 is a very ugly one. For most people, weekend service is the way how they're introduced to Caltrain.

The Gilroy service, on the other hand, does have equivalent service through the Monterey-Salinas Transit's 55 and VTA's line 168. While it is not clear of what the current ridership trend is for the Gilroy train service, the ridership has been drastically reduced from the peak in 2000 with the first dot-com bust and the 101 freeway widening.

My commute sucks...no thanks to SVLG

Transportation 4 America unveiled mycommutesucks.org, a web site that allows riders to express their transit experience. This is an important year as Congress will be taking action on the next federal transportation bill, which would provide billions for various transportation projects.

Guess who is in favor of cutting Caltrain service? Of course SVLG. SVLG often implies that no other taxes other than for BART could pass, but people in the North Bay and in LA suggested otherwise. Not only SVLG has done nothing to address the short term and long term funding needs for Caltrain and other transit, SVLG in the past recommended to slash funding for Caltrain and paratransit. Both are all on the chopping block this year.

With the broken budget process and SVLG's influence on corporate tax cuts from Sacramento, things will have to get much worse before it gets better. The propositions (except Prop 1F) in the upcoming special election deserve to be defeated.

HSR Authority signs pact on Altamont

Last Thursday HSRA sign an agreement with the ACE Board (San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission) on the Altamont Corridor and the segment between Merced and Sacramento. According to the agreement, HSRA and ACE will plan for a joint-use (HSR and regional rail) infrastructure on the Altamont corridor. The planning work involved will also include a project-level EIR.

Even though both parties agree on the development of the corridor, like the agreement with Caltrain, did not specify the funding responsibilities. However, unlike the Caltrain corridor, HSR considers the Altamont Corridor to be the secondary corridor and there are does not have the priority for the Prop 1A and the stimulus funds. However, a complete plan and environmental clearance for the corridor could help make Altamont Corridor eligible for other transportation funds in the future.

Caltrain service is on the chopping block too

Caltrain is planning to declare fiscal emergency in June as the agency considers various measures to address the $10 million budget shortfall for the next fiscal year. Measures include service reductions and fare increases.

Unlike VTA, Caltrain does not have dedicated funding. As a joint powers authority, Caltrain does not have the power to collect taxes. Its operating fund largely depends on the contributions from its three local transit agencies: Muni, SamTrans, and VTA. Since 2000, the 3 agencies have either kept its funding level frozen, or just increased it by 3% a year (at the time when the economy was better). Because of the state funding cut and drop in local taxes, the three agencies have agreed again to freeze the local funding level for next year. On the other hand, the contractual operating cost keeps rising.

In the previous years, Caltrain was able to use various one-time fundings to address the shortfalls. In 2004 and 2005, Caltrain increased its Baby Bullet service to enhance fare revenue. For the last few years, Caltrain was achieving double digit riderhip and fare revenue increases. This year the situation is not that fortunate. In March, Caltrain ridership essentially stayed flat compared to last year (fall by 0.3%). Caltrain staff believes the increasing unemployment in the region is beginning to impact ridership.

It seems that while High Speed Rail, Prop 1A, and the Stimulus Plan give Caltrain a bright future, the current state and local funding situation would hurt more riders in the short run. In the long run, Caltrain needs to have a different governance and funding structure so it can achieve funding stability and become more accountable to its riders. Unlike AC Transit and BART, for many Caltrain boardmembers, its role on Caltrain is actually their third job (first is the city council or county board they've been elected to serve, second is the local transit agency, and the third is Caltrain). And for some of the Caltrain members (like Ken Yeager), you have to wonder whether they want Caltrain to succeed, or that they are there to block Caltrain improvements.

Texting while driving

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This is a news report of an incident in Texas involving a transit bus colliding with other cars on the freeway while the bus driver was texting. This was particularly shameful considering that the bus driver was on duty and supposedly had enough training to know the dangers of getting distracted on the road.

Before the cell phone ban took effect in California, it was not all that unusual to see VTA drivers yapping on cell phones while driving the bus.

Advances in technologies go both ways. While devices like cell phones can distract drivers and put riders at risk, devices like onboard security cameras can be used to hold bad drivers accountable. Below is a security camera recording of a Muni train collision in San Francisco. An investigation has determined that the operator was speeding and was likely distracted by cell phone calls prior to the crash. Muni later fired the operator.

Attack on paratransit

VTA, on a despite search for more money, has proposed a number of measures that would impact paratransit riders. Paratransit is an ADA mandated program that provides curb to curb service to disabled individuals that are unable to access or use regular transit. Because paratransit cost much more per passenger for VTA to operate, paratransit has become a cost cutting target.

It is not the first time VTA has targeted paratransit. In 2002, a Business Review Team chaired by Carl Guardino has suggested that VTA should make paratransit much more expensive for disabled riders. In 2003, the VTA Board adopted most of the Guardino's recommendations, which included fare hikes on services that were beyond ADA-minimum requirements. VTA also adjusted paratransit qualification process and made it unfriendly for the users. VTA later revised the qualification process after numerous complaints.

This time, VTA plans to eliminate most of the "premium" services:

Open returns - VTA proposes to discontinue a service that allowed riders to make initial reservation without a return trip, in which the rider would make a same day request for the return trip when he or she is ready.

Second vehicle - VTA plans to eliminate the option for riders to request a second vehicle if they change their travel plan. However VTA insists that it would left riders stranded.

Out of service area - The minimum requirement for VTA to provide paratransit service is 3/4 mile from a bus or light rail line. Because of various service reductions implemented years ago, VTA continues to operate paratransit service beyond the 3/4 mile from existing transit by charging $7 per such trip. Riders in the south county do not have to pay the surcharge. If VTA were to eliminate this service, many paratransit riders would effectively lose their transportation with no fault of their own. In its letter to paratransit riders, VTA says that these riders will still be eligible for paratransit, but could only ride it if the riders can come within 3/4 mile of whatever VTA provides. This is insulting because if these riders could independently travel to within 3/4 mile of VTA lines, they perhaps won't need paratransit at all.

Extended service hours - Current paratransit hours are from 5am to 2am, everyday, with 24 hour availability along line 22 (which runs 24 hours) and light rail. VTA is proposing to reduce paratransit availability to 3/4 miles of a transit line ONLY on the days and hours when that line is in operation.

Reservation changes - For now riders can book trips as short as one day in advance and as long as 14 days. VTA plans to shorten the period from 14 days to 7 days, and then from 7 days to 3 days. With shortening of the reservation period, VTA would also introduce an automated phone reservation system. Such changes would create barriers to those who have difficulty in using phones, as well as those relying on others to help them place reservations.

Altogether, the proposed cuts for paratransit are much steeper than what is proposed for bus and light rail. It is unconscionable for VTA to pursue new funding (like HOT funding through AB744) for other things while cutting services needed by the disabled community. Seniors and disabled riders should not have to pay for VTA's incompetence and lack of leadership.