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.

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.

Fight onboard AC Transit

Unfortunately violence between passengers also happens outside San Francisco.

While violence between passengers can be frightening to others, it is completely avoidable.

1. There are some people that we should not start a conversation with, even though it would appear impolite if we ignore them.
2. There is no point in escalating the argument. Since no one will win or lose anything by winning or losing any argument, why don't we just shut up and get to where we need to go as quick as possible.
3. We should never encourage others to fight. (some riders on this video tried to calm the riders down, whereas the riders on the Muni video encouraged the Chinese woman to fight).

Update: This is the video after both got off the bus.

It appears that both men involved in this fight have issues. If you look carefully, the writing on the back of the blue T-shirt the white man was wearing says "I am a motherfucker." What a conversation starter!

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.

Painful cuts on the way

Bus cuts meeting dates:

Campbell
Monday, August 10, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
Campbell Community Center, Roosevelt Community Room
1 West Campbell Avenue, Campbell

San Jose
Tuesday, August 11, 2009 at 3 p.m. and 7 p.m.
County Government Center, Isaac Newton Senter Auditorium
70 West Hedding Street, San Jose

Mountain View
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.
City of Mountain View, Council Chambers
500 Castro Street, Mountain View

San Jose
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 at 6:00 p.m.
San Jose Public Library, Almaden Branch
6445 Camden Avenue, San Jose

San Jose
Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.
Dr. Roberto Cruz - Alum Rock Branch Public Library
3090 Alum Rock Avenue, San Jose

Milpitas
Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
Milpitas Public Library, Room A
160 N. Main Street, Milpitas

The following is the quick summary of the proposed service reductions:

Route discontinuation: 34, 43, 76, 101, River Oaks shuttle

Weekend service cut: 11, 13, 42 (Sunday only), 45, 46 (Sunday only), 81 (weekend service operate only between Cupertino Square and Santa Clara Caltrain)

Drop in frequency from 15 to 20 mins:

- Midday: 66, 68, 72, 73, 77

- Weekend: 25 (30 to 40 minutes west of Valley Med), 70

Drop in frequency from 15 to 30 mins: 10 (early morning), 13, 26 (cut midday short trips), 31, 60 (midday)

Drop in frequency from 30 mins to 40-45 mins:

- Midday: 14, 17, 18, 19, 27, 63

- Saturday: 40, 54, 82 (hourly Sunday), 180

- Sunday: 60, 47, 54, 71, 72, 73, 180

Drop in frequency from 30 mins to hourly:

- Midday: 37 (between Capitol and Winchester), 46, 48, 49

- All day: 39

- Saturday: 27, 31, 35

- Sunday: 57

Route change: 47 - combined with line 33 via Calaveras.

Light Rail: Mountain View service would end at 10:30pm. Two night bus trips would replace light rail from Tasman to Fair Oaks serving all LRT stops and run non-stop to Mountain View.

Nearly all bus lines will have some trips deleted and service hours reduced during early mornings and evenings. Line 22 would also have overnight service eliminated. Along with the proposed cut of SamTrans' overnight service, there would no longer be any overnight transit option available along the Caltrain corridor.

These proposed cuts are a strong reminiscent of the bus cuts VTA made in 2002 and 2003. During that time, VTA reduced service on many routes from 15-30 minute headways into odd headways of 20-45 minutes. Only during the COA process when service was added back on some routes by diverting resources from elsewhere in the system. This time, the same service is getting threatened again.

Some of the frequency cuts may look minor, but the odd headways proposed for many routes make transfers difficult. For example, lines 68 and light rail operate on the same headway and passengers have timed transfers at the Santa Teresa Station 4 times an hour. Under this proposal, timed transfer would only be available once an hour midday.

The more important question is whether VTA would restore the service once the economy recovers. After the cuts in 2002 and 2003, VTA did not significantly increase service levels and failed to meet the 2000 Measure A promise to increase bus service over the year 2000 level. Last fall, Michael Burns claimed that Measure B was necessary because bus service could not be decimated to fund the BART project. Right now, bus service is being decimated. If Burns does not agree to restore service to at least January 2008 level as soon as funding becomes available, then he is breaking his promise and therefore should not deserve any federal funds for a rail line to the Flea Market.

Tomorrow, VTA Riders' Union will hold a protest and a press conference ast 6:00pm at the San Jose Diridon Station over the proposed fare hikes and service cuts by not only VTA, but also by Caltrain and other transit agencies. Earlier in the day, Transform will hold an event in Downtown Oakland urging federal lawmakers to provide more assistance to transit agencies for operations.

Finally, the so-call no tax-hike state budget is nothing but a Republican scam to protect the rich and deceive the middle class. Through some budget manuvers to shift money from one pot to another, many local governments would be ending up with a larger budget shortfall, forcing them to cut service and raise taxes and fees beyond what they have already done. Under this settlement, AC Transit would lose an additional $6 million with their local taxes being "borrowed" by the state. AC Transit is already losing $26 million through the cuts in State Transit Assistance alone, which was diverted to cover the general fund shortfall.

East Bay taxpayers have been generous to AC Transit by overwhelmingly approving tax increases to protect bus operations and hold fares stable. At the end, it appears that their generosity have been exploited by Sacramento politicians.

---

Update: Click here for details of the bus cut proposal

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?

How long will that last

Although next month's service changes are nothing compared to what occurred in January 2008, VTA nonetheless is announcing it onboard buses. While the July service changes mostly involve reallocation of resource, some service was removed (by not reallocating it) because of the budget constraints.

However, with rising unemployment and drop in sales taxes, VTA internally is planning for a 10% service cut possibly for October and move the approved fare increase date from January to October. These changes would require public meetings and board approvals, which need to happen soon.

Other agencies have done more planning earlier in preparation for service reductions. AC Transit has proposed a plan to reduce service by almost 15% after a series of public meetings. SamTrans is also preparing for a cut of up to 15% and scheduled public meetings in July to receive comments. While details are pending, SamTrans cuts most likely involve trimming express service and elimination of overnight routes. AC Transit's cuts involve drawing a new bus network in Hayward and Fremont, as well as elimination of some routes in other cities.

On the other hand, VTA hosted public meetings last year and is spending money now to promote cost-neutral service adjustments. Is VTA leaving us unprepared for significant service reductions soon after?

July VTA Board round up

Scheduled for tomorrow at noon is the July VTA Board meeting. During the closed session at the start of the meeting, the board will receive and discuss the results of the state audit. The state audit was conducted as a part of a deal in the state legislature that allowed VTA to place 1/8 cent tax increase on the ballot. While the board will receive an advanced briefing, the report will not be released to the public until July 31. Before that time, the staff nor the board will not be permitted to discuss the audit findings with anyone else.

At the same meeting, the VTA board will also consider:

- Changing its value and mission statements.
- Adopting a new countywide bicycle plan.
- Approving a consulting contract for the light rail system analysis.
- Designating AC Transit as the lead agency for the second phase of the fuel cell bus program.

For the last few years, VTA, with partial funding from SamTrans, procured and operated a small fleet of fuel cell buses to meet CARB mandates. For the second phase of the program, VTA proposes a partnership with AC Transit. Under the proposal, AC Transit will procure 12 fuel cell buses from Van Hool and VTA will operate four of them. A new fueling facility will also be added at a VTA yard. This proposal saves time and effort needed to procure experimental vehicles and still meets CARB requirements.

May tidbits: BART and more

BART - Transit system of the 60s

Last Thursday, with all the good reasons to use public transportation (Bike to Work Day and Spare the Air Day), BART failed to deliver with systemwide delays of 45 minutes. BART blamed the delay on old equipment that couldn't stand the heat. The delay wasn't limited to the original system built over 35 years ago. It also impacted the overpriced SFO extension which was opened five years ago. Should VTA spend billions on a transit system that can't stand the heat?

AC Transit joins Google Transit

With AC Transit on the Google Transit, along with VTA, Caltrain, BART and Muni, you could plan a trip on transit from West Valley College in Saratoga to Ohlone College in Fremont. Unfortunately it takes several transfers to complete the trip.

Megabus leaving California

Citing that ridership didn't grow as fast as anticipated, Megabus will discontinue service on California in June. The company, however, is expanding service to the East Coast, which is a very competitive market with a number of large and small intercity bus operators.

With less than a year in operation, Megabus has yet establish familiarity despite the fact that it received a lot of positive reviews from its riders. Perhaps Megabus simply doesn't have the patience to develop the California market. Other services such as Capitol Corridor and Highway 17 Express has seen ridership increases year after year partly because of their willingness to sustain the service and establish the identity, rather than quitting when riders in California don't come in as fast as they do in New York.

Because of that, public operators had to come in to fill the gap left by private operators in certain corridors. Before the establishment of Monterey-Salinas Transit line 55 in 2006, which goes from downtown Monterey to downtown San Jose, there was no Greyhound or Amtrak feeder bus service between these two cities for over a year. A new law was required for MST to provide the service with funding from the state (for Amtrak feeder service). The private operators fought tooth and nail against it, even though they were unwilling to provide a service that MST wanted to do.

There are still options for bus travel between the South Bay and Southern California without Megabus:
Greyhound - Depot in downtown San Jose
USAsia - Cupertino to Monterey Park
Xe Do Hoang - San Jose to LA

What will be missing is the $1 fare on some seats.

March VTA Committees update: New fare boxes

This Thursday, VTA's Admin and Finance Committee will vote on a consulting contract to develop proposals on the replacement or upgrade of existing bus fareboxes. The current fareboxes were purchased in 1988 and were obsolete. VTA needs new or upgraded fareboxes that can support some form of electronic payments as well as improved data collection from passengers.

AC Transit, a neighboring agency, has more advanced fareboxes that can issue and validate customized transfers and passes. As a result, AC Transit offers 31-day passes rather than monthly passes, which are more convenient to those who need to travel on buses mid-month to mid-month.

In the meantime, SamTrans is also looking into replacing its fareboxes. Unlike VTA and AC Transit, SamTrans does not offer transfers nor day passes. SamTrans wants new fareboxes so it can implement day passes without the administrative overhead typically required.

The Admin and Finance Committee will also consider refinancing many of VTA's bonds without bond insurance. Previously, VTA has issued insured bonds to lock in lower interest rates. However, the subprime mortgage crisis caused many bond insurers to be downgraded, resulting a huge jump in interest rates. Two of three VTA's bond insurers were recently downgraded and VTA is paying much higher interest rates on bonds insured by the downgraded firms. The State of California has decided earlier this month to stop using bond insurance.

The Congestion Management Committee will receive a report of the South County Circulation Study.

The Transit Planning and Operations Committee will decide whether to take legal actions to obtain access rights needed to relocate the existing Union Pacific track off the right of way now owned by VTA in Milpitas.

Why a directly elected VTA Board won't fix VTA?

As the VTA Board is considering possible changes to its board composition, some have suggested that members of the VTA Board should be directly elected, rather than appointed from various city councils and the Board of Supervisors as it is currently done. Advocates for an elected VTA Board pointed out that boardmembers of both BART and AC Transit are chosen by voters.

Nominally, direct election gives voters an ultimate degree of accountability over a governing board. Today, there's no direct way to vote someone off the VTA Board for making poor decisions on VTA issues. Members can either be voted out or termed out of their original elected office on the city council or the Board of Supervisors, or, for non-San Jose cities, just being rotated out of the VTA Board after a two year cycle. By the same token, there's no direct way to get on the VTA Board short of becoming the Mayor of San Jose. No one can get on the VTA Board simply with their transportation expertise.

Meanwhile, do voters care about VTA issues? Given the fact that very few commuters in the South Bay ride transit, most voters simply aren't going to study the candidates and their positions. Do most voters study the candidates for Santa Clara Valley Water District, El Camino Hospital District, or San Jose-Evergreen Community College District?

Lack of voter interest sometimes defeat the purpose of having direct elections. In 1998, Nancy Jewell Cross was voted to serve on the AC Transit Board representing Newark and Fremont. She defeated her incumbent opponent primarily because of her deceptive yet persuasive ballot arguments. Prior to her run, she had a reputation on the other side of the Bay for suing everyone she was angry at and was therefore declared a vexatious litigant.

Once Cross was elected, her true character showed. She was disruptive and uncooperative with her fellow boardmembers. She was finally voted off the AC Transit Board four years later.

Although Nancy Jewell Cross is an extreme example, at many smaller special districts, many boardmembers simply won uncontested for the same reason.

For VTA, which has an annual operating budget of about $350 million, every seat will likely be contested. Running for contested positions on the county-wide board often require the candidates to be beholden to special interests as they seek endorsements as well as campaign contributions. Will the candidates truly serve transit riders, or will they just serve the labor unions and downtown delusionals like it is now?

Imagine a scenario where Carl Guardino and Ron Gonzales got elected to the VTA Board. They can't get onboard VTA now, but they could if VTA were directly elected. We know that their priorities are not aligned with transit riders, but will the voters care?

Extend AC Transit to Silicon Valley

Tomorrow, an AC Transit committee will receive a report on potential express bus service to the South Bay.

AC Transit proposes four express routes from the East Bay to the Great America area. The Great America area has the largest concentration of jobs in the South Bay for East Bay residents, and most of the these East Bay residents come from the Fremont area.

Proposed routes:

1. Hayward BART station, via areas west of I-880, to Union City before entering the freeway to Great America

2. Union City, via Newark before entering the freeway to Great America

3. MacArthur BART in Oakland, via Fruitvale BART

4. Bay Fair BART Station

Because VTA already provides bus service from Fremont BART station to the Great America area in addition to Milpitas and Downtown San Jose, AC Transit chooses to focus on areas in the East Bay, such as Newark, that are not close to BART. However AC Transit proposes to begin these routes at BART stations because these stations, tend to be the hubs for AC Transit local buses, have a greater "rider concentration."

AC Transit estimates these routes would carry almost 2000 riders per day and generate a farebox recovery rate ranging from 30% to 80%. The total subsidy required is estimated to be $1.4 million per year.

However, AC Transit did not identify a funding source for these proposed routes, nor the agency currently has the vehicles needed to operate the service.

AC Transit, which carries more than twice as many bus passengers as VTA, has been entrepreneurial in recent years. It is a major receipient of Regional Measure 2 ($1 extra bridge toll) funds for operating transbay bus service across the Bay Bridge, San Mateo Bridge, and the Dumbarton Bridge, along with the All-nighter owl service in the East Bay. AC Transit has a partnership with Stanford University where Stanford contributes 30% of the operating cost for the U line from Fremont, and in turn AC Transit provides free rides for Stanford students and employees. Also, AC Transit is the operator of the Dumbarton Express service, in which VTA is one of the funding partners.

Because AC Transit does not operate nor plan to build rail lines (that is the job for BART in the East Bay), AC Transit can only focus on delivering higher quality bus service. For many transbay commuter lines (including the U line to Stanford), AC Transit operates over-the-road MCI coaches. Compared to the standard buses that VTA runs on express routes, these coaches provide a quieter and more comfortable ride. Some of these buses also offer free wi-fi service.

Extending AC Transit service to the South Bay is certainly a possibility. Unlike the BART extension, it would provide direct point to point service within the East Bay to South Bay employment destinations, which are located far away from the proposed BART alignment.